Impeaching Bush

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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