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.

Oh, my, oh, my--enough already!! As commander in chief he has the authority to treat those illegals crossing the border as invaders to be shot on sight. What say you?

Most of the people coming across the border with Mexico do so for work. However, that does not mean some could not be terrorists. We need to provide the resources to control those entering our country. Bush has said it would take at least 10,000 more border guards but in five years he has not requested the funding to hire the people HE said are required. WHY? How does Bush expect to control the border without the manpower?

The issue of what to do with the 11 million already in this country is another problem. To just identify and provide control of that many illegal workers is going to require a massive number of additional personnel and resources that we DO NOT HAVE TODAY. If we were able to some how remove all the illegal workers, we would find that certain industries, agriculture and construction for example, would be devastated. There is a very real question as to IF WE HAVE THE NUMBERS of Americans to replace ALL the illegal workers even if the wags were increased to attract American workers. It may be necessary to allow SOME workers that entered illegally to remain. However we must STOP any more from entering without controlling them. We must begin imposing fines, under existing laws, on employers that are hiring these people illegally. We must also have some way to deal with the illegal workers that is consistent with available resources and the needs of business. The Senate Bill I believe is more realistic.

We must also have some way to deal with the illegal workers that is consistent with available resources and the needs of business. The Senate Bill I believe is more realistic.

I agree. But to control the borders you need an army which we do not have. We must reinstitute the draft for this purpose.

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.

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.