News-Record.com

Mr. Camp:

" ... give us alternatives."

Please read my posts. Modesty aside, they often pass along some good ideas.

P.S.: Some of your letter is partisan trash; the same fault you find in others is coming from you.

P.P.S.: Bushy may have "Delt with it", but he was forced into it and took the trust givne by the American People, and "partisaned" it - exactly the tripe you are ranting about.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0228/dailyUpdate.html

"How do you fight an army of worldwide suicidal guerrillas who are not in uniform and have no home-base country?"

Give their families a water pump and some cooking oil.

"How do we try to collect information about their activities without intruding on our own privacy?"

Family's with water and cooking oil will individually stop worldwide suicidal guerrillas.

"How to stop Iran from becoming nuclear?"

I've not heard a good answer for that, but fwiw, your question should be "How [do we] stop Iran from building nuclear bombs?"

While I grant the two are related, nuclear bombs are different than nuclear power. For example, consider that abortion is related to sex, and we're not all celibate.

I disagree with you JDR. I see no partisanship here.
It's apparent to me that Mr. Camp just wants solutions presented instead of accusations.
His questions are legitimate and I for one, would like to see alternatives as well.
You may have good ideas, to some, but I don't think the American public is going to search the N&R archives for JDR's comments.
Those ideas should be coming from capitol hill.
"Tripe"? I don't think so.

I will come back later to the questions asked here but will only address one point here now due to time.
I read here often about how Bush is the first president who has seriously dealt terrorism.
Could that not be true because of one key fact?
911
911 happened on his watch!! This is not about who is at fault but the fact is Bush was president when 911 happened so he did what any president of the country would do and he went after them. Go back to the runup to the election to 2000 and show me where Bush was declaring war on the terrorist if he was elected.And how he would pursue them to the ends of the earth.

If 911 didnt occur just how hard do you think Bush would be going after these people today?

911 forced his hand so lets not over-congratulate the man here because he is the "first".

Hayes, surely you remember all those who claimed that Bush had already made up his mind to go after all the bad guys in the ME long before 9/11?

remember: he's went after them because of his daddy.
he went after them because of oil
he went after them because his friends friends needed a job.
he went after them because of oil
he went after them because they went after his daddy
he went after them because of oil.

Surely you remember Hayes?

Sorry, Vera City Limits, I had read this as partisan:

"The left wing continually searches for fault ... Their main goal is destructive criticism of [Bush] and seemingly the country, too.

"Instead of just bashing Bush and America, give us alternatives."

How silly of me ! (smile)

btw - too bad America has not sought me out .. think of what a Better world we would have!

Mr P,
The fact that you, and you alone believe that Iraq was connected to 911, is laughable. Quit apologizing for the bungling of this administration.
Facts are Facts, and this administration, filled with hubris, took our international goodwill and squandered it! They took OUR patriotic support and misused it! Bush has yet to ask the country to sacrifice ANYTHING for the war in Iraq----yes, those soldiers will have died and given their limbs in vain ONLY because our President went into THE WRONG COUNTRY!
Oh, and don't start in with all the "I know of what I speak" crap, because most people here now know you are NOT connected.

DD you wouldn't know a tongue in cheek comment if it
slapped you in the mouth.

Hayes, the 1993 attack on the WTC was a potential 9/11 had it been thought out and engineered better.

The Administration response to that was pathetic and invited a series of attacks against US targets worldwide.

Hugh,
It is now 2006. That's right. Clinton is no longer President. I'm trying to put it to you easy, so you don't overload. George W. Bush is President.

Your defense of the bungling administration is predictable and a farce.
If we have won anything, Bush has lost, for us:

1. International Goodwill.

2. Trust of the American People (34% approval)

3. 21,000 changed lives, both dead, and injured.

4. A functioning all volunteer force. (new recruits are now lesser educated, sometimes convicted criminals, and for the most part non-native)

5. Safety of our Ports (putting ports in hands of those who still do not renounce 9/11 terrorism)

Hugh,
Reality is a tough pill to swallow for a rabid Bush apologist, but you can do it.

Mr. P,
My sincere apology if your tongue was firmly planted in cheek on your post---if you contend, that Iraq was somehow related to 9/11, I sincerely retract my apology.
Would you agree, now, that we have created a problem where one did not exist? Would you agree that this war, of choice, is draining our military resources? Would you agree that had Bush/Cheney thought longer about consequences, we may not be having this discussion? Would you agree that had we not gone into Iraq, we might have mopped up the region between Pakistan and Afghanistan and captured/killed Bin Laden? I am not Monday morning quarterbacking here, and I am not gloating at this failed administration. Believe me, I wish they had some sucesses to point to that would not be so damning as their performance heretofore.
I am just sick and tired of those who make excuses for the President for pure partisan reasons--he is a weak leader and a failure by all measureable accounts.

Confronting terriorists? Hell, he's created more terrorists than he's confronted.

Hugh
Before I get into my points of difference here I want to say up front that my memory of the '93 attack is less than perfect but I have no desire or time to go back and google it so if I am wrong in something here please point it out nicely.
You are right that if they had done their homework better they could have brought down at least one of the twin towers. But the key here is the "THEY". If I remember right they found and arrested most of the people including I think the shiek behind it. Basically we got most of the people involved. But 911 was something on a much more massive scale done by a group far larger,more dangerous and looking for war with us.
To make this short.
I guess in a bad way what I am trying to say I dont see Bush doing much more than Clinton did because the threat would not have been seen so different and that Clinton would have done much the same as Bush if he would have been around at 911. Now would Clinton had gone into Iraq I dont know but 911 would have forced him to do more with the terrorists than he had done earlier.
This is what I believe and I am sure those with emotional responses to either clinton or bush will tear this up but go ahead.

But I will say something about the response of Clinton inviting further attacks. Bin laden was coming for us and how we repsonded or could have responded would not have deterred him. He believed,and still does, in the reasons that drove him to 911 and nothing was going to slow him down

Hayes,

Your last paragraph could not have been more accurate. Only now, Bin Laden has even more reason to feel justified in trying to destroy us.

Yet the very people who have stated
Bin Laden is determined to kill all us Non-Muslims, regardless of what we do, will now argue aganist what you have said. Why? Because you have dared to speak less than favorably about Bush's decisions and you are not glorifying his name.

Take emotion out of the equation as you said and real discussion of the points you made will follow.

Yvonne,
As long as Dan & Hugh post here, there will be the usual 'Bush is God' mantra. For some, they cannot separate good from evil when they are emotionally joined at the hip. The Bush administration has created terrorism where none existed, previously.

JDR,

I agree. The letter did reek of partisanship. It asked important questions but, like you said, framed it in a way that suggested any answers would be ignored.

"The Bush administration has created terrorism where none existed, previously."

Are you smoking crack or just ignorant of history since 1979?

DD if you had just bothered to read just the first line you would have maybe known that I was playing off of Hayes remarks. That seems to be your problem you jump before you look and make some SWAG and then have to eat your words.
You have read time and time again that I have expressed my displeasure as to how this war has been carried out. Rummy has listened to the wrong folks and not the generals on the ground. He in turn has "advised" this president totaly incorrectly. If anyone should be hanged from the yardarm in this situation it is Rumsfeld. Totally incompetent in the leadership of this situation.
You also know that there are several issues that I have with this administration especially the one that is coming up for a vote on Thursday in the Senate in reference to the invasion of this nation from the southern boarder. So don't go lumping me in with anyone. I think for myself and at least offer some contribution often on both sides of the issue. Sorry I can't say the same for you or some of the others on these blogs.

DD you need to educate yourself before making statements such as your # 4 &5 . Do you have the facts and figures for 2006 on the military to back up such a ridiculous statement? I have the figures but I want to see where you get such nonsense.

#5 is nothing more than this weeks smoke and mirrors to cover up the do nothing congress we have. All they can do is point fingers, posture and hope for something to come along to make them look good for re-election. And that by golly goes for both sides of this do-nothing bunch.

Paul,

You have totally ignored all the efforts made by many Americans to abort the problems BEFORE they became problems. Your true reason for this letter is so transparent. It's just another approach to try to stiffle the voices of the people who think Bush is the problem in many instances.

Besides, why are the American people now suppose to come up with solutions to problems created by this administration? Are you saying that unless we solve the problems you spoke of, we have no right to voice our concerns about the direction our nation is headed in? And what makes you think our solutions would be considered when they never have been before?

You are making the assumption ordinary citizens have any power in this country. Are you in for a rude awakening!

Mr.P,

Dubai may be an "ally" but it has YET to renounce the actions of 911!--FACT!

Army recruitment levels, per Washington Post, are down and the bar is now lower than pre-Iraq invasion. Multiple misdemeanor offenses are no longer going to get you kicked out of the eligible pool. A Marine Corps Colonel in Spottsylvania told me last week that the Iraq war has decimated the all volunteer system. He is a devout conservative and has no reason to lie to me. He shares your view of Rumsfeld, and says the war has been totally mismanaged from the fall of Baghdad.

mrp, i agree with you about rumsfield. i thought the man was an egomaniac from day one. if they ever do a movie about them, nick nolte would be perfect.

i don't let bush off the hook on that one. if i could see what kind of loose cannon rummy was, then Bush should have definitely been able to see it and should have dealt with that situation before it became one.

Kinda ironic how close dubai and dubya are.

AS usual Deac you post no real facts only what you read in some paper. Did you bother to go to the DoD site and see the actual figures. NO you just want to make a noise and you have nothing to stand on except what some paper said. Do you believe everything some reporter says?

Actually the Military today is the highest educated group that we have had in history. They are more middle class than ever. Are there minorities in the military? Yes and many are hispanic but the number does not exceed the percentage of population represented. As far as Black's go they actually make up a smaller number than the population represented.
Are numbers down? Yes, actualy less than 7%. Most have made up for the downfall but not by the manner you have put forth as being factual.

Deac. Learn to do some homework, present facts and perhaps then you will have some credibility. So far on this and other posts you have blown what little you may have had at one time. Grow up! Maybe you need a good tour in the military. I would see if I could get a waiver and re-up just to be your DI.

Now here are the numbers: If you have an argument with these numbers take it up with the DoD and also a private site called Military .com

The data shows the force is more educated than the population at large. Servicemembers have high school diplomas or the general equivalency diploma. More servicemembers have some college than the typical 18- to 24-year-olds. "To carry representativeness to the extreme, we would have to have a less-educated force or we would want a lower-aptitude force,

Fiscal 2006 Enlisted Recruiting from October 1, 2005 - January 31, 2006

Componant Accessions Goal Percent

Army Navy
9,758 9,643 101% 9,758 9,643 101%

Marine Corps Air Force
9,838 9,389 105 % 9,711 9,641 101%

Army National Guard 19,807
18,219 109%

Army Reserve
8,784
8,888 99%

Navy Reserve
2,705
3,147 86%

Marine Corps Reserve
2,468
2,458 100%

Air National Guard
2,499
3,292 76%

Air Force Reserve 4,175

Yellowdog, Your right on Bush being able to see how far out Rummy was, but he didn't. He has attempted to micro-manage this war and his administration and that just doesn't work when you are president. Harry Truman would have kicked Rummy's butt out of the saddle before the boy got out of the box.

Yes, and the D.O.D told us the Iraqis would throw rose petals at our feet as liberators!
You and your condescending attitude are both worn out.
I am sure if I called the White House, they'd tell me Bush's approval ratings are hovering in the mid eighties and rising!

Lindsay Graham, Senator from South Carolina, seems to have numbers that do not match up with yours, Mr. Produce.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaUtpzV0_MQE&refer=us

Your military "expertise" is not what you like to project on this blog, but it is entertaining to see you post like you were 007.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-03-02-army-goal_x.htm

I have included several articles that do not backup your rosy picture. To make sure you are not tempted to dismiss the sources, I am providing a vast array of them.

From The National Gulf War Resource Center:
Army officials insisted on Thursday that increased recruiting efforts, including hundreds of additional recruiters and re-enlistment bonuses of up to $20,000, would help the Army meet its overall annual recruiting targets.

"We're not pushing the panic button yet," Col. Joseph Curtin, an Army spokesman, said. "The Army is banking on the traditional summer surge of new recruits."

From the GAO and Congress:
The military is falling far behind in its effort to recruit and re-enlist soldiers for some of the most vital combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new government report. The report, completed by the Government Accountability Office, shows that the Army, National Guard and Marines signed up as few as a third of the Special Forces soldiers, intelligence specialists and translators that they had aimed for over the last year.

Both the Army and the Marines, for instance, fell short of their goals for hiring roadside bomb defusers by about 20 percent in each of the last two years. The Army Reserve, meanwhile, failed to fill about a third of its more than 1,500 intelligence analysts jobs. And in the National Guard, there have been consistent shortages filling positions involving tanks, field artillery and intelligence. The report found that, in all, the military, which is engaged in the most demanding wartime recruitment effort since the 1970's, had failed to fully staff 41 percent of its array of combat and noncombat specialties.

Officials with the accountability office, the independent investigative arm of Congress, found that some of the critical shortfalls had been masked by the overfilling of other positions in an effort to reach overall recruiting goals. As a result, the G.A.O. report questioned whether Congress had been given an accurate picture by the Pentagon of the military's ability to maintain the force it needs for Iraq and Afghanistan. "The aggregate recruiting numbers are rather meaningless," said Derek B. Stewart, the G.A.O.'s director of military personnel. "For Congress and this nation to truly understand what's happening with the all-volunteer force and its ability to recruit and retain highly qualified people, you have to drill down into occupational specialties. And when you do, it's very revealing."

As you might say, Mr. P, "You do not know of what you speak"!

Mr. Produce,
Were you not contacted about this story either?

Army Accepting More Recruits With Criminal, Drug Histories
Critics say more waivers are being issued to meet wartime goals. A drop in standards is feared.
By Tom Bowman
Baltimore Sun

February 14, 2006

WASHINGTON — Struggling to boost it ranks in wartime, the Army has sharply increased the number of recruits who would normally be barred because of criminal misconduct or alcohol and illegal drug problems, again raising concerns that the Army is lowering its standards to make recruiting goals.

Last year, almost 1 in 6 Army recruits had a problem in their background that would have disqualified them from military service. In order to accept them, the Army granted special exceptions, known as recruiting waivers.

Recruits with medical problems made up the largest category of those given waivers. But the largest increase was among recruits with a history of either criminal conduct or drug and alcohol problems, according to data provided by the Army.

In all, the Army granted waivers to 11,018 recruits in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2005, or 15% of those accepted into the service that year. Those figures are up from 2004, when 9,300 waivers were granted, or 12% of those joining the Army.

The Army provided the recruiting figures to the Baltimore Sun on Monday after the newspaper obtained partial statistics.

Despite the increase in the proportion of those accepted with problems in their background, the Army failed to meet its recruiting target. A total of 73,000 men and women joined the Army in 2005, down from 77,000 in 2004.

There was a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms "serious criminal misconduct" in their background.

That category includes aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats, said Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command at Ft. Knox, Ky.

The number of recruits in that category increased to 630, from 408 in 2004, reversing at least a four-year trend in which the number of recruits with serious criminal misconduct in their background had declined, Army statistics showed.

The largest increase in waivers was for recruits with misdemeanor convictions. There were 4,587 waivers granted last year in that category, up from 3,667 in 2004. The category includes those with convictions for assault punishable by a fine of less than $500, resisting arrest, public drunkenness and contempt of court, Smith said.

There were 737 waivers for alcohol and illegal drugs, up from 650 the previous year, which also reversed at least a four-year trend of declines in that category. Smith said those waivers were for recruits who tested positive for amphetamines, marijuana or cocaine during recruit processing. A waiver is required to let the recruit wait 45 days before taking another test.

Smith denied that the increase in waivers reflected a lowering of standards by the Army or difficulties in meeting recruiting goals. The Army has met its monthly goals for the last eight months, the service said.

In deciding to grant waivers, Smith said the Army decided to look at the "whole person concept" and not just some past incidents.

The waivers reflect a troublesome trend, said Charles Moskos, a military sociologist at Northwestern University.

"It shows you how the recruiting difficulties are getting worse," he said. "They're dropping the standards. It increases the likelihood of problems in the unit, discipline problems."

"By and large these are flawed recruits," said retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, adding that the ripple effects of the waivers would be felt into the future when the recruits are up for promotion.

"Those getting waivers won't be the sergeants we want."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And so Hugh, NeoCON, and Dan can go ape over it, here's an article from CBS News:

How Far Will Army Recruiters Go?

May 2, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) Seventeen-year-old high school journalist and honor student David McSwane is just what Army recruiters are looking for, but he suspected they might be lowering their standards, reports Rick Sallinger of CBS News Denver affiliate KCNC.

"I wanted to see how far the army would go during a war to get one more soldier," McSwane said.

So he showed up at a Golden Colorado recruiting office saying he was a dropout.

No problem, the recruiter said — and told McSwane in a phone call he recorded — to create a fake diploma from a non-existent school.

"It can be like Faith Hill Baptist School or something — whatever you choose," the recruiter said.

So McSwane went on-line, got a phony grade transcript and a diploma with the name of the school the recruiter suggested and turned it in.

"I was shocked. I'm sitting there looking at a poster that says 'Integrity, Honor, Respect,' and he is telling me to lie," McSwane said.

Then the high school senior told the recruiter:

"I have a problem with drugs. I can't kick the habit — just marijuana."

The recruiter suggested purchasing a detoxification kit.

"The two times I had the guys use it — it's worked both times. We didn't have to worry about anything," the recruiter said.

McSwane had a friend take a video as another recruiter, Sgt. Tim Pickel, took him to buy the so-called detox kit.

Sallinger confronted Sgt. Pickel with a phone conversation David McSwane said he had before they went to the store.

On tape:

Sgt Pickel: "When you said about the one problem that you had...what does it consist of?"

McSwane: "Marijuana."

Pickel: "Oh. OK. So nothing major?"

McSwane: "Yeah he said he would take me down to get that stuff. I mean I have no idea what it is so you would have to show me. Is that a problem?"

Pickel: "No, not at all."

Sgt. Pickel quickly referred us to his superiors.

Lt. Colonel Jeffrey Brodeur who heads Army recruiting for the Colorado region did not defend the recruiters.

"Let me tell you something sir. I'm a soldier and have been a soldier for 20 years," Broderu said. "This violates trust, it violates integrity, it violates honor, and it violates duty."

The two soldiers involved have already been suspended from recruiting duties. They could face anything from a letter of reprimand to a court martial if they are not cleared by the investigation.

Since the above did not come from FOXNews, I suppose it is illegitimate???

....And finally.....a follow up to the recruiter! Now you know why I don't trust your official "D.O.D" numbers---they are eyewash for the public!

Hardball Recruiter Gets Promoted

July 14, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS) CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan updates for CBSNews.com a recent story about an Army recruiter accused of questionable tactics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Army recruiter accused of lying to young would-be soldiers to meet recruitment goals – has not been disciplined as the Army promised. Instead, he’s been promoted, reports CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan.

Sgt. Thomas Kelt – the Houston soldier that caused a nation wide stand-down of recruiting offices after it was discovered he had threatened a young man with jail – was tracked down by Mark Greenblatt of CBS’s KHOU-TV.

Turns out even though he violated the Army’s strict recruitment guidelines -- and officials promised swift corrective action – Kelt has instead been transferred to another recruiting office where he has been promoted to supervisor.

The Army says he’s the perfect person to be in charge of other recruiters since he experienced first hand what happens when ethics rules are broken.

The Army says it prosecuted 325 cases of recruiter fraud last year. Thirty-five of those were relieved of duty, hundreds more were given reprimands. But as the war in Iraq continues, and the casualties mount, Army enlistments are now about 16 percent behind current goals.

The young man who was threatened by Kelt is disappointed and says the Army’s reaction to the problem is an indication it really doesn’t’ care about how it gets recruits into the army – as long as the enlistment quotas continue to be met.

In May, CBS News Correspondent Bob McNamara reported that the Army planned to halt recruiting for one day to re-instruct its recruiters on what they may and may not legally do to persuade young people to enlist. The retraining "stand-down" occurred on May 20.

As McNamara reported in May, "Going Army" and making history appealed to 20-year-old Chris Monarch, so he called a Houston recruiting office.

"I recognized the name," he said. "His name was Kelt."

Sgt. Thomas Kelt was the recruiter.

But a new baby changed Monarch's plan to enlist and he cancelled his meeting with the recruiter.

"I said I'm a volunteer firefighter and eventually gonna try to go career with it and I'm just not interested anymore and I hung up the phone," Monarch said.

But the recruiter wouldn't take no for an answer -- with a phone message threatening Monarch with arrest if he didn't show.

"By federal law you got an appointment with me at two o'clock this afternoon at Greenspoint Mall." said Kelt. "OK, you fail to appear and we'll have a warrant, OK? So give me a call back."

In fear, Monarch called the recruiter back.

"He said, 'Oh Chris, don't worry about that. That's just a marketing technique I use,"' Monarch recounted.

Reporter Mark Greenblatt of CBS affiliate KHOU-TV questioned recruiter Sgt Thomas Kelt.

Greenblatt: "I'd just like to know why you have called up young men threatening to arrest them if they don't come and talk to you?"

Kelt: "No comment."

Greenblatt: "You told the young man that this is a standard marketing technique that you use. Is that true?"

Kelt: "No comment. No comment."

Responding to the story at the time, General Michael Rochelle, the head of U.S. Army recruiting, said: "It's really an insult to other Army recruiters who are handling themselves and conducting themselves in the proper way," he said.

Kelt's recruiting behavior was one of various questionable tactics that prompted the Army retraining of recruiters. In Colorado, 19-year-old Michael Flaherty's recruiter gave him a laxative to lose weight to pass a physical.

From fake diploma's from phony schools, detox kits to beat drug tests, Denver's CBS station KCNC uncovered a number of recruiter fraud cases.

"It's very stressful," said former recruiter Jeffery Bacon.

Bacon says he's been busted from Sergeant to Specialist for not meeting his quota of 24 soldiers a year.

"I'm losing my house because I'm losing my job, you know. I'm in financial debt," Bacon said.

This year the Army needs over 101,000 new soldiers world-wide. But as the war continues and volunteers are harder to find military recruiters face the toughest sell -- ever.

Deac,

Nice work. I knew you had it in you to rise to the challange.

MRP:

I too question this ... there's been lots of reporting on difficulties ... here's a compilation albeit not from the DoD:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001850.php

I found it looking for data to confirm (of deny) the reduction in recruitment goals.

I was looking for that 'cause your post showed 101% - but 101% of what?

If army had 9,758 enlisted for that 4 month period (10-01-2005 through 1-31-2006), that's only 30,000 for a year, and I thought historical recruitment numbers were more like 70,000 / year - so somethings wacky.

JDR please note the period of the report which was the last report until June of this year: Fiscal 2006 Enlisted Recruiting from October 1, 2005 - January 31, 2006. That will explain the 101%. For that period they were 101% over goal. Not for the previous year or predicted goals. See the links below they have the same information in them. I found the same figures on half dozen links under military demographics.

Deac, there are good recruiters and bad and always have been. I spent a tour in AF Recruiting HQ also one tour in Hq 3504th USAF Recruiting Gp. and dealt with the bad ones on that end. They are relieved of duty and usually ineligible for re-enlistment. You quote one story about one bad recruiter and someone who promoted him. Didn't seem to say if he was on promotion list prior to that time or afterward. You can check if he was on promotion list prior then come hell or high water unless he is no longer in service he will be promoted. That includes deceased members because I have seen the paperwork and dealt with that issue also. You didn't seem to want to check Military .com or Army.com (not operated by the army but by one who is interested in getting the right numbers out. Yes, I have even known them to attempt to give the recruit an enlistment physical. Of course the purpose of giving the physical wasn't actually to get the recruit in the military but an opportunity for sex. These recruiters were booted, as in courtmartialed. Nothing quoted by you or the media is anything new in recruiting unfortunately. The only unfortunate part is that the media and those who have no real facts on the subject will use this type thing to blow any situation out of the water. It's smoke, pure smoke and has been and will continue to be handled by the Recruiting Service's. I also see that most of your information came from early 2005 and from sites not really what one might call military friendly. So much for that. Just not to make you feel too bad, I have read the book The Postmodern Military by Moskos,Williams and Segal. It is considered a must for those who want to stay current on military affairs. His study that you quoted on waivers is a bit skewed but it does answer some questions on why waivers are allowed. It is something that has been discussed for the past 3 or 4 decades.

And you numbers on waiver's. The military has always waived most misdemeanor charges against young people wishing to enlist. This is not new except to the uninformed and those who wish to blow it into something that it is not. There are specific ways in which this is handled as stated in the Regulations and Manuals of the branch of service seeking the waiver. Federal misdemeanor charges are not usually waived except under very rare instances

The Army is projected to fall just 7,000 (about 9 percent) short of its 2005 recruitment goal, which is less than 1 percent of the overall military of over 1 million personnel. So far there are no solid numbers for 2006 so I would suppose that any numbers you dug up Deac were from 2005 or earlier.

Once again you use something from the newsmedia, I use factual figures, out there for all to see, a public record.
An Deac, grow up boy, I don't give a rats butt if it comes from Fox or CNN, both are newsmedia and I don't rely on those for numbers when I can go to the record to get information. I would trust DoD's numbers before any media outlet so you can let that dog out because it won't hunt. I suppose anyone who does not agree with you is automatically a rabid Fox watcher. Well boy ,you are wrong. And yes, Deac , I know what I am talking about. I at least do my homework and don't depend on media or someone doing a study who is known for bias in reporting.

JDR here are a couple of links that you can find some of the information I spoke of. It comes from an independent site called, About . You will probably read the information and find some facts in it that dispel the myths that some like to spread about using one or two instances of misdoings.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/06recruiting.htm

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/joiningthemilitary/a/demographics.ht