Senate Majority Leader Naive About Bush Escalation

Ref

* * *

US Government Ethics

Ethics means putting the Constitution first; not using debate as an excuse to avoid confrontations to the Constitution. Consider the following showing the Senate is not putting a priority on stopping the President.

But Reid predicted the resolution with gain Republican support and will "do more to change the way in Iraq that any other thing that we can do." Ref

The prospect the GOP might oppose the President is sufficient basis to impeach the President: Enough GOP Senators "might" break ranks to put the Constitution first.

___ What is the basis for the Republican support?

___ If the support from the GOP is there, why not focus the Ethics Debate on the President's illegal activity and remove the President?

___ What is getting in the way of the Senate giving the wink to Pelosi and saying, "Game-on for removal"?

* * *

Reid Wakeup Call: President Doesn't Take Note Of Anything Except Risk of Removal

"If there is a bipartisan resolution saying, 'we don't support the escalation of the war,' that the president's going to have to take note of that," Reid said. "I think that's the beginning of the end, as far as I'm concerned." Ref

Talking about being opposed to an escalation is meaningless unless the President is confronted in terms the President appreciates. The President does not appreciate Congressional legislation; he makes signing statements defying the Congress.

Even if the President were to agree in principle with Congress, he could issue a singing statement opposing the intent of Congress. Congress is not serious about removing from office, the President will continue issuing signing statements which are not Constitutional, but Congress accepts them without challenge.

Unless Congress removes the President, the President does not have to "take note" of anything. There's no reason to talk about "new issues" when the President's pattern of conduct -- which has not been challenged -- continues. Time to draw the line: No more discussion of new issues; we need to hold the line now: "Stop doing this, or you're removed."

___ Why should We the People have confidence in a "bipartisan resolutions" about what the Congress may or may not support, unless that resolution is linked with a credible threat to remove the President if he does what the Congress opposes and finds illegal?

___ Why should anyone believe that a non-binding resolution, especially directed at this President, will amount to anything this President will, unlike other situations, be given any concern?

* * *

Debate: Congressional Ethics of Removing An Incompetent President

It’s absurd to talk about new resolutions when the President has defied the Congress on fundamental issues. The Senate can debate all day long about whether the nonbinding resolution is or isn’t worded correctly. The issue is to refocus the attention of the Senate on the President’s conduct and defiance of Congress. Iraq is not the problem, but the symptom of the problem: The President’s incompetence and unfitness for office. This smacks of putting the cart before the horse.

Reid said the resolution will be introduced next week but the full debate won't begin until at least the following week because the Senate will be debating an ethics reform bill. Ref

___ Why waste time debating Congressional ethics, when the Presidential ethics -- defiance of the law -- is not given the number one priority?

___ Putting Congressional ethics aside -- If this general issue of ethics is important, why not start the debate now: The Ethics of removing the President from office for planning to ignore Congress?

___ If this issue is what it appears -- the President's plan to defy a Congress controlled by the DNC -- what is the plan, if any, of the DNC to remind the President he is going to face a credible threat of a removal from office?

* * *

There Are Lawful Alternatives To This Incompetent President Who Should Be Lawfully Removed From Office

It's one thing to talk about what the President may or may not do in response to a non-binding resolution; quite another to have a plan when the President still does what he's been doing: Issuing signing statements that puts himself above the law.

A credible threat of Presidential removal is not a crisis, but a credible assertion of power agaisnt the President. The way forward is to focus on the ISG plan -- the options which this President defies, while he openly embraces solutions which are not workable.