In my opinion Bush is not worthy to carry this title. If any president wants to maintain this title they should be ready to put on the uniform and be ready to go to war themselves.
2007-02-01 18:22:46 · 13 answers · asked by whitebuffalorider 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There would be less wars if the heroes in charge had to do the fighting. Would Bush hace been so keen to invade Iraq if he actually had to get his hands dirty?
2007-02-01 18:30:42 · answer #1 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The President is the National Command Authority. No matter what you think of the man or his politics. That is why we have that little thing called checks and balances in the government. The President can basically do what he wants and then Congress or the Supreme Court can call him on the carpet for it. It really does not matter if the President has served or not. That is why you have the Joint Chiefs as well as the Secretaries of Navy, Army, etc. These cabinet level persons are the subject matter experts. The only thing we can hope for is that the President lets them do their jobs.
2007-02-01 18:30:28 · answer #2 · answered by da_bears46 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I have no problem with President Bush being the United States' commander-in-chief. He can't just start wars whenever, he needs permission from Congress...that whole checks-and-balances thing. George W. Bush was exactly what this country needed at this crazy time in the world...while he hasn't made the best decisions of all time, he certainly has my respect. If the draft is re-enacted (by the democrats now, if that one senator has his way), I will have no problem going to war with the current President as my commander-in-chief.
But I like your idea of 'not sending people to war without having military service' thing. Bush *had* military service, but he was a crappy pilot and they wouldn't send him to Vietnam...but thats beside the point.
I want to take your statement one step further and go a bit Heinlein on everyone. Lets make it so that unless you serve *at least* two years in the military, you are not allowed to run for political office or to vote. I think our system would be ten times better if that was started. Than people will *know* what they are voting for, rather than just going with your familiar party.
Cheers!
2007-02-01 18:30:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Regardless of your feelings for President Bush, the law of our country makes him the commander in chief. The Legislature controls his actions as they choose to do so. I know of no one else that would be worthy of being in that position at this time. He is doing the best that he can. There is a whole lot more at stake in this conflict than what meets the eye. We are fighting an oppression that does need to be fought, and won against. Most of our young have no clue what it means to fight for freedom. They may have their voice, but they do not have the maturity, or understanding to go with it.
2007-02-01 18:36:06 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
YES he should lose the title since he has a lot of other pressing matters and one man should NOT have that much power. They should have the Executive and Legislative Branches do it since intelligent debates will help in making better decisions. Affiliation should NEVER be a criteria but it is in the articles of the constitution so therefore any president should be no lower the a General or Admiral to understand war. Also flag officers have higher and rigid standards especially if they operated units with atomic weapons i.e. ICBMs, SSBN's aka bombers or boomers, and anything with an atomic payload. These have very stringent requirements and not just anybody is allowed to operate and/or command them.
Sadly the article defining the Executive Branch disallows this desire to become reality.
2007-02-01 18:44:40 · answer #5 · answered by Green Lizard 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Given that over 10% of the presidents have been assassinated, and nearly 50% had attempted assassinations, I'd say anyone that chooses to serve as president puts his life on the line for this country, regardless of his politics.
But then again, Bush did go to Iraq. I didn't see Clinton in Bosnia or Somalia.
I assume you feel that Bill Clinton was equally unqualified for the same reason, as well as the vast majority of democrats that will run. Hillary's biggest battle was chasing interns out of the oval office (unsuccessfully).
2007-02-01 18:37:59 · answer #6 · answered by Houston, we have a problem 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Letting the President be commander-in-chief has worked more than it has not, in the history of our country. Instead of changing that title, why not impeach Bush for his crimes against the Constitution he swore to uphold, and just bring in a new President two years early?
Although... would that put Cheney in charge? ACK!
2007-02-01 18:58:41 · answer #7 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes i think so to appoint a 5 star as the control over the military make the president in charge of domestic issues only...
Make it so that 5 star must report to an advisory panel of lower subordinate generals senators and congressman for guidance in cases of conflict...It's Ben done before by a sitting president so it can be done and has...(Eisenhower)
2007-02-01 18:32:30 · answer #8 · answered by no one here gets out alive 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No because the president does make the final decision over military actions.
2007-02-01 18:25:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't matter what you think about bush or what I think about bush...He has the authority to authorize military action, and no one else does.
That is why he is commander in chief
2007-02-01 18:30:27 · answer #10 · answered by bob shark 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋