If 90% are Republican, then you should be GLAD the democrats are after the remaining 10% - you are the one who wants balance.
ANd retired folks ARE allowed to speak their minds on national issues. There is nothing strange or wrong about it.
Balance? I never used that word. I don't want the military or the Foreign Service or the CIA politicized. That seems to be happening more and more.
ANd retired folks ARE allowed to speak their minds on national issues. There is nothing strange or wrong about it.
Of course they are. But to what end and for what purpose? There is no way we can muzzle them except for some rules on reemployment and clearance policies on what they write in order to protect classified information.
It is up to the retired generals/admirals, diplomats, and spooks to exercise some self-restraint recognizing the full implications of what they are doing. They are entering the political arena as a group (not as individuals), which I don't feel is in the long term interests of the country. There is already a tension between career USG employees and political appointees. If the political appointee has to worry that the career employee is going to use "insider" information publicly as a club to discredit the administration's policies, what does that do to the functioning of our government?
The Democrats have had problems with the public perception that they are weak on defense. They see these few disgruntled flag officers as a way to undermine Bush and the war. The generals are just as much tools as Cindy Sheehan. Of course, the disgruntled generals also have their own personal agendas and ambitions. Post #199 provides some of their possible motivations.
What we are witnessing now is unprecedented. Where were the disgruntled generals during the Clinton administration? How were they covered by the MSM?