At a dangerous time demanding the very best leadership we can muster, we are instead stuck with an uncouth, inarticulate dilettante dimwit whose venal, Machiavellian handlers have persuaded him that he's the new Winston Churchill. Pretty scary.

My latest exasperated rant to the paper (they published it Monday):

_____

George W. Bush never tires of asserting that his primary job is "to protect the American people" (implicitly by whatever means he deems necessary).

I must have missed something in Article II, Section I of the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

We hire many hundreds of thousands of capable people and train them to defend and protect us under circumstances where we cannot personally fend for ourselves. The president's job is to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," not to trample on it at every turn when he is not actively ignoring its inconvenient provisions.

The extent to which President Bush has violated his oath of office is unprecedented in the history of this nation and constitutes a supreme insult to those who have died and been maimed in defense of our Constitution and our nation during his pathetic tenure. We can get on perfectly well without his disingenuous and bumbling, dangerously messianic, "leadership."

Oh, gross!!!

I am so glad I missed that "interview." I'da had to triple my lisinopril dose.

Make that "Educaterer in Chief."

The only question is, 'is our Presidunce learning?'

At some point you just have to laugh at the surreal, brazen absurdity and audacity of the Bush administration. On Sunday, September 10th, Vice President Cheney responded to Tim Russert on "Meet The Press" by claiming that, yes, had we known back then what we know today (that Saddam in fact had no WMD), they'd have invaded anyway. Quoting the MSNBC "Meet The Press" website:

'...Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert whether the United States would have gone ahead with the invasion of Iraq anyway if the CIA had reported that Saddam did not, in fact, have such weapons, Cheney said yes..."if we had to do it again, we would do exactly the same thing"...'

[ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14767199/ ]

You almost have to perversely admire the unmitigated narcissistic gall. The simple truth, however, is that, had the public and the Congress known back then, Bush and Cheney et al would simply not have been able to bully the nation into the blank check for their disasterous little adventure that has drained so much blood and treasure, a bungled gambit that is making our nation less secure by the day. Bin Laden could not have paid for more effective accomplices.

Anyone got a link to the verbatim Bush proposal? Can't find it at whitehouse.gov or thomas.loc.gov. I'd like to see specifically what "clarifications" of Article 3 he's arguing for. I suspect it's all about post-hoc CYA indemnification of the torture Bush operatives have committed.

BTW- link below to Bush v Gregory today at Petulant Boy President's Pissy Presser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AqaIa6wmMY&eurl=

American Soldiers: be advised that your President has now decided that your safety in captivity is expendable.