June 12th, 2008
03:00 PM ET

Why won’t Congress consider impeaching Pres. Bush?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The House of Representatives has voted to send an impeachment resolution against President Bush to committee – where it's likely to die.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced the 35 articles of impeachment this week. Most of the resolution focuses on the Iraq war but also charges the president with illegally detaining both U.S. citizens and foreign captives, condoning torture and mishandling the response to Hurricane Katrina.

But Congress doesn't want to hear it. They voted largely along party lines – 255 to 166 – to send the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. This is exactly what happened to Kucinich's impeachment articles against Vice President Cheney last year. Congress sent that resolution to this same committee in November. So far, no action has been taken. Congress continues to refuse to exercise its constitutional responsibility of oversight of the executive branch of government.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi long ago made it known that impeachment is "off the table." This is a joke. We have a president who has abused the power of his office over and over again. It's what got the Democrats elected to the majority in Congress in 2006. Now it's election time again, and every member of the House is up for re-election in November. The Democrats are probably worried what it will look like to many voters if they spend time on impeachment.

Which is why Republicans voted yesterday to bring Kucinich's resolution up for debate immediately – to make the Democrats look silly for focusing on this instead of gas prices, the economy, etc.

Here’s my question to you:What does it mean when Congress refuses to even consider 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Congress • President George Bush
June 11th, 2008
05:03 PM ET

Was Bush misunderstood on Iraq?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/11/art.bush.af.gi.jpg caption=" President Bush says he regrets some of his rhetoric in lead-up to Iraq war."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Bush told the British newspaper The Times he regrets using phrases like "bring them on" and "wanted dead or alive" after 9/11. He says it made him seem anxious for war in the eyes of the world. The president says that in retrospect, he could have used a different tone from the cowboy rhetoric that sent the message that he wasn't a man of peace. Now he figures that out.

Mr. Bush talked about how painful it is for him to put youngsters in harm's way, but he said he doesn't regret invading Iraq. He insisted at a press conference today that removing Saddam Hussein was the right decision and made the world a safer place.

President Bush also said that Republican John McCain will have to distance himself from him. He called McCain an independent person who will make his own decisions. There does seem to be one avoidable similarity between the two, however. They both manage to put their feet in their mouths with some regularity.

This morning on NBC's "Today" show, McCain was asked, since the surge appears to be working, if he had a better estimate of when our troops might come home from Iraq. His answer: "No, but that's not too important." He went on to say casualties are more important, that there are Americans stationed all over the world but not in harm's way. My guess is it's very important to the families of the troops who are in Iraq.

Here’s my question to you: Do you think President Bush was misunderstood when it comes to the Iraq war?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: President George Bush • War in Iraq
June 10th, 2008
05:02 PM ET

Should Bush worry about McClellan testimony?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/06/10/art.mcclellan.press.gi.jpg caption=]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Bush probably isn't looking forward to next Friday – that's when former White House Spokesman Scott McClellan is set to testify before Congress.

McClellan will appear before the House Judiciary Committee, publicly and under oath, concerning the White House's role in leaking the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003.

In his new book, McClellan writes that he was misled by administration officials, possibly including Vice President Dick Cheney, about the role of Scooter Libby in the leak. McClellan has said that both the president and vice president "directed me to go out there and exonerate" Libby. The Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Henry Waxman, is also trying to get his hands on more FBI documents about the leak.

Meanwhile, here's something else President Bush may want to keep his eye on: Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against the president last night. Kucinich believes Mr. Bush deceived the country and violated his oath of office by taking the U.S. into war in Iraq. He introduced a similar resolution last year calling for the impeachment of Cheney – that measure was killed.

With so little time left in Bush's term it's highly unlikely the Democratic Congress will do anything with this new resolution either. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made it clear that impeachment is "off the table." I still wonder who authorized Nancy Pelosi to make that determination. Something else we'll probably never know.

Here’s my question to you: How concerned should the Bush administration be about Scott McClellan’s upcoming testimony before Congress?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


May 27th, 2008
04:58 PM ET

Pres. Bush an asset or liability to McCain?


Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

John McCain has a dilemma of presidential proportions, and that is: how exactly should he use President Bush on the campaign trail?

The president, whose popularity ratings are at record lows, will appear on behalf of McCain this week for the first time since formally endorsing him almost three months ago. Mr. Bush will attend 3 fundraisers over the next 2 days.

The fundraisers will all be in private homes and there will be no press allowed. McCain is expected to join the president tonight in Phoenix. The event was originally scheduled to be held in the Phoenix Convention Center. The Phoenix Business Journal reported that poor ticket sales and fear of anti-war protesters prompted the switch to a much smaller private home.

It's clear that McCain is walking a fine line using President Bush to raise money without alienating too many Democrats and Independents. For example, the only on-camera appearance of President Bush and Senator McCain together is set to happen at the Phoenix airport sometime after 9 o'clock tonight – long after the network newscasts.

McCain has gone out of his way in recent weeks to separate himself from President Bush on Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration's arrogant foreign policy, and President Bush's out-of-control spending. But on other issues – like tax cuts, health care, and the war in Iraq – the two men are joined at the hip.

Here’s my question to you: Will President Bush be a bigger asset or liability to John McCain’s campaign?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


May 12th, 2008
05:12 PM ET

Will Pres. Bush or Rev. Wright cause more damage?

George W. Bush may do as much damage to John McCain's chances of being elected as Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama's, according to results of a recent USA Today/Gallup poll. Click the Play Button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say.(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Turns out President Bush might do more damage to John McCain's campaign than the Reverend Jeremiah Wright does to Barack Obama's.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll finds 38% of likely voters say McCain's ties to the president make them less likely to vote for the presumptive nominee in November. 33% says Obama's relationship with Wright has the same effect.

However, there is more of an upside when it comes to the relationship with President Bush, with 7% of those surveyed saying they're more likely to vote for McCain because of his association with Mr. Bush. That's compared to only 1% who say they're more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright.

The pollsters say it's also important to look at how these personal associations affect the candidates among their bases. If you do that, it looks like Wright may do more harm to Obama. That's because 19% of Democrats say they're less likely to vote for Obama because of his ties to Wright, while just 10% of Republicans say they're less likely to vote for McCain because of his ties to President Bush.

However, among the general electorate, the two appear to do the same amount of damage. In particular, President Bush may hurt McCain's ability to attract Democrats and independents.

Here’s my question to you: Which is more damaging to the campaigns: President Bush's relationship with John McCain or Reverend Wright's association with Barack Obama?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


May 1st, 2008
05:54 PM ET

Can our mission in Iraq be accomplished?

President George W. Bush addressing the nation aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln May 1, 2003. (PHOTO CREIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Mission Accomplished... so read the banner prominently displayed behind President Bush on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln five years ago today.

Bush appeared in a flight suit before a cheering crowd and announced "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." I wonder if he would like to tell that to the families of the more than 50 U.S. troops who died in Iraq during the month of April, the deadliest in seven months. And this month’s first fatality has already been recorded.

The war is now in its sixth year. We have lost 4,064 troops, many of them killed long after the president announced that major combat operations were over.

Only the Vietnam War, the war in Afghanistan, and the Revolutionary War have lasted longer than the war in Iraq.

Tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed and millions have been displaced. The Iraqi army which was supposed to be able to stand on its own by 2006, is pretty much worthless. During one recent battle more than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers simply ran away leaving the fighting to their countrymen and the Americans.

Today U.S. and Iraqi troops are engaged in fierce fighting against Shiite militants in Baghdad's Sadr City, a battle that began in March. More than 900 civilians and militants have died since that fighting began.

The White House admits that it has "paid the price" for the "Mission Accomplished" banner. But not nearly as high a price as the men and women of our armed forces.

Here’s my question to you: What will it take to accomplish the U.S. mission in Iraq?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: President George Bush • War in Iraq
March 6th, 2008
04:57 PM ET

Will Bush endorsement help or hurt McCain?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/03/06/art.mccain.whitehouse.ap.jpg caption=]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

If you're John McCain, the good news is that you have been endorsed by the President of the United States, George Bush. That may also be the bad news.

Once bitter enemies, the two men staged a virtual love-in at the White House yesterday while Bush sang McCain's praises and promised to do anything he could to help him – whether that means showing up or staying out of the picture. Mr. Bush insists that the election will be a referendum on McCain, not on him.

Really? Not everyone may feel that way. Bush is an unpopular president who is tied, much like McCain, to an unpopular war and is presiding over an economy that, according to billionaire investor Warren Buffet, has already slipped into recession.

So just how closely does McCain want to be identified with President Bush? Some Democrats are already calling McCain "McSame" and referring to him as "George Bush-Light." McCain's campaign suggests they'll use President Bush for fund-raising and at events in heavily Republican parts of the country, but it doesn't sound like there will be many joint appearances.

The campaign insists this has nothing to do with the president's low approval ratings, but rather because the candidate needs to "stand in the sun" on his own. More straight talk from the McCain camp.

The Democrats are positively giddy about being able to tie McCain to the president. The DNC has posted a video clip of Mr. Bush's endorsement on its web site, saying that McCain has "worked hard over the last 8 years to throw away his maverick image and morph into the ultimate Bush Republican." Ergo the nickname, "McSame."

When McCain was asked if the endorsement might hurt him among independent voters, he answered that he's on the same page as the president when it comes to the party's principles along with their shared conservative philosophy. Which was not an answer to the question. Even more straight talk.

Here’s my question to you: What will President Bush’s endorsement mean for John McCain?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


February 18th, 2008
03:52 PM ET

President Bush’s role in McCain’s campaign?


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

John McCain is facing a tricky decision when it comes to how much he should, or shouldn't, use President Bush in his campaign.

The New York Times reports that McCain's advisers will ask the White House to send the president out for major fund-raising, but they don't want him to appear too often by McCain's side. This has a lot to do with President Bush's terrible approval ratings which are hovering around 30.

The position is a difficult one for McCain. He needs to figure out how much he wants President Bush out there to try to get more support from conservatives while at the same time not alienating independents and moderate Democrats.

This probably means the president will make solo appearances before evangelicals, campaign where there are important House and Senate races, and attend big Republican fund-raising dinners.

However, in response to the Times story, McCain said he'd be honored to have the president's support and "to be anywhere with him under any circumstances."

Nevertheless, all this is not lost on the Democrats. They're already linking McCain to President Bush, calling it a "Bush-McCain" ticket that would be like giving President Bush a 3rd term.

One adviser suggests it would be a bad idea to keep Mr. Bush too far away from McCain since he's still popular with the base, saying that would be similar to what Al Gore did in 2000. Some Democrats say part of the reason Gore lost that election was because he distanced himself from President Bill Clinton, who remained popular among Democrats even though he was knee-deep in scandal.

Here’s my question to you: How much should John McCain use President Bush on the campaign trail?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


January 28th, 2008
05:52 PM ET

How can President Bush salvage his legacy?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/28/art.bush2.gi.jpg caption=" President Geroge Bush on Air Force One."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

All eyes will leave the campaign trail briefly tonight and turn to President Bush as he delivers his final State of the Union Address. With just 12 months left in office, this is typically the last time a lame duck president manages to get everybody's attention.

The speech is expected to be about half domestic and half foreign affairs - the big topics to be the economy and the war in Iraq. He'll talk about improved security in Iraq, and other international hotspots like Iran as well as his efforts to jump start the peace process in the Middle East.

When it comes to the economy, there's not much good news to report. A possible recession, the housing collapse and sub prime mortgage mess, a falling dollar, rising unemployment, inflation at a 17 year high, the stock market in pretty much of a nosedive since the first of the year. Not pretty.

The president will call on Congress to finish that economic stimulus package quickly. But that may not happen. Democrats in the Senate are now reportedly trying to add their own list of additional items to the bill despite warnings from the White House not to.

The White House insists this speech will be forward-looking, and not about his legacy. And perhaps that is a good thing. The president's approval ratings have been terrible for several years now. And there are dozens of unanswered questions about the legality of a lot of what he's done while in office, but no willingness on the part of Congress to do anything about it.

Here’s my question to you: With 12 months to go, how can President Bush salvage his legacy?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: President George Bush
newer posts »