It's not really a surprise, in my opinion. I've known for a while who *really* runs this country, and it ain't the President of the United States of America, believe me, this is just proof of that. What the president DOES do is put a face on a very impersonal process, that of a watered-down democracy. Bearing this in mind, all things considered, I'd still rather have him in there than Bush.
Why?
Because he doesn't act like he enjoys doing those things. Bush gleefully rubbed his hands and cackled, I'm sure, everytime Cheney had to make a military decision in the name of the presidency, because ALL of their decisions involved one thing; enriching General Dynamics, Northrop, Halliburton, and Exxon, and Chevron, and....and....well...I digress.
The key thing to understand here is that these days, all of our Presidential candidates come from Congress/ The Senate. They are ALREADY a long-standing member of the good-old-boy network by the time they ever get a whiff of the presidency.
There was no chance of him being a real maverick and going rogue, ever at any time. That's PRECISELY the reason why he was the Democratic candidate, because 'they' were comfortable with his membership.
If you want an example, and a damn good one, of what will happen when you are suspected of NOT being a play-along type,
look what has happened with Sarah (the airhead) Palin. They ALL KNEW she was a flaky bitch, and that she would not be allowed to go past a certain point. McCain didn't know her very well before he nominated her his running mate.
John McCain is one of the newer-type politicians like Barack Obama, and he is on the 'other' side.....if you've paid attention, he is very moderate in all the popular democratic social areas, like abortion-rights, immigration, and stuff of that nature, but he is a warhawk, still.....in that area, he is an old-school Republican.....
This 'mixing' of the value-sets, tends to make it a lot harder to get a real read on what any of these guys intentions and attitudes really are.
All of those things being said, I will have to ask anyone;
Bearing in mind that if true, yes, it is horrible if the president approved such missions where there were incidental civilian deaths and casualties......but....
was Bush better ?
(random, do you have a source for that? I'd like to read it)
