Nothing but lip service ("Army Times" newspaper rips Bush & Republicans)

ArmyTimes.com ^ | June 30, 2003 | House editorial

[fightinJAG]

In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap

[x1stcav]

I have to admit I haven't read the Army Times in awhile, but isn't the tone of this editorial rather strident and contentious? Have some of the NYT's editorial staff taken refuge there. Sounds like this could have been written by Howell Raines himself.

As a metter of fact, I wonder if this is the sort of morale builder the troops need.

Is this usual for the Army Times or is there a hidden story?

[Nick Danger]

News Flash: Army Times complains about low defense spending.

How 'bout we take their number, the New York Times number, and figure the right number is about about 2/3 of the way toward the Army Times number. Save us a bunch of time, and we don't have to sit through another PowerPoint on the Stryker.

[fightinJAG]

I want to live in a No Power Point Zone.

[fightinJAG]

I also have not read the Army Times for a while, but I was shocked when I saw this. It's one thing to rag on about pay raises or whatever, but to make it a partisan issue is quite out of step with what is expected of the military culture.

It seems to me it's a very bad deal to have soldiers read this crap in a paper such as the Army Times. I think the Army Times has gone beyond its charter and I hope someone calls them on it.

[x1stcav]

Yeah, I agree. I wonder WTF is going on there?

[Pukin Dog]

The current Army leadership hates the Bush Administration because they do not have the respect of Don Rumsfeld, who is downsizing their weaponry and reducing their role in favor of the better trained and more disciplined Marine Corps.

Articles like this one are to be expected.

[dogbyte12]

Where else are they supposed to complain? Soldiers are trained to salute and follow orders. The political elites in Washington are mouthing all these platitudes, while the families of those shedding blood are seeing benefit cuts.

If one could give an idea of a proper place for the soldier's grievances to be addressed, I would love to hear it. Speaking as somebody who has served, I get sick and tired of congress passing meaningless resolutions, patting themselves on the back, while cutting death and VA benefits, while offering a 2% pay hike to people who can never be paid enough for what they do.

I was thankfully single when I served. Married men in my unit actually took second jobs at night to pay for just basics for their families.

My father in law pumped gas at night, and worked as a movie theater projectionist on the week-ends to help make ends meet. It is pathetic and a national shame.

Serving shouldn't be something one does for money, but at the same time, we should not make service such an economic sacrifice that the families of those who put their butts on the line, are made to unduly suffer.

[mystery-ak]

That's great, reducing Hostile Fire and Family Separation Pay....wait til I tell Mike when he calls....this better not be true!

[Radix]

Gee, capping the salary increases of the lower ranks at a lower percentage than the higher ranks ought to do wonders for re-enlistments and retention of junior grade officers.

I do not know if all of the numbers are accurate, but I would accept them unless I was confronted with evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps they might want to consider capping or reducing the salaries of the members of Congress.

[fightinJAG]

I agree wholeheartedly with your comments! My point went to the tone of the article. It could have made the same points without the strident, contentious and partisan attitude.

[Snickersnee]

Calm down y'all -- the "Army Times" has nothing to do with the Army. It is a Beltway newspaper mostly for and about civil servants that emphasizes careerism and the entitlement mentality. Same publisher puts out "Federal Times" that parrots the AFSCME line. I think their editorial policy is taken from DNC faxes. Under the Constitution, the Army would be forbidden from taking editorial stances in its own newspaper or any other media and rightly so. We in the Army don't exist to opine -- when we say "take a position", we refer to the terrain feature at Kilo Juliet 09352782, and inform the TOC when you've secured it. Move out smartly.

[TLBSHOW]

Nobody is fooled by Bush anymore.

[sarasmom]

I read it the same way.
It seems the Army reporter is pissed that they wont be getting additional funds to pay for "cannon fodder".
The Army seems to resist the idea that in the real world,advances in technology and aversion to unneccessary casualties,have occurred in civilian world.
Looks like a whole lot of "double-dippers" are in danger of losing their superfluous, cushy jobs.

[A Vast RightWing Conspirator]

Got to find some dough somewhere for the $15 billion needed to address AIDS in Africa.

[gatorbait]

Calm down y'all -- the "Army Times" has nothing to do with the Army. It is a Beltway newspaper mostly for and about civil servants that emphasizes careerism and the entitlement mentality. Same publisher puts out "Federal Times" that parrots the AFSCME line. I think their editorial policy is taken from DNC faxes

Exactly so..All of you Bush bashers heed .The Army Times is NOT a friend of any Repulican Administration

[PhiKapMom]

Army Times was taken over by Clintonites some years ago and touts the Clinton line. AFA's magazine wasn't too much better for awhile during the last four years of Clinton but has improved in the last few years. AFA's anti-Republican stand and pro-Clinton stand did not go unnoticed because letter after letter let them have it.

Why people continue to believe some of this crap without facts is beyond me.

Some Clintonite/Clark Army Generals are also mad because Rumsfeld nominated someone out of retired ranks for the Army Chief of Staff instead of promoting a Clintonite. They are also mad because Rumsfeld cancelled the Crusader for a smaller version.

The Army became more Clintonized than any of the services thanks to Clark and his buddies.

Just glad the AF promoted Mike Ryan to serve as our Chief of Staff in the last years of Clinton because he would tell it like it was in Senate hearings along with the Marine Corps while the Army and Navy Chiefs would lie with Cohen.

You can take it to the bank that this article is from one of the Clintonites that runs Army Times!

[Lion Den Dan]

I wonder WTF is going on there?

The Times is a lying, leftist treason rag designed to keep the troopies in line and shill for the Dims.

[Chu Gary]

"Where else are they supposed to complain? Soldiers are trained to salute and follow orders. The political elites in Washington are mouthing all these platitudes, while the families of those shedding blood are seeing benefit cuts.

If one could give an idea of a proper place for the soldier's grievances to be addressed, I would love to hear it. Speaking as somebody who has served, I get sick and tired of congress passing meaningless resolutions, patting themselves on the back, while cutting death and VA benefits, while offering a 2% pay hike to people who can never be paid enough for what they do.

I was thankfully single when I served. Married men in my unit actually took second jobs at night to pay for just basics for their families.

My father in law pumped gas at night, and worked as a movie theater projectionist on the week-ends to help make ends meet. It is pathetic and a national shame.

Serving shouldn't be something one does for money, but at the same time, we should not make service such an economic sacrifice that the families of those who put their butts on the line, are made to unduly suffer."

Senator Kerry, save it for the debates in the unlikely event you get selected as THE candidate. Besides, the ketchup princess has plenty of money to keep you going.