Skip to main content

I originally called this post "An encouraging sign for the future of the republic," but that got no response, so I changed it to "future of the nation." Still no response. So I changed it again. A front-page post by kos about the upcoming Army, Navy, Air Force (and perhaps) Marine Times calling for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation is certainly unprecedented. But it is a great deal more than that. I originally intended to leave a comment on kos's thread, but I believe that it requires a more thorough discussion.

There is no doubt in my mind that once Congressional hearings begin under a Democratic Congress (assuming we get over the vote-stealing hurdle), impeachment will once more be on the table. Even without WH documents subpoenaed by the Congress (the turning over of which will be denied on the grounds of executive privelege or state secrets, or both), enough evidence will surface from other testimony to warrant the impeachment of Bush, Cheney and Gonzales, for starters.

One of my great fears (shared by Larisa and KagroX )is that a cornered Bush Maladministration might simply refuse to cooperate with impeachment proceedings, even a conviction; claiming plenary power under the "unitary executive" theory, it might order all branches of the executive, including the Attoreney General and DoD, not to enforce any such Congressional or even judicial decision. My worry was: under these circumstances, who would carry out the order of Congress?

Nixon, when cornered, was advised by Al Haig: "There's the military." Given martial law as a last resort, Nixon folded.

It seems to me that in this editorial, those closest to the military are putting the administration on notice that it will not cooperate unconditionally with orders from the executive branch.

Is this too much to hope for?

Originally posted to notjonathon on Fri Nov 03, 2006 at 10:29 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  That was exactly my response when I read it: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "It seems to me that in this editorial, those closest to the military are putting the administration on notice that it will not cooperate unconditionally with orders from the executive branch."

    Let's assume that the editorial reflects the views of a significant number of high-ranking military officers.

    If so, then it's possible that this statement hints at the possibility of refusal to follow (presumably illegal) orders to arrest or attack civilian protestors if the election is blatantly stolen, or to carry out an unprovoked attack upon Iran, or to use military force to federalize the National Guard over the resistance of the nation's governors.

    As someone said on another thread, it seems to be telegraphing the possibility of a "soft" mutiny.

    Barry Goldwater's remark, "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice," takes on a whole new meaning under the Bush-Cheney-Rove regime.

    by deepeco on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:00:37 AM PST

    •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not knowledgeable about the military, but it seems to be a not very subtle statement that they will not assist in rounding up US citizens or in any action against US citizens.

      They have put they're foot down to little Napoleon.

      A generous and compassionate soul is worth more than all the wealth in the land. One Pissed Off Liberal

      by azrefugee on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:09:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. I think 'refusal to cooperate' (0+ / 0-)
      is a much more likely message than anything verging on outright mutiny/coup, that has some people rightly concerned.

      Or, Bush fires Rumsfeld, and the military's satisfied, until the next guy gets in and seems to be just as inept.

      This is looking like a long road down for Cheney.  From the vanity fair article, it doesn't sound like condi was Dick's first choice for SoS.  He's lost Perle, another long-time ally, and now Rummy?  This may be a Cheney - Bush war we're watching.

      So, the administration has alienated other neo-cons (like Perle), many of the evangelicals (cf. Kuo), the libertarian right (given the number of L candidates out there), and now the military.

      Just who are the remaining constituents?

      Is the victim moral? -- Nietzsche.

      by oxon on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 02:22:29 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tag Note: (0+ / 0-)

    Tag Notes:

    Tag guidelines instruct that when names are used both the first and last names should be included and in cases like the George Bushes - the middle initials are essential.  (Tag "Rumsfeld" fixed for this diary)

  •  billmon is worried (0+ / 0-)

    me too - but a stitch in time saves nine and all of that. this frog has been warming up for way too long.

    by lukery on Sat Nov 04, 2006 at 12:47:31 AM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site