Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, goes before Congress this week, and with him comes this question: Who’s really in charge here, the generals or President Barack Obama?I would suggest that the idiots at Politico drag out a copy of the United States Constitution and read Article II. Specifically, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.What part of "Commander in Chief" is unclear to anyone in either the Congress or the press? From all accounts, it certainly is clear to the military who is in charge, as much as they might wish otherwise. It's clear to Gen. McChrystal, who got his balls punched for speaking in public when he should not have. The last president so reveled in the title of "Commander-in-Chief" that he had the official titles of "Commander-in-Chief Atlantic" (CINCLANT) and "Commander-in-Chief Pacific" (CINCPAC), among others, changed so that only the Tsar of the Baboons had the title of "Commander in Chief".
Congress is full of imbeciles, but they are of MacArthur Genius Grant caliber compared to a lot of the Fourth Estate.
2 comments:
I couldn't let this go and sent a "Dear Fuckface" email to the author of the "piece." I did reference EBM as my source.
Thanks, but I doubt if Politico gives a frak what I think of them.
Post a Comment