Results for: commander in chief Search Results
Family Filter:
A vibrant collection of oil paintings and stories by President George W. Bush honoring the sacrifice and courage of America’s military veterans. With Forewords by former First Lady Laura Bush and General Peter Pace, 16th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Growing out of President Bush’s own outreach and the ongoing work of the George W. Bush Institute's Military Service Initiative, Portraits of Courage brings together sixty-six full-color portraits and a four-panel mural painted by President Bush of members of the United States military who have served our nation with honor sinc. READ MORE >> book .bestmoviehd ****/?book=0804189765
7 Mar 2017
Share Video

George Clooney, Chris Rock, and even Billy Bob Thornton have taken on the role of Commander in Chief in TV and movies. Here's how they stack up in the Oval Office.
5 Jul 2012
Share Video

Keith Olberman reviews the lack of credibility that has permeated the Commander in Chief on Iraq.
11 Jan 2007
Share Video

Under There asks some pretty profound questions in a lighthearted way. Eight-year-old Samantha (Jasmine Anthony of ABC's popular drama Commander in Chief) is playing soccer in a cemetary when a mourner named Roman (Richard Edson of Stranger Than Paradise, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and Do The Right Thing) takes offense at the little girl's failure to show what he considers to be proper respect for the dead. Roman scolds Samantha then takes it upon himself to explain the Christian perspective upon death. Samantha listens politely, however in the end, she clings to her unschooled understanding of the relationship between body and soul. As far as the naive Samantha is concerned, human beings simply return to the earth when they die. And you know what? She may very well be right!
3 Jul 2007
Share Video

July 6, 2007 Transcript by Reg NYC Keith Olbermann: Good evening from New York. It has been thus on every sinking ship from Titanic to the SS Minnow of Gilligan's Island, a few far thinking visionaries try to get off first and get others to leave with them. Then, others begin to file off one by one and after them the deluge. And so it is for the Bush administration's policy in Iraq. Our fifth story on the Countdown, conservative Republican Senator Pete Domenici yesterday, conservative Republican Congressman John Doolittle today. Hope you can swim boys. This while the top national security officer from the Reagan administration insisting that the only way to protect the troops in Iraq is to get the Bush administration to bring them home, and the only way to do that may be to threaten the President directly with impeachment. The Commander-in-Chief having now supported the troops to a death toll of 3,592 with no end in sight. Conservative Congressman Doolittle of California, one-time Mormon missionary today joining the others in his party in questioning whether the conflict is worth the loss of any more American lives. His remarks though making the Congressman sound less like a great humanitarian or patriot and rather more like a huge xenophobe: 'I am increasingly convinced,' said Mr. Doolittle, 'that we are never going to succeed in actually ending people dying in Iraq. I think it's going to be a constant conflict, and if that is going to happen, it needs to be the Iraqis dying and not the Americans.'
12 Jul 2007
Share Video

But, you know, I don't want to go down that route. What I want to really focus on is this issue of national security, because I think you've repeated this a number of times. You are the person best prepared on national security issues on day one, and so if you're running against John McCain, that you can go toe-to-toe. Keywords: SC, South Carolina, Democratic Debate, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, National Security, Foreign Policy I fundamentally disagree with that. And I want to tell you why, because I believe that the way we are going to take on somebody like a John McCain on national security is not that we're sort of -- we've been sort of like John McCain, but not completely, you know, we voted for the war, but we had reservations. I think it's going to be somebody who can serve a strong contrast and say, "We've got to overcome the politics of fear in this country." As commander-in-chief... (APPLAUSE) As commander-in-chief, all of us would have a responsibility to keep the American people safe. That's our first responsibility. And I would not hesitate to strike against anybody who would do Americans or American interests' harm. But what I do believe... BLITZER: All right. OBAMA: Wait, Wolf, let me finish. I was listening to these folks quite some time. What I do believe is that we have to describe a new foreign policy that says, for example, I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies, because I remember what John F. Kennedy said, that we should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate. Having that kind of posture is the way I think we effectively debate the Republicans on this issue. Because if we just play into the same fear-mongering that they have been engaged in since 9/11, then we are playing on their battlefield, but, more importantly, we are not doing what's right in order to rebuild our alliances, repair our relationships around the world, and actually make us more safe in the long term.
28 Jan 2008
Share Video

more at *******www.theuptake**** University of Minnesota Professor John Logie digs into the South Carolina numbers and finds hope for John Edwards and reasons why the Hillary Clinton campaign really should be concerned about the loss to Barack Obama. This is the first of two parts of John's analysis. Transcription: The first striking statistic in the exit polls that CNN generated after the South Carolina primary was the overwhelming bias towards female voters in South Carolina. Those numbers shook out at 61 percent female to 39 percent male. In the main stream media it’s often presumed that Hillary Clinton will carry female votes, but it didn’t play out that way in South Carolina, where Barack Obama took 54 percent of the female voters to Hillary Clinton’s 30 percent and John Edward’s 16 percent. While it might be interesting to try and break that statistic down further, so we could sort out whether black female voters or white female voters were responsible for that result, we might also do well to take a page from the message delivered in Obama’s speech where he suggested that this election is about, among other things, people not necessarily voting lockstep identity politics – not necessarily voting for the candidate who most superficially resembles them in terms of their own race or gender. There is one demographic group that voted strongly for Hillary Clinton. One and one only as it turns out. And that is voters 65 or older. They voted 40 percent for Clinton, 32 percent for Obama and 27 percent for Edwards. That is the only group that Obama didn’t win. It suggests that older voters are going to be a source of strength for Hillary Clinton as the campaign goes on. But Obama’s strong performance across literally every other demographic – and if you drop that number from 65 and older just 60 and older he actually wins that demographic 38 to 35. It suggests there’s a very strong correlation between the age of the voter and their willingness to vote for Obama, with older voters siding squarely for Hillary Clinton. There was a tiny bit of good news in the South Carolina primary for John Edwards. It had to be a disappointing finish for him – 18 percent of the vote overall. But that 18 percent was made up of some strength among non-black voters age 30 and up. Non-black voters under 30 voted overwhelmingly for Obama. 52 percent total voted for Obama. That’s more than Edwards and Clinton put together. But among the older non-black voters, which presumable would extend from Caucasian to Asian to Arabic to Hispanic there was some signs of strength for John Edwards with 41 percent at the demographic from 30 to 34, 40 percent in the demographic from 45 to 59, and he was actually able to tie Hillary Clinton with the non-black voters over 60 with 42 percent of that vote. One of the most interesting questions asked by CNN in their exit polls was whether Democratic voters thought a given candidate was likely to beat the Republican nominee. The overarching numbers are interesting in and of themselves. 48 percent felt Obama was the most likely to beat the Republican nominee. 36 percent thought Clinton. 15 percent thought Edwards. But the really interesting information comes up when you look at who people voted for given their views. Now of the 36 percent who thought Clinton was most likely to beat the Republican nominee, Hillary Clinton got 68 percent of those voters, but 21 percent voted for Obama. And of the 15 percent who thought Edwards was most likely to beat the Republican nominee, Edwards got 73 percent of those voters. But again 21 percent voted for Obama. So these are the people who Clinton and Edwards were the most likely to beat the Republican nominee, but still felt strongly enough about Barack Obama message that they were going to vote for him anyway. In other words, the strategic value of voting for someone who you thought was the most capable of beating a Republican was outweighed, for these voters, by their desire to vote for Barack Obama. Now the numbers get really interesting when we look at the Democratic voters who thought Barack Obama was the most likely to beat the Republican nominee. Again that’s almost half of the South Carolina Democratic primary voters. Essentially if you thought Barack Obama was most likely to beat the Republican nominee, you voted for Barack Obama. 88 percent of the people who felt that way did end up voting for Barack Obama. Leaving only 12 percent divided between Edwards and Clinton. 8 percent voted for Edwards and 4 percent voted for Clinton. The difference here is that among voters who think Clinton and Edwards are most likely to beat the Republican nominee, Barack Obama is still able to pull over a fifth of those voters from either Clinton or Edwards. But the voters who believe Obama is most likely to beat the Republican nominee, almost 90 percent of them voted for Obama. CNN’s exit polls also asked who voters thought would be the most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. And the numbers who strong for Obama as well, which had to be disappointing for Hillary Clinton who has tended to do very well in these kinds of questions. Obama polled at 46 percent on this question relative to Clinton’s 35 percent and Edwards’ 19 percent. But again, we see people even if they select Clinton or Edwards as the most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, still voting for Barack Obama in sizable numbers. 20 percent of the people who pointed to Clinton as most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, still voted for Obama anyway. 16 percent of those who selected Edwards as the most qualified to Commander-in-Chief still voted for Obama anyway. And among the 46 percent who pointed towards Obama to be the most qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, 94 percent ended up voting for Barack Obama. So we’re seeing real signs of strength for Barack Obama in that he pulls voters even though they might not necessarily think he’s the most qualified to be the Commander-in-Chief. Or might not be the one most likely to defeat the eventual Republican nominee. That suggests to me that their votes are about something more a political calculus relative to the November election. In short, it seems like Barack Obama has got some believers.
28 Jan 2008
Share Video

4 Star former commander in chief General Zinni on a report by 4 star Generals explaining the under discussed connections between the effects of global warming and resource scarcity,international instability, and other grave threats to US national security.
16 Feb 2008
Share Video

Watch the babies react to our Commander in Chief.
16 Mar 2008
Share Video

1. His colleagues don't like him. Senator Thad Cochran says the idea that John McCain may one day become president sends 'a cold chill down his spine.' 2. McCain is more liberal than conservative. He will open the borders and close Guantanamo. Where Mccain stands on most issues, though, are often subject to many flip-flops. Michelle Malkin wrote: "McCain on offshore drilling: For it before he was against it before he was for it again... Will McCain even follow through on the Bush tax cuts? He was against them before he was for them... 3. Religion: James Dobson won't endorse McCain, Hagee & Parsley's endorsements have been accepted, renounced partially, then repudiated and finally, fully rejected (both sides - mutual rejection), and McCain's "agents of intolerance" remarks about Falwell and Roberts makes endorsing McCain undesirable and untenable.... 4. The Pundits - Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. disagree with McCain substantially on the issues. Ann Coulter even voiced her extreme distaste for McCain by stating she would campaign for Hillary if McCain got the nod... 5. McCain's "Maverick" myth: He has crossed the aisles so many times to work with the Democrats that very few of his colleagues are willing to do the same for him. You could never be sure where McCain's allegiances were going to be... To finish, I must answer the question that begs itself, namely: Is there any hope for McCain? Surprisingly, the answer is "Yes." War. Better said: World War III. A global conflict of epic proportions. 75% of the American public does not support the War and believe that the economy is suffering as a direct consequence of the costs involved in waging two wars simultaneously and will trust the Democrats to seek termination of the war in Iraq and hunt down Al-Qaeda definitively, to the ends of the Earth, if need be. Will George Bush bomb Iran? George may be many things, but one he's not: stupid. He knows the people are daily considering impeaching him. Bombing Iran would be his last act as Commander-In-Chief before facing impeachment proceedings...
18 Oct 2008
Share Video

Politikin hits the streets with AJ and David to find out if the future First Lady, Cindy or Michelle, will play a role in the presidential election and what people have to say to the impending Commander in Chief.
3 Jul 2008
Share Video

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki essentially endorsed Senator Barack Obama's plan for withdrawing troops from Iraq in an interview with the German magazine, "Der Spiegel". "U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months," Mr. Maliki said, according to the magazine's online English edition. "That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes." Naturally, Mr. Maliki did not want to imply he was backing one candidate over another in a foreign election: "Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business," he said. But then, apparently referring to Republican candidate John McCain's more open-ended Iraq policy, Maliki said: "Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems." On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain told a town hall, "I know how to win wars. ... I will turn around the war in Afghanistan. ... I know how to do that." The next day, CNN's John Roberts asked Senator Joe. Biden (D-DE), "Do you believe Senator Obama knows how to win wars? And if he does, how?" "He has a much more centered view on what our problems are," Biden replied. "John McCain was wrong about the war in Iraq. John McCain says the surge worked — but remember the purpose of the surge ... was to create 'breathing room' for a political settlement in Iraq. ... We're not closer to a political settlement." "John McCain has finally acknowledged he has to put more troops in Afghanistan or we're going to lose Afghanistan," continued Biden. "John McCain's now realizing the desperate situation in Afghanistan, says we need more troops. ... He first said we have to take them out of Iraq. ... Then he says no, we'll have NATO do it. Then he came back and corrected again, NATO can't do it, we have to do it." "The truth of the matter is, Barack Obama has been centered," Biden stated firmly, "and the central war on terror is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq." Roberts then cited an ABC/Washington Post poll which indicates that Americans think McCain has a better knowledge of world affairs by 63%-26% and that 72% think McCain would make a good commander-in-chief, while only 48% believe Obama would. Biden's response was that Obama is "leading John McCain on every area except the one where experience just intuitively suggests that people think: "if you're experienced, then you MUST know more". "But 20 years of experience that has not been very solid in terms of projecting what was going to happen doesn't make you a better commander-in-chief." "We don't need as a commander-in-chief a war hero," Biden emphasized. "John's a war hero. We need someone with some wisdom. ... President Bush's policy, which John McCain has embraced on Iraq and foreign policy generally, has been an abject failure." ...
26 Sep 2008
Share Video