General Pace - you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.Now, seeing as Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution makes clear that "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States" it is not possible to relieve the office of its command whilst allowing the holder of the office to remain President.
- You can relieve the President of his command.
- Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.
- You simply invoke the Uniform Code Of Military Justice.
If you're President you're Commander-in-Chief, you cannot be President and not be unless there is a military coup, which, as much as they may think they're not doing, is what the Huffington Post is actually calling for. After all, calling for the highest ranking officer below the US President to arrest the President and take control of the Armed Forces cannot be described as anything other than a coup.
8 comments:
wouldnt be a bad idea over here. in fact id say its a distinct possibility if brown screws up the iraq exit.
Have they forgotten that Bush won't be in charge for much longer anyway?
@anonymous 9:18
The comparison with the UK doesn't hold as the Queen is head of the Armed Forces.
Surely you should be reporting that Brown isnt going to withdraw troops from Iraq! You must be so happy. This Iraq war thing you supported is going so well isnt it (Oh wait, its a fucking disaster as predicted). Tell me Dizzy, after 4 years of this crap, do you really STILL support the war, or is being anti war some radical far left position... (I'm not a leftie by the way)
Blogging about Iraq is boring. And yes, I really do still support our military presence in Iraq.
Stopping Bush control the military would be be quite the same as a coup really. More like a re-write of the job description to stave off retirement on mental health grounds. GWB does not meet the person specification for Commander in Chief.
Too ex-cokey, too dry drunk, too daft, too chip on shouldered, too short to run an action man.
Dizzy, well said.
Mind you, the US founding fathers (or some of them) we very much in favour of an occassional revolution. Jefferson himself (it may have been Madison)thought that the constitution should not last for more than 50 years before the next generation got all disorderly and reinvented the nation.
However, I am not sure he had the whingers of the Huffington Post in mind.
A-List US blog calls for military coup against Bush ...
... and neocrazies call for Bush coup against Democracy.
It's worth a read. The punch line:
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
FSM pulled the article but it's still in the Google cache.
Post a Comment