Democrat leaders' disrespect for U.S. military
By Jim Backlin
Created Jun 19 2009 - 11:35am
Just what is it in the DNA of many of the leaders of the Democrat Party which cause them to have such a distain for the United States military and for us combat war veterans?
The most recent example of this was yesterday during a hearing being conducted by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, left-wing Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat from California. She had testifying before her committee, Brigadier General Michael Walsh, from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
General Walsh began his answer to one of Barbara Boxer's questions by saying: "Ma'am." She immediately cut him off saying: "You know, do me a favor. Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am?' It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you."
What makes Boxer's contemptible remarks and her dressing down the Army general so disgusting is that every military person from the private, sailor and airman to the highest general and admiral treats everyone with respect by addressing them as either "sir" or "ma'am" (as in madam.)
Indeed, during the very same day as Barbara Boxer's committee hearing, two Navy officials, including 3-star admiral Bernard McCullough, frequently referred to Senator Roger Wicker, Republican from Mississippi as "sir" and Senator Wicker did not get bent all out of shape as Boxer did.
It goes beyond former presidential candidate John Kerry basically calling us Vietnam veterans, war criminals; remarks revealed during his 2004 presidential campaign. Presidential candidate Barack Obama was hardly a great supporter of the U.S. military.
Columnist W. Thomas Smith Jr. said during the campaign last year that "Obama's disrespect is evidenced in the form of his "not meeting one-on-one with Gen. Dave Petraeus when the Army's grand architect of the 'surge' traveled halfway around the world to meet with Congress; Obama's turning down an opportunity to visit wounded American soldiers during his recent overseas trip (at least he did finally meet with Petraeus), and Obama's refusal to meet with two-dozen Illinois veterans who went to his office in April.
"Let's also not forget Obama's public statement in February of this year that the then-more-than-3,000 Americans who had been killed in Iraq were lives 'wasted.'" And these are just two prime examples of Democrat Party leadership's disrespect for the American military from the past two Democrat presidential nominees.
Other examples of Democrat leaders' distain for our military personnel include the Clinton White House forcing military aides -- some of the cream of the crop of the American military -- to serve them and their guests drinks and hors d'oeuvres. Early in the administration when a top-ranking general or admiral greeted a top White House official, that official insulted the top-ranking war veteran basically rudely saying something like "I don't greet military people."
Numerous anti-war activists in the Democrat Party would spit on and grossly insult many war veterans returning from the Vietnam War. Democrat activist and actress Jane Fonda was actually manning an anti-aircraft gun in Hanoi, Vietnam during the war pretending to shoot down American pilots such as Obama's opponent during the presidential campaign.
Just as insulting to the American troops as the personal insults by leaders of the Democrat Party, is the total disregard by that party for the American people's safety over the past few decades with their drastic cuts of the national security budget whenever they get into power. And the current president and his Democrat-controlled Congress are doing just that: gutting the U.S. military.
It is way past time for the American people to take power away from this party which endangers America's national security and which continues to insult our American troops as evidenced by Barbara Boxer's remarks yesterday in the Senate. The American people can do this by voting no to the anti-military party in next year's congressional elections.
http://www.cc.org/print/1926