Thursday, November 09, 2006

Election Year Rejects

This repulsive blogging activity, pictured above, bears notice here.

Here we have eight soldiers (MN national guard 34th ID, 1st bridage), making a political statement in uniform. This unprofessionalism is a breakdown in discipline and a disgrace to the Army. (cf. DOD Directive 1344.10; Aug 2, 2004, which I assume is promulgated under the UCMJ).

One can only imagine the grave threat to the good order of the corps if other soldiers went down to the Baghdad morgue and sent back a photo with, "Correct, Mr. Cheney, the war is going 'Remarkably Well'. Hoo-Frickin'-Ahhhh....!"

Faced with a photo of this conduct disgraceful to the uniform, is it withdrawn? No. As you can see, it is proudly added to the permanent banner display and the publisher uses it recklessly to politicize the military. If one reads the type below, it actually solicits activities for a particular political party (and elsewhere, money too).

Who is boldly holding up this unprofessional and probably illegal behavior, even after it having been pointed out in the writings as such? A pundit? A loudmouth? No, it is a Professor of Law.

Such Professor, in one column, further suggests:

"Whether or not the old media carries the picture on front pages today (which would have been an obvious decision in any newsroom not deeply biased against the military and in favor of Democrats)" -Nov 2, 2006.

Such drastic indictment begs the question whether the publishers of this photo, (self-reported offshoot of The Heritage Foundation), took anytime themselves to get permission to use the photo, determine who was in it, determine if it is authentic, and consider the implications of further politicizing such activity, before allowing one of their own to abet such misdirected behavior while proclaiming themselves as civilian defenders of the military only in order to trump up support for their political party.

All these actions are surely no defense of the military, but a threat to its good order; and the willful purveying of this photo cannot be understood as poorly formed 'good intentions', after the wrongfulness of it had been raised.

Thus, we have on hand more election year rejects.

No comments: