Member of Congress Open to Mid-Course Corrections

Curious how Members of Congress see an opportunity to make a difference when it comes to changing course in Iraq; but they have a different view on whether changing the President will or will not make a difference.

___ Why does Congress have two opposing views on whether mid course corrections are, possible, correct, appropriate, required, or necessary?

Members of Congress have shown they are willing to adjust. Their duty is to explain why they do not believe an adjustment in leadership is not required; and why We should remain attached to a failed leader.

Given the correct Member of Congress interest in their oath of office, a failed policy can be changed in Iraq. A failed leadership can be similarly changed, adjusted, and modified.

* * *



Inconsistent Argument Against Impeachment

One argument against impeachment is that nothing good will happen, and the President, if removed, will be too far in his Presidency to make a difference.

This incorrectly suggests that a change, where needed, should not be made. This is absurd.

Consider the changes needed in Iraq. If we are to believe -- as some suggest -- that a change 'this late" is meaningless, why would a call by the Democrats or anyone mean anything?

For those who argue that change will mean nothing -- while they argue for a change in Iraq -- cannot explain their inconsistency:

___ Why is change in Iraq good, but Change in the White House bad?

___ If "any kind of change" will be meaningless over the White House, why is anyone arguing that "any kind of change in Iraq" will be meaningful?

* * *

To suggest change in the White House is bad of meaningless, while arguing the opposite for Iraq -- that change is meaningful and needed -- asks that we embrace a double standard.

Standard 1: Disasters will only generate support when the disaster is out of control;

Standard 2: Despite a disaster in the White House, there is no change possible.

* * *

Despite the assertions that Iraq is spiraling out of control, many view there being options on the table; yet, with the White House, the opposite view is taken -- that there are no options, or that nothing can be done.

___ How can this be?

___ How can "no options" exist for a clear problem that could be Constitutionally solved with impeachment and removal; but there are options discussed for an impossible situation that has defied solution?