We'll be "Tsarry!"

Dear Reader,

I have stayed away from politics here because I usually just get angry when I think/talk/write about the current political situation. However, the latest development has driven me to write.

A "War Czar (Tsar)" has been appointed by "W" to handle the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I had always thought, perhaps naively, that there was a "Secretary of Defense," or a "Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff," or EVEN a "Commander in Chief" to handle these things. Now we need a War Czar (Tsar)?

And, does anyone know or remember who and what the original tsars (czars) were? Absolute, dictatorial, unilateral, unquestioned rulers; unelected royalty whose rule was only ended when the entire family of the last one was killed, including the children, because otherwise they may have come back as Czars (Tsars) or Czarinas (Ts... yeah, yeah).

Is it me, or is there something wrong with this picture? Are we getting yet another "presidential" appointment, who won't be voted on by Congress (not that that has done much), and who can't be removed from office by anyone other than the "President?" And what are the chances what he’ll be rejected by the Senate, as he is, apparently, subject to some approval? Will the Dems have the spines to reject this new invented office? All “W” has to do is appoint a few more people, in bogus offices, and he'll have the entire system under his control. All Congress seems to be able to do is hold pointless hearings, and maybe take down a flunky or two.

What the hell has happened to representative government, the Constitution, those things we learned about in Social Studies? Has the "W" administration circumvented them entirely, or have we relinquished our government by not participating? How many more czars (tsars) are we in for, at least until 2009? You tell me.

More for sure,
Catbird