I have had doubts about US presidents ever since the Regan administration, he was in office with Alzheimers at the time of Glaznost, things still got done.
This made me think that maybe there was more to the permanent members of the office of the president than overtly clear.

Maybe all US presidents are puppets to some level and the administration just uses them as a figuerhead.
If this were the case then when a president startspushing at the boundries and becomes a threat he would be removed from office, either by political means or something more permanent.
The way Bush has come out and basically lost it in press conferences and because of his inability to back down, led his country to war, makes me think that the powers that be won't be too happy with him.
The way he has acted, impulsivly and irrationally at times doesn't seem like he is controlled (or in control for that matter).
I wouldn't be at all surprised if after this that Mr Bush will be removed from office in some shape or form.

Just a thought

i personally feel that historians would be a better choice for a president. studying history is what they do and like life history does have patterns. therefore, historians would know what is going to happen and ways to prevent stuff. if something was going to happen and this changes the economy and politics, a historian would be able to find a way to prolong or prevent the event.

also another thought to add to the thread.

Corrupt presidents? I wouldn't doubt it. But I wouldn't start with Ron, not at all. It would be muuuuch further back than him. Lyndon Johnson perhaps, getting us into Vietnam and refusing to ever pull troops out. He was worse than the current Bush/Iraq situation if you ask me. Earlier than that. Want to talk about bad diplomacy? Kennedy and the cuban missle crisis. People downplay that usually, but the fact of the matter is that we were much closer than you think to being in serious trouble. Nixon? Yes, he fucked up big time... And so did every other presidential candidate at that time, before and after. His problem was he got sloppy and got gaught. At least even most democrats will admit that he was pretty decent at foreign policy stuff, whatever you call it (hungry, can't think perfectly right now.) Jimmy Carter? Say hello to my 18 percent mortgage rate.(they're about 5-6% now) That's one of his better qualities. More modern times also, clinton sending cruise missles into iraq every week and also bombing an asprin factory with hardly any public outcry, not to mention why is he handling the country when he can't even handle his personal life and can't admit to smoking a little bit of doob. Bush Sr. became a war hero when he saved kuwait's bacon in the first gulf war, but then made a huge mistake by suddenly pulling out towards the end. Did it waaayyyy too early, so he was no longer the 'war hero' but 'the guy that got us into that war back then', losing the election.

If the US presidency is corrupt, then it has been so for a very long time... I would say since the 1950s or so, give or take 10 years. It's nothing special though. EVERY government on the planet has a degree of corruption in it. It's a sad truth.

i love that reedited republicans version of history where Bush Sr. (a war criminal) is decreed a savior and war hero.. lol, or that Regan was a great leader. And that Clinton couldnt handle the presidency because he got head in his office, LOL, great history, it reminds me of my other favorite childhood fairytales like the 3 little pigs and the big bad wolf. LOL. And if youre going to hammer Clinton for smoking too much Doob you may want to check out your hero Bush Jr there with his coke problem.

Lets not get things polarized twoards blaming either party for being more corrupted. No one is going to win on either account. Fact is, both the left and right are just as guilty as one another.

Exactly, that's what I was pointing out in my post.

Exactly why I was speaking to Billy.

Lets face facts, are both parties corrupt? yep. are the republicans MORE corrupt due to special interest moneys? Damn fucking straight!

riiiiiiight.

Billy, I agree that both parties are corrupt.

But you are dillusional if you the the DemocRats are any less corrupt.

frightend of the truth i see, as usual.

if one cannot see that corporate strength and special interest money have basically taken over the Republican party making them more corrupt, they are blind or part of the corruption.

I agree with you Billy, in that (I believe) the Republican Party is worse,.. to some extent.

Republicans beclieve their position in power, is to support and continue the interests of businesses, instead of the actual citizen.

Quick example... to date Phillip Morris have been fined more than 1.5Billion dollars in law suits against Tobocca related products...
And to date, Phillip Morris, hasn't actually paid a single cent from these law suits.

Yet, every 2-3 years, we see futhering reductions of Corporate Taxation laws, to ultimately futher the profit of these organisations, while ensuring that the individual consumer, will be footing more in taxation.

We also cant forget the Corporate 'Welfare' packages...
In Australia 2 yrs ago: the State & Federal government forked out 600 million (Of taxpayers dollars) to "help" General Motors build a new factory... (Autually I believe this was the entire cost of the new factory)
Yet the previous year, General Motors(Aust.) recorded a profit in excess of 800 Million dollars !!!!

So no wonder more small businesses are failing every day of the year, when a government makes welfare payments to Corporations who are already recording record profits each year...

Okay so back to the US...
Is Cheney still on the board of directors for Halliburton ?
If so HUDGE CONFLICT OF INTEREST, considering that the US gov't has already awarded contracts, to Halliburton (among many contracters) for post War Iraq rebuilding.
So in which case, if what i said above is true - then Cheney is PROFITING from the War in Iraq.
And thats the 'truth' on Republican Administration.