Wallace stated Bush Commander-in-Chief of Free World

[plasticsundance]

In his interview with Ahmadinejad on 60-Minutes, Wallace stated in one of his questions that Bush-the-lesser was Commander-in-Chief of the free world. My understanding is that Bush can be recognized as listed:

1. The President of the United States (using that term in a loose sense with Bush).

2. Commander-in-Chief of the US military forces.

3. And leader of the free world (mostly because the world is still on the dollar standard)

Bush is not even Commander-in-Chief of the civilian population of the US, so how could he be of the entire world. Is it this kind of arrogant swaggering and faulty reasoning that diminishes and turns off the global community to the US dialogue on policy making?

It was fun watching Wallace frustrate himself when he came to realize that inflexion, tonality, and forceful questioning are nothing without the underlying substance of the debate.

[Annces]

1. Wallace's manipulations were not working so well n/t

[Ezlivin]

2. It's a damn sad day

When the president of Iran seems like a more reasonable human being than Bush.

Yes, it was just an interview, but he came across as a reasonable person, a feat that Bush seems incapable of duplicating.

[Supersedeas]

8. don't blame *, he's never accountable, blame the handlers

[Kerrytravelers]

3. They're pulling the typical reich-wing nutcase tactic.

Say it repeatedly and loudly enough and everyone will begin to believe it. And if you question it, you're siding with the terrorists and you hate America.

Ten bucks this is the new talking point.

[havocmom]

4. Only ones 'free' in this world are the ultra rich and the corporations

And bush sure as hell is not the boss of them.

[beyurslf]

5. He is not my commander and I am a US citizen!

[meg]

6. I agree!

He is NOT nor is anyone my commander in chief. Actually, he is not even MY president - he lost to Gore and then again lost to Kerry.

[jerry611]

7. "leader of the free world" has nothing to do with the dollar

Because of America's role in the cold war, the President of the United States was considered the "leader of the free world." The Soviet Union was communist and nations on their side were not considered free.

Back then, and I am sure you can remember those days well, it truely was "with us or against us." That was true for both sides. If you were in the middle, you were an enemy of both sides.

Also Bin Ladin's #2 guy, Ahman Al-Zawrahiri once referred to the US as the "heart and soul" of the west. His theory is if the US were to fall, it would create a domino effect across the world where all the free countries would begin to fall, including all of Europe. This is why they are targetting the US economy.

[plasticsundance]

9. You have a valid point

I believe I've read interpretations that are in line with what you posted. I would still say that the US maintains a kind of hegemony through the US dollar standard, as well as its over bearing influence in the IMF and the World Bank.

This is why I find your following statement quite revealing:

"Also Bin Ladin's #2 guy, Ahman Al-Zawrahiri once referred to the US as the "heart and soul" of the west. His theory is if the US were to fall, it would create a domino effect across the world where all the free countries would begin to fall, including all of Europe. This is why they are targetting the US economy."

The US role as leader of the free world should be interesting to watch pan out, as we begin to see new geostrategical and geopolitical alliances play out. Then again, as you might agree, depending on the health of the dollar in the future will also play a role in the latter.