GOP Erred in Naming SEALs at Convention

[oblong]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6461849.story

The appearance by the active duty military members troubled some at the Pentagon because of rules against active duty personnel participating in political activities.

On Wednesday, Navy officials said they had given permission for the SEALs to attend the convention on the condition that the Republican National Committee neither showcase them in the media nor publicly recognize them.

After Swindle clearly identified the two in his remarks, Republican officials initially told the Navy that the retired lieutenant general had ad-libbed. A Times article Thursday, quoting Navy officials, reported that conclusion.

I don't get it. If I really wanted to protect my anonymity, the last place I'd go is a place with hundreds of reporters and dozens of cameras to take part in an event watched by millions of people.

[Ron Humphrey]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...,6461849.story



I don't get it. If I really wanted to protect my anonymity, the last place I'd go is a place with hundreds of reporters and dozens of cameras to take part in an event watched by millions of people.

The military needs to be viewed as impartial (OK), but if so set a reasonable rank structure for who can or can't go anywhere. I think anywhere any of them go there should be recognition of them all. And that shouldn't be percieved as either endorsement of or against any particular party. Its just going to a darn convention. The military on the other hand is just trying to do the right thing.

But its the media and/or politically oriented groups which will make this into more than it needs to be.

Someone please tell me how in the world it sounds like the rules for those who fight to retain our freedoms is they cant attend any political function at all for fear someone might actually say their name. Setting ROE is cool lets just make sure they don't take away the very thing these guys represent and fight for in the first place.

Personally I think its quite well known why the concern is there and so its understandable there would be attempts to address it, but honestly most of those who have created the situation aren't in the service any more so they really don't have to listen

[Entropy]

Personally, I think they should not have been there in the first place. Conventions are, ultimately, internal affairs of the political party even though they have become national media events. We're not supposed to attend political rallys in uniform - a convention is the biggest kind of rally of them all. Bad idea, IMO.

[Tom Odom]

Personally, I think they should not have been there in the first place. Conventions are, ultimately, internal affairs of the political party even though they have become national media events. We're not supposed to attend political rallys in uniform - a convention is the biggest kind of rally of them all. Bad idea, IMO.

Agreed. Conventions are by definition 100 percent political.

[rjbedner]

This issue is being directed at the wrong party. The service members were present for the right reason, support the family that paid the ultimate price. This positive example of how we take care of our own is the story that the american people need to read about. The sailors got permission and remained a part of the audience. Regardless of how they were presented, the fact is, that family deserves to be surrounded by the men that their loved one served with and made the ultimate sacrafice. The US Navy did the right thing by approving the men to be alongside the family and in my eyes put the family first. What a novel idea.

Ryan Bedner

[sullygoarmy]

While I agree that having fellow servicemembers be along side the family of the fallen, a political convention is not the place to do this. I understand they were requested by the sister of the fallen SEAL, but I do not agree with letting active duty members attend the convention. We in the military have to be very careful regarding the fine line we tread when it comes to demonstrating support for any political party. While we highly encourage our soldiers to take advantage of the freedom they fight to protect: the right to vote, our leadership continues to spread the gospel that military members must stay apolitical...especially during election years.

[jkm_101_fso]

I don't fault the Navy, Monsoor's family or his fellow SEALs for attending the event to show support and honor an American hero. I believe the intentions were good.

Ethically, I believe that active duty servicemembers should try and remain non-partisan and apolitical.

I don't believe the GOP's intention was to use Monsoor's story for political gain, but it could certainly appear that way.

The truth is that the media generally ignores our nation's heroes, in regards to what they choose to report in regards to War. Jump on Lexis or any search engine and type in "Abu Ghraib" or "Haditha"...see the results. Then type in Michael Monsoor, Paul Smith or Ross McGinnis. Results for news stories are much lower. I say kudos to the GOP for trying to recognize these heroes on a national televised event. Unfortunately, the perception will be that they are trying to use them for political gain.

There is no easy answer here. I'm glad heroes like Monsoor get the accolades, respect and honor that they deserve, I just wish it wasn't at a political convention.

[Ken White]

Much ado about nothing, I think. Yeah, it was a political convention but it was done by the Navy at the request of Monsoor's family. What are they supposed to do, say 'No' to a MOH winner's family? They'd have been criticized for that. The Navy properly asked they not be publicly recognized and Swindle apparently elected to disregard that. Oblong got it wrong, the GOP didn't ID the SEALs; Swindle just blew it and he should've known better.

All the ire should be directed at him.

[jkm_101_fso]

On the same note, I saw a few folks IN UNIFORM at the convention. Not sure if these were retirees, reserve component or Active duty folks. Some of them did not appear to be retirees. The one that stood out was a younger-looking SFC in Dress Blues, seated in one of the state areas.

Are there any rules or regulations prohibiting the military (particularly active duty) from taking part in partisan/political events? I haven't heard of any regulations specifically, but just always understood that it wasn't ethical to do so. I am aware there are state reps, senators that serve in the NG, AR, etc. I guess it would be different for them since they are not active.

Any regulations would probably prohibit servicemembers from participating in uniform, representing the Armed Services in support of a polictical party, I'd assume. Can anyone cite any regs specifically? Just curious.