General McCrystal should resign and become a Blogger......

Because just like most everyone else currently posting on the Internet, he clearly believes he knows better than the President exactly what needs to be done. In that sense, he is not an oddity; he's part of the consensus of the many folks who, without the buck stopping there, believe themselves to have just the right answers to whatever. However, unlike those on the Internet, he took an oath to the CIC, and so since he didn't hold up to his oath, he needs to voluntarily choose to go. He can then start a blog.....and become another of the many Presidential/Administration critic.

Never took an oath to the CIC.

Maybe Generals do? Not sure.

"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).


And, just for clarification, the relevant UCMJ:

888. ART. 88. CONTEMPT TOWARD OFFICIALS

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

889. ART. 89 DISRESPECT TOWARD SUPERIOR COMMISSIONED OFFICER

Any person subject to this chapter who behaves with disrespect toward his superior commissioned officer shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


So yes, McChrystal is in clear violation of his oath.

Did the General take that oath?

While I have known many people that moved from the enlisted ranks to become commissioned officers, I do not believe this is the case with this General. Are you saying that the enlisted oath applies to him even if he did not take it?

The only people I ever see making the distinction between the oaths (with the implication an officer's duty to the CIC is lesser than an enlisted soldier's) are on fringe right wing websites - specifically Orly Taitz.

That is why I wanted to make especially sure as to what your point is.

If you served, I am CERTAIN you understand the obligations of the oaths and adherence to the UCMJ, as well as chain of command.

Do you want to clarify?

Are you stating that the General took an oath to the CIC? I do not know what this has to do with right wing websites. You posted the enlisted personnel oath. What relation does that oath have with a commissioned officer? Are you saying that a commissioned officer also takes an oath to the CIC as the OP states? Is that oath integral to your discussion, or has it evolved beyond that posting?

I want to understand your point of view.

give him. He did not, however, swear any oath to the CIC. You will not see any sane person in the administration or the Pentagon claim that he has violated his oath as a commissioned officer. Can you please explain the relevancy of the enlisted oath to this General in particular?

Just making sure.

to that of a commissioned officer.

correcting me on this!

Officer's 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.<1>



Enlisted 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).


So it appears that enlisted members do swear an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States, but Officers don't. Perhaps the enlisted Oath remains and is not "replaced" by the officer's oath, which only reiterates part of the original oath.

But swearing an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and to bear faith and allegiance to the same is not an oath to the CIC or any other man.

you don't remember swearing to follow the orders of the President?

Oath of enlistees:



Oath of officers upon commission:



Additional oath required for officers in the National Guards:

magazine for anyway? Something is wrong with that guy, people in those kinds of positions
don't do shit like that.

we really should just shut our mouths.

:toast:

No denying that.

that this individual is a human rights violator who shouldn't be trusted. Who still shouldn't be trusted even today because his black site at Bagram is still operational.

Oh, those wacky bloggers and their incessant whining about torture and stuff.

Time to shape up or ship out! :spank:

to tar bloggers.

LOL

I'm not.

it wasn't required....but then neither was my OP. Some will say that I need to STFU, and I would reckon that you would agree.

That is so totally not my style. "Shut up" is the biggest insult I can imagine, and I hope you note that I've never used it, and never will.

I still think we can find areas of agreement. I do wish you wouldn't take every attack on Obama as a personal affront. No one is perfect, even Obama. And yes, some people out there are just as smart as he is (not me, of course lol). It would be easy to paint you as an enemy, but it would also be lazy. I don't see you that way, and I hope you can find it in you to not see every Obama criticism as coming from an enemy either.

by proxy responding with snark to someone else's comment. Much more subtle sir!

And as you can see in this thread we have no compunctions about addressing each other personally. You're free to explain how my reply was laughing at her. I'll wait. I got nothing to do on this Tuesday night. I bet that even Frenchie knows that I'm not laughing at her here at all.

I appreciate the spirit of your cheerleading though. Always good to stand up for those you think are on your side. Wish we could see that we're on the same side, but if distinctions have to be drawn...

All I post here (aside from my nonstop "cheerleading" -- your quote, not mine -- on behalf of Frenchie, who I might add desperately needs my help and constantly pleads for it :sarcasm:) is requests for people to get along, before I devolve into snarky ad-hominem attacks like everyone else. So, take that for what it's worth.

As far as you laughing. I said proxy laughing because of the post you were responding to. He was calling out Frenchie, and laughing that she would be putting a war criminal in the same camp as bloggers (kinda a sweeping generlaization, but whatever). You stated that he should not expect anything different. In my opinion, something that could maybe be called cheerleading for your pal as well. But we're supposed to get along now, so I bid you good day.

:toast:

This has been another episode in "The Type Of Disagreements I Like Best!" :)

:toast:

that everyone seems to believe they know better than this President what needs to be done; in fact, not just in the case of war, but in the case of everything.

to tar the President....

but hey, we all do it, right

:hi:

No double standard there!

lol, hell he might be on here right now. Have you seen some of the posts on here?

On the front page, there'll be an initial message alert that says:

"If you're French, leave now."