Don’t insult leopards. They are beautiful animals, not at all like ugly trolls.

Check out the new web site: http://www.ditchmitchky.com

Comment by dixie blood

I dont know about that…

But the zionist republicans sure act like it.

Comment by Jake

The only problem with that?

The man that said it has totally discredited himself and turned himself into a laughing stock for the worlds comedians for generations to come. Future Americans will have easy access to this presidency because of the Internets birth around this time… Impeach Bush will be a logo well known among all. Bush Lied Thousands Died will also. Chimp and Fool me once… shame on me… Fool me twice…shame…

Loss of confidence makes the strength of your words dissipate.

Comment by Nat — March 27, 2007 @ 6:23 pm

But would a signing statement go to the Supreme Court? Who is the injured party? What is the proposed remedy? Would this be a political question and thus not justiciable? In other words, would the only remedy be impeachment? If so, do not the Republicans in the Senate guarantee an Imperial President?

The Republican Party can guarantee that Bush will remain in office, no matter what. They have done so for the past 6 years. And as soon as they were in the minority they exercised their filibuster power against, that’s right, ethics reform.

The Republican Party can guarantee that Bush will have free reign to attack Iran.

The Republican Party can guarantee that Bush will be allowed to deregulate industry for the next two years and cause irreparable harm to the environment.

The Republican Party can guarantee that Corporate America will be well served for the next two years, then follow Halliburton out of the country.

Because the Republican Party can block any and all attempts to hold Bush & Co. accountable for their actions.

Look for new regulations regarding voting to be enacted just before the 2008 elections.

If you are willing to trade your life for the President’s, you could bring about the destruction of this fascist regime very fast . . .

I just reviewed every Senate vote from January — what “rule change” are you referring to?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/27/gonzales-runs-out-of-conf_n_44386.html

Ph*ck you AG!!!!

LIEberman (R-Israel), useless, really!!! CUA!!!!

President Bush Disappointed by Senate Vote on Iraq War Supplemental

White House News

The President is disappointed that the Senate continues down a path with a bill that he will veto and has no chance of becoming law. In the two weeks since the Senate defeated a similar proposal, General Petraeus reports encouraging signs are already emerging. The Senate, which unanimously confirmed the General for this mission, needs to support him by providing our troops the funding they need – not by mandating failure. As the President said, “Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070327-7.html

THE PRESIDENT: Today I’m joined here at the White House by veterans, family members of people serving in combat, family members of those who have sacrificed. I am honored that they have joined me here today.

Here in Washington, members of both parties recognize that our most solemn responsibility is to support our troops in the war on terror. Yet, today, a narrow majority in the House of Representatives abdicated its responsibility by passing a war spending bill that has no chance of becoming law, and brings us no closer to getting our troops the resources they need to do their job.

The purpose of the emergency war spending bill I requested was to provide our troops with vital funding. Instead, Democrats in the House, in an act of political theater, voted to substitute their judgment for that of our military commanders on the ground in Iraq. They set rigid restrictions that will require an army of lawyers to interpret. They set an arbitrary date for withdrawal without regard for conditions on the ground. And they tacked on billions for pet projects that have nothing to do with winning the war on terror. This bill has too much pork, too many conditions and an artificial timetable for withdrawal.

As I have made clear for weeks, I will veto it if it comes to my desk. And because the vote in the House was so close, it is clear that my veto would be sustained. Today’s action in the House does only one thing: it delays the delivering of vital resources for our troops. A narrow majority has decided to take this course, just as General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out a new strategy to help the Iraqis secure their capital city.

Amid the real challenges in Iraq, we’re beginning to see some signs of progress. Yet, to score political points, the Democratic majority in the House has shown it is willing to undermine the gains our troops are making on the ground.

Democrats want to make clear that they oppose the war in Iraq. They have made their point. For some, that is not enough. These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops, the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders, an artificial timetable for withdrawal, and their pet spending projects. This is not going to happen. Our men and women in uniform need these emergency war funds. The Secretary of Defense has warned that if Congress does not approve the emergency funding for our troops by April the 15th, our men and women in uniform will face significant disruptions, and so would their families.

The Democrats have sent their message, now it’s time to send their money. This is an important moment — a decision for the new leaders in Congress. Our men in women in uniform should not have to worry that politicians in Washington will deny them the funds and the flexibility they need to win. Congress needs to send me a clean bill that I can sign without delay. I expect Congress to do its duty and to fund our troops, and so do the American people — and so do the good men and women standing with me here today.