1
   

Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?

 
 
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 06:44 am
A blogger picked up on the use of uniformed military personel during Bush's response to the Iraq War Emergency Supplemental. The text under the photo reads:

President George W. Bush discusses the Iraq War Emergency Supplemental with the press in the Diplomatic Reception Room Friday, March 23, 2007. "The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq," said President Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/images/20070323-1_d-0555-2-700v.jpg

The Text of his speech is here. with another political point being this:

Quote:
Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The Democrats have sent their message, now it's time to send their money. This is an important moment -- a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people -- and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.


Was this appropriate use of uniformed military?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,120 • Replies: 106
No top replies

 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 06:48 am
The Blogger initially questioning this has the military regulations HERE.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 06:54 am
Where they being used as political props? No question.

Does it violate the military rules of conduct? I doubt it. The President is the commander in chief and wearing a uniform to meet with him is hardly a violation. How the President uses you once you are there is another story.


But did you really think Bush has respect for the military rather than just thinking of them as another pawn to get his way?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 07:06 am
George Bush's speechwriter wrote:
Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win.

That's reassuring to hear. Being in a woman in uniform is one of my favorite sexual fantasies. Keep those funds comin'!
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 07:12 am
Ripeness is all? Nay, proper staging is all.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 07:13 am
Thomas wrote:
George Bush's speechwriter wrote:
Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win.

That's reassuring to hear. Being in a woman in uniform is one of my favorite sexual fantasies. Keep those funds comin'!


In light of the parts of the speech I missed let me rephrase my statement..

Quote:
But did you really think Bush has respect for the military rather than just thinking of them as another pawn to get in?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 08:34 am
Thomas - Laughing
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:08 am
Karl Rove is not particularly concerned with the niceties of eschewing the improper use of military personnel and equipment.

Does anyone remember his making the shortest flight in history to an aircraft carrier to announce "mission accomplished?" Also, remember his "impromptu" discussion with a group of obviously highly-scripted soldiers.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:13 am
The President giving a speech is not a "political" event. It's him doing his job.

More of the same from the left attacking Bush.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:17 am
McGentrix wrote:
The President giving a speech is not a "political" event. It's him doing his job.

More of the same from the left attacking Bush.


I'm sorry, but you are 100% incorrect. Bush was playing politics, not signing bills or running the nation's military. He was b*tching because the Dems are going to get one up on him, and he knows it - he either gets the money and the timetables, or neither, and he's in a bind.

Not surprised to see you protect your Authoritarian masters though, like a good little sheep.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:25 am
McGentrix wrote:
The President giving a speech is not a "political" event. It's him doing his job.

More of the same from the left attacking Bush.


Bush was giving a speech. That's fine. Putting men and women in uniform behind him is politics. There is no requirement for them being there for Bush to give a speech. It was nothing but political theater for them to be there.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:33 am
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
The President giving a speech is not a "political" event. It's him doing his job.

More of the same from the left attacking Bush.


Bush was giving a speech. That's fine. Putting men and women in uniform behind him is politics. There is no requirement for them being there for Bush to give a speech. It was nothing but political theater for them to be there.


Nonsense. What was the topic of the speech?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:35 am
McGentrix wrote:
parados wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
The President giving a speech is not a "political" event. It's him doing his job.

More of the same from the left attacking Bush.


Bush was giving a speech. That's fine. Putting men and women in uniform behind him is politics. There is no requirement for them being there for Bush to give a speech. It was nothing but political theater for them to be there.


Nonsense. What was the topic of the speech?


The Dems getting one over on him in Congress.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:36 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm sorry, but you are 100% incorrect. Bush was playing politics, not signing bills or running the nation's military. He was b*tching because the Dems are going to get one up on him, and he knows it - he either gets the money and the timetables, or neither, and he's in a bind.

This may be true as a matter of content. But the law judges events by its form. And as a matter of form, a press conference is official government business. It isn't "During or in connection with furthering political activities, private employment or commercial interests, when an inference of official sponsorship for the activity or interest may be drawn." When the president of the United States gives a press conference, official sponsorship of the event is already obvious. It needn't be inferred from the presence of people in uniforms.

I don't like that Bush parade around soldiers to emphasize a political point. But John Aravosis's claim wasn't "I don't like it". It was that the soldiers violated military regulations by wearing uniforms at the event.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:38 am
What Thomas said.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:38 am
Why he doesn't just issue a signing statement and ignore the time table is beyond me.... Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:47 am
Yep. That was what Bear and I expected.

Wonder why he didn't do that this time.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:48 am
squinney wrote:
Yep. That was what Bear and I expected.

Wonder why he didn't do that this time.


It hasn't passed the Senate yet. It hasn't made it to his desk.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:49 am
Because he cannot accept the challenge to his authority. The whole 'unitary executive branch' thing is as much about inflated Ego as anything else.

If he starts to backslide, he's in trouble; so they will stonewall as long as they can before the end comes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Mar, 2007 09:49 am
bush is proof positive that you can paint a turd red white and blue, put it on a stick, and a great many Americans will treat it like a corn dog.

Some of those Americans are right here on this thread right now. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Use of Uniformed Military as Political Props?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 05:35:57