Posted on 12/07/2005 12:22:26 AM PST by strider44
Edited on 12/07/2005 12:55:57 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON — Speeches by President Bush in recent weeks before military audiences about the Iraq war debate have raised questions about partisan issues being brought up in front of U.S. Armed Forces.
While polls may show Bush lagging in popular approval, the U.S. military views the commander in chief warmly, and he shows a likewise appreciation.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
National Security is not supposed to be a partisan issue. If it has become a partisan issue it is the Democrats' fault.
Since the troops will hear nothing but the Marxist Democrat anti-American side on television, in the newspapers, in magazines, in popular music, and at the movies, it only seems fair that they hear their side from the president.
Sorry, but I don't see speeches in support of the Military as "Partisan Issues."
If expressing support for our troops and their mission is considered "Partisan" by the Dims, they are much further gone than I realized. Maybe the Dims could start showing some support for our troops? Nah, we know better.
I think the issue becomes a problem when he mentions the democrats by name, points out flaws in their philosophy etc...and the audience is all military. Then it is a political speech and the miliatry isn't in the business of politics. If Clinton did this in front of the troops, called out the Republicans over some issue...we would have crucified him.
Since the troops will hear nothing but the Marxist Democrat anti-American side on television, in the newspapers, in magazines, in popular music, and at the movies, it only seems fair that they hear their side from the president.
This is the point of the article. You can get all the political slant you want from multiple sources, be it Rush or Frankin - whatever your cup of tea is. You're not supposed to hear partisan politics from the president if the audience is all soldiers in uniform. I think it's a good policy. He should praise the soldiers, their patriotism, valor, talk about miliatry programs - whatever. But he shouldn't mention the other political party in a derogatory manner. You know if the shoe was on the other foot we'd go crazy.
JANUARY 2, 2004 : (AS OF THIS DATE THESE ARE GOV. HOWARD DEAN'S FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS : ) Foreign Policy Advisers Exclusive advisers: Benjamin Barber, Ivo Daalder, Morton Halperin, Elisa Harris, General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret.), Major General Randy Jayne (USAF, Ret.), Franklin Kramer, Anthony Lake, General Merrill McPeak (USAF, Ret.), Clyde Prestowitz, Susan Rice, Jeffrey Sachs, Danny Sebright, Admiral Stansfield Turner (USN, Ret.), William Woodward ---------Governor Howard Dean , http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Dean.asp Several of these folks also show up with Robert McNamara and Joseph Wilson among others at: Secure America , http://www.secureamerica.us/html/about_advisers.html 40 posted on 06/13/2004 10:02:00 PM PDT by Fedora
Whenever I hear President Bush rightly responding to bogus Democratic lies, I harken back to Barry Goldwater's brilliant comment in 1964:
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
It is what has kept the US safe and free the past 230 years.
This idiot Marine Gen. Hoar apparantly thinks that when someone joins the military they forfeit their rights to vote, or of free speech, or to participate in the political process.
As Bugs Bunny said, What a maroon!"
Hoar is a member of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, a very political group using its military and diplomatic credentials for partisan purposes.
When the Dems (Kerry, for example) are calling the soldiers "terrorists" and claiming our soldiers are dying for "lies" and "propaganda", the President has little choice but to respond.
FAILING to do so could lead to far greater disiplinary problems. (Soldiers might worry about being branded or charged criminally)
This situation should be placed squarely on the people who are responsible: the Democrats!
I remember under McPeak the Air Force didn't have Christmas and it was called fall festival for halloween and Holiday season for Xmas or some crap.
If the Republicans in 1943 were saying the kind of things the Democrats are saying now, would Roosevelt have hesitated to denounce them to the troops? I think not.
The Democrats are denigrating the troops, comparing them to NAZIs, saying they are torturers, telling them they are fighting for nothing, saying they will lose. It is the Commander-in-Chief's DUTY to let them them know they are supported by the American people.
Somebody has to stand up for our military, and I thank God that Bush is finally doing that.
The rest are mostly diplomat types. Interestingly, a lookalike organization appeared in Australia shortly after this US group made its appearance. There's probably a UK equivalent as well, since so far in this war these things have always seemed to be choreographed among the internationalists quite well.
Current and former top US military brass dispute White House claims that Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US and that it must be dealt with militarily. In late July 2002, The Washington Post reports that “top generals and admirals in the military establishment, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff” believe that Saddam Hussein's regime “poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.”...[Their position is that the US should continue its policy of containment, specifically sanctions and the enforcement of the US- and British- imposed “no-fly” zones. [The Washington Post, 7/28/02] ]Hoar's interest may have to do with Lyndon LaRouche- at least he's been interviewed by LaRouche's mag:
May 21, 2004 issue of Executive Intelligence Review INTERVIEW: GEN. JOSEPH P. HOAR `The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day; Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'
Here's the Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177906,00.html
Sorry about that.
He should respond to their attacks, just not in front of troops in uniform. I'm deployed right now in Kuwait. I fly UH-60s into Iraq almost daily. If and when Bush comes to visit my base, I'll be there to hear him. I just don't want to hear him attack Democrats, Rebuplicans, Libertarians etc. The miliatry is non-partisan. It has to stay that way. Plus it shows the president has some class by not stooping to Kerry's level. We have plenty of attack dogs on the right, and for the most part they do their jobs well. Bush can attack the Dems all he wants (I wish he did it more), I'm for it, just not in front of the troops.
He can and should hold the Dems accountable. Go yell it from a mountain. I just think he shouldn't do it in front of a bunch of active duty soldiers in uniform.
Why not?
The Dems are attacking the troops in uniform. Someone's got to defend them and it sure isn't going to be the press. No one else will get air time. And we cannot expect the troops to carry a spare set of civies everywhere they go just in case they want to hear the President give a speech. Nor should we expect the President to casually sacrifice troop morale to the incredibly naive concept of "being above the fray." That's like being above "getting wet" when your friends are drowning.
Democrats Use Weekly Radio Address to Criticize Bush
AP ^ | Nov 12, 2005
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democrats have enlisted a retired Marine general to attack the Bush administration on Veterans Day over its care for the nation's vets.
Retired Marine General Joseph Hoar used the Democrats' weekly radio address to say President Bush consistently refuses to provide enough money for veterans' health care.
The former U-S military commander in the Middle East also says the White House isn't taking steps to provide adequate mental health care for soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. He says thousands will need it.
The AP's David Melendy explains further in this audio clip.
What the Democrats fail to realize is that every criticism on how the war is being fought is a direct criticism of the Military and not the President. President, Congress, they are big decision makers (Policy) the democrats have charged day to day combat mistakes were being made in Iraq. Things that the President had no control over i.e., securing ammo dumps at the start of OIF, Troop strength levels these are Joint Staff and Task Force Commander calls not the Presidents. If the Democrats really understood day to day military operations they would shut up about commenting on the progress of the war because like I said every comment they make is a direct reflection of our military leadership. Therefore I believe that it is more than justified that the President tell the troops how well they are doing and tell them which politician is saying what about their progress.
What is it with Marine officers and the Democrats?
Somebody needs to write a book about 21st Century Warfighting so that America can understand the big picture on how a war is actually fought.
And the Dems don't have the testicular fortitude to do it to their faces, only behind the military's back to safe audiences.
Cowards.
***JANUARY 2, 2004 : (AS OF THIS DATE THESE ARE GOV. HOWARD DEAN'S FOREIGN POLICY ADVISORS : ) Foreign Policy Advisers Exclusive advisers: Benjamin Barber, Ivo Daalder, Morton Halperin, Elisa Harris, General Joseph Hoar (USMC, Ret.), Major General Randy Jayne (USAF, Ret.), Franklin Kramer, Anthony Lake, General Merrill McPeak (USAF, Ret.), Clyde Prestowitz, Susan Rice, Jeffrey Sachs, Danny Sebright, Admiral Stansfield Turner (USN, Ret.), William Woodward ---------Governor Howard Dean , http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_01-02/Dean.asp Several of these folks also show up with Robert McNamara and Joseph Wilson among others at: Secure America , http://www.secureamerica.us/html/about_advisers.html 40 posted on 06/13/2004 10:02:00 PM PDT by Fedora***
What are you implying. Please explain your point.
More sour grapes by the losers on the left.
If this is a correct quote, then it is inappropriate in front of a military "rent-a-crowd."
Agree.
Putting the politics aside for a minute...The question is:
Should a sitting president, Republican or Democrat (or whatever)give a political speech that pointedly criticizes the other party or other party politicians by name to a group of ACTIVE DUTY SOLDIERS IN UNIFORM?
And again - if Clinton had done this everyone here would be apoplectic.
I'm a card-carrying Republican and deployed to boot. Yet I can see how this is something a president should not do. The troops should not be involved in partisan politics, no matter how F*cked up the Democrats are.
There is no problem with retired military being involved in politics. Did I miss your point?
We don't give up our right to vote and participate, but we can't be in uniform or use our position when endorsing a candidate.
I know exactly what you are talking about. My troops and I suffered through the Clinton years knowing full well that he hated us and we hated him. Only the tradition of non interference in politics and respect for the Constitution kept the US military out of the White House while he was President.
This article is another example of how FOX has willingly joined the sleezy MSM and does not hesitate to print vile, anti Bush, anti military crap along with the rest of the garbage can lining media. As a result, this retired officer does not watch their "fair and balanced" news any more.
While I tend to agree with your sentiments, I also believe unusual times require unusual actions, especially when we have former presidents and current politicians blasting the troops and the President on foreign soil and at home.
I also believe, if someone checks the record, Pres. Bush was not the first to make such remarks to the troops.
The criticsm by the Left regarding this matter is an attempt to change the subject.
Many prominent Democrats have taken up the cause of the enemy and are working tirelessly in the MSM to destroy the morale of our soldiers and Marines and to buoy up the spirits of the terrorists. Bush, as commander in chief, would be derelict not to respond vigorously and directly to these attacks.
Democrats in Congress are using their privileged political status as a shield to get our men and women killed. They must be met personally and directly in this battle of words by the only official capable of effectively taking the battle to them. The proper place to lead that battle is out in front of the troops.
"I know exactly what you are talking about. My troops and I suffered through the Clinton years knowing full well that he hated us and we hated him."
Totally agree, and witnessed many Chief Petty Officers go ashore without retirement ceremonies because they refused to publicly accept the certificates from President Clinton.
This Admiral Crowe guy is a real piece of work. He was Reagan's JCS and knowingly endorsed a draft dodger from President. He sold us out...Pay and readiness went way down through out the 90's, while he got his ambassador gig.
It cracks me up to hear him cite Saddam was not a threat after his company BIOPORT received a $150 Million no bid contract for Anthrax Vaccine given to those enforcing Sanctions and No Fly Zones in the Gulf.
I somewhat agree with you, but I think it is important for the CINC to refute the bogus anti-military crap comments loudly and publicly to the troops themselves. That means naming names and kicking butts.
Thank you for your service, Strider. I was in Desert Storm (Version 1.0).
Our military forces respect and honor the current commander-in-chief because he does genuinely honor their sacrifice and warrior mindset and beause he uses his office as a bully pulpit to defend them personally and directly from attacks by the corrupt anti-military politicians that are concentrated in the Democratic Party.
If Bush were to remain silent in the face of this onslaught, he would be sending the political equivalent of the message the Clinton administration sent to the commander in Somalia who requested heavy armor to rescue the Blackhawk Down Rangers: "Can't do it. It wouldn't be politically correct."
Morale would plummet, and Bush would lose the respect of the troops. God bless President Bush for using his office to fight the good fight against all enemies foreign and domestic on behalf of the men and women in uniform.
Crowe has been on my sh** list since he did sell out to get his ambassaborship. He turned his back on his sailors for a few pieces of silver. Wes Clark has done the same thing to the Army.
I recall sitting in my kitchen in Frankfort KY, while assigned to the ROTC at UK and watching the election returns come in when Clinton was elected. The first state the networks called for Clinton was my own Georgia. The tears rolled down my face because it sent a loud and clear message to me that my own neighbors back home didnt care about me or our Army. They would elect a draft dodger to be our Commander in Chief. I will never forget that night, the pain and hurt. What the people back home do and say DOES matter to our soldiers, it matters a lot.
The man who presided over the destruction of the CIA.
Oh, goody.
Hoar is the one politicizing the military. He is a partisan Democrat who has been a critic of the war from the get-go. It was John Kerry who trotted out the generals and admirals at the Dem convention and reported for duty. Hoar was one of them. The fact that this was not noted is indicative of the MSM's ignorance or partisanship. Shame on Fox News.
Do you think the soldiers are too fragile? I wouldn't respect a man that didn;t confront lies about the mission. The troops need to hear the president confront this crap. I know my Marine son sure appreciates it.
i'm calling you on this. I think this "if clinton did this" form of arguing is not only childish, its almost always dead wrong. I have never ever recall reading any Freeper that cried about Clinton's speeches to the troops. We all appreciated his attention to them. We did take issue with his comments but never his commenting in front of troops.
My pet peve is the argument "if Clinton" its stupid, juvenile and virtually always a lie.
Thanks for the ping!
Not really.
If Republicans had been trashing our military in full, encouraging the enemy to keep fighting in wartime, calling our troops broken down, saying they are the enemy, saying they couldn't win and that they terrorized Iraqi children... I'd have no problem with Clinton calling them to the carpet before an audience of those worthy of their Commander-In-Chief's defense.
Difference is that scenario would be extremely unlikely.
Partisanship is reserved for a debate over tax cuts.
National security, defense of our troops and success in the WOT isn't partisan. The Democrats have made it partisan on their end, but I still see it as something that should be policy universally embraced by every American. And, was, till the hippie generation.
I don't see the Republican President when he gives these speeches. I see the Commander-In-Chief voicing disgust felt by Americans over how a Party has chosen to target our troops and threaten our security for partisan gain.
And from the response of the troops at these speeches, I think they agree and welcome the defense since the MSM refuses to talk to them.
Why? Because it may hurt someone's feelings?
Amazing, isn't it? The Democrats keep bashing this president, this military and its objectives, and yet the troops still love this guy.
You are correct. --- I overstated what I was trying to say in regards to military personnel having or not having the right to get involved in politics.
What I meant to say was that soldiers, sailors and Marines don't give up their right to vote or to cheer their Commander-in-Chief during a speech.
No, they cannot legally speak to the media (without permission from their CO, or whomever), but I do not agree that military personnel should be prohibited from voicing ANY views which might be construed as political.
For example, can a soldier or Nat. Guardsman speak out if Congress decides to slash the defense budget by 50-percent? Or if Congress cuts a soldier's pay, or family housing subsidy?
It can get dicey if you prohibit any political voice, does it not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.