How sad is this? The Bush haters were right and you were wrong. They predicted Bush would shit on the Constitution and they were right. They predicted he’d screw up the economy and they were right. They predicted he would lose the war on terrorism and they were right. They predicted he was lying about Iraq and would screw up the occupation and they were right. They predicted he would never fix New Orleans and they were right. And this is all you have left - you’ve set the bar so low that all you can say is that Bush probably won’t start a nuclear war.
I don’t get the sense that these people want to see millions of dead babies. I get the sense they’re looking at a failed presidency and are calling it a failed presidency. The only people who are panicking about their irrelevancy are the people who are now finally realizing that they were the ones who have been blindly following a fool.
He just needs to get the SecDef to agree as mentioned; or fire him and his successors until he finds someone that does agree. Not “by fiat”, but fairly close. Congress doesn’t get a vote, much less the general population. And his entire governing philosophy is based on the idea that the President can do whatever he likes, without recourse by anyone else.
You don’t really think that Congress could stop him, do you ? I doubt they’d even try to impeach him afterwards.
Cite that a US President only needs the SecDef to agree to launch nuclear weapons unilaterally not in a time of war? And if the SecDef DID disagree, that would pretty much halt any theoretical (if not so say ridiculously unlikely) such unilateral launch…even if Bush DID fire him, it is unlikely in the extreme Bush would simply be able to fire him and get his successor to do it days/weeks/months later.
There are distinct protocols that a US President needs to go through to launch nuclear weapons…and this isn’t even talking about some crazy unilateral strike.
As always, my question to you when this loopy BS comes up is…if Bush COULD do this, why the hell HASN’T he? If a US President could simply order a first strike unilaterally against a target we weren’t even nominally at war with why has no US with simply a nod from the SecDef, then why has no US President (note: Including GW Bush) DONE IT?? And your answer to that is (to make an educated guess): He simply hasn’t done it YET (and no other president was as evil as Bush, blah blah blah)…correct?
Why yes in fact…I DO think the Congress would stop him, after the SecDef and the others on the list told him to go pound sand for ordering an insane first strike at North Korea (or anyone else). I figure he would be relieved of the Presidency almost immediately (grounds being he’s totally nuts), the VP would take over and he would be impeached…and probably locked in a rubber room.
Of course, I live in the real world so, as always, YMMV…
Point of clarification: the two Koreas are still at war, and AFAIK, the UN mandate under which the US entered the Koreas is still valid. At any rate, the border is still manned by Americans and both sides take a handful of casualties every year. But your point is absolutely correct. In fact, the precedent of nuclear non-aggression is extremely well-founded; IIRC, the Bush administration shot down its own small-nukes proposal. It’s pretty clear at this point that the Bush administration, not to mention the entire United States, is not going to use nukes anytime soon.
When the Serbs drove Albanian Kosovars out of their homes, Bill Clinton promised them, “You will go home, safe and free,” and, using military force, kept his promise. I applaud that decision. But that was a matter of genocide/ethnic cleansing. Nothing less serious, IMO, presents a prima facie case for intervention in the affairs of a foreign country that is not directly threatening its neighbors; and nothing like that is present in NK, and any threat to SK is adequately contained. And what exactly do you mean by “respond,” anyway? What could the U.S. do WRT NK that could make things any better for the people there, and without killing a whole lot of them?
Not only have I not argued it, I do not understand the phrase.
Although this thread’s topic is pretty much worthless, I’m curious here. I think we can dispense with the “ZOMG Bush is teh uber evil!” crowd whose religious faith in the Platonic Evil of George Bush makes them think that this is a scenario that is even possible.
What is interesting, to me at least, is that people have been tossing around the word “impeachment” as if it meant “vote of no confidence.” As far as I’m aware, the relevant text states only:
Now, can someone who claims that impeachment would result please clarify how even launching an unprovoked nuclear first strike would be treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors under American law?
Keeping in mind that treason means:
I’m serious here. Is there something I’m missing? Is the argument that, for instance, a conviction in the Hague of a violation of international law would qualify under “high crimes”? Wouldn’t we then, still, have to wait for such a verdict to be returned before there would be grounds for impeachment?
FWIW, here is my take on your more interesting than the OP question:
‘High crimes ans misdemeanors’ means whatever Congress SAYS it means. In my own scenario Bush, mad with power and twirling his evil mustache, orders a nuclear strike on North Korea to quote “Just because I can…MUAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!” He is pretty much relieved from the Presidency on the spot (going from memory there ARE legal ways to remove a sitting Presidency if he is determined to be completely unbalanced…which, ordering said nuclear strike would pretty clearly show he is). After the public furor over the events, Congress impeaches Bush as a matter of course for various political reasons ranging from showing the world our resolve and outrage at this happening to simple public relations.
Well, again, my take is you are missing that the whole High Crimes blah blah blah means whatever Congress THINKS it means. It doesn’t necessarily have to be even a crime in the US or in international law. At a guess, something that clearly WOULD be a crime under international law would be enough to get the ball rolling. At a guess Bush would formally be stripped of the presidency at that time and probably retired to a room somewhere he couldn’t hurt himself (or anyone else)…
Interestingly enough, the same arguments could have been made as to why Bush couldn’t trump up some phony reasons to invade Iraq and actually carry through on it.
I sort of figured your OP was fishing for frothing conservative types.
Actually, even leaving that aside, this statement is pretty much bullshit anyway. Launching an invasion of a rogue nation with the tacit approval of the American people against a nation that was perceived as a threat and in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (key word: perceived) is a far cry from launching a nuclear strike against a nation at a time when said nation is pretty much off the US radar. There pretty much is no similarity at all…except in the minds of the faithful.
Bush could do one because there was a perfect storm of politics and the US publics focus. This, contrary to what some here (including you seemingly) believe doesn’t mean he can do anything he wants…and certainly doesn’t mean he could launch nuclear weapons on a whim. I don’t even think Bush has the political capital today to launch a raid on a whore house, let alone nuking NK.
:smack: :smack: :smack: Invaded on the basis of protection of human rights. Sorry, my fault.
Now then: how do you justify the distinction you make between genocide and other types of government murder? When the North Korean manages to kill more civilians than the Sudanese government, and both are more or less internal affairs, how is one more actionable and the other not?
I really don’t like Peter Singer. Please don’t make me start applying his ethics to human rights violations.
Not only have I not argued it, I do not understand the phrase.