War Czar? No Frickin’ Way.You mean the President will share his constitutionally dubious authority to run this un-declared war with an appointed bureaucrat? Or does he merely hope to share the accountability? President Bush’s political foes should howl with outrage, and his supporters should hide their faces in embarrassment. Linguistically the term “czar” offends. Coming from the root “Caesar” (like Keizer), it should be interpreted as more that an authoritative bureaucrat – it means Emperor. Our founding fathers fought to keep “czars” and other monarchs out of the American government. Conceptually, Americans shouldn’t accept any dilution of accountability for the Iraq war. George W. Bush actively sought authorization, and has claimed the mantle of “decider” many times. With that authority comes accountability. President Bush deserves all the credit for Iraq. Don’t be distracted by changing Secretaries of Defense, Commanding Generals, or “Czars.” This war is George Bush’s legacy. The buck stops in the Oval Office. Michael Previous: You Can’t Push a Rope -- Next: Republican Debate 5:00 Pacific Comment from Boggywoggy: I’d really like to meet some everyday people here in our little town who are still defending this loser…oops, I mean, leader. Is there truly anyone out there who believes this new position being proposed is legitimate? Is there anyone already being considered for the job? Posted by Boggywoggy Apr 21, 03:31 PM # |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
