Explanation of recent post

How can the President lead the country and the executive branch
if she is continually harrassed with lawsuits, foney charges, etc.
The method that only Congress can bring charges against the
President is a good method.

BTW, whatever rules apply to Pres Buch will also apply to
Pres Clinton. It would be a shame for the first Woman president
to have to spend all her time dodging foney charges.
She should be spending her time getting Congress & the public
to buy into her reformation of the Medicare mess Pres Bush
left.

 

Uh, aren't we getting a just wee bit ahead of ourselves in announcing who the next President of the USA will be?

Last time I checked, the election was still more than a year and a half away.

And the first preliminary party caucii and primaries are still over nine months away.

Ed

 

Just because he seems guilty to liberals and democrats and their enablers in the news media doesnt make him gulity.
If he is guilty so is the whole congress and senate who were for the war until they saw political advantage in being against it. We accomplished some important things in this war. We got rid of a ruthless dictator and killed alot of al-qaida leaders. The only mistake that I see is that we overestimated the desire of Muslims to live under a democracy. I have my doubts that Islam is conducive to a democracy and that they function better under sharia law.

 

None of this has happened so it is a moot point. But if you do not agee with it why even bring it up? Your questions contradict your characterization of your intentions.

 

==I don't know what you said but I am aware of the fact that your post was "sniped". I would say, however, that you have to be careful how you word things. Mainly on this subject.

==Yes, but being wrong and incompetent is not a crime. If it was many of our past presidents would have found themselves in legal trouble. We must be careful not to criminalize mistakes, errors, and faulty judgment no matter how bad those things can be. The president is human and is capable of erring. No president should be accused of a crime unless there is clear evidence that a crime has been committed.

==There is no evidence that Bush knowingly lied to send people to war. Bush did not have to lie about WMD in Iraq since most everyone else agreed with his positions. Were they, and Bush, wrong about that? Yes, but being wrong is not a crime nor a lie. Did some of the intelligence that Bush based his decisions on later turn out to be wrong? Yes, but I have not seen any evidence to suggest that Bush "personally" knew that the intelligence was wrong at the time.

I don't believe Bush lied to get us into Iraq; nor do I believe Bush is lying about Iraq now. I think he is a true believer in the cause. He honestly believes that the course he is on is best and, I think, he honestly thought invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I also think that he did not know this thing would drag out for years resulting in thousands of deaths. That is where the evidence leads me. Has Bush's handling of the war been poor? Yes. Is the war in Iraq unjust and unnecessary? Yes. However I think Bush would honestly answer those questions very differently.

 

That seems the impetus of your thrust here. You might want to take the time.

 

It is not a crime in this country to portray yourself as a Christian conservative to attract every vote you can, then betray every conservative value ever invented. It isnt, but it ought to be.

 

That would be a good point - IF it happened to be true. With the October 2002 Congressional resolution that authorized the war with Iraq there is no argument that 29 Democratic Senators voted for the measure while 21 Democratic Senators voted against. But that was certainly not the case in the House, where a majority of Democrats voted against the war. When the 21 votes against the war by Democratic Senators are added to the like votes with House Democrats, a clear majority of Democrats did indeed vote against the war. Not only did these Democrats take a stand against the war, and back that stance with their votes when there no political advantage to do so, they stand in contradiction to any claim that "the whole congress and senate were for the war."

(by the way, in the same vote a total of six Republicans also voted against the war.)