Blame Bush now?

[RetiredGySgt]

Looks like you're the one whose military knowledge is lacking. Your oath was to defend the Constitution first, and obey the CiC second. Remember that? Obviously not (or you're one of those who remembers only what suits your purpose when it happens to suit your purpose).

Since the CiC has acted outside the Constitution, he should according to your oath be arrested and tried. Ideally at Gitmo.

Blatant LIE. Not a half truth nor is it supported by the FACTS. The president has done Nothing Unconstitutional in the conduct of, including starting, the "war". Congress could easily stop funding it if it were something a majority wanted to do. If the President acted Unconstitutional why hasn't he been Impeached?

More to the point SPECIFY what he has done in regards starting and maintaining the "war" that is Unconstitutional. Be specific.

 

[Gunny]

Looks like you're the one whose military knowledge is lacking. Your oath was to defend the Constitution first, and obey the CiC second. Remember that? Obviously not (or you're one of those who remembers only what suits your purpose when it happens to suit your purpose).

Since the CiC has acted outside the Constitution, he should according to your oath be arrested and tried. Ideally at Gitmo.

You are being intellectually dishonest. Here is the oath:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Nowhere in that oath appears the context you have attempted to interject into it. That swearing to support and defend the Consitution APPEARS before following the orders of the President sets some sort of echelon of precedence is just pure BS.

Regardless, it is irrelevant since the President has not ordered the military to do anything that is unconstitutional. But you can trot out your accusation if it makes you happy. I haven't had target practice in awhile.

 

[Truthmatters]

You vow to protect the constitution, if the CIC gives you an order which is unconstitutional what do you do?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehren_Watada

It will be interesting to see if they do try to try him again?

 

[Gunny]

You vow to protect the constitution, if the CIC gives you an order which is unconstitutional what do you do?

Another civilian with no idea how the military functions. A clearly unconstitutional order wouldn't have a chance in Hell of making it down to the company level.

Now if I was the Service Secretary or JCS, I would immediately point out that his order was unconstitutional, and could not be carried out as given.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You vow to protect the constitution, if the CIC gives you an order which is unconstitutional what do you do?

If? If what? Be specific, what Unconstitutional ORDER or ORDERS did Bush give? and since Presidents almost never order privates around, the order had to go through a Myriad of generals, staff officers, and every serving member of the military involved in "carrying" out the illegal order. It would have to be in writing SOMEWHERE. Unless you are going to claim the president secretly met with just ONE officer, gave the order or orders on the sly and then slipped out unnoticed.

Of course this would still require that the person receiving said illegal order must have passed it on. Again involving a myriad of military personnel that failed to realize they were following an illegal order.

Be specific, who was the fall guy that surrepticiously met with the president and then passed out the "secret" illegal orders? What was the order or orders?

IF? If isn't gonna cut it. make the claim or shut up.

 

[CSM]

You act as though I'm the first ever to have suggested such a thing.

(The fact that there's no such word as "perview" doesn't help your cause much, either...)

Thanks for correcting my spelling; I will return the favor every chance I get!

You are deftly tap dancing around the subject and doing a great job of avoiding direct confrontation. Such postings make for less than boring discussion however.

What specific charges have been brought against Bush through legal processes that substantiate your assertions? On what basis do you find the current military enlisted and noncoms untrained and uneducated? What supporting evidence do you have for any of the allegations you have made in this thread?

 

[red states rule]

Thanks for correcting my spelling; I will return the favor every chance I get!

You are deftly tap dancing around the subject and doing a great job of avoiding direct confrontation. Such postings make for less than boring discussion however.

What specific charges have been brought against Bush through legal processes that substantiate your assertions? On what basis do you find the current military enlisted and noncoms untrained and uneducated? What supporting evidence do you have for any of the allegations you have made in this thread?

To the left, the crime Pres Bush committed was he defeated them in two Presidential elections

The Man @ Lunch learned the troops were uneducated from John Kerry via his "botched joke"

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

Now if you can't understand why military-types would be more entusiastic toward a CinC that will confront an enemy rather than CinC's who brought us the Iranian Hostage Crisis and Somalia, you just aren't thinking clearly.

Neither are you, apparently. It was Daddy Bush who brought us Somalia, right after he lost the election.

(In all fairness, though, the Iran embassy issue was by far the biggest mistake that a CinC ever made. Just for the record.)

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

What specific charges have been brought against Bush through legal processes that substantiate your assertions?

The current Congress has rightly been more concerned about bringing the troops home than about impeaching the criminal. The previous congress, of course, was never anything beyond a rubber stamp for him.

Thank God the American people are tired of such an attitude.

 

[Gunny]

Neither are you, apparently. It was Daddy Bush who brought us Somalia, right after he lost the election.

(In all fairness, though, the Iran embassy issue was by far the biggest mistake that a CinC ever made. Just for the record.)

I'm thinking QUITE clearly. Bush may have DEPLOYED US troops to Somalia, but it most certainly was NOT Bush that pulled the rug out from under them.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis WAS indeed a big mistake. I'm not too sure about the biggest. Johnson putting combat troops on the ground in Vietnam comes to mind. The Bay of Pigs. Nixon having the DNC bugged for an election he carried all but two states in.

There are some pretty good contenders.

 

[Gunny]

The current Congress has rightly been more concerned about bringing the troops home than about impeaching the criminal. The previous congress, of course, was never anything beyond a rubber stamp for him.

Thank God the American people are tired of such an attitude.

The current Congress could care less about bring the troops home. All they care about is opposing Republicans.

I beg to differ on the "rubber stamp." The former Congress has so much infighting going on with RINO's and conservatives, they didn't accomplish too much, and they let the minority party intimidate them at will.

 

[The Man @ Lunch]

Nowhere in that oath appears the context you have attempted to interject into it. That swearing to support and defend the Consitution APPEARS before following the orders of the President sets some sort of echelon of precedence is just pure BS.

So instead, am I to understand that you place the President above the Constitution? A guy named Nixon thought that once, I seem to recall.

Now who's letting his mouth flat outrun his mind?

 

[red states rule]

The current Congress has rightly been more concerned about bringing the troops home than about impeaching the criminal. The previous congress, of course, was never anything beyond a rubber stamp for him.

Thank God the American people are tired of such an attitude.

Funny how for two years Dems said more troops were needed and Pres Bush refused

Then when Pres Bush wantes to send more troops to Iraq - Dems are suddenly opposed

 

[Bullypulpit]

if the guy had been any good at his job, he would have kept it. pure and simple.

at least Team Bush saw the handwriting on the wall and did not renominate him. He was the Harriet Meirs in the pantheon of CJCS's.

I think he was actually thrown under the bus because they didn't want him grilled about the administration's Iraq policy in Iraq and it's failure.

 

[maineman]

Funny how for two years Dems said more troops were needed and Pres Bush refused

Then when Pres Bush wantes to send more troops to Iraq - Dems are suddenly opposed

isn't it funny how 150 years ago, black people were property, and now they are not. The point being: things change. A LOT has happened in those two years to convince democrats that pouring more troops into Iraq is a losing proposition. I have said that all along... other democrats took longer to see the light.

 

[red states rule]

isn't it funny how 150 years ago, black people were property, and now they are not. The point being: things change. A LOT has happened in those two years to convince democrats that pouring more troops into Iraq is a losing proposition. I have said that all along... other democrats took longer to see the light.

Things change eh?

Dems are for anything up to very moment Pres Bush agrees with them - then they switch sides

I guess Dems were ready to vote for the troop increase before they voted against it

 

[maineman]

Things change eh?

Dems are for anything up to very moment Pres Bush agrees with them - then they switch sides

I guess Dems were ready to vote for the troop increase before they voted against it

are you suggesting that things have not been changing in Iraq?

Your "analysis" of the behavior and motivations of the democratic party is flawed, infantile and silly.

 

[red states rule]

are you suggesting that things have not been changing in Iraq?

Your "analysis" of the behavior and motivations of the democratic party is flawed, infantile and silly.

Dems do not give a shit about the troops - only opposing Pres Bush

 

[maineman]

Your "analysis" of the behavior and motivations of the democratic party is flawed, infantile and silly.

Dems do not give a shit about the troops - only opposing Pres Bush

I rest my case