headless leaders

there is song by a farely famous band with a line that goes "why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor". i've put some thought to this. what if we did have presidents who lead the troops into battle? the country would be less likely to be involved in as many wars just "because we can", as Cheney said. yeah, it would be true that our presidents might be a little more barbaric and warmongering, but at least they would know what they were doing a little more. i'm not saying i would want the government to be controlled by the military, just that i'm tired of having a president in office that doesn't seem to put much thought into what he does. it seems as though hes only trying to get votes for his party and gain popularity, not trying to do whats best for this country, just what's best for himself. so, here's to president Bush and the entire grand old party shaping up and getting out of office in the next couple weeks, because ya gotta remember that their calendar is completely different than everyone elses: the troops will be in iraq 3 months and they are still there 4 years later. so if Bush and his party get their act together now they might just be out by 2008.