The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States. -- U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2.Posted on 07/13/2007 5:30:21 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
The faces occasionally change at "Today," but the bias remains the same. Natalie Morales sat in for Meredith Vieira this morning, but the show didn't lose a liberal beat, as Natalie knocked President Bush for his temerity in asserting his constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief.
NBC'S NATALIE MORALES: Tim, what was striking yesterday was the aggressive tone the President took with Congress yesterday, with lawmakers, saying it is not their job to manage the war. Not since Vietnam has there been such a clash between the executive and the legislative branches. If the President is trying to build support, did he lose some of that yesterday?Bonus points to Morales for working a Vietnam allusion in there. But on the larger point, what did the president say that Natalie found so "aggressive"? Here is the relevant passage from his remarks:
I don't think it makes sense [for Congress to tell] our military how to conduct operations or deal with troop strength. I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.What is "aggressive" about a president fulfilling his constitutional role? If any branch is being aggressive, is it not the House of Representatives that, in adopting a resolution calling for the withdrawal of almost all combat troops from Iraq by April 1, 2008, is clearly exceeding its constitutional perogative?
Constitution 101 ping to Today show list.
Pretty empty-headed woman.
Typical NBC/MSNBC, the station(s) of hate speech, lies and propaganda. Poor Ms. Morales....I didnt’ watch, but did Fat Dim Russert even attempt to correct the idiot?
Nice play on words!
Straight out of the lieberal playbook.
Vietnam!
Quagmire!
Staggering losses!
Vietnam!
The Polls!
Vietnam!
Pretty woman...but empty headed
either works ;-)
I'm not disagreeing at all, but as a niggle: the War Powers Act basically says that, lacking a declaration of war, the US military can only fight if Congress continually re-authorizes it to do so. I think it's a foolish Act, which should have been abandoned long ago. But I suspect that this is what the House is basing it's "authority" on.
She probably dates California politicians, also?
Yawn. The left wing bias of the major media is so prevalent and obvious that it is hardly newsworthy any more. And the few conservatives left in Wash DC don’t help matters by trying to be “liked” by the media.
This thread should have a bimbo alert.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
LOL
Vietnam!
Quagmire!
Staggering losses!
Vietnam!
The Polls!
Vietnam!
Russert should be in PRISON for PERJURY!
—from General George Washington, A Military Life by Edward Lingell, pp277-278:
Washington’s success in getting his new army adopted is a tribute to his industry and political savvy. Congress was no rubber stamp assembly for the commander-in-chief. For time it looked like it was becoming his adversary. In the winter of 1777-78 some observers detected a “Strong faction” developing among delegates from New England and the far south. It was said that these men wanted to depose Washington’s in favor of Horatio Gates. Lafayette called them “Stupid men who without knowing a single word about war undertake to judge you, to make ridiculous comparisons; they are infatuated with Gates without thinking of the different circumstances, and believe that attacking is the only thing necessary to conquer . “ President of Congress Henry Laurens wrote his son, Washington’s aide John Laurens, that he had seen the commander-in-chief’s “Opinions treated [in Congress] with so much indiscrete freedom and levity as affected me exceedingly and convinced me that your suspicions of a baneful influence are not ill founded. “
Nor were the commanders in chief’s detractors limited to the members of congress. Washington’s public aura had faded too. Over the past year his army had endured repeated defeats, losing Philadelphia and surrendering much of the mid Atlantic countryside to British control. The only bright spot of 1777 was a battle with which Washington had nothing to do. The victory of Saratoga, proclaimed Dr. Benjamin Rush in an anonymous letter to Patrick Henry, “Has shown us what Americans are capable of doing with a General at their head. . . A Gates-a [Charles] Lee, or Conway would within a few weeks render them an irresistible body of men. “ An unknown person left a written tirade on the steps of Congress, prophesying “That the People of America have been guilty of idolatry by making a man [Washington] their God—and the God of heaven and earth will convince them by woeful experience that he is only a man. “ One official even reported to headquarters said he overheard people in a Lancaster Inn complaining that Washington “Was not the man people imagined nor yet the general and that he was an unpardonable for missing the many opportunities he had over the enemy.”
Yet another stunning example of “template-based” journalism...
BDS in action. Pres. Bush could not have been more friendly or gracious in the tone of his remarks yesterday. He was pleasant and got his points across, something the Dems have not mastered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.