SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend....

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sully- who wrote (19129)4/14/2006 6:09:45 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (24) of 35834
 
There are thousands of retired generals & Admirals. So why do 6 of them make hysterical, 24/7 HEADLINE "NEWS"?

It couldn't be another in a long line of manufactured scandals that, like every one before it, just happens to smear the Bush Admin, the military or both, could it?

What do anti-war generals have in common?

Clarice Feldman
The American Thinker

YARGB suggests that most of the anti-Administration Generals rose through the ranks during Clinton’s term in office when he politicized the military:


<<< First it was Wesley Clark. Then Eric Shinseki and Anthony Zinni. Now the New York Times reports on Paul Eaton, Gregory Newbold, John Batiste, John Riggs and Charles Swannack.

What do these former generals have in common?

Well, they are all criticizing the Bush administration and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

But what else do they have in common? Clinton’s politicization of the military.

I’ve blogged about this issue before, citing Jed Babbin’s American Spectator article.

PowerLine has an entry about this politicization citing Dafydd ab Hugh and Victor Davis Hanson.

But what isn’t mentioned is the detectable pattern with Clinton, first with the judiciary, then with the military. Certainly, we have always had contrarian generals.

But Dafydd makes a point:
    “These generals appear to be mostly from the Clinton era. 
Why is that important? Because, while progression through
the rank of Colonel is more or less based upon military
performance, elevation to flag rank is by direct
presidential appointment. They are, in a sense, Clinton
appointees.”
So, if Dafydd and I are right or wrong about this Clintonian politicization of the military, it ought to be clear from documentary evidence such as who recommended each of these men to become a general and what assignments they received during the Clinton administration. >>>

Last night I dined at the home of parents of a Marine in Iraq who reported his commander had circulated one of these screeds against the war to his men because he did not want them to learn of it from the outside. I’ll bet it was a real morale builder for the guys risking their lives and sacrificing to carry out their mission.

americanthinker.com

yargb.blogspot.com
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext