?

Log in

No account? Create an account
charlie, computer cat

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
charlie, computer cat

I just have to check this with my American friends, after I haven't seen it being as roundly mocked as it seems obvious it deserves. I see from the internet that Bush said the following:

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


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but in that case can we campaign for Bush to resign one of his positions as well? I'm only going by the West Wing, but I suspect he may have missed something here!
Tags: ,

Comments

You can if your constitution says you can, but assuming both offices de facto without a legal mandate doesn't tend to work very well, either structurally or in more abstract terms.

So, no, no campaign for Bush to resign as CiC because it is written into the US constitution that the president shall be the CiC: those powers can't be separated. However, the role of the presidency dominates that of CiC; the chair of the JCS doesn't become the president of the United States, and the balance of powers is such that a military coup, Pakistan-style, would be most unlikely.
Musharaf has been elected now, albeit in an election which was boycotted by some parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistani_presidential_election%2C_2007). Would a general be allowed to stand in your presidential election while general?

Also, the funny bit seems to me to be that Bush's quote kind of elides over the constitutionality or not of it and just says "but no, you should never do this!" while he's actually doing it :)
I suspect that, technically, a general could run for president while still on active status, but I don't think they would. The retired sort have done so and won- Ulysses Grant comes to mind, and I think Andrew Jackson had a military rank.

Bush is such a 'tard. Eurgh.
No, a general couldn't run for president whilst on active duty because it would be in violation of his (or, her) contractual terms of service. Members of the armed forces have to stand in readiness to get combat-ready in short order as long as they are on active duty. My father's response time depended on his postings but ran from 2 minutes to 24 hours. Even if it was contractually possible, which it isn't, it would also be impossible for a general to reconcile their military duties with a candidature.
Yeah... Bush is an embarrassment, and also in the U.S. you can't be President and not be the Commander in Chief of the armed forces at the same time, so I have no idea where he gets his ideas.

Good catch!

Yup, this definitely hasn't been mocked nearly as much as it justly deserves. Then again, Bush has proven something I hard a time imagining was possible - the man's idiocy actually has managed to kill comedy. Or rather, comedy has gained a kind of strident popular political energy that the US hasn't seen in a long time.

Re: Musharaf ... I have always rejected the title "President" far too many in the media have supported using. In fact, in another era, the then-respectable title of "Generalissimo" would have been appended. That title perhaps remains the most relevant one today.
A lot of stupid things Bush says don't get the mockery they deserve, at least in the US. I remember the beginning of his administration, when you could hardly go a day without hearing a few new ones and people even published books of them. Now, not so much. This is partly because he's just too good at coming up with these things - we still can't help laughing at him now and then, of course, but mocking Bush for saying something dumb isn't much more interesting than mocking the sky for being blue. That and the fact that, since the start of his presidency, his stupidity has gone from being a source of amusement to really fucking things up probably has a lot to do with the general decline.

Anyway, yes. He just... doesn't get it.