If We Aren't In the Army, Then Bush is NOT Our Commander in Chief
Thank God someone else finally said this because Bush is not the "commander in chief" (commander in cheat, fine and dandy; commander in corruption, no shit Sherlock; commander in chaos and confusion, most definitely) of the American people because we are not - all indications to the contrary with the tragic amount of money that rolls into the Pentagon that would be better spent elsewhere, notwithstanding - a military state.
From Glenn Greenwald ("Public Servant v. Military Commander"):
Garry Wills has an Op-Ed in the New York Times this morning criticizing the practice of constantly referring to the President as the "Commander-in-Chief":Read the rest here.The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”
Wills recounts that Dwight Eisenhower, "a real general," would not exchange salutes while President, because saluting was for those in the military, not civilian Presidents. The practice of presidential saluting was begun by Ronald Reagan, who -- like our current President -- loved ceremonial displays of warrior courage and military power even though (more likely: because) he had none in his real history.
But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.
. . .The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements.
The point Wills makes is an important one, but like most politically insightful points, my first exposure to this insight was in the blogosphere. Back in January, 2006, as part of its "reporting" on the NSA scandal, Newsweek's Evan Thomas and Daniel Klaidman labeled objections over President Bush's illegal eavesdropping program as "histrionics," and pronounced that "the debate was narrow and somewhat vacuous." After all, this was all that had happened with the NSA scandal:The message to White House lawyers from their commander in chief, recalls one who was deeply involved at the time, was clear enough: find a way to exercise the full panoply of powers granted the president by Congress and the Constitution.
|