Redstate

The MSM and the Democrats will go berserk over the President doing this. The story line will be how the President used the troops for political purposes.

However, I think the American public, except for the lefties and the brain dead will understand what he is doing and will catch the symbolism.

The question is will he do it?

"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-

The fact the question even has to be raised explains a lot about how we got to this point.

For one thing, the UCMJ has some regulations about the politicization of military service. I'm not suggesting that it would ban them from attending something like a veto ceremony -- people more familiar with the regulations would have to answer that.

But aside from that, I tend to think, as a matter of general practice, that we should leave our military personnel out of political matters as much as we can.

How can you say the president should leave the military personnel out of political matters, he did not put them into it, the liberal congress did that by adding $24 billion in pork to the war spending bill. What does needing storage for peanuts in Georgia have to do with the war. If anyone is using the military as political pawns, it is the dumbocrats!!!

Obviously, the military -- as an institution -- is politicized. It gets its funding from Congress, which is filled with politicians acting politically.

But I'm talking about the politicization of the people in the military...ie, using them as props for a wholly political exercise like a signing (or, in this case, veto) ceremony.

I just don't think it's a good practice for our republic. And there's a reason that the UCMJ has restrictions to those ends. We'd never want to descend to the point where many Third World countries find themselves...one political strongman (or, in our case, party) "owning" military allegiance and other political actors finding themselves in conflict with them.

Other than Article 88 there is no prohibition at all like you suggest.

Don't make stuff up to try to score debating points. It irritates readers and beclowns you.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

And if you can't manage to recognize those people as being *real*, at least learn to fake it better.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.