... Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states ..."

Yes, the President is the Commander in Chief. No-one here is arguing otherwise.

Does this mean he can deliberately ignore the other branches of government and the laws they make governing the operations of it all, including the military? The only reasonable answer is and emphatic no.

Please don't tell you're one of these extreme types calling for military dictatorship. I'd be bitterly disappointed if you were.

Commander in chief. The guy who runs the show day-to-day. Who tells units where to go, what to do, when to do it, etc.

Please tell me where I'm wrong?

"Commander in Chief", not "Absolute Master and Dictator".

The Constitution of the United States gives primacy to the Congress to dictate rules and regulations for the military. The President, as Commander in Chief, is as obligated to operate within those parameters as the Services are to obey the UCMJ.

At least that's how its supposed to work. Then again, ideally we wouldn't have a messianic headcase sitting in the Oval Office right now.

Best eject now, before you crash and burn.

But I loathe the idea of 535 showboating congressmen setting military personnel policy.

Sadly, that's how the Constitution (which you took an oath to uphold, remember) is written. Congress is empowered to impose whatever rules it sees fit or necessary upon the conduct and use of the armed forces. The President is bound to work within those parameters.

In any case, how does mandating servicemembers be treated as human beings constitute "showboating"? Especially given the photo-op antics the Commander in Chief has undertaken using the Services over the last four years?

That such an assertion can be reported as a point of controversy is truly beyond belief.

Its almost become a given that anyone nominated for any position at any level of government by the current President is either some spineless, unqualified hack or somewhere to the right of Pat Buchannan. At this point, one can expect the smallest sign of dissent to be lauded to the point of idiocy by the press, which only further muddies the waters vis a vis if Judge Mukasey is even competent enough a manager to deserve the job.

It may well be irrelevant in any case even if Judge Mukasey makes it through the Senate. The damage already done by Gonzales and the Administration to the DOJ will take years to correct (if that even proves possible).

Though to be fair, the Administration is in a bit of a balancing act. They only have one foot on 'solid' ground.

Their other foot is already off the cliff.

Hopefully, they'll all topple over soon.

Why you can't understand the difference baffles me.

You baffle us all, tiberius. Perhaps you should stick to something you're better known for, like pedastry.

There are people who want to do us harm. They parry and feint, and if we let down our defenses, or even if we don't, eventually strike a blow.

You've just described the history of the United States since its founding, friend.

Pray, tell us why these days are more perilous than before? Because you and yours are simply too scared to think straight?

Another 56-44 vote for cloture (or thereabouts).

Have we now entered the realm of comedic tragedy, or just plain tragedy?

They never do the negative by half. Currently projections suggest we'll see 153 threatened fillibusters this session. Not genuine ones where they have to put their mouth's to work, just threatened ones.

The most we've seen from any session since the 1960s was 58 in the 106th session (I think). Quite an accomplishment on their part.

Pity that'll be their only claim to fame.

In a rational world, Giuliani's proposal would be a major controversy, and the other presidential candidates -- Republican and Democrat alike -- would be loudly pointing to this extremist view to harm the Giuliani campaign.

The sheer idiocy of the proposal makes it impossible to take seriously. Its as much a joke as Giuliani's campaign itself.

Unfortunately you are also right that we're living in far-less-rational times (not that modern political discourse has ever been all that rational to begin with). Your previous post concerning Ledeen's thinly veiled warmongering underscores this point.

If anything, Giuliani's proposal should be made a punchline of endless jokes from his nominal opponents, if only to point out his lack of knowledge about geography (Israel isn't even part of the European landmass after all) and consequently the rest of the world.

I'm not advocating we simply ignore the man, but there are better ways of neutralizing him. Calling them for what they really are - idiots, swammis, and snake oil salesmen - seems as good a way as any.

Perhaps you've forgotten that we went to war on the behalf of Kuwait? And you don't think Israel should have the same consideration?

Kuwait was illegally invaded by the Hussein regime in 1991. Iraqi forces were expelled from the country in 1992. Kuwait's security has not been in doubt since then.

Israel, by contrast, has been invaded by conventional forces from its neighbors only once back in 1948. Those incursions were repelled and nominial border agreed upon.

The four 'Arab-Israeli' wars that have been fought since then in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 involved Israeli invasions of Arab territory or Arab reacquisition of territory Israel had previously invaded.

In short, Israel has proven itself more than capable of defending its borders and a willingness to invade its neighbors. They do not need US military intervention on their behalf.

How anti-Israel are you?????

How anti-American are you, to wish more American citizens to die in matters neither our concern nor within our interests?

I know you lack the courage to reply, but feel free to surprise me anyway.