Things were different in WWII because the press wasn't full of leftist, anti-American bastards like you, mike.
The problem is that they only talk to eachother (a parochial exercise where they always find their views validated) and talk at the rest of us. Their tin ears will be their undoing. Even when people rightfully question their leaders and their decisions, the combination of the nastiness of their attacks (e.g., Pelosi, Kennedy) and their wilingness to use otherwise inappropriate forums to launch them (commencement addresses and memorial events) is creating a powerful resentment.
November will see landslides for the GOP.
What a way to honor our fighting men. Bastards.
CHARLIE: "Why did Mr. Wallace say those things about our president?"
GRANDPA JO: "Because, Charlie, he's a nitwit"
Newbarf is an idiot. The commander in chief of the American military is a civilian because the founding fathers wanted to avoid the prospects of a military dictatorship. They also knew that a civilian might be more reluctant to go to war. They also knew that a civilian would get out of the way when war was the last resort (Iraq had 12 years) and let the military run things from there. They also INTENDED for the president (executive branch) to only be responsible for the defense of the United States, not to be responsible for social security, mediscare, war on drugs, the economy, creating jobs, AIDS research, reducing teenage pregnancy, etc, etc, etc. At least the founding fathers had faith in Americans to perform those functions on their own, without the government telling them how to do it.
I saw this comment and had some choice words for the television in response.
In the context of commemorating WW II this "distinguised" baron of the journalism world seems to be attacking President Roosevelt. Because President Bush is a veteran after all (and the son of a WW II hero and former Commander in Chief to boot). Roosevelt was no veteran, and the topic was supposedly WW II.
But in context it was very clear that he was grasping for a way to allow Mike Wallace and himself to continue to discredit the current president without using his name, despite the moderator's request to get back on topic. Thankfully the audience didn't buy it, and the moderator quickly scrambled to try to keep the whole thing from blowing up (the audience was truly getting angry by this point), telling them to save that sort of comment for the questions and answers period at the end.
Unless Al Neuwarth truly believes the military should not be under civilian control, and that Roosevelt was a poor commander in chief in World War II, he's a dishonest creep who amply demonstrated the lunatic left's continuing drift toward saying anything at any time or place to bash the president. If he does believe those things, he's a moron.
You know what gets to me about this?
The fact that these two are showing incredible disrespect to the very people they are supposed to be honoring.
This is a kick in my Dad's ass, my brothers' asses, and my ass.
I used to like Al, but now both of these guys can go straight to hell, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who turns any memorial to our soldiers into a political arena can go straight to hell.
Our soldiers are this country's greatest assets. Not our teachers. Not our engineers. Not our leaders. Not our children. If it weren't for our soldiers, no one else would exist.
I didn't see any major media coverage of the negative side of the speech. My favorite statement when it comes to the biased media: "Again, the silence was deafening."
I was watching that exchange.
Wallace, out of the blue, without provacation, started in about how this war was not "a good war." Then, when he started to feel the pressure, he started saying "let's not make this about Iraq." What a POS. What if they asked him and Al how they would have felt if the press kept calling "their" war a "bad" war? How would they have felt?
Bastards.
Damn bastards.
Wallace has declared himself unfit for duty.
Whether he agrees with this war or not, we're fighting it, and he has chosen the losing side for his allegiance.
As much as I find his behavior embarrassing, I must still have some sympathy for him, since history will be far less forgiving than I am.
Well, of course Mike Wallace is ticked off that Saddam is out of power... Don't forget shortly before the war, Mike trundelled off to Baghdad to interview Saddam, and he was treated like royalty. They loved each other. Saddam loved Mike for the softball questions, and Mike loved Saddam because Saddam treated Mike Wallace with the respect Mike feels he deserves, as one of the elder statesmen of the profession.
The fact that Saddam was a sadistic, psychopathic mass murderer just never entered his mind. Remember, this is the same guy who said that Bill Clinton is a basicly honest guy...
Mark
Neuharth continued:
"They were right with George Washington. He had been a military person. But I'm not sure whether a non-military commander-in-chief, no matter which party he's from and no matter who he or she is, has the background or the instincts to take us to war."
Gee, doesn't that sound like the lunatic general in Dr. Strangelove?
General Jack D. Ripper: "But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought."
This logic would exclude Abe Lincoln, FDR and Woodrow Wilson - The presidents who lead us through and won the three largest wars in American history. The presidents who had a military background, Kennedy and Johnson, gave us Vietnam. You tell me who did the better job.
Why are these traitorous scum even invited to events like this? Hopefully it opened the eyes of those who would otherwise vote for J F'n K because he's a "veteran."
I guess I'm just a little hyped-up from yesterday's Memorial Day service at Fort Snelling National Ceremony in Minneapolis. The despicable Mark Dayton was a speaker that got my heart beating so fast I wanted to sucker-punch the guy and I'm a 5'2", petite middle-aged mom.
He went on to spew about the importance of dissent (which I agree with when it's not all liberal lies!) and basically said he supports the troops and let's bring them home as soon as possible.
What a POS! BTW, he garnered little applause.
What came to my mind when I read this, after "the bastards" that is, was "who the hell invited these prix to speak at this event, anyway?" I am asking this question a lot lately, after reading many posts about so many leftist assholes fouling up one event after another with their treasonous bullshit. I ask again, who the hell invited these prix, anyway? Whoever it was, where-ever it was, those responsible for letting these dogs in the yard to crap all over the place should be kicked out on their own asses!
Those two guys are trash but there is some good news here.
The crowd knew they were trash. They booed and walked out. That's great!