Letters to the Editor
-
Commander in Chief
While I was reading this article, a stray thought came into my head about Bush's grandoise claims about his expansive powers as Commander in Chief. His basic argument is that he should be allowed to do whatever he wants because he is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and any sort of curb on his powers would compromise him in that role. Aside from the fact that this is a highly dubious argument, wouldn't it then be all that more important to fire him (i.e. impeach him) if he is performing that role poorly? When it comes to claiming power, Bush is the General of Generals, but when it comes to accountability, whatever goes wrong is the fault of the generals on the ground. If the president is supposed to be the Great Protector to whom we should cede virtual omnipotence in order to keep us safe, doesn't that put a greater onus on him not to fuck up?