Elmer's Brother

Having been a recent member of the military this article by Mr. Taranto makes so much sense.  The majority of the military loves Bush and more importantly the consevative agenda. Everybody knows it (see 2000 election and charges of not wanting to count military absentee ballots) As long as people like this  continue to berate the military it's gonna stay that way. Part of the reason certainly is because Bush is actually using the military for what they are trained for (not some UN sanctioned vital humanitarian,  cut and run when you are afraid it might ruin your legacy operation) What the left can't seem to wrap their brain around is that military members serve regardless of party affiliation, that's why they call it SERVICE. We serve because we love the country and if those in charge can keep that in mind we don't have a problem. Unfortunately they seem to think that reelection is more important than us spilling our blood. What's going on now with Murtha (thanks for your service, now please retire) is that they forgot what it is like to be in the military.

By JAMES TARANTO

"Speeches by President Bush in recent weeks before military audiences about the Iraq war debate have raised questions about partisan issues being brought up in front of U.S. Armed Forces," Fox News reports:

While polls may show Bush lagging in popular approval, the U.S. military views the commander in chief warmly, and he shows a likewise appreciation. . . .

"This is a very bad sign," said retired Marine Gen. Joseph Hoar, who led Central Command in the early 1990s and is an administration critic. "This is the sort of thing that you find in other countries where the military and political, certain political parties are aligned."

Reader Evan Slatis writes: "I wholeheartedly agree with the general. Perhaps if the Democrats had more to say than the military is broken, a bunch of failures destined to lose, and terrorizing Iraqis, they might be more inclined not to be aligned with only one political party."

It also might help if the Dems didn't try to disfranchise servicemen and wage war on military recruitment and ROTC, if they nominated someone who didn't rise to fame by slandering veterans, and if those of them who have military experience refrained from invoking their own service in opportunistic attempts to silence political disagreement.

We're not holding our breath, though.

Related:

On the other hand, San Antonio's WOAI-AM reports that party chairman Howard Dean is embracing defeat:

Saying the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong," Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean predicted today that the Democratic Party will come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all US forces within two years. . . .

"I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam. Everybody then kept saying, 'just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening."