Apparently YOU do, because you stated in post #33: "should Bush fail or refuse to be the executive, impeach him." Remember?
Rather a sloppy stab at tossing my words back at me.
Congress, unfortunately, did not mandate the increased manning nor did they either provide funding or mandate the funding. When by way of a supplemental funding authorization they had the chance to fund the whole enchilada for the year, they chose to fund only 650 new hires, not the 2000 they said they wanted.
Additionally, the original bill authorizing the increase spread it out over five years. He'll be out of office by then.
For me to get to the "should Bush fail or refuse to be the executive, impeach him" stage, the above would have to be a mandate. Not easy for one co-equal branch to impose on another.
I agree.
I may come to agree. But, not yet.
Not exactly. See post #162 and the link thereat---it's more like a third that number. Inadequate by any definition---but GW is clearly dragging his feet on even the little extra border enforcement Congress has funded.
Still, it's good to see that we agree in principle---GW is subject to impeachment should he "fail or refuse to be the executive." That's the whole issue here.