Impeaching Bush
 

I myself don't want to impeach Bush, but I want to talk about it: I don't think it will ever happen, but if it did it would sincerely help America's image in the international landscape.

Why is the American political framework for against impeachments? If people show themselves to be less then adequate leaders (a 32% approval rating is abysmal), why aren't they replaced? There's a system for it, after all.

Note: I don't know very much about the American system for impeaching presidents.

Well, he'd have to be tried for a specific instance where he broke the law. Impeachment is just to make sure that the president is held accountable to the other two governmental bodies-- not to his approval rating.

And since he was interviewed privately by a congressional board in the wake of the lack of WMDs, and they found he acted in good faith on his information, I don't think there's much he could be found guilty on.

People like to throw around the phrase "War Crimes," but I'm not sure specifically what they're referring to when they say it in reference to Bush.

That is odd, I'm pretty sure they taught us about that in high school. Didn't they require that you take an American Gov class (or two)?

I am an immigrant, I moved to America halfway through high school.

Additional Spam:
Skexis:

Good point. My posting this thread was a response to an NPR interview I heard today, which talked about why American are unwilling to choose impeachment as a course of action. Even if Bush broke no laws (of which I am not sure), he's taken the country into a direction that is unsatisfactory to most Americans. Being it that it is impossible to discipline him, and that he is most likely going to keep working against what Americans want, it is understandable to want to impeach him.

The impeachment process can take quite a long time, can be expensive with investigations and can cause the government to be stagnant. Consider Bill Clinton and the Lewinksy scandal. I've seen figures up towards $40 million in investigation costs by Ken Starr.

If Americans viewed Bush as a major blight on the international community and considered that high priority, then he wouldn't have been re-elected.

If Americans want an impeachment, it better really be worth it. It costs a lot of time, money, and effort and at the same time it really can look bad on those who are making claims and leading investigations.

Being a less than adequate leader with a 32% approval rating doesn't quite fall under those charges.

On the other hand, using the language was used when the Constitution was written, "misdemeanors" could be used as a catch-all, akin to "conduct unbecoming". This meaning, however, has fallen out during the past two centuries, and President Clinton's impeachment provides precident for that change.

Clinton was not impeached for "conduct unbecoming" The President was formally impeached for perjury. During the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the former president said under oath that he did not have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. That's why he got impeached. Unfortunately, Bush will probably not because there is no evidence that he intentionally lied to the American public. He simply shouldn't be impeached. I think he's a horrible president. I'll be looking forward to the day when he leaves office. But the fact of the matter is, he was elected by the people to a second term in office. Not every president is going to be great, but the public needs to stick out the rest of his presedency, because to shuffle presidents now would cause a great deal of chaos. the government isn't ready for the transition, and to force such a transition on the infrastructure would do a great deal of harm in and of itself. What needs to happen is that he should finish his term and everyone should be thankful there is a two term limit.

That's flawed reasoning if ever there was any. What is it about Bush being forced to resign that makes a transition any better than an immediate one? The policy shifts and restructuring are monumental irregardless of when it takes place.

To be honest, I really don't think an impeachment could hurt, but it would sort of require making the president accountable for war crimes.

Which supports my point. Since "misdemeanor" meant in 1998 something other than what it did in 1787, voting out an article of impeachment for something like conduct unbecoming the President of the United States (misdemeaning himself) would have been near impossible. On the other hand, if it had meant the same thing as it did in 1787, it would have been the easist charge to sustain.

Similarly, charges of conduct unbecoming could be easily sustained against Bush and especially Cheney if the old definition of misdemeanor still applied.

But it doesn't.

Just out of curiosity, would his pseudo false premise of war in Iraq be akin to "a crime?"

I was under the impression that a nation should not actually go to war unless you have, you know, not only a real reason, but a pretty good one.

I wish I knew which document it is from - I apologize that I am no where near as proficient at you PP people with the documentations - it may not even be in a document. Maybe it's more of an abstract, moral issue. But regardless, I'm just curious. Don't slam me.

The only thing I have to say in regards to this is impeaching him now is pointless. The damage has been done and his term is almost up anyway. So throwing him out will accomplish nothing.

War Crimes fall back on laws of war, which are mostly arbitrary and vary from country to country, but a rule of thumb is the Geneva convention.

In order to convict Bush of something like that, you'd have to find a specific point where he specifically ordered troops to fire upon civilians, or that he signed off on an offensive that targeted noncombatants.

Here is where the distinction of collateral damage comes in, though, and you'd be hard pressed to find evidence of someone who deliberately ordered a massacre. My Lai is the last incident that I'm aware of among US forces.

The issue is further complicated by the fact that Taliban and insurgent forces use civilian shields, and refuse to follow many of the laws of war, such as wearing a visible uniform.

[Edit]: Again, because Bush declared war based on Iraq breaking UN standards and he also was found to have acted in good faith on the classified intel he received, it would be very hard to pinpoint something that you could take him to trial for.

Life's a bitch, but we can't impeach presidents we don't like. If you don't like that, donate or volunteer for the presidential candidates you do like.

Skexis: Where, exactly, does it say that America decides the consequences of violating a UN resolution? If the UN wanted to go to war the UN could have gone to war. Bush deciding to invade Iraq for such a reason is like me shooting a man because he commited murder - it's not my responsibility, nor within my rights, to do so.

I didn't say it was a wholly legitimate reason, just that he cited it as part of the declaration of war.

Truth be told, that was one of my initial reasons for supporting the war, because it seemed to me that Saddam, in breaking the 17 resolutions, wanted to continue as he had been, massing an army and equipping himself with weapons to supplement that army. That is to say, "Saddam had a guilty face."

And lest we forget that we're talking about war crimes, you can certainly try to say that Bush declared war unnecessarily, but it won't be a question of whether he followed UN protocol or not. In other words, it's not really a point of contention for the U.N., and I doubt that any Americans would want to charge him for upholding the resolutions.

America can decide the consequences of violating a UN resolution because it's a soverign state and can do whatever it wants. The US is also the primary financial backer of the UN. So it has a tendency to call it's own shots within the organization.

when was there ever a "declaration of war?" I don't think the US has had an official declaration of war since the 40s. Everything else has been a "military conflict" or "occupation."

Many people love to blame the president for things that he's actually not responsible for ie the economy. Congress has been passing the buck and skipping out of their responsibilities by delegating more power to the president. The president said, "hey, I'm the commander in chief, and I wanna go to war in Iraq. Since I'm in charge of the troops, I'm sending them out. If you guys don't agree, you've got a set amount of time to say so and bring them back." But, they never did. So should the responsibility here fall on the shoulders of a single person? Congress is just as much to blame for the mess of the Iraq War as Bush is because they had the opportunity (and still do) to do something about it.

Clinton was impeached not for adultery..but bc of lying about it to a court of law. Bush on the other hand, was given a "blank check" by Congress after 9/11. The democrats are now scrambling to find funds for THEIR programs..which is tough to do when the military asks for billions more. Hence, why they are screaming about the extended stay in Iraq/Afghanistan. If the soldiers return home..more federal funding for the Dems (unless you raise taxes exponentially..which of course isnt going to happen)

Windsong, that's likely a tertiary issue to most congressional incumbents. Now, as for the Democratic presidential candidates, well, all 3 DO support nationalized healthcare.

Except that the resolution that ended the Persian Gulf War gave any UN member country the authority to enforce the resolution on Saddam.

Besides, I didn't hear you and your ilk complaining when Clinton was bombing the hell out of Iraq.

But they tried to assassinate President Bush, you see. It couldn't just be written off as a Wag the Dog scenario like Bosnia.

President Clinton ordered the destruction of Iraqi intelligence headquarters in response to the assassination attempt. That was in 1993. Operation Desert Fox, however, took place five and a half years later and had nothing to do with the assassination attempt. Nor did the other assorted strikes on Iraq that took place throughout Clinton's time in office.

Also, several people detected a Wag the Dog vibe from Desert Fox, coming as it did mere days before the House voted on Clinton's impeachment.

This whole 9/11 war on terror is bull. Somehow Osama Bin Laden magically transformed into Iraq. You know who's fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan? The same Taliban who attacked the USA? Canada. Why? That war costs money. Iraq is clearly about oil. Saying that, it is also speculation, and therefore has no grounds to Impeach. If substantial documents claiming this are released and recognized then and only then could impeachment occur.

Even if documents were revealed that showed this - what crime was committed?

If it was just about oil, then why didn't we steal it from Venezuela first, under the guise of removing a tyrant. They have just as much oil and seizing it would've been twice as easy. Also, gas prices have done nothing but go up since we've been in Iraq. If the goal was to take their oil, you'd think we would've already set up shop over there.

I was talking to a buddy lastnight who fought in Bagdad. He said that things are a mess, but that the US troops have their hands tied over there as far as what they're allowed to do. He said there are times when they can literally watch an insurgent place an IED, but "legally" they aren't allowed to stop him. Insurgents can basically claim sanctuary and run into Mosques where the US troops aren't allowed. He said that he thinks that Iraq really could grow and prosper eventually, but they won't get anywhere as long as they remain powerless to actually deal with the insurgency.

I don't think it can be simplified down to that it's just about oil, but if our goal was oil, Iraq was the prime target. Venezuela already sells us oil, Iraq was moving away from that.

Gas prices went up because of uncertainty in the oil and worldwide markets, not because of a lack of oil.

I still find it amusing that because Clinton lied under oath about his sex life to save face, people want him impeached. Yet when a president with a peanut sized brain and the mental capacity of a 7 year old, who doesn't lie because he truly believes that the decisions he makes are valid, he gets to stay in office and everyone else gets to suffer. That's democracy for you.

Of course the war crimes that have been committed, other people can take the blame, not Bush. Secret prisons, Abu Ghurab, we blame the "bad apples". Crimes against humanity doesn't seem to apply to the superpower. 650,000+ Iraqis are dead, yet no one likes to report how many people have died on either side. We see the death count for US soldiers, but there are a lot of contractors that work there who have died (remember Fallujah?) but no one is counting those.

Impeachment takes time and money, and I don't think it would be smart for the Democrats to try and impeach Bush. They need to focus their energy on figuring out what to do with Iraq.

The founding fathers' views on what should be impeachable are rather clear on the topic at hand, truth be told.

So the question begs - what meritorious officers were removed that shouldn't have been?

And I advise you to dot your I's and cross your Ts before you come out of your face with something silly.

Can't they 'walk' in and make sure it is an actual sanuctary? I could have swore in WWII sooner or later we began to occupy hostipels and other things so they were USED for those things, not a hiding spot for weapons, insurgents aka neutral grounds for all and all hostilities to be ceased.

I know one should keep your morales high so you do not succumb to the beast and destory everything but we should be able to make sure thier 'mosques(sp?)' and other things are used for what they are intended for? And if any hostilies that come about, as in, rules of engagement, then to cease it.

Thinking back, I think the best place to "get" Bush would be over Guantanamo Bay and his willingness to use torture as an interrogating strategy. Though Bush's administration (thanks to Gonzalez) has classified these men as not qualifying for combatant status, they still may be considered as such under Geneva.

The problem is finding and proving that Bush knowingly or willingly allowed the practice to take place. Since he seems to have an endless supply of fall guys and rationalizations for his bumbling administration, it is unlikely that such evidence would surface.

The entire basis of the impeachment process comes from John Locke's philosophy that an unhappy people have the right and obligation to rise up and throw off their leaders should the leaders no longer have the faith of the people. Our very Constitution is built upon such philosophies.

Unfortunately, our leaders have protected themselves with partisanship and really tangling the process. Specific quotas stand between a confidence-less president and a change of head-of-state. As we've seen though, sometimes those quotas can be all that matters.

Bill Clinton's impeachment process was most definitely a perversion of the concept and philosophy of Democracy. The people had faith in the head-of-state, but the partisanship of the political world came first and foremost. I would dare say the alternate is true at the moment -- a head-of-state has lost the confidence of his people, but there is nothing that can be done due to bureaucracy and partisanship.

In the end, even if we had proof that Bush acted in a manner that conflicts him with the presidency, there's nothing that could be done as long as just enough people remain in Congress to assure Bush's safety. I do not think we will ever see the day when Bush is held accountable for his multiple errors while in office.

Thankfully, he's a man that has always wanted to simply be in the history books. He has gotten his wish, but he might not be portrayed as a hero like Kennedy, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Wilson. He might just see the treatment given to Taft, Carter, and Pierce -- either mocked, disliked, or hated.

To be impeached, wouldn't the president usually have to have done something illegal (as in lying while under oath), and, last I heard, the Geneva Convention's rules don't overrule the laws of the US.

Well, the whole illegal thing is kind of up to Congress. If Bush were to jaywalk, he might not be impeached. If he, say, drives drunk and kills a family -- they may draw up articles of impeachment.

The reason I mention the Geneva Conventions is, again, the fact that it is up to Congress as to what is impeachment-worthy. I could definitely imagine Congress impeaching a President who has been indicted for war crimes.

I didn't mean to insinuate that the Geneva Conventions overrule US law, so I apologize there. I meant to say, though, that a Congress could possibly use the Geneva Conventions as a reason.

If Bush is vulnerable on any area, I believe it would be there. A violation of the Geneva Conventions could give Congress the best reason; a reason better than "He tricked us".

"Other high crimes and misdemeanors" is intentionally vague and legal scholars have long debated exactly what is and isn't impeachable. Bottom line: Whatever the hell Congress wants.

Couldn't you argue that for anything? Or maybe, "whatever the hell Congress' most influential want?"

That is, in a way, how it runs anyway. Republican Congressmen felt that Clinton's lie (about having sex with Monica in an investigation unrelated to this) was an abuse of power that deserved rebuking.

Republicans then, under Bush, did not feel he did anything wrong.

I would say that the modern Congress works just in that way. It is whatever the majority wants and can sustain in votes.

I can't understand how this is even a debate. The guy lied about Iraq. He failed to prevent the disaster of Katrina. He failed to do anything after Katrina. He lied about September 11. Best case Bush is incompetent. Worst case he's a lunatic running the asylum. Surely there must be a clause for removing presidents from power with so much failure on their resume.

What he should really be impeached for is his failure to prevent the bee holocaust:

http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2449968.ece

Dunno what has me laughing more -- the fact that I'm not the only one who read about the "Bee Holocaust" or JackyBoy's post ='D

I wasn't intending to be funny. Maybe I just have it all wrong and the things I mentioned in my previous post were just dreams I had. On a Side note I'm not very fond of honey myself. But hopefully those bees can sort themselves out.

I applaud your clever wit. Placing the emphasis on "Katrina" in that sentence was ingenious. The headline would have been worth buying a newspaper. "BUSH SAVES NEW ORLEANS STOPS A FUCKING HURRICANE WITH HIS BARE HANDS!" You have to admit it's much more interesting than, "Bush spends a few bucks to repair the damaged levies."

Which always begs the question: What statement did George W. Bush make that he knew was untrue about Iraq before he made it? Furthermore, when did he say this statement when it was a criminal act to do so?

Last time I checked, the power to manipulate the weather belongs to the X-Man Storm, not George W. Bush.

This statement suggests that there was no federal involvement on the Gulf Coast at all, which is at very best you simply not knowing what you're talking about.

What is this alleged lie? Keep in mind that a lie is a statment that is known to be untrue at the time it is given, so you must also show that Bush knew whatever he said was untrue.

Well as a Canadian I don't think it's my task to find such a way. It's why I was asking, there must be (is there?) a way to impeach a president with the way he has handled the above mentioned events? I have a difficult time reconcilling that a president can be impeached for lying about his sex life while this guy can get away with such a level of incompetence.

1. Where are they the weapons of mass destruction?

2. Jokes just aren’t funny the second time around.

3. If my statement did suggest there was no Federal involvement then I think that's an accurate statement to make especially when you have a Mrs. Bush going on television to tell the nation something to the affect it was the best thing that could have happened to those poor stupid niggers anyway. She couldn't even pronounce "Katrina". Inaction is the crime here and there's no dispute that inaction took place.

4. On 11 September 2001, every level of government failed. The intelligence agencies failed. NORAD failed. The FAA failed. If we are to believe Bush’s Commission Report, Newton’s established laws of physics failed. It’s the most incompetent day in American history. What part of 9/11 wasn't a lie?

Even as a Canadian, don't you think you have some level of responsibility to at least read the first page of the thread, where the the question you asked had already been discussed, before replying to it? At the very least, reading my first post, wherein I cite the section of the Constitution that states just what a president can be impeached for?

Being wrong about something doesn't mean someone lied about it unless that someone knew beforehand that what they were saying wasn't true. Nobody has yet established that Bush knew that the weapons he said were in Iraq weren't there when he said it.

And you would be wrong, as there was lots of federal involvement. That involvement has been heavily criticized, along with the involvement of the state and local governments, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

You've established so much of what failed, but haven't seen fit to tell us what was a lie.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I suggest you read up on a country's constitution & laws before arguing on these grounds. Clinton wasn't impeached for lying about sleeping with a woman. He was impeached for lying under oath.

In regard to your responses to NP's questions...:

1) You're dodging the point. Bush said there'd be WMD in Iraq because Tenet, the head of CIA (at that time) said that finding them in Iraq would be a "slam dunk". If the head of the CIA gives you that sort of definitive answer, then you would HAVE to believe it. He was acting on the best intelligence he had on-hand. Anyone who throws the "Bush is a liar" card over this clearly isn't very well learned on current events.

4) ... I'm not even going to TRY to follow what the fuck you're talking about. You can't stop every single god damn attack made against the US before it happens -- it's naive. Especially if it's something unexpected and as pre-emptive as 9/11.

You're forgetting about things like Pearl Harbor, the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of JFK etc...

Depending on who you ask, the assassination of JFK was an astonishing success. :)

The repeated failure of the CIA to assassinate Castro is pretty lollin.

Also, we were aware that something was planned for Pearl Harbor. We just desperately needed an excuse to get into WWII.

And all we had to do was sacrifice the lives of thousands of servicemen. Good job FDR. http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h3...icon_salut.gif

I'm not going to read the entire Constitution to make my point stick. My argument is that as a Canadian I can only criticize American policies, like you can ours. But Americans have the power to change your laws. I'm not asking a difficult question here. It could have be answered with yes or no. The answer is apparently no. If nothing else, I can at the very least criticize that. The only shred of evidence Bush has ever provided as I see, with the events I mentioned, is his incompetence and inability to act. I have an opinion that something is fundamentally wrong with the way Bush has handled these things and he should be made to seriously answer these issues instead of brushing them aside and quoting the Bible.

Do you truly believe in your heart of heart that the failures of 9/11 are acceptable? Do you truly believe nothing could have been done to help prevent the Katrina disaster? Do you truly believe Bush did everything possible to provide the necessary relief as quickly as possible in the aftermath? I don't believe these things and I don't see much evidence to sway me otherwise. In my dissatisfaction I was merely posing a question for which the answer has now evidently been established. Which is more criminal? Clinton lying about that handjob from his personal secretary or Bush proving his unfitness to run the damn country. [/rhetorical]

Well that is hardly my fault. I think I am articulating myself well enough that my opinions should be clear. Something so trivial is obviously implied when I simply say "Clinton lied". Yes I realize he lied under oath. We needn't waste our time with such well established facts. Suppose I agree that a country as advanced as the U.S. can't possibly thwart every terrorist attack. This does nothing to explain the "failures" which occurred on 9/11.

I was tempted to add, “…next to Pearl Harbor” on that sentence but it would have taken some of the impact away.

Not relevant, not relevant, yes.

The Presidency is not a dictatorship, and the President cannot be blamed for a "failure to act" when departments and local governments fail. Bush can be blamed for appointing incompetents, but there's nothing he could really do in response to those crises without overstepping his bounds as President.

Yes, but if I'm going to criticize or attack your country and your laws. I'm going to do research to make my point as valid as I could.

Yes, we do but the Senate or even Supreme Court can go lol, u r stupid, no way.

What are you talking about? He did act, maybe not as strong or as best as some people wanted but he did ACT. And his incompetence comes from his intelligence. Someone told him that there was WMDs and that he was violating(Wasn't he?) UN sanctions and was told to stop. He didn't so Bush felt it right to invade? Or atleast that is what I got from it.

What failure of 9/11? You can't really expect to do much when people randomly hijack planes and then crash em.

And what are you going to do? Tell people and use brute force to tell people, ROFL HEY THERE IS A LOLICANE(Hurricane), COMING 4 JOO. YOU BETTER MOVE OUT BEFORE YOU GET SMITED UPON THE GROUND!

You can't just go about and force people from thier homes. That would be the only -way- to prevent such troubles that happened. The Gov't did acted on the situation, might not be as best as some would have expected but they did act as Lord Styphon said.

Yes, but you have to talk to the governers of those states affected by the aftermath. They used the funds + forces that were sent there to help too.
Oh and anther thing, you can't just 'relocate' resources at will without harming others as well.

What unfitness? He went by what the CIA told him and he acted. Maybe the CIA lied? Or maybe there was WMDs.... Somewhere if there was ever any. The CIA provided poor information. It's kinda like your spies that you sent tell you that the army has only 10,000 troops and you have 100,000. Your oging to win but once you hit the battlefield, they have 500,000. That isn't JUST YOUR FAULT. That's the SPIES AND YOUR fault.

Oh, and by the way, what is more criminal? Perjury or someone acting on what the CIA tell you? To some people, perjurt is a serious offense and that is why he was. Bush hasn't committed any 'high' crimes.

Oh and anther thing, the Senate could easily stop the war in Iraq.(Even though there was no declariation of war. And only Senate can declare war.) The Senate coudl just say, hey you have no right to use those troops anymore and you must return them. Even though the president can use the troops for so long, he must return to them to get an extension.

To me, it isn't just Bush's fault, the whole Gov't is at fault.


What failures?

Actually, the issue was that Bush ignored the advice of the CIA and went on the advice of his own personally created information group. I think Rove was involved in its creation. Rove and Rumsfeld, because the CIA had been wrong about something during Bush Sr's time in office. Way to do that homework you talked about earlier.

The Senate could stop the war unless the president promised to veto any attempt to do just that. But I mean he wouldn't do tha- O, wait... he already did that? Right.

And what failures? What about the failures of deliberately only stocking "loyal bushies" (thanks for the quote, Mr. Rove) into the supreme court and forcing out people who were qualified because they were moderate? How about chasing out civil servants who didn't agree with him? Did Bush personally do it? Nope. But you want to tell me Karl Rove didn't tell him about it? What failures? How about being the single most hated Commander in Chief since Nixon? How about making the entire outside world hate you? The man takes bad advice from the good old boys rather than good advice from people qualified to give it. Just ask all the 20 something uber-republican, pro-Bush, non-arab speaking kids Bush sent in to nation build rather than a qualified, more mature group.

Impeachment is stupid. It's just as stupid as when they impeached Clinton. It's his last term. Let him run it out and bury himself. But to say he hasn't done anything is fucking clown shoes.

While I don't see how that qualifies as a 'failure' per se - what moderates were forced out of the Supreme Court? Furthermore, how? Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments.

Oh, U.S. Attorneys. Sorry, NP. Canadian, not used to your judicial system. And it's a failure because it makes him look like an idiot to anyone not in his paltry 36%. Team Texas has been thoroughly bounced, and his decisions have cost him Rumsfeld, Powell and probably Gonzalez. That's a failure. When your team implodes like that, that's what we call it.

Doesn't the Senate only need an extra 16% of the vote to go from requiring presidential permission to bypassing it?

That U.S. Attorney scandal is complete and utter bullshit. There was ZERO controversy when Clinton removed all 96 during his term. Bush's Justice Department gets rid of 8 and it's a scandal? Be fucking serious.

2/3rds majorities are sooooooooo hard, though. Congress doesn't have time for 2/3rds majorities, they should just let the President handle it. That way they can say later that they "didn't know."

I'm pretty sure, though, that the president require's congress's approval before going to war. If there was a war that congress could have stopped it isn't a failure of Bush's.

Please. No one ever found an email saying they should remove all the non-Clintonites. Crawl back in your right wing closet, NP. I don't need your party line.

Brady, when 9/11 happened, Congress didn't know Bush had relied on heinously bad information and ignored the CIA recommendations. He swore up and down there were WMDs and that death was the horizon unless something was done. So now we've heard from the libertarian and the right wing party spokesman. Anyone without an agenda?

Oh, RR. Hey. I have no idea what the rules are, but I'd be interested to know if that's true.

Clinton purged them at the BEGINNING of his term and did it unilaterally to clean out house. Bush did it in the MIDDLE of his term for political purposes. There's a very strong difference - one is corruption and one isn't. You don't see Presidents keeping the cabinet members of past Administrations - they replace them at the beginning of their terms.

We didn't invade Iraq on 9/11. :confused:

Of that there never shall be.

And 9/11 wasn't directly responsible for the emotional response by congress to approve the war, or anything. The information came out after the US was already in the sand, Brady. 20/20 hindsight, remember?

Nevermind that there was already sufficient cause to believe that Iraq wasn't a threat to national security. It's not as if greenlighting the damn thing was near-unanimous.

Is it really that hard for Congress to insist that they declare war instead of just letting the president invade any country he wants? I guess so, becuase it would mean they'd have to take responsibility for something. Or maybe it's just that peace treaties are too hard?

Ok, Clinton removed every last one of the previous administration's U.S. attorneys in order to clean house and put in the people he wanted. That is fine with you and you don't consider it corruption.

Bush, on the other hand, removes 8 and it qualifies as corruption? How in the fuck do you get that leap in logic?

Presidents are allowed to clear out house at the beginning of their terms. But when you're 6 years into your term and these people have been doing a good job and you fire them because they won't go after as many Democrats as you want, THAT is corruption.

Mind you that Bush HIMSELF appointed all 93 in his first term and no one complained. It's THIS instance right NOW that is corruption

Also, enough with the "But Clinton" card. Saying "A is bad but B is worse" never makes A an OK person. Not to mention that when Clinton came into office the GOP had been in power for 12 years so ever the conservative strategists acknowledged that he was merely trying to get some people he could work with.

Presidents are allowed to "clear out house" whenever they want, since executive branch appointees serve at the pleasure of the President. The Senate gets to approve or refuse the people he chooses to replace them, but he's allowed to fire them at any time.

Maybe Bush was getting people he could work with? Maybe those 6 people he removed or how many was cause they weren't working with him quite right?

Funny, all through all this thread they said the CIA said there was WMDs. So that is where I got the info, unless I misread somewhere. Oh and Denicalis, I want proof of what you said about the CIA, Rumsfeld and etc. Cause I could have swore that Bush said the CIA said they had weapons and was a greenlight to go in.



Again, I want proof cause I don't ever hear about the senate going against what Bush has done cause I do believe as Brady said earlier, it's better to just let it go and then be like, oops.

Maybe he wanted them in cause he could work with em.

Proof?

Mmm, let I've told people, I barly ever had a problem with Bush at all. Sure there was things I didn't like but majoritly, I liked him. Second of all, I think around here in Wisconsin or atleast people I talk with, didn't have a problem with him either. *shrugs* But then again the small population of who I know does not make up for majority, but from what I've seen though. Many do like him.

Meh the world problay hated us even before all this happened. After all, we did help Israel and more then likely that made a lot of people in the middle east + some parts of Africa hate us. Thus being, why we were attacked. (Yes I know this has nothing to do with Iraq and yes, I still don't know why we are in Iraq.)

Advice, is advice. May not be good but it is.

Proof?

Didn't they impeach him or let it finalize after he was out of office? Just so he wouldn't have the benefits of being a 'ex-president?'

But then again, what President hasn't done anything that bad. Last I checked the Kennedies(Sp?), had some rather fullfilling relationships in the past with women. But then again that means nothing right now.

It's a fact that President Bush was given several documents from both the CIA and foreign intelligences many months beforehand that terrorists were planning to attack the U.S. which Bush ignored. If Bush knew of a threat and failed to act (which there is plenty of evidence to suggest and this is part of what I speak of when I mention the many "failures" of 9/11), then he should be brought down on treason. Nevermind a "lie" as I described in previous posts.

Terrorists are always planning on attacking the US. Having a warning of relative danger isn't cause for policy change.

Also, zio, quit with the fucking quote-nukes, for the love of God.

As someone who does private contract work for the CIA from time to time, CIA analysts always write up reports warning of some terrorist who wants to or plans to attack the United States. You know how many of these the President sees on a daily basis - dozens.

Of the hundreds he sees a month, one happened to come to fruition. Hindsight is 20/20, but given the sheer volume of these 'serious threats' that come across his desk, it isn't a reach to see how one slipped by.

Wasn't the only war that was approved by Congress since WWII was Afghanistan? Congress never ratified anything to declare war on Iraq, they've only been approving a huge chunk of our tax dollars for Bush to waste.

I think Bush as president as consent to use the military without Congress' technical support. They just keep feeding him money, which essentially means the same thing but what are they supposed to do? Let the troops fight with no weapons?

We haven't formally declared war since WWII ever. But resolutions authorizing use of forces in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, and the current War were all passed by Congress.

This to me is a wholly unsatisfactory answer. Not a single American would have humbly accepted Bush if he addressed the nation saying he had received documents indicating a threat of attack but decided to ignore it because gosh darn his desk just gets filled with so many bogus reports.

The U.S. has the most sophisticated intelligence and defense on the globe. Terrorist attacks on the magnitude of 9/11 do not "slip by". That's like the idiots referring to Pearl Harbor as a "surprise attack". How the fuck can you not see a 1,000 bombers flying towards you. A radar made from a coat hanger and tin foil would have seen that shit coming. Historians often tell us a document titled: “The God Damn Japs Are Coming” was never able to reach some General guy’s desk and therefore nothing could be done to prepare for the attack. But with all the other bogus WWII reports falling on his desk why should he look at it? What ever else they have in common, Pearl Habor and 9/11 are certainly laden with failures of communication.

The damning thing is how easily avoided the attacks were. If a passenger airliner deviates 6 miles from its original flight plan, red lights start flashing and fighter jets are scrambled to intercept and escort it to a new flight path. If the pilot fails to make contact or communicate in anyway the fighters are ordered to destroy the aircraft. This isn’t from the scenes of a James Bond flick. These are standard procedures that were in place for many years before 9/11. On 9/11 there is evidence that someone ordered to “ground” these fighters. If that is the case who has that authority when it was known at this point you have aircraft under the control of hijackers.

The hijackers must have watched the film Con Air the previous night and made sure to roll down a window so they could toss out the transponder. The FAA on 9/11 essentially claimed they were “blind” and just had no idea what was going on and where these 4 hijacked aircraft were or where they were headed. No problems with the hundreds of other aircraft flying in U.S. air space at the time however. All those were grounded with meticulous precision all in a very short amount of time. Something you would expect from the FAA after all. But 4 aircraft dodged the radar so to speak. Inconveniently, that being the 4 hijacked aircraft.

This is the very first time in aviation history that 4 passenger airliners more or less de-atomized if that’s even a word. There was essentially not a single recognizeable piece of debris recovered. The only piece I recall is a single small turbine recovered from the Pentagon which is dubious at best not to mention suspicious. No wings. No fuselage. No engines. Nothing.

You’re the President of the United States. You just learn your country is under attack. What do you do? Something? Or do you continue reading “My Little Pony” with a classroom of children? This is not appropriate behaviour from a Commander in Chief. You cannot form tactical strategies inside a classroom when seemingly you do not even know if you yourself are a target.

On 9/11, 3 buildings collapse due to fire. A first in structural engineering. 2 of these buildings collapse, in what was called the “pancake theory”, at same speed as free fall while no explanation was given to account for #7. Educated people refer to this as the post 9/11 laws of physics. Before 9/11 the universe operated under “Newtonian” physics. 9/11 introduced a new law, “Bushism”.

9/11 was a day of misinformation, disinformation, deception, secrets, and lies. Why were so many officials from all these organizations afraid? Suddenly everyone was “mum” on the issue. When Boeing was asked about the turbine recovered from the Pentagon they said nothing, that it was classified. What? Everything which could have provided answers and clues were shrouded as “national security” “classified information”. Someone was afraid. And someone did their best to cover the truth.

If one of these failed it could be counted as incompetence. That all of these failed in tandem suggests not incompetence but implicit and indirect involvement.

Jackyboy, what if the plan commincations are not working? Are you still going to shoot it down even though possibly it may not know it's off path and etc?

Second, imagine your in a classroom, your a kid. You see the big guy in black suit sya something to the president, and then he HAS to leave. You start to wonder or PANIC cause the President, the cheif commander HAD to leave.

It might not be reasonable but take it as this. I work with Residents in assisted living for the elderly. Take it as this.

Say you have one that has alzermier or Dementia or some other brain/memory problem. They CONSTANTLY are paranoid, say things out of place, things are stolen and etc, even if they move it or do something. They could be right but out of the 5,000 times they've said it, you just kinda shrug your shoulder at it. Yanno?

You can't just take any case and be like, OMG SOME OF THESE ARABS THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK THE TWO TOWERS! BUILD SAM SITES, LETS MAKE SURE WE SEND THEM TO ALLAH IF THEY TRY TO CRASH THESE PLANES!

I bet we'd be in constant alert from how many people 'threaten' the white house or us.

There are serious problems with this conclusion.

Your first post attacked Bush for being incompetent. For an administration that is supposedly so incompetent and has failed so repeatedly, something like 9/11 would seem to be outside of the range of their capacity to pull off. Yet it would seem that they managed to pull it off perfectly. Where did the competence go since then?

There is an even bigger problem, though. For the government to have pulled it all off, as you are suggesting, it would have required the services of a great many people, none of whom have said anything. This is especially interesting considering the straits the administration now finds itself; if someone wanted to drag Bush down, this would be the perfect opportunity.

But nothing.

If the administration was still practically invincible, this would be one thing. But they aren't.

Oh, and another thing.

Handy video the credibility of which you'll no doubt attack says otherwise.

As does Popular Mechanics:
http://media.popularmechanics.com/im...light77-lg.jpg

Given the amount of things you've been wrong about, going by the standard you use for President Bush, you're a liar.

It's funny how the rationale of many people nowadays, some on both sides of the aisle, is to simply take a shortcut around the system if they don't like the outcome the system is creating. For example, the democrats trying to conduct foreign relations through Congress which is illegal. Or on the Republican side, Bush conducting wire taps without warrants. I think this kind of anarchic behavior is the most dangerous thing in politics.

I guess you could argue about who started it, but that is irrelevant at this point. The point is it's escalating, and the "impeach Bush" crowd is only contributing to it. (Who, again, is trying to control the country by fear? The radical left wants people to fear that Bush is controlling America through fear. That kind of "hall of mirrors" approach should make peoples' heads spin if they're keeping their eyes open. Just an example since that is the topic of this thread; I'm sure an example on the other side could be found too.) Reality has already been tossed out the window; the Constitution isn't far behind. Sane people on both sides of the isle should be very concerned about this trend imho. Where people should be looking at objective reality and debating about how to deal with it politically based on their ideology, they are now skipping the objective analysis altogether and creating their own reality from scratch which of course backs up their subjective ideology from the start. We're at the "No gas for 100 miles" sign on that road, but it's not too late to turn back.

Most folks don't realize it, but "illegal wire taps" have been issued by presidents for decades... It's hardly something new and unique only to Bush Jr.

No, Presidents since Nixon have complied with FISA.