"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I’m beginning to wonder if what we have here is a failure to communicate. Perhaps Mr. Bush is unclear on the specifics of this oath. Maybe he thinks that it is a literal instruction. Is it possible that he’s gotten it in his head that as long as the actual document remains intact while he’s in office, he’s done his duty? Could it be that this is all just a simple reading comprehension issue?

Here’s where part of my confusion comes from, and I’m so stymied that I can’t get past this first section of the Constitution:

Article. I.

Section. 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Really? President Bush has made a game of signing legislation and then adding signing statements that basically equate to a big “neener neener, I won’t follow this if I don’t want to.” In regards to the recent Patriot Act reauthorization and its information disclosure requirements, Mr. Bush said that ''The executive branch shall construe the provisions . . . that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch . . . in a manner consistent with the president's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information . . . " He has said repeatedly that he doesn’t have to follow warrant laws for wiretapping because we’re at “war,” and in response to Congressional passage of an anti-torture law applying to US detainees, Mr. Bush basically said that he’ll follow the law … unless he thinks it’s really really important that a prisoner be tortured.

I guess if you want to (again) be literal, Mr. Bush isn’t taking away the ability of Congress to pass legislation. He’s just openly saying that he’s going to ignore it. Nice spin, that.

Obviously he’s getting away with this, and I’m really baffled as to why. There are certainly those who say that we should do whatever King George says right now because we’re at war, but the dolts who say that are also more likely to believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and aren’t going to ever understand that we can’t destroy and defend the Constitution at the same time. There are others who let him slide because he’s a good Christian man, defending us from those radical Muslims, but they’ve got their eyes so firmly on the Rapture prize that they don’t understand that the violence arising from radical fundamentalists in the Middle East is no different than the medieval environment they’d like to create here.

I think there are also many who just don’t want to admit that they made a horrible mistake in voting for this mouth breathing, pretzel choking, nucular pronouncing, strategerizing moron, so they publicly (though more and more often now – quietly) support him with a resigned, “well, we may as well play this out” kind of attitude, but have stopped with the strident defenses of his moral character and strength of resolve in the face of those lily livered un-patriots who have pointed out repeatedly that Bush has destroyed almost global good will towards the US, spent more than anyone … EVER … on whims of war fancy based on fluffy intelligence, has made sure that his inner circle of good ole rich boys have profited mightily from his shoot ‘em up playtime, has openly weakened us in the name of national security (do you feel safer?),
has cut programs for the poorer and weaker in our society, has attempted repeatedly to undermine our environmental safety and sell off our national resources …

Shall I go on? Is there anything that this President has done that has been a net positive for the nation? Can you really think of one single thing that has made America better in the last six years? Safer? Stronger? More admirable? Honorable?