Since the president announced on Friday that he'd be sending an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan, I've heard quite a bit of far-right undermining of the commander-in-chief while our soldiers are in harm's way. Just some reminders of what I thought was the rule regarding this behavior:
"The only ideas that they espouse are ways to undermine the troops in harm's way and undermine their commander in chief while they're at war. Your candidates have no idea how to keep this economy strong."
"He’s the Commander-in-Chief. And what I find frankly repugnant about you and some of your fellow Democrats – you have undermined our president..."
"You know, Norman, those comments while we are at war, while troops are in harm's way, while he is the commander in chief, do you not see the outrage in that?"
"I have had it with members of your party undermining our troops, undermining a commander in chief while we are at war..."
"You don't criticize the Commander-in-Chief in the middle of a firefight. That could be construed as putting U.S. forces in jeopardy and undermining morale."
"Can we do it without distorting their legacies and pandering to anti-American elites worldwide and using their deaths to embarrass and undermine our commander in chief?"
"On the other hand, if Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat Congress are successful in undermining the commander-in-chief..."
"And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason."
I hasten to note that criticizing the president during wartime is fine. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, isn't. You either unequivocally support the president in wartime or you don't. You can't have it both ways, wingnuts.