Adm. Mike Mullen Pulling a "Petraeus" With Partisan Political Comment
John Aravosis at AmericaBlog calls attention to the joint chiefs of staff chair's startling remark about elections being a vulnerability.
From the Washington Post, "The nation's top military officer warned yesterday that the transition to a new American president will mark a "time of vulnerability" as the United States fights two wars, and he said military leaders are already actively preparing for the changing of the guard.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, said the U.S. political transition will be "extraordinarily challenging," particularly as the military is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and faces interference in both countries from Iran.
Aravosis skewers Mullen's outlandish remarks and has a suggestion for Mullen.
"Okay, first off, sounds a little bit like he's questioning the fact that we're having elections. This strikes me as inappropriate coming for [sic] the uniformed military, or anyone else for that matter. It also sounds like he's cranking up the "scary" in order to help the Republicans win the elections. That's just as inappropriate from a member of our military. Then he [Mullen] said the following:
Mullen should review American history. The US had democratic elections during WWII which was fought on two fronts, during the Korean conflict and during the Vietnam war. This is a democracy, of, by and for the people, not a Republican one-party, totalitarian, theocratic, military-ruled banana republic.
Petraeus played this kind of totally inappropriate partisan politics in 2004.
As Brent Budowsky wrote in The Hill (via AlterNet), "Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.
"It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote.
"Beyond taking a political position in a way that an active-duty general should never do, which demonstrates political tendencies that in truth trouble many of the highest ranking military officers today, his forecast and analysis turned out to be almost completely, catastrophically wrong on every level."
Petraeus wrongfully intruded in a partisan way, taking the Republican incumbent, Bush's side, in the 2004 election. Apparently, Mullen believes he should do the same. It was not fitting for Petraeus then and it is totally wrong for Mullen to do this now. If they feel compelled to continue in this fashion, then they should resign and retire.
This is more evidence of Bush's politicized Pentagon and failed policies rejected by the American people, but supported by Bushite Pentagon military flunkies as exhibited by Petraeus and Mullen's inappropriate, anti-democratic behavior.
From the Washington Post, "The nation's top military officer warned yesterday that the transition to a new American president will mark a "time of vulnerability" as the United States fights two wars, and he said military leaders are already actively preparing for the changing of the guard.
"The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, said the U.S. political transition will be "extraordinarily challenging," particularly as the military is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan and faces interference in both countries from Iran.
Aravosis skewers Mullen's outlandish remarks and has a suggestion for Mullen.
"Okay, first off, sounds a little bit like he's questioning the fact that we're having elections. This strikes me as inappropriate coming for [sic] the uniformed military, or anyone else for that matter. It also sounds like he's cranking up the "scary" in order to help the Republicans win the elections. That's just as inappropriate from a member of our military. Then he [Mullen] said the following:
"The transition is unlikely to be smooth, predicted Mullen, who assumed his position seven months ago for a two-year term. He said he hopes to offer a stabilizing influence as a military leader who will bridge two administrations."Gee, you think? You just told all of your men and women that our elections are a "vulnerability" and that the transition won't be smooth - and now you think it might not go smoothly? Perhaps expressing a little confidence in our democracy might be a better lesson to give our troops. Totally inappropriate behavior from a military leader."
Mullen should review American history. The US had democratic elections during WWII which was fought on two fronts, during the Korean conflict and during the Vietnam war. This is a democracy, of, by and for the people, not a Republican one-party, totalitarian, theocratic, military-ruled banana republic.
Petraeus played this kind of totally inappropriate partisan politics in 2004.
As Brent Budowsky wrote in The Hill (via AlterNet), "Shortly before the 2004 presidential election Petraeus did something that active-duty commanders should not do. In late September he wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post obviously as a favor to the Bush campaign, in which he applauded what he called major progress by the Iraqi military, Iraqi police and Iraqi leadership.
"It is bad enough that the general, a smart guy who knew what he was doing, interfered in the 2004 presidential election, in effect advocating the position of the Republican candidate, the incumbent, on the number-one issue of the campaign, only weeks before the vote.
"Beyond taking a political position in a way that an active-duty general should never do, which demonstrates political tendencies that in truth trouble many of the highest ranking military officers today, his forecast and analysis turned out to be almost completely, catastrophically wrong on every level."
Petraeus wrongfully intruded in a partisan way, taking the Republican incumbent, Bush's side, in the 2004 election. Apparently, Mullen believes he should do the same. It was not fitting for Petraeus then and it is totally wrong for Mullen to do this now. If they feel compelled to continue in this fashion, then they should resign and retire.
This is more evidence of Bush's politicized Pentagon and failed policies rejected by the American people, but supported by Bushite Pentagon military flunkies as exhibited by Petraeus and Mullen's inappropriate, anti-democratic behavior.
Comments