Fiddling while Baghdad Burns

Please correct me if I'm wrong here (and I'm sure someone will) but isn't an implicit job description for the Office of President of the United States the responsibility to lead the country in the direction of its best interests?   As opposed to, say....fiddling around? And wouldn't the obvious role of "A Decider" (or, for Bush purists, The Decider) be to decide?  

Does anyone else find it morally reprehensible, even, perhaps, criminally negligent, for the current Commander-in-Chief to be tromping around a brush-sprouting Texas "ranch", entertaining various visitors, cowering from tornadoes with tax-payer funded Secret Service protection, and not leading or deciding a bloody thing?  

During Bush's two-month, carefree hiatus-from-responsibility (it must be carefree--he avows he doesn't even lose any sleep)  we've rather quickly managed to approach the 3000 total number of American soldiers killed in Iraq, and added how many to the countless others wounded and permanently maimed?  How many more Iraqis killed if the deaths are averaging over 400 a day?  How many of our handful of remaining allies are dead?

Of course all of us know the reason for this mindless fiddling.  Bush does not know what to do.  He's made the most catastrophic strategic blunder in American history, causing regional upheavals and "unintended consequences" the like of which we haven't even begun to calculate long-term, and now he's waiting like an overly-indulged kid for someone, anyone, including a blindsided fairy godmother, to wave a wand and save him from the chaos that he's made.  But the wand hasn't been created that can get him out of this one.  

Sorry, Mr. President, waiting and fiddling is not near good enough.  Since you can't lead, can't decide, can't find a way to safety for our military and the people of Iraq, you should step down.  Now.  Resign the office you've disgraced.  Immediately.

Or, there's an option that we, The People, can exercise through the congress that we, The People, elected to represent us, as is clearly stated in our Constitution, Section 4:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Even your faithful admirer David Gergen recently said, on Hardball, that too much time has already passed during this decision-making process, such as it is.  When does this  deliberate avoidance of responsibility, this flagrant and deadly dereliction of duty by a Commander-in-Chief become the impeachable offense of High Crime? How many more must die?   How much longer are Americans willing to wait while Baghdad burns?

•  My first diary here

  by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:20:24 PM PDT

  •  Whoa

    Since you mentioned this was your first diary, I checked your UID to see just how new you are--oops!  Waited long enough, didn't you?

    by ActivistGuy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:30:36 PM PDT

    •  I did wait.

      Never had anything to say that someone else hadn't already said better.  However, I am well and truly outraged at this travesty of presidential behavior. And the media doesn't make a peep about it, so neither, apparently, do we.

      by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:34:36 PM PDT

      •  A really important point there

        One sure sign of the fact that blogging is still far from a fully-developed medium is that the sites tend to be very reactive to the MSM, rather than confidently setting and moving along our own agenda.

        by ActivistGuy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:40:40 PM PDT

        •  Like . . . YearlyKos?

          Or . . . Energize America?

          Maybe I'm missing your point.

          by LithiumCola on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:02:01 PM PDT

•  At some point the NEW/ improved Iraqi government

  will sue the US in civil court for damages, negiligence, intentional infliction of emotional harm, battery, and if it was actionable, stupidity.

  by glevine on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:22:17 PM PDT

•  There will probably be a hanging judge.

  Pease in the new year.

  by glevine on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:24:22 PM PDT

•  Maybe you might try another interpretation

  wherein W somehow manages to be off-site when major disasters are just about to occur?
    * 9/11/01---Reading my pet goat to kids in Florida.
    * Hasty plane ride to DC for the Terry Schiavo vote.
    * Katrina--playing air guitar at a Repub fundraiser while citizens perished
    * Various trips to take the heat off the Abramoff scandal
    * Radio silence on the Mark Foley Congressional Page scandal.

     The one on-site disaster I can remember is when someone discovered all the visits of "reporter by day, male hooker by night" Jeff Guckert/Gannon.
     More additions to the list invited.
   

  by jfdunphy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:27:26 PM PDT

  •  Nope, I think he is just plain procrastinating...

    because he doesn't know what to do.  I'm sure if he could thumb a ride to the planet Mars he would, but since he's stuck here on Earth...

    Really, am I the only outraged by this dereliction?

    by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:40:11 PM PDT

    •  Well, you're certainly entitled to your

      opinion ... and I won't force you to take a ride to Guantanomo to agree with my theory ..
        But what you see as dereliction comes across to others of us as just the usual SNAFUs that follow in the wake of having to report to a 90-day-wonder second lieutenant. As the old joke goes:
      Q: what's the most dangerous thing on the battlefield?
      A: A second-lieutenant with a map!

      by jfdunphy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:46:49 PM PDT

  •  Bush not being in the White House

    during a disaster doesn't require an explanation.

    He's never in the White House.

    by LithiumCola on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:04:32 PM PDT

•  He has decided--not to make a decision

  for as long as he possibly can avoid doing so.  Unless, the decision is to send in more US troops. But those pesky Democrats have been talking about opposing that.  This deciderating is a really, really hard job...

  I'm almost nostalgic for the days when he would go away from the microphones and the press conferences for weeks at a time to cut brush in Crawford--I wish he would stay there permanently and invite Cheney to quail hunt on the ranch too--they could even fax their resignations from there.  

  BTW, contratulations on posting your first diary!

  by kurious on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:49:50 PM PDT

  •  Thank you, kurious.

    by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:58:25 PM PDT

    •  THE PROCESS OF DECIDING

      AS I HAVE MAINTAINED FROM DAY 1 BUSH IS SIMPLY NOT QUALIFIED ON SEVERAL LEVELS TO BE PRESIDENT SUCH AS ,INTELLIGENCE,JUDGMENT,MATURITY ,WISDOM AND TEMPERMENT.HOWEVER BECAUSE OF A LACK OT THESE HE HAS GOTTEN OUR COUNTRY AND HIMSELF IN A HELL OF A MESS.BUSH DOES NOY KNOW HIMSELF(DRINKING PROBLEM)AND THEREFORE IN CAPABLE OF HANDLING STRESS.HE  AND HIS ADVISORS ARE WAITING FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS   1.THEY HAD TO PUT TIME AND DISTANCE BETWEEN THE STUDY GROUP SUGGESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS ,THEY HAD NO INTENTION OF ACCEPYING THE GROUPS SUGGESTIONS BUT THEY COULD NOT DISMISS OUT OF HAND SUCH A PRESTIGIOUS GROUPS SUGGESTIONS.2.THEY HAD TO MUDDY THE WATERS AND GET SOME PEOPLE WITH CREDENTIALS I.E. GENERALS ETC.TO RECOMMEND TO THEM ACTIONS THAT THEY WANTED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE.3. BECAUSE THEY REALLY ARE UNSURE OF HOW TO HANDLE THIS MESS AND THERE IS REALLY NO CONSENSUS AMONG THEMSELVES WHAT TO DO,THEY NEEDED TIME TO GET EVERYBODY ON THE SAME PAGE AND THERE TALKING ORGANIZED.THESE PEOPLE HAVE HAD THEIR EGOS BRUISED AND THEY DONT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.THEY ARE HOPING THINGS WORK OUT (HOPE IS NOT A PLAN)AND THEY CAN SLOWLY LEAVE IRAQ OR HAND IT OFF TO THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION AND RUN FOR THE TALL GRASS.ONE TIN SOLDIER

      by philcat on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:12:16 PM PDT

      •  And It's Getting Harder to Fine Enough "Yes Men"

        with any sort of credentials to back up Bush & his neocon advisors bizarre, wrong-headed and just plain dangerous plans.  That's why it's taking BushCo so long to come out with their alternative plan to the ISG.  Too bad they don't realize that no matter what they come up with, it's still just more of the same "putting lipstick on the pig" and their pig is still a pig.

        by kurious on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 05:37:46 AM PDT

•  I find it

  disgusting that he even needs a "listening tour" at all.  As commander in chief shouldn't he be spending the better part of each day discussing the situation with his administration and deciding what course of action is in the best interest of our troops and our country?  I know I am asking a alot but it is his effing JOB!!!  At this point there should be very little to learn.  He should be living, breathing, sleeping, eating, the Iraq war.  He should know every nuance, every opportunity, every disadvantage. He is really going to solve "the most important struggle of our time" in three hour intervals??  Are you effing kidding me?

  by nyc in exile on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:50:41 PM PDT

  •  My sentiments, exactly!

    by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 07:59:41 PM PDT

    •  Sorry ...

      A little bit of a rant but I don't understand why that alone isn't grounds for impeachment.

      by nyc in exile on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:04:08 PM PDT

      •  It is grounds for impeachment

        Impeachment is not a legal proceeding.  The Founders made very clear that they would leave it to political forces to decide whether a president should be impeached.  And if Nixon and Clinton were worthy of impeaching, then I say George Bush is much more than worthy.  But it's up to our elected representatives to move for it. But it's doubtful they will do it unless we howl loudly. And unless they are really committed to the investigations they have promised us.  

        by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:11:54 PM PDT

        •  Completely agree...

          By the way, I love your tag line.

          by nyc in exile on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:18:59 PM PDT

  •  The listening tour is for

    Show, he's already made the decision to excalate the troop levels. But he knows how much blowback he'll get on that decision so he's acting as if he's 'listening' to other's views, he isn't one bit, believe me, he had the group at Crawford to tell them what he wanted done, and he didn't listen to their views and they were mad as hell. I could tell with their frowns, old Condi's mouth tight, eyes rolling to the skies, Gates looking down at the ground--NO ONE was happy at that decision he's made!

    This is all for show, just like it was during Katrina--and just like he has done with Kartina, he doesn't give one hoot about the Iraqi people or that bagdad is burning, matter of fact what I think is that this IS HIS PLAN burn bagdad down, just like in Katrina--keep the folks from moving back,

    All this going around right now is so he can stand up and say I've listened to people, but here's what I think, same old game, nothing's changed.

    Good goingon your first diary and I gave you so mojo for the effort!

    by Wary on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:35:11 PM PDT

    •  Thank you, Wary and you could be right

      about Bush's motives.  My reservation is that I don't think he cares about blowback.  He's shown that time and again with his signing statements and his utter disdain for what the election results signified.  

      by miriam on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:41:16 PM PDT

  •  So far the only concern I've heard

    from Bush is about the Iraqi people and their democratic government. Just yesterday he said this, after his three hour meeting.If he had any concern for "the best interest of our troops and our country", he never would have trumped up this war on lies, and invaded Iraq.

    by bonesy on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:36:00 PM PDT

•  Absolutely criminally negligent.

  This sad story of three soldiers killed by an IED in Baghdad on Christmas:

  As the holidays neared, Mr. Coward said, Spc Preston was working tow missions each night, mostly on just a few hours of sleep. His unit was short-handed because of holiday leaves. According to Spc. Preston, everyone in his unit was fatigued.

  He shared his concerns with a commanding officer, saying, "We're going to slip up if we don't get sleep."

  According to family members, Spc. Preston had worked three weeks without a day off before his death.

  "He was right; he was absolutely correct," said his brother-in-law. "What a waste, what an absolute utter waste of all these boys."

  link

  Bush has ignored all cries for more troops for years, while these poor kids, and Iraq suffers.  We have a madman at the helm: why don't more people see this?  

  by 2lucky on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 08:16:55 PM PDT