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

[Joe Republic]

Link


 WASHINGTON - President Bush, personally intervening in the political crisis in Pakistan, told President Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday he must hold parliamentary elections soon and step down as army leader.

"You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time," Bush said, describing a 20-minute telephone call with Musharraf. "I had a very frank discussion with him."


-----

It might be wise for our Commander-in-Chief to read his own job description.

[Gabu]

LOL

There are times when you have to either laugh or cry, and I find the former to be healthier.

[Hash]

It might be wise for our Commander-in-Chief to read his own job description.

[Eraserhead]

I remember hearing him say that the other day. I just remember shaking my head.

[MODU]

Well, we know what he was saying, it just can be taken more than one way.  hahaha

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It might be wise for our Commander-in-Chief to read his own job description.

Why the hell would he do that when he gets to decide what his job description is himself, because he's the decider, and John Yoo told him he has the power?

[Beet]

Another Bushism. What he should have said was you shouldn't use your position as head of the military to install yourself in power over democratic elections.

[Jake]

Another Bushism. What he should have said was you shouldn't use your position as head of the military to install yourself in power over democratic elections.

Or that you shouldn't both he the professional military head and chief executive of your country. Something Musharraf is, and something Bush is not.

[Beet]

Another Bushism. What he should have said was you shouldn't use your position as head of the military to install yourself in power over democratic elections.

Or that you shouldn't both he the professional military head and chief executive of your country. Something Musharraf is, and something Bush is not.

Using one's military power to prevent the holding of elections or overturning their result is fundamentally undemocratic. The President also trying to manage a war professionally is stupid, but not fundamentally undemocratic.

[Silent Hunter]

He meant being something like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

[Gabu]

He meant being something like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

I think it's fairly evident what he meant, but the way in which he phrased it is still funny.

[minionofmidas]

He meant being something like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

I think it's fairly evident what he meant, but the way in which he phrased it is still funny.

Besides, it's true even in the way he said it.

[Beet]

He meant being something like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

There's nothing in the constitution that prevents the President from choosing to take over many of the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The sentiment behind the statement is pretty clear, but the substantive denial of freedom can get lost in uniforms and job titles. What if Musharraf takes off the uniform but still uses his connections to exercise de facto control of the military? That's basically what happened in China in 1989-1997, for example.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

It might be wise for our Commander-in-Chief to read his own job description.

[NDN]

Well he would know.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Well he would know.

Indeed.

[Friz]

He's getting to be an old joke.

[jimrtex]

He meant being something like Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

There's nothing in the constitution that prevents the President from choosing to take over many of the responsibilities of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. The sentiment behind the statement is pretty clear, but the substantive denial of freedom can get lost in uniforms and job titles. What if Musharraf takes off the uniform but still uses his connections to exercise de facto control of the military? That's basically what happened in China in 1989-1997, for example.

President Washington directly commanded troops during the Whiskey Rebellion.

[J. J.]

Another Bushism. What he should have said was you shouldn't use your position as head of the military to install yourself in power over democratic elections.

I think in this case, no.  While in the US, the "Commander-in-Chief" is a function attached to the Presidency, in many coutries it refers to the chief military officer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief

I'll give this on to Bush, though the effect was funny.

[Silent Hunter]

Ultimate military authority resides in the hands of the elected leader in a considerable number of countries. It's part of the whole "civilian government controlled military" thing. What we've got in Pakistan is "military controlled civilian government".

[Joe Biden 2020]

Another Bushism. What he should have said was you shouldn't use your position as head of the military to install yourself in power over democratic elections.

I think in this case, no.  While in the US, the "Commander-in-Chief" is a function attached to the Presidency, in many coutries it refers to the chief military officer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief

I'll give this on to Bush, though the effect was funny.

I'll have to agree with you on this one.  The United States' Commander-in-Chief may not be the same as the head of the military in other countries, even other Democratic countries.

It was still funny, nonetheless.

[Beet]

Another Bushism. What he should have said was you shouldn't use your position as head of the military to install yourself in power over democratic elections.

I think in this case, no.  While in the US, the "Commander-in-Chief" is a function attached to the Presidency, in many coutries it refers to the chief military officer.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander-in-Chief

I'll give this on to Bush, though the effect was funny.

I'll have to agree with you on this one.  The United States' Commander-in-Chief may not be the same as the head of the military in other countries, even other Democratic countries.

It was still funny, nonetheless.

It could be either or. But in a general principle it isn't always undemocratic for the two positions to be combined. Usually it wouldn't be very professional and probably not very effective, but that would depend on the particulars of the situation.