Originally posted by StrangeLands
Since, unfortunately, sheer bloody incompetance isn't enough, let's go with these:
Unfortunately, it's not. Neither is stupidity (Though I honestly don't think Bush is as stupid as most people tend to think.)
Unlawfully stripping US citizens, and the citiens of other countries, of their legally enshrined rights.
Unlawfully?
Bush isn't acting alone, remember, either...The legislature is also responsible for these things. Call him what you want, but Bush isn't a
dictator.
And, if you're not a citizen, you don't have any legal rights in the United States. If you did, why would one ever become a citizen? (Hell, if I
could be secured constitutional rights without citizenship (no taxes!) I'd get right on board).
Violating the UN Charter which, while not expressely a cause for impeachment, has cost the US dearly in it's relationships with other countries and
thereby acted against he best interests of the US.
The US gives about 40% of the UN's budget each year, but maintains less than 1/30th of its power. Why's that? And if you want a view of how skewed
the UN's existance is, why is Saudi Arabia spearheading the coalition on human rights?
The UN unto itself is a phenomenal idea; it's just so overrun with skewed ratios and power that it's rendered itself crippled.
Add to these, the "President's" blatantly provocative and belligerent diplomatic style, his questionable grasp of world events, and oh dear God
THE LIES, and I think any reasonably-priced lawyer could have the case sewn up by the end of the week.
What lies? About WMDs? They haven't been found, the intelligence is now proving to be shakey. At the time of going to war, there was faulty
intelligence; that's not Bush's fault - he wasn't over in the mid-east running covert operations. It's his underlings that should be put on a spit
and roasted.
That aside, there was wholly "justifiable" means to go to Iraq. Unlike the rest of the world, it's somewhat reassuring to see a leader who does not
believe in the Neville Chamberlain concept of appeasement. It's acceptable, then, for this country (Iraq) to be violating weapon proliferation
treaties since 1992 (based upon standards set by the UN), and also for him to be mercilessly gassing and torturing his own people? Without
intervention?
I'm sorry for the violation of Goodwin's law, but isn't Hussein somewhat reminiscent of Hitler? I don't like the idea of America being the moral
police squad of the world, but it seems that no one else in the world is wiling to do it.
Please don't misunderstand me, mauskov, this is not the mindless America-bashing which seems so prevalent these days. I have an enormous amount of
respect for the US, I just think you should have the leader you deserve. Damn it, I think you should have the leader you *elected*.
I agree, completely. It should be who was elected, however, unfortunately, it's not the case.
I think one of the biggest problems facing the bush administration is that there are still so many people who are bitter about having lost the 2000
election that if Bush cured AIDs, cancer, and world hunger, they still wouldn't vote for him.
It's not the first time a president's been elected without the popular vote; it provides fodder for a good reason why the electoral college should
be eliminated.
You make some good points, and I can see where you're coming from. I am not particularly fond of this administration, though I also don't believe
that they have acted outside of their jursidiction, either.