Could Admiral Mullen Be the Next Idi Amin...you decide! With Juan Cole dubbing Fox News racist for not calling Obama the "Commander in Chief" (probably because he hasn't been inaugurated yet, Juan), Glenn Greenwald stating that the term "Commander in Chief" is actually deeply offensive, and John Amato thinking the first priority of the new Commander-in-Chief is to bitchslap Petraeus, it's not surprising that some on the left have no understanding of how civilian-military relationships are supposed to function. This evidenced itself with this ridiculous question at a press conference being held by Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. From Castle Argghhh! (full transcript here):
Dumbass Reporter: So on the question here of Iraq, how, with no disrespect, sir, how do you begin to support the president-elect's stated policy of a timetable for withdrawal, not the SOFA? How do you support his policy, stated policy of closing Gitmo, when that is something that you have led troops on for the last term of your office?
How do you, just to help people understand, how do you suddenly shift gears and say, okay, that's what my -- that's the strategy I was leading the troops on before; now I'll do this. Can you help people understand that?
ADM. MULLEN: Well, first of all, as I said in my opening comments, I serve the sitting president and certainly will until he turns it over to President-elect Obama. Should President-elect Obama give me direction, I would carry that out. I mean, that's what I do as a senior member of the military.
It does not exactly come as a shock that the top uniformed man in our Armed Forces would not advocate a military coup like we lived in a god-awful banana republic. Yes, the military is accustomed to following orders, and even the Moonbat-Busting Jonn Lilyea proudly served under the Carter administration. The fact that a reporter asked a question regarding the military's "loyalty" is incredibly embarrassing, and it shows how far journalism standards have slipped.
No comments:
Post a Comment