I am saying that as the "Commander In Chief" the president has authorization to fulfill his oath to defend and protect up to and including committing military personnel to go in harms way to the benefit of the republic at a moments notice without a by your leave to any citizen, legislator, body of congress or senate. As he and his advisors find prudent once again without regard to any legistlative body that might choose to oppose.
(The current case in point was supported by both houses of the legislative body for funding at its beginning.)
At each key juncture both legislative bodies refunded the effort along the way.
(It was supported by the current sitting chief executive's last reelection opponent. It was supported by two of three of the current front runners for their party's nomination.)
That is his job. (The pres) Taking the criticism that comes from those who oppose him for the sake of opposing him is part of being president. Even if it means his approval rating takes a big dip. Even if it means he might not get reelected. Even if he makes a precieved mistake. ( I always find it amazing that presidents are not supposed to make any mistakes.)
Can a legislative body choose to try and cut funds? I think so. It has been weakly attempted in recent memory with poor results for those who supported the measure.
The man at the helm all but ignored the effort and the politics of the day kept his effort in place as it remains today. And shall remain until he leaves office.
the current front runner for the nomination of the party of the sitting president supported the effort from day one and has never waivered even to the point of being written off as a likely candidate.
To what degree the effort continues after Jan 09 remains to be seen by the jurisprudence of the electorate does it not?
No one ever said its easy to be President of the US. Its a tuff job and it means doing the right thing despite your popularity.
