|
Does it annoy anybody else out there how all of Bush's apologists and Bush, Cheney, etc. keep ranting about Bush being the "Commander-in-Chief" as though it somehow "immunizes" him from any criticism of how he is running our military, how he is conducting efforts against global terrorism, and, most importantly, any kind of legitimate congressional oversight and restrictions (i.e. war funding)? Ever since 9/11, he (or one of his supporters/apologists) never misses an opportunity to remind us that he is the so-called "Commander-in-Chief" and indeed usually mentions it several times in any given week whenever addressing issues related to the military and/or his so-called "war on terror". What really irks me about it the most is that the same people who, for 8 long years disrespected and badmouthed Clinton (who was also our "Commander-in-Chief") for never having served in the military now blindly honor & celebrate a man who, if anything, only served (maybe) in the National Guard (and certainly never saw combat) but whose enthusiasm for fighting and/or provoking unnecessary wars seems to be endless and whose disrepect for the military is woefully evident in his neglect of our troops both in Iraq and here at home. Every other President in our nation's history has, of course, been the so-called "Commander-in-Chief" because of their command of our military but I do not recall anybody emphasizing this fact more often (or as loudly) than Bush has, not to mention the fact that Bush is clearly using his status as the so-called "Commander-in-Chief" to assert bold new powers (i.e. being able to unilaterally classify anybody as an "enemy combatant") for himself and his (mis-)administration despite (as far as I know) the fact that such "powers" that Bush is asserting under his assumed moniker have no basis in US law or in the Constitution. Is anybody else concerned about this and if so, what can we all do to challenge this? :wtf:
|