Military see 2008 race through different lens

[Weester]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Brandon Ziegler served two tours in Iraq and wears a bracelet inscribed with the name of an Army buddy who never made it home. Jim Morin saw action in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and has lost several friends to the war in Iraq, the latest just a month ago.

Both say their choice in the 2008 presidential election is clear: for Ziegler, it will be John McCain; for Morin, it will be Barack Obama.

Those viewing the presidential race through the lens of military service can bring it into focus differently: The desire to quickly get out of Iraq is balanced against the hope to see the country stabilized; respect for one candidate's storied military history is weighed against another's relative youth; concern about the war's drain on the U.S. Treasury is measured against the wish for expanded benefits for new veterans.

Sizing up the candidates as the nation prepares to celebrate Independence Day, retired Sgt. Maj. Ronald Friday in South Carolina laughs and predicts "it's going to be an interesting summer." Put him in the undecided column.

McCain, with a family tradition of military service and his own history as a decorated Vietnam prisoner of war, holds natural appeal for members of the military and veterans. Indeed, an AP-Yahoo News poll conducted last month (in June), found that veterans favored McCain over Obama 49 percent to 32 percent, while the two candidates ran about even in the population as a whole. Three-fourths of veterans in the survey thought McCain would be a good leader of the military, compared to one-fourth who thought likewise of Obama.

Nonetheless, dissatisfaction with the course of the war under President Bush and with the treatment of veterans returning home has given Obama, who did not serve in the armed forces, an opening with military voters and veterans, as does his appeal to younger people.

That Obama attracts support from some in the military is evident in dollars and cents: Among people who have donated at least $200 to a presidential campaign this election cycle, Obama has collected more than $327,000 from those identifying themselves as military personnel, while McCain has collected $224,000, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by The Associated Press.

It is in the voices of recent veterans and, to a lesser extent, of those still serving in the military, that the McCain vs. Obama debate comes alive _ although most active-duty personnel are loath to air their views publicly because they are discouraged from mixing in politics.

Friday, who retired last year after serving as the top command sergeant major at Fort Jackson in South Carolina, said he doesn't want either candidate to take his vote for granted, based on his race or his career.

"I don't want anyone to think that because he (Obama) is of the African-American heritage that he automatically has my vote, or that McCain will get it because I was in the military," said Friday, who is black.

Friday, 49, added that he understands what McCain meant when he said the United States could have troops in Iraq for 100 years, but he doesn't necessarily support the statement. Still, he predicted, "We will be in Iraq until death do we part."

Such talk rankles Sgt. Kenyon Ralph, 24, of San Diego. Ralph, a Marine reservist who served in Iraq twice, is a member of Iraq Veterans Against The War, and is backing Obama.

Ralph, once a registered Republican who twice voted for President Bush, says he gradually turned against the war, and now says he can't bring himself to vote for someone who supports keeping troops in Iraq.

more:

Political Pulse | The Associated Press-Yahoo! News Poll on Yahoo! News

[superjaay]

As a parent of a member of our nation's armed forces, I am not a big fan of any candidate that does not offer a end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator Obama has my vote based on that issue, and many others that I share similiar ideas on........

[Turbo RX-6]

Obama will not pull the troops out of Iraq, he has hinted at such several times. he pandered to the left to get support in the primaries, now like on many other issues he's moving to the center to get those votes, Obama knows as well as anyone that a complete pullout would be a disaster, and when it comes down to it, he's not about to put himself in that position.

If for some reason the American public doesn't see this guy for the standard issue, just like every other, say what you need to say to get elected politician, and puts him into office, don't hold your breath on a troop pullout, you guy's put the Dems in charge of Congress cause they were going to pull the troops out, how is that going.

And don't say the Republicans are blocking them, they knew they wouldn't have a veto proof majority even if they were in charge, yet they continued to tell everyone they would get the troops out, and now that things have turned around considerably in Iraq, when's the last time you heard the Dems even mention a pullout?

[henschman]

usually, members of the military are disproportionately republican. the fact that a democrat is doing so well with them is pretty meaningful. even more meaningful might be the fundraising data from when the presidential primaries were in full swing -- for the last 2 quarters of '07 and the first quarter of '08, Ron Paul (a Republican and the most anti-war candidate in either party) raised significantly more from active duty military personell than any other candidate, and in the first quarter of '08, he raised more than all other candidates combined. second was Barack Obama, the next most anti-war candidate. a distant third was the guy who packages himself as the consummate war hero/military man (this is the biggest part of his "image" that he tries to promote), John McCain.

In contrast to other Republican candidates, McCain takes a strong stance against the torture of POWs we capture. He says this is influenced by the experience of being tortured himself. What about the experience of signing up to protect our nation but instead being sent on an unconstitutional undeclared war to fight for a bunch of foreigners halfway around the world aganst an enemy that never threatened the USA (I am referring to Vietnam)? You'd think he would have learned something from that experience, too.

[a trail rider]

What's it say, 49% to 32%? That's not close.

For those who plan to vote Democrat based on this war effort. Barack has NO plans to remove all our troops from Iraq anytime soon, and has suggested no plans at all to remove any of the roughly 33,000 in Afghanistan. Instead, he's mentioned sending more to Afgh. and leaving the current number in Iraq until he can figure out a way to be done with it. He's also mentioned bringing some home, but he hasn't shown any plan to remove them all in any time frame.

I'm a disabled veteran against the war... But I'm much more against LOSING the war, so I have no trouble with finishing the job, even if it takes a very long time.

Not that it matters. I won't vote for a socialist. Nor will I vote for someone who's main and clearly stated goals in life include helping one specific race of people over all others.

He's not my 1st choice at all, but at least McCain MADE my list.

[Weester]

"If for some reason the American public doesn't see this guy for the standard issue, just like every other, say what you need to say to get elected politician, and puts him into office, don't hold your breath on a troop pullout, you guy's put the Dems in charge of Congress cause they were going to pull the troops out, how is that going."

Golly gosh, jee wizz! Without the support of the Reps and the Prez, how are the Dems suppose to get the "troop pullout"???????

DOH!

More flawed logic from the "righties"....

[henschman]

the 49% to 32% figure is out of all VETERANS, not all active duty members of the armed forces. veterans are a much older group, especially with the WWII generation, and are of course much more conservative.

i'm a lot more interested in the views of people who are actually in active military service right now. They are the ones who overwhelmingly donated to the most anti-Iraq war candidates.

I will not vote for a socialist or a racist either, but i also will not vote for somebody who is for a surveillance state and expanded presidential/federal powers, a continuation of our interventionist foreign policy that places us all in much more danger, and is a good bit socialist, as well.

in other words, i'm gonna sit this one out because i can't figure our which one would be worse for our country. i don't think either one has heard of the U.S. Constitution.

[Weester]

Then there is this statistic

"That Obama attracts support from some in the military is evident in dollars and cents: Among people who have donated at least $200 to a presidential campaign this election cycle, Obama has collected more than $327,000 from those identifying themselves as military personnel, while McCain has collected $224,000, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by The Associated Press."

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by Weester

Golly gosh, jee wizz! Without the support of the Reps and the Prez, how are the Dems suppose to get the "troop pullout"???????

Well gee golly beaver, you tell me, the Democrats didn't even know if they would gain control of the Senate, but they knew they wouldn't gain enough seats to have a veto proof majority, yet they continued to tell simpletons like yourself, we'll pull them out knowing full well they would get very little Republican support, and had no chance of pulling out the troops, i.e. they lied to you, they knew they couldn't and shouldn't get them out, and so does Obama, and even if he could, he wouldn't.

But yet you continue to say it's the Republicans fault because they keep blocking it, and your right they do keep blocking it, and the Democrats knew that was going to happen before the election and they knew they couldn't get them out, but they played on retards who don't have a clue about how the Senate works, and made them believe that if you just put us in charge, we'll pull them out.

And they knew when they couldn't, they'd just blame the Republicans, how convenient.

Unfortunately for them, they didn't count on Iraq improving as quickly as it has and now their between a rock and a hard place, they can't get the troops out, and as each day goes by, and Iraq improves, there becomes less and less reason too, and now that the economy and oil is the major issue, and Iraq has quieted down substantially, it's no longer this major make or break campaign talking point, notice how quiet they are about it now.

Wake the f**k up, no one is going to pull the troops out and they never were going too, the Dems knew from the beginning they couldn't get enough support and there is too much at stake and had the Dems been able to do it, and it turned into the disaster that most experts expect, they wouldn't win an election for the next fifty years and they know it, and now that Iraq has done a 180, you don't hear them say anything, hell they barely protest when approving the war funding.

We're going to sign agreements and build bases in Iraq to give us strategic locations, and even if some how Obama were to be elected, the bases will stay and so will the personnel. And just like Germany and Japan and many other area, we will have people there long after our lifetimes.

What part of this do you not understand?

[Weester]

"Wake the f**k up, no one is going to pull the troops out and they never were going too, the Dems knew from the beginning they couldn't get enough support and there is too much at stake and had the Dems been able to do it, and it turned into the disaster that most experts expect.

No f@king Sh@t! I never said that we would pull out! What I did say, is that we should pull them out...

As far as things improving, wait til we do remove our troops...Then the sh@t will really hit the fan....Shia still hate Sunni and vice versa...Nothing has changed! The power play will begin the minute we leave!

[henschman]

Originally Posted by Turbo RX-6

We're going to sign agreements and build bases in Iraq to give us strategic locations, and even if some how Obama were to be elected, the bases will stay and so will the personnel. And just like Germany and Japan and many other area, we will have people there long after our lifetimes.

What part of this do you not understand?

There's going to come a point in time in which we can no longer afford to keep troops in over 130 countries while simultaneously expanding the size of government and of the welfare state here at home. Something's got to give... i for one favor reducing our presence overseas to save enough money to pay off all the people that have been promised benefits and have relied on them, and allow everyone else to opt out of SS and Medicare. Eventually, we should phase those programs out altogether. Plus, we would be a lot safer as a country if we minded our own business more on the world stage.

[henschman]

Originally Posted by Turbo RX-6

We're going to sign agreements and build bases in Iraq to give us strategic locations, and even if some how Obama were to be elected, the bases will stay and so will the personnel. And just like Germany and Japan and many other area, we will have people there long after our lifetimes.

What part of this do you not understand?

There's going to come a point in time in which we can no longer afford to keep troops in over 130 countries while simultaneously expanding the size of government and of the welfare state here at home. Something's got to give... i for one favor reducing our presence overseas to save enough money to pay off all the people that have been promised benefits and have relied on them, and allow everyone else to opt out of SS and Medicare. Eventually, we should phase those programs out altogether. Plus, we would be a lot safer as a country if we minded our own business more. We should stick to doing what we do best... makin money and protecting OUR liberty!

[a trail rider]

Originally Posted by Weester

Golly gosh, jee wizz! Without the support of the Reps and the Prez, how are the Dems suppose to get the "troop pullout"???????

DOH!

More flawed logic from the "righties"....

They could have simply ended the funding... They simply didn't do that, and not at all because they had the real goal of getting troops out of Iraq. How many times have they funded this war since 2007 began? 3? Had they actually meant to remove the troops and felt it was infact the correct path, it would've been done by the simple lack of the funding they constantly whine about giving, then give.

At this point, they're so utterly certain that a pull out is the wrong idea, they didn't even really attempt to force a "date certain" for troop removal.

Personally, I'm convinced a troop withdrawal now, or any time in the past, would be a completely incorrect path. We're winning and everyone knows it. Democrats aren't happy about it, but even they see it. Of course, there is one way a removal of troops would do... But it requires a rather large explosion, or series of them.

[IEATV8S]

ONE MORE TIME, END THE FUNDING!!!!!!

YouTube Video

That has to be perhaps the 8th time I posted that! Are YOU that thick Weepy, that you just DON'T UNDERSTAND IT???

[a trail rider]

It's amazing to me how few people actually understand that if the Congress truly wanted to stop the Iraq war funding, they could. And so many just go along with the Democrat lies, blaming Republicans for everything, when infact, the Democrats DO CONTROL whether or not money is spent to continue the war effort. And they [/b]ALONE[/b] could stop all funding, regardless of what Republicans say.

Of course, I'm lovin' it because I not only see the truth, but also want to win the war, not give up and accept defeat as some sort of necessity for a better world with fewer enemy attacks.

Have we noted Democrat crickets again? The truth sometimes SUCKS! But it is the truth, just the same.