Oooookay

[patgund]

Front group associated with Cheney calls for Bush to be dictator... for life...

(Google cache down, screen capture Here )

"Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
 
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
 
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
 
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."

Comments

[jeriendhal.livejournal.com]

Teh Crazy is strong with this ones...

[jeran.livejournal.com]

That group conveniently forgets a few things about Caesar. First and foremost is that he had considerable popular support. The only real opposition he got was from his political opponents and their personally-loyal forces. Had he not had that overwhelming support, things would've turned out much differently. Second, he ended up getting killed by political opponents and the fall-out was a civil war that eventually led to the fall of the Empire. Not exactly a desirable outcome.

And if Bush did try to empty Iraq of Arabs, it'd instantly unite the entire Muslim world against him and force most of the rest of the world to disavow him. First rule: never ever bite off more than your army can chew. Or, to quote Londo, "Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts.".

[kd5mdk.livejournal.com]

Where did they get the idea you could replace Iraqis with Americans anyway? I don't know anybody who would want to love there under those circumstances.

[buddykat.livejournal.com]

...after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America...

Or more accurately... "after being chosen by the majority of eligible citizens who actually voted". And since there is usually a voter turnout in the range of 30%, he was chosen by around 15% - 20% of citizens eligible to vote.

[matrygg.livejournal.com]

The Roman Empire wasn't the beacon of peace they're claiming here. It could be argued that the lack of a clear sucession mechanism in the empire lead to many small civil wars and the idea that someone with a large enough personal army could take the throne of at least one half. The mechanisms we as Americans have in place to turn over leaders peacefully is partially because the Founding Fathers had read their Gibbon and were mindful of that.

Besides, the army is not Bush's. It's the Constitution's