Let's post some recent bushisms.

[dennilfloss]

Because we'll miss them once he's gone next year.

Bush to Musharaf last week.

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."

-- President Bush, 11-07-2007

 

[Pacfanweb]

He'll still be President next year, unless something has changed.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Because we'll miss them once he's gone next year.

Bush to Musharaf last week.

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."

-- President Bush, 11-07-2007

I suggest Bush do what he has been suggesting Musharraf do.
Resign as head of the military.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Because we'll miss them once he's gone next year.

Bush to Musharaf last week.

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."

-- President Bush, 11-07-2007

I don't see what's wrong with that quote at all. Now, before I get flamed, yes I understand the President of the United States of America is technically the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, HOWEVER... there exists no groundwork for the pres. to actually command the forces, he merely has the power to deploy forces as part of 90 day operations. He has no control over the specifics of any military operation, nor can he designate who does what. That is all up to the Joint Chiefs and the top military officers and senior NCO's, not to mention their advisors.

That's quite the difference to being the person who has complete control over the military.

 

[sash1]

i think Frank Caliendo will really miss Pres. Bush lol

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sash1
i think Frank Caliendo will really miss Pres. Bush lol

:laugh:
all of his voices are spot on. spot on.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Because we'll miss them once he's gone next year.

Bush to Musharaf last week.

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."

-- President Bush, 11-07-2007

I don't see what's wrong with that quote at all. Now, before I get flamed, yes I understand the President of the United States of America is technically the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, HOWEVER... there exists no groundwork for the pres. to actually command the forces, he merely has the power to deploy forces as part of 90 day operations. He has no control over the specifics of any military operation, nor can he designate who does what. That is all up to the Joint Chiefs and the top military officers and senior NCO's, not to mention their advisors.

That's quite the difference to being the person who has complete control over the military.

I think your interpretation is incorrect:

Commander In Chief

Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield

As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer and so has the inherent right to assume command on the battlefield. However, because presidents are rarely present in war zones, and often have less military experience than the military commanders, only two presidents, George Washington and James Madison, have so far done so. Washington personally led a federalised militia force of approximately 15,000 troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion during his second term, although he was not present during any of the skirmishing in the relatively bloodless conflict.

During the War of 1812, President Madison was under enemy fire on August 24, 1814, when American forces were routed by British troops in Bladensburg, Maryland. Madison, incensed by the American commanding general's incompetence, was on the scene and personally assumed command of the only remaining American force, a naval battery commanded by Commodore Joshua Barney. He did so to stall the British invasion of the American capital, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the British burned Washington over the next two days.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals. He actually came under enemy fire in 1864 during the Confederate attack on Fort Stevens in the District of Columbia, but did not exercise battlefield authority as commander-in-chief at any time.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Because we'll miss them once he's gone next year.

Bush to Musharaf last week.

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."

-- President Bush, 11-07-2007

I don't see what's wrong with that quote at all. Now, before I get flamed, yes I understand the President of the United States of America is technically the Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, HOWEVER... there exists no groundwork for the pres. to actually command the forces, he merely has the power to deploy forces as part of 90 day operations. He has no control over the specifics of any military operation, nor can he designate who does what. That is all up to the Joint Chiefs and the top military officers and senior NCO's, not to mention their advisors.

That's quite the difference to being the person who has complete control over the military.

I think your interpretation is incorrect:

Commander In Chief

Authority as Commander-in-Chief on the battlefield

As Commander-in-Chief, the U.S. President outranks any military officer and so has the inherent right to assume command on the battlefield. However, because presidents are rarely present in war zones, and often have less military experience than the military commanders, only two presidents, George Washington and James Madison, have so far done so. Washington personally led a federalised militia force of approximately 15,000 troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion during his second term, although he was not present during any of the skirmishing in the relatively bloodless conflict.

During the War of 1812, President Madison was under enemy fire on August 24, 1814, when American forces were routed by British troops in Bladensburg, Maryland. Madison, incensed by the American commanding general's incompetence, was on the scene and personally assumed command of the only remaining American force, a naval battery commanded by Commodore Joshua Barney. He did so to stall the British invasion of the American capital, but his efforts were unsuccessful, and the British burned Washington over the next two days.

During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln considered personally assuming battlefield command of the Union Army, and studied military texts when he became frustrated by the incompetence and lethargy of his generals. He actually came under enemy fire in 1864 during the Confederate attack on Fort Stevens in the District of Columbia, but did not exercise battlefield authority as commander-in-chief at any time.

I stand corrected.
I think it comes down to the removal of the President from the military in order to prevent, well, possible loss of presidential life?, but more likely to prevent abuse of powers. Who knows, but we definitely don't see our presidents commanding the military anymore. A good thing? Most likely. Better left to the Generals and Sergeant Major of the Army (and similar ranks of other armed forces), and the Chiefs of Staff.
but you are correct, the president IS provided with power, but that power hasn't been used in a long time.

 

[shira]

"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."

Bush, Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: shira

"I don't particularly like it when people put words in my mouth, either, by the way, unless I say it."

Bush, Crawford, Texas, Nov. 10, 2007

cereal? that's awesome, and like... my new favorite quote!

 

[shira]

A little older, but still absurd:

"The solution to Iraq -- an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself -- is more than a military mission. Precisely the reason why I sent more troops into Baghdad."

Washington, D.C., April 3, 2007

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee...that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again. [9/17/2002]

I'm not from neither Tennesse nor Texas and i couldn't fuck that saying up that saying that bad even if i had been overdosing on crack and meth at the same time.

The original quote is not from the US at all but from Birmingham England and the man who first said it was... and this is some funny shit.. wait for it...

King George III in the early 1800's.