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. -- U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 2.
The faces occasionally change at "Today," but the bias remains the same. Natalie Morales sat in for Meredith Vieira this morning, but the show didn't lose a liberal beat, as Natalie knocked President Bush for his temerity in asserting his constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief.
Chatting with Tim Russert at about 7:10 A.M. EDT, Morales offered this take on W's comments of yesterday:
NBC'S NATALIE MORALES: Tim, what was striking yesterday was the aggressive tone the President took with Congress yesterday, with lawmakers, saying it is not their job to manage the war. Not since Vietnam has there been such a clash between the executive and the legislative branches. If the President is trying to build support, did he lose some of that yesterday?
View video here.
Bonus points to Morales for working a Vietnam allusion in there. But on the larger point, what did the president say that Natalie found so "aggressive"? Here is the relevant passage from his remarks:
I don't think it makes sense [for Congress to tell] our military how to conduct operations or deal with troop strength . . . I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding the troops.
What is "aggressive" about a president fulfilling his constitutional role? If any branch is being aggressive, is it not the House of Representatives that, in adopting a resolution calling for the withdrawal of almost all combat troops from Iraq by April 1, 2008, is clearly exceeding its constitutional perogative?
But Morales saw things only in political, not constitutional, terms, and predictably put the onus on Pres. Bush to make concessions to the Dem-led Congress.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
