King Bush

As much as the title of this post is sure to stir my liberal readers anger, I certainly am serious about considering the terminology. As much as the liberal democrats despise hearing this, in times of war our U.S. presidents (whoever they happened to be) have always functioned very much like a King. Certain powers and authorities have always been bestowed upon the President to make it easier to conduct war, and many "legalities" are discarded for the sake of the common good. It's only common sense--not rocket science.

Now, don't start attacking my reasoning by jumping on the very first vulnerability you thought of. Don't try to get technical with me! If you are thinking "this isn't TECHNICALLY a war" then I submit to YOU the following:

Perhaps you hate the republican majority more than you hate the overseas terror problem. Perhaps you think the true enemy lies within and is not radical terrorist islamics. REGARDLESS, the brutal attacks of 9/11 common sensically constitute acts of war.

"But Jeff--TECHNICALLY our congress never declared war" you might continue to assert.

You know what--I challenge you to go read the Constitution......
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2
and search the procedures of declaring war. Search for the protocol and verbage requirements for declaring war. You'll read a long time and find no such requirement for specific verbage.

Now I submit that congress did INDEED declare war, immediately after 9/11, and granted King like authority to the President to combat the problem.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23:

Go read this piece for another summarization of what I am telling you.....

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9169

Let's use some God-damned common sense here people--President George Bush doesn't have some huge master conspiracy by which he plans to strip your liberties and privacy away. George W. Bush has no plan to "spy" on American citizens--UNLESS they are the enemy. Democrats know this full well, and it should SICKEN you that they have used the precariousness of OUR situation to hammer the President with constitutional and legal "technicalities." I understand liberal dems do not trust Bush, but enough is enough.

Now--I also submit to you that other Presidents have done questionable things during times of danger. (By the way--since we are getting "technical" the constitution equates WAR and TIMES OF DANGER)

If you dems say "we are NOT SAFER" since 9/11, you logically assume we are IN DANGER (Michael Moore doesn't think so....but anyway)
Furthermore, if we are NOT SAFER since 9/11, and it's fair to say we were IN DANGER on 9/10/01, logic tells me--you must think we are in TIMES OF DANGER.

We all know this to be true--no one more so than our troops in Iraq--we are in TIMES OF DANGER.

Let the President do his job and just imagine that it's Bill Clinton.