Reboot Right Out The Window

[thessalian]

Presidency: Reloaded? How do you relaunch a presidency? How do you gain back the loss of so much public faith? Libby's been indicted and Cheney's somehow involved. The situation in Iraq has got to the point where there's actual fragging by the troops (I didn't know that 'to frag' meant to kill off a superior officer; thanks, kixie!) and Democrats are forcing closed-door, media-free talks to find out why we went in in the first place. There was Katrina -- seriously, there was no way he could have handled that any worse without literally pissing himself and hiding under the bed.

You can tell a lot about a president and how he copes when a disaster of that magnitude happens later. Compare and contrast, shall we? Upon hearing the news that people flew planes into the WTC and Pentagon building, Bush looks like a five-year-old child who's about to cry for his mother and then just keeps on doing what he's doing. Upon hearing that NOLA's getting ripped apart by a hurricane and there are people still stuck in the area, Bush continues along with his holiday. Say what you will about Blair, he showed what he was capable of on 7th September. He wasn't reading to kids or being on holiday; he was in a global bloody conference, and yet the minute he got the news, he stood up in front of that hard-assembled company and basically said, "Sorry, guys, but someone just tried to blow up my city and they need me; I'll be back as soon as I can" ... then went back to London and did his best to take care of things. He may be a lapdog for Dubya, but at least when the people at home need him, he at least tries to be there.

So any suggestions for Bush 2.1? (It'd be Bush 2.0, but 1.0 would have been Bush Sr.) Because frankly, I'm of the opinion that a half-masticated taco shell could do a better job of running the country.

Oh, and by the way?

2,379 / 50,000 (4.8%)

And I'm adopting an egg. I figure I need something to look forward to in December... Besides Dragonmeet. Agh.

Comments

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Could you link to the reports of fragging please?

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

And the poor guy's facing the death penalty too.

[blimey85.livejournal.com]

The "poor guy"? He purposefully killed two of his own. He should get the death penalty in my opinion.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Temporary insanity. Unfeasible stresses. There are mitigating circumstances. It's not like he walked into a 7-11 and started firing.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

The charge should be a capital one under US military law. That doesn't mean that the consequences should automatically be

[blimey85.livejournal.com]

I think the term fragging came about during the Vietnam war. My ex-wifes father did three tours in 'Nam and knew a few people that were killed in that manner. A solider would decide he didn't want to go out on patrol or whatever and kill his superior with a grenade. Usually they didn't care who was around the superior so other soldiers were wounded or killed in the blast.

I don't think you can find a war that didn't have at least a few instances of this type of behavior. Vietnam was likely worse due to how a lot of the soldiers fighting were not volunteers. Obviously with a volunteer army you would have less of this since they joined up voluntarily. That doesn't mean that they agree with the war but at least they wanted to be in the military to begin with so I would assume they would be less of a threat to their fellow soldiers.

I'm not fan of Bush but it amazes me how anything and everything gets blamed on him. Contrary to popular belief, he is not directly responsible for everything that happens or doesn't happen in this country. I voted for him twice simply because in both cases I felt he was the better choice. I would have much rather voted for someone who I actually had confidence but between the two choices I had, he was the better choice... which wasn't saying much either time. Hopefully the next time around there will be better candidtates.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm calling him a root cause more than I'm blaming him for everything. Like it or not, the US and the UK are there under false pretences. Bush has claimed that God told him to send his armies to Iraq. Why? File under "moves in mysterious ways", I suppose. But that, unfortunately, was when every reasonable attempt to justify the invasion was proven to be false. While it sounds like him evading responsibility (kind of sounds like "the devil made me do it" to me), it's actually proving that he's pretty much directly responsible for troops being sent out to a pointless war. Everything else has kind of followed since then. If the troops hadn't been there, there wouldn't have been the friendly fire that killed all those people, or the torture, or any of the rest of the hell that faces the combined armed forces of the US and UK. Yes, they volunteered to be in the army, those people, but they kind of counted on the CoC to make sure they only went when they had to. And I'm not taking away from the fact that it's down to the soldiers at the end of the day how they behave when they're in combat, but they didn't have to be there.

And there's no excuse for his joke of an initial Supreme Court nomination.

[blimey85.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that things would be better if Sadam was still in power?

I haven't been keeping up with the SCOTUS nominations. He's the man in charge and can nominate anyone he likes. That doesn't mean they'll be accepted... so I really don't care who his choices are. Eventually one of them will be worthy and will get accepted. Hopefully that person will be pro-life and support the 2nd amendment but only time will tell.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

I can't say it would be better to have Saddam Hussein still in charge, because I never lived in a country he ran. I can't quantify it in that way because I have no basis for comparison. And in a way, you're right, some good has come of it; there's not a tyrannical despot running the country. The problem is that I'm not sure if anyone, there or here, is sure who's running the country, and there's nothing more terrifying than uncertainty. Unless it's armed soldiers running around the place and factions opposing the current governmental trend in the country running around alternately blowing things up and shooting people. I just love how people justify war on Iraq without even once thinking of the fact that we as nations didn't have to get involved, and frankly didn't get involved until it benefitted us in some way. Bush Sr launches the Gulf War because Iraq is invading Kuwait, and he didn't seem to think it was necessary to oust the tyrannical despot entirely once he'd driven the Iraqi forces back into their own borders. And at least he had a valid reason for engaging the armed forces against Iraq, rather than lies on top of lies on top of lies. You can paint it as pretty as you like, about how the US and UK armies are liberating the poor repressed people of Iraq and they got mean ol' Saddam Hussein, but that will not change the fact that the war was founded on lies, unsanctioned by the UN, derided by most of the world and a fair number of the people living in the countries actually fighting it, is draining resources that could best be used to help the hurricane victims (instead of siphoning off funds from things that can't afford it, like Medicaid) and has killed thousands of people over the past few years, mostly by accident.

The man in charge thinks God tells him what to do. He listens to the voices in his head and somehow loses no credibility. If he turns around and nominates someone who's never even served as a judge to the Supreme Court, and still loses no credibility because "He's the Prez, he can nominate who he wants", I despair for your country. And of course, I'm not even remotely in agreement on your views on abortion or the 2nd amendment, so I'm not even going to touch that one.

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

I think I meant 'oppressed'. And now I cannot edit. Bloody LiveJournal.

[neonchameleon.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that things would be better if Sadam was still in power?

In Iraq? Currently yes- which just shows what a terrible job the coalition is doing.

Power supplies last time I checked were still falling (and that after almost two years of occupation).

The Arabs have a proverb along the lines of "Better seven years of tyrany than a day of anarchy" (I forget the exact times) - and Iraq has moved from tyranny to anarchy.

Will it be worse in the long run? I certainly hope not. Now? Yes. (Count the number of insurgency incidents in a day...)