During the Clinton presidency, I worked with a politically liberal woman who was dating a Marine. She suspected he was a conservative, although he kept his political opinions to himself.
She asked him, “What do you think of Bill Clinton?”
He replied, “I think he’s my commander in chief.”
Right. That’s what a Marine should think about the president. We believe in civilian control of the military, and we expect the military to strive to stay out of politics. (There are limits to that, but it’s generally the right thing to do.)
So it’s rather disturbing that The Biden Administration is trying to enforce ideological purity on the military academies.
We were warned about how Trump was going to be a dictator, “violate norms,” and all that. Biden has been violating norms left and right, and has shown far more signs of being a dictator.
I recall something about Trump “draining the swamp.” If he can do it, why can’t Biden?
It’s interesting you interpret it that way. It’s not as if Trump ever defined (as I recall) exactly what “draining the swamp” meant, but I always interpreted him to mean he wanted to clear out the permanent Washington bureaucracy. I didn’t think of it as a very left vs. right or partisan thing.
As to whether Joe “can” do this, we’ll see. But by enforcing an ideological agenda on the military (and other commissions and such), he is certainly “violating norms.”
Who says that Joe’s draining of the swamp is leftist? That is your interpretation. Of course the extremists on the right will say that it goes without saying that this is a leftwing thing, just as some on the so-called left will say that Trump’s draining efforts, which became very salient and very deep after his humiliating defeat, as a rightwing thing. However you assess those moves on Trump’s part, they were surely made to enhance his power. I cannot at present assess Biden’s moves, but I recently heard (and no, I am not saying that this is a certainty, but rather a cause for alarm) that some of those people did express hostility to current policy, such as women in the military. Moreover, the mere fact that some of them were involved in Trump’s campaign indicates a hostility to American values, as particularly exhibited in his incitement of violence against the Capitol. It is not at all, not in any respect whatsoever, “leftist” or narrowly ideological to support American values against extremists of that kind.
Biden should probably hire a few people like Bolton to make sure that the “convservative” (or shall I say “hawkish”) point of view is in the mix. I for one don’t want to see the GOB vanish in the insanity of Trumpism. It is good to have input from all legitimate sides, but surely not from a hatred of American values à la Trump.
PS I seem to recall someone on this blog stressing time after time that we shouldn’t react to news stories at once, but should wait until events unfold a bit. If Biden appoints people who advocate Marxism or the like, I will be the first to say that he is definitely pursuing a leftist ideology.
Oh, I see that Sean Spicer was one of those appointees to be removed. Well, I saw him repeatedly speak as press secretary. He was behaving very irascibly and childishly. He should have no place in government. There is nothing “leftist” in removing him from any office.
What I have said is that stories should be confirmed by multiple sources before we accept them. This one has. And those multiple sources also say that presidents usually respect the appointments of their predecessors.
And your comments are heavily laced with Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have it so bad you probably can’t see that.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” is merely a label that people use who absolutely refuse to admit that Trump Is Deranged. But I do definitely see Biden Derangement Syndrome (an excellent term we owe to our local William) on display here.
Be that as it may, I think that in a story such as the one under consideration here should be given some time to unfold, even after multiple sources confirm it. Plainly we cannot say that Biden is doing leftist stuff until we see who he appoints. Spicer has gotta go because he is a clown. Anyone hostile to women in the military has gotta go for obvious reasons.
BTW, what would leftist military policies look like? Warming up to one of the remaining Marxist dictators? Oh wait a minute, Trump was doing that! He even said that he envied that very dictator because his people sit up and pay attention to him. He said it and it is a plain fact on record. Only the deranged will deny it.
QUOTE: But I do definitely see Biden Derangement Syndrome (an excellent term we owe to our local William) on display here.
So, you’ve noticed it too!
QUOTE: And your comments are heavily laced with Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have it so bad you probably can’t see that.
LOL! Are you seriously referencing a “fake” syndrome to refute a legitimate difference in view? But, if you consider such credible, maybe Biden Derangement Syndrome is a reasonable explanation for the perspectives of some conservatives…even to the point of them falsely claiming that Biden nor his administration wasn’t at Dover AFB to receive fallen service members.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/08/29/fact-check-bidens-attended-fallen-service-members-dignified-transfer/5644288001/
Lots of people say stupid things and have to withdraw them; finding examples is easy enough. Other people say stupid things and never withdraw them, which I guess is slightly worse.
But using a USA Today fact check as an example is funny, given that just the other day they had to modify their “Biden-checked-his-watch “fact check” from “partly false” to “missing context”, whatever that means, after the video evidence showed that of course he did. Of all the things I object to about Biden, repeatedly checking his watch — even in a formal context where it’s inappropriate and I can understand why the family members were upset — is at the bottom, but it’s funny that in the race to defend him they didn’t even bother watching the tape.
USA Today is only a partial step above Snopes fact-checking Babylon Bee stories: in both cases they don’t get the joke is on them.
The claim was made that Biden nor his administration appeared at the Dover AFB. The claim was checked by USA Today and others and found to be false. No matter how one feels about the source of the fact-check…it doesn’t refute the fact that the initial claim was false.
What’s interesting is despite a legitimate (and easily verifiable) fact-check, there are those who still believe the initial false claim. They would much rather believe a “lie” about their opponent than what’s true and factual.
That said, if conservatives find it reasonable to use a “fake” syndrome in support of their arguments, it seems reasonable to reference Biden Derangement Syndrome as a possible explanation for why some continue to believe a false claim even after it’s been credibly fact-checked.
I don’t see this ending well. When one side believes that something should be independent of politics to the degree that makes sense so that society can function with healthy institutions, and another thinks that everything is and must be political and pretending otherwise is just a trick their opponents use to preserve power, it’s hard to find a stable state.
Sir John Sinclair: “If we go on at this rate, the nation must be ruined.”
Adam Smith: “Be assured young friend, that there is a great deal of ruin in a nation.”
Great, perhaps, but not unlimited.
QUOTE: When one side believes that something should be independent of politics to the degree that makes sense so that society can function with healthy institutions, and another thinks that everything is and must be political and pretending otherwise is just a trick their opponents use to preserve power, it’s hard to find a stable state.
Indeed it’s difficult to find a stable state…especially when each side believes “their” side is the ONLY legitimate POV. As well, consistently falsely accuses the other side and views such actions as patriotic.
My understanding is that both sides used to believe that these organizations should be above politics, and that terms in office were chosen so they would not coincide with changing administrations — to keep them from becoming so.
Biden has now set a precedent, and the next Republican will probably feel entitled to do the same, so these organizations that were supposed to be above politics will now be political.
Thanks, Biden.
But due to Trump’s severe derangement you can’t consider anything left over from his administration as just “the other side.” We can intelligently deal with conservative vs. progressive, but not with crazy vs. sane. It is not mere politics to remove people who are hostile to the military as it is (e.g. as including women) or to remove people like Sean Spicer who is perpetually cocked and ready to go off. Of course Republicans will probably do the same thing because they have become like madmen trying to take over the madhouse.
So thanks, Trump.
QUOTE: Biden has now set a precedent, and the next Republican will probably feel entitled to do the same, so these organizations that were supposed to be above politics will now be political.
So, it’s Biden who’s setting a precedence??? As I recall, prior to Biden, Trump did the following….
* Held campaign style rallies in front of military troops-engaging in partisan political attacks and rhetoric with service members.
*Public disparagement of military leaders (e.g., Mattis, McChrystal, McRaven, Vindman) to gin up his political base.
* Required Defense Secretary Mark Esper and General Mark Milley to participate in a politically motivated photo-op “stunt” in front of a church in Lafayette Park in DC.
*Ordered active duty military forces to the Southwest border to fulfill a political agenda (despite the law barring the use of troops for domestic law enforcement).
* Threated to use active military to attack protestors.
*Diversion of military funds to build the Southern border wall (to fulfill a campaign promise).
If conservatives had the courage to call out Trump’s politicization actions, maybe there would be less precedence to follow.
So, thanks Trump (and mealy-mouth conservatives)!
Has it been common to have people like Spicy and Kellywise on boards like this? Seems strange to me that they’d be on there. Seems more like rewards for their political service to orange bozo. If it is common, then I have mixed feelings. Maybe it’s time to stop $hl7 like that? OTOH, maybe they add value I can’t see?
Seems weird to get rid of a general because he was appointed by orange bozo. If anybody should be qualified to be on one of those boards, seems like it would be a general to me.
That’s a fair question.
It would be one thing for Biden to ask for the resignation of appointees who are purely political. It’s another thing to ask for the resignation of all Trump appointees.