Who knew?

The media has turned on George Washington.

Or more accurately, the liberal media is throwing a fit because President Trump has turned to the precedent set by America’s first president. Why? It seems that ole George, back there in the mist of time that was August 7, 1789, signed legislation that created - brace yourself! - the United States Department of War.

History records that the legislation creating the Department made its way through Congress with little controversy. This was, of course, a President and Congress only recently finished with fighting the war that was the American Revolution, winning, at considerable cost, independence from Great Britain. 

With the US government organized under the Constitution, Washington named his military aide, one Henry Knox, as the first Secretary of War. Knox was so successful in the role that he has perhaps the most famous military installation in the country named for him - Fort Knox.

The War Department existed under that name until 1949 when, on the heels of World War II, it was renamed the Department of Defense. 

And now? Now, this very week, President Trump has signed an order to restore the Department to it’s original name. Florida Congressman Greg Steube, an Army veteran, released a statement on the change, saying this:  

From 1789 until the end of World War II, the United States military fought under the banner of the Department of War. It is only fitting that we pay tribute to their eternal example and renowned commitment to lethality by restoring the name of the ‘Department of War’ to our Armed Forces.

And but of course, left wing media is having yet another Trump Derangement Syndrome tantrum.

Here is the HuffPost: 

Critics Go To War Over Donald Trump’s 'WTF' Military Rebrand Idea 

The president's proposal sparked a war of words from his detractors.

A media “war of words” for sure.

The Huff Post captured this round of Trump critics assailing the change back to George Washington’s original name as 'cringe.' This being the 21st century in the world of tweets, there was a flood of tweets using the outraged curse unprintable on a family site. The 'Department of Offense(ive)' was suggested. This change, it was said,  was a sign that Trump desperately desired to be king. It was a sign of just how insecure he was. “Prez of Peace RIP” said another, while a rename to 'Department of Distraction' was suggested.

The New York Times thundered: 

The Return of the ‘War Department’ Is More Than Nostalgia. It’s a Message

The Times huffs: 

But words matter to other nations as well, allies and adversaries alike. And this change in name, assuming Congress is willing to rewrite the Truman-era laws, plays right into the narrative that Russia and China propagate about the United States. 

In their telling, all of America’s talk about being a peace-loving, law-abiding international player is thin cover for a country that truly just wants to strike at any target it regards as a threat. To bolster their cases, their state-controlled commentators point to Mr. Trump’s unilateral decisions to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities in June or sink an open skiff of alleged drug runners, killing 11 people off the coast of Venezuela.

'This is a backward-looking decision,' said R. Nicholas Burns, the former U.S. ambassador to China who spent decades as a foreign service officer, including ambassador to NATO. 'It plays into China’s narrative in its unrelenting contest for global influence with the U.S. Beijing will brand this unfairly as evidence the U.S. is a threat to the international order and China is a defender of the peace.'

The Washington Post zeroed in on the cost of the name change, writing: 

Official name changes, however, come with a hefty price tag. The blue seal of the 'Department of Defense' is on hundreds of installations and government buildings across the globe. Official signage, stationery and publications across the services may also need to be overhauled.

…Skeptics of the move quickly pounced on the planned announcement.

'American military supremacy has eroded as China has sprinted to field combat forces that they hope can defeat the United States military in the Pacific. Changing the name of the Department of Defense won’t help with that,' said Brad Bowman, senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 'Perhaps the significant amount of money spent making new signs, office placards and letterhead would be better used ensuring our warfighters have the training and weapons they need to accomplish the missions they are given and to return home to their families.'

There was, of course, more of this kind of thing from the liberal media. 

And as seen, inevitably the renaming back to the Department created by President George Washington became yet another media excuse to slam Washington’s 47th successor. 

Somewhere, one imagines, ole George, the general who won the American Revolution, is shaking his head.

With reason.