ABC’s Shameless Troop Politicization

It’s nothing new that the American news media, complete with starry-eyed ideologues, want to be a part of the possible history a Barack Obama presidency would be. They see it as a national historical vindication, an erasure of racism past, and it would be a damn good story.

---

Thus, the media has been correctly accused of being in the tank for the Obama campaign, lobbing him softball questions, and overlooking questionable comments made by the candidate, his wife, his acquaintances, and his staff. However, the latest tactic implemented by ABC News is nothing less than shameless, and this with an agenda-driven story offered up by those who have no shame. ABC News reporterette Martha Raddatz, in her latest column “Surprising Political Endorsements By U.S. Troops”, exploits a traditional practice of the soldier: complaining. This is not meant as a diss, but anyone who’s served knows that soldiers complain about everything. While on the USS Midway, we complained about the banning of Playboy magazine from the base Exchange, the length of yet another deployment, our battle group admiral, our captain, our department head, and our immediate petty officer supervisors. We complained about the chow, how short our next port visit would be, the at-sea duration between mail calls, our daily chores, another watch, etc.

“Though the military is not supposed to engage in partisan political activity, these soldiers spoke out about their personal endorsements, and their opinions are likely to matter. In 2004, 73 percent of the U.S. military voted for a presidential candidate, and officials believe it may be even higher this time around.”

The difference was, we would never # and moan publicly, especially to the press. In fact, unless given permission from (and pre-briefed by) the public affairs office, we weren’t allowed to speak to the media. For those of you who’ve never served, the First Amendment is something American soldiers defend but don’t enjoy. This is for the obvious rationale of maintaining discipline and morale.

“Sgt. Cory Messingham from Lewisville, Texas, said he wasn't following the race, but he was concerned about candidates' paying attention to the emotional toll that the war has taken on soldiers. "My biggest issue is support for the military, military funding and our deployments, not having long deployments anymore. Because [the] majority of us are doing ...15-month deployments. So, it's tough on the soldiers and tough on the soldiers' families. Those are really my biggest issues."

But today is a different day, and Raddatz has exploited it by interviewing soldiers on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, asking them whom they support for president in the upcoming election and why. Hers was hardly a scientific survey, which the anti-war left would be demanding had her results revealed a preference for John McCain.

“Spc. Imus Loto said he supported Obama. “ It will be something different. But he's out there and he'll probably support us a lot more." “By support, Loto meant pulling out troops. “ Pull me out, too." he said.”

Martha Raddatz, at least for what was published, interviewed eight soldiers. The result, four supported Obama and his pledge to withdraw soldiers from theater, one for Hillary, and three unsure. Her video piece revealed one preference for McCain, just to be “fair”…. As I’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, I fail to remember any interviews of soldiers during the Clinton Administration that were critical of the deployments and/or missions he sent them on. I never saw any published bitching about the Commander-in-Chief during the invasions of Haiti or Somalia. I don’t recall reading about any troop complaints while they were on the ground in Bosnia.

1st Sgt. David Logan said, "I am leaning toward Hillary. I think that we should have a gradual drawdown."

While Raddatz was slick enough not to include any negative statements about President Bush, again, those of us who served know that it was not a good thing to bash the Commander-in-Chief to a reporter. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice cites,

“Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Now while those whose words Raddatz published were not from “commissioned officers”, by publicly quoting certain soldiers’ preferences for an anti-war presidential candidate, she is perilously close to exposing them to violations of Article 88. Of course, if any reprimand were to be handed down to those soldiers, Raddatz would have her follow-up. But her column’s title that the soldier’s opinions are “surprising” implies disenchantment with President Bush and the war policy. Her piece also implies that this kind of public complaining is a new twist. But neither is the case. It’s not new that soldiers complain about their duties. People complain on the job, about their jobs, everyday. It’s also nothing new, unfortunately, that the very liberal left that protests in front of recruiting stations and spit on soldiers coming home from combat, will use those very soldiers to achieve their political ends. Should we get a President Obama or President Clinton, media interviews of the soldiers will not end. We’ll hear their optimism that they will be coming home soon. What we won’t hear are their complaints once the presidential pledges are reneged upon and the deployment lengths are maintained as the new Democrat president becomes fully “aware” of the situation on the ground. Shame on Martha Raddatz. Then again, both she and ABC News have no shame. This is all about history. This is all about the great story. This is not about the soldiers. This is all about them.