Should we just start saying Hail Gaius Julius Caesar?

[Nordmadr]

I was thinking about this last night, and apparently so are alot of folks. How exactly is it that Bush can repeatedly use the military as a backdrop for political agenda and party opposition speeches? Does the military now only support Republican causes? It is quaint how he can stand up there in front of the soldiers spouting his lies, practically daring opposition from the Democratic Party. He might say, "You see, I am on a mission from God, and if you don't like it, well you see these soldiers here, they're on my side". My apologies to the Blues Brothers.

It disturbs me...ALOT. Military used to enforce a political doctrine. Uhhh...what happened to freedom?



From Firedoglake (love this blog):

Via today's Froomkin White House Briefing column, I'm pondering some questions. Just how far is this White House willing to go in using the public's money and bw willing to break it's own regs to promote its own political agenda? Does it matter to them that they may be pushing things past proper limits -- or is this even something that troubles anyone in this Adminitration?

I ask this, because Fox News has an intriguing article on its website regarding the use of the military as a political prop, and how this is a troubling development for some retired military personnel. (I know, I never thought I'd refer to a Fox article, either, but even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.)

Greg Kelly, the Fox writer, followed up his article with some questions for Scotty McClellan at yesterday's press briefing and, true to form, McClellan didn't really answer any of them. But that doesn't negate the question of how appropriate is it to use the nation's military personnel as a political prop -- over and over again -- when they are to serve ALL of the nation, and not just one party.

More:
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/

[Loonman]

1. No

Because Caeser was an honorable man and an astute leader. Caligula or Nero is more appropriate.

[No Exit]

4. I agree, but

I admit I wouldn't cry if * shared Caesar's fate.

[AntiFascist]

14. Who would play Brutus? nt

[Fozzledick]

5. Definitely Caligula

Nero was sleazy but clever, more like Nixon.

[eleny]

2. nope. he deserves the bum's rush

[MADem]

3. As one of those retired military types, it does not just bother me

...it OUTRAGES me. It's SLAVERY. Those kids do not have a choice with regard to attendance, they are ordered to spit-n-polish, get that haircut, and show up for inspection ahead of time. Then, the best looking ones (no fatties, uglies, or zits) are pulled out to become a human backdrop for that asshole. You can see it in their faces, they look like they are ENDURING...it's like dental work without novacaine.

[Nordmadr]

7. When I was in the Navy, Clinton actually paid a visit to my ship in

Pearl Harbor. It was made very clear to us after days of cleaning, polishing, and painting, that if we were still onboard after a certain time, we would be recruited as a backdrop for formation in full dress uniform. Seeing how my liberty time was precious, and I did not have duty, I let Sandy's Beach call to me, and later Hernando's Hideaway for "Power Hour". No formation for me.

Olafr

[MADem]

9. You were lucky, under BushCo, your liberty would have been cancelled!! nt

[Bonhomme Richard]

6. Simply put , he is a coward and................

the only place he feels safe is with a captive military audience.

[Nordmadr]

8. BTW, great Caesar info here:

http://heraklia.fws1.com/

In the last five years of his life, Caesar prevailed in Civil Wars in Asia and Spain, conquered Egypt, rose to undreamed-of power in the Roman state, rent the fabric of the mos maiorum, was honored like a god for the first time in Roman history, and murdered by his closest associates when they believed he sought the power in name which he already held in fact. For Caesar, as later said of the murdered “Now he belongs to the ages.” The question of the precise nature of Caesar's contribution to the ages has been debated since his death. He is viewed as the callous destroyer of the Republic; as the far-sighted realist who saw clearly the need for one-man rule to fulfill Rome's Imperial destiny; as the reformer who fought the decay of the status quo; as the megalomaniac who leveled Rome’s foundations for his own glory. He was, to some extent, all of these things. Today, there are those who admire him and those who despise him, but no historian of Roman (and European) history can afford to ignore him.



He was a complicated fellow. Not all good, not all bad.

Óláfr

[bklyncowgirl]

10. Er, no. For one thing, Caesar was a military genius

Caesar conquered Gaul. He led his troops in person and shared their hardships. On the battlefield, he used to order his horse taken away so that his men could see that their General was ready to face death at their sides.

As a politician, he was a leader of the Populares--a political party which sought to expand the rights of the ordinary Roman. He was a sworn enemy of the Senatorial class--the patricians--although he was personally as blueblooded as a Roman could get.

He was a fine orater, an excellent writer and had a unique curiosity and a vision of what Rome could become.

George W. Bush is no Julius Caesar.

[Nordmadr]

11. He was also a bit of a tyrant. the tyrant part was what I was going

for, obviously George Bush is no Julius Caesar. As others have pointed out, perhaps not the best example, but I think you get what my point was inteneded to be.

Óláfr

[bklyncowgirl]

12. As others on this thread have suggested Caligula or Nero fit nicely. nt

[IndianaGreen]

13. All tyrants surround themselves with their uniformed goons

Hitler did it with the Storm Troopers. Batista did it with his army, as did Pinochet.