Does the Constitution allow for a President to be removed by reason if insanity?
'Cause this guy is certifiable. In a piece by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, officials inside and outside the administration have confirmed that there have been discussions about using tactical nuclear weapons in air strikes on Iran.
I have just one question for the Bush administration: ARE YOU PEOPLE COMPLETELY INSANE??!!! Does this administration honestly believe that they can solve the problem of Iranian nuclear ambitions BY USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Do these people have any idea of what will likely happen if we use nukes in Iran?
First off, our already pathetic image in the rest of the world will hit an all-time low (sort of like the President's poll numbers). Secondly, Iran will retaliate by cutting Hezbollah loose on U.S. interests around the world, including attacks on U.S. soil. Third, Iran will no doubt seek to cause the price of oil to skyrocket to make the U.S. pay for military action against them. And finally, China, who relies on Iran for a good portion of its oil, will likely feel compelled to retaliate against the U.S. as well. If THAT happens, game over.
That's right folks, this administration is willing to risk global war because the Iranians aren't going to fall in line and do what we tell them to do. Dubya is so used to getting what he wants, he's willing to subject the whole world to his temper tantrum. Former first lady Barbara Bush should be smacked for raising such a spoiled brat.
5 Comments:
Well, honestly, a nuclear Iran is a scary prospect. But unilateral military action on the part of the U.S. is NOT the answer.
What happens when you corner a wild animal? They defend themselves. That's exactly what Iran will do if we attack them.
My word...do you not think that Iran is perhaps an "immiment threat"?
BTW, what is an "immiment threat," anyway?
Isn't Iran an IMMINENT THREAT?
By that, I bet you would blame Bush if Iran gets a nuke, just like you blame him for North Korea getting one in the 1990s.
There's enough to blame Bush for, I don't need to blame him for things he had not part in.
Aren't 2500+ negligent homicides enough?
BTW, thanks for the spell check. Too bad spelling mistakes aren't enough to hide the truth of a criminal regime like Bushco.
Nice try sparky.
I'm thinking more of "Malfeasance in Office." Bush's antics seem to fit all of the outlines for that charge.
What did I miss? What does "...2,500 negligent homicides..." refer to?
MarchDancer,
I'm referring to the number of coalition casualties during the illegal Iraq war.
I consider any deaths incurred as a result of a war initiated under false pretenses to be negligent homicides.
Silly me, I have a sense of justice. Too bad the leaders of our country don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home