I mean, he wants to send young children into war without Congress's approval.
He threatens congress if they require Rove aides to go under oath. Isn't going under oath a part of what this country stands for? How can you be the president of the United States and threathen those who advocate going under oath? No one man or group should feel that going under oath is beneath him.
It seems like he does whatever he wants whenever he want. Can't anyone do anything about it? Congress? Hillary Clinton? Bill Clinton? Senate? Barack Obama? Al Gore?
2007-03-23 08:20:54 · 23 answers · asked by Michael 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Without the checks and balances protecting the American people, I believe that is precisely what we would be faced with. He despises anything about Democracy that requires others to agree with him. Republicans who stand behind him at this point, are foolish because he doesn't give a crap about what his people want or believe. The only supporters he has left are those blobs of political support that can be molded to believe that what he does is right no matter what, simply because their parents were Republican.
2007-03-23 08:33:13 · answer #1 · answered by mandakathryn02 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting.
Going under oath to be interrogated by a hostile congress when NO crime is even alleged is hardly what this country 'stands for'.
This president has no more nor less powers than any president before him.
With all due respect,you are either very young or very brainwashed .
Also, for the record Congress APPROVED the Iraq Invasion.
You would sound so much smarter if you would just persue the facts and argue on the basis of them.
Your entire thesis is based on inaccuracies.
2007-03-23 08:27:55 · answer #2 · answered by Garrett S 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you knew anything about the congress' legal system then you would know that Bush is following the law. There is a reason for patient / doctor confidentiality and the same goes for people / lawyer's. Unless the congress can prove there was illegal activity (which they haven't) then they have no business breaking the law by sending subpoena's. It isn't up to interpretation....as with Whitewater....or did you forget about that???
Also, to address your comment about sending troops to war, you're incorrect...congress DID vote and DID approve it, including Hillary Clinton. I wish you'd do your research!
2007-03-23 08:29:45 · answer #3 · answered by baby1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't and all it takes to know he isn't is by reading the definition of a dictator.
Definition(s)
1. a person exercising absolute power, esp. a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.
2. (in ancient Rome) a person invested with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met.
3. a person who authoritatively prescribes conduct, usage, etc.: a dictator of fashion.
4. a person who dictates, as to a secretary.
Wow... we have a lawyer who answered this question and is trying to mislead everyone and he's liberal to boot. Imagine that.
2007-03-23 08:29:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe you know the definition of a dictator.
WIkipedia defines it as "In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly"
Bush is hampered from doing as he wishes by a liberal congress who wants to disrupt the balance of powers by taking contol of the government- instead of having balanced power between the brances of government.
I assume that you call any leader you dissaprove of a dictator. We vote in our country. If you don't like the leader the people of our country have chosen- get over it. It is part of living in a free society.
2007-03-23 08:29:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If Bush supporters actually googled some OBJECTIVE information about him seeing as they obviously have the internet at they're disposal, they wouldn't be Bush supporters now would they. Dictator? Not smart enough. It's the people behind him pulling the strings that are the virus.
2007-03-23 08:28:15 · answer #6 · answered by Gabriel Anton 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
are you really so ignorant that you think the democratic controlled congress is concerned with the lives of the soldiers? really, clinton sent them in twice and didn't support them at all.....its a political ploy, they say they are against the war but most are profitting from it. if rove has to testify then why not sandy burger, he stole state secrets and nothing happened to him.
its amazing that anyone really believes our government is about two parties any more, its POLITICS...which means greed, power and getting more and more of it no matter which party is in office. geez, really grow up. you among many have fallen for it hook, line and sinker....if you think any of those dem's you named are any different than any rep you accused you are misguided and out of touch with reality.
2007-03-23 08:28:11 · answer #7 · answered by ?! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When history repeats itself what will the liberals say?
Chamberlain went to the leaders in the UK and announced "Hitler has signed a peace treaty with us," while Churchill was warning of war.
What if the USA would have listened to the liberals then and stayed out of the war?
2007-03-23 08:37:19 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What do you mean without the approval of Congress. He has approval, and all those names you mentioned, plus a few more like Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards were all loudly telling Clinton to get tough with Saddam because he was building all these weapons of mass destruction.
2007-03-23 08:27:52 · answer #9 · answered by hironymus 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
pretend! pretend on you! "in the beginning, there replaced into sufficient "intelligence" to income Congress's approval to flow to conflict. Now that Congress found out that the intelligence replaced into made up and disapprove of it. Is it nevertheless ok that Bush nevertheless desires to deliver youthful toddlers into conflict without Congress's approval." first of all, the comparable Intel replaced into used as replaced into used till now the 2000 elections, via President Clinton. replaced into there undesirable intel? sure! The doctored intel replaced into that which related Saddam to Al-Quaeda. Senator Kerry, replaced into screaming for blood in 1998, yet, unexpectedly the docotrerd intel makes him all pious? i'm not identifying to purchase this BS. you could flow blow helium up somebody else's rectum, thank you very plenty. And youthful toddlers?! those are not 12 3 hundred and sixty 5 days olds. those are youthful women and men human beings sufficiently previous to be tried as adults in a court docket of regulation. those are adults, able to balloting. those are actually not a team of pre-toddlers which you misrepresent them to be. shame on you! shame!
2016-10-19 10:57:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋