So backing away from your tangent (I had to backtrack to remember what your original post was about), your point was that the Army is accepting people too stupid to understand the contract they signed, even with all the negatives in the media, and at school, and the counseling provided by the military, and the input of friends & relatives, and this guy with his sign posted out front...

...and the "Lie" being much like a John Kerry-esque definition (if he knew now what he didn't know then), that if you interpret "standards" to be "x" and the Army defines them a "y", then you might feel lied to after you decide you no longer want to be in the military?

Was that the point you were trying to make, or was there something else?

And that you have in mind some "criteria" higher than those rock-bottom standards, which the Army sometimes has the luxury of imposing.

Okay, so you're saying that they haven't lowered their standards, just their criteria, as those are defined above? Is that a fair statement of what you mean?

I think that the guy on the street (like me) would take "standards" and "criteria" to be largely synonymous, not being indoctrinated into the mysteries of recruitment. But if you do mean something like what I've said, then okay, the Army flack wasn't "lying." (Misleading, I would say, but this is already a long thread.)

'Instead of trying to defend this practice you should condemn it.'

I'm not defending anything but you really should try to come up with something other than unsubstantiated claims by enlistees that in the words of your article 'had a change of heart' and AWOL sailors.

Ken. Ken. Ken. Saying that recruiters often lie is your assumption, not a fact or generally accepted principle. I do think it reprehensible, if one were to outright lie to get a recruit. However, as I mentioned before, a candidate is briefed by a legal counselor at MEPS to ensure they know what they're doing. Of course, you don't know what the hell MEPS is, because you have no experience in this area. The original post was a sign about Iraq in front of a recruiting office, not lying. Try to stay on subject.

Anjin- you are also not on the subject. Arresting Vets, or anyone else who breaks the law, is called ENFORCING the law. nothing more.

The more I see our country moving twoards police state tatics (and hear cheering from the "security first" faction!) the more I am convinced we are losing the wot. Not losing in a string of engagements on a battlefield, but losing what is was that made America special...

Just about the time I thought you had gotten off your hate Bush kick, you start to defend some one like Ken, who also hates Bush. But then again you two have a lot in common.

I call it like I see it Anderson and if that is not up to your upper crust know it all standards, then Don't Read It. As far as this Blog goes Amderson, You have used words with implications that are a hell of a lot worse than I have used.
Ijust say what I think and the last I heard, thats is in accordance with our Constitution that you so riggorously defend. Or, do you now just pick and choose what part or our founding fathers document that appeal to you and meet with your legal insight and way of thinking.

If I may venture an unsolicited opinion, I don't think these ignorant personal attacks do very much for the quality of this blog. Not that Ken can't take care of himself, but does anyone here enjoy reading that kind of thing?

Some basic etiquette wouldn't hurt.

Talking about recruiters. you said " When they act in my name". No recruiter would ever act in your name, they prefer to act as an American.

First Ken, A recruiter is a solder that has proved himself, You surely have not.

Second, A recruiter is one of our brave solders who puts himself in harms way, You surely wouldn't do that

Thirs, A recruiter is not a COWARD, Like you have demonstrated many times.

No Ken, you couldn't hold a candle to a recruiter or any solder for that matter.

You wouldn't serve you country for any reason, because Ken, you are a COWARD.

Former Lt. Carl Nyberg, who investigated recruiting abuses in Chicago, says: "The corruption is so thoroughly institutionalized in recruiting, it would take congressional hearings just to make a dent in cleaning things up."

This story aired in 1999. Since then lying and deceit has only gotten worse. Do a google search and you will find plenty of evidence of the problem.

Instead of trying to defend this practice you should condemn it.

But on the important stuff, he never tried to mislead me to get me to do something I wouldn't have done with full knowledge.

The reality is, yes, some recruiters lie to get recruits to do certain things. But from my experience, when they're discovered, they're disciplined at a level commensurate with the degree of deceit involved in the lie.

You have a lot of problems with language comprehension.

'the commonly known fact '

Accusations aren't facts.

'recruiters often lie '

Again, can you prove this? Other than accusations from AWOL soldiers and sailors and your own paranoid delusions do you have any proof? What is often?

I was referring to the commonly known fact that recruiters often lie to get people to enlist. This was widely reported and was admitted to by recruiters.

The above article tells about a fellow who was arrested for holding up a sign that said recruiters lie.

Now that you know the facts I am sure you will agree with me that lying to a recruit in order to meet quota is beneath contempt.

It’s not lowering standards, and it’s not lying (which was what we were talking about). If you do your homework, you’ll find that the Army has long exceeded the requirements of the DOD. Your “lowering of standards” is simply allowing candidates that were unqualified by the previous, but are still within tolerance.

"The previous" what? A word seems to be missing. Would that be "standards"?

Like I said, if they need to lower the standards, fine, but "allowing candidates who were previously unqualified" is "lowering standards" in every dictionary that I possess.

Must *everything* this administration says & does be defended to the last ditch?