They Like To Control, But Not Be Controlled
I was reading this little story and saw this blurb from Condoleezza Rice:
This has nothing to do with hurting the military; we have generals threatening to resign if the saber-rattling with Iran goes too far, and the White House has said "all options are on the table." The policies in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all completely different, despite claims that three of these four were labeled "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea) and three of these four have been accused of helping support terrorism (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran). So who's really doing the "micromanaging" here?
So it got me thinking: nobody in the Bush Administration likes being told what to do; they just want to boss everyone around. Every law or policy that gives them unchecked authority is praised as helping America, and every idea that they curb executive power is seen as harmful, or in Condi's words, a "micromanagement."
Which is why dissent, whether it's from a rival political party, or a liberal documentarian or a grieving mother (who doesn't want soldiers to face the same fate hers did) has been flamed by this administration. It's why they've hired a Press Secretary who obviously doesn't do his homework before he arrives. It's why the White House has to scrub their homepage so people won't be able to document all of the outrageously wrong statements that have been made in the last six years.
Doesn't anyone in the White House understand the concept of "checks and balances?" The whole "make laws/enforce laws/interpret laws" thing? The executive branch's job is the middle one, and for far too long the people in this branch have been overreaching.
Rice said Sunday that proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to "the worst of micromanagement of military affairs." She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, believe Bush's plan to send more troops is necessary.
"I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress," Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days.
"The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done," she said.
This has nothing to do with hurting the military; we have generals threatening to resign if the saber-rattling with Iran goes too far, and the White House has said "all options are on the table." The policies in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and North Korea are all completely different, despite claims that three of these four were labeled "Axis of Evil" (Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea) and three of these four have been accused of helping support terrorism (Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran). So who's really doing the "micromanaging" here?
So it got me thinking: nobody in the Bush Administration likes being told what to do; they just want to boss everyone around. Every law or policy that gives them unchecked authority is praised as helping America, and every idea that they curb executive power is seen as harmful, or in Condi's words, a "micromanagement."
Which is why dissent, whether it's from a rival political party, or a liberal documentarian or a grieving mother (who doesn't want soldiers to face the same fate hers did) has been flamed by this administration. It's why they've hired a Press Secretary who obviously doesn't do his homework before he arrives. It's why the White House has to scrub their homepage so people won't be able to document all of the outrageously wrong statements that have been made in the last six years.
Doesn't anyone in the White House understand the concept of "checks and balances?" The whole "make laws/enforce laws/interpret laws" thing? The executive branch's job is the middle one, and for far too long the people in this branch have been overreaching.
Comments