Impeach George W. Bush!
 

The following is an excerpt from http://www.rise4news.net/Impeachment_Resolution.html



A RESOLUTION

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Impeaching George Walker Bush, President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That George Walker Bush, President of the United States is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of all of the people of the United States of America, against George Walker Bush, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


ARTICLE I

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has attempted to impose a police state and a military dictatorship upon the people and Republic of the United States of America by means of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations" against the Constitution since September 11, 2001. This subversive conduct includes but is not limited to trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus; ramming the totalitarian U.S.A. Patriot Act through Congress; the mass-round-up and incarceration of foreigners; kangaroo courts; depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration; interference with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to lawyers; violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act; unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures; violating the First Amendments rights of the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, peaceable assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances; packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked judges belonging to the totalitarian Federalist Society and undermining the judicial independence of the Constitution's Article III federal court system; violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions and the U.S. War Crimes Act; violating the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; reinstitution of the infamous "Cointelpro" Program; violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the Convention against Torture, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; instituting the totalitarian Total Information Awareness Program; and establishing a totalitarian Northern Military Command for the United States of America itself. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE II

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. U.S. soldiers in the Middle East are overwhelmingly poor White, Black, and Latino and their military service is based on the coercion of a system that has denied viable economic opportunities to these classes of citizens. Under the Constitution, all classes of citizens are guaranteed equal protection of the laws, and calling on the poor and minorities to fight a war for oil to preserve the lifestyles of the wealthy power elite of this country is a denial of the rights of these soldiers. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE III

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has violated the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and the United Nations Charter by bribing, intimidating and threatening others, including the members of the United Nations Security Council, to support belligerent acts against Iraq. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE IV

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prepared, planned, and conspired to engage in a massive war and catastrophic aggression against Iraq by employing methods of mass destruction that will result in the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians, many of whom will be children. This planning includes the threatened use of nuclear weapons, and the use of such indiscriminate weapons and massive killings by aerial bombardment, or otherwise, of civilians, violates the Hague Regulations on land warfare, the rules of customary international law set forth in the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocol I thereto, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Genocide Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956). In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE V

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has committed the United States to acts of war without congressional consent and contrary to the United Nations Charter and international law. From September, 2001 through January, 2003, the President embarked on a course of action that systematically eliminated every option for peaceful resolution of the Persian Gulf crisis. Once the President approached Congress for consent to war, tens of thousands of American soldiers' lives were in jeopardy - rendering any substantive debate by Congress meaningless. The President has not received a Declaration of War by Congress, and in contravention of the written word, the spirit, and the intent of the U.S. Constitution has declared that he will go to war regardless of the views of the American people. In failing to seek and obtain a Declaration of War, George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.


ARTICLE VI

In the conduct of the office of President of the United States, George Walker Bush, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has planned, prepared, and conspired to commit crimes against the peace by leading the United States into aggressive war against Iraq in violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, Judgment, and Principles, the Kellogg-Brand Pact, U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 (1956), numerous other international treaties and agreements, and the Constitution of the United States. In all of this George Walker Bush has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore George Walker Bush, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Personally I'd be for executing him for treason as a traitor to the United States, which is what he is.

A person who makes mistakes from ignorance cannot be held guilty of treason. Next time, no matter what you are doing, don't forget to vote.

I always do

That was way too long to read.

Given some of the wording in it, I don't think it can truly be taken seriously.

If karnivore catches radar's follow up comment to his initial post, the board is fucked.

This will never happen. You can only impeach a president over shit that doesn't matter. :)

Carnivore = Email

But I don't care. I'd send an email to GWB himself telling him he should be executed for treason as an enemy of America. I'm allowed to do such under the 1st amendment. I'm not allowed to threaten someone, but I sure can express my opinion.

It's high time this time honored <a href="http://www.somethingawful.com">SA forums</a> tradition makes its debut here:

too long didn't read

Just to balance the vitriol:

I offer this link

Flame away!

Brian

Unfortunately, the salute bit is rooted in a recent urban legend...

Brian that site made me want to vomit. What a crock of shit. And all the Christian bullshit. America is not a Christian nation and never was. Hopefully it never will be.

Funny, I was going to say pretty much the same thing about the "Impeach George Bush" thing YOU posted.. :p

I just thought I'd give us Righties some equal time...


Brian

You go Brian!

I happened to like that website, sappy as it is. It's a nice story. Apocryphal or not, it's STILL a nice story.

For the record, America, like it or not, is a Christian nation, founded on Christian and biblical principles (remember that bit about being "endowed by God with certain inalienable rights?). The establishment clause is about establishment of a STATE religion (which is why many of the early settlers left Europe) rather than a total divorce of religion from gov't, commerce, personal interaction etc.

For the record, no, I'm not Christian. And no, I'm not a Republican either.

'Wolf
(I am the religious right, just not the religion you might expect)

Only if you're using a false record.

In the real world, the American government wasn't founded on Christian or Biblican principles. And for the actual record, the phrase is "endowed by their Creator" not God. And the word "creator" doesn't refer to judeo-christian concept of god.

That is absolutely 100% false. The establishment clause was made to keep ALL religion out of government and all government out of religion. It was made to keep them completely and totally separate.

You might not be a Christian or a Republican but you seem to spread some of the same lies of the Religious right. You're either very misinformed, or a liar. I'm not sure which.

Why the hell would she lie? Do you think she just gets off on spreading false information?

I don't know. I've seen a lot of people who get pleasure out of spreading lies. Especially those who condone the mixing of church and state and those who would violate the constitution in the name of security.

I personally don't know or care what wolf's reasons are for spreading misinformation. I'm just pointing out that the information is completely and utterly false.

You should care what her reasons might be for such things. Getting to know people is what the whole spirit of this board is about. Simply not caring about her motivations makes the whole debate completely pointless.

Let me reword this. It's the same thing as I said with option in another thread: If people feel like they're being attacked, it doesn't matter how right you are. They'll just stop listening to you and jump to defend themselves.

Radar isn't here to make friends. He's here to "win fucking arguments".

I disagree. I don't care about motivations, I care about actions. I don't care why George Bush wants to violate the constitution, why he thinks it's ok to start an illegal and imperialistic war against a non-threatening country, why he attacks our civil rights, or why he makes horrible decisions with regard to our environment, foreign policy, or economy. The point is that he does those things and that is reason enough for me to hate him with every fiber of my being and to hope that he's killed as the traitor he is for the sake of America.

You don't have to care about why someone does something to make a debate worth having. If someone drowns 5 children, I don't care why they did it, I don't care what they were feeling, I don't care about their mental state, etc. I just know they did it and they need to die. If someone is spreading lies, I am curious to know if they are lying or don't know the truth but in the end it doesn't matter. It's their actions, not their reasons that matter.

Fuel for the fire from Washington's Farewell Address.

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Thanks Griff, that's quite interesting. It's a solid arguement Washington makes as well. Without religion you can't have a "National Morality" because without religion telling you what's right and wrong you have to make that decision individualy. Of course being a non-religious individualist I'm okay with that.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Hey Radar, motivations matter because that's where changes are made. To use your analagy if we can understand the motivations of one person that drowns five kids then we have a chance to recognize the next such sick individual and stop them before five more kids drown. Also from the point of discussion if you ignore motivation then you're ranting, which is okay. Just don't expect your opinion to spread.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For instance, you could ask how it is that our right-wing Dwellars fight for all of our rights to bear arms, as per the Constitution, but seem okay with the goeverment taking people and locking them up without legal representation. I can't remember the name of the guy who's lawyer tried to fight this, and failed, because I'm full of flu meds right now. Somebody help me out or I'll look it later when the brain is working better. This is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights, so ask why they can be incensed over one and not the other. Then it's a discussion, the ball is in their court. Not a rant. Difference being, if you have a valid veiwpoint discussing it is how it spreads. A rant just makes likeminded people go "YEAH" and everyone else rolls their eyes and becomes less likely to listen next time.

Re Washington, that's what I'd expect someone to say before two centuries of scientific findings made it despicable.

Thank you Whit. I'm a moderately religious individualist so while I want religion separated from government, I don't want it suppressed. Respecting other peoples private choices, damaging to them or not, is pretty crucial if you want a society of free individuals.

BTW- I vote yes on impeachment.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Oh come now 'Toad, surely you recognize that to be a good American you must view everything the 'Founding Fathers' said as being akin to the Gospel. :D

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;You're welcome Griff, and I agree completely that suppressing religion IS suppressing freedom of choice. It shouldn't be done, well outside of religions that believe in drowning five kids and such.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;By the by, I dislike GWB but impeachment ain't gonna happen. War on the horizon, post 9/11. Nope, "nah gonna do it, it wouldn't be prudent at this juncture." Seriously, Bush know that 9/11 was the best thing to happen to him, just look at his approval rating before and after if you don't believe me. He's going to run with it as far as he can, and anyone in his way get's called unpatriotic, which is a deathknell for a politician.

Which is why I make copies of everything said here. I'm gonna hold you people to your opinions when the Aloysios Party takes off.

We'd have to impeach them all....

"endowed by their Creator".

The establishment clause is a lot stronger than preventing establishment of a state religion. It prevents any law "respecting" an establishment of religion. Along with the free exercise clause, it pretty much does demand that the government remain secular.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Actually Russotto, I think Radar said that. Of course you may have assumed that most people had stopped reading his stuff due to his aproach.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;It is a good point though, the word God isn't in use. I must say that given the beliefs of those who wrote that, they were almost certainly referring to the christian god/creator. Regardless, these were the same men who also wanted to keep church and state seperate. So, Christian society or not, the church isn't meant to overly effect the state. Personnaly I don't think the state should dictate personal beliefs, or morals. I don't think that's it's job. That's the job of religion.

Russotto is correct, America is a secular nation. Neither our government, nor our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles or religion and we have no "national morality". It's not the place of government to legislate morality.

It's interesting you would think that because the vast majority of our founding fathers weren't Christians. They were diests and unitarians which don't believe in the judeo-christian concept of god.

And since Griff likes quoting Washington so much, here's a quote from the Washington.

The AP died Griff...Tob killed it off, that stupid bastard. I'd invite you to join the Sycamore Party, but I think there would be ideological conflicts.

I find motivation to be incredibly important. Whit touched on it earlier, but motivation here can be the difference between something worthy of debate, or something (and someone) laughable.

Maybe, maybe not, Radars just about convinced me to quit the LP and be more pragmatic.

Send me your address and I'll mail you the Sycamore Party Indoctrination...er...Introduction Kit.

Remember Griff, there are extremes in every party...even in the "lesser" parties.

But Griff, Radar's the Minister of Outreach. Hasn't he developed a broadly appealing, positive message that speaks to what's in it for you?

He's too inclusive for me. He needs to sharpen the message.

I have no problem with what Washington was quoted. After all, religion is not just about Christian, Judism, Muslim, or even Buddism. Religion has branched out into mathematics, psychology, astronony, quantum physics, economics, etc. They are all studies of god's laws. But neo-classical religions foolishly preach only they have all the answers. We have not stopped learning new god's laws everyday which is why mankind has "advanced in the image of god".

To say that morality was only found in those myopic parts of neo-classical religion is indeed foolish. Examples of such pathetic mentalities include Jimmy Swiegart, Pat Robertson, and Ayatolla Khomeni.

When conventional religion failed to provide all the answers, then even Socrates and his disciples began seeking and finding a more logical and comprehensive religion.

Neo-classic religion is something only between you and your god. That which hypes illogical conclusions based upon speculative and convenient myths had no business being used to enforce other's lives. But real world religion, also known as science or other equivalent terms, is really where honest morality comes from.

Does a moral person speed 100 MPH through a crowded parking lot? Of course not. Basic physics combined with other real world principles such as statistics says that is immoral. However neo-classical religions fear any idea that they don't have know all god's laws. Neo-classicals foolishly insist that only they are the 'true' religion.

In god we trust - and his disciples Newton, Franklin, Einstein, Hilbert, Plato, DiVinci, Currie, etc who provide us more of god's laws.

Actually, the Constitutional viewpoint on religion is fairly vague.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

There were state churches in several of the 13 colonies before the Constitution. The establishment clause existed partially to protect the religious establishments that existed before the Constitution.

Since we have a very religious populace, how could we not have at least a slightly religious government?

Outstanding last point, Torrere. Though I wouldn't call this country very religious...more like fairly religious.

I'm not saying I like religion in my government (you've got your religion in my government...you've got your government in my religion), but to think that the two will not dance together at some point these days seems naive.

Look at the uproar over "one nation under God." That San Francisco appeals court ruling was a sound legal decision, IMO. But then everyone and your mom got worked up into a frenzy, including the government.

I don't see a change in this until people move more markedly away from Christianity in this country...or the Libertarians get into serious positions of authority. These should both occur around the 12th of Never, but you never know.

No other western nation is more religious than the US. Sycamore may not call this country very religious, but then basic knowledge was not one of his stronger characteristics. Numbers say otherwise. US has more church goers in both numbers and in percentages (60%) than any other western nation. The strongest growth of religion is in the developing world and in America - mostly due to evangelicalism. As usual, when it comes to basic facts, Sycamore again demonstrates his knowledge.

When I think of "very religious," I think of near-fanaticism. You do see that on some levels here, but it's not the norm from what I've seen. Hence why I would say the United States is a "relatively religious" nation.

Come on tw, let out that hurt, that anger, that frustration...I'm here for you, buddy.

Though we do have a share of religious fanatics, I was referring to the percentage of the population that was religious. I think it is mostly because of the Great Awakening religious revivals from a couple hundred years ago.

For the past sixty years the number percentage of American Protestants has been in decline, from 75% of the population to a bit less than 60%.

I forgot to mention in my previous post that the state of Virginia was planning to impose a tax on it's citizens to fund the state church. Jefferson and some of his friends stopped this and had them pass the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom instead.

In England I was forced to sing hymns and recite religious things that I did not believe in, in public school. And there was, for centuries past, an official state religion. But they had fewer churches, and possibly fewer churchgoers, because the country wasn't as wealthy as the US.

I think that the lack of a free market of ideas in the religous sector leads to a smaller number of church goers. In America there is a church for anyone who is interested in such things. We've got Unitarians, Quakers, Methodists, Presbeterians, Baptists, Catholics East and West, Orthodox Jews, Reformed Jews, Bahai, Hindu, Buddist, almost anything goes. Its like the schools in America, I'm already paying for my local school so why would I bother finding something better.

Jefferson saw the incompetence of the state supported church in Williamsburg. The worst debris of the Church of England got that backwater posting. He could see how the local church was corrupted by the free ride.

Tell me about the Republic of Ireland, where divorce was only recently legalized.

Or Italy, France, Spain, All of South & Central America, or pretty much every single western hemisphere nation on earth.

Cited are countries with a dominant religions, but not necessarily a highly religious population. Only developing countries really complete with America for actively religious people. Many may claim to be members of a religion, but don't actively participate except maybe during Christmas and Easter. More often the pews remain vacant.

When a country of 1st generation immigrants, then America was about 35% actively religious in 1850. This has risen to in excess of 60% in the 1950s. A Gallup poll in the early 1990s put that number at 70% for college educated and 67% for non-college graduates. Religion is sold in America as a commodity. TV evangulists even time their speeches to meet the TV commericial breaks. Religion is a business more in America then anywhere else in the world from Scientology, to Mormons, to Pentecostalists. Only Protestants have seen significant declines in America - especially Prysbeterians, Luthurans, and Methodists.
Which developing countries? Africa.

Cited were countries with a dominant religions, AND highly religious populations. All of which have more actively religious populations than the United States of America.

And the number of people who are actively religious in America is irrelevant to the discussion. America isn't a Christian nation, wasn't built on Christian (or any other religion) principles, etc. The U.S. government was built to be completely and totally free of all religions and to keep government out of all religions.

America is a secular nation. The number of people who are religious doesn't change that fact. If every single citizen of the United States were of the same religion (let's say catholic for the sake of argument) and all of them were actively and frequently participating in church, it still wouldn't make America a Catholic nation.

From New York Times 24 Jan 2003:

That's right, NYT - it's not about the security of the world, the billions upon billions of dollars in European oil contracts, the Arab minorities that the governments have to pander to, the slowly decaying UN and its inability to tie it's own shoes, the end of NATO, etc.

It's alllll about the personal style of the President.

Sigh.

And y'know what? I'm half-tempted to take the NYT's attempt at a point. So you say the froggies are a little embarrassed to be around Bush -- his swagger is a little alarming, he refuses to take off his cowboy hat indoors, and they don't like his pronunciation of "nukular" and the fact that he ends every phone call with "God Bless".

If they are truly saying that THIS is what has kept them from supporting the US position all along... then FUCK THEM.

Of course, many of them vote, and are encouraged to vote using religious beliefs (and associated stances on moral issues) as a litmus test, which helps get politicians into office who will heavily push narrowly-interpreted Christian viewpoints as the potential or actual law of the land.

Too many people use religion as a primary motivator at the ballot box. Too FEW people are insufficiently afraid of or ignorant of the implications of this to come out regularly and vote in opposition.

And when was the last time that a non-believer came within lightyears of a Democratic or Republican Presidential nomination?

<a href="http://archive.salon.com/comics/tomo/1999/07/03/tomo/index.html">One of my favorite commentaries on this phenomenon.</a>

Its media. There is a posture, an image, and it is part of the game. Just like the latest recruiting ads that cast young warriors as knights of the roundtable.

I'm thinking that the lone cowboy leader might play pretty well in shame cultures- taking on a flamboyant tribal warlord. Just like the movies.

Sigh.

American media or European media?

yes.

I mean, its global. Arab media too. It seems part of the weaponry.

vsp: I like THIS ONE myself.

So far, whether intentionally or not, they're playing a perfect "good cop" to the US's "bad cop".

As for Bush's style, what do you expect? Americans have long preferred leaders who appeared to lack sophistication -- Andrew Jackson, Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan, to pick three obvious examples. The Europeans should be used to it by now.

Besides, what this war is really over is something they understand quite well... Saddam takes a shot at Bush's daddy, Bush wants to take out Saddam (and boost domestic popularity at the same time, of course)

It's not about sophisticaton. George Jr is the mental midget among world leaders. Instead he preaches what secular nations and intelligent people don't need to hear. He preaches religion like a back woods preacher complete with finger pointing and lessons in morality. Religion does not belong in government or international diplomacy. However that is not George Jr's way. George Jr has god on his side and must therefore teach those other secular nations. There are even Americans so naive as to think George Jr's actions are acceptable or that Saddam is a threat to America.

George Jr has a history of lying. He is a religious activist masking as a tolerant politician. George Jr's administration even provides money and support to religious groups at the expense of secular organizations and honest people. George Jr is so two faced as to even remain quiet when virtually every Catholic diocese in America stands accused of protecting child molestors.

George Jr is so naive as to preach religious doctrine to secular world leaders. Just another in a long list of reasons why George Jr has undermined relations with virtually every nations in the world. No UT. NY Times only adds another reason why George Jr has undermined relations with virtually every nation. This president is so incompetant as to even use religious doctrine to preach morality to a secular world.

US relations with all countries - even Canada, France, and Germany - have not been this low since WWII because George Jr is a poor leader. Even Johnson and Nixon could not so destroy international relations. George Jr is even so silly as to resort to religion to justify a war against Iraq - because he has no honest, secular reason to justify hate of Saddam. But then what should we expect from a mental midget president who sees a world in terms of religion rather than the reality of secularism. It is not that he is unsophisticated. He is so ill informed as to even claim that Saddam is a threat to the US - which any informed American knows is utter nonsense.

Here Here! Well said tw!

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;One thing though, Bush has been known to purchase a company, that's been making a profit for years, run it into the ground, and make a huge profit selling it off piecemeal. Now that might be good business, but as alot of good people lose their livelihoods and pensions it's not a christian act. So, you might ask yourself if you really think he's as hardcore a christion as is being assumed here.