Applesauce » It used to be considered treasonous to criticize the commander-in-chief in a time of war

It used to be considered treasonous to criticize the commander-in-chief in a time of war

March 31st, 2009 at 09:17pm Pat Cunningham

Back during the Vietnam conflict, we dirty hippies frequently were told that our antiwar sentiments were ipso facto unpatriotic and that we should all be run out of the country.

And then, just a few years ago, during the worst times of the war in Iraq, even the slightest complaints about the Republican administration brought accusations from the chickenhawks at Fox News that we were ”putting U.S. forces in jeopardy” and that our “attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason.”

Ah, but that was then and this is now. President Obama is now sending more troops to Afghanistan, but the superpatriots at Fox News suddenly feel no reluctance to vilify the current commander-in-chief during this time of war.

Bob Cesca puts the contrast in perspective HERE.

POSTSCRIPT: All of this reminds me of the bogus quotation from Abraham Lincoln that was widely circulated among conservatives a few years ago in their efforts to silence congressional critics of the war in Iraq.

I posted THIS about the matter five months ago.

Entry Filed under: Uncategorized

15 Comments Add your own

1. lyle nubbins | March 31st, 2009 at 9:48 pm

Don’t you agree with Fox, since they are criticizing Obama’s decision to increase troop levels in Afghanistan? Fox is adopting your anti-war position, right? For you it’s like sports and the liberals are your team, like a kid who thinks whatever his Dad thinks. You should agree to a public debate and I will SHRED YOU.
2. Pat Cunningham | March 31st, 2009 at 10:01 pm

Debate away, pal. This is public, and nobody’s stopping you. Or did you want to rent a hall and sell tickets? By the way, I was never against the war in Afghanistan. I’m just against the hypocritical chickenhawk pseudo-patriots at Fox News. Gee, you’re not like those creeps, are you?
3. snuss | March 31st, 2009 at 10:18 pm

What war? All we have now is an “‘Overseas Contingency Operation.” There has been no more “War on Terror”, since The Messiah took charge. Haven’t you been keeping up with your talking points memos, Pat?
4. carpentr85 | March 31st, 2009 at 10:36 pm

i would like to know where cindy she whats her name, and rosie bush lied troops died o’donnel are. shouldn’t they be speaking up about now. it is funny how bush was likened to hitler by the dems during the worst times of the war. hey pat did you post anything about that?
5. EffMuh | April 1st, 2009 at 12:14 am

Pat, are you really a sentient being? I mean, that post… I usually never read your tripe… but um, really, are you an inanimate object? Did you just even put a statement like that in a public forum? Seriously? I can’t even imagine that YOU would be so emboldened by your messiah that you could even imagine saying that. Your statement was so illogical that I’m surprised your computer didn’t crash as you were writing it.

I hope this gets on Drudge.
6. Pat Cunningham | April 1st, 2009 at 6:25 am

EffMuh: Why don’t you tell us exactly what you disagree with and why? C’mon, you can do it. Pull yourself away from Drudge, turn off El Rushbo, and try to be specific. We all eagerly await your thoughts.
7. DingDong | April 1st, 2009 at 9:12 am

Since you had to mention your other patron saint Lincoln and your revisionist history of him. I thought I would throw out a true quote. Yes, you were a bunch of dirty hippies. Lets see what did the dirty hippies give us: rampant STDs, destruction of the family, current drug problems. Thanks for you help.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”
8. Pat Cunningham | April 1st, 2009 at 9:25 am

DingDong: You’re probably so proud of yourself for having come up with a Lincoln quote that’s already familiar to all of us who have ever studied the man’s career.

We students of Lincoln also are aware that he evolved during his presidency and came to the view that slavery had to go.

Of course, I recall your having commented here six weeks ago that “the civil war was much more than just about slavery,” which is revisionist nonsense. You sound like a neo-Confederate.

As Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address near the end of the war:

“One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”

Notice that Lincoln referred to the war’s “cause” — singular. The argument that there were other causes is poppycock.

By the way, DingDong, where do you get off accusing me of “revisionist history” regarding Lincoln just because I exposed the use of a bogus Lincoln quotation by conservatives? Are you trying to say that the quotation at issue is legitimate?

As I’ve told you before, DingDong, don’t mess with me when it comes to Lincoln. You’re out of your league on that subject.
9. DingDong | April 1st, 2009 at 9:35 am

I know the truth about Lincoln and have actually read a lot of his writings. I am sure since he said it in one speech it must be true, I mean he was politician. You have to takes his writings and speeches in their totality to come up with an objective opinion. Also, I know quite a bit about southern history. If you think that the Civil War was just about slavery your more diluted than I thought.
10. Pat Cunningham | April 1st, 2009 at 9:41 am

The word you want is “deluded,” not “diluted.” Oh, and your argument that the war was about something other than slavery is utterly ridiculous and usually is employed only by racists and neo-Confederates who like to think that slavery wasn’t all that bad. I hope you’re not one of those creatures.
11. Orlando Clay | April 1st, 2009 at 9:46 am

DingDong wrote: “If you think that the Civil War was just about slavery your more diluted than I thought.”

“Diluted?” ROTFLMAO!

Congratulations, DingDong! You’ve succeeded in getting me off the Applesauce sidelines with that one!

You may know quite a bit about “southern history,” but as far as your knowledge of the English language, well……
12. Orlando Clay | April 1st, 2009 at 9:55 am

You Cons are truly pathetic! You can’t handle the message (irrefutable proof of blatant GOP hypocrisy), so you attack the messenger (Pat). The truth sometimes hurts, doesn’t boys?

Well, one thing’s for sure: The beginning of your eight years of roaming in the wilderness is not off to a very good start. Obviously, introspection is not on the checklist for rebuilding the GOP.
13. carpentr85 | April 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am

i see another obama cabinet member had a small tax glich. ah i guess no big deal
14. Pat Cunningham | April 1st, 2009 at 10:03 am

Welcome back, Orlando. Don’t be such a stranger.
15. Milton Waddams | April 1st, 2009 at 1:20 pm

An OBJECTIVE opinion? That\’s an oxymoron, Dingdong. Opinions are subjective by their very nature, that is what makes them an opinion…