Why is it so important for retired leaders to stay out of politics?

I don't think that retired leaders should stay out of politics at all. How many great (and/or otherwise) US Presidents started out in uniform? Let me name just a few: JFK, Eisenhower, Bush Sr and Jr, U.S. Grant, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abe Lincoln... the list could go on -- and it could become endless if we included leaders from other countries or folks lower on the political food-chain.
The simple fact of the matter is that service in the higher echelons of military provide invaluable experience of the political world. This experience can translate into an ability to get things done that career politicians might never think of or be able to implement. Furthermore, the skills and personal characteristics necessary for someone to rise in the ranks of the military are incredibly useful in political office, where you have to cooperate, lead and follow as appropriate, whether you like you co-workers or not. This is something that most civilians have at least some trouble with.
While it is absolutely verboten for actively serving leaders to be "political" in any official sense, once you hang up your hat, the board is clear. Go for it!

The key word here Lt.Col is Retired. As such we retain our title (rank) and we are no longer restricted in voicing our politics.

It's okay for retired leaders to get involved in politics. The issue is keeping your integrity. Eisenhower didn't stay out of politics. Washington either.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to have their constitutional rights like all other private citizens? Sure, while in the services they need to be respectful of the chain of command. But once out and retired why shouldn't they be able to express their views? Fact is that we as vets have something that most civilians don't know in general, we have seen other countries, being in harms way, know what it is to be uncertain of just how the Commander in Chief's opinions / political view will affect the troops lives. My preach at church even expresses how he sees that the vets have a different view of the world than the rest of his flock.

Another thing is, just think if the retired generals of the past felt the same way? If they all thought it was a bad idea for them to get involved in the political world and express their views... We wouldn't have had a great number of presidents. Washington, Ike, Grant, either Bushes, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln, and the list goes on and on.

I am a retired SFC, I freely express my opinion and encourage others to do the same. But I do not use the name line SFC John Scanlon in doing so. I am just John or Mr Scanlon
I thought about what they were doing for days before they were called on it . Just because other retired Generals and a CPT used their rank wrongly doesn't give anyone the right to do future wrongs. I wasn't raised to believe but everybody does it, wrong is wrong

LTC (Join to see)

I would agree with SGT (Join to see) & Sgt Seth Welch
That there is no reason especially now since they are civilians to voice their opinion. Regardless if we agree with them or not. They have a very unique perspective from their previous positions.

The operative word is retired. At that point, they have every right, privilege, and, if they so determine it to be, the duty to express their opinions on any matter they choose. In fact, if they possess direct information which contradicts the campaign statements of a political candidate, I would truly hope they felt honor-bound to set the record straight.

the only time I have an issue with it is if they speak as though they represent what the majority of the military believes, in my experience a GO has no idea what the majority of their Soldier's are thinking or needing day to day let alone what their political stance is. they are only their to further their own agendas and civilian career goals.

Unless the retiree is going for the ultimate gold, i.e. the office of Presidency, they should take the higher ground and abscond. But... a double standard begins and the suppression of free speech is now being forced upon American citizens... So, You cannot support suppressing opinions of even retired Generals without infringing upon their civil right of free speech.

What about the 4 star getting demoted to a 3 ...or 2... or even a single star just before retirement? What about those forced to retire against their wishes?

Lets face it, active Generals are no way in heck going to speak out against any presidential candidate, let alone the sitting Commander in Chief without negative consequences to their career. Speaking out as an active military general subjected to the UCMJ insures that you want to get demoted, reprimanded or sent to the worst shat-hole so far away from the politics that you just know latrine duty is on your morning duty roster for things to do for pissing off the pope.
.
After the fiasco in Bengahzi, I find it almost...ALMOST... amazing why any General, retied that is, who would support Killery. Yet, I can see where their own fear... now that they do not have the protection of the UCMJ, and getting tossed into the real world of corrupt politics... why they fear a leader who may get us involved in a larger scale war. That is a stretch, but without seeing where that general will be, after the election... i say its hard to bribe a general... but then again... lol... human nature will bite, can bite...anyone in the arse...

We cannot go down that slippery slope and prohibit retirees from applying their constitutional right to speak.

We swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, in taking our oaths we suspended some of our rights to accomplish this mission. We also know and understand that whether actively serving or retired our actions are reflective not only of ourselves but of the military as well. Once you retire you should be able to voice your opinion as long as you ensure that the general public understand that it is just your opinion and not the opinion of the Military; and as long as your words and actions do nothing to discredit the service. I personally feel rank should be left out as it is easier for people to misconstrue your role as a private citizen or representative of the Military. What is wrong with saying " I am a Veteran with x number of years and this is my personal opinion."? By all means exercise your rights, you've earned them. You fought for them, you wrote a blank check to ensure everyone has those rights, just make sure there is a clear line in the sand that those are your views and your views alone. If our founding fathers meant for us not to exercise our rights because we are military We would never have had such Presidents as George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Ulysses S Grant, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight Eisenhower.