Was asked by someone in one of the big media outfits to look into this:
Military to Pledge Oath To Obama, Not Constitution
Published: Jan 29, 2009
Author: Michele Chang
Post Date: 2009-01-29 10:38:14
Defense Robert Gates is extremely frustrated with
orders that the White House is contemplating. According to sources at
the Pentagon, including all branches of the armed forces, the Obama
Administration may break with a centuries-old tradition.
A spokesman for General James Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, states that the Obama Administration wants to
have soldiers and officers pledge a loyalty oath directly to the office
of the President, and no longer to the Constitution.
"The oath to the Constitution is as old as the document itself." the
spokesman said, "At no time in American history, not even in the Civil
War, did the oath change or the subject of the oath differ. It has
always been to the Constitution."
The back-and-forth between the White House and the Defense Department
was expected as President George W. Bush left office. President Obama
has already signed orders to close Guantanamo and to pull combat troops
from Iraq. But, this, say many at the Defense Department, goes to far.
"Technically, we can't talk about it before it becomes official
policy." the spokesman continued. "However, the Defense Department,
including the Secretary, will not take this laying down. Expect a fight
from the bureaucracy and the brass."
Sources at the White House had a different point of view. In a circular
distributed by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, the rationale
for the change was made more clear.
President feels that the military has been too indoctrinated by the old
harbingers of hate: nationalism, racism, and classism. By removing an
oath to the American society, the soldiers are less likely to commit
atrocities like those at Abu Ghraib."
"We expect a lot of flak over this," ! the clas sified memo continues.
"But those that would be most against it are those looking either for
attention or control."
time frame for the changes are unknown. However, it is more likely that
the changes will be made around the July 4th holiday, in order to
dampen any potential backlash. The difference in the oath will actually
only be slight. The main differences will be the new phrasing. It is
expected that the oath to the Constitution will be entirely phased out
within two years.
My email back to the news exec was that, while I thought it completely false and satirical (all pledges from Demi Moore to President Obama aside), I would look into it. Using a few of the B5 authors' contacts, we have been able to receive verbal confirmation from sources that this is completely FALSE. We will post official responses from General Cartwright's office if/when we receive them.
There you have it.
Blackfive.net defends the Obama Administration from slander. Next up, pigs in flight over the ice flows in the gulf of Mexico.
Update: For the curious, the "news story" has been popping up at other blogs and email, not just the one linked. We wanted to keep it from going viral.
I apologize for any parietal heart attacks or strokes this may have caused.
Update 2: Just six months ago, I posted this photo:
"...defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies..."
U.S. Army Sgt. Daryl Williams takes the oath of enlistment from his hospital bed at the 86th Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad, Iraq, July 9, 2008. Williams is assigned to the Scout/Sniper Platoon, Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 1st Combined Arms Battalion, 68th Armor Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Multi-National Division – Baghdad. U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Zachary Mott.
We fight for each other. We defend the Constitution. We swear fealty to no man, but to an ideal. That all men are free. Freedom is worth fighting for. Freedom is worth dying for. Swearing an oath to a man is not freedom, but the exact opposite.
Perhaps that is why this story got legs (from a civilian perspective) in the first place. Some part of civilian America is not understanding their own military.
Quite frankly, if this would happen, it would nullify all enlistment contracts, there would be a mass exodus, and most likely, there would be revolt with Chuck Z in the lead tank heading down Pennsylvania Avenue...after all, the military men and women study our history and our enemies more than our civilians do (of course). It's been pointed out that swearing an oath to the country's leader is something from the Hitler play book. No, it's not. Certainly, Hitler used the tactic, but so did every tyrant the world has seen. And it's been used by every tyrant that the United States of America has put down - the latest being Saddam. There will be others.
Therefore, this is why the story got legs (from a military perspective) because everyone higher up in the military that we talk to about this is in utter disbelief that the rest of America would even consider it possible. They are incredulous. Which is why it is taking us some time to get an official response.