In a previous posting, I daydreamed about an American system that more resembled a parliamentary system. The motivation for this is that our executive branch has apparently gone astray with the presidents military ambitions in nation building under the guise of the war against terrorism. The ability to dissolve a government off the election cycle and repopulate it with different characters seems like a desirable attribute.
Viet Nam and GW-II are examples of ideological pageantry lead by stubborn presidents. Like the fighter pilot who is so target fixated on his opponent that he follows him into the ground, we cannot allow our presidents to drag the country into self-inflicted disaster.
As suggested by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the noises now coming from the White House concerning Iran resemble the noises made by the same White House about Iraq. What is strange about this distressing circumstance is this: The checks and balances that are provided by the constitution seem to be inadequate to restrain the executive. The congress seems to be genuinely flummoxed.
Despite popular sentiment and wise counsel by very well regarded citizens, the president continues to press for ideological conquest in the middle east. Despite the floundering dollar, no-child-left-behind-except-for-4-million-uninsured-kids, and tera-dollars of debt accumulated in the “War Against ______”, our executive continues to press on within the bounds of the constitution.
The question is this: Does the US Constitution provide adequate checks and balances against the abuse of power?
I suppose it is inevitable that a president would be elected who didn’t have both oars in the water. Who knows if this guy really is disturbed. But the executive retains substantial control of the military. The president is able to amass a vast force of civilian security contractors who seem to be beyond the audit of the congress. Does your view change when they pack weapons and answer only to the executive branch? Did the framers miss this possibility?
The US has a president that is hell-bent on performing a script that is neither transparent nor mandated by anything other than the enchanting voices of a few dark characters who are temporarily burrowed in the White House. We’ve had 2 terms of a war president. It’s enough.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
stubborn presidents.
Not “stubborn,” “stupid.” I watched Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speak in New York. “His test score ranked him 132nd among over 400,000 participants that year, landing him at the Iran University of Science and Technology.” The fella has a PhD in engineering and it shows. He’s a brilliant speaker amidst limp-wristed opponents. Bush the Lesser has a room temperature IQ. That may be a lot in Crawford, Texas but it ain’t spit in Europe or Asia.
Columbia University was a dreadful host and audience. Pat Ahmadinejad on the back and let him speak at length. One by one then in groups then 100%, the audience should have silently stood and turned its backs. Great photo-op! 50 years of crushing the productive to gorge the reproductive is finally paying off. When Alaric broke through the city gates the Roman mob didn’t attack, they joined the Goths in looting. So America, compassion, social advocacy, carbon footprints, war, and diversity.
I agree. Ahmadinejad is a very smart and charismatic character and players in the US fell into his snare. Our self-indulgent righteous indignation and open insults at his appearance merely validated what he pounds into the people of Iran about- the US is spiritually corrupt. Instead, the Bush administration should have openly treated him like the caretaker of a client state. Treating him like a valued puppet would cause him considerable grief back in Tehran.