Reply With Quote
There are no more Slovenians on the team. So change your username and le.
Hey, s.
The President does not control every aspect of the federal government.
Just thought I would share.
-Rasho8
There are no more Slovenians on the team. So change your username and le.
I'm not sure what the source of this complaint is. It seems silly, however, to not hold the President accountable for the decisions made throughout the executive branch, since he's appointed the chief operating officers of virutally all executive agencies and departments. Those individuals, through cabinet officers who report directly to the President, implement policies in accordance with the directives of the White House. To say that the President bears no responsibility for those decisions ignores the chain of command.
I'm sure that when bad policy choices were made during the Clinton Administration, those choices were attributed directly to the President.
And it's a good thing he doesn't control every aspect. We'd probably be worse off than we are now
the complaint I have is saying things like "Bush told the prosecutors to do this, Bush had the IRS do this" and so on ad infinitum.
Its not like he is picking up the phone and saying "Go get the Curch.. heh heh heeeeh."
Im pretty sure the DoJ didnt call him up and say "Hey we lost his one can we just try to deport him instead?"
The policy is probably more like "Domestic terrorism is not to be tolerated if you feel you have sufficient evidence and can not place the offenders in jail the next best step is to deport them."
Which is a broad statement and one I support, but in this most recent cse seems cruel and punitive.
Definitely, actually
Whew, good thing you signed your post, I almost attributed it to someone else.
double post... gah
Good thing you didnt... then you would be a
-Rasho8
Yeah, except that it is President Bush's appointees who are making those decisions and, presumably, haven't been disciplined for having made those decisions.
Again, when Clinton's appointees made bad decisions, conservatives and Clinton-haters had no problem concluding that Clinton should be responsible for those decisions. Why should it be different for President Bush?
In the strictly, narrowly legalistic, cover-dubya'-ass sense, Rasho8 is almost right, but not.
dubya is but an ignorant, hood-winked, rubber-stamping, word-mouthing Charley dummy to head's dummy-master Edgar.
head's neo-cons, Repugs, and corporate shills have taken over and politicized deep into the civil service, chasing into retirement many apolitical civil servants, as well as appointing radically, wild-assed incompetent people to judgeships.
If dubya has EVER dis-owned or "corrected" or clarified ANYTHING his Exec branch goons did, I'd like to hear about. In that absence, his assents to ALL the actions of his Exec, and is therefore fully responsible. He's close-minded, hands-off, big-picture-type who can get the big picture in focus.
He's a ing corrupt, chick moron.
His long-lasting and historic unpopularity level speaks volume about the man and the citizens who hold him to be a disaster.
oh yeah. dubya and head ALLOWED 9/11 to happen and have covered up and destroyed the evidence ever since.
Nope he wasn't. It was only a BJ and he was such a
wonderful liar. Reported widely.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
