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.
Good! We need less legislation, not more. If the President vetoed every bill across his desk for four years we would all be much better off.
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!”
I can only pray that foolish statements such as this fall on the deaf ears of a man of principle.
Your words are the same as the dumb-masses (mind how you say it) that protested Vietnam or even stormed "The Bastille" with red kerchiefs. I think you have lived in the Pacific Northwest to long. Move back to Oklahoma and get some grit. Visit Ft. Sill and see the "Molly Pitcher" sculpture on the battle monument. Think about courage in the face of battle, instead of recriminations in the face of cowardice and ineptitude. Stop thinking like a leftest whiner.
It matters not what a Private that couldn't fire her weapon while others died has to say. It matters less what the Communist shill Henry Waxman of Kalifornia has to say. Shout it from the mountaintop that those persons wish to bring our nation to ruin and destruction. If you believe their filth for one moment I don't think you belong on this forum.
Better still, you could enlist and learn for yourself or prove me wrong by your own experience.