Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Halo82

In Reply To
Stryfe

Subj: Re: I don't think anyone really wants george w.bush to really be impeached .
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:46:58 pm EST
Reply Subj: Re: I don't think anyone really wants george w.bush to really be impeached .
Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 at 09:25:06 pm EST

Previous Post

> > Some people just want to impeach Bush for the "war" in Iraq. Sorry folks the system wasn't designed to work that way. And if you impeach bush wouldn't you have to impeach all the legislature that voted to approve the war?
>
> Well it should be set up that way.

So when the public disaproves of a military action he should face removal from office? This is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy so "shoulds" are not relevant to the procedure of law.

>I don't think it's too much to require that presidents should go to war if absolutely need be. Especially when we've get ANOTHER more important war going on.
>

well, let's clarify war, we haven't had an official war since World War 2 because the president cannot declare war by himself, only the legislature can as defined by the US constitution. The legality of military action in Iraq is basically an extension of established presidence concerning the use of executive authority for military action. Detail details, i know but it's pretty important to understanding when you discuss rule of the land and so forth. Under this idea Bush has used no more executive power than preceding presidents, and yet he should face impeachment charges for it.

What is absolute need for war? Some argue war is never an option, such as pacifist. We can't even agree on the definition of the word "is", better yet something as important as that. Reference any War in our history, from the revolutionary to now and you will find none of them had an absolute need for War.

Now I'm not backing up or justifying our involvement in Iraq, as I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I do understand the arguments to be made for it and recognize the fact that you don't just impeach presidents because they made an unpopular decision. Bush will be gone in 2 years, just be patient.



> So when the public disaproves of a military action he should face removal from office? This is a constitutional republic, not a direct democracy so "shoulds" are not relevant to the procedure of law.

No, what I'm saying is that if a president says "I'm going to war with Iraq cause they have WMD's" and lo and behold there are no WMD's he should be impeached. Especially when has everyone around him saying don't go but instead chooses to listen to one piece of intel and the Vice President. There was plenty of room for doubt in this war and what I'm saying is there shouldn't be. We convict of crimes only if the evidence is beyond a shadow of a doubt and that's how it should be for going to war.
>
> well, let's clarify war, we haven't had an official war since World War 2 because the president cannot declare war by himself, only the legislature can as defined by the US constitution.

Which is a bullshit technicality but I know what your saying.

>The legality of military action in Iraq is basically an extension of established presidence concerning the use of executive authority for military action. Detail details, i know but it's pretty important to understanding when you discuss rule of the land and so forth. Under this idea Bush has used no more executive power than preceding presidents, and yet he should face impeachment charges for it.

Again, he used bad judgement going into a war and ignored everyone who was apparently alot smarter then him. I'm saying he didn't think this through and more people are dead because of it then people who died in 9/11.
>
> What is absolute need for war? Some argue war is never an option, such as pacifist. We can't even agree on the definition of the word "is", better yet something as important as that. Reference any War in our history, from the revolutionary to now and you will find none of them had an absolute need for War.

Afghanistan is a justified war, Iraq is not. I know what people will say "so you just want to wait till we're attacked again" and the answer is YES I'd rather retaliate then go around blindly swinging at anyone who MIGHT be a danger to us.
>
> Now I'm not backing up or justifying our involvement in Iraq, as I'm pretty much an isolationist, but I do understand the arguments to be made for it and recognize the fact that you don't just impeach presidents because they made an unpopular decision. Bush will be gone in 2 years, just be patient.
>
I understand. 2 years is a long time though. As an aside it always kills me when people justify the actions of the President by saying "you don't like him? Vote against him" as if the next vote is right around the corner. Four years is a long time and ALOT of damage can be done in that period. End rant.

*Disclaimer* I do not always think I'm right, I do not have a problem admitting I'm wrong, and I don't consider my opinion to be "fact". If I don't write IMO in front of everything I say or I don't tuck my tail between my legs everytime someone disagrees with me it's simply cause...I mean what I say. I don't say something unless I believe it to be true. So if someone tries to police my opinion or pick an arguement over something trivial all I'll simply say is "read the fine print" I also don't care If I make a grammatical or spelling error. Thank you, have a nice day, Hakuna Matata, Live long and Prosper.



Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software