It's simple: after the election, we must make it a priority to totally crush and replace the MSM...they are totally out of hand...worse than ever...and simply disgusting...

Here's why the military is with Bush. 9/11 was the Pearl Harbor of this centure. On 9/11, Americans too young to remember Pearl Harbor learned how it felt to have their nation viciously attacked in acts of war. At first we were united by shock and grief, but our tears soon turned to stony resolve. In the days that followed, the descendents of what Tom Brokaw called “The Greatest Generation” suddenly knew for the first time an aching patriotism—the kind that makes generations willing to fight bravely so the next may live freely.

The WWII generation knew that pulling together wins wars. In 1944, the morning after the allied invasion at Normandy pushed back the Nazis, can you imagine a politician announcing that 10,000 American soldiers had died in that day’s “colossal miscalculation”? Imagine him rebuking FDR for “taking his eye off the ball” for going after Hitler when it was Hirohito in Japan who attacked us. And nine months later, imagine the public outcry if, instead of the picture of the Marines hoisting our flag on Iwo Jima, a stumping senator held up a picture of some of the 7,000 Americans who died on that island and declared, “Wrong battle. Wrong island. Wrong time!” Such demoralizing defeatism would not have been whispered 60 years ago, and I suspect it will backfire on Kerry before November 2.

We did not rush to war. Nor were we “mislead” by Clinton, Bush, and Blair. The thoroughness of the Duefler Report was impossible before we ousted Saddam, and though it indicates that there are no longer stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it also explains why the UN sanctions and inspections were a game of cat and mouse before the war. Our troops are doing a great job, and as for me, I will joining the 75% of them who USA Today reports (Oct 2) will cast their votes to keep President Bush as their Commander in Chief.

The Dems and the MSM cannot let this war be seen as successful. Therefore they will not highlight the military's overwhelming support for Bush as Commander in Cheif. If the war effort is successful, Bush’s re-election is as sure as FDR’s during WWII. They picked Kerry because they needed a candidate who can make us feel like this is “Viet Nam all over again.” After all, the senator began his political career as a smooth-tongued spokesman for hoarse-throated mobs of protestors, flag burners, and medal throwers,
No one questions Kerry’s credentials as a war protestor, but what hundreds of Viet Nam vets did question when they learned that Kerry shot countless reels of 8mm home movies during his four months in Nam was “Why didn’t he use his movie camera to document the atrocities that he said ‘occurred on a day-to-day basis’? Where was this heroic footage when he came home to say we were all war criminals? How dare he salute us in his speech and wear with pride the honor he stole from us back then?” The understandable indignation of vets and POWs may explain why Kerry dropped his “Reporting for Duty” theme, and I think there's more stuff coming when "Stolen Honor" airs. When's the last time you saw Kerry with a "band of brothers"? Even when the stats demand reporting the troops support our president. They'll stick with the anti-war script.

Shameful, but the good news is that this type of partisanship by CNN and the Democrats only fools the public long enough for the word to get out through alternative media and then CNN's reputation takes the rightful hit that it deserves. Enough of these embarrassments and CNN will decide that its own survival requires a more ethical approach to its task of informing the public. For now, we can watch with anger and bemusement as they are widely revealed for what they are.

Note that the author of the NAES press release is none other than Adam Clymer, the Adam Clymer whom W rightly described as a "major league @$$hole,"

What I'm hearing now is that AP took down that outrageously slanted story that appeared on Yahoo! News and replaced it with a more accurate one - however, I haven't seen either one so I can't precisely comment one way or the other. Can anyone else confirm?

CNN seems to have done this story in two parts. The first part was: "Military trusts Bush over Kerry" (Oct. 15); the second part was: "Troops, families question Iraq strategy" (Oct. 16). Seems fair to me.

From the first:
"Bush, who served in the Texas Air National Guard, was trusted by 69 percent of military regulars, Reservists and National Guard members, while 24 percent said they trusted Kerry more, according to the National Annenberg Election Survey released Friday."

From the second:
"The poll found that 62 percent in the military sample -- 58 percent of troops and 66 percent of family members -- said the administration underestimated the number of troops that would be needed to establish peace in Iraq. And 59 percent -- 56 percent of troops and 64 percent of family members -- said too much of a burden has been put on the National Guard and the reserves when regular forces should have been expanded instead."

I think the military overall is still a pretty conservative place.

I also think the military would rather have Bush with the Iraq war than Kerry and his wishy washy, I want the UN and France to tell us when to go to war (okay Kerry denies that but I don't believe a word of his denials and neither do I think the military).

Also, I know from my husband being in the military in the early tomid 90's, that US soldiers do not like the blue berets all that much, and they probably are scared Kerry is going to make them wear one.

Granted I still don't think the UN will take on Iraq, even if Kerry begged.