Friday, March 31, 2006

Acting President, Fil(m)ing Cabinet!

I just don't get it.

We have a President who proudly admits to NOT reading newspapers - or maybe anything. When asked, he had been unable to recall if he had made any mistakes. We have a Vice President who insists that EVERY TV in any hotel room he stays at must ALREADY be turned to Fox News Channel. He is the one who SHOT a hunting buddy in the FACE, but did not consider it a big deal, or a mistake, not to tell the public, and letting someone else tell a small local paper about it in the middle of nowhere.

We have Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, on whose watch we were ATTACKED and who has mismanaged TWO Wars we chose to start.

In Afghanistan, American troops are dying to this day, the Taliban are coming back to actually mount attacks on US bases AND on aid workers and politicians... Heroin production is back in full force, most of it headed our way, while Osama Bin Laden rests in his hideout planning the next attack. In Iraq, a war we had no business starting, things are so bad that a recently released journalist kidnapped by insurgents actually praised the insurgents in their fight against America! Our generals say we did not have enough troops there. Our soldiers say they do not have enough body armor there. Our friends say we do not have any sense of direction there.... yet Rumsfeld sees no mistakes having been made there.

So, imagine this. Now Condoleeza Rice, our incompetent Secretary of State, with delusions of becoming President some day, has just admitted to THOUSANDS of errors the Bush administration has made in Iraq. Think about it folks, she admits to THOUSANDS of errors - in just ONE country and war. But, she still says we did the right thing. That is like saying "We made thousands of mistakes, but we are not wrong!"

You know, call me old fashioned, but there used to be a time when people would not only admit to their mistakes, but then take responsibility of them. At the very least they would resign or step down. But, that is not the case with our people in government these days. There is not one thing that cannot be put into the public relations spin machine to make them come out looking like shiny brand new warriors ready to start new wars, in hunting for weapons of more mass destruction in Iran or Syria while North Korea and Israel openly have the weaponry.

Don't get me wrong. I do not expect our politicians to be so overly honorable as the Japanese, where a Minister of Railways will commit SUICIDE in shame for ONE major train accident even if it was not his or her fault. I know, it would be wishful thinking to see any of our cabinet members to even fall off their chair - much less fall on their swords. There are plenty of Republicans and Bush loving people, who also probably do not read newspapers or listen to radio and TV to hear is actually going on around the world, who feel there is no problem with the way our country is being led from one disaster to another. And they consider themselves as having values that so-called liberals do not have.

Yet, even to them, Competence, responsibility and stepping down for your mistakes are so, old fashioned - just like the Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper to George Bush!

The only thing that amazes me more than the blind support pro-Bush people have for his incompetent team, is the total absence and silence of the Democrats.

If anything, they seem to be even more blindly stumbling around trying to figure out WHAT they stand for anymore. Kerry was for the war before he was against it. Hilary Clinton is moving so rightwards on the political highway that she could hit the median any time now.

Everyone wants to talk about defending America but no one wants to take strong action to tighten our borders, to put our priorities where they serve AMERICA rather than our vote-seeking politicians who ARE selling their their souls just to win elections.

It's almost enough for me to wish for totally fresh new blood in the White House.

Maybe it is time for us to get a whole new type of government. Instead of an guy acting as President, I'd rather have an Acting President. Instead of a truth-mis-filing cabinet, I'd rather have a Fil(m)ing Cabinet.

Maybe we can elect George Clooney President, and Geena Davis as Vice President. Get the Dixie Chicks responsible for Department of the Interior. I would appoint the devilishly angelic Angelina Jolie as Secretary of State and, though I don't really consider him even an actor, Steven Segal can be head of Homeland Security. I would give the CIA to Charlie Sheen to get to the bottom of what really happened and happens. And let's make the beautiful and intelligent Charlize Theron our Ambassador to the United Nations. Finally, I would split the Department of Defense into a Department of Defense and a Department of War and split the work between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo....

Even without a script, I can bet you, these people would run our country better than the Republicans or the Democrats are doing at present. What do you think? Who else should be in this new A-Team!


Let said...

I think the problem is not so much he doesn't read. I think the problem is he can't. Anything more difficult than "My Pet Goat" makes him do that strange jaw movement from side to side and he is really bad at those pesky news conferences presidents are supposed to have every few months. Apparently he's making up for lost time and having all of the press conferences in two weeks so he can go back to his regularly scheduled vacations.

I don't seem bitter, do I?

IMRAN™ said...

Let, I Loved your comment. No, you are not bitter, but must feel better knowing, Live And LET Vacation. :-)


Chase said...

The Marines out here would vote for Chuck Norris as Chief Executor, er, Executive as he would simply roundhouse any opposition to truth and right.

Charlie Sheen? The only thing he could get to the bottom of would be a container of drugs and Heidi Fleiss's list in her black book....

As for this TWO wars allegation, your ignorance stands paramount - Saddam invaded Kuwait. No, we obviously didn't finish that one properly, but nor did we start it.
Getting something simple right would do a lot more for your reputation.

As to your pandering to STOOPID people who say STOOPID things (LET) who should be ignored - You get accepted to and graduate from law school before making STOOPID comments about whether or not someone else can read. If that is all you can come up with - STOOPID insults that have no basis in fact whatsoever - then your basis for being worthy to have your views heard are severely self-limiting.

IMRAN™ said...

Dear Chase, how STOOPID is it for you to come back to my blog over and over and comment on almost every posting if my postings are STOOPID and not worthy of being heard?

Also, from what I recall in a separate posting - you said you are in our country's intelligence service or something, persumably hunting for Bin Laden (after that kick ass job you all did hunting for weapons of mass destruction).

Is that what we tax payers are paying you for, to be in Iraq as I think you mentioned somewhere or trotting the globe, and sit on the Internet reading blogs in America! Though, that still means you work harder than George W. Bush did in 5 years in office AND he does not READ.

No bloody wonder Zarqawi, Zawahiri and Bin Laden are safe in their caves because you are more busy REGULARLY reading what YOU call STOOPID posts.

Chase, maybe you'll have better luck hunting things the way Dick Cheney hunts caged birds. But remember, duck first, ask the Dick questions later.


Let said...

I'm still trying to figure out why Chase chooses to spell "stupid" erroneously then proceeds to lecture us on the criteria required to determine a person's ability to read.
I guess idiots can wear uniforms too. Hell, they even get elected President. The second time around, anyway.

IMRAN™ said...

Let, I LOVE the comment, so I SECOND (hand) that (e)MOTION. Idiots can wear uniform too. But Bush did not even do so proudly except to have pictures taken. Chase, if he really is serving our country (when he can make time from reading my STOOPID posts), seems to be focused more on hunting wordsmiths of mass communication in my postings than hunting for Bin Laden.

The irony is that you and I can proudly, as Americans, display our names (and faces) for the world to see how we stand by our opnions, even when they counter our 2nd term first time elected President's "thinking" but Chase has no real or full name, no picture, on his profile... heck, he is posting from an undisclosed location! Hello Dick Cheney?


Anonymous said...

The U.S should confess as to whatever sins it has committed in the name of WAR ON TERROR. In the guise of wiping off terrorists,the U.S President has proved himself to b THE BIGGEST TERRORIST because in such operations, he has wiped out so many innocent lives.What do u suggest, should Bush confess his crimes to none other than the POPE?
A very intelligent and witty piece, Imran!

Let said...

I don't know how 'undisclosed' it is since he's not bright enough to mask his IP when he goes on my blog. But that he's on his way to winning my "most irritating visitor" award, goes without saying.

Chase said...


I read and write on my own time, or while on breaks, or when other systems are on the fritz, which happens all too often when sand and dust gets into systems.

While I have met Mr. Cheney's delightful and accomplished wife, no, I have never bumped into him...

As to the anonymous poster who calls our own President a terrorist...well, I am glad you are fair and let everyone have their say. A terrorist targets innocents directly, willfully, intentionally and with malice in order to influence opinion and incite fear. It is beyond justification for the liberal left-wing socialists of your ilk to accomodate or pander to these egregious and libelous rants. There is no truth whatsoever in that claim, but obviously a misguided and wrongful understanding and use of the word.

Irritating, LET? Good. Appreciate it. Truth creates a little friction, doesn't it?

As to why I have returned my reasons are at least two-fold. I enjoyed the piece on Paris Hilton and find your writing thoughtful, when you leave the irrational Michael Moore-istic conspiracy theories and name-calling bombastics out. I appreciate your perspective, as you have apparently been somewhat of a success, or at least courageous in your entreprenurial pursuits in the differing climates of at least two continents. Secondly, I was originally drawn here by a link I came across wherein I asked a serious question about the roots of the Jewish-Islamic tensions, and for which I am still hoping to see an answer. That having been my first foray into the world of blogs, I think it came to you in a fractured condition, or was posted in an incorrect thread, though I trusted you would sort it out on your end.

The WMD issue was wrongly hyped. Certainly the raw materials or the empty containers and capability to produce them have been discovered, and the propensity for Saddam to use them established. However, given all the time and apparently outside assistance from our European and Partnership for Peace and related "friends" he had plenty of time and notice to effectively export them. That conjecture totally aside, the WMD issue was not the sole or most important reason for toppling Saddam. It was over-played by the White House in what was thought to be political expediency, I think, to win broader American support. I think the WMD issue was minor, and should not have had that level of press. The basis for toppling Saddam, in the PR world, should have been, and which should have been sufficient amongst freedom loving peoples everywhere, was the oppression, fear, terrorism and theft to which Saddam was subjecting his people and neighbors. His mass murders, his oppression, his use of WMD on his own countrymen, his grandiose theft and fraud of UN programs, his rejection of the accords of the cease fire of 1992, the build-up of his military and threat to the no-fly areas, and his lack of submission to UN dictates together were plenty of reason, after 12 years of running our military resources ragged in containing him, to topple him. If the American and freedom-loving people of the world do not love and appreciate enough what they have to see it shared and made possible for others living in such terrible conditions - well, there lies our impasse.

What was fought for and won in the American experience is something for which our own people have a disparity of appreciation. (Public education, another whole topic...) Likewise, the obligation to our fellow man and the natural instinct to want to share that which is good, satisfying, and ennobling is also misunderstood by many. Selfish and special interests have clouded the views of so many, and the obviousness of the action taken against Saddam and his Ba'athist regime is lost for those. So, yes, I agree, WMD as an issue was a tactical or PR error. It was unnecessary in my view, but taken as worthwhile by others.

Iraq is already a better place. Yes, many are dead are in the effort. Many are innocents. Many are patriots. This is, unfortunately, the way new nations are borne, fighting against those who resist change and cannot accept the future or their place in it. Our nation fought for 8 years to gain our independence.

There is 1000 megawatts more of electricity being produced now than previously in Iraq. More homes have runing water and plumbing. More people have access to the internet and the outside world. Contrary to what the press would have you believe, there are children playing in streets in Baghdad, waving gleefully to US and Coalition patrols.

Not everything is great. Internet access gives access to terrorists. The new Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police have some things they have to work out. Tribalism, Islam sectarianism, and political structures have to be worked out. The people want democracy and the freedom from fear. There is no civil war going on, as the press would have you believe; though, having said that, in another use of the term, civil war has been going on here ever since the British drew the lines and created Iraq and the Imams have been stressing differences and trying to establish a caliphate.

The toppling of Saddam took place only three years ago. Yes, the ordeal vs Islamist insurgency was not predicted to this scope. Perhaps more troops would have been better. That is all Monday morning quarterbacking, and if we all know so much better, then why are those criticizing in places of pressure and decision-making levels? Yes, we have fought for rights, and criticism of our leaders is one of those rights. But along with rights comes a responsibility to wield them rationally, responsibly, and as in the Vietnam experience, some of the disabuse of our rights brings aid, comfort and incentive to our enemies.

We fought for our freedom for 8 years in colonial America. How many more years did it take for the various states to establish their own governments, charters and laws? C'mon folks, yes, give peace a chance. Give peace a chance to settle here as the malcontents and vicious Islamists are refuted, by force and by will.

I have recommended it before, and will do it again. Fareed Zakaria, the International Editor for Newsweek magazine, and an Indian by birth (forgive me, I cannot recall if he is Hindu or Muslim) has written, prior to 2003 and the toppling of Saddam, a thoughtful book on Constitutional Liberalism, and the fight for and dangers in losing it. It is something all teachers, historians and critics of current events ought to read. I believe it is entitled "The Future of Freedom." I would think an editor for the Washington Post-owned Newsweek would be credentials enough to satisfy those who think I am trying to foist a right-wing fanatic on you.

darkstar said...

Oh heck, I have to agree with his well put POV...It's easier to be negative than positive so I think people always find it easier to find something negative to dwell on instead of the positives...Again, well put...