President as Commander in Chief
Whenever I need a good starting point for fishbarreling some lefty position or another I can always count on Donviti. Once again, he delivers like Karl Malone in the paint with this post.
It's a link to this article.
One of the many fatuous comments include:
The good professors embarassing lack of historical knowledge makes me wonder what has become of Northwestern. I can only hope the man is not a professor of American history.
Little old me, without advanced (or even undergraduate) degrees in history knows that during the Continental Congress Washington wore his uniform to the debates every day for 66 straight days despite the fact that he was not under arms and we were not at war. Nor was he in attendance in his capacity as a general. Further, Washington took to the field in suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. He personally reviewed the troops in the field. Imagine if President Bush were to review troops in the field in uniform. The BDS crowd would get the vapors. (I wouldn't be happy about it either but I wouldn't freak out)
The other nugget this rube trots out is
Well, yes you simpleton. We have government secrets for a reason. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume the professor is a liberal and hence, registered Democrat. His party is currently in control of both houses of Congress. He has elected people he supports to look after the intelligence reports and keep the President and his Administration honest. Much of the clamoring about BUSH LIED!!!1 is fatuous because he didn't generate the intelligence that led to the invasion. In fact, it was Tenet who declared the case against Iraq to be a "slam dunk". (I can hear it now: "Tenet was part of the Bush Administration, of course he told Chimpy McHaliburton what he wanted to hear!" Tenet was appointed CIA director in 1995. I can't remember who appointed him.) If he's honestly going to argue that we should open our intelligence to review by the electorate he's too dense to argue with. If not, he doesn't understand the mechanism of government and specifically intelligence. Either way this article amounts to political sniping over substance.
He claims this administration is the most secretive one ever. That's an arguable point. He further says that the veil of secrecy descended in 1941 was never lifted. What exactly does that mean? Is he suggesting that we just open the archives? Is there any reason to keep some things secret? Like a hostile expansionist power that means to dominate the world? (As a non-lefty, I'm required to make a snarky comment about how the professor wouldn't mind too much if we did lose the cold war.) Was there anything else we might want to keep secret?
There is plenty of reason to dislike the President's policies but the scorn heaped upon the man far outweighs his perfidity.
It's a link to this article.
One of the many fatuous comments include:
We used to take pride in civilian leadership of the military under the Constitution, a principle that George Washington embraced when he avoided military symbols at Mount Vernon. We are not led — or were not in the past — by caudillos.
The good professors embarassing lack of historical knowledge makes me wonder what has become of Northwestern. I can only hope the man is not a professor of American history.
Little old me, without advanced (or even undergraduate) degrees in history knows that during the Continental Congress Washington wore his uniform to the debates every day for 66 straight days despite the fact that he was not under arms and we were not at war. Nor was he in attendance in his capacity as a general. Further, Washington took to the field in suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. He personally reviewed the troops in the field. Imagine if President Bush were to review troops in the field in uniform. The BDS crowd would get the vapors. (I wouldn't be happy about it either but I wouldn't freak out)
The other nugget this rube trots out is
But we can never know what they know. We do not have sufficient clearance.
Well, yes you simpleton. We have government secrets for a reason. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume the professor is a liberal and hence, registered Democrat. His party is currently in control of both houses of Congress. He has elected people he supports to look after the intelligence reports and keep the President and his Administration honest. Much of the clamoring about BUSH LIED!!!1 is fatuous because he didn't generate the intelligence that led to the invasion. In fact, it was Tenet who declared the case against Iraq to be a "slam dunk". (I can hear it now: "Tenet was part of the Bush Administration, of course he told Chimpy McHaliburton what he wanted to hear!" Tenet was appointed CIA director in 1995. I can't remember who appointed him.) If he's honestly going to argue that we should open our intelligence to review by the electorate he's too dense to argue with. If not, he doesn't understand the mechanism of government and specifically intelligence. Either way this article amounts to political sniping over substance.
He claims this administration is the most secretive one ever. That's an arguable point. He further says that the veil of secrecy descended in 1941 was never lifted. What exactly does that mean? Is he suggesting that we just open the archives? Is there any reason to keep some things secret? Like a hostile expansionist power that means to dominate the world? (As a non-lefty, I'm required to make a snarky comment about how the professor wouldn't mind too much if we did lose the cold war.) Was there anything else we might want to keep secret?
There is plenty of reason to dislike the President's policies but the scorn heaped upon the man far outweighs his perfidity.
Comments