2006-09-02 03:28:16 · 48 answers · asked by Dr MK Khaishagi 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Realistically that will not happen because President Bush is unpopular, has low approval ratings, and would not get the necessary votes. But your question asks "should" asking not what is possible, but what is the right thing to do. "Should" is a tricky word.
There is precedent for changing presidents in the middle of a war; Vietnam comes right to mind.
It is debatable exactly what wars we are in the middle of. In Afghanistan I would say it doesn't matter if we change presidents because we have more or less won by overthrowing the Taliban and forcing bin Laden into hiding, and a new president probably wouldn't make too much difference. In Iraq, a new president could drastically change our policy, such as implementing a timetable for US troops to leave, which would make a large difference. Then we have the nebulous "war on terror" which may not end in our lifetime; because of the lengthy nature of such a war I think it is inevitable that we change presidents during that war.
If you believe that our government leadership "should" represent the will of the people , clearly no such amendment should be passed, because Bush lacks even a 50% approval rating. If, as many do, you believe that the Iraq war was a mistake (for example because it was based on a false belief that Iraq had WMD or because we were at least initially unprepared for a lengthy occupation), this would also lead to the conclusion that we "should" change leaders.
The argument for keeping Bush in power would be to maintain consistency and continuity of leadership, "stay the course," in order to realize Bush's goals most effectively. If you truly feel that Bush's goals are the right thing to do, then that would be a reason why we "should" keep him, even if it meant amending the constitution.
My last observation would be that such an amendment would not only affect our current president, but would create opportunities for future presidents to serve 3 terms. The benefit of that would be that a popular president, presumably popular because his leadership visibly benefitted the majority of Americans, would be allowed to continue his successful ways. The negative aspect would be the danger of too much consolidation of power in one person's (or even party's) hands over time. I might add that Bush has shown quite a propensity for the accumulation of power and favors reducing individual rights/freedoms/privacy and his stated rationale for this is that there is such a strong public interest in fighting terrorism that these individual concessions are worth it.
2006-09-02 03:49:23 · answer #1 · answered by Kevin E 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely not. Even if he was a good president, it would set a dangerous precedent that I think would come back and bite us one day. Besides, I seriously doubt the president makes any real significant decisions when it comes to the actual handling of the war. The generals and advisors are the brains behind it. And when Bush leaves Rumsfeld will still be there. Unless the Democrats can take back the presidency and congress. Then Rumsfeld would be out so fast it wouldn't even know he was fired until he got to his desk and found someone else working there.
2006-09-02 03:39:48 · answer #2 · answered by Chris D 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would think since he never filed a declaration of war through Congress he has no right to according with the Constitution of the United States. You should go to school and get some higher education, then you would know these things. Bush is history in a year and a half anyway.
2006-09-02 03:32:29 · answer #3 · answered by Jenny_is_Hot 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why would we want to keep him? Because he's done such a wooonderful in Iraq???
Besides. The only way an amendment eliminating term limits would have even a remote chance of being passed would be if the change was not applicable to the sitting president. That's how it was when the 2 term limit amendment was ratified during Truman's presidency. He was the last president who could have served more than two terms but he chose not to run again.
2006-09-02 03:38:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As much as I support this President and would vote for him again, I do not want to waiver from the two terms at all. This would set a precedence that all every two term President had to do was start a war.
2006-09-02 03:35:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think third terms are a good idea even for great Presidents like Reagan and our current President.
In order for the country to move forward, we need new leaders from time to time. 8 years is enough time for good leaders to make their mark and then move on.
2006-09-03 08:06:47 · answer #6 · answered by John16 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The first time you voted him in I thought " who's this idiot?" The second time you voted him in I thought " who are all the idiots that voted for him TWICE?!" If you amended the constitution to vote him in again I'd have to lower your rank to morons. If you "google" the word failure the first thing that comes up is George W. Bush ( I'm not kidding), now thats karma! lmao
2006-09-02 03:37:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Only if you are dumb enough to continue fighting a war that we had no right to start. There's term limits for a reason. It weeds out the bad leaders even if people in the south are too stupid to vote him out.
2006-09-02 03:35:04 · answer #8 · answered by F T 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
NO. Bush was a great 1-term president. His second term has been a disaster. We need some new blood.
2006-09-02 03:35:41 · answer #9 · answered by snvffy 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO!!!!!!!
I'd have to start calling him Palpatine then (the character in the Star Wars movies who used a war to justify extending his term as chancellor, and then turned around and declared himself emperor).
Bush shows enough hunger for power that he could be called the real life Palpatine. I don't want us to feed that hunger.
2006-09-02 03:34:34 · answer #10 · answered by brian2412 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋