Impeaching Bush

Originally Posted by JackyBoy

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.

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.

Quote:

But Americans have the power to change your laws.

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

Quote:

The only shred of evidence Bush has ever provided as I see, with the events I mentioned, is his incompetence and inability to act.

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.

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?

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.

Quote:

Do you truly believe Bush did everything possible to provide the necessary relief as quickly as possible in the aftermath?

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.

Quote:

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]

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.

Quote:

This does nothing to explain the "failures" which occurred on 9/11.

What failures?

Originally Posted by Zio

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Presidents are allowed to clear out house at the beginning of their terms.

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.

Originally Posted by Arainach

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Denicalis

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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?

Proof?

Quote:

How about being the single most hated Commander in Chief since Nixon?

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.

Quote:

How about making the entire outside world hate you?

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.)

Quote: