Why is it the British People can force Blair to resign and USA has no power or balls to do likewise with Bush?

Question

Both men are guilty of crimes against humanity because they waged an unjust, immoral, unethical, and insane war against Iraq. The warriors that attacked the USA were members of al-Qaeda, and were led by Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. government considers Osama bin Laden to be the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Bin Laden joined the Afghanistani resistance in 1979 and became a commander in the guerilla wars against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. After that war ended, Bin Laden founded a loose organization of pro-Islamic terrorists known as al-Qaeda. He then joined with the Egyptian militants led by Ayman al-Zawahiri to form an international group whose goals included driving the United States out of the Middle East and overthrowing the government of Saudi Arabia.

So the just, moral, ethical, and sane and intelligent war should have been focus in Afghanistan, and on Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Americans need to as, "Why the major shift in focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein?"

Answer 1

Blair did the honorable thing and stepped down.
There is no honor in American politics.

Answer 2

Actually, it was more the British Labor Party who helped engineer the ouster of Blair. Blair won a third term with a big victory over the conservatives a few short years ago. He could have remained in power as his party has more seats in parliament. He stepped down due to a fear that his party would not win the next election because of his reduced standing amongst the British electorate. Our Founding Fathers favored stability, so it's difficult to remove a sitting president, unless found guilty of genuine high crimes and misdemeanors--not the type of charges levelled against either Bush, or Clinton for that matter. In essence, the people spoke--Republican dominance in the Congress was ended after 10 years in 2006. Divided government hopefully will ensure that the excesses of both the right and the left will be held in better check for the next year and a half.

Answer 3

Well, the President of the United States has a fixed term of office: 4 years. He can serve twice. This is Bush's last year in office.
Neither Bush nor Blair is guilty of crimes against humanity; Saddam was and Ahmadinejad is. This is true whether or not the war in Iraq is a good idea.

Answer 4

i do not believe of so. at the same time as Blair grew to grow to be elected as social gathering chief the click and others stated he might want to be evicted after a Labour election win to positioned a more advantageous strident left winger in fee. To counter this the labour social gathering presented a rule that a Labour PM won't be able to be ejected from that position with the help of the social gathering. The convention might want to obviously make his position untenable - yet i think he might want to even brass that out.

Answer 5

Dude, check your history. Bush's fatther, the older Bush Blowhard screwed up and waged war on Iraq when they invaded Kuwait in the 1990's. The daddy failed to end Saddam Houssein's dictatorship so Bush Junior had to do it for him.

Pathetic as it is, that's what happened, and you toss in the 9-11 tragedy and you've got a recipe for American presence in Iraq. WE don't wanna be there, BUSH does!

I didn't vote for the peckerhead but he's legally our "Dicktator" until 2008.

Answer 6

Why is it the Iraqi have begged the US and the Allied Forces not to leave Iraq.
Why is Lord Farqher of Iran killing millions of mujadeens every week and with the left overs sending them into Iraq in hope they will beat the Coalition when they couldnt beat Iraq - so then instead of them returning back to Iran - he tells them if they go to countries like Banglesdesh just before it sinks they can have their 72 virgins and whilst waiting keep their jihad war alive in their ignorant heads - so they dont see how they have been used.

Answer 7

in england reporters and people who question him are allowed near him. They can go to press conferences and say stuff, like you suck or however they phrase it. Bush has closed meetings. Only select news people are allowed and they are expected to behave a certain way. If they get protesty they are not allowed back. Bush's 'town meetings' are said to be hard to get into, it is by invite if he appears in public at all. This is part of what they call the presidents bubble. People protested when he first stole office and he hasn't been in actual public since. look what happens any republican or war related person speaks at a college or anywhere. protested, so it's all roped off, only agree r's allowed.

Answer 8

Why is it that America, England, Australia and Europe dont make the traitors that live in our countries - that gain entry by signing that they agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which also says they agree that Isreal is a State - join the army so they can help clean up the mess that their religion causes.

Answer 9

KUDOS TO YOU MY LIKE MINDED FRIEND!!! They say that 80% of america is now against this 'war on terrorism'. Yet we would rather watch it all go down on TV rather than get of the couch and take action! Republican and Democrat alike need to work together now, yet we're more divided as a country than ever! The fact of the matter is, most people here would rather do as they are told than find the truth for themselves, I guess that's the easiest way not to disrupt the herd. Screw that!!!! GET OUT THERE AMERICA AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELVES WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON!!! MAKE YOUR OWN OPINION, NOT AGREE WITH YOUR MOTHER OR FATHER OR NEIGHBOR~HAVE A MIND OF YOUR OWN!!!

Answer 10

If the UK had had their way he would have gone much much sooner. He orchestrated his departure himself, now we're stuck with his choice of successor Mr Brown