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
(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.
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.