our president speaking, on 21 august 2007:
"if the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government."
the man makes sense. unfortunately he's talking about iraq + not the u.s.a., where he continues to ignore widespread antiwar rumblings, not just among the citizenry at large, but also in his own party, + where the democrats, the only sizable group that might effectively oppose him, continue to wring their hands or, worse, more or less agree with him on matters ranging from gay marriage to health care to the middle east.
apparently hillary rodham clinton assigns a lot of the blame for the middle-east debacle to nuri al-maliki, the (ahem) democratically elected prime minister of iraq. today she agreed with michigan democrat carl levin, who stated two days ago that maliki should be ousted. hell, ousting saddam hussein was such a success, why not a remake?
admittedly, both democrats call on the iraqi parliament to do the ousting, + not the u.s. military. but i wonder why it hasn't occurred to them to urge the u.s. congress (our parliament, in effect) to oust bush? clean up our own back yard, so to speak.
without directly repudiating maliki too, president bush said, "i think there's a certain level of frustration with the leadership in general, inability to work — come together to get, for example, an oil revenue law passed or provincial elections."
again, we must remember he's speaking of iraq, not america, where the leadership come together too well. it's good that local elections in iraq (the model home of democracy in the middle east) are a priority with bush, right after oil revenues.
for all the outrage mainstream liberals express against those on the left who see little difference between republicans + democrats anymore, it's obvious the democratic leaders merely fan the flames of antibush emotions, while arguing positions hardly different than the present policies.
bush said in reference to what's to be done about maliki, "that's up to the iraqis to make that decision, not american politicians." again, maybe the man is right. would that he had thought similarly four or five years ago. would that american politicians would decisively oust bush + cheney.
for years now, democrats have quietly tiptoed to the beat of republican goose steps. those, like the late paul wellstone + now dennis kucinich, who have dared to distinguish themselves from the herd are politely dismissed for not appearing "presidential"--which apparently these days means being pretty much like the current president.