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.

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!

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.

You are just DUMB!

No, that would be you.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.