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

[Beet]

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.

^^^^

[nclib]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

[Beet]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd. And conservatives never missed a chance to demean Clinton when he was President, war or no war.

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd. And conservatives never missed a chance to demean Clinton when he was President, war or no war.

Republicans criticism of Clinton did not hurt us around the world

[nclib]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd. And conservatives never missed a chance to demean Clinton when he was President, war or no war.

Republicans criticism of Clinton did not hurt us around the world

Bush hurt us around the world, not Democrats' criticism of Bush.

[nclib]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd.

Exactly. And there is no reason why one should go out of his/her way to show any more politeness to a corrupt President than he/she would show to a fellow citizen.

[Ebowed]

Republicans criticism of Clinton did not hurt us around the world

We became a laughing stock for attempting to impeach a President for an extramarital affair.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

No, but you can go to far w/ protests.

[Frodo]

Um, no.
--------------------

Amazing a 'fascist' like me would say that, isn't it? 

[CPT MikeyMike]

No, but you can go to far w/ protests.

And that is generally my concern. Take Vietnam and students storming campus buildings and taking over ROTC buidlings. That is going way too far and that is when you lose your respectability in voicing one's dissent.

[??????????]

No, but you can go to far w/ protests.

And that is generally my concern. Take Vietnam and students storming campus buildings and taking over ROTC buidlings. That is going way too far and that is when you lose your respectability in voicing one's dissent.

Yeah, well the National Guard tried to correct that "problem" at Kent State.

[angus]

Hard to be sure when you're serious or not.  This is a perfect example.  See, I expect you're going to throw it out there to see if there's any support.  I'll bite.  Sure, those Kent state assholes pushed a bit too hard.  You might say they bit off more than they could chew.  Now, Jeff, don't get me wrong, making soldiers nervous doesn't justify a life in a wheelchair, imho.  But that's what at least one Kent State protester got.  Think long and hard about this, because I know you're not entirely joking.  Do you really want an army empowered to put men in wheelchairs for objecting to government's actions?  I'd think a man who for a very long time kept a picture of a US president being assassinated in his signature wouldn't support the idea that we should allow our army such freedoms.

[Beet]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd.

Exactly. And there is no reason why one should go out of his/her way to show any more politeness to a corrupt President than he/she would show to a fellow citizen.

Right on.

I don't necessarily go for those people who carry signs like "F the President". I think there are more constructive ways to briefly express dissent. But then again, I don't generally go for people who carry signs like "F [insert any American of American group]". Yes, that's political correct opinion, boo hoo.

[Smash255]

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.

^^^^^^^

^^^^^^^

[Smash255]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd. And conservatives never missed a chance to demean Clinton when he was President, war or no war.

Republicans criticism of Clinton did not hurt us around the world

Bush hurt us around the world, not Democrats' criticism of Bush.

^^^^^^^

[DownWithTheLeft]

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.

What in your opinion would consititute demeaning the President?

To require that freedom of speech be 'polite' is absurd. And conservatives never missed a chance to demean Clinton when he was President, war or no war.

Republicans criticism of Clinton did not hurt us around the world

Bush hurt us around the world, not Democrats' criticism of Bush.

Bush did hurt us around the world, the propoganda machines have hurt us