Bush Tells Musharraf He Must Hold Elections, Step Down From Military Post

[Eki]

Why doesn't Bush himself step down as the commander in chief?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309116,00.html


WASHINGTON — President Bush personally told Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf Wednesday that he must hold parliamentary elections and relinquish his post as head of his country's army.

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

http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/bush_commander_uniform.jpg

[L5->R5/CR]

Why doesn't Bush himself step down as the commander in chief?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309116,00.html



http://www.lowculture.com/archives/images/bush_commander_uniform.jpg



Lets see here....


Being the highest ranking general and president or being the only civilian who can issue military orders without the approval of congress.


Those are so the same thing I can't believe I never saw the connection.

Thank you Eki for opening my eyes.

Maybe tomorrow you can go on about how school shootings only happen in the US...

[Rollo]

The President of the United States IS the Commander-in-Chief. He IS the head of the military http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
Head of the Military is that same as... head of the military would you not agree?

"For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected"
Hmm, that could have been written yesterday couldn't it?

[CCFanatic]

Pakistan is a democracy with a general as the leader. He is the head of the military. He gives the orders to attack, to defend. Bush has to get approval for those by Congress, and from the generals. Bush is not the head of the countries army, like Musharraf is. Bush is the direct guy the lieutenants and sergents in war go directly to. They go to generals. Bush is the head of all the military, but unlike Musharraf, who is jsut the head of the army.

[Rollo]

Pakistan is a democracy with a general as the leader. He is the head of the military. He gives the orders to attack, to defend. Bush has to get approval for those by Congress, and from the generals. Bush is not the head of the countries army, like Musharraf is. Bush is the direct guy the lieutenants and sergents in war go directly to. They go to generals. Bush is the head of all the military, but unlike Musharraf, who is jsut the head of the army.

Musharraf is President of a country under martial law. He has visited Bush in that capacity. He is in fact head of all the military of Pakistan just like Mr Bush is head of all the military in the US.

The President of the US is head of all the US Military and derives this power from Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States,

http://answers.usa.gov/cgi-bin/gsa_ict.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=7153

Article 1 does provide that in order to declare war, the President does need Congress' approval, but technically every military operation since 1945 has been approved under either the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or an appropriate Authorization for of Use of Force by Congress.

He frequently directs troops around under Constitutional power and does not need approval to do so.

Eki's question is valid. What right does the President of the USA have to direct the affairs of another sovereign entity?

[L5->R5/CR]

The President of the United States IS the Commander-in-Chief. He IS the head of the military http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/
Head of the Military is that same as... head of the military would you not agree?

"For might makes right,
And till they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected"
Hmm, that could have been written yesterday couldn't it?


The President is the civilian in charge of the military. That said, he cannot significantly alter military policy, can not declare war, and cannot commit troops for more than X days without congressional approval. The US military cannot, under the order of the president, attack the people of the United States without congressional approval.

None of those things can be said about Musharaf.

This is a case where you are picking nits over terminology. The practical implications are drastically different. There are virtually no checks and balances in the Pakistani system short of a mutiny/coup. There are extensive checks and balances which allows the US president to be the Commander In Chief within a strict set of conditions with certain limitations.

[leopard]

I think all depend on the convention of Pakistan once the independence declared or subsequent amendment to it if any. We recognize that the president will automatically hold the highest authorization on the military power, although he is a civil. If the convention didn't mention it whatsoever there is no breach chargeable to Musharaf from doing so.

[Rollo]

The President is the civilian in charge of the military. That said, he cannot significantly alter military policy, can not declare war, and cannot commit troops for more than X days without congressional approval. The US military cannot, under the order of the president, attack the people of the United States without congressional approval.

The President sets military policy and does commit troops without the approval of congress. Strictly speaking the President can not deploy troops for more than 60 days under the War Powers Act of 1973, but he can and does regularly direct them under new orders all the time.

Whether or not he could deploy troops against the US is a point which a) has never been tested legally and b) never been tried in practice.

All this aside:

In Pakistan we have a case where the judiciary was set aside pending a decision on whether Musharaf came to power legally. There is an election slated for January.

The only reason why the US expressly care a lick is because there's a nuclear element to this. Georgia which has declared a state of emergency and has had rioting on the streets has barely blipped on people's radars... I wonder why.

[Eki]

The President is the civilian in charge of the military.
He may be civilian, but his tendency to sometimes wear military-like clothes as in the picture I posted makes him look like a fanatic.

[leopard]

He may be civilian, but his tendency to sometimes wear military-like clothes as in the picture I posted makes him look like a fanatic.
Nascar suit would make him looks cool :cool:

[Hondo]

Eki's question is valid. What right does the President of the USA have to direct the affairs of another sovereign entity?

All of this "who is in charge of what and who can order what" is merely coversational bullcrap.

This nation has not attacked the USA and Bush needs to mind his own business and run his own country. It would be nice if we could get it through our heads that although our system of government works pretty well for us, that doesn't mean everybody has to use it.

Eki gets a bad rap all the time for being anti-USA. I don't think thats the case at all. I think his point is that each sovereign nation should be free to govern itself and pursue it's destiny without being bullied by larger nations. In addition, if you are going to have a United Nations, then each nation's vote should carry the same weight, large or small. Maybe that may be considered idealism in the extreme, but maybe we should all try it. Who knows, it might just work.

If another nation attacks the USA, I'm all for kicking the living hell out of them but other than that, what they do is their business. If the the people hate their government, let them have their revolutions until they find something they like.

[Roamy]

well this is a hard decision. Perez has the nukes under control so I like that aspect but Bhutto is freaking "HOT" for a woman her age. So I was kind of thinking the sharing the power was not such a bad idea. But here we go again with our nose stuck in the deal. If I am correct we have supported perez during the time he seized power and things have been good for the world. We just have to get over this "forced democracy" plan. If the rest of the world wants to force democracy then we can help but it appears no one wants to, so we need to let it be. Look at Russia heading back to the old way. Hell the free world needs to get together and "bomb for oil" I was under the impression we would get oil from Iraq at a discount for installing democracy. Well it doesn't seem to be the case. Gas prices go up every week. so much or democracy for oil!!

[airshifter]

He may be civilian, but his tendency to sometimes wear military-like clothes as in the picture I posted makes him look like a fanatic.

The fact that every pilot or copilot in that aircraft must wear a flight suit and appropriate survival gear makes you look like a fanatic! :laugh:


It always amazes me how little other countries know about how the US works, yet constantly tell us here that live it we don't understand how it works. The Commander in Chief is a very large step away from being a military commander of any rank.

[Eki]

The fact that every pilot or copilot in that aircraft must wear a flight suit and appropriate survival gear makes you look like a fanatic! :laugh:


I can't see any reason why he needs a militaristic jacket in this picture:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/bush-military.gif

or this:

http://www.robertsilvey.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_in_strange_uniform.jpg

Seinfeld once said something like "A man who wears camouflage in jungle is camouflaged, a man who wears camouflage in a city is an idiot".

[Eki]

Those pictures not bring to mind only Musharraf but also:

http://www.suomalaiset.org/kuvatt/hitler.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/Stalin3.jpg/240px-Stalin3.jpg

and

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40828000/jpg/_40828128_saddam203.jpg

Also the king of Sweden occasionally wears a military uniform. Maybe Bush should tell him to drop it too:

http://www.faktoider.nu/img/malteserkors_cxvig.jpg

[Roamy]

The Fox is stuck in the Den. Bhutto is under house arrest. Now this is a HOT spot anyway you look at it

[airshifter]

I can't see any reason why he needs a militaristic jacket in this picture:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/graphics/bush-military.gif


You're right. Associating with a crowd of Navy men while wearing a Naval Aviator styled jacket makes no sense at all. I mean really, does the guy think he was a former pilot or something? :laugh:

Without rank insignia, it's authorized civilian attire even for people who are still active duty pilots. As such, even civilians can wear one, and a lot of people do.



or this:


http://www.robertsilvey.com/photos/uncategorized/bush_in_strange_uniform.jpg

By gosh you're right again Eki. Why if not for the fact it's not even a military uniform or military jacket you might have a point. But being that he's obviously surrounded by Marines, wearing military type attire would simply be a way of relating himself to his audience regardless.

[Drew]

The most worrying this is that Pakistan is a nuclear superpower and is only just a hop away from Afghanistan. Should things go really wrong, who knows what could happen.

How did Pakistan come to getting nuclear weapons?

[Eki]

But being that he's obviously surrounded by Marines, wearing military type attire would simply be a way of relating himself to his audience regardless.
And Musharraf, Hitler, Stalin and Saddam didn't wear a uniform for the same reason?

[akv89]

How did this topic get related to the U.S. goverment system and Bush wearing camo? Pakistan is now a very unstable country with very powerful weapons. It is something that any country of influence should think about. Considering the situation in Pakistan, holding fair elections seems like a very sane thing to do; so in this instance, I'll have to agree with Bush.

[Eki]

How did this topic get related to the U.S. goverment system and Bush wearing camo? Pakistan is now a very unstable country with very powerful weapons. It is something that any country of influence should think about. Considering the situation in Pakistan, holding fair elections seems like a very sane thing to do; so in this instance, I'll have to agree with Bush.
I think fair elections are a good idea, but I also think Musharrafs post as the head of his country's army is none of Bush's business.

[akv89]

I think fair elections are a good idea, but I also think Musharrafs post as the head of his country's army is none of Bush's business.

I would agree if this was an internal affair. But it is very possible that this problem can expand to outside Pakistan. Pakistan contains a significant number of radical islamic groups and neighbors other countries that do so as well. In addition, don't forget that it has been in conflict with India for half a century now. In addition, Pakistan is very important to the conflicts in Afghanistan, which is why this matter is also important to Bush.