One of Three

Just read an article on BBC News that said Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki “called recent US criticism of his work "discourteous".” Then, “The White House was swift to respond, saying in a statement that Mr Bush still believes that Mr Maliki is the right person to lead Iraq.” I was immediately offended; what gives us the right to make such a statement? And what kind of government would tolerate it?

Sometimes I wonder how well our democracy really works, mainly in the executive branch. I agree it is important to have one central figure that can react quickly when the situation calls for it. Yet the election of that person is all about careful slander, mostly covert graft, and the bandying of patriotic words. After that, we have some asshole in there that's going to do what the hell they want, dance like mad for public opinion and a second term… making good on as many private promises are necessary while dodging the public commitments that got them there.

A majority of our country put Bush back in office. Now he and his appointed cabinet are making these statements and decisions on that majority's behalf. I certainly don't agree with Bush's stance in Iraq; I never wanted a Vietnam for my generation. Yet I have to wonder if the majority does. Maybe they were cattle. Lemmings led by the political maneuvering. Does it make them less culpable? Does it make me less culpable for what my country is doing?

The worth of our democracy will be shown in how we handle this debacle.