Staff Reports
Stephen A. Smith recently made waves on “The View,” and not the peaceful kind you sip while relaxing on a sunny day. No, this was more like taking a big ol’ splashing cannonball right into the middle of a water polo match. The discussion took a sharp turn when he gave Senator Mark Kelly a stern talking-to for his views on military orders, and boy was it a sight to behold! The way he called out the senator felt like watching a parent scold a kid who just knocked over a vase—both impressive and a bit cringe-worthy.
Senator Kelly, who’s not just an everyday senator but a veteran astronaut, suggested that military members could refuse to follow illegal orders. A noble sentiment, really, but in Stephen’s eyes, it was crossing a serious line. He basically said that the senator should know better. It’s like hearing your buddy loudly correct the boss during a meeting about company policy; you’re both impressed and terrified it might come back to haunt him later. Stephen threw in a reference to impeachment, reminding everyone that the political tug-of-war has seen the same tricks from both sides. Apparently, that’s like shouting “wolf” when there are simply too many sheep around.
But hold on a minute! Stephen wasn’t just roaring like a lion for no reason. He pointed out the military’s code of conduct that says following orders is crucial because, well, it’s the military! It’s not exactly a place for a bunch of “free thinkers” pondering their life choices over artisanal coffee. One audience member might’ve been thinking, “Just how far can you take this refusing orders thing? Can I ignore my homework too?” The idea behind tossing around keywords like “illegal orders” sounds great and all, but the glaring fact is that not every military order comes with a side of ethics for debate.
Then Stephen tossed the ball back to Alyssa and asked if she’d ever seen this kind of outrage against military orders before. Cue the crickets chirping, because let’s face it; when President Obama was taking heat for his drone strikes, the conversation wasn’t quite as charged. It’s a strange world when one man’s commands in the Middle East are somehow more palatable than another man’s orders closer to home. It makes one scratch their head—are we really just picking sides for the drama?
The lively back-and-forth got a tad messy, like a toddler with spaghetti, as Stephen tossed shade at liberal media types who, in his view, rush to condemn certain military actions. It’s almost as if they have selective outrage—like deciding you only want to care about dessert after dinner has been served. Peeps on the left seem to think war crimes are a buffet of types, while those with a conservative lens might argue that such discussions should be viewed in a broader historical context. Who knew that military conduct could lead to a dinner-table discussion worthy of raising eyebrows—or just raising fists?
What’s interesting here is how Stephen highlighted the underlying absurdity of the situation. If even a decorated veteran like Pete Hegseth gets flak for being a Fox News host, shouldn’t at least some attention go to his military accolades? It’s almost funny that people equate his current role with a past gig, like saying a football coach can’t be valid if he played video games in his childhood. In a world where education and experience should count, calling someone “just” this or “only” that makes about as much sense as a cat chasing a laser pointer—chaotic, yet oddly entertaining.
At the end of the day, Stephen’s message was about accountability and understanding how military dynamics function. While the cast tossed around their banter like popcorn at a movie, the reality remains that when military orders start becoming party fodder, people might end up having more confusion than clarity. But that’s politics for you, always leaving us with a quirky mix of insight and chaos, like a big family dinner gone slightly off the rails. And who are we kidding? That’s precisely what makes it all worth watching!
