Calling For A Coup At The Huffington Post

You know your Bush Dementia Syndrome is getting out of control when you’re actually calling for a military coup — or maybe you’re just a closet fascist, who knows? Speaking of which, over at the Huffington Post, Martin Lewis wrote the following this week-end,

“General Pace – you have the power to fulfill your responsibility to protect the troops under your command. Indeed you have an obligation to do so.

You can relieve the President of his command.

Not of his Presidency. But of his military role as Commander-In-Chief.

…To be crystal clear – I am NOT advocating or inciting you to undertake any illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup. You are an honorable patriotic man.

I am NOT advocating or inciting you to interfere with any of the civilian duties of the President. That would not be a legal action by you.

However you have the legal responsibility – under Article 134 of the Uniform Code Of Military Justice – to protect the troops under your command by relieving the President of his MILITARY command.

…In addition to relieving him of his command as Commander-In-Chief, you also have authority to place the President under MILITARY arrest.”

You’ve got to love how the guy is calling for a military coup, but then he includes a line saying he is not calling for a military coup. It’s not a coup because he doesn’t call it a coup.

Liberals love that kind of talk. It’s not a baby, it’s a “choice.” Hillary isn’t liberal, she’s “progressive.” They don’t want to surrender in Iraq, they just want to “redeploy” the troops. It’s not a tax increase, it’s “making people pay their fair share.” So, if you propose an “illegal act, insurrection, mutiny, putsch or military coup,” but call it something else, it doesn’t count. Gotcha.

PS: If the Huffington Post isn’t a mainstream liberal blog, then there is no such thing. The fact that this sort of article is appearing there is just another sign of how off the rails modern liberalism has gone.

Update #1: Martin Lewis is now implausibly trying to claim that the post was just “satire.”

“I have been reminded of that question as I watch with bemusement the right-wing blogosphere getting its knickers in a twist over my column that presented a tongue-in-cheek open letter to General Peter Pace suggesting that he arrest George W. Bush for “Conduct Unbecoming”. It was of course just ‘a modest proposal’…

Anyone who has read “Gulliver’s Travels” (even the ‘Comics Illustrated’ version from Regnery Publishing for the “challenged reader”) is aware of a little thing called satire. Perhaps has even heard of Jonathan Swift.

But it appears that the only “Swift” that the right-wing nuts have heard of is the Swift Boat.

Swift = Smear they understand.

Swift = Satire…? Well, let’s just be charitable and say that it “eludes” them.”

The problem with claiming that an incredibly humiliating article like this is satire after you’ve been sliced to pieces over it are twofold:

#1) The original post wasn’t in any way, shape, or form, funny. It was dry, it quoted military code, and there was no attempt at humor made whatsoever.

#2) Lewis relentlessly defended his post in the comments section at the Huffpo. Here’s a typical example,

CharlesBird (See profile | I’m a fan of CharlesBird)
Responding to Martin’s response…

Martin, you can’t credibly say that you’re “not advocating a de facto military coup” when you are advocating that very thing in your post. You are asking a general–a general appointed by the commander-in-chief mind you–to unseat his civilian superior, and in that bargain, you’ve just put the U.S. Constitution right on its ear. The UCMJ doesn’t trump the Constitution, it does not apply to elected civilian commanders, and there is no proviso in the Constitution for partial removal of duties. You have impeachment and total removal from office, and that’s the only way you can stop a president. There are no partials here.

Also, if Bush listens to Peter Pace, that means he is not listening to General Petraeus. By your own “logic”, this means that Petraeus (in his view) has cause to remove Bush from office because he would be shirking his duties as C-in-C.Please tell me how your “suggestion” differs one bit from your garden-variety banana republic. Whether you accept it or not, you are pushing for a military coup d’etat.

=========MARTIN RESPONDS==========

I utterly reject the use of any force or illegal action of any kind and specifically reject and condemn any calls for it. I do call on General Pace to speak his conscience and to do his ethical, moral duty to his forces and to his nation. Sometimes the right words from a man of courage have a moral impact that resonates.

Oh, the hilarity! This guy should be writing for John Kerry instead of the HuffPo after penning lines like that. They seem to both have the same kind of taste in comedy. If only the audience were smart enough to figure out that these comedic geniuses were in their midst!

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!