The Flailings Of Megalomania
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on January 8th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Iraq WarIn the light of recent events, can there be any doubt that we have a megalomaniac loose in the Oval Office?
I refer to the following events (in no particular order):
1) The “I can open your mail without a warrant” signing statement
2) The shafting of Gen. George Casey, recently so near and dear to Georgie’s heart, and other concomitant purges
3) The pathological determination to try ever more desperate and ill-advised gambles in the hope of somehow getting things to turn around in Iraq
First with regard to Casey, let us recall the unambiguous words of our inestimable President himself, and from a scant six months ago too:
General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there. And that’s important for the families to know. It’s really important. General Casey is a wise and smart man who has spent a lot of time in Baghdad recently, obviously. And it’s his judgment that I rely upon. He’ll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so.
I spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels, and I told him this,; I said, you decide, General. I want your judgment, your advice. I don’t want these decisions being made by the political noise, by the political moment. It’s just unfair to our troops and it’s unfair to their families.
So to all the families who took comfort in the fact that the stupidest impulses of the administration’s war-managers might be tempered by the military judgment of Casey, Bush is presumably now saying: “Whoever said life is fair, heh heh heh heh?”
As for pathological gambling, the fact that this is now the approach to the war has become so transparent that administration officials are willing to make statements like this one to reporters:
“…this surge option is more of a political decision than a military one because the American people have run out of patience and President Bush is running out of time to achieve some kind of success in Iraq.”
The President is playing politics not with the war, but with the lives of American men and women. Bluntly put, he is willing to send to the slaughter more of our sons and our daughters, our brothers and our sisters, our mothers and our fathers rather than accept what has long been self-evident to most people outside the Bush administration (with the notable exception of John McCain, who is as far from redemption as George is; which is saying a lot).
I am compelled to state for the record that it is my considered belief that:
a) our President, George W. Bush, regularly has sex with his mother;
b) our President, George W. Bush, is not in fact genetically related to our former President, George H. W. Bush;
c) America is truly doomed if we don’t impeach the motherfucking bastard right away.
tom wrote:
what im wondering is who is really behind all of these recent developments? bush has been portrayed in the past as a puppet of rove, cheney, etc. but recently his front seems far less uniform and sturdy. could he be taking the advice of different people since the dems win in the 06 elections?
Posted 08 Jan 2007 at 9:54 am ¶
Jonathan Versen wrote:
Supposedly all politicians care about is getting re-elected and making sure their party has the advantage over the other guys.
And yet: summer of last year the GOP insisted on an asinine resolution supporting the Iraq war(3 republicans had the cojones to vote against it), whereas if they had impeached Junior themselves in the summer of ‘06, they could have replaced him with a republican, probably held on to the house and senate, and if said congressional replacement had started a pullout from Iraq that concluded, say, by the time of the 2008 GOP presidential convention, that Republican incumbent would probably win the election with a margin we haven’t seen since Reagan in ‘84. Is my assessment off base?
What’s the deal– are they that scared of the house of Bush?
Posted 09 Jan 2007 at 7:39 am ¶
tom wrote:
impeach him? even if they could get the charges to stick and convict him, he would be replaced by cheney. big victory there. what exactly are you talking about anyway?
Posted 09 Jan 2007 at 11:00 am ¶
Jonathan Versen wrote:
you can impeach a president, a supreme court justice, and yes, a vice president.
You don’t need to bring criminal charges against the prez, just impeach him and remove him from office. If the political will and momentum existed to do this to George W, subsequently impeaching and removing the even more reviled Cheney as well should be a fait accompli. This is why I didn’t specify this, thinking it was such an obvious consequence.
Posted 09 Jan 2007 at 10:05 pm ¶
tom wrote:
impeachment is a two part process, you cant just impeach someone and throw them out, they need to be convicted of the crimes by the senate. so even if you took out bush and cheney by impeaching and convicting them with 2/3 majority in the senate(which i highly doubt would have happened under the best of circumstances), then hastert would have been president. and yeah, his record on iraq is so sterling, im sure they would have held on to both houses.
im not really sure what crack youre smoking, but you really have no idea what youre talking about.
Posted 10 Jan 2007 at 11:35 am ¶
Jonathan Versen wrote:
tom, your abuse is unnecessary, and childish. I don’t know if you don’t understand or simply pretend not to, but this is not my concern. Yes, Impeachment AND removal from office is a 2 part process. Actually it’s 2 separate but related processes. You vote in the senate to remove a president and VP, but you don’t have to bring criminal charges against a vulnerable president who wouldn’t want his misdeeds investigated– Bush would leave office if you started the process against him and it was demonstrated to him that if he didn’t leave, his criminality would be brought to light. He’d fold, especially with the prospect of lots of other smaller fish like Rumsfeld copping pleas to rat him out.
Ok, to be fair, I guess I DID need to spell out the dynamics of that scenario for you to understand. And yes, before you object that all of this could not have been accomplished over the course of the summer, I realize that– but if meaningful proceedings start, they have to start sometime.
Finally, although I have no great love of Denny Hastert, yes, I DO believe that if the GOP demonstrated that they had the balls to remove THEIR president, they would have held on to congress. I’m not saying that this would be a more favorable turn of events in the long term– that’s an altogether different question.
Posted 10 Jan 2007 at 7:17 pm ¶
tom wrote:
its not abuse, its me getting sick and tired of your nonsense. why do you think that bush would voluntarily leave office? why do you think that his underlings would turn on him? you assume so much that just likely isnt reality and you come up with nonsense hypothetical situations. why am i even replying? i like having the last word. that word is “fool”, as in “you are a fool.”
Posted 11 Jan 2007 at 10:24 am ¶