The latest Bush-Cheney TV ad "Forward" http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/
features several military personnel performing duties while wearing
their official uniforms. There are several shots of soldiers carrying
rifles, a shot of seaman launching a plane from a flight deck, a shot
of a soldier flying a helicopter, etc.

It's a blatant violation of military regulations for any military personnel
to promote any sort of political message while wearing an official US
uniform. And as Commander-in-chief, it's a violation of military regulations
for President Bush to direct or cause any member of the military to violate
those regulations.

The specific Army rule that covers this issue can be found on page 8
of Chapter 1 in Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms
and Insignia:

http://www.usapa.army.mil/pdffiles/r670_1.pdf

Army Regulation 670­1
1­10. When the wear of the Army uniform is required or prohibited
...
j. Wearing Army uniforms is prohibited in the following situations:
(1) In connection with the furtherance of any political or
commercial
interests, or when engaged in off-duty civilian employment.


The specific Air Force rule that covers this issue can be found in
Table 1.3 on page 8 of Chapter 1 in AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 36-2903,
DRESS AND PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF AIR FORCE PERSONNEL:

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/36/afi36-2903/afi36-2903.pdf

Table 1.3. Wearing the Uniform.
Members ... Do not wear ... When
...
furthering political activities, private employment,or
commercial interests.


I'm certain there are similar regulations and rules that apply to
the other branches (Navy and Marines).

They're in deep, deep trouble, and as James Carville says, "When your opponent's drowning, be sure to take time to toss him an anchor."

A few well-placed questions on call-in shows should get this issue out in front. Let the Kerry campaign know: Why is George W. Bush politicizing the military?

It reminds me of the "flowers and inspirations music"

...it's a new day dawning.... Vote Bob.

That's like, a big deal, or something. How was this brought to your attention? E-mail? On-line? Not that I'm doubting you, I just want to know how far it's spread so far.

I want to see him catch seven kinds of hell for this one, and watch his AWOL ass try to backpedal.

Time to call the Kerry campaign!

--

...who really hates Bush.

I figured if I post it here, it would reach the right eyes. So: if anybody here's got a connection to the Kerry campaign, you might wanna send 'em this.

Being ex-military, I KNOW this is correct! Just as we weren't allowed to join any protest, be interviewed in uniform or campaign for any individual while in uniform, as it would be misconscrewed as the service you were in ( Army, USAF etc.)as backing a particular candidate.
Anyone got a copy of the UCMJ?

So no law broken here. It's all fake. Forrest Gump type trick photography stuff. CGI. Lord of the Rings.

It's just gay off-Broadway stars dressed up in military uniforms and computer matted into flight and combat scenes.



The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie,
deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth,
persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.
— John F. Kennedy

It's cheaper and easier to get actors in military get-up! Didn't the orange tips on the sidearms give them away?

Coals are just about ready. Let's barbecue their asses in molasses!

I still think the question needs to be asked. Some bold person at the gaggle asking Scotty if BushCo got the permission of those military members to use their images and how does that square with military regs against engaging in political activities while in uniform. Make them ADMIT they used actors, and that everything about the ads, just like everything about Bush himself, is PHONY!

so why even the question? They've broken so many laws at this point, why would they start to follow the rules now?

Kerry can run ads of our men and women in uniform, as he scrolls text over them showing all the benefits that W's been cutting, the military base schools he's been closing, and so on...

Wait, bad idea. He'd have to purchase a half hour slot for that--30 or 60 seconds won't do...

Please include my caveats if you do...

As well, of course, Bart. You've got the goods, there, Bubba.

CAVEATS--
However, there ARE a few technicalities that might hang the argument up. The specificity of the REG is aimed at INDIVIDUAL troops saying, "My name is Seaman Shmucketelli, and I endorse Candidate X." This is the issue that makes it so darned fun to have political discussions in the smoke shack at work. While in uniform, the troops can't join in the discussion-- only listen. (while in uniform)

In the case of this Bu$h ad, no troop is put in that situation. No nametags are readable, and with two exceptions, no faces are recognizable. Now, I DO wonder if the recognizable troops signed a waiver to use their faces for the ads. If they did-- THEY are in trouble. If they did not, then the Shrub is in trouble. This is some slicing for the lawyers. BTW-- the uniform regs are pretty er, uniform across the DoD for all services.

If Team Shrub used stock DoD footage, then the issue, I believe, is dead. Is it appropriate for DoD to appear to support one Candidate? Can Kerry also request footage? If Shrub's Ad Co. did local shoots for these troops, then there is another problem which ties into the above-- permission waivers and intent (free endorsement? Did the troop get paid?)-- again, for the lawyers to address.

Sidebar... You'll notice that all Navy ads have the troop's nametag fuzzed out, or the name is erased-- for their protection, but they are all real sailors, and they're not promoting anything but Navy-- and totally voluntarily/non-compensatory.

In this Shrub ad, there is a tacit implication that the troops actually DO support the Shrub as individuals and as a group.

I think that Atrios, Josh Marshall and CalPundit should get this though. They get gazillions of hits per day, and their comments pages are pretty incredible, most of the time. Plenty of media folk read them every day, and if it passes those three's scrutiney and gets used, then there is hope for the case.

Interesting grab there-- thanks for noticing it.

I won't be able to ask anyone here until Monday, let's talk this one out... I'll be able to add some deep thoughts actually backed by THE REGS on Monday...



Tony B.

Just got a big, fat raise, today-- 10G-- two steps to GS-11 (woot woo!) they actually LIKE ME!!!

"CODE BLUE".
The MOON Primer
Mad Cow Info Source
Creepin' fascism. That's what we're looking at." Ivins

If you would, attach your caveats to my post & mail it along. Sorry if I seemlike a lazy bum -- I'd do it myself, but I'm about to shut down & get outta here for a few days. Yay!

I had political discussions all the time in uniform... and at work.

Of course, you mainly work with officers, don't you? That's a little different. Enlisted slime are allowed to say and think what we want (presumably because our opinions don't matter), but we're not allowed to engage in "official campaign functions" in uniform.

Telling the NCO sitting across from me that I wanted Bush out wasn't a violation of Air Force regs, but saying it to a news crew while in uniform would have been. That was my understanding.

Oh, and appearing in a campaign ad. That would've been a violation, too.

"The cameras' eyes on choice disguised
Was it cast for the mass who burn and toil?
Or for the vultures who thirst for blood and oil?"

Rage Against the Machine

both of which crash my computer


http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/xml_pubs/r670_1/cover.xml
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r670_1.pdf
or can be found somewhere in these pages, my browser is too old to utilize these pages.
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/670_Series_Collection_1.html

except for taking credit for other peoples sacrifices at the end?