New York Times
January 15, 2007

KABUL, Afghanistan, Jan. 14 (AP) — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton ate breakfast with soldiers from New York and Indiana at the main American base in Afghanistan on Sunday before meeting with the top American general in Afghanistan and President Hamid Karzai, and then traveling to Pakistan to meet with its president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf.
Mrs. Clinton, Democrat of New York, who is considering running for president, came from Iraq with Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, and Representative John M. McHugh, Republican of New York. The three are members of armed services committees.
Their meetings in Kabul were closed, and Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues did not talk with journalists.
About 23,000 United States soldiers are in Afghanistan. Mrs. Clinton has said she wants to see more troops sent to Afghanistan, without saying how many.
Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, the American commander in Afghanistan, gave Mrs. Clinton and her colleagues an update on the security situation, including the pace of reconstruction and the progress of Afghan Army and police training, said Col. Tom Collins, a military spokesman.
After leaving Kabul, Mrs. Clinton went to Lahore, Pakistan, where an official said she met with General Musharraf, a major ally in the American effort against terrorist groups.

She already visited them once and this is the proof that the military doesn't trust her. The reason why he has his finger crossed is an old military trick of showing that you are being forced to lie. Mostly it is done for POW when they are forced to lie aboput their treatment. This GI showed that he was forced to take a photo with Hitlery Clinton.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

She already visited them once and this is the proof that the military doesn't trust her. The reason why he has his finger crossed is an old military trick of showing that you are being forced to lie. Mostly it is done for POW when they are forced to lie aboput their treatment. This GI showed that he was forced to take a photo with Hitlery Clinton.

"Hitlery Clinton"?
Sure hope any Active Duty Troops here don't try that one.
Checking the DoD it is still against the Law for Troops to use Contemptuous words when talking about Elected Federal Officials.

Department of Defense
DIRECTIVE
NUMBER 1344.10

E3.3. EXAMPLES OF PROHIBITED POLITICAL ACTIVITIES
In accordance with the statutory restrictions in 10 U.S.C. 973(b) (reference (b)) and
references (g) and (h), and the policies established in section 4., above, of this Directive,
a member on active duty shall not:
E3.3.1. Use official authority or influence to: interfere with an election, affect the
course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue, or
require or solicit political contributions from others.
E3.3.2. Be a candidate for civil office in Federal, State, or local government,
except as authorized in paragraph 4.2., above, of this Directive, or engage in public or
organized soliciting of others to become partisan candidates for nomination or election
to civil office.
E3.3.3. Participate in partisan political management, campaigns, or conventions
(except as a spectator when not in uniform), or make public speeches in the course
thereof.
E3.3.4. Make a contribution to another member of the Armed Forces or a civilian
officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of promoting a political
objective or cause, including a political campaign.
E3.3.5. Solicit or receive a contribution from another member of the Armed
Forces or a civilian officer or employee of the United States for the purpose of
promoting a political objective or cause, including a political campaign.
E3.3.6. Allow or cause to be published partisan political articles signed or written
by the member that solicits votes for or against a partisan political party, candidate, or
cause.
DODD 1344.10, August 2, 2004
11 ENCLOSURE 3
E3.3.7. Serve in any official capacity or be listed as a sponsor of a partisan
political club.
E3.3.8. Speak before a partisan political gathering, including any gathering that
promotes a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
E3.3.9. Participate in any radio, television, or other program or group discussion as
an advocate for or against of a partisan political party, candidate, or cause.
E3.3.10. Conduct a political opinion survey under the auspices of a partisan
political group or distribute partisan political literature.
E3.3.11. Use contemptuous words against the officeholders described in 10 U.S.C.888 (reference (b)), or participate in activities proscribed by references (c) and (d).
E3.3.12. Perform clerical or other duties for a partisan political committee during
a campaign or on an election day.
E3.3.13. Solicit or otherwise engage in fundraising activities in Federal offices or
facilities, including military reservations, for a partisan political cause or candidate.
E3.3.14. March or ride in a partisan political parade.
E3.3.15. Display a large political sign, banner, or poster (as distinguished from a
bumper sticker) on the top or side of a private vehicle.
E3.3.16. Participate in any organized effort to provide voters with transportation to
the polls if the effort is organized by, or associated with, a partisan political party or
candidate.
E3.3.17. Sell tickets for, or otherwise actively promote, political dinners and
similar fundraising events.
E3.3.18. Attend partisan political events as an official representative of the Armed
Forces.

Checking Title 10 USC

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access

[wais.access.gpo.gov]

[Laws in effect as of January 20, 2004]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 20, 2004 and December 23, 2004]
[CITE: 10USC888]

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART II--PERSONNEL

CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

SUBCHAPTER X--PUNITIVE ARTICLES

Sec. 888. Art. 88. Contempt toward officials

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 Homeland Security,
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.

I see Members of Congress are still covered, and the DoD Directive makes it illegal for all Members, not just Officers.

In short I do not view the Troop in the picture as being a good Troop, not in the least bit. If I were in charge I would find a way to get rid of him. The United States Military is to be Non-Political, and that is part and parcel with what makes the United States Military the best Military, in my opinion.

I'm sceptical about politicians of any party making 2-3 day visits to operations zones. What do they really learn from such a short visit? Can't they get the same information from the same people via video conferencing?

And if their quick fly-in fly-out visit is because they want to get a "real" feel and a "real" experience of what the situation is "really" like shouldn't they be staying weeks not days.

Seems like political PR to me.

In fact seems like an abuse of the military by elected officials. Not too surprised then when signals (not words) are used to express true feelings.

Originally Posted by Padre

I'm sceptical about politicians of any party making 2-3 day visits to operations zones. What do they really learn from such a short visit? Can't they get the same information from the same people via video conferencing?

And if their quick fly-in fly-out visit is because they want to get a "real" feel and a "real" experience of what the situation is "really" like shouldn't they be staying weeks not days.

Seems like political PR to me.

In fact seems like an abuse of the military by elected officials. Not too surprised then when signals (not words) are used to express true feelings.

While I agree Padre, that members of the Legislative and Executive Branch, from both Parties, have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan for Photo Ops, and or a quick bite to eat, what happens in American Politics is when the Politicians are trying to make a point about the issue, even if they have talked to Flag Officers about what is or is not going on, Flag Officers who have been on the ground, in the Combat Zone.... well another Politician not agreeing with them will ask if the other has ever been there in person, and if it be the case that they have not, well the argument is over if the one who asked has been there, even for 15 minutes.

Wish she had stayed there.... LOL

Originally Posted by Gator

While I agree Padre, that members of the Legislative and Executive Branch, from both Parties, have gone to Iraq and Afghanistan for Photo Ops, and or a quick bite to eat, what happens in American Politics is when the Politicians are trying to make a point about the issue, even if they have talked to Flag Officers about what is or is not going on, Flag Officers who have been on the ground, in the Combat Zone.... well another Politician not agreeing with them will ask if the other has ever been there in person, and if it be the case that they have not, well the argument is over if the one who asked has been there, even for 15 minutes.

I see your point Gator. Totally right. It's a shame it's that way though. It's also an expensive tax-payer funded means to counter-argue with opponents, but your point is ever so true.

Originally Posted by Padre

I see your point Gator. Totally right. It's a shame it's that way though. It's also an expensive tax-payer funded means to counter-argue with opponents, but your point is ever so true.

While Security is tight when such folks are in or around the Theater of Operations, I believe they all go by Military Transport into the Theater, except for the President and Vice President, which is still counted as a Military Aircraft, but one with more limited function, but it is the Presidents Aircraft to use as he sees fit, and the Troops do like seeing the CinC in Theater. As for the others, we have plenty of other Military Aircraft.
The worst part of it all is as you pointed out, thinking that they actually know something about the situation, and then come home and craft policy around what they think they know.