If it's unpatriotic to question president during war, how did we elect two during Korean & Vietnam Wars?

Question

A common talking point on the right is that you can't question the president during war time. Just yesterday, Tom Delay said it was treason.

I wonder then how we had elections during bother the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and in both cases, the White House changed from Democrat to Republican.

Did Ike and Nixon get elected without questioning how their respective wars were being fought?

While the incumbent didn't run in either case, his party still did and the opposition party won. How could they do that without questioning the conduct of the war?

Not incidentally, Ike was inaugurated in January and had a cease fire to end the war by July.

Nixon said he had a secret plan to end the war, which turned out to be keep fighting another five years then take the deal the North offered LBJ.

The heart of the left's criticism about Bush is about policy and the corruption and cronyism that drive it.

If he was a well-meaning, good or even mediocre president, his intelligence and personality wouldn't merit much more comment than Jerry Ford tripping every once in a while or Jimmy Carter being a peanut farmer.

How exactly do you have a multi-party democracy without partisanship?

And shouldn't part of that partisanship be fact-checking the party in power to make sure they aren't lying, and their programs and even wars are doing what they were advertised to do?

Answer 1

Here is Tom Delay speaking of Clinton's involvement in Kosovo where there were 0 troop deaths, by the way. Just thought is was kind of ironic....

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our overextended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
-Representative Tom Delay (R-TX)

Answer 2

First of all treason is defined as " the offience of attmepting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war"...neither of which is questioning a sitting president's actions. We were given that right by fighting a few wars ourselves. So Tom Delay can read the dictionary again before he speaks.

Second, Korea and Vietnam were police actions, technically. The last declared war in which the U.S. was involved was World War II.

Third, it is a well known fact that Democrats are less prone for military action then Republicans. The fact that Democratic Congresses have been elected during Republican presidencies is a sign that the country is not in favor of prolonged military action.

Lastly, Eisenhower and Nixon were questioned on their perspectives before, during, and after their presidencies. Both took heat on how and what what was done diring both "wars." Eisenhower just came out a little on top. Nixon had some domestic trouble.

Elections occur during wartime and peace time. Freedom of speech has never been in question. Freedom to question has never been nor should be an issue. We have every right to question, and therefore a fair right to know. We can question without showing anything closely thought to be what is actually treason.

Answer 3

Your question doesn't make sense.

We elected new presidents during the Korean war and the Vietnam war, because in each case, the incumbent decided not to run for reelection.

In Korea ,Truman decided not to run for reelection and in Vietnam ,Johnson decided not to run for reelection.

Both had already served 6 years as president.

I don't see ther connection between questioning the President over the conduct of the war, and the Presidential elections of 1952 and 1968.

A more accurate comparison would be Roosevelts reelection in 1944 and Nixon's reelection in 1972.

Answer 4

Well, it isn't unpatriotic to question the president, and thankfully, nobody has said it was. Of course, questioning the president doesn't include specious and partisan attacks that undermine the war effort, sap troop morale, and embolden the enemies that are killing our troops.

When one party's politicians go to our enemy's country and stand in a murderous tyrant's capital city and say the president is lying, when one party's politicians compare our troops to Nazis and our POW facilities to gulags and concentration camps, when it becomes hard to differentiate one party's words from the enemy propaganda, when a party's members call our soldiers murderers and war criminals, when one party declares the war illegal despite all evidence to the contrary, when one party decides the war is lost (even though it isn't) and works very hard to lose it or to force our defeat, then it might be considered just a tad unpatriotic, don't you think?

If they want to question the overall strategy if it doesn't seem to be working, if they want to question the commanders chosen, or the troop levels, the rules of engagement, etc, in order to make sure we are proceding the best way towards victory, then no, it isn't unpatriotic in the least.

See the difference? Understand the difference? Do you see why the Democrats' actions have been questionable?

Answer 5

Okay just the facts, first there was no Vietnam War according to government records. It was a conflict. The U.S. never officially declared war on North Vietnam. The Vietnam Conflict had five different presidents send troops in various capacities. First was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who sent "advisers" to survey, train and report back on the conflict. Many of these advisers died during guerrilla operations. John Kennedy followed suit with 16,000 "advisers" being in Vietnam and/or Southeast Asia at the time of his death. LBJ, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were the other three to send troops over there. Ford sending them to basically execute our evacuation plan.

Answer 6

All of which leads me to wonder -
What "unpatriotic" questions should Thomas Jefferson not have asked the King of England in 1776?

We have a continuous tradition of looking at all sides of major issues in this land. The First Amendment is first for a reason. If all the "Right" has to talk about is who is insufficiently patriotic, then they will soon be labelling each other "left", and then who will be left?
And the same is true for the "Left".

Answer 7

And During the American Civil war as well which was way uglier! Thank God in both cases the Republican President stayed in power.

Answer 8

Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.

Teddy Roosevelt

Answer 9

I really doubt they were spitting out the vile hatred that the left in this country keeps repeating over and over ala joseph goebells

Answer 10

Delay is an idiot and it's all politics. Squashing freedom of speech and constructive arguments over an unjust war where basically Oklahoma City happens every single day is the most un patriotic and un American thing I can think of.