During Nixion's Last Year in Office...

[reACTIONary]

I've read over the years that during Nixon's last year in office, as he was going off the rails, he would call for hair-brained bombing missions and other military actions to be taken, often while drunk. The generals would put him off by telling him the weather wasn't right at the time, and that they would start the planning process. Then they would do nothing, and he would forget about it... until the next episode.

I don't recall anyone complaining that they were "subverting democracy" or that they should have acted with "honor" and resign. My impression is that it was understood that they were in a tight spot and they did what they had to do.

I recall a discussion on NPR a few months ago between two foreign policy experts who were both dismayed that Trump did not seem to understand the full consequences of initiating a nuclear exchange. That this would be an existential threat to all human kind. One of them stated that in extremis he hopped that legal means could be found for stopping him. The reply was "any means" and he had to agree.

My opinion is that those around Dotard 45 should be doing what they can to prevent him from doing what he might. And an "honorable resignation" isn't necessarily an effective action to take, especially if you are not a top tier cabinet member. If you resigned and wrote a letter to the editor, you would be quickly replaced and forgotten. If you were to write an anonymous expose for the New Your Times, you might have something of a positive impact.

Bless his / her pointed little head.

[D_Master81]

1. Yeah but

that was before Fox News and the GOP turned the Presidency into the position of King and they stilled believed in the separation of powers.

[Nevernose]

2. Not coincidentally: both enabled by Roger Ailes

Nixon’s media consultant wrote a WH memo in 1972 about the need for a conservative propaganda TV station to counter “liberal” media. Eventually he used Rupert Murdoch’s money to start Faux News.

Thus completing the circle in some awful, decades-long Satanic ritual. Probably.

[Trust Buster]

3. I agree, but it is a dangerous precedent. We have civilian control of our military.

It would be bad for our country to normalize a military override of our elected executive. Another way this creep is doing tremendous damage to our institutions and balance of power.

[reACTIONary]

4. At least in this case....

.... it is Secretary Mattis that slow walked the request (command?) to assassinate Assad. That is a a bit removed from a General refusing an order. At least he is a civil servant, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The Justice department has, and should have, a great deal of independence from the executive. So in that case, it works.

I personally would like to see a more "parliamentarian" approach where Cabinet members have a greater degree of independence over their "portfolios" after being nominated and confirmed.