He Shoulda Said ...
I caught an interview with Gen. Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Fox "News" yesterday. The Fox talking head (far as I'm concerned, they're almost all identical) asked a question to the effect of "Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat who wants to be President, for cry'n out loud, said that we need 'regime change at home'. Should this kind of irresponsible statement be allowed In Time Of War? Isn't this irresponsible when Our Troops Are At Risk?"
Myers responded with about three minutes of Beltway doubletalk that translated as " ".
Unfortunately, the tendency toward public doubletalk is ingrained in the folks at the policy level. Basically, you know that anything you say will be used against you later, so you say as little as humanly possible, while making it as difficult as possible for the questioner to break in with a question, like "Hunh??"
What he should have said:
So you're saying we should cancel the 2004 Presidential election? Or that Democrats shouldn't be allowed to campaign? What he said was, essentially, that a Democrat should win the 2004 election. Do you really expect a Democrat to say anything else? Politics in the US is conducted at a high volume; get used to it.
Remember, we're fighting for freedom of speech and free elections. There's no reason to give up our most fundamental feedoms because we're actively fighting for them for the Iraqi people.
Also, I find your implication that our fighting men and women would allow their performance to be affected by legitimate, peaceful protests to be the single most disrespectful statement I've heard in a long time. Saying that our troops will not perform at their peak levels because of a few protests impugns their character, intelligence, and professionalism. It's worse than the people who scream "baby killer!" at our troops. That's just an insult, and says more about their own anger and ignorance than anything else.
Too much to hope, I guess.