Republicans Use Military as a Stage Prop (Yet Again)… and This Time May Have Broken the Law
Guest post by Rob Diamond
Rob Diamond, a Truman National Security Fellow, is a Senior Vice President at Realty Capital International LLC, a global real estate investment banking and advisory firm. He was previously a Vice President at Bear Stearns & Co. Prior to his career in finance, he served as an officer in the United States Navy, completing deployments in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
You did not have to be paying much attention during Tuesday’s Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address to notice a young Army staff sergeant in full dress uniform seated prominently right behind Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell and enthusiastically applauding and cheering the governor’s attacks on Democrats.
Slight problem, you see. That is probably against the law.
Look it up for yourself right here in the Department of Defense (DoD) Directive entitled “Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces.” The purpose of this DoD Directive is to mirror the Hatch Act, which prohibits government employees from engaging in partisan political activity in an official capacity. Since a DoD Directive is considered to be in the same category as an order or regulation, and military personnel violating its provisions can be considered in violation of Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, our Republican friends may have just caused this brave young soldier to break the law. Thank you for that, Governor McDonnell.
Now, my point is not to single out this young soldier for punishment, but rather to highlight the continued use of members of our armed forces as stage props for Republicans. “Mission Accomplished” — remember that one? Or just consider Sarah Palin’s latest attempt to hold a rally (aka “book tour”) at Fort Bragg this past November. Well, you can now add “Republican Response 2010″ to what is a rather endless list, actually.
It was a Republican administration and Republican-led Congress that sent our military into two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) that were woefully under-planned, under-funded, and under-equipped. We all know that story. It was a Republican administration and Republican-led Congress that left my generation of servicemen and women with a Department of Veterans Affairs unable to meet the demands of millions of new veterans.
It has taken a Democratic president and a Democratic-led Congress to end the war in Iraq as well as finally commit the troops, resources, and strategy necessary to win in Afghanistan. And yes, it has been President Obama and a Democratic Congress that have given the VA the largest budget increase in its history ($15 billion dollars in 2010) and is working tirelessly to create a 21st-century VA to care for our newest generation of veterans.
I know many of you to my ideological right are already leaping out of your seats and shouting, “well then why were there men and women in uniform at the State of the Union address?” Pretty simple answer, actually. The State of the Union is not a partisan political gathering (as the Republican response clearly is). The State of the Union is mandated in the Constitution, and the entire government — Republicans, Democrats, independents — as well the Cabinet and members of the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all gather to hear the president address the nation. The State of the Union is the exact opposite of a partisan political gathering. It is the heart and soul of our government coming together “from time to time” to address the entire nation on the state of our union.
My point is this — Republicans love to stand in front of the military. It is about time they try and stand behind us as well.
26 Responses to “Republicans Use Military as a Stage Prop (Yet Again)… and This Time May Have Broken the Law”
Amen!
I don't know…
While I agree that Republican politicians often use the military as “props,” and the American flag as their “personal property,” I would not support the author's contentions of “illegality” here.
A Democrat
i'm enjoying the youtube stillframe for this video, which shows me that republicans are totally diverse because black women and old asian men sit behind them during speeches.
On the list of things to get upset about this has to be towards the bottom. Unless the sergeant was ordered to go in his uniform, any fault would rest with the sergeant and not the GOP, and even then it's a pretty weak claim.
I suggest that we impeach Obama. He is after all………
Killing innocent women and children in Pakistan. A country we are not even at war with. He is murdering women and children with missiles outside the borders of Afghanistan and yet that is a winnable strategy.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_…
When did Progressives become war mongers?
Now your trying to claim the mantle of Lovers of the Military after 4-6 years of this……
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
But as Robert Gibbs….Obama's press secretary said with a straight face……..
“I will continue to say what I’ve said before. You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People — imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler.”
Its funny watching the progressive left trying to cover for their Man Obama. The problem is….Obama is not a bad guy……its the nitwits around him that are dragging him down.
Just like this article………why would you use this guy to blast the GOP when in fact you just spent you entire article claiming how much you love the Military and that the Democrats would NEVER stoop to using the military as a prop for their political aspiration.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/11/19/obama-to-…
Opps is that a political speech? Are those soldiers behind the president? Did he just say what I thought he said?
The progressive message is awfully confusing these days.
“republicans are totally diverse because black women and old asian men sit behind them during speeches”
Norman Goldman, far-lefty radio talker, was bellowing about this on the air recently. As is typical, he reveals more about himself and those like him than anything about the people he was bellowing about.
So good, DLS — now you and Norman Goldman at least have something in common.
Maybe he and you do — and you don't like having that exposed, even unintentionally.
When it took a GOP administration around 7 years to still not win in one and around 5 years for the other. Someone has to win the war or we are cowards for retreating if I remember correctly. Women and children tend to die in larger numbers during combat and especially during arial bombardment. These are things to consider before you start a war, not good or sane excuses to punt on one already in action.
Mr Diamond,
Did you write your own headline? Or do we have a left wing editor? I am trying to figure out if your or your editor is the apologist for anything Democrat. Do you contend that Dick Cheney, in a smoke filled room with the Bilderbergers and the tri-lateral commission willfully forced a military man to put on his uniform and sit behind the Governor applauding and cheering wildly, <ital>or your family will be killed!</ital>
I think I'll write an article entitled 'Democrats once again buy the votes ACORN, but this time they may have mis-appropriated funds' – but TMV would never print it.
My wife is ex-military. Every time she sees someone in uniform at a political event (except as guards or other protective capacity in line with their normal duties) she gets upset. Halfway through the Bush adfrustration she started keeping records of who she saw abusing the military's non-political charter. So far the Democratic side has one instance of misappropriate use of a soldier in uniform, the Republican side is on it's third page. Mind you, this is an informal catalog & not something which she does on a regular basis.
Ergo, when I read some of those above me here who are saying that “it's a pretty weak claim” or abusing a soldier who has served long and well for pointing out what is a well known fact in military families I tend to totally disregard them since they obviously know not wherewith they speak.
At ease.
Ergo, when I read some of those above me here who are saying that “it's a pretty weak claim” or abusing a soldier who has served long and well for pointing out what is a well known fact to any military families
I grew up an Air Force brat as my dad was career military, and I myself was AF reserve for 6 years and active duty for 4, so I have a reasonably good handle on facts well known to military families.What I know is if I wore my uniform to a political event it would have been my fault and not the organizers of the event.
Is this a big enough deal we should go after the sergeant? I would say he should be reminded of the proper wearing of the uniform and probably not much more than that. To do more seems out of proportion to the offense.
Oh I agree with you Mr. Diamond except that our escalation in Afghanistan is just as self defeating as the continuation of our involvement in Iraq. We need to deal with a band of criminals from a criminologists perspective, not massive military expenditures.
Frith_Ra:
Some of those whom you”totally disregard…since they obviously know not wherewith they speak,” probably have seem more military service than the commenter and probably do know a little bit of what they “speak” about.
Please thank your wife for her service.
I do have to agree that political activity (as spelled out in the Uniform Code of Military Justice) precludes active participation in politcal support of candidates. You may not represent the military in uniform at protests or at CAMPAIGN rallies. The article is clear on this.
However, to be at a State of the Union Address applauding the PRESIDENT, or being at the legal GOP response applauding the party that is not of the President's party, is NOT illegal. First of all, there is not protest. Secondly, no one there was running for office.
I'll go ahead and assume that the man in uniform was a Virginian military member, there to listen to HIS governor and Commander-in-Chief of his national guard unit. If that is, indeed, the case, it's no different than the Joint Chiefs of Staff being in uniform with the President. Like many of the times the Presidents (both parties) have recognized uniformed members in the crowd/balcony for whatever reason.
This is a non-issue.
NEXT!!!!
Frith_Ra:
Some of those whom you”totally disregard…since they obviously know not wherewith they speak,” probably have seem more military service than the commenter and probably do know a little bit of what they “speak” about.
BS. Most of the neocon wingers have zero military time behind them. They play easy with WAR because they have no idea what it really is!!
Wrong on so many levels: The person that made that comment is not a neocon winger; has plenty of military service; does know what war; did not “play easy” with the Iraq war, in fact opposed it, etc.,etc
And you left out,
being at the legal GOP response applauding the party that is not of the President's party, is NOT illegal.
JD I'm going to disagree a little bit on this. When this was explained to me way back when we were told to not even give the appearance of using the uniform in a political way, and if there was any question then don't wear it. The GOP SOTU response was obviously a GOP event, and I don't think the soldier should have worn his uniform to it.
The problem is what do you do about it. The GOP response was not supporting any particular candidate and I don't think O'Donnell suggested anyone vote GOP, so it's kind of a gray area. As I said above any fault lies with the soldier unless someone ordered him to wear his uniform, but I don't think the offense is enough to warrant punishing the soldier.
I still maintain that IF the soldier was a Virginia National Guard member, which it appears he is, then it's no different than the Joint Chiefs being at the President's speech, since the Governor of Virginia is essentially the same to that soldier. If we could verify that fact, it would eliminate the issue, or make it obvious that the soldier was in violation of UCMJ.
And despicable as it is, the onus isn't on the Republican Party here. It's on the individual service member. He chose to wear is dress uniform and allowed himself to be placed as a prop for a political event. No one forced him to do either. I'm not sure what the UCMJ proscribes for such a situation. A friend of mine is a retired Army Col, so I'll ask.
Ok if the can't be a person in military uniform in the response to the State of the Union, shouldn't we not have the joint chiefs or anyone else in it during the SOTU itself? Seems whats good for the goose is good for the gander.
“Shouldn't we not have the joint chiefs or anyone else in it during the SOTU itself?”
If I recall correctly, the Joint Chiefs, like the Justices, don't cheer or lend themselves to be political pawns (i.e., strategically placed behind a politically charged speaker).
Their mere presence does not denote political activity.
If I recall correctly, the Joint Chiefs, like the Justices, don't cheer or lend themselves to be political pawns
The Joint Chiefs did indeed stand and applaud at times during Obama's address.
When? Other than at the President's introduction—when even the Justices stand and applaud—-when did you see the Joint Chiefs applaud? I recall them sitting stoically with their hands on their laps throughout the event. And if they did applaud, I assure you, it was not in response to any political rhetoric.
God I can't believe I'm linking to ThinkProgress but here you go:
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/28/joint-chief…
Thanks, DaGoat. I must have missed that. But, protecting America from terrorists isn't quite the politically charged rhetoric in mind. I just watched a good 45 minutes of the speech, and nary a clap from the Chiefs on a whole host of politically charged issues.
Nevertheless, ultimately my point remains. The Joint Chiefs when in attendance at the SOTU do not engage in political activity or lend themselves to be a partisan devise—they are very careful to do otherwise. Our friend at the rebuttal speech was much less inclined to do so.