Or you could call it initiating a preemptive invasion against an aggressive, murderous totalitarian regime that committed numerous human rights violations. The war has taken the lives of 2550 US servicemen, all of whom were volunteers for the armed forces. The 100,000 Iraqi dead includes terrorists and insurgents. There were legitimate reasons for going there and if you can't look at both sides of the argument you're half blind.
There is no proof that the President lied, only that he said something that later turned out not to be true. This is easily explainable using intelligence documents - intelligence documents that Congress saw too, by the way, shortly before voting in favor of the war.
Whether or not they are indeed prisoners of war is a debate unto itself. Calling the detainees at Gitmo POWs is a politically minded maneuver when the detainees don't actually fit the requirements of being known as prisoners of war. They are terror suspects and while no matter which way you spin it the whole thing has been mishandled, the President has not violated the Geneva Convention because the Geneva Convention isn't exactly applicable here.
Suspension of habeas corpus is the right of the President during wartime and it was only done in a very select few cases. If you're so against this particular statute you should go take a piss on Abe Lincoln's grave, since he was the first one to actually do it.
Actually the wire-tapping program does not violate FISA, which is how they got away with it in the first place. While I agree that it is wrong and should be stopped, I also don't think that this is an impeachable offense.
As with Watergate, do you really believe this goes all the way to the top? It was a dirty political maneuver and believe me, not all of those cross the President's desk before being implemented. Nearly none of them do, actually. Remember the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
Proof? And while we're at it...why would he do that? Is this going to turn into another 9/11 conspiracy theory?
What are you talking about? If this was really happening you'd think that the news agencies, which are already vehemently anti-Bush, would have latched onto it by now.
That refusal was an ideological statement, not an actual set of actions. He said that he wouldn't uphold laws he found to be unconstitutional, but when it came down to it he's upheld most of these laws - there was no way for him not to. You have him going against the laws of the United States in other ways but this isn't one of them.
You notice how two of these points seem to contradict each other? They needed body armor...how dare you go to war with a weak third-world nation!There was a reconstruction plan, it just turned out that there weren't enough coalition troops in Iraq to carry it out. New Orleans was FEMA's fault, not Bush's. Refer to our Global Warming thread and you'll see that it hasn't even been proven yet. You can't implement policy in a democracy is still so heavily divided over it - if you do you wind up with unrest, disorder, and potentially civil war.
They've been justified by you as being justified by the president's claim of special powers. He didn't come out and say, "I've done these things. This is why." He said, "I have special powers," you made these inferences, and then connected the two together.
