Do Nothing President Undistracted by Impeachment

Bush Plans to Do Nothing: We the People Don't Need Him

My a$$ it's going to be a "sad" couple of years. Waxman has been waging a lawful guerrilla war; nothing stopping We the People from doing the same.

Ref What kind of non-sense is this -- Bush fading away, Congress acting like it has to solve all the problems. The problem is the President. Let's lawfully remove the self-evident buffoon from office and find a leader who is serious about leadership, not coasting.

* * *

What a lazy attitude Americans have: "Wow, I guess we'll just have to put up with this." What a load of nonsense. There are lawful options, and We the People don't have to put up with anything. Time for Congress to make the case: "Despite this criminal activity, we want We the People to put up with what could be solved with effective leadership." That in itself is evidence of Congressional incompetence.

There's no basis for anyone to suggest the United States or the President will be distracted by an impeachment. He doesn't plan to do anything in the last to years in office.

We the People should remind him in November 2006: He's still in charge. If he doesn’t want to govern, then he doesn't need to be in office; if he isn't doing anything, he cannot argue that impeachment will be a distraction.

* * *

(1) Excuses Against Impeachment Frivolous

Some have suggested the President isn't going to do anything for two years. Well, what better reason to lawfully get rid of the President, and find a new President who will do something.

Some have suggested that the President cannot be removed from office. Why have a President who's connected with criminal activity? We the People don't have to "wait for Congress" to get around to reviewing these issues.

(2) We the People Have Business To Do

The goal for We the People is to create a system of governance that will prevent this abuse of power, and Congressional malfeasance from recurring. The solution isn't to "wait around" until he voluntarily leaves, but expedite his removal so that We the People can focus on solutions.

Indeed, despite the known problems with reckless US government inaction and criminal activity, the 2008 Presidential candidates have argued for cursory reviews, non-review of impeachable offenses, but absurdly want We the People to believe they're fit for the White House.

Hold on. They're in power now, but refuse to use their power; giving them more power isn't the solution, especially when they haven't taken the time to examine what went wrong; or what solution is needed.

* * *

If Bush isn't going to do anything, why not remove him from office and install a President who is going to review the problems the President, as executive created; and work with Congress to resolve these issues.

This is non-sense to say, "Well, we'll have to sit around for two years waiting for him to leave." Force him out now, and let's get on and solve this disaster he's created.

Bush isn't part of the solution; he's doing nothing, remove him from office. Failing to get rid of him is the same as Congress saying, “We know there is a mess, but we aren’t going to start cleaning it up until...” What’s the next excuse? If Bush is getting the way, then let’s lawfully get him out of the way, and get to work now, in November 2006.

* * *

We the People do not pay government officials to enjoy vacation benefits while refusing to lead, take charge, solve problems, or take responsibility for their misconduct.

This Congress, despite the illegal activity, seems fit -- in November 2006 -- to pretend that "some arbitrary timeline" is going to give everyone a free pass.

No way. It's till November, the GOP is in charge, and they have to govern. Every time we turn around someone in government is pointing to a new excuse to do nothing:

- "Wait until we take charge"

- "Wait until Bush leaves"

- "Wait until the Presidential election"

No. The US government has a reasonability right now to do its job. A planned Presidential "two years of doing nothing" isn't a solution. The way forward is to compel the President in November 2006 to outline his plans; if he has no plans, then it's the job of Congress in November 2006 to accept what we have: Someone who is "in charge" but plans to make everyone solve the problem.

We don’t need him. He’s not critical. He has no solutions, other than making smokescreens. Time for Pelosi to stop trying to fill the President’s shoes, and for the House to openly debate whether the President should be given his political-cement-shoes, and sent into the political river: “Good bye, don’t come back, see you at the war crimes tribunal.”

* * *

Bush doesn’t have two years to "sit around," neither does Congress. They're in charge in November 2006, and their job is to do their job, not "wait until. . ."

They've got power. Their job is to use it. Excuses that "Bush isn't going to cooperate" is a circular argument mandating he be removed from office: He's got the power, and isn't willing to cooperate with what's needed to protect the Constitution, much less defend it, or cooperate with the reforms needed to prevent this from happening again.

Consider

__ How can the President or anyone in the GOP argue that an impeachment is going to be "disruptive"; yet the planned agenda of that President is to do nothing?

If the President plans to do nothing but "coast" and "slide through," the next two years, he and the GOP cannot credibly argue that an impeachment hearing would be disruptive. Rather, it's the threat of an impeachment and removal that should inspire him to take an active role in affairs, not, after having committed violations of the law, expect people to assent to his criminal conduct, and then believe the non-sense that he's too busy. Too busy to govern? Then he doesn't need to govern. Find someone else.

___ If someone is suggesting the President is going to "slide" and "sit around" for the next two years, ask what universe are those people in?

Not in the land of common sense. The argument is flawed. It's impossible for anyone in the DNC to credibly argue, or embrace the GOP argument, that impeachment is bad. The President has implicitly argued, despite his illegal activity, he's not going to do anything. Then we don't need him. Find a new leader who will do their job, not wage illegal war, but then pretend he's on vacation at Taxpayer expense.

___ How does any President or party, despite an oath that calls for action and leadership, explain that nothing is going to be done?

It's November 2006, and the GOP is still in charge. The Members of Congress who know the President plans to do nothing are arguing against themselves. The GOP has had power to do things, but refused to act; and they knew the President plans to do nothing, but absurdly argue that the President cannot be interrupted. This is non-sense GOP gobblygoop, and in itself should be the basis for a removal.