For this week’s radio address the Democrats picked an Iraq/Afghanistan war vet who disagrees with the President’s policies to give voice to their partisan agenda.  Fair enough, right?

But what’s interesting is that this choice seems to be making headlines (which is probably why a soldier was picked in the first place).  Yet you have to ask yourself: Why is it news when a soldier speaks out against the war and/or the President’s foreign policies?

Maybe because most soldiers agree with our mission in the middle east and support our President’s policies?  Thus, in the rare instance when you find a soldier who doesn’t, it’s news?

Seems likely to me.  And that should tell us something, shouldn’t it?