If my previous post about resigning US Cabinet members was not intended as a
humorous anecdote but a serious work of debate, I would probably take some
time to refute what Nazrix said about it. If I did, it would go something like
this:

Appointment issues aside, Congress is endowed with the ability to have a vote
of "no confidence" in any Cabinet member. The Democratic minority in the
Senate and the House had both pushed for such a vote in September, but it was
killed by the Republican majority (which is on its way out).
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California), the minority leader at the time,
had long been calling for Rumsfeld's investigation or removal, such as an
openletter calling for his resignation May 6, 2004. If Rumsfeld had still been
in office when Pelosi becomes the Majority leader, it would have been quite
likely that the vote would have gone forward, backed by a stroner Deocratic
force plus help from like-minded Republicans such as John McCain (current
polls put McCain higher than any other Republican in the "who should be the
next president?" category).
While a vote of "no confidence" does not, in and of itself, legally require a
termination:
-- this is politics, and a lot of politics is P.R. Should a vote of "no
confidence" pass, and Bush refuse to act on it, he and his few remaining
allies would lose even more public support, including international support
(which he desperately needs).
-- If such a vote were passed, and the President refused to act on it,
Congress could deliberately vote down anything sent to or even suggested to
them out of sheer spite. They could, for example, block his budget, including
his military budget, effectively mandating an immediate withdraw from Iraq.
-- if all else failed, Congress could impeach the President for a variety of
related reasons, including (but not limited to) entering Iraq with Congress'
supposed approval, when the bill called for military action as a last resort,
or for the warrantless wiretapping fiasco, or for the shoddy and/or fabricated
evidence of WMD presented to them, or...etc. After all, Clinton was
(unsuccessfully) impeached for lying to a somewhat vindictive Republican
majority. It would not be terribly difficult for a Democratic majority to try
the same here, given how many times Bush has lied to them. Hell, they could
even have Bush, Cheney, and/or Rumsfeld arrested for treason. I don't think
any of these would have actually happened, but they do have the authority, and
could have done so in retaliation for being ignored or refuted for so long.

But it was not a serious work of debate. It was a bit of sarcasm that appears
to have missed some people. I think the phrase "kobold-like life form" might
have been a clue that my post was intended for levity, not as a demonstration
that I sletp through Political Science 101.

Shinarae Lluminus

I disagree with my esteemed archwizardly colleague.

Contrary to his statement that "[Bush] and his few remaining
allies would lose even more public support, including
international support (which he desperately needs)", I
would argue the following;

Given that the Democrats are in control (starting January 2007)
of the House and Senate, Bush's priority will not be on gaining
international support. Instead it will focus on a few major
points:

- Introduce a potential successor. Many administrations have
the benefit of selling stability to the voters by setting up
the vice-president as a presidential candidate. In this case,
Cheney will not run for office, which means that the Republicans
will be keen on introducing one, or a few, strong candidates
that earn a solid reputation by reaching out to the people and
international allies.

- Utilize the remaining 2 years to point out flaws in the
Democrat-controlled House and Senate, including the potential
lack of progress on key legislation. Should the national
security or military funding be cut, any incident (either global
or domestic) will be explained to be caused by the slash in
funds.

- The republican party will attempt to introduce popular
legislation that they know the Democrats will not pass. This
will work to divide the Democrats from casual voters.

- The repulican party will attempt to reconnect with their
powerbase by introducing "conservative values" and related
legislation. Even if such laws will not pass, the GOP can atleast
claim they tried.

At this stage, with the US army bogged down in Iraq, without much of
a viable exit strategy (and no nation willing to volunteer significantly
more troops), Bush doesn't have much use for international support. The
capability to wage war on additional fronts is very limited, and with
the Democrats in control of the senate/house, barring a palestinian
invasion of Israel or a direct attack on the US, it's unlikely to happen.

-- Gore