The generals in the military have always been political and require hearings/confirmation process. W...Political struggles are nothing new.. just ask Gen Grant or Gen MacArthur....
I would think Gen. McClellan would be a better example than Grant but the reader is right to remind me of this.
And another reader said:
The trouble is, as Bryan noted the other day, the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a court-martial offense for any military officer to use "...contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present."
I would respond with what McCain said, which inspired the original post from me:
When we confirm a senior officer to a position in the military, there's always a standard question that is asked, and that they always say Yes to, and that is "When asked, will you give your candid and personal opinion in answer to a question by a member of the committee?" They always say Yes.
Would giving your candid opinion to Congress constitute "contemptuous words against the president?" Wouldn't lying to Congress be "contemptuous" and therefore in violation of this oath? McCain's point was that Sanchez was asked point blank about the Bush policy when he was in charge...and he defended it. Not to the public, or his soldiers. Not on the field of battle. But in a Congressional hearing. How is this living up to his oath or his duty to country if he really believed we were sending men and women to die on a doomed mission, as he now says? If he really felt that way all along then he lied to Congress, which he took an oath that he would not do.
