Quote Originally Posted by delusionsofNORMALity

#1 and #2 are a matter of opinion and those that believe them to be true are in the extreme minority. though the constitution may have been stretched to its limits, its laws have not been broken. as the duly elected representative (not just once, but twice), bush has every right to declare war and his acts have in no way undermined the sovereignty of the nation. as for #3, it is totally beside the point. it is outside of the legal definition of treason and is more of a moral judgment than a legal one. baby bush may be an inept bumbling idiot and an anachronistic fool blindly following his own outdated ideologies and dogma, but accusing him of the crime of treason is nothing more than an over zealous attempt to vent your frustration with and an administration whose actions you vehemently oppose.
Bush took an oath to protect and defend the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

In the simplest terms, he has breached his oath of office by allowing our country to be invaded by Mexico. Does this rise to treason? I suppose it would take a lawyer to answer that. Is it treacherous? I think it is quite clear that it is.

PC :smokin: