Posted on 11/20/2017 8:13:14 AM PST by RoosterRedux
Considerable uproar was generated this past weekend by legacy media reports that the commander of U.S. strategic forces would "resist 'illegal' nuke order from Trump," as CBS, in a headline echoed by most media sources, put it.
In fact, nothing of the sort occurred. The story, like many that have appeared since November 8, 2016, is an almost complete fabrication, intended to embarrass President Trump and cause turmoil within the federal government and among Trump's own supporters.
What actually happened is this: USAF general John E. Hyten, the chief of Strategic Command (StratCom), which is the trans-service military command that controls nuclear weapons, was asked a hypothetical question about what his reaction would be if he were given an "illegal" order to carry out a nuclear strike. Gen. Hyten answered hypothetically, not mentioning President Trump or any current international situation (e.g., North Korea) or implying that he would disobey orders. At no point did the general give any indication that he was going from the theoretical to the particular.
I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do. And if it's illegal, guess what's going to happen? I'm going to say, 'Mr. President, that's illegal.' And guess what he's going to do? He's going to say, 'What would be legal?' And we'll come up with options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that's the way it works. It's not that complicated.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What he really did was publically pose a hypothetical where President Trump would ask him to do something illegal.
He needs to go.
geez these people are low-life scum.....
I was thinking this guy needed to be relieved of command, but instead THIS IS A REASONABLE AND CORRECT REPLY
you should read the whole thing first.
To take them seriously, to respond to them as the media and the left would like, is to collaborate. Rule of thumb is, simply put: anything – anything at all – coming from the legacy media must be examined under the presumption of dishonesty. Don't respond until after you've checked it out, not only down to the ground, but to the basement and subbasements as well.
...soon to be “former” commander.
William Blake
No, the reporter posed the hypothetical.
The General answered the question by explaining standard Army policy.
The article points out the truth, if it is read.
He shouldn’t have appeared on a panel. Fireable offense.
No, he didn’t. The hypothetical was presented to him and he gave the correct answer. Our military isn’t the Wehrmacht or the Luftwaffe and we don’t require them to “just follow orders”. The presstitutes tried to make this into an anti-Trump story, as if high level officers are considering a mutiny.
Ooo, Mr. tough guy, not gonna let President Trump get him to do anything illegal, implying that is a real possibility. Face it, the optics are really bad here.
A great example of why you should never answer hypothetical questions.
They just reported what the general said so ... it is not fake news. The general should be gone.
You are correct. The general didn’t ask the question, the press did. It’s one of those many attempts at a “gotcha” situation the democrat/communist media propaganda complex likes to pose. Just like the Pharisees liked to pose to Jesus.
The general gave the correct answer to the question. When asked this question, what else do you want him to say?
Anyone calling for him to go doesn’t understand the first thing about how the military operates.
He stated the duty that he is sworn to do.
He was asked what would he do if he was given an illegal order. As is his sworn duty, he would not carry out such an order and would support his Commander-in-Chief to determine what actions were appropriate.
(I realize that I am just repeating what you put in the OP - but it bears repeating since so many people don’t seem to be able to grasp it)
Not if the article is accurate, which BTW is completely believable since this has been a media MO for decades concerning Republican Presidents. The nuclear fear ploy started with Goldwater, and seeing the success that brought, has encouraged them to use it as often as possible whenever a Republican is the President. A Republican President in control of nuclear decisions are dangerous, headlines always scream. So far only a Democrat has authorized the use of not one but two, not that I disagreed with his decision.
“Face it, the optics are really bad here. “
That’s the truth of the matter. This a$$hole should have walked away. He got to be a general courtesy of BOOSH II and was promoted three times by Obola in close succession. If I were Trump, I’d be seriously considering relieving him of his command responsibilities.
“The media simply put words in his mouth”
Yeah, that is the point. Why did he bite? It would seem the average person would be awake enough to have avoided that trap.
No he didn’t.
He was asked a hypothetical question and answered it. He was not the one who posed it.
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).
Officer's oath:
I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ 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 reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Unlike the enlisted oath, officers do not swear to uphold orders of the President.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.