Barbarian, on Connie's idea that the president is "military personnel":
Actually not. The president has to be a civilian, not in the armed services. But of course knowing that would require an elementary school grasp of government. So you didn't know that. But just for the sake of your fantasy (this one, not your "usual" ones) we'll pretend he is.
No. Notice even the definition of the commanders of other nations, doesn't say that:
"A commander-in-chief is the person exercising supreme command authority of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. As a practical term it refers to the military competencies that reside in a nation-state's executive, Head of State and/or Head of Government. Often, a given country's commander-in-chief need not be or have been a commissioned officer or even a veteran, and it is by this legal statute that civilian control of the military is realized in states where it is constitutionally required."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-chief
The Commander-in-Chief a Civilian Officer .--Is the Commander-in- Chiefship a military or civilian office in the contemplation of the Constitution? Unquestionably the latter. An opinion by a New York surrogate deals adequately, though not authoritatively, with the subject: ''The President receives his compensation for his services, rendered as Chief Executive of the Nation, not for the individual parts of his duties. No part of his compensation is paid from sums appropriated for the military or naval forces; and it is equally clear under the Constitution that the President's duties as Commander in Chief represents only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter's office is a civil office. [Article II, section 1 of the Constitution; vol. 91, Cong. Rec. 4910-4916; Beard, The Republic (1943) pp. 100-103.] The President does not enlist in, and he is not inducted or drafted into, the armed forces. Nor, is he subject to court-martial or other military discipline.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag10_user.html
when B. Hussein Obama invites known terrorists to the White House, the Dept of Defense is to contact the FBI?
Barbarian chuckles:
So far, every time it's happened, they've contacted the FBI, shut down the city of Washington and rebuilt the WH from scratch.
Why am I not surprised that you mock
Because I do it pretty much every time you say something stupid and/or ignorant. This was one of you more hilarious ones.
the fact that B. Hussein Obama has had people that are mass murderers to the White House?
Tell us about the terrorists.
While I am by no means a Bush apologist,
I'm not aware that he had invited known terrorists to the White House.
Tell us about terrorists in the White House.
Barbarian chuckles:
Considering you weren't aware that the president of the United States is always a civilian, that's not really much of a statement. Bush just ordered the FBI to stop tracking them and their financial dealings. For whatever reasons. But it might be worth noting that the bin Laden family helped bail him out of his failed energy company.
One suspects that Bush had no idea what his friends were really up to.
While I'm aware that 6th and 7th graders didn't question the information that you used
As you just learned, neither do Constitutional scholars. The president is a civilian, even though he's commmander-in-chief. You're dumber than a 6th grader, Connie.
we adults like something called "evidence".
See above. Surprise.
Kindly show us that George W Bush "ordered the FBI to stop tracking them [terrorists]"
The Bush Administration cancelled or cut back Operation CATCHERS MITT, the highly classified ongoing CIA and FBI operation that tracked al-Qaeda operatives known to be inside the U.S. during the summer of 2001. This was done without notifying the existing counter-terrorism policy board in Washington, then headed by Richard Clarke, a Clinton holdover.
This fatal decision by Bush's national security staff was part of the planned revamping of the Clinton counter-terrorism program, and ongoing operations were put on hold or cut off entirely while Rice and Hadley worked with CIA Director Tenet on the Administration's new al-Qaeda strategy.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/...ppened-Bush-curtailed-Operation-CATCHERS-MITT
During the summer of 2001, the Bush Administration cancelled or cut back Operation CATCHERS MITT, the highly classified ongoing CIA and FBI operation that tracked al-Qaeda operatives known to be inside the U.S.
This was done without notifying the existing counter-terrorism policy board in Washington, then headed by Richard Clarke.
It was reported on in Newsweek Magazine but has been scrubbed from their site:
NEWSWEEK: In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department Curtailed Highly Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in the U.S.
Sunday March 21, 10:51 am ET
'They Came in There With Their Agenda and [Al Qaeda] was not on it,' Says Former Counterterrorism Chief Clarke of Bush Administration
NEW YORK, March 21 PRNewswire -- Newsweek has learned that in the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed a highly classified program called "Catcher's Mitt" to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States, after a federal judge severely chastised the FBI for improperly seeking permission to wiretap terrorists. During the Bush administration's first few months in office, Attorney General John Ashcroft downgraded terrorism as a priority, choosing to place more emphasis on drug trafficking and gun violence, report Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff and Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas in the March 29 issue of Newsweek (on newsstands Monday, March 22)
http://www.historycommons.org/phorum5/read.php?3,673
and is indirectly or directly responsible for the Fort Hood massacres.
Did Bush's decision to not track terrorists make 9/11 possible? We'll never know for sure. But it would sure would have made it less likely. As far as the Fort Hood attack, the decision not to make DoD information available to the FBI certainly was a factor, and the Obama administration's decision to reverse that certainly makes it more likely that it won't happen again.
