Dolphin’s Dock

The opponents did a masterful job of changing this phrase from its original meaning, at least as far as Palin’s original reference.
She was originally referring to government beaurocrats deciding whether you qualified for a given treatment, much like the British determination of “meaningful years of life”. So if you’re 85, you don’t get the titanium hip because you’re going to die soon anyway. She was saying that, for example, you would be too old to get the very expensive treatment that would prolong your life, hence a “death panel”. The left changed that to be end of life care options, which personally I’m in favor of too, but apparently a bunch of conservatives are against.

Well first off rights do not belong to groups, they belong to individuals; only individuals have rights.

And secondly, if the government can define “marriage” then what else about our families can they control? Will the bureaucrats, and politicians eventually try to define “love”? I should hope not.

Marriage is a contract between consenting individuals. The government should have nothing to do with it and the very idea that one must ask permission to marry is a direct insult to our freedom. In fact the implication of having to attain a license to marry is that marriage is a privilege granted by the government. A privilege is the opposite of a right because rights are inherent and do not require permission. Even the Constitution recognizes our unlimited right to contract.

The best plan?
Leave the government out of it. And you’re right that the Republican Party and my fellow conservatives should adopt this philosophy. Besides, one cannot call themselves a “conservative” if they advocate big government intrusion into the personal lives of consenting adults. If the government is powerful enough to force one group of morals upon another group, then it is powerful enough to trample the rights of all individuals.

______________
DISCLAIMER:
Nothing I communicate is to be considered an official statement representative of any organization I belong to or am an officer of, including the Campaign for Liberty, Republican Liberty Caucus, WTN, Liberty on the Rocks, America’s Future Foundation, The Tennessee Liberty Alliance, or the Davidson County (Nashville) Republican Party. My opinions are my own.
Edit/Delete Message

Well, besides the fact that Warren is who he is and says what he says, there is the feeling that Obama tried to game his own inauguration by trying to pick up some theocrat brownie points via the pick (at the expense of gays), rather than to strive to find the least offensive preacher possible for what is supposed to be an historic and unifying national event.

Compare: Billy Graham may have been no champion of gay marriage, but he reached the heights he reached precisely because of his non-divisive, milquetoast approach to faith in the public square.

Warren is about as far from that as is Louis Farakhan.

exposing the morale of troops would be considered “sensitive information”. The anti war rant would fall into that category…

Penny, Jason is correct. Exposing how the troops feel gives the enemy an advantage. A soldier who has low morale is less likely to keep his alertness and defensiveness up, thus making him a “soft target” and easier to eliminate. I understand that you feel venting is necessary, but not online where you don’t know who is reading – friend or foe. The military doesn’t bar you from expressing your feelings, just being careful of who your audience is. The military is acting in the best interest for all soldiers over there. His superiors may be acting as “parents”, but haven’t your parents kept you out of trouble from time to time?

Dolphin, you have obviously never served in US Army. Legal, the Army decides what’s legal. Not saying it’s right, just saying that in the Army there’s a long-lived and proven adage, ” there’s the right way and the Army way”. All ways has been, always will be. Peace in our time not likely.

The confusion here is cuased by a Army policy change in 2005. The referanced posts were in 2004. The policy in 2004 was do not let anybody release anything as they had no policy from the highest to govern or any mechanism in place to check such things. I do not think most of the decision makers in the Army had a clue what a blog was before 2004. What was not clearly stated in the article was that there was a policy established that allowed for blogs, but it was after the blog mentioned in this article was written. The majority of the upper echelons have tended to be technically illiterate and the few that were not have mostly moved up very quickly as the importance of such things as blogs and other technical issues was recognized. I believe it is most likely the issue was not really the content so much. Most likely it was the attnetion it brought; as it caught considerable attnetion and they had no policy in 2004. The reaction in the Army when there is no policy is always ‘do not do anything at all that draws attnetion you have not been specifically told to do’. The people through the chain do not like getting questions about things they are unaware of and have not recieved any guidance on. There is actually some current official support for any military bloggers that wish it. It helps those now responcible keep an eye on things and spot problems.

One last posting… There are a lot of comments by those that have not served.

For those of you in this category, I recommend you read the UCMJ before being so critical of the Army. Comments about computer illiteracy for example, have nothing to do with unit security and the divulging of military information. In fact, communicating sensitive information in form is illegal. This includes providing information to other military personnel who have no need to know of unit activities for which they are not a part of.

If you’re still not convinced, I encourage you to enlist and voice your opinion from within the military. I’m sure the judges at your court martial would find your thoughts/opinions are not so unique.

Buzzell, three or four years ago, was not the only soldier to get into trouble by blogging. A lot has changed in those years and this Army is far more connected to bloggers. The Army, in 2008, goes out of its way far more than the other services to support blogging. Lindy, speaking for the Army, is one of several people in the Pentagon charged with working with the new media. It’s not just blogging, they are also on Twitter.

FYI, there have been about a dozen bloggers to embed with Army units in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last four years. Others have blogged while serving and continue to blog now that they are home.

I agree with Manuel J. I too am a Veteran of OIF 1. I served with 3rd Battalion 502nd Infantry 101st Airborne Division. I personally feel that these soldiers who utilize blogging are putting themselves and their unit at risk. They are obviously showing that they are indeed a “Soft Target.” Whatever happened to OPSEC. As a grunt I experienced my fair share of horror and shear terror. However I didn’t feel compelled to go online and rant about it. Whatever happened to soldiering on. I personally attended boot camp with Colby Buzzell at Ft Benning from Nov 2002-March 2003. We were assigned to 1st Platoon Bco 1/50 ITB. So I can say tat I personally know him. It seems to me that he had other motives for blogging about Iraq. Hoping to make himself famous or something. I personally look down at him and feel a sense of bitterness to him. After all him and myself signed up VOLUNTARILLY to join the INFANTRY knowing all well that you were going to be on the front lines and in the s***. If you couldn’t figure that out on your own than you are obviously not that bright. I was wounded there and received a Purple Heart, CIB, Valorious Unit Award, Meritorious Unit Citation. I suffer with PTSD, Depression, have a TBI from the blast injury I suffered. Of course there is the ARMY WAY and UCMJ for a reason. While I was in Iraq I just sucked it up and soldiered on. I dealt with my issues when I got back from Iraq to the states. Back in OIF 1 I felt like we had purpose for fighting. However now I feel like the Pentagon and President should review our strategy and decide what is our purpose for being in Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel proud of what my unit accomplished and am extremely grateful of the experiences I had over there. I fought along with great NCO’s and Officers and fellow unior enlisted men. Yeah everyday can sometimes be a struggle dealing with my PTSD. But SO WHAT that is what happens when you go to war and deal with being shot at and blown up, especially being an Infantryman. In my opinion Colby Buzzell is a unpatriotic loser. You damn well know what you are getting yourself into while taking the oath to “defend our nation against ALL enemy’s foreign and Domestic and to Obey the orders of the Officers appointed over me.” Sound familiar. You take this oath of enlistment for a reason. If you truly don’t believe in it then don’t put your comrades lives at stake because you want to be some kind of pansy. Shut up, do your job and then deal with it when you get back home.
Rules are in place for a reason and should be followed. You don’t see me trying to sell my stories for money (and I have many of them). This guy needs to be ashamed of himself for what he did.

Widow-maker… if you really knew Buzzell then maybe you do know something of his motives… and I sure don’t. But I will tell you this, I am a combat veteran too. I didn’t have blogs but sure did write some sad sack letters to folks back home when things got to me. I think you judge the bloggers too harshly though.. I follow a couple of guys from units I have reason to be interested in, and they convey lots of cool stories, and funny stuff, and yeah some bitter stuff… cause tough shit happens downrange, as you know. As long as thats all it is, what’s the harm? Surely you don’t think bitching is anti-american?
Matter of fact, remember hearing how “If my guys are not bitching, I know something is wrong”? Anyway dude I salute you and thank you. AIRBORNE, AHOOOOHA!

I do admit that I came off a bit too harsh. I don’t mean to contradict what I have previously posted. I agree with Robert the Rich about guys being able to bitch, and believe me I am all for that. I clearly remember my comrades and I sitting around and saying how fucked up things were. We would talk about various missions and vent about our anger and frustrations.

I am not saying that I believe in the war now. However back in 2003-2004 in OIF 1 I felt like we had a purpose. We were there to get Saddam and to liberate Iraq. Going in with the 101st Airborne I felt like we were the best of the best. I had a great sense of pride about what we were doing.

I do feel that CENTCOM and the Pentagon truly did not access the situation correctly when planning wartime strategy and operations. We obviously went over there with not enough troops to begin with. It was the 101st, 3rd ID and the Marines. As you all remember Turkey fucked us and did not let 4th ID enter from there. 4th ID was supposed to push down from Northern Iraq while we pushed up to meet in the middle. This was obviously a failure upon the U.S. to secure Turkey’s permission. 4th ID was on there way there but had to turn around and come in up through Kuwait into Iraq. Which obviously was fucked up and caused major problems with the war effort.I do feel that if the U.S. sent over at least enough troops and with help form other NATO countries troops to help seal of the borders with Iran and Syria then the massive insurgency would have never happened. We definitely went over there with not enough troops and jacked up strategy from the beginning.

Again I want to explain that when I first heard about Buzzell last night before posting on this blog it brought up all kinds of emotions for me.

I felt that the war was justified back in 2003 and the purpose was clear. However now I feel that there is not much of a purpose for the troops to be over there still.

I am not saying that I feel that anyone who thinks the war is a bad idea is unpatriotic and anti-American because obviously I now have my doubts.

I am however saying that I do not agree with these soldiers who VOLUNTEERED to serve knowing fully well that enlisting at a time when our country was at war that they did not even think there was a REMOTE CHANCE they would be going DOWNRANGE. Well than you would not have even enlisted. I do not buy BUZZELL’s story that a recruiter suckered him into joining.

I can speak for myself and more that likely other soldiers that enlisted in 2002 that i knew that I was going to be headed to the giant SANDBOX. Sure I was a bit nervous and scared but I was proud of the opportunity to fight that laid ahead of me. I remember the Drill Sergeants explained to all of us including BUZZELL that most of us would be going downrange and that if you were unsure if you would be able to handle it to say something about it now. He and other soldiers including myself would be afforded the opportunity to be discharged or chaptered out. Speaking of that our platoon in basic training which BUZZELL was part of had about 4 soldiers go AWOL because they were to chicken shit to do there job. He had his chance to get out then if he really did not want to fight.

I do not fel that bitching is ANTI-AMERICAN but there is a time and a place for everything. While in Iraq we finally made it up to Mosul in April of 2003. I was at the same FOB as BUZZELL. I know that these INTERNET CAFE’s were run by Iraqi’s. I personally did not trust them because after all look who we were fighting against. These computers were more that likely fully unsecure. All it took was a little common sense to realize that you could be putting information into the enemy’s hands. Call me paranoid if you want, but you can never be too safe.