RateItAll.com - The Opinion Network
1) Find and share opinions on anything; 2) Publish your own ratings list and share it on any site; 3) Make a little money

Tags for In times of war, it's disrespectful to criticize the commander in chief (Browse Tags)

Ratings Breakdown

  • 9
  • 2

Hottest Topics

Hottest Weblists

In times of war, it's disrespectful to criticize the commander in chiefGet Rating Widget!

Overall Rating:1.18 based on 11 ratings
(Add picture or description)

Your rating:     (Roll over your star rating, then click) (5=Compelling / I Buy It)
Notify me by email when someone comments on my review
Notify me by email when someone reviews this item
 

Reviews for In times of war, it's disrespectful to criticize the commander in chief  1-9 OF 9

Browse next item:
Kerry would have been worse
Sort items by:
REVIEWERRATING & REVIEW
ILikePie (49)
04/25/2008
Isn't it also disrespectful to march an army into another territory under a false pretence when you are actually there for personal fiscal gain?

  (2 voted this helpful, 2 funny and 0 agree)
abichara (60)
05/23/2006
Actually I sort of understand why some people claim that it's almost sacrosanct to disrespect the President, especially in times of war. This is unique among Western democracies and republics. Only in the United States is the President both the Head of State and the Head of Government. In many other countries, especially those which have parliamentary governments like Canada and Britain, the Heads of Government and State are different people. For instance, in Britain, the Head of Government is the Prime Minister, who essentially governs and administers of the political affairs of the country, while the Head of State is the Queen, who represents the country abroad in official functions, but has no real political power. The Prime Minister doesn't embody the state in any way, the Queen embodies the nation. Here in the US, the President is not only the head of government, but he's also the head of state, and as such is the embodiment of the country and its interests and goals. The head of state speaks to certain higher aspects of nationhood, what ties the nation together.

It's a sword that cuts both ways. On the one hand, such an arrangement encourages the President to promote more moderate policies that appeal to a wide range of Americans, but then again, such appeals to American solidarity, especially in times of war, can lead to abuses of authority and consolidation of executive power. In that respect, I think that Parliamentary systems have the edge over Presidential systems like the US. Parliamentary systems can promote moderation while allowing for dissent, an important check which is needed to promote liberty. And of course, its always better to divide power at the top, even if it means having just a weak Head of State.

  (4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
FranksWildYears (48)
05/23/2006
If this were a valid defense, then what administration in its right mind would NOT declare a war on someone.

  (5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Djahuti (54)
05/19/2006
ZEIG HEIL ! Get Goosesteppin there,Schickelgruber!

  (3 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree)
magellan (153)
05/18/2006
I guess I see this pretty differently. In my world, it is precisely now - when we have kids in harms way - that we have a responsibility to question and probe and understand exactly what the endgame is in Iraq.

I see EO's point about there being a right way and a wrong way to do this. Cindy Sheehan's may be the wrong way, for example. But given that the primary justification that was given us about the war never materialized, I think the Bush administration needs to do a better job of convincing us that this is a war that needs to be fought, and not one that we're in solely due to intelligence errors.

  (1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Time4Truth (1)
05/18/2006
In America, we are fortunate enough to have the right to say anything we choose to without fear. This is only one of the many beautiful things about our country but in my opinion, disagreeing with the President isnt even an issue. The problem I have is the way in which some people go about disagreeing with him. President Bush is a human being and for the liberals (ACLU) to scream about respect, understanding and caring for your fellow man from one side of their mouths while at the same time they are preaching hatred, showing disrespect for conservative speakers and protesting funerals of fallen soldiers, which is one of the most EVIL things I have ever witnessed in my life, only proves to Americans and others abroad, that we are a nation of ignorant hypocrites.
Everyone SHOULD question things as serious as a decision to go to war. To NOT question it would be a travesty. Showing your anger coupled with compassion, understanding and intelligence would make liberals seem more rational instead of the shill, screaming, pie throwing morons that they portray themselves to be.

  (4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
CanadaSucks (45)
05/18/2006
A tired argument that no one really believes. . .

  (1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
Drummond (54)
05/18/2006
And since this "war on terror" is probably not going to end for a century, any criticism of any president between now and then is disrespectful?

  (2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
EschewObfuscation (61)
05/18/2006
I couldn't care less about the disrespect. The lefties here (and throughout the country) are so far past disrespect that the term is laughable on this list.

Criticize Bush all you want. Call him a chicken-hawk, war-monger, cowboy, you-name-it. But to call the Iraqi incursion "just like Vietnam" is really stupid. Nobody stateside knows enough to draw that as a conclusion. Very few know enough about Vietnam and how ridiculous our battle plan and motives were to draw it.

There is a difference between honest, intellectual dissent and treasonous, domestic undermining of the effort. We're there. Our press doesn't know how to do anything else.

What Jane Fonda did during Vietnam was wrong. The fact that the war was poorly conceived, poorly strategized and poorly communicated, and that thousands of americans and Vietnamese died in the effort, doesn't make what she did right.

Here's my challenge: criticize the war, if you must, in such a way that a returning soldier might agree with your analysis. Or, at least, not be insulted by your characterization. Most on this website would not be capable.

  (5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree)
1-9 OF 9View All
Add a rating badge for In times of war, it's disrespectful to criticize the commander in chief to your site!
Add a rating badge to your site!
test