Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Isn't the Commander-in-Chief a War Czar?

In the most telling proof to date that the President is an incompetent boob who'd rather be on vaction than do the job he was placed in office to do...The administraion is attempting to create a new position...that of War Czar.

Just the proposal to create this position means a couple of things:

1) We will never, ever, not be at war from this point forward.

2) This "War President" loves the war powers afforded him by declaring his wars of choice, but does not want any of the responsibility the granting of those powers imply.

I, personally don't know which is more frightening...that they want to create this position or that they can't find anyone to take the job. The first three generals they asked have turned it down. Would this position essentially be Deputy Commander in Chief? Or is the President outsourcing his own responsibilities?

Or is this a glimmer of hope that the people at the highest levels are finally coming to grips with the fact that they don't know what the hell they're doing?

If that is the case...please, for the love of God and country, resign and let the competent people start running this country. Give them the titles that goe with the jobs you are asking them to do for you.

Maybe nobody with two brain cells to rub together wants to be the War Czar, but I'd like to hope that someone competent to do the job still wants to be the President. We could do a lot worse than having Dub and Dick resign and let Pelosi try to fix this mess. Actually, unless they resign, or are impeached for the impeachable offenses they publicly admit to having committed, we will continue to do a lot worse.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Appointing a war czar may be the attempt to diffuse liability by Bush so that he is not held accountable historically for the War in Iraq as a legacy.

However, effectively stepping down as President by delegating duties to a stand-in cannot comport with the Constitution and impairs the office of the Presidency by precedent. It is the equivalent of outsourcing motherhood for a mother.

If commander in chief is intended to be one of the duties of the President, and those duties can be delegated, why not outsource all duties of the President? What need is there for a Vice President to fulfill the duties of a President when his duties are performed by a personal delegate?
It changes the whole nature of the Presidency.

5:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since when is the Presidency a dictatorship that is defined by this one President?

What happened to America?

5:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When FDR outsourced his duties to Eleanor, wasn't that a violation of the Constitution?

5:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home