Chief Mistake
As a retired Army National Guard colonel, Wilson gets a lot of benefits (one of which, apparently, was not a full appreciation of the customs, traditions, and courtesies that mandate respect for one’s commander in chief).
No, no no. A thousand blog posts no. (I’m surely getting close to that number on this topic.) Barack Obama is President of the United States. He is not Joe Wilson’s commander-in-chief. He is not my commander-in-chief. He is not your commander-in-chief unless you are active-duty military. Should Joe Wilson be recalled to active service at some point – well, should that happen we’ll know it’s time to roll with the dhimmitude or welcome our Chinese overlords as the case may be, because we’ll be well and truly screwed. But I had a point. Oh right: should that happen, Barack Obama will be Joe Wilson’s commander-in-chief. But he does not hold that title over Joe Wilson, or all but about one half of one percent of the country, now.
The overly broad construction of the President’s “commander-in-chief” title remains symptomatic of how badly the national-security state has swollen. That was true during the reign of Commander Codpiece and it remains true today.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
September 10, 2009 @ 11:58 pm
Unrelated, but pleasing: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Homeless-dogs-will-benefit-every-time-Michael-Vi?urn=nfl,188591
Comment by Thoreau —
September 11, 2009 @ 12:11 am
In the spirit of the post below, let me say that I concur with my right honourable colleague and esteemed co-blogger, and say that the use of “commander-in-chief” outside of its proper context is part of a cultural rot that plagues the apologists for this government as well as apologists for the previous government. Will the commenters concede this obvious point, or will they engage in the same rhetoric as the previous government and give licence to mischief?
And if that doesn’t work, then….
LOOK! A BASKETBALL VICTORY! EVERYBODY RIOT!!!!
(Seems to be about as close as we Americans get to a proper English soccer riot.)
Comment by smartass sob —
September 11, 2009 @ 12:39 am
The overly broad construction of the President’s “commander-in-chief” title remains symptomatic of how badly the national-security state has swollen. That was true during the reign of Commander Codpiece and it remains true today
Amen to that!
Comment by derek —
September 11, 2009 @ 5:53 am
Thoreau, you’re completely wrong. English soccer punch-ups are as close as they get to a proper American basketball riot. I looked into this a few years ago, and was shocked to find that, contrary to the American myths, American sports violence is more frequent, more violent, and more destructive than English sports violence. But the English phenomenon was fully reported with the appropriate outrage, while the American phenonmenon was underreported with inappropriate whitewash.
This being Usenet, my interlocutor stuck his fingers in his ears and said lalala. Which was the first time I realised that the so-called age of information was a sham: facts actually didn’t change anyone’s mind.
Pingback by ‘Free’ Medical Care for Military —
September 11, 2009 @ 7:50 am
[...] As to the idea that Wilson’s shouting “You lie!” was more than a rude outburst but a violation of some obligation to the “commander-in-chief,” I give you Mr. Jim Henley. [...]
Comment by max —
September 11, 2009 @ 8:33 am
I heartily endorse this comment.
The real problem with all this is that the only time we get real heckling is when some slaver or wannabe slaver is pissed off about black people.
(Side note: there’s a real feel of a revolt building in the air. But not just from one direction.)
max
['Chippy on the ice.']
Comment by Mr. Obscura —
September 11, 2009 @ 9:37 am
[Two in the box, max]
Comment by dhex —
September 11, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Commander Codpiece
bravo!
what was the name of that creepy lady who wrote that slashfic about the flightsuit?
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » On Outbursts During Presidential Speeches —
September 11, 2009 @ 10:36 am
[...] of confusing roles, the third item I want to recommend is from Jim Henley who rightly notes: Barack Obama is President of the United States. He is not Joe Wilson’s [...]
Comment by tony smith —
September 11, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Whether Obama is commander-in-chief to Wilson is irrelevant. Wilson is a hypocrite on goverment-run healthcare. He says it compromises care and interferes with doctors and patients, but he says that TRICARE is one of the best plans in the country. Apparently, he’s a liar too. Joe Wilson: Healthcare Hypocrite
Comment by joe from Lowell —
September 11, 2009 @ 8:51 pm
Commander-in-Chief creep is indeed annoying. Dropping the rest of the title, “…of the Armed Forces,” is done for the purpose of suggesting that the POTUS if the Commander in Chief of the country, and that’s both factually and philosophically wrong.
In this case, though, with Wilson being a retired colonel, there’s some wiggle room.
Comment by J —
September 12, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
As much as I hate overuse of the “C-in-C” title (I’m fond of telling people who use it inappropriately that my wife has a C-in-C, but I don’t), this could just be simple confusion about the organization of the armed forces.
A retired member of the *regular* services is subject to the UCMJ (with some exceptions), and still considered part of the military. An officer, in particular, retains their commission in retirement and can theoretically ALWAYS be recalled. For them, POTUS could be considered CINC.
But since he’s retired from the Guard, as Jim points out, none of this applies to Wilson unless he were to be activated and federalized. I doubt most folks understand the difference.
In the end, anyone who thinks any sort of military status can regulate what a rep says on the floor of the house needs to re-read Article I, Section 6.