It is a good policy to not call for violence against police in these comments. It is bad policy to allow comments that call for the death of the president (whether “coincidental” or not.) How about we wish for a peaceful transfer of power like we have had for the last 200 years in this country?

#23 Phelps
“Fall down a flight of stairs”… “step on a land mine”… I never thought assassination chic would take hold on this blog. I seem to be mistaken. I would have assumed that the policy on comments about police would extend to the president.

Does Assassination Chic really describe the sentiments you’re applying it to? Far from being inflammatory, wishing bad luck on someone who you believe is responsible for considerable needless death and destruction seems to show extraordinary restraint.

And here in End of Threadsville, I’ll share Scott Bateman’s take on things:
http://scottbateman.livejournal.com/897963.html

That’s quite different from the guy I heard the other day saying some group of people should be “taken out and shot”. That, in my mind is assassination chic.

Maybe I’m wrong *shrug*

#20 UCrawford
…that Bush is a petulant sociopath who simply doesn’t recognize the damage he does because it doesn’t affect him or anyone he’s close to.

Exactly. It’s as if the guy is so cold he doesn’t even have the capacity to fake compassion.

While many would view the resulting casualty count as a pretty steep price to pay to avoid looking dumb, it’s really not so bad if you’re not one of the ones actually paying it.

And that pretty much sums up the real problem here…that Bush is a petulant sociopath who simply doesn’t recognize the damage he does because it doesn’t affect him or anyone he’s close to. I honestly believe that’s what it is, and it’s reinforced every time he makes a stupid remark like the “giving up golf is a sacrifice” comment.

Makes me question what kind of rotten father George H.W. Bush must have been to turn out a spoiled, unaccountable scumbag like Dubya.

Considering that the invasion of Iraq was in large part based on the “intelligence”…

In the weeks leading up to the Iraq war, everything coming out of the White House was all about WMD. The war was being totally justified as a national security issue, which is the only logic most of the public really accepts for such a drastic measure. Immediately after the war started, however, the rhetoric was suddenly all about the liberation of the Iraqi people. The shift was so obvious that it was like night and day. At that point, I knew that the President and his cronies had no solid evidence of WMD, but went ahead with the war anyway. They could either pull the plug and look stupid or go ahead with it and try to change the focus.

While many would view the resulting casualty count as a pretty steep price to pay to avoid looking dumb, it’s really not so bad if you’re not one of the ones actually paying it.

*wink*

Considering that the invasion of Iraq was in large part based on the “intelligence” provided to the president by Ahmad Chalabi’s organization, and considering that since then the “intelligence” provided has been thoroughly discredited and Chalabi has been exposed as someone with close ties to the Iranian government, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if 20 or 30 years down the road we found out that Chalabi had actually been running disinformation to Bush on behalf of the Iranian government because they figured Bush was stupid enough to invade Iraq and take out their mortal enemy without the Iranians having to fire a shot. If we were to find out that was the case, then I think that makes it almost indisputable that George W. Bush is the stupidest person ever to occupy the Oval Office.

Of course, just as plausible is the scenario that Chalabi was merely a convicted felon and opportunist who fed Bush a load of crap on his own because he figured that he’d get a plum job once we set up a new Iraqi government…in which case Bush would still be an incredible dumbass for not recognizing that his source wasn’t particularly credible.

Of all the plausible explanations for the Iraq war (and the resulting carnage), the one most favorable to the Bush administration is that it was just a mistake. At best, that makes him the dumbest motherfucker to ever hold the office and his mouth reinforces that assessment every time he opens it.

The “watch this drive comment” was silly and insensitive and played to every joke about this president not having the slightest idea what he’s doing.

That he has now sworn off golf as a “sacrifice” is just as dumb.

How does starting a botched war on arguably false pretenses, having the lowest approval rating in the history of the poll, and being complicit in creating a financial disaster for our country equal a “less tarnished” legacy than Bill Clinton? I’m just asking.

Will the next president be any better? Maybe not, but they would have to work pretty hard to be any worse.