Our friend, dicksmith, at VoteVets’ VetVoice blog thinks that Governor and Presidential candidate, Rick Perry “smeared” the troops’ professionalism;
At his speech before Iowa Republicans Sunday night, [Rick Perry] said, “One of the reasons, one of the powerful reasons, that I’m running for the presidency of the United States is to make sure that every young man and woman who puts on the uniform of this country respects highly the president of the United States.”
Of course, dicksmith can’t think for himself, so he turns to equally illiterate moron Adam Weinstein of Mother Jones to coalesce his thoughts;
Perry is insinuating that “America’s roughly 3 million active-duty and reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines don’t respect President Barack Obama-whose administration drew down their numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan, revamped the Department of Veterans Affairs, increased Pentagon funding, and oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden.”
Really, Richard? They’re supposed to be grateful that Obama has begun pulling them out of Iraq and Afghanistan despite the increasing violence that threatens the results of their sacrifice in those nations? Maybe that’s what you anti-war creeps want, but certainly not a majority of the troops who served there and are now watching their good works collapse.
Obama “revamped” the DVA? How has it improved? They can’t meet deadlines and provide the care and services they promised, but I guess you could call that revamped. He has improved funding of the DVA, but he’s far short of the 800% increase of the Bush years.
Increased Pentagon funding? When? Right before his administration proposed $800 billion in cuts?
And if by “oversaw the operation that killed Osama bin Laden” you mean that he watched it on TV, you might be right, well, except for the period of time that the satellite picture blacked out. But dicksmith makes it sound as if Obama devised the plan and trained the SEALs to the task personally. He watched…remotely…a safe distance away. All he did was give his permission to continue.
American troops are perfectly capable of disagreeing with the policies of a President and still holding respect for the office of Commander-in-Chief. For Rick Perry to suggest otherwise is nothing more than a below the belt smear against their professionalism.
Perry suggested no such thing. What he meant was that the troops need a leader who doesn’t accept the accolades for their efforts…like your “oversaw” comment.
Rick Perry is a veteran, after all. So I can expect VoteVets to support him if he does end up running against non-veteran Obama, right?
Well, obviously if they were honest the name of their organization would be Liberal Vote Vets or Democratic Vote Vets…but if they did that they would probably loose some contributions so we get the obfuscation.
They are being purposefully obtuse for political reasons, they know very well what the Governor meant.
Everyone has the right to say what they want about politics, but I have no respect for people who cloak themselves under a “Veteran/Troop” blanket and say “we support veterans” and then demonstrably exclusively support only one side of the political spectrum.
Compared to these guys the NRA is the rainbow coalition.
“Perry is insinuating that “America’s roughly 3 million active-duty and reserve soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines don’t respect President Barack Obama”
Given that AD military votes usually 3-1 or 4-1 Republican, and seeing how he’s used the military for a photo op and little else, yeah, you could say that.
Gee Dick, where was this increase in funding? It must’ve been right after they slashed retention bonuses 60% a week after Obama won the presidency. Oh wait, maybe it was when the JSF got slashed. Or the shipbuilding, or the end strength for the Army/MC, or maybe it’ll be AFTER the Navy RIFs 4,500 +/- sailors. Would that be when we suddenly fall to our knees and praise the O?
I do like how it goes from “respects highly” straight to disrespects. Apparently they are shy on the nuance gene over there.
Wait a minute….Dick says:
“The United States military is the greatest, strongest, most professional fighting force that history has ever seen. Essential to such a force are good order & discipline and rank structure.”
Didn’t he say a few weeks ago that we were suffering from burn out/fatigue etc, and thus having discipline issues?
Same Dicksmith, different story:
Toxic Leaders
by: Richard Allen Smith
Mon Aug 01, 2011 at 16:12:14 PM EDT
I’ve written here often about the affect of a decade of constant war on the quality of leadership in our military. After a study showing that nearly 20% of E-5s to O-6s see their superior as “toxic and unethical”, the Army Chief of Staff has come to the same conclusion:
“I’m not surprised that some leaders have figured out how to balance the demands on their time better than others,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a statement to Army Times. “We’ll address the concerns described in the report.”
“Ten years of continuous operations have strained the force,” Dempsey said. “It’s important to remember that the vast majority of leaders in the Army are very good and are deeply committed to leading our nation’s sons and daughters.”
And Dempsey is correct that the vast majority of leaders are upstanding Soldiers of whom Americans can be proud. But having an Army whose leaders are 18% crap is no way to fight, and sacrificing leadership to remain in wars that have no military solution is not a good trade off.
We all know that Smith will change his story to fit the narrative he gets from Soros on a weekly basis. You want to take the left’s funding, then you have to dance to their tune, no matter how you have to twist the story to fit.
Given dicksmith’s inconsistency, which is a generous characterization, the article is nothing more than lobbing a glob of mud to see what sticks. Reminds of Robert Gibb’s lie about Governor Perry attempting to secede two years.
dicksmith is just being a capitalist, whether it’s promoting the destruction of America or peddling shamwow.
Let me guess, he’s not bright enough to take the money, he’s a true believer, right? Right?
Major problems with this reasoning. For one, Obama has not drawn down any troops in Iraq. The SOFA that set the pace for the drawdown was written and approved under Bush and implemented primarily by the Iraqi government. So if troops want to be thankful for the drawdown in Iraq, they can thank Bush. Second, what drawdown in Afghanistan?! There are three times as many troops there now as there were when Obama took office. Are the troops thankful to Obama for deploying them more? As far as funding, that is a function of congress, not the president. There is absolutely nothing in the vetvoice article that Obama can take credit for. Literally nothing.
Everyone has the right to say what they want about politics, but I have no respect for people who cloak themselves under a “Veteran/Troop” blanket and say “we support veterans” and then demonstrably exclusively support only one side of the political spectrum.
I agree….unfortunately, that happens near unanimously on both sides of the political spectrum.
Rick Perry is a veteran, after all. So I can expect VoteVets to support him if he does end up running against non-veteran Obama, right?
If I am not mistaken, isn’t Perry the only major candidate of either party who has ever served in the military? There’s definitely something to be said for that. (Oh, and for any Paulbots out there: sorry, but, no, your Crazy Uncle Ron does not count as a “major candidate.”)