Forgive My Nausea!

[PaulinVA]

I am disappointed with so many people caving to the militant left and apologizing for things that they shouldn’t. Latest example is the Joint Chiefs Chairman now saying he shouldn’t have taken a picture with the President in Lafayette Park.

He is a military commander and the stunt was a purely political move to which he should have had no part.

They were walking to a burned out church

A small fire in the basement office

to show solidarity with that church and their congregants.

Haha. By gassing the clergy there? By not asking if he could come? By not meeting with anyone there? Oh, yeah, he couldn’t meet with anyone there since they were gassed and driven out by the Park Police.

Protestors refused to leave the park when ordered so they were moved.

Before curfew with announcements no one could hear.

This should not be controversial, but the leftist media will make anything Trump does controversial.

The media is not leftist. It’s just the media. The Washington Post put together a great timeline with video clips and recordings of the police radio orders.

Our military is supposed to be apolitical. I find it sad that you would think it’s okay for the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs to be involved in the National Guard being involved in attacking peaceful protesters so the President could make an ill conceived and poorly executed political show in front of a church.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

He is a military commander and the stunt was a purely political move to which he should have had no part

That is what is being portrayed by the media.

Now imagine a different scenario if you will. “White Nationalists” burn down the black church, and the next day President Obama decides to go there to give a speech about how America is better than this. But the NRA is having a peaceful protest in Lafayette Park, so the Park Police clear the park. Some of the NRA protesters don’t leave ,so the Park Police use pepper spray to clear them out. Obama walks to the church with several of his senior leaders and gives his speech while holding up a bible."

How do you think you would feel about that happened? How differently do you think the media would report it?

Obama and his senior leaders would be canonized by the media for having the courage and fortitude to leave the white house and walk across Lafayette Park despite the dangers lurking from the racists who just moments ago occupied the ground. Then his speech would be declared a perfect display of leadership and unity, highlighting the need for healing of our nation. And all the senior leaders who were with him would immediately be offered million dollar book deals.

 

[PaulinVA]

How do you think you would feel about that happened? How differently do you think the media would report it?

You need to work on your analogy. It is not an analogous situation at all.

Obama gave a speech, didn’t just stand there. The church was burned down, not a small fire.

In neither case should the protesters, BLM or NRA, be gassed and forcibly removed from the park for a political stunt like that.

Once again, Obama actually had something to do at the Church, in your hypothetical. Trump had nothing to do. He and his advisors hadn’t thought that through. So, he just awkwardly held up a Bible.

But, you missed what we were talking about. The JCS Chairman shouldn’t have participated in either activity, the Trump one or the Obama one. The is especially true since troops were used to clear the park.

Now, I am not an Obama supporter. Some of his Executive Orders were just as unconstitutional as Trumps. But, as to how it would have been perceived if Obama had done it:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I haven’t actually read all the news articles about it, just the headlines, so thank you for filling in some of my gaps.

Yes, my analogy was flawed. But then again, heaven really isn’t like a mustard seed.

But thank you for seeing my point about the perceptions. If Obama had done this with his CJCoS then it would indeed have been portrayed by the media as you showed.

 

[Annie]

The media is not leftist.

Right…

 

[JonNC]

PaulinVA:

He is a military commander and the stunt was a purely political move to which he should have had no part

That is what is being portrayed by the media.

Now imagine a different scenario if you will. “White Nationalists” burn down the black church, and the next day President Obama decides to go there to give a speech about how America is better than this. But the NRA is having a peaceful protest in Lafayette Park, so the Park Police clear the park. Some of the NRA protesters don’t leave ,so the Park Police use pepper spray to clear them out. Obama walks to the church with several of his senior leaders and gives his speech while holding up a bible."

How do you think you would feel about that happened? How differently do you think the media would report it?

Obama and his senior leaders would be canonized by the media for having the courage and fortitude to leave the white house and walk across Lafayette Park despite the dangers lurking from the racists who just moments ago occupied the ground. Then his speech would be declared a perfect display of leadership and unity, highlighting the need for healing of our nation. And all the senior leaders who were with him would immediately be offered million dollar book deals.

Wow! What a moving scenario.
I imagine Chris Matthews would have a thrill running up his leg.

 

[Peeps]

I’m glad that the author of the article brought up “black responsibility.”

I get the feeling from much of what the black activitists say that it’s racism that causes black on black crime.

So many shootings in our city. We currently have the highest percentage of shooting murders of any city in Illinois. We even beat Chicago (remember, it’s percentage per population).

And most of it is black on black–black gang members shooting other black gang members, or shooting innocent people who happen to get in the way or in some way, offend the gang.

And white racism is the cause of black people killing and robbing and raping other black people? Really?

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why aren’t they protesting this?

Remembering Their Names: Children Killed By Gun Violence In The St. Louis Area Since Summer Began

Updated Nov. 27 It's a horrific crime: the killing of a child. In St. Louis in 2019, it's been repeated again and again. Since Memorial Day weekend, nine…

news.stlpublicradio.org

This is one city, one year.

I believe there were two black men killed by white police since 2014 in St. Louis. The first being Michael Brown in 2014.

 

[MikeInVA]

He is a military commander and the stunt was a purely political move to which he should have had no part.

Technically, he’s a chairman not a commander.
High level generals have a political component of their jobs and they know it.
The only possible issue with him being part of the photo op is that he is a federal officer, and in this situation it would have been smarter for the president to appear with the commander of the DC National Guard.
The CJCS being in a photo op with the president is not a political issue, it’s a normal part of the president’s messaging. Most press conferences with a governor will have his adjutant general standing behind him for the same reason.

 

[PaulinVA]

Technically, he’s a chairman not a commander.

Yes, you are right. He actually commands no troops. He’s an advisor to the President.

High level generals have a political component of their jobs and they know it.

There are internal politics, and then there is partisan party politics. The military should not be involved in partisan party politics, such as stunts like this during an election cycle.

The only possible issue with him being part of the photo op is that he is a federal officer, and in this situation it would have been smarter for the president to appear with the commander of the DC National Guard.

No, just as wrong.. This isn’t a military junta. We have civilian rule in this country. The DC guard was just involved in clearing the park for the President to conduct a photo op, which was wrong. It would be compounded by the CG of the DC Guard being part of the photo op. Just as wrong as the Chairman of the JCS.

The CJCS being in a photo op with the president is not a political issue, it’s a normal part of the president’s messaging. Most press conferences with a governor will have his adjutant general standing behind him for the same reason.

Not for a political stunt, and not after military force was just used to clear protesters away.

 

[MikeInVA]

There are internal politics, and then there is partisan party politics. The military should not be involved in partisan party politics, such as stunts like this during an election cycle.

So how early before an election is it that everything a president does is about partisan politics and not about doing his job? At what point in time is it partisan for the CJCS to be seen in public with his boss? If a hurricane hits somewhere in the south this fall, would it be improper for the president to visit the area, and would it be improper for the CJCS to be there to observe the military response?
The issue is that when you start labeling actions with intangibles you put yourself on a slippery slope.
I doubt that anyone in the president’s group that went to the church had any idea about the details of the actions done to clear the protesters - it was probably completed before they even left the White House.

 

[PaulinVA]

So how early before an election is it that everything a president does is about partisan politics and not about doing his job? At what point in time is it partisan for the CJCS to be seen in public with his boss?

Mike, be serious.

The President had ordered active duty troops from the 82nd Airborne and the 10th Mountain to Ft Belvoir outside the District. Active duty troops. DC guardsmen were attacking peaceful protesters. This created the perception, with the CJCS there in fatigues, that the President was using the military for his personal, political, purposes.

If a hurricane hits somewhere in the south this fall, would it be improper for the president to visit the area, and would it be improper for the CJCS to be there to observe the military response?

No, it would not be inappropriate. The difference is using military power to help Americans in need or using military power against Americans exercising constitutional rights. I hope you see the difference.

 

[MikeInVA]

The difference is using military power to help Americans in need or using military power against Americans exercising constitutional rights. I hope you see the difference.

We are a nation of law. Enforcing that law is not acting against Americans, it is working for Americans. The people whose property has been destroyed by lawless rioters see the difference.
Using prejudicial language such as “attack” does not bolster your argument.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The military should not be involved in partisan party politics, such as stunts like this during an election cycle.

What is the definiton of partisan party politics?

Something the other team does.

 

[PaulinVA]

We are a nation of law. Enforcing that law is not acting against Americans, it is working for Americans.

What law was being enforced against peaceful protesters in the park?

Using prejudicial language such as “attack” does not bolster your argument.

Open to another word to describe deploying riot control measures and forcing people to move from their position.

 

[MikeInVA]

What law was being enforced against peaceful protesters in the park?

I believe the Park Service has some authority to control access to parks?

Open to another word to describe deploying riot control measures and forcing people to move from their position.

I think “deploying riot control measures” is much more accurate than “attack”.

 

[Nepperhan]

Why aren’t they protesting this?

I doubt your have sufficient familiarity with inner-city protests against street violence to ask that question. Maybe you should state: “How much are they protesting this?”

 

[Nepperhan]

Yes, my analogy was flawed. But then again, heaven really isn’t like a mustard seed.

But thank you for seeing my point about the perceptions. If Obama had done this with his CJCoS then it would indeed have been portrayed by the media as you showed.

The correct analogy for this forum’s view on protests can be found as to the anti-Obama protests at Notre Dame. Search “Alan Keyes” on this forum to see how conservatives here posited that a protester who traveled to private property with the stated intention of being arrested should not be prosecuted for trespass.

The difference is startling.

 

[PaulinVA]

I believe the Park Service has some authority to control access to parks?

You are right, they do. Shenandoah National Park closes every winter for safety.

And, public spaces are controlled and access limited for Presidential appearances. Not a doubt about that.

But, in the middle of a protest of generational importance, for the President to cause the military and federal police to clear a space on a whim for a photo op is not justified.

Frankly, I wouldn’t have had any problem with this if the Park Service had, in the morning with no one there, put up fencing and rolled back the perimeter. I actually thought they should.

It’s the ineptness and the recriminations around the last minute actions against the protesters that really get me, as well as the participation of the AG in the actual removal of protesters and the CJCS as part of the entourage.

 

[Dobby]

i think i meant Boatswain2pa