To show you just how dumb you are answer this

Hmmm. What a way to start a conversation. Are you this rude with people in real life, or do you just plop your big poopies on the internet?

Given the scenario of the 1st Sgt -NO he has not committed any offence for that attack.

The issue with Bush is not as any of your examples state.

Hmmm. And I disagree. I think that it is truly the question at hand. By your logic, anything a subordinate does is ultimately the responsibility of the soldier's chain of command. Ending with the highest possible member of that chain of command. For this example, I used his 1SG, but for you it obviously goes to the president. You would not hold the 1SG responsible for his CPL's behavior, though the 1SG does have responsibility for his (or her) unit's decorum and training.
In response (at least I think you were trying to respond to my question), you said:

Constitution changes him with the responsibility to, TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUITED.

And the 1SG is tasked with the responsibility of keeping his soldiers in line. And the 1SG has day-to-day contact with those soldiers, as opposed to the vast bureaucracy of the federal government whcih cannot be hand-held by the commander-in-chief on a day-to-day basis.
But you would not hold the 1SG responsible while you would have Bush drawn up by his scrotum for perceived offenses against America? I would say if you're going to hold the Chief Executive's feet to the fire, you most certainly should have less consideration for a lowly 1SG. But you would topple, overthrow, our country for ridiculous stretches of the bureaucratic imagination?

Now for the moral of this story...

You said,

The Buck stops in his office per OUR CONSTITUTION!

Maybe so, but it doesn't START in the Oval Office. It starts at the delegated level. It's about delegation.

Why am I needing to teach you about delegation of authority, COL?

How many Humvees and Jeeps did you personally wash, COL? Or check the oil on each vehicle in your motor pool? Or did you leave this responsibility to subordinates? That's called delegation. Delegated power is absolutely essential, because one person in power cannot be all places at all times. So for Bush to be fighting off swarms of immigrants HIMSELF, or to be shoring up levees HIMSELF... Should he be driving each government employee to each meeting across town so no government worker gets into a car accident? Because then I can blame GWB for any car accidents on the Beltway? The ball is dropped frequently: at the federal, state and local level, it's true. But those TO WHOM POWER HAD BEEN DELEGATED (oops, there's that word again) need to be taken to task first. I am responsible for a car accident in my government vehicle, not the fleet coordinator, not his boss nor his boss nor his boss... but to you they are. Actually, no they aren't. George W. Bush is.

I think you like to start the buck (not stop it) at the White House because you have serious issues. I don't know what issues those are, but you obviously have them. I just hope you don't kiss your mother with that mouth.

When a CEO in the real world does not achieve the objectives set out for he or she by the board, the most likely scenario is the CEO goes. The Board does not care if the problem was a subordinate. The issue is the CEO FAILED to get the job done.

In the case of Bush, he is the one with the final say for things like the budget request to congress. Bush has failed to seek the needed funding for example to provide the needed border guards to effect border security. You can not blame anyone for that. In Iraq the generals and our Ambassador said we DID not have enough troops to maintain control of Iraq. Bush as Commander in chief was the one that FAILED to provide the needed manpower in a war that he insisted on fighting. Bush has failed this country. He does not want to enforce the tax laws against his base of business owners. He would rather grant $12 Billion to BIG OIL then to seek the funding, which has still not been requested, to rebuild the levies to protect New Orleans from a cat 4 or 5 storm. Bush is a failure and if he were the CEO of a company with the performance he has shown in his many responsibilities, he would be gone.

If he had been a military commander and failed to accomplish the mission he would have been relieved even if the reason for that failure was poor performance of his subordinates.

To show you just how dumb you are answer this. Who would have been harmed by Clinton's Lie? Who could be harmed by not securing our borders, porters or making sure the government remains solvent by collecting the taxes. Yes Clinton was wrong. However no one would have been harmed by what he did wrong. That is not true from what Bush is failing to do.

Just to "show" you how ignorant "you" are! No one would be "harmed" by Slick Willie's lie. BUT IT IS/WAS AGAINST THE LAW!

When the last of the manufacturing and high Tec jobs has been sent to other countries, who will be at fault.

It "will not" be President Bush you fool! Private industry is just that PRIVATE! Bush has absolutely NO SAY as to whether or not a particular private sector job goes off-shore!

Hay Drmiler HE (The President) SHALL TAKE CARE THAT THE LAWS BE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED. What about that do you not understand. Bush is responsible. The Buck stops in his office per OUR CONSTITUTION! If one of his subordinates does not do their job it is the president's responsibility to replace them and get someone that will do their job.

There you go again getting "stupid" and NOT reading what was written:

#44 by drmiler Saturday, April 01, 2006 We brought impeachment proceedings against Clinton for lying about his sex life but will ignore Bush and his failure to protect our country and insure its financial viability. That's it. You've gone round the bend! Your right to breath has been revoked! We brought impeachment proceeding against Clinton for LYING UNDER OATH! Because it was about his sex life is immaterial! The Constitution of the United States Article II. - The Executive Branch Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed Can you read? Are YOU capable of understanding anything? While he is in the end responsible. It is the HEAD of the individual agencies that are responsible for upholding the law. NOT BUSH!

Drmiler

BUSH is the person to whom those agencies report. He is the one the Constitution charges with the responsibility to enforce the laws. You are just DUMB!

To show you just how dumb you are answer this Hmmm. What a way to start a conversation. Are you this rude with people in real life, or do you just plop your big poopies on the internet?

Thanks dude, but don't sweat it. I'm just as rude to him.

If Bush has as little responsibility as you claim, we should save the tax payers some money and do away with the Office of the President.

You are just DUMB!

No, that would be you.

Just end the Iraq occupation

Aye, the rub: according to Bush that's up the next president in 2009.

Some how Bush and all that support him seem to try any push the responsibility for everything to some one else - A reverse Harry Truman.

Some how Bush and all that support him seem to try any push the responsibility for everything to some one else - A reverse Harry Truman.

You're still babbling? God I can't believe this article has gotten so many replies with most of them correcting and disproving you and all you do is repeat yourself in every reply you make. I hope Brad is erasing your points cause you don't deserve them.

You're to stupid to see the realities of life. In the corporate world those in charge will do everything they can to shift the blame to those below them. I should know, it happened to me before. The only way a CEO will get fired is if the Company losses millions.

It doesn't matter how you see things, it doesn't change the fact that there is a chain of command, a management tree, a corporate ladder, and you can't blame the person at the top for mistakes made by those at the bottom of the list. If this were true we should put you in jail for every crime your children commit. You should be responsible for every driving ticket they get. Stupid old geezer, you don't even see what pours out of that empty head of yours.

Talking about stupid. Bush has cost America Trillions in losses. Iraq and the national debt. When you call me stupid, you show your ignorance. The issues I bring up including this one are biased of FACTS so what you are saying in this case is the Constitution is stupid.

Talking about stupid. Bush has cost America Trillions in losses. Iraq and the national debt. When you call me stupid, you show your ignorance. The issues I bring up including this one are biased of FACTS so what you are saying in this case is the Constitution is stupid.

Like I said before, believe what you want Col, this country does not run on the beliefs of a single person. Most people here have, time and time again, defeated you in debate and you refuse to lose. You, as an American, have the right to believe what you want and stand for what you want, that, however, does not make you right. The day you learn to listen to others and at least think about what they had to say, and maybe give a little credit where credit is due then maybe you can be taken seriously here. There are a few people here who do not like Bush's policies and will debate honorably about it, I have yet to see any of them back anything you have to say, except the occational rant back at someones response to you.

Stick to what you are good at, reporters don't tell the true, they tell what sells, that's how book sales work as well. Keep writing your stories on hard copies and stealing the money from people so that you can continue to complain about stupid things and make more money off of it, cause in the end, just like everything else in life, all of your BS comes down to selling your book and making money. The true is not what's important or the American people to you, it's the money. Plain and simple. Say what you want but that, my friend, is the true and you proved it when you started talking about you new book on another articleand how you like quoting yourself in the books.

My book uses Facts from sources that only a truly stupid person would consider inaccurate. In this Blog it is OUR Constitution. I did not paraphrase the Constitution I gave you the EXACT wording and you still say I am stupid. When I sight the data from the Treasury of the U S about the deficit, the increased interest on the national debt you attack me. When I provide studies like the added debt that would result from making the tax cuts permanent the way Bush wants, you ignore the studies. It is very clear the way in which Bush and those that support him use the very same tactics. Whenever ANYONE provides factual information or expert opinion or studies that show the policies we are following are not helping our country the approach is either to attack the person using the facts or change the subject. Never do you or Bush refute the data with equally factual arguments. When you say I am this or that you are saying the very same thing about the data being used to justify my argument. All that does is show YOUR Stupidity and dogmatic support of policies that the facts demonstrate ARE NOT WORKING! All this shows the truth in the saying, Birds of a feather flock together!

Whenever ANYONE provides factual information or expert opinion or studies that show the policies we are following are not helping our country the approach is either to attack the person using the facts or change the subject.

Ever notice that you do the exact same thing? Have you noticed that's exactly whats been going on in this article? People here provide factual information or expert opinion or studies that contradict what you say and all you can do is either attack the person or change the subject. THAT is why I call you stupid. You complain about the same thing you do.

Never do you or Bush refute the data with equally factual arguments.

You know I can't help but saying this "SCREW YOU". Several times have many people here refuted over and over again your articles. But you chose to ignore them and continue to use that same old broken record rutine. This also makes you stupid.

No one has refuted the basic section I included from the constitution. You read that the Constitution requires the President to Faithfully enforce the laws and then tell me that he is not responsible to enforce the laws. That is pure nonsense.

So, you should be CHEERLEADING the NSA wiretaps, COL, using your logic.

Your problem is an overly literal translation of those laws. Yes, it is his responsibility to take care that the laws are enforced. Any President does that by appointing heads of agencies, cabinet members, political advisors etc. From there, work is futher divided up and spread to the lower levels and down the chain.

There is a limited number of items we can focus on at any one time. And there's the consideration of what is most feasable to work on. We can't cover each and every one of everyone's "hot topic" items. To some people, Iraq is at the top of their priority lists. For others, it's outsourcing, or border patrols or general immigration regulation. Some think it's imperative that we have an amendment that outlaws gay marraige. Then there's those that want to overturn Roe v Wade and turn the issue over to the states again.

There are thousands upon thousands of laws in the US. Does each and every one boil up to Bush? Is it Bush's fault that the speed limit isn't absolutely and completely enforced on our nation's highways? Doesn't that present a HUGE safety risk to people traveling each and every day?

If local border patrols and checkpoints aren't doing their job well enough, it boils to their supervisors, who need to request resources from their supervisors etc until it boils up to Congress. Bush can request anything he likes, but ultimately Congress decides where the money goes. Bush could veto a bill, and Congress could just override the veto. Would it still be Bush's fault if they overrode a veto on a bill you didn't like?

The US Constitution also wasn't written with the expectation that our system of laws and the complexity of our system would grow to what it is today. Yes, it works as a framework, but there were assumptions made in the writing that no longer hold true. TO the framers, the idea of a career politician was a farce. To them, God did factor into policy decisions (as a matter of doing "good"). To them, slaves were OK, and the non-land-owning populace didn't deserve to directly vote.

Bush has stated that to secure the Border it will require an additional 10,000 guards. Then please explain WHY in the four budgets since 9/11 Bush has not requested the money to hire the 10,000 additional guards HE TELLS US ARE REQUIRED? If Bush asked Congress for the money to hire the 10,000 added guards to protect our borders, do you really believe Congress would not provide the money?

The Dems in Congress would try to burry the bill in committee or fillibuster the bill just because it had Bush's name on it.

Bush has stated that to secure the Border it will require an additional 10,000 guards. Then please explain WHY in the four budgets since 9/11 Bush has not requested the money to hire the 10,000 additional guards HE TELLS US ARE REQUIRED? If Bush asked Congress for the money to hire the 10,000 added guards to protect our borders, do you really believe Congress would not provide the money?

Col, stop already, this is starting to get annoying. Just because Bush said there was a need to have 10,000 border patrols does not mean that he would rush to get all 10,000 at once. Things are done at a pace, little by little, not to mention that, as you so repeatedly like to say, where are we gonna get the money from? Things take time, you somehow believe Bush should have gotten all this done in his first years as President. As usual you just keep making yourself look more and more stupid and wonder why I call you stupid.

Bush has stated that to secure the Border it will require an additional 10,000 guards. Then please explain WHY in the four budgets since 9/11 Bush has not requested the money to hire the 10,000 additional guards HE TELLS US ARE REQUIRED? If Bush asked Congress for the money to hire the 10,000 added guards to protect our borders, do you really believe Congress would not provide the money?

This coming from a guy who claims Bush is a lier, so how come you believe him when he said 10,000 border patrol officers? Your full of crap Col and you can't get away with it anymore.

Just end the Iraq occupation and employ the Active forces as needed to control the border. We could also provide the 10,000 added border guards Bush said were needed.

Gene, what practical problems do you think this proposal would have, and how would you fix them?

DJBandit

Are you calling Bush a liar? Bush came up with that number and the head of the Border Patrol has been on TV many times confirming that they do not have the number of guards needed to secure the border. Thus, it seems Bush must be correct. So WHY THEN has Bush not requested the funding for these new guards? I guess you have no logical answer to that question!

By the way I believe the word is LIAR not LIER.

Bush is not a CEO, Gene. He's an elected President. Experience as one may help being the other, but they are entirely unrelated. There is no President, ever, who wouldn't "have to go" by your standard. Things were going pretty badly in 1861, so I suppose Lincoln "should have gone." Apparently, J.W. Booth agreed with you.

There is nothing, no fact, no premise, no rumor, that is of any use to you unless it can be used in the service of trashing George Bush. Such a monomaniacal obsession cannot be healthy, and must of necessity cloud your judgment so much as to render your arguments ignorable.

Daiwa

Facts are Facts. We are not protecting our borders. We are not enforcing immigration laws. The national debt has gone from $5.7 Trillion to $8.3 Trillion under the fiscal policies of this administration. The trade Deficit has more then doubled since Jan 2001. Yes I have pointed out the impact of the policies we are following. Yes they are not benefiting our country. Since these are the results of the Bush policies that he has gotten through Congress, WHO do you believe is responsible? What is not healthy are the consequences of the policies we are following in almost ever problem area in our country. Making believe these things are not taking place will not eliminate their negative impact on our country! Most CEO's are elected by a board of Directors. Bush is the head of the Executive Branch and in many respects has authority far beyond ANY other executive in the private sector.