Diatribune

(Cross-posted at Blue Texas)

There's no other way to describe George W. Bush's attempt to appoint a "war czar" to oversee his war of choice in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan-- ABDICATION ON TOP OF DERELICTION OF DUTY.

FDR didn't need a "war czar" to oversee the victorious U.S. military effort in World War II. Abraham Lincoln didn't need a "war czar" to watch over his efforts to save the Union during the Civil War. George H.W. Bush didn't need a "war czar" to oversee America's victory in Desert Storm during the 1990's.

So how does George W. Bush get off with needing a "war czar" to bail him out of his poor decision making in Iraq.

Doesn't this seem eeringly familiar, George W. Bush needing to be bailed out?

As a young man, he needed elders' help as he won a spot on the Texas Air National Guard that helped him avoid Vietnam service in the 1960's. He also needed investors' help when he had to be bailed out of some poor business decisions un the Texas oil industry.

And now he's begging for someone to bail him out of his immoral, irrational, and extremely poor stewardship of his own war of choice in Iraq (not to mention his total neglect of the situation in Afghanistan-- the nation that harbored the 9/11 attackers.

AND NOW THIS! Instead of acting like a man, owning up to his disastrous mistakes, and making rational decisions that would really enhance our security and our image abroad, George W. Bush wants to pass the buck to others when it comes to Iraq-- much like what he did as a young man when he was bailed out of Vietnam service and an utter business failure.

This is abdication of responsibility on top of dereliction of duty, and Bush and his backers must not be allowed to control the debate on the war. It's time for Democrats to stand up to Bush the way Winston Churchill stood up to the Nazis in World War II and reign in the irresponsible and illegitimate White House occupant.

__________________________