U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 26, 2014 03:16 PM UTC

Lamborn "Encouraging" Generals To Resign: No Takers

  • 37 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

SATURDAY UPDATE: MSNBC's Steve Benen, writing for Maddow Blog:

It’s not exactly clear from local reports what it is about Obama’s foreign policy that Lamborn doesn’t like, but under the circumstances, it doesn’t much matter. If a member of Congress has concerns about a president’s approach to international affairs, he or she has a variety of options, including introducing legislation limiting the scope of the administration’s policy.
 
The options do not include – or more to the point, the options aren’t supposed to include – meeting privately with generals, during a war, to urge them to “go out in a blaze of glory.”

As Megan Schrader of the Colorado Springs Gazette reports today, somebody might have gotten the message by yesterday to Rep. Doug Lamborn that this is kind of a problem:

Someone in the audience urges Lamborn to support the generals and troops "despite the fact that there is no leadership from the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House."

Lamborn smiles after the reference to the Islamic group that was active in the Arab Spring overthrow of Egypt's government and subsequent presidency of Mohammed Morsi and responds…

Lamborn told The Gazette on Friday that he wasn't talking about an organized effort or recent events.

"Nothing like that whatsoever," he said.

Doug Lamborn, everybody–elevating the discourse in Congress since 2007.

—–

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs).
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs).

A story from the Colorado Independent's John Tomasic is raising eyebrows today:

Colorado U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn said that “behind the scenes” he and other Republican members of Congress were encouraging military officers to resign in protest over President Obama’s foreign policy.

“[L]et me reassure you on this,” Lamborn told a small gathering of so-called liberty voters in Colorado Springs on Tuesday. “A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’

“You know, let’s have a pubic resignation, and state your protest, and go out in a blaze of glory. I haven’t seen that very much. In fact, I haven’t seen that at all in years.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn's Democratic opponent, retired Air Force Gen. Irv Halter, is unsurprisingly grossed out:

“It is inappropriate for Congressman Lamborn to politicize our military for his own gain,” [Halter] said in an email. “When I joined the Air Force, I swore an oath to execute policy – not make policy. All of our service members take seriously their obligation to serve our nation honorably and follow the chain of command.

“Our elected officials should not be encouraging our military leaders to resign when they have a disagreement over policy. Congressman Lamborn’s statement shows his immaturity and lack of understanding of the American armed forces. Someone who serves on the House Armed Services Committee should know better.”

It's important to recognize how little Rep. Lamborn has cared for basic standards of decorum since President Barack Obama took office. This is the same Doug Lamborn who talked about not being stuck to the "tar baby" of Obama, and who has never missed a chance to attack the President in the most ad hominem terms he can think of every chance he gets–this despite the fact that Lamborn isn't a very smart man, has accomplished basically nothing in his years in Congress, and his "witticisms" generally come off as cheap off-base potshots. After all the churlish things Lamborn has said about the President, at times wildly hypocritical, it doesn't surprise us at all that he would boorishly tell military commanders they should end their lifelong careers because of how much people like himself dislike Obama.

And while Lamborn laments the fact that none of the nation's generals have taken his advice, perhaps it will become apparent to observers that safe-seat blowhards in Congress are the real problem.

Tweet
Share

Comments

37 thoughts on “Lamborn “Encouraging” Generals To Resign: No Takers”

  2. What a thought!  A politicized military. Like a banana republic.  Mass resignations as a vote of non-confidence.  Then the ex-generals can convene the junta.

    1. Probably the same one as our resident, oh-so-bloodthirsty, "your children's boots should be on the ground in the Middle East" trolls:

      United States Chickenhawk Brigade

      Keyboard Commandos

      Armchair Division

      (They're known by the wide yellow streaks down their backs, their intense aversion to actual participation in the military themselves while pretending to care about America's veterans so as to use them as political props, and their piles of unread copies of the U.S. Constitution.)

    2. The Pentagon doesn't care for Lamborn.  He is a hapless disaster, and knows nothing about the military, yet employs ignorant jingoism and patronizing praise.

  5. Maybe Lamborn should send a glorious message and resign. It's not often you get to go out in a blaze of glory and all. I'm sure lots of Congressmen would follow him off that cliff. 

    Or maybe Republicans should boycott the next election. I'm sure that would work equally well.

    1. It was Rachel's lead story and deserved to be.

      The question is: Will local/state press pick up on it? They really should. 

      Is it going to far to refer to Lamborn's words and actions as treasonous? 

      Rachel has some great followon questions for Lamborn:

      Which generals did he talk to?

      Which other members of congress were having the same discussions with generals? 

       

        1. Yet they keep voting for him.  All of the gop will have to suffer a severe shock before they wake up and notice Kansas isn't Kansas any more.  Colorado is hanging by the proverbial thread.  But, we can pull this off.  We can do this. 

      2. Funny. I recently ran across the classic "Seven Days in May" and watched it again. Great film. Lamborn ought to see it. He'd probably think the good guys lost.

        A non-political military serving under the authority of the civilian government with the President as their Commander in Chief is very,very, basic bedrock stuff.  Any generals he and his wacko friends approached with this no doubt consider him a nut case.

        I'm inclined to think his claims to be talking to generals behind the scenes to involve them in a scheme to use the military to exert political pressure is just empty bragging for consumption by the base. If not, then he is skating on very thin ice. Plotting with generals "behind the scenes" sounds an awful lot like trying to engineer a coup, even if those generals laughed him out of their offices. It's his intent that counts. A full investigation ought to be initiated immediately.

        1. The clip from Maddow showed him answering a question from a guy trying o link Obama with the Muslim Brotherhood.  That is his base.  I' m surrounded by them, the faux wacko people.  Now that is scarey.

        1. True. And I'm not hearing about any generals saying that's a great idea, much less taking any treasonous action, as in Seven Days in May. But sedition is serious too.

          Officers approached by this moron ought to come forward and say so. Once again, I suspect Lamborn is mostly guilty of posturing for the wacko base and being an idiot. The important generals he's supposedly been seeing "behind the scenes" are probably fabrications. What important generals would take Lamborn's highly questionable scheme seriously? The guy's a clown.

          1. Yeah, I figured it was, at best, a flight of Lamborn's imagination.  But still sedition.  We are at war (forever and ever, it seems) which raises the stakes of sedition.

              1. If this is true he is inciting people to rebel.  Even claiming that he did might be a big problem.  He may have just nudged some who were vacillating between him and the general over to the general.

              3. No.

                Sedition involves the use of force or violence to overthrow the lawful government.  Basically, it's about advocating for that overthrow to occur.

                Lamborn's actions aren't seditious.  He's asking military officers to protest (lawful activity) by resigning their commissions (also, lawful activity).

                The only thing he's guilty of is being a pathetic asshole, who seems entirely willing for folks to throw away their livelihoods and long careers in order to make his point.

                1. Agree he's not guilty of that specific charge but he is advocating the politicization of the military which is a huge no no. Probably nothing here to prosecute but worthy of a hearing to see if he indeed has been meeting "behind the scenes" with generals to convince them that they should be using their military positions for political purposes. Just to, you know, check on whether there was anything more to it (Rs investigate Dems on the basis of less all the time), to see him sweat and to get national coverage for what an ignorant fool he is.

  9. I have Republican friends in Chaffee County, which, sadly, is part of the 5th District. They waste no love on Lamborn. But are powerless to do anything as long as the know-nothings in El Paso County continue to vote for him.

  10. I agree with most of the above statements–but in addition to those–how about the fact that if those "contacted generals" did resign–how many of them would be giving up their retirement pay?

    1. Lamborn's knee jerk response of defunding NOREL forever places him in the DNR catagory. This is an example of a congressional house seat that must be taken back. . Definitely not the sharpest rock in the box

  12. I checked out Lamborn's facebook page to see if anyone was talking about this. Yes and no. When you look at the comments on his posts, it'll say things like "350 comments," then you click to expand it and there's only 3 left that say something positive of the congressman. Heavy censorship. He must be experiencing some serious blowback.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

80 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!