Hagel say impeachment "an option"

[gabosaurus]

WASHINGTON (AP) — With his go-it-alone approach on Iraq, President Bush is flouting Congress and the public, so angering lawmakers that some consider impeachment an option over his war policy, a senator from Bush's own party said today.

Meanwhile, the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. "For Congress to impose an artificial date of any kind is totally irresponsible."

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed — if a president really believes that, then there are — what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

The White House had no immediate reaction today to Hagel's comments.

The Senate planned to begin debate Monday on a war spending bill that would set a nonbinding goal of March 31, 2008, for the removal of combat troops.

That comes after the House narrowly passed a bill Friday that would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan this year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq before September 2008 — or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certain requirements.

Today, Hagel said he was bothered by Bush's apparent disregard of congressional sentiment on Iraq, such as his decision to send additional troops. He said lawmakers now stood ready to stand up to the president when necessary.

[manu1959]

what exactly are you going to impeach him for?

[loosecannon]

what exactly are you going to impeach him for?

flipping off the American electorate, the congress and the constitution.

Or not upholding his oath of office.

The cool thing about impeachment is that the congress is obligated to do it when called for and it can be for anything they deem worthy.

Kewl huh?

[Sitarro]

flipping off the American electorate, the congress and the constitution.

Or not upholding his oath of office.

The cool thing about impeachment is that the congress is obligated to do it when called for and it can be for anything they deem worthy.

Kewl huh?

Guess who becomes President you dumb fuck? Cool eh? Don't go away crying, just go away.

[Gaffer]

flipping off the American electorate, the congress and the constitution.

Or not upholding his oath of office.

The cool thing about impeachment is that the congress is obligated to do it when called for and it can be for anything they deem worthy.

Kewl huh?

like he said, what do you propose he be impeached for? Congress doesn't have the power to impeach for anything that pops into there silly heads. You need to learn a little more about the constitution and how government works. Just hateful thinking won't get it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Well, the NSA spy scandal would be a good place to start. That was clearly against the law. Signing statements is another possibility. Violating the law based on a statement he attached to a law already passed is hardly constitutional. But I imagine Chuck Hagel could very easily make a case over the war, how it got started, and how it is being run into an impeachment case if he wanted to. Guantanamo Bay could be a whole 'nother ball of worms as well. Gee, there's so many to choose from...

[Hobbit]

Well, the NSA spy scandal would be a good place to start. That was clearly against the law. Signing statements is another possibility. Violating the law based on a statement he attached to a law already passed is hardly constitutional. But I imagine Chuck Hagel could very easily make a case over the war, how it got started, and how it is being run into an impeachment case if he wanted to. Guantanamo Bay could be a whole 'nother ball of worms as well. Gee, there's so many to choose from...

Could you quote what statute was violated in each of these cases? It's all been done before, and nobody got impeached then.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Well, I probably could spend half a day tracking down sources and posting USC quotes with relevant court cases to back up the code violations only to have you say "bullshit" and not argue the issues on their merits. I got plenty of time but not a lot to waste on a wild goose chase to placate you.

My points were pretty clear.

*Bush violated the law when he went behind the FISA courts' backs and established his own spy network that did not meet the law's approval. His standing as CiC does not give him the authority to violate the law with regards to eavesdropping. The law is clear and he broke it.

*Once a bill is law, nothing in the law or the constitution says a president can go back and change it or fail to enforce it. He took an oath to uphold that constitution. He broke it everytime he put a signing statement on any law where he stated that it did not apply to what he wanted to do and then proceeded to do whatever he wanted. If he did not like the law, he should have vetoed it. He did not. When he signed it, it meant it was law. He had to follow it as well as anyone else.

*The war has so many impeachable possibilities that they are impossible to categorize here. I'd like to see him brought up on a charge of dereliction of duty for sending troops to a warzone without appropriate body armor (since he IS the CiC) or appropriate armored vehicles. Chuck Hagel could probably find a couple hundred more charges. I'd settle for the ones I mentioned.

*Gitmo: habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial would do it for me.

Sufficient impeachable offenses in my book.

[Hobbit]

Well, I probably could spend half a day tracking down sources and posting USC quotes with relevant court cases to back up the code violations only to have you say "bullshit" and not argue the issues on their merits. I got plenty of time but not a lot to waste on a wild goose chase to placate you.

My points were pretty clear.

*Bush violated the law when he went behind the FISA courts' backs and established his own spy network that did not meet the law's approval. His standing as CiC does not give him the authority to violate the law with regards to eavesdropping. The law is clear and he broke it.

Clinton did the same thing...to spy on Republicans.


*Once a bill is law, nothing in the law or the constitution says a president can go back and change it or fail to enforce it. He took an oath to uphold that constitution. He broke it everytime he put a signing statement on any law where he stated that it did not apply to what he wanted to do and then proceeded to do whatever he wanted. If he did not like the law, he should have vetoed it. He did not. When he signed it, it meant it was law. He had to follow it as well as anyone else.

I don't know of any case when Bush signed a law and then ignored it. I do, however, find the McCain-Feingold thing to have needed a veto. If Bush can be impeached for anything, that's it, but we'd have to start with the idiots who wrote it, then move on the ones who voted for it in the House and Senate.


*The war has so many impeachable possibilities that they are impossible to categorize here. I'd like to see him brought up on a charge of dereliction of duty for sending troops to a warzone without appropriate body armor (since he IS the CiC) or appropriate armored vehicles. Chuck Hagel could probably find a couple hundred more charges. I'd settle for the ones I mentioned.

Those are funding problems that Bush doesn't have direct control over, not to mention that a lot of soldiers find the body armor bulky and restrictive, and would rather go with something lighter (and, consequently, cheaper) so they can outmaneuver the unarmored terrorists.


*Gitmo: habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial would do it for me.

The Guantanomo detainees are not under arrest. They are prisoners of war, some of whom are up on war crimes charges. In either case, they can be held indefinitely. Habeus corpus does not apply.

[Gaffer]

There it is the talking points of the left...insufficent body armor and appropreate armor for vehicles.

Those are decisions made by the generals on the ground in theater. Body armor for the troops was still in developement at the start of the war. There was not enough to go around. The armoring of vehicles was fine until the IED's began to be used. The vehicles were up armored to protect against them after that. Everything takes time. There are now iranian IED's that can burn through any kind of armor. In a war things change daily. No one can predict what's going the happen next. Maybe you can impeach Bush for lack of the ability to predict the future. Makes as much sense as the rest of your impeachment idea's.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

There it is the talking points of the left...insufficent body armor and appropreate armor for vehicles.

Those are decisions made by the generals on the ground in theater. Body armor for the troops was still in developement at the start of the war. There was not enough to go around. The armoring of vehicles was fine until the IED's began to be used. The vehicles were up armored to protect against them after that. Everything takes time. There are now iranian IED's that can burn through any kind of armor. In a war things change daily. No one can predict what's going the happen next. Maybe you can impeach Bush for lack of the ability to predict the future. Makes as much sense as the rest of your impeachment idea's.

Actually the body armor was developed but the military did not order any until after we landed in Iraq. Too late. Too few places making the armor. It was a rush to war. It was irresponsible.

After IEDs were developed, the military had to wait again for more armored vehicles to be converted over. They could make new ones with the armor already on it but the military chose to go cheap and go slow which met with the CiC's approval and that cost more American lives.

Like I said: impeachable offenses. Poppy waited a few months more to get all his ducks in line before he went into Kuwait. Junior couldn't be bothered, I guess.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Well, I probably could spend half a day tracking down sources and posting USC quotes with relevant court cases to back up the code violations only to have you say "bullshit" and not argue the issues on their merits. I got plenty of time but not a lot to waste on a wild goose chase to placate you.

My points were pretty clear.

*Bush violated the law when he went behind the FISA courts' backs and established his own spy network that did not meet the law's approval. His standing as CiC does not give him the authority to violate the law with regards to eavesdropping. The law is clear and he broke it.

Clinton did the same thing...to spy on Republicans.

:link:



*Once a bill is law, nothing in the law or the constitution says a president can go back and change it or fail to enforce it. He took an oath to uphold that constitution. He broke it everytime he put a signing statement on any law where he stated that it did not apply to what he wanted to do and then proceeded to do whatever he wanted. If he did not like the law, he should have vetoed it. He did not. When he signed it, it meant it was law. He had to follow it as well as anyone else.

I don't know of any case when Bush signed a law and then ignored it. I do, however, find the McCain-Feingold thing to have needed a veto. If Bush can be impeached for anything, that's it, but we'd have to start with the idiots who wrote it, then move on the ones who voted for it in the House and Senate.

Read this link from the Boston Globe. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/) It should more that satisfy your denial of Bush's illegal behavior.



*The war has so many impeachable possibilities that they are impossible to categorize here. I'd like to see him brought up on a charge of dereliction of duty for sending troops to a warzone without appropriate body armor (since he IS the CiC) or appropriate armored vehicles. Chuck Hagel could probably find a couple hundred more charges. I'd settle for the ones I mentioned.

Those are funding problems that Bush doesn't have direct control over, not to mention that a lot of soldiers find the body armor bulky and restrictive, and would rather go with something lighter (and, consequently, cheaper) so they can outmaneuver the unarmored terrorists.

Bush is the CiC. He has control over it all. Sending the best army in the world into a war so poorly prepared shows his blatent disregard for their welfare. I'd impeach him on this one alone. The armor was available but Bush never ordered the military to supply it. Public outrage finally made everyone change their tune. Same with the Hummers. Disgraceful.



*Gitmo: habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial would do it for me.

Sufficient impeachable offenses in my book.

The Guantanomo detainees are not under arrest. They are prisoners of war, some of whom are up on war crimes charges. In either case, they can be held indefinitely. Habeus corpus does not apply.

Detainees held by American personnel in an American facility are subject to what laws again? American laws, that's what. Bush & Company danced around it for years and they thought that by basing them in Cuba or overseas that it would change the jurisprudence are only fooling themselves, no one else. A Republican Congress even passed a law that stripped them of their rights to habeas corpus and prohibited torture, a law that Bush attached a signing statement to excepting himself from the law just passed. Double whammy.

[avatar4321]

Clinton did the same thing...to spy on Republicans.



It's only wrong if you use it to spy on foreign calls by terrorists.

[avatar4321]

There it is the talking points of the left...insufficent body armor and appropreate armor for vehicles.

Those are decisions made by the generals on the ground in theater. Body armor for the troops was still in developement at the start of the war. There was not enough to go around. The armoring of vehicles was fine until the IED's began to be used. The vehicles were up armored to protect against them after that. Everything takes time. There are now iranian IED's that can burn through any kind of armor. In a war things change daily. No one can predict what's going the happen next. Maybe you can impeach Bush for lack of the ability to predict the future. Makes as much sense as the rest of your impeachment idea's.

Yet, most of them voted for a man who thought increasing taxes on the people was more important than giving the troops body armor...

So forgive me if i doubt their sincerity.

[loosecannon]

like he said, what do you propose he be impeached for? Congress doesn't have the power to impeach for anything that pops into there silly heads. You need to learn a little more about the constitution and how government works. Just hateful thinking won't get it.

high crimes and misdemeanors is a vague legal term which refers to conduct unbecoming an office holder.

It does not refer to large crimes specifically but it includes things that would not be crimes if they were committed by a private citizen but are "criminal" when commited by an executive or an executive appointee.

There are at least a half dozen reasons to impeach him ranging from the intent expressed in signing statements to the NSA wiretaps without warrants. His defiance of congress over the war is the reason Hagel listed.

[darin]

There are at least a half dozen reasons to impeach him ranging from the intent expressed in signing statements to the NSA wiretaps without warrants. His defiance of congress over the war is the reason Hagel listed.

WHY to you LOVE and EMBRACE Lies? You Lie on here - you fabricate 'facts'...I've never seen such wide-spread loving-of-evil.

What's WRONG with you? Live under powerlines?

[Hobbit]

Read the Boston Globe article. Seems as though these 'breaches of the law' were when Congress passed something unconstitutional, so the President ignored it. If there was any substance to it, he'd already be in court.

As for Clinton's spying, ever hear of Echelon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

[loosecannon]

Read the Boston Globe article. Seems as though these 'breaches of the law' were when Congress passed something unconstitutional, so the President ignored it. If there was any substance to it, he'd already be in court.

As for Clinton's spying, ever hear of Echelon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

of course i have heard about eschelon, eschelon is the main program that the FISA requires warrants to exercise.

And obviously the reason that he hasn't already been in court is because the republican congress protected Bush from congressional oversight.

Since Bush reigns over the DOJ the only means of oversight are congressional oversight. That began two months ago.

[glockmail]

what exactly are you going to impeach him for? Looks like we'll be waiting a long time for an anwer to this one.

[manu1959]

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section4

don't see what you are reading into this....

[loosecannon]

Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section4

don't see what you are reading into this....

"shall be removed from office on impeachment for"

It doesn't say "can be", "may be" it says SHALL be...

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.

When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.

An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.

IOW The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for lying at any time during their service, or for any other reason deemed by the congress as being a breach of the oath of office or unbecoming the office to which they are sworn to hold.

including incredibly meaningless offenses like lying about having sex in the oval office.

Ya'll just don't get it do you. Turnabout is fair, play and Bush is guilty of crimes hundreds of times more meaningful than squeaky clean Clinton.

Sucks to be Bushbots.




http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

[manu1959]

"shall be removed from office on impeachment for"

It doesn't say "can be", "may be" it says SHALL be...

Sucks to be Bushbots.


http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

also says you need a conviction for a crime....you lack both....sucks to try so hard to be right at the expense of being correct....but don't let facts get in your way

[CockySOB]

loosecannon,

"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The bold portion is what will not happen. No POTUS has ever been impeached AND convicted of such "high crimes and misdemeanors," and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

To reiterate, impeachment alone is not sufficient to remove a POTUS from office - conviction by the Senate is the other required component.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Looks like we'll be waiting a long time for an anwer to this one.

Asked and answered. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=31196)

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Read the Boston Globe article. Seems as though these 'breaches of the law' were when Congress passed something unconstitutional, so the President ignored it. If there was any substance to it, he'd already be in court.

As for Clinton's spying, ever hear of Echelon?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/18/221452.shtml

Decisions of constitutionality belong to the judiciary, not the executive, so the point stands. Bush cannot attach a signing statement to a law already passed which overturns the law itself or condones ignoring the law. That's not his perogative no matter how many times he claims it is.

As for your claims that Clinton spied on "republicans" and then you site an article that says that the NSA spied on everyone, your claims are summarily dismissed as overblown and specious. And the republicans might have had a better chance of convicting Clinton on this one than on the blowjob affair. We'll see if Bush fares any better on his spying scandal than Bubba did.

[loosecannon]

loosecannon,

"Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

The bold portion is what will not happen. No POTUS has ever been impeached AND convicted of such "high crimes and misdemeanors," and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

To reiterate, impeachment alone is not sufficient to remove a POTUS from office - conviction by the Senate is the other required component.

No need to reiterate, it was never the question at issue.

The question raised was "on what charges".

Now if you wanna move the goal posts to convinction and removal from office, fine.

It will happen, case closed.

[stephanie]

No need to reiterate, it was never the question at issue.

Now if you wanna move the goal posts to covinction and removal from office, fine.

It will happen, case closed.

I wouldn't bet your life on it!:poke:

[avatar4321]

Decisions of constitutionality belong to the judiciary, not the executive, so the point stands. Bush cannot attach a signing statement to a law already passed which overturns the law itself or condones ignoring the law. That's not his perogative no matter how many times he claims it is.

As for your claims that Clinton spied on "republicans" and then you site an article that says that the NSA spied on everyone, your claims are summarily dismissed as overblown and specious. And the republicans might have had a better chance of convicting Clinton on this one than on the blowjob affair. We'll see if Bush fares any better on his spying scandal than Bubba did.

All three branches can decide constitutionality. Judicial just has final say. Mainly because they usurped that power in Marbury v. Madison.

[avatar4321]

No need to reiterate, it was never the question at issue.

The question raised was "on what charges".

Now if you wanna move the goal posts to convinction and removal from office, fine.

It will happen, case closed.

You still need charges to even get a conviction considered. cant be convicted for crimes that didn't happen.

[CockySOB]

No need to reiterate, it was never the question at issue.

The question raised was "on what charges".

Now if you wanna move the goal posts to convinction and removal from office, fine.

It will happen, case closed.

As for "moving the goalposts..." I haven't moved anything - you did, by indicating that impeachment was all that was required. Or perhaps that was simply an error of omission on your part.

BTW, a conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds majority - and the Democrats don't have nearly enough votes to pull that off.

[CockySOB]

You still need charges to even get a conviction considered. cant be convicted for crimes that didn't happen.

Actually, impeachment is not absolutely tied to criminality - impeachment is a political process. That being said, the charges and specifications have to be considered by the House Judiciary Committee before they have a chance to come before the full House for the vote.

[glockmail]

Asked and answered. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=31196)

[[1]*Bush violated the law when he went behind the FISA courts' backs and established his own spy network that did not meet the law's approval. His standing as CiC does not give him the authority to violate the law with regards to eavesdropping. The law is clear and he broke it.

[2]*Once a bill is law, nothing in the law or the constitution says a president can go back and change it or fail to enforce it. He took an oath to uphold that constitution. He broke it everytime he put a signing statement on any law where he stated that it did not apply to what he wanted to do and then proceeded to do whatever he wanted. If he did not like the law, he should have vetoed it. He did not. When he signed it, it meant it was law. He had to follow it as well as anyone else.

[3]*The war has so many impeachable possibilities that they are impossible to categorize here. I'd like to see him brought up on a charge of dereliction of duty for sending troops to a warzone without appropriate body armor (since he IS the CiC) or appropriate armored vehicles. Chuck Hagel could probably find a couple hundred more charges. I'd settle for the ones I mentioned.

[4]*Gitmo: habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial would do it for me. ]

1. “The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.” http://jmmartin.redstate.com/story/2005/12/18/18349/876
2. The President has a right to a dissenting opinion.
3. The type of body armor used now was not developed then. Do you expect the CIC to predict future technology?
4. Are you suggesting that foreign enemy combatants captured during war are to be given the same rights as US citizens committing crimes during peace time?

[loosecannon]

1. “The FISA statute can have no impact on a constitutional authority, any more than an Act of Congress could diminish the First Amendment protection provided newspapers. Statutes cannot add to or detract from constitutional authority.”

Well, whatever that is supposed to mean...

In truth what it appears to be saying is false in every single case except the exception of a federal court or Supreme court ruling on the validity of the law in question.

Mean while bills passed by congress and signed by former presidents are enforcable upon current presidents.

Is the quotation implying that Bush is a constitutional authority?

[manu1959]

Well, whatever that is supposed to mean...

In truth what it appears to be saying is false in every single case except the exception of a federal court or Supreme court ruling on the validity of the law in question.

Mean while bills passed by congress and signed by former presidents are enforcable upon current presidents.

Is the quotation implying that Bush is a constitutional authority?

so if there was a crime ... why have charges not been brought by congress?

and "whatever" is not a very good counter argument to facts

[TheStripey1]

Well, whatever that is supposed to mean...

In truth what it appears to be saying is false in every single case except the exception of a federal court or Supreme court ruling on the validity of the law in question.

Mean while bills passed by congress and signed by former presidents are enforcable upon current presidents.

Is the quotation implying that Bush is a constitutional authority?

based on what? His command of the english language?

[glockmail]

Well, whatever that is supposed to mean...

In truth what it appears to be saying is false in every single case except the exception of a federal court or Supreme court ruling on the validity of the law in question.

Mean while bills passed by congress and signed by former presidents are enforcable upon current presidents.

Is the quotation implying that Bush is a constitutional authority? I provided a link. I suggest that you read that and comment on those issues already addressed.

[gabosaurus]

I don't want Bush impeached. I want him to remain in office and continue to screw up the country and his party until Jan. of 2009.
If Bush continues to f*ck everything up at his current rate, the Dems will win the White House and a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate.

[loosecannon]

so if there was a crime ... why have charges not been brought by congress?

and "whatever" is not a very good counter argument to facts


those weren't facts but opinions.

It is obvious why charges were not filed (yet), the republicans controlled Congress.

[loosecannon]

based on what? His command of the english language?

Stripey does Bush really believe he is the commander of the English language too?