Impeaching Bush

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

And all we had to do was sacrifice the lives of thousands of servicemen. Good job FDR.

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

Quote:

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?

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Brady, when 9/11 happened, Congress didn't know Bush had relied on heinously bad information and ignored the CIA recommendations.

We didn't invade Iraq on 9/11.

Quote:

Anyone without an agenda?

Of that there never shall be.

FELIPE NO

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?

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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.