White House tried to pressure 4 star general to lie to congr

Post Reply New Topic

With the White House already reeling over the Solyndra collapse, a new scandal may have erupted today that could make the disappearance of $535 million in taxpayer funds look like a paperwork glitch. Eli Lake starts off his new gig at The Daily Beast with a huge bombshell — an accusation made to members of Congress from a four-star Air Force general that claimed the White House pressured him to change his testimony to boost a big donor to the Democratic Party:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/15/b ... tic-donor/

So we have a solar company scandal, him playing games with the lives of our troops, and now trying to get a 4 Star General to lie to congress, I seriously hope liberals here wake up.

Crony capitalism is the Chicago way!

Bush had General Kashvilli (spelling?) fired for disagreeing with him and Cheney about the Iraq War. It turns out, the general was right. Then there's the financial scheming by Haliburton, and the murders (yes, MURDERS!) committed by Blackwater in Iraq for insane racist and Christian fundamentalist reasons. Who needs to wake up?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

this type of political presuring is nothing new and not unique to just democrats.
often someone who does not "play ball", their life suddenly goes to hell in a spetacular way, which is why he came out about it, to buffer himself.

We've been around this issue in PPR.

I see nothing to support the claim to "falsification."

The General takes his orders from the President. If the President has decided that the policy of the Administration is to facilitate more broadband for commercial use, then the General's role is to salute and speak as he is instructed to do.

There is a place for dissent in government policy choices, and that place is in the discussions internal to government. Once the political leadership takes the decision, though, the appointed public service and military command are required to fall in line behind their political masters.

If the General cannot, in good conscience, follow the administration, then his honourable course of action is to resign.

Now, if there is an issue of corruption--and I see a perfectly good argument that there is--then take the argument where it belongs. This isn't about the President giving orders to a general, this is about improper influence over decision making.

But you have allowed a political environment to come into existence where commercial interests have unlimited access to contribute campaign finance. You can hardly be surprised at the result.

The president telling the general what to say regardless of the truth is not a crime. You obviously dont know how the military opperates. A person in the military is practacly owned by the government...they have to do what they are told or get discharged. When my dad was a AF reserve director, he had a historian on board. He asked the historian, so what do you write about the current events for the AF reserve? He replied, I just make sh*t up.
However, if the general decides not to obey...life can get complicated quick. It is a system that has been in place to keep everyone in line in the military since George washington's day, until recently with the patriot act, some aspects have been extended to civilians and got alot more high tech.

but this military order is older than our nation, based on that, I seriously doubt he will be impeached for it. Military laws are different from civilian laws.

Jojo

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury not for getting a blowjob. Granted, if he didn't get the blowjob he wouldn't have lied about it under oath, but saying he was impeached for the blowjob is like saying a drunk driver was arrested for drinking instead of for driving drunk.

The general's chain of command doesn't go through white house staffers, so unless he was receiving pressure directly from the president he can thumb his nose at "whitehouse pressure" all day long and still be perfectly within his duties and his oath. By the way, his oath to defend the US constitution (which the President also takes) supersedes the President's authority to order him to do anything. If the president told the general to nuke congress the general would be honor-bound to not obey such an unlawful order.