Um, are there any lawyers out there in the audience who can tell me whether or not incompetence could be interpreted as high crimes and misdemeanors?

Jesus Christ, where to start? Oh, I know. Here:

"QUESTION: Mr. President, officials have been quoted saying that the international force would not include U.S. troops. And I wonder if you can explain why that is. Is it because the military is already overtaxed? Is it because you're afraid that the U.S. doesn't have credibility in the region?

BUSH: No, I think, first of all, there's been a history in Lebanon with U.S. troops.

Secondly, I have said that if the international force would like some help with logistics and command and control, we'd be willing to offer logistics and command and control.

You know, there's some places where - it's like Darfur. People say to me, Well, why don't you commit U.S. troops to Darfur as part of an international peacekeeping?

And the answer there is that those troops would be - would create a sensation around the world that may not enable us to achieve our objective.

And so when we commit troops, we commit troops for a specific reason with the intent of achieving an objective. And I think command and control and logistical support is probably the best - is the best use of U.S. forces."

This article talks about our "history in Lebanon." It is not pretty. I've never been a fan of Reagan, which comes as no surprise. But old Ron's a philosopher king compared to this buffoon and the tool he shared the podium with today. Should Condi know better? I'm not so sure.

And the Darfur comment...talk about false dichotomies. And, duh Mr. "President," you have already achieved the sensation around the world that may not enable us to achieve our objective by rushing into Iraq without a strategy to deal with a long term guerrilla war. This is why Iran...oops, I mean...Hezbollah, is moving now, you fucking dumbass.