The tyrant label is opinion, multi. I won't make any comments on the particulars (we've already discussed every issue you've mentioned here) but Sherwood Ross has his own idea about the definition of that word, and in his opinion Bush's status as tyrant qualifies him for impeachment. But we don't impeach presidents just because we don't like them, we do it when they've broken the law. Scandal has haunted every administration and it always will. The scandals only persist because every president has had critics, but few presidents have actually broken the law so the scandals matter very little. Bush's critics can say whatever they want about him, and for the sake of the first amendment they should, but unless somebody has proof that Bush has broken the law then the criticism is just opinion, nothing more.
Last edited by Mazer : 16-05-07 at 09:49 AM.
|