"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 08:41:45 -0600, "S. Sampson"
wrote:

"Tom Cervo" wrote
Whether his medals or someone else's, the issue is not the ownership,
but the oath--to protect and defend. To obey the lawful orders.
Enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. These are phrases of meaning and relate
to a commissioned officer, who never unless stripped of the rank is
anything less, has an obligation to the President he serves and the
warriors still in the fray. To undermine the support for half a
million fighting men still in harm's way by leading protests against
the duly elected government of his country--that's the sin.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of
public
servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree
which is
warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or
inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to
the
Nation as a whole. ..snip..
Theodore Roosevelt
Kansas City "Star"
May 7, 1918

Wonderful quote Tom. I don't think Lt. Kerry was protesting the
President
though. He was protesting the government, and our forces in battle.
Having
done his time, he then banded with a bunch of long-haired scum, who did
more
to our flag then any Arab or Persian setting it on fire abroad. He
broke
faith, and now he wants to be known as a warrior again. Theodore would
have
shot him
on sight, and the public would have applauded "Bully!"


I agree. While Teddy's quote is excellent and very true, it should be
noted that it applies to the citizenry, not the commissioned officer
corps. The idea that the military is free to "support or oppose" as
they judge appropriate is the foundation of anarchy.

I didn't notice such pious statements of patriotism when Clinton was
President.
Whether by civilians or military, or deserved or not, he was vilified and
besmirched on numerous occasions and nobody was muzzled because of it.

Where were YOU during those years? You never heard about the admonitions and
outright threats of legal action regarding making comments prejudicial to
Clinton when he was in office? IIRC one officer was facing a potential
courts martial for writing an OP-ED piece that did not protray the C-in-C in
the best light, to say the least.


Turn about being fair play, I think those who happily dished it out in the
past
need to stop whining and learn how to take it.

I think you need to get your facts straight.

Brooks


George Z.