Replies

"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."

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.

Interesting enough that Mike Wallace brought up George Washington. I was thinking someone should create a show like the "West Wing" set during the Revolutionary War but based on current events like a blowhard from Boston in the Continental Congress critizing the Commander in Cheif and the war in general, former military leaders complaining about stalemate and lack of leadership and demanding resignations, etc.

Only thing is that all that really happened to George Washington that is happening to George Bush. I read a newspaper article that was the most hateful and partison but it wasn't Moveon.org or New York Times about Bush but a paper about Washington.

If Mike Wallace and others studied history they would see that there was people who acted just like the left in 1776 and during the civil war and right before Pearl Harbor and those reporters, politicans, etc have been proven wrong and ignored as refuse in the dustbin of history.

The stupidity and ignorance of Neuwarth's comment about non military people not having the stufff to lead us in war boggles the mind. Presdident George Washington never lead the nation in war.Neither did President Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor,or Ulysses Grant. Pres. William McKinley, a former Civil War General did, and Dwight Eisenhower ended a war and GHWB led a brief, but successful, conflict. Though I doubt his days as a TBM pilot contributed greatly to that success.

Only Korea was started and led by a Pres. with actual military experience, Harry Truman. Lincoln served two months in the Illinois militia. Wilson wouldn't have known an artillery battery from a car battery, and FDR served as Ass't SecNav, and saw the Navy as his personal yacht collection.

The idea that such ignorance can be displayed by two leading media elites should anger all Americans of any political viewpoint.When the shapers of opinion display utter ignorance of the topics in history they were chosen to comment on it's time to clean house and open the jobs up to the viewers of the History Channel. UGH!