Colorado Republican House member Marilyn Musgrave facilitates violation of military rules
Politicians huddle to refine message: GOP looks to filling promises on budget, values
When politicians use the military…
[T]he White House now has a plan to use, and is already using, active-duty US servicemen for partisan political purposes - which is kind of a big deal in a democracy where the military doesn’t run the country, and where the war in Iraq and the war on terror are supposedly not political stunts…. Well, conservative Republican House member Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado (the lead force behind amending the US Constitution to take away the rights of gay Americans), actively facilitated the use of our servicemembers, IN UNIFORM, at a partisan Republican political function.
Yes, if you look behind Rep. Musgrave, you will see a man in uniform, there to represent the Administration at a partisan Republican function. That this is illegal should surprise no one. After all, if our government will engage in warrantless wiretapping, why would it not use the military to engage in propaganda activities?
When God is on your side, as people like Musgrave clearly believe to be the case, mere laws are simply an inconvenience, an obstacle to the full achievement of their Conserrvative agenda. Besides, there’s a war on, and if the Bush Administration and it’s proxies can’t control and direct the public debate, they’re not going to be able to defeat the terrorists, are they?
Sometimes, you just have to think outside the box, or in this case, the law. To paraphrase the late Nikita Kruschchev, you can’t make an omelette unless you’re willing to break a few eggs, eh?
Here’s a thought. Bob Novak pretty much put us on notice a couple weeks ago that the White House and the RNC were going to make a habit of using uniformed military personnel as props at Republican political rallies. This despite the fact that it is a plain violation of military regulations banning politicization of the armed forces.
Now, with Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s (R-CO) event in Colorado we seem to have the first actual example of it.
My gut tells me this isn’t the only one. But in the nature of things the notations of it will show up only in local papers, well under the radar of the national press.
Why is the ban on using uniformed military personnel for partisan political purposes so important? Well, outside of keeping the military separate from the government, I’ll just let Josh Marshall tell you why:
The existence of this ban and the enforcement of it are hugely important both to good order and discipline within the military and to preserving our democratic republic. The military can’t be made into an arm of one or the other political party. Nor can the executive be allowed to enlist members of the armed forces, either individually or en masse, willingly or not, as soldiers in his domestic political battles.
Shred this barrier, and this country becomes just another banana republic with a military government. Call me alarmist if you must, but maintaining civilian control of our military is one of the safeguards built into our Constitution. It’s worked well for 230 years now, even in a world populated with countries whose military calls the shots for it’s government.
Sure, the Bush Administration and it’s proxies like Marilyn Musgrave doubtless see no issues in using uniformed personnel to buttress support for their Conservative agenda. The fact that it’s illegal is merely an inconvenience. When you control both houses of Congress and the executive branch, you can do pretty much what you choose if you’re so inclined. Besides, it not as if Democrats have the cojones to actually do anything about it.
WE DESERVE BETTER….
