Unitary Theory and Walter Reed

The Unitary Theory of Executive Power asserts the Executive has total control over all the resources under their command.

Walter Reed shows the flaws with this theory: Total control implies total responsibility, not total recklessness.

* * *

The reports from the nation's military hospitals drive another stake through the notion of Unitary Theory of Executive Power.

This President abandoned his job. He did not oversee the resources under his control. It was only with Congressional oversight, media reporting, and -- most important -- dedicated, asserted effort by military families and individual service members who brought the issue to the National Agenda.

This President has been the agenda, but refused to provide the leadership he alone he could assert to totally control these assets. Nothing got in his way. Congress is willing to act.

This President is unable to implement a theory he alone asserts all others must assent to. We have seen the reckless results when relying on this theory.

* * *

Congressional leaders including Harry Waxman are visibly stunned, at times lost for words at the incredulous arrogance of the military leadership. They make excuses.

If the Unitary Theory of Executive Power was a valid approach to governance, then effici3ento operations would have been the result. The President, using his "divine"insight, would have provided the leadership,done his job, and ensured the results were appropriate.

There is no basis to argue for the Unitary Theory of Executive power when, despite total control, this President exercises total recklessness. With assumed control, comes the responsibility.

As with teh NSA, FISA, and DOJ OPR, this President when he asserts he has total control of anything, shows he can unitarily bungle a simple relief effort, to something as complicated at a "simple" illegal invasion to unlawfully remove the head of state.

* * *

The legal scholars advocating this theory, like the Walter Reed-connected Generals, need to be called before Congress to discuss their theory.

___ How do they justify any confidence this theory is valid, workable, or useful when the results are of epic proportions?

___ Where is the balanced responsibility for the single failure of the Executive to archive the results?

___ Without other inputs from the other banches, where does the Prudent -- or anyone in the legal community -- point to any evidence that "total control" -- as this President asserts it -- is anything but recklessness?

* * *

It doesn't matter what the theory is. This Executive did single handedly lead an illegal invasion, voluntarily committed US troops to an illegal war, and on his own directed contractors to choose a schedule which the nation was unable to support.

There was no verification of the assumptions

IF the planning was valid, then as a risk indicator, which the CIA would have known, as the insurgency increased strength -- which was fore casted -- it was known US medial facilities would be stretched. On top of that, it was known going forward that the civilization would occur.

The confluence of these decision, events, and factors -- under the Unitary Theory of Exeucive Power -- means the Executive is solely responsible for the disaster this Senate refuses to debate.

Bad theory. Bad oversight. Continued recklessness. It is outrageous that this Congress calls itself competent when the GOP Senate refuses to tackle the tough issues in Iraq. With more flawed assumptions, and refusals to review, this theory shows it's not a unitary theory, but unitary recklessness.

It needs to get cast to the waste heap of history.