[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Ron Paul See other Ron Paul Articles Title: Commander-in-Chief Decisions Commander-in-Chief Decisions By C.K. Chrystal / January 7, 2020 January 7th, 2019 ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, says: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;” This clause has been a topic of debate since the founding of our country. Some take the limited view saying that the President was named Commander-in-Chief by the founders only to keep the military under civilian control. Others take a more expansive view saying that the clause gives the President nearly unlimited authority to deploy the military. Regardless of the arguments, throughout our history, Presidents have consistently taken actions that involve our military. But, none of these events are quite like the other; they all have a different impact on the American electorate. In the last 30 years, some of the bigger conflicts/events we’ve had are: The Gulf War Of course, there are literally dozens of other military matters. However, we’re going to use these examples as they are defining moments for the Commander-in-Chief that ordered them. The first two occurrences had little to no impact on voter decisions. The Gulf War was almost over as soon as it started. Bosnia was a minor incursion in the eyes of the public, and there was little impact on Americans. Of the five Presidents over the past 30 years, three spent two-terms in the White House, one was only there for one term, and the fifth President, Trump, is yet to be determined. The Gulf War had minimal impact on President George H.W. Bush’s reelection bid. Ultimately, Bush lost because he promised “no new taxes” and signed new taxes into law. Independent candidate Ross Perot siphoned off a large number of votes that would have most likely been Bush’s. Much is the same with President Clinton’s successful bid for a second term in 1996. On September 11th, 2001. Everything changed. 9/11 was the most galvanizing event in America since Pearl Harbor. Somebody came to our home and murdered 3,000 of our citizens. At that point, some form of retaliation was a foregone conclusion. President Bush took action and went into Afghanistan, and then Iraq. These actions came preloaded with a sense of national purpose that had rarely been seen in our history. According to a November 1, 2001 Gallup poll, 8 out of ten Americans supported going into Afghanistan. This action, in large part, propelled Bush the younger to a victory in 2004 as the first Presidential candidate to get more than 50% of the popular vote since 1988. By 2008, support for the wars in the middle east had eroded. Bush was term-limited, and the GOP nomination went to John McCain. McCain had famously (or infamously) voted for the war in Iraq. Across the aisle, Barack Obama (who was against going into Iraq as early as 2002) won the Democratic nomination for President. In doing so, he beat Hillary Clinton, the odds on favorite to the party’s mantle. It just so happens that she voted for the war in Iraq. Now, President Obama did not beat Clinton and McCain strictly because of his position on the war, but it did help. Then comes May 2, 2011 and the death of Bin Laden. Almost 18 months to the day ahead of the 2012 elections. It was also 16 months ahead of the Joe Biden convention speech where he said: “Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive.” Voters often think of Democrats as weak on national security. Touting the assassination of bin Laden was a campaign tactic to counteract that belief. Of course, five days later, four Americans lost their lives in Benghazi, which compounded the issue even further. At the time of the attack, the President’s administration (which included Hillary Clinton) first said it was a spontaneous protest. Which it was not. After the recent convention, they had to downplay what was happening. In truth, it was a planned attack by members of the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Shari. The fallout from this struck both President Obama and Secretary Clinton. While Obama did win reelection, it was in spite of this event. And his win was more due to the inadequacies of the Romney campaign. A clear sign that Obama lost popularity was the final vote count. In 2012 he received almost 3.5 million FEWER votes than 2008. In the end, Hillary was the bigger loser of the two. Once she agreed to testify in front of the House committee, it was almost sure her 2016 bid for the White House would suffer. And, like always, HRC delivered. This testimony is the famous moment where she shouted: “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?” Well, Madame Secretary, a lot. That comment and the imagery surrounding it followed her from May 2013 to November 2016. All of this history brings us to today, 321 days from the 2020 elections, and four days removed from the assassination of General Qassem Suleimani. How will this affect President Trump’s bid for reelection? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 12.
#1. To: BTP Holdings (#0)
"Somebody came to our home and murdered 3,000 of our citizens."
I find it odd that Jews who worked in those towers were called and told to stay home on that fateful day. ;)
The facts of the day in question are almost as well known as those connected to Dec. 7, 1941. Most people recognise today that the torpedo attack was expected and previously written about in Hawaiian papers, that concerned individuals in DC were out to lunch that day, and that the most powerful parts of our fleets were out to sea when the attack occurred. Similarly on Sept. 11 2001, Jews who worked in the sacrificial towers were called and told to stay home, dancing Israelis were across the river poised to set up and video an event they were "sent" to memorialize, and some really questionable people were caught in a van containing explosives that was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge.
US News or some other major mag published a chart of the countries the victims had come from, and how many from each. 3 guesses which country was missing, and the 1st 2 don't count.
It's horrible, ain't it? But that's where we're at. Right now, it's not so much who we love, but who they mostly support. By "they" you know just whom I mean. Do they support the socialists/communists or do they support business, small. middling, and large? That's where we're at, and it stinks in some respects. Your mileage may vary.
LOL! I've always heard that the Prexy is only Commander in Chief when the country's at properly declared war. Let it never be forgot that the Peace Prize Prez was the first to be at war every day of his reign of terror.
Yes Obummer picked up where W had left off. Trump, however, will be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ending the Korean War. PM Abe of Japan has nominated him for it. ;)
#13. To: BTP Holdings (#12)
His crumbs are delicious -- the 3 or 4 he's dropt so far :-s
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||