Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

What is it about liberals and the military? Why are liberals uncomfortable with the military? Why do some liberals apparently despise our military? Is it because the armed services remind them that not every international dispute can be solved with soothing words uttered by a diplomat? Is it because they view military expenditures as taking money away from greater health and welfare spending?

The latest liberal-military confrontation occurred in a hearing room on Capitol Hill on June 16, 2009 when Brigadier General Michael Walsh called California’s junior senator “Ma’am” – a perfectly acceptable sign of military respect to both a U.S. Senator or a senior female officer. What happened next was remarkable. Barbara Boxer immediately dressed down the general officer, saying, “I had a… You know… do me a favor, could you say ‘Senator’ instead of ‘Ma’am’ – it’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title so I’d appreciate it, yes thank you.”

According to the U.S. Army’s own guide to protocol, Members of the U.S. Senate should be verbally addressed as “Sir,” “Ma’am” or “Senator.” So, General Walsh was simply following longstanding tradition.

Ironically, when addressing senior officers, with the exception of generals whom most junior officers and enlisted personnel will call “General,” the most respectful form of address is “Sir” or “Ma’am” with use of the actual rank in address being reserved oftentimes in situations when the senior officer has not yet earned respect from an enlisted person, as in “Yes, Lieutenant!” as opposed to “Yes, Ma’am!”

Of course, this wasn’t Barbara Boxer’s first confrontation with the U.S. military – not by a long shot. Boxer cut her political teeth on the anti-Vietnam war protests around the Bay Area back in the day and never really changed her outlook on the uniformed defenders of the Constitution of the United States. Who can forget her confrontation with American hero Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007 when she called him a liar and then wrote a now laughable blog for the Huffington Post on September 14, 2007 which she headlined, “General Petraeus, Take Off the Rose-Colored Glasses” calling for an immediate end (read: “defeat”) to the war in Iraq.

Perhaps it’s time for the Barbara Boxer to have a new title: “Ex-Senator.”

bobbythekidd wrote:I am no apologist, but this is a non issue. Boxer simply doesn't know any military protocol and thought Ma'am is a lower form of salutation than Senator.

Col Hogan wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:I am no apologist, but this is a non issue. Boxer simply doesn't know any military protocol and thought Ma'am is a lower form of salutation than Senator.

While I basically agree with you, the way she addressed it to the General showed both a lack of knowledge of protocol (excusable) and a basic contempt for the military (not excusable)...

Col Hogan wrote:

bobbythekidd wrote:I am no apologist, but this is a non issue. Boxer simply doesn't know any military protocol and thought Ma'am is a lower form of salutation than Senator.

While I basically agree with you, the way she addressed it to the General showed both a lack of knowledge of protocol (excusable) and a basic contempt for the military (not excusable)...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:hey T... she's gonna be YOUR Senator until she decides to retire, this changes nothing...

she was polite, asked him nicely, even explained her rationale... it's actually the same as calling a general "sir" when the term of respect is "general"... they've earned it. same as a member of the Senate, who has earned one of the most prestigious titles one can attain.

of course, never underestimate conks making a mountain out of what isn't even a molehill... especially if they can trump it up to further their bullshit about Democrats and the military... yawn.

travelinman67 wrote:This one's just pathetic...I'll let CA Assemblyman Chuck Devore's blog article speak for itself.

http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog.asp?artid=71

What is it about liberals and the military? Why are liberals uncomfortable with the military? Why do some liberals apparently despise our military? Is it because the armed services remind them that not every international dispute can be solved with soothing words uttered by a diplomat? Is it because they view military expenditures as taking money away from greater health and welfare spending?

The latest liberal-military confrontation occurred in a hearing room on Capitol Hill on June 16, 2009 when Brigadier General Michael Walsh called California’s junior senator “Ma’am” – a perfectly acceptable sign of military respect to both a U.S. Senator or a senior female officer. What happened next was remarkable. Barbara Boxer immediately dressed down the general officer, saying, “I had a… You know… do me a favor, could you say ‘Senator’ instead of ‘Ma’am’ – it’s just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title so I’d appreciate it, yes thank you.”

According to the U.S. Army’s own guide to protocol, Members of the U.S. Senate should be verbally addressed as “Sir,” “Ma’am” or “Senator.” So, General Walsh was simply following longstanding tradition.

Ironically, when addressing senior officers, with the exception of generals whom most junior officers and enlisted personnel will call “General,” the most respectful form of address is “Sir” or “Ma’am” with use of the actual rank in address being reserved oftentimes in situations when the senior officer has not yet earned respect from an enlisted person, as in “Yes, Lieutenant!” as opposed to “Yes, Ma’am!”

Of course, this wasn’t Barbara Boxer’s first confrontation with the U.S. military – not by a long shot. Boxer cut her political teeth on the anti-Vietnam war protests around the Bay Area back in the day and never really changed her outlook on the uniformed defenders of the Constitution of the United States. Who can forget her confrontation with American hero Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007 when she called him a liar and then wrote a now laughable blog for the Huffington Post on September 14, 2007 which she headlined, “General Petraeus, Take Off the Rose-Colored Glasses” calling for an immediate end (read: “defeat”) to the war in Iraq.

Perhaps it’s time for the Barbara Boxer to have a new title: “Ex-Senator.”

Here, you can watch cvnt Boxer in action...
[youtube][/youtube]


...you see...

...what Boxer and the other Uber-libs who feel emboldened to "correct" a Brigadier General don't understand...

...a Brigadier General doesn't collect campaign donations from special interests, lie to the public to get elected, then sit around in walnut paneled offices kibbitzing with their largest donors on ways to line their pockets...

...Brigadier Generals EARN their rank and respect. Here's a brief list of Brig. General Walsh's accomplishments...

Awarded two Bronze Star medals, four Legions of Merit, a Ranger Tab, Parachutist Wings, and a combat patch. Born in Brooklyn, he graduated from the Polytechnic Institute of New York with a bachelor's degree in Civil Engineering, earned a Master's Degree in Construction Management from the University of Florida. He served as the Commander of the Corps Gulf Region Division in Baghdad, Iraq; Commander of the South Atlantic Region in Atlanta, Chief of Staff of USACE in DC, Executive Director of Civil Works in DC, District Commander of the Sacramento District in California, and District Commander of the San Francisco District, also in California.

Yet some self-centered uppity bitch, who has pulled all stops to destroy our nations' military and push environmental legislation so burdensome to industry even SHE admits it will have a "significant" detrimental impact to American business, feels SHE has earned the right to "correct" a Brigadier General?

Boxer's hasn't earned the "right" to shine the General's boots.







(...cue TTBF with the "it's a non-issue" apologism... )

Cleets Part 2 wrote:Is this what happens when we run out of actual news..?