Is it wrong to question a President's decisions in wartime?

[Ebowed]

Is it wrong to question a President's decisions in wartime?

[Dr. Cynic]

No... Every President is open to criticisim and questioning, no matter when, where, or how... It's part of the job, and thin-skins shouldn't hold the office.

[Alcon]

No!  What a stupid concept!

[Emsworth]

Yes and no. There are certain circumstances under which I would (subjectively) consider it "wrong" to criticize the President, although I do not believe that it should be illegal to do so. For instance, if a nation is fighting a war on which its very survival depends, then it might be wrong for a leading general or ex-general to publicly condemn the President's decision to fight the war, as doing so might cause a significant decrease in morale. But in general, I would say no.

[Alcon]

Yes and no. There are certain circumstances under which I would (subjectively) consider it "wrong" to criticize the President, although I do not believe that it should be illegal to do so. For instance, if a nation is fighting a war on which its very survival depends, then it might be wrong for a leading general or ex-general to publicly condemn the President's decision to fight the war, as doing so might cause a significant decrease in morale. But in general, I would say no.

Obviously, if we whittle this down to being "wrong" if the criticisms are inappropriate, then the vast majority of people consider it "wrong" to criticise some decision during wartime.  Whether it is automatically wrong to question a President's decision because it is wartime is the debated point here, although it's probably similarly lopsided.

[Emsworth]

Yes and no. There are certain circumstances under which I would (subjectively) consider it "wrong" to criticize the President, although I do not believe that it should be illegal to do so. For instance, if a nation is fighting a war on which its very survival depends, then it might be wrong for a leading general or ex-general to publicly condemn the President's decision to fight the war, as doing so might cause a significant decrease in morale. But in general, I would say no.

Obviously, if we whittle this down to being "wrong" if the criticisms are inappropriate, then the vast majority of people consider it "wrong" to criticise some decision during wartime. 

I suppose that my point is that certain comments that would have been appropriate during peacetime would become unacceptable during wartime. In other words, whether a war is going on or not can be a relevant consideration.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Of course, all this is rather theoretical since we aren't fighting a war.  If we were, we'd be doing things like expanding the size of the Army, etc., and we aren't doing those.

[Gabu]

Depends on what you mean by "wrong".  If by "wrong" you mean "morally unjustified", then no, not at all.  If by "wrong" you mean "factually incorrect", as in Emsworth's interpretation, then yes, obviously it would sometimes be wrong.

[12th Doctor]

Question: no

Harshly criticize in such a way as to only tear them down and offer no constructive alternatives in return: yes

Democrats:  "We hate what Bush is doing in Iraq.  We hate Bush.  But we aren't sure what we woudl do in his place.  Probably the same thing"

Unfortunatly, that doesn't fit on a peacerally poster board.

[Nym90]

Morally, certainly not. It would be far more wrong to go along with something blindly than it would be to question it if one has doubts.

[Sam Spade]

Of course, all this is rather theoretical since we aren't fighting a war.  If we were, we'd be doing things like expanding the size of the Army, etc., and we aren't doing those.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[nclib]

Morally, certainly not. It would be far more wrong to go along with something blindly than it would be to question it if one has doubts.

^^^^^^^

[DownWithTheLeft]

Dennis Miller said it best when he said (paraphrasing), "Even if I had my doubts I would leave them at home and support my country"

We must stand united and put aside petty political differences

[Gabu]

We must stand united and put aside petty political differences

If you're in a car heading towards a ravine and no one but you sees a problem with this, should you stand united with everyone else, or should you maybe raise the point that hitting the brakes or turning the steering wheel might be a good idea?

[DownWithTheLeft]

We must stand united and put aside petty political differences

If you're in a car heading towards a ravine and no one but you sees a problem with this, should you stand united with everyone else, or should you maybe raise the point that hitting the brakes or turning the steering wheel might be a good idea?

Very bad analogy as the ravine is not an enemy coming at you and telling other ravines, "Look these people will come right into the ravine"

[Gabu]

Very bad analogy as the ravine is not an enemy coming at you and telling other ravines, "Look these people will come right into the ravine"

Why is it a very bad analogy?  The Iraq War is a mess, just as those who failed to "stand united" predicted it was likely to be.

"Standing united" is hugely overrated; if something is truly a worthy cause, people will stand united behind it out of their own free will, and if it's not, then it darn well deserves to receive criticism.

[True Democrat]

Of course not.

[Democratic Hawk]

No

[Bdub]

Nope.

[PBrunsel]

This question reminds me of the dilemma facing Wendell Wilkie in 1940. Of course we were not at war then, but President Roosevelt had begun the Lend-Lease Act and we were undoubtedly going to enter the war in Europe by 1941.

Wilkie had the choice of either standing by the President’s decision, thus losing the election in a resounding landslide, or attacking the President relentlessly on allowing a peace time draft, serious tax hikes to finance American weaponry, and simply appealing to Lindbergh’s America First by attacking the President’s foreign policy.

However, he decided to lose in a landslide rather than jeopardize the lives of young men in both America and Britain. On his tombstone the lettering does not read "here lies a president", but should read” here lies one who contributed to saving freedom.” He himself told Senator Arthur Vandenberg that he would prefer the former over the latter.

Wendell Wilkie was a great man.

[True Democrat]

This question reminds me of the dilemma facing Wendell Wilkie in 1940. Of course we were not at war then, but President Roosevelt had begun the Lend-Lease Act and we were undoubtedly going to enter the war in Europe by 1941.

Wilkie had the choice of either standing by the President’s decision, thus losing the election in a resounding landslide, or attacking the President relentlessly on allowing a peace time draft, serious tax hikes to finance American weaponry, and simply appealing to Lindbergh’s America First by attacking the President’s foreign policy.

However, he decided to lose in a landslide rather than jeopardize the lives of young men in both America and Britain. On his tombstone the lettering does not read "here lies a president", but should read” here lies one who contributed to saving freedom.” He himself told Senator Arthur Vandenberg that he would prefer the former over the latter.

Wendell Wilkie was a great man.

The book Five Days in Philadelphia is about the 1940 Republican convention and how Wilkie's support of FDR allowed FDR to get America ready for war.  It's a good read.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Senator Vandenberg R-MI was harshly critical of FDR shortly after Pearl Harbor. At the time, he was way too isolationist. No elected Democrat criticized Bush the way he criticized FDR.

[NewFederalist]

Is it wrong to question a President's decisions in wartime?

A congressionally declared war or the kind we have had since WWII? There really IS a difference.

[CPT MikeyMike]

No because this nation was founded on freedom of speech and it would be wrong to silence critics HOWEVER, it must be tactful and in no way to demean the President or our military.

I will also add that the same should apply in peacetime too.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I tempted to think whoever voted 'yes' in this poll is a quasi-fascist.