WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?

How many of you are old enough to remember the flack over George W. Bush's alleged ducking of military responsibility back during the 2000 presidential campaign?

At first almost all of the MainStream Media was reporting that he had not served in the military, had, in fact, avoided military service and was THEREFORE NOT SUITABLE TO BECOME PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

It took talk radio, in the person of Rush Limbaugh, to bring out the facts and to eventually force the MSM to drop the matter as they had to face the truth that GWB had NOT avoided military service.

As it turns out, Bush joined the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group of the Texas Air National Guard on May 27th of 1968.

So then the discussion turned to whether or not that "little bit of service in an insignificant military outfit" was deemed sufficient to allow him to become Commander in Chief.

In the end, he did become CiF, and excelled at the job!

But my question is, if MSM considered Bush's qualifications compromised because of his military history, why on earth do they support President BO's position as Commander in Chief when he has HAD ABSOLUTELY NO MILITARY EXPERIENCE OF ANY KIND, AT ANY TIME, IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER?

Why is he qualified to be the Commander in Chief? Why? Somebody tell me WHY!!!

Now, let me be quick to inform you (if you weren't about to inform me), that there is no Constitutional requirement that the President has to have had military service.

Sometimes I wish it did, but it does not.

That's not my beef.

It takes an enormous sense of false pride and ego to think for a nanosecond that if you have no military experience you therefore have ex-officio expertise in military matters.

(For those of you educated in recent government schools, "ex-officio" means "by virtue of office," and is used here to suppose some mystical transfer of knowledge into his brain just because he became President).

It happens that President BO's false pride and ego are perfectly up to the task, as he actually believes that he knows more than his military leaders how to fight a war as evidenced by his reluctance to accept the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal to send in more troops.

Seemingly, General McCrystal is not sufficiently trained, experienced or knowledgeable to know what is needed to prosecute this war in Afghanistan.

But in the theater of his own mind, President BO is.

A good President whose experience did not make him an expert in a particular field would surround himself with people whose experience and expertise had already been shown to have been exemplary, and would give them the responsibility of carrying out the war.

A good President.

A stupidly poor President would take the approach of, "I don't want people to think I don't know what I am doing, so I will pretend that I know what I am doing and I will make decisions about the war based on my sophomoric philosophies, rather than any empirical understanding of how to run a war and I will let them know that I'm in charge and don't need them to be sticking their noses into my decision making process."

Liberals, please explain to me why it is appropriate for President BO to have adopted the latter approach to the war in Afghanistan.