We have never had an uprising against the President, well maybe once, but he fought us to unconditional surrender at Appomattox.
The President only has to obey the law. Clinton was not impeached for using our Military improperly.
I watched all the coverage of Lynch and I never saw a Military spokesperson intentionally lie about anything. I actually heard spokespersons say to reporters, "if what your fellow reporters are saying is true, then Pvt. Lynch might be a hero." Or, "we will have to wait for further information before I can answer that question." And the reporters questions are always the stupidest idiotic foolishness that cause anyone that has been in the military to cuss in private company. I saw plenty of Retired officers that voiced opinion as so called experts on behalf of the networks. The lies and drivel among that pack of jackals was astronomical.
As for the Pat Tillman event, I don't think any good is served by publicly disclosing instances of friendly fire or supposed atrocities that our military may have committed in battle. [The same goes for the Border Patrol]
The UCMJ is harsh enough on personnel without Commanders having to make rules of engagement that bring Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines in greater harm to avoid public recriminations.
Gen. Sherman said "War Is Hell" (we know something about that in Georgia)! Asking our military to abide by the whims and wishes of armchair civilians is lunacy.
You said — “We have never had an uprising against the President, well maybe once, but he fought us to unconditional surrender at Appomattox.”
I’m not talking about an armed revolution, I’m talking about his party backing off support of him, because the public is “up in arms” (again figurative), and he can’t get legislation through and has to fight public opinion — in other words “beleaguered”. And then, he’s looking at the end of his term and he can’t get political capital together to get anything done. And other things add into the equation like losing one or both parts of Congress, find that he can’t work with them any longer (as he may have once been able to do). Well..., you get the picture. The President, in that case, has got his butt up against the wall, so to speak.
.
And then — “The President only has to obey the law. Clinton was not impeached for using our Military improperly.”
It’s an example of how accountability works. With one President, it could be one thing that gets him, with another — it could be something else. And furthermore, just like we see with the supposed impeachment that some want to go through with now, in Congress (although it will never make it), it’s not specifically what they’re going after (in an impeachment) that may be the driving force. The impeachment can be simply a “tool” and nothing more.
Of course, when you say that the President only has to obey the law, you have to remember that some laws the President doesn’t want to obey, although he has to, but some will try to find ways around it. I’m reminded of the so-called Iran-Contra affair...
About the Jessica Lynch testimony. I still would like to see what that testimony was, in writing, somewhere. I don’t know where it is, though.
.
Finally — “Gen. Sherman said “War Is Hell” (we know something about that in Georgia)! Asking our military to abide by the whims and wishes of armchair civilians is lunacy.”
It might be hell, but it’s still under civilian control, and it’s going to remain that way. And that means that the public is going to have a say in it — whether it be to go to war or to stay out of it. And if they don’t like the course of the war, they’ve also got a right to say, “Get out of there!” That’s the public’s total responsibility in the matter. And if the public thinks so, then they will elect Congressmen who thinnk the same and who will demand to get out of the war. And furthermore, if the public thinks so, then they will elect a President who will do the same thing and get out of the war.
That’s always been the case and it always will.