Impeaching Bush

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by James Madison, 1789

The danger then consists merely in this, the president can displace from office a man whose merits require that he should be continued in it. What will be the motives which the president can feel for such abuse of his power, and the restraints that operate to prevent it? In the first place, he will be impeachable by this house, before the senate, for such an act of mal-administration; for I contend that the wanton removal of meritorious officers would subject him to impeachment and removal from his own high trust.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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.

"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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

No, Presidents since Nixon have complied with FISA.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?