The wordings of the current oath of enlistment and oath for commissioned officers are as follows:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress established different oaths for the enlisted men and officers of the Continental Army:

Enlisted: The first oath, voted on 14 June 1775 as part of the act creating the Continental Army, read: "I _____ have, this day, voluntarily enlisted myself, as a soldier, in the American continental army, for one year, unless sooner discharged: And I do bind myself to conform, in all instances, to such rules and regulations, as are, or shall be, established for the government of the said Army." The original wording was effectively replaced by Section 3, Article 1, of the Articles of War approved by Congress on 20 September 1776, which specified that the oath of enlistment read: "I _____ swear (or affirm as the case may be) to be trued to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies opposers whatsoever; and to observe and obey the orders of the Continental Congress, and the orders of the Generals and officers set over me by them."

Officers: Continental Congress passed two versions of this oath of office, applied to military and civilian national officers. The first, on 21 October 1776, read: "I _____, do acknowledge the Thirteen United States of America, namely, New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be free, independent, and sovereign states, and declare, that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him; and I do swear that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain, and defend the said United States against the said king, George the third, and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents; and will serve the said United States in the office of _____, which I now hold, and in any other office which I may hereafter hold by their appointment, or under their authority, with fidelity and honour, and according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God." The revised version, voted 3 February 1778, read "I, _____ do acknowledge the United States of America to be free, independent and sovereign states, and declare that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience, to George the third, king of Great Britain; and I renounce, refuse and abjure any allegiance or obedience to him: and I do swear (or affirm) that I will, to the utmost of my power, support, maintain and defend the said United States, against the said king George the third and his heirs and successors, and his and their abettors, assistants and adherents, and will serve the said United States in the office of _____ which I now hold, with fidelity, according to the best of my skill and understanding. So help me God."

The first oath under the Constitution was approved by Act of Congress 29 September 1789 (Sec. 3, Ch. 25, 1st Congress). It applied to all commissioned officers, noncommissioned officers and privates in the service of the United States. It came in two parts, the first of which read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States." The second part read: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me." The next section of that chapter specified that "the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established."

Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789. A change in about 1830 read: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God." An act of 13 May 1884 reverted to a simpler formulation: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God." This version remained in effect until the 1959 adoption of the present wording.

Just because the President has sent soldiers into battle, and has used executive power in the defense of the nation as is his requirement as Commander-in- Chief, you believe that he is an enemy. Surprisingly the military voted overwhelmingly for President Bush in 2004. I believe that the Pew Research put the figure somewhere around 78%.

It seems that the military doesn't hold the same views as you.

dmk

For the Afghanistan / Taliban war? Yes. That is "defense of the nation".
For the Iraq war? If you are calling that war an act "in the defense of the nation (U.S.)", then I suggest you back that up.
If you are not, then kindly disregard...

I think it is the Iraq war that most people have a problem with.
The war which WAS NOT about "defense of the nation"...


I'ld be curious where that poll came from...
I found a different Pew Research poll regarding the military vote which gave Bush a lead, but nowhere near "78%"...
Granted, it specifies "male veterans", but I searched for the other Pew poll you discussed and came up empty...
And considering the typical conservative / Republican leanings of the military, it would appear more of interest as to how Kerry could get that much of the military voting pie...

"A Pew Research Center poll released on July 23 found that Bush led Kerry 49 to 40 percent among male veterans, a group that included active duty military personnel. Non veterans were more evenly divided -- 46 percent for Bush versus 44 percent for Kerry. "
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...s&ct=clnk&cd=5
(The original link was dead, and I had to rely on the Google cached link...)

Other polls show a similar percentage gap between the two.

"A Battleground Poll conducted in late June by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake and Republican surveyor Ed Goeas showed that likely voters among active military and reserve personnel and veterans favored Bush over Kerry, 52 percent to 44.

However, Lake said there was some anecdotal evidence Kerry does better among military wives.

Last September, a Battleground Poll showed Bush's approval rating among military family members at only 36 percent. "
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...29milvote.html

But you'll note the last part, where Bush's "approval rating" among military family members is rather abysmal...

http://www.ptsdhelp.net/

-----------------------------------
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--- Theodore Roosevelt

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ---Benjamin Franklin

http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1221.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011306Z.shtml

What if we just went to war with Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden?? Would any of you have a problem with that??

Kill 2 birds with 1 stone was probably Bush's intention..

RHS is right! Just like how Hitler killed two birds with one stone by going after Poland after Austria!

Intentions fade away to hell!

No I have a problem with "what if" It's pretty non descriptive and not within reality!

Where's bin Laden........
For your future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things:
"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availability with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on
official White House site
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, responding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
—"Because he's hiding…" Bush, explaining why Osama bin Laden has yet to be captured. (Washington Post interview, Jan. 16, 2005)

----------------------
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy” ---James Madison 4th U.S. president (1809 -1817), and one of the founding fathers of this country. (1751- 1836)

I might have been too specific with my earlier statement.
I have NO problem with hunting down bin Laden.


I'm not sure I follow you, because as I interpret the analogy, there are obviously two different stones aimed at two different birds.
I'm all for "killing" the bin Laden/Taliban crow.
That war WAS about defending the nation from an actual attack. bin Laden/Taliban attacked the U.S. on September 11th, 2001.

But it's an entirely different "stone" which is aimed at Hussein.
That war was started on the claim of a threat to the U.S., which turned out to be false. As such, I wish we as Americans (speaking about the president and others) would recognize that the claim was false and STOP SAYING that the Iraq war is about "defending" the U.S.

It just plain isn't.
They didn't attack us.
They weren't going to attack us.
They didn't have the resources which this administration claimed they could attack us with.

If you want to justify the war on Iraq, then give a REAL justification for it based on REAL facts.
People claiming that the Iraq war is about "defending" the U.S. reminds me of the South Park justification of shooting, whereby they shout out "It's coming right for us" before they shoot the stationary animal...

I love how the left uses Hitler in their defenses..If you think Bush is just like Hitler, well then I am happy because you will lose more support from the American people in the elections to come.

What I meant was take care of 2 problems while we are over there. Osama and Saddam...

Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11 though. Osama gets a 3 month head start but Saddam gets taken out.

So many innocent Iraqi civilians have died unjustly that Hitler references aren't too far off base. I mean he did go on national television and declare himself a "War President". It doesn't get much more obvious than that.