Does John ‘100 Years’ McCain Agree With Bush’s Signing Statement On Iraq?
Does John ‘100 Years’ McCain Agree With Bush’s Signing Statement On Iraq?
Earlier this week, when President Bush signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, he issued a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law — including the barring of funds for permanent bases in Iraq — could be disregarded.
Democrats in Congress were quick to condemn Bush’s stealth measure. On the Senate floor, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) called it “the clearest signal yet that the Administration wants to hold” the “option” of permanent bases “in reserve.” Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said Congress expects Bush to “faithfully implement all of the provisions of the [act], not just the ones he happens to agree with.”
In a statement, Sen. Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Bush’s signing statement “outrageous” and constitutionally questionable:
It is outrageous for the President to suggest that Congress cannot bar the use of funds — something clearly within the power of Congress under our Constitution — for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq.
Conspicuously absent from the debate over Bush’s signing statement is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). In the past, McCain has spoken out aggressively against signing statements, saying they are “wrong” and that they “should not be done“:
“I would never issue a signing statement,” the Arizona senator said at a Rotary Club meeting in Nashua, adding that he “would only sign it or veto” any legislation that reached his desk as president.
Perhaps McCain is keeping silent because he shares Bush’s goal of an indefinite, long-term presence of American troops in Iraq. Last month, McCain said it would be “fine with” him “if we maintain a presence in” Iraq for “a hundred” years.
The question arises as to what’s more important to McCain: his anti-signing statement pledge or an indefinite presence in Iraq?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
signing statements mean nothing……they are nothing more than a comment……
Laws passed by both houses and signed are still laws.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 amsigning statements mean nothing……they are nothing more than a comment……
Laws passed by both houses and signed are still laws.
Comment by Fred — February 2, 2008 @ 10:38 am
And they’re completely worthless if the President decides he’s not going to enforce or obey them.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:39 ammost presdents who were men…signed laws understanding that they become laws of the nation the moment they signed them…..
only a childish mind would think that by adding a signing statement that he could change that simple fact.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 amenforcement is not the job of the executive branch toasterhead
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:41 am“enforcement is not the job of the executive branch toasterhead”
Comment by Fred
Since when?
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 amAnd they’re completely worthless if the President decides he’s not going to enforce or obey them.
Comment by toasterhead
if a pres decides to break the law then that is what he has decided to do. A signing statement does not change the fact that it would be illegal.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 amSince when?
Comment by barfly
if someone breaks the law, is it the executive branch that arrests and prosecutes?……I think its judicial
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 amI might be wrong, but the executive branch executes laws written by congress - I thought.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 amif someone breaks the law, is it the executive branch that arrests and prosecutes?……I think its judicial
Comment by Fred
The Justice department is in the executive branch.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 amSince when?
Comment by barfly
I mean even Gonzalas was in the DOJ
Justice is the court system, right?
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 amOnce agian King George of BUSHCO inc is going to get away scot free,He is supposed to uphold the Constitution not change it to his party`s liking.The man is as arrogant as he is ignorant.BUSHCO stands for cronyism,corruption and contradiction.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:47 amBiden should sue Bush over this. Tough words are meaningless these days.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:48 amJustice is run by an executive cabinet official.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 amif someone breaks the law, is it the executive branch that arrests and prosecutes?……I think its judicial
Comment by Fred — February 2, 2008 @ 10:45 am
The executive branch implements and enforces the laws passed by Congress, through the executive branch agencies. Hence, law enforcement.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:50 amGod SEES the EVIL acts of GENOCIDE that Bush has done.
God will NOT likely forget the SLAUGHTER of his CHILDREN.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:51 amIt’s apparent that McCain will do or say anything that he thinks is politically expedient to his campaign. He embraced the Bob Jones University fundy-whackos after being savaged by them in the last election.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:55 amMake that the ‘00 election.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:56 amtoasterhead…..I believe you are correct. Still doesn’t make a signing statement more than a comment added to a law……means nothing.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:57 amWhen it’s all said and done the joke will be on Bush. His “people” built him up to be this Super Executive, told him all the right things to do, and he will go down as not only the worst president in history, but the most manipulated. A Stooge.
Bush is too stupid to have all these thoughts organized in his mind. Signing statements and so on.
Bush is a stooge. And he really started flexing his stubborn power when it appeared, early on, that Cheney was the real President (which he is).
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:58 amWhen it’s all said and done the joke will be on Bush. His “people†built him up to be this Super Executive
Comment by Guido OBGYN Lover
The joke could be on all of the republicans……they thought they were in permanent power or they never would have done this.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:02 amPer Joe Biden: “It is outrageous for the President to suggest that Congress cannot bar the use of funds — something clearly within the power of Congress under our Constitution — for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq.”
Excuse me, but I thought Bush already built permanent bases in Iraq with the money Congress already gave him to use for whatever he likes.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:04 amtoasterhead…..I believe you are correct. Still doesn’t make a signing statement more than a comment added to a law……means nothing.
Comment by Fred — February 2, 2008 @ 10:57 am
But when that signing statement says “by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States … I hereby waive all provisions of section 1083 of the Act with respect to Iraq and any agency or instrumentality thereof,” it’s a heckuva lot more than just a comment. It is explicitly directing the State Department to disobey the law passed by Congress.
The President does not have the power to do that.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:06 am22 how can that be……that’s more like a line item veto….which the supreme court weighed in on.
And what you say may happen while he is the president but that doesn’t mean it won’t change with the next president…….does that sound right?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am“The joke could be on all of the republicans……they thought they were in permanent power or they never would have done this.”
Comment by Fred
I think it’s the standard republican hubris; once they got into power, they figured they could game the system forever, the American people be damned.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am22 how can that be……that’s more like a line item veto….which the supreme court weighed in on.
And what you say may happen while he is the president but that doesn’t mean it won’t change with the next president…….does that sound right?
Comment by Fred — February 2, 2008 @ 11:09 am
Exactly. It is more like a line-item veto, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional. And yet it’s exactly what the President wrote in the signing statement referenced above.
It needs to change with this President. We can’t wait for the next President to come along to put the Constitution back in charge of our country.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:15 amJustice is the court system, right?
Comment by Fred — February 2, 2008 @ 10:47 am
No. The Justice Department is the prosecutor. The judicial branch is the judge and jury. They have two very different roles.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am25 I’ve been reading some……this does need to change now but we are looking at someone taking it to the supreme court……
I don’t see how congress can pass a signing statement proof law……
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am“It needs to change with this President. We can’t wait for the next President to come along to put the Constitution back in charge of our country.”
Comment by toasterhead
Political expedience makes strange bedfellows. I would expect the next president to say something like:” I find it abhorrent that our last president abused signing statements to such a degree - but you can rest assured that I will only use this tool if absolutely necessary.” A hole big enough to drive a Striker assault vehicle through.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 am“I don’t see how congress can pass a signing statement proof law……”
Comment by Fred
By a legislative caveat: if the terms of this law are ever abrogated by executive implementation, it automatically voids the whole law.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:25 amThe joke could be on all of the republicans……they thought they were in permanent power or they never would have done this.
Comment by Fred — February 2, 2008 @ 11:02 am
it ain’t over yet…
don’t count your chickens, and all that…
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:29 amPolitical expedience makes strange bedfellows. I would expect the next president to say something like:†I find it abhorrent that our last president abused signing statements to such a degree - but you can rest assured that I will only use this tool if absolutely necessary.†A hole big enough to drive a Striker assault vehicle through.
Comment by barfly — February 2, 2008 @ 11:20 am
I think it’s just a matter of establishing legally what a signing statement can and can’t do. The practice dates back to James Monroe, and has been used to ask Congress for clarification on laws or express the opinion of the President on the law, often a “this is a great law” or “I think this might be unconstitutional.”
I have no issue with the President using the signing statement for these purposes. The problem is a President using them as a line-item veto, which is unconstitutional.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:30 am30 I just cannot go there…..sorry. I think that would be the scariest moment of my life to date.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 amThe question arises as to what’s more important to McCain: his anti-signing statement pledge or an indefinite presence in Iraq?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:31 am******
Not really the right question and I am not a McCain supporter. The question to the candidates is - Are line item vetos of laws constitutional and it seems McCain is saying “no”. He still probably wants to have troops in Iraq to ‘win’. He is probably clueless as to what exactly we win in Iraq (seems we only lose to me), but he seems to be on the right side with this statement.
“No. The Justice Department is the prosecutor. The judicial branch is the judge and jury. They have two very different roles.”
Comment by toasterhead
And perhaps that is why we have such difficulty with presidential overreach: the Justice Department should be removed from the executive branch.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:32 amPhoto Caption:
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 amTweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dee.
caption:
“Whew, I wish he’d use a deodorant…”
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:36 amor,
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 amBush and McCain come out of the closet….
And perhaps that is why we have such difficulty with presidential overreach: the Justice Department should be removed from the executive branch.
Comment by barfly — February 2, 2008 @ 11:32 am
Or at the very least, the role of political appointees should be severely limited.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:37 amNixon (Watergate) and Reagan (Iran-Contra) should have been jailed. Our failure to uphold the law will cost us the Republic. We have one last chance: Trials and penalties for any and all crimes of the BA. If we don’t do it this time, we might as well burn the Constitution in a public ceremony.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:39 amMcCain may have been correct on signing statements once, but he seems will to bend over backwards and twist like a pretzel in the process of pandering for votes of various extreme groups on the right. He will do whatever it takes to keep the Military Industrial Complex fueled by the tax dollars of the workers. He will protect the wealthy from any sacrifice. This guy scares me as much as Cheney does. No fool like an old fool.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 amBush and McCain come out of the closet….
Comment by Nevar — February 2, 2008 @ 11:37 am
The background in the photo suggests the photo was taken in the closet. Who knew?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 amAfter Iowa[ first state..], Huckabee was leading with big momentum, with Romeny second….McCain lost big time in Iowa
Then comes NH…now McCain is the winner, followed by S.Carolian..and then Florida…
Just ,for the sake of argument, if the State of Arkansas was the second after IOWA, followed by Tennessee,Georgia,Kansas…
McCain would have been a history by now.
If California was not re-scheduled to Feb. 5th…Romeny will be leading now.
The same with Obama…if California date was not changes to 5th of Feb., Obama would have beaten Clinton in a very bad way…
What does that mean…?
It means that certain states dates can make a big difference..
Why not then have them all in one day for fairness and accuracy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:47 amwhere in the CONSTITUTION are the rules for establishing a “cabinet”?…
i’m trying to figure out WHY the justice dept. is part of EXECUTIVE…
anyone?
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 amJohn McCain will say whatever he thinks people want to hear. We really don’t know where John McCain stands on many issues. He’s a vote-whore.
February 2nd, 2008 at 11:54 amShouldn’t the Presitard be held accountable for his outrageous interpretation of executive power? I’m getting tired of this. Even if we get a Democrat in the white house and a solid Democratic majority, he and his goons will still get away without any punishment.
All in the spirit of looking forwards, not backwards! With our help, the next insane president can build on the criminal endeavors of the Bush presidency, just like how Bushco took Reagan’s and Nixon’s indiscretions even further.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm100 years McCain has only about 10-20 years left even with his free socialized medicine. He’s making one last grab for glory and will do or say anything to get votes.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:22 pmOh yeah, Sen. McWar — will YOU challenge your buddy George on his latest signing statement, which removes from the bill passed by Congress, the ruling against permanent US bases in Iraq? Oh, maybe not. You support Bush’s War without question and would expand it as president.
Here’s a good bumper sticker:
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pmLike Bush’s War in Iraq? Vote McCain
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Ever hear of the Constitution? Nobody is above the law. The President could still be the most powerful person and OBEY THE F’ING LAW.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pmPresident should wield the highest power in the land. I don’t see what your problem is.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
Are you confusing president with some other more dictatorial/monarchical title?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm#47: So? The last thing this country needs is a young and/or inexperienced president.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
No, the last thing this country needs is a delusional fool (see last 7 years) as president.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm#47: So? The last thing this country needs is a young and/or inexperienced president.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Save me time and just give me the first thing, last thing, and seventh thing from your list of things you decided the country needs. If your list spans numerous pages you could just subsample post maybe 10 % but you’ll have to consider how to make sure that sample is truly random
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pmCaption Contest: “Look, you see that sign over my head, see? Im gonna make it to that and leave this mess with Johnny Underarm Boy here, see?”
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pmFrank is a proud fascist. He’s easily confused by democracy, so attempting to explain constraints on the Executive to him is like pushing a wet noodle through high grass.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:36 pmIn July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association described the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers”.[1] -Wikipedia
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:37 pm#54: It’s not a long list. We need a strong leader who understands post-9/11 world, we must have unified people who obey God and government, and lastly we need a stronger military. That’s it. God gives us what we need, our leader leads us and the military protects us.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
This is almost a textbook description of a fascist society. Is that really what you want for our country?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 pmComment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Who’s god are you talking about? Hitler’s? What is the “post 9/11 world? A world where Christians try to rule the world with their peculiar brand of nonsense?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pmTell me about the post 911 world. Define strong. Which God? How should the military be strengthened? Should we continue to have abortions, pay those terrible high taxes,fund grossly expensive pet projects in powerful congressional districts, support those godless public schools, and all that big bad government stuff my rightwing friends are always whinning about or just obey the government?
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:42 pmFrank M we have the strongest military in the world, it costs more than the GDP of nearlty all nations at a trillion plus a year. We dont need to strengthen it, we need to use it for defensive purposes and not for nation building or wars of choice which it is not suited for.
Obey GOD? The Bush admin has not obeyed GOD nor has much of the congress, they haven’t even obeyed the constitution.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 pmComment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Fascist.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pmFrank M is basically describing a theocracy, you know, like the extremists have.
Frank M., look I believe in GOD, but putting mixing GOD with government is not the problem, its when men in government start using GOD as an excuse to rule you with a iron thumb to force you into beliefs, or interpretations, [Baptist, Calvinist, Catholic] that one does not hold. It would be a disaster of gargantuan proportions.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 pmFrank’s leader must have drug him by his leash away from the computer and put him back in the closet.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:49 pmlike pushing a wet noodle through high grass.
Comment by gummitch — February 2, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Is this a gummitch original? I like it but I am not sure why.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:51 pmI never heard about Frank’s god when I went to Sunday School many years ago.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pmDo I really have to define these self-evident facts. Post-9/11 world is a world where you are either with us or against us when it comes to the fight against militant islam. God? There’s only one God -Frank
Oh stop with the Islam, return of the caliphate fear factor with us against us crappola.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm#61: Do I really have to define these self-evident facts. Post-9/11 world is a world where you are either with us or against us when it comes to the fight against militant islam.
Count me in the “against us” column. You don’t fight militancy with militancy.
God? There’s only one God - the same God you refer to when you pledge your allegiance to the US.
Since 1954, when the words “under God” were added in an act of Cold War propagandism.
Strong military? We must be unchallenged, unsurpassed and capable of dominating every square foot on this planet and the space above.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
I thought the purpose of the military was to protect the country, not dominate the planet. And no, they’re not the same thing.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 pmPelosi is a screw-up for not impeaching this rat-bastard.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pmGod? There’s only one God -Frank
Frank has much in common with the most militant Islamists.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pmI haven’t spoken the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance since I was in high school.
Frank M is the kind of guy who needs someone to “take care” of him, tell him what to do, how to do it, how to think, etc. He feels safe that way.
Good German.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:59 pmComment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
See the shallow part of you reply to my questions is that you neglected to mention that all those rightwing big bad government types need to get onboard by obeying the government or your whole argument is sunk
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:00 pmGood German.
Comment by Zooey — February 2, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
Careful there young lady. I wouldn’t have to beat you with a wurst or anything
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 pmCareful there young lady. I wouldn’t have to beat you with a wurst or anything
Comment by dbadass — February 2, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
Go ahead, give me your wurst. Or your best. Or your best wurst. Maybe your worst wurst.
Heh.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:04 pm#59: Nothing wrong with fascism. Hitler only gave it a bad name.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
Genocide, too. It was such a nice way of exterminating an undesirable minority until Hitler came along and ruined it for everyone. Thanks a lot, Adolf!
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:09 pmI was going to write a long comment on Frank M’s rantings. However, it is not necessary. Frank is obviously mentally unbalanced. He can not recognize the similarity between himself and the mililtant, radical islamists that he fears. Dismiss him as the lunatic, crackpot that he is. However, should it ever appear that he or others like him may exert actual power over the United States, kill them for they are the evil that we must guard against.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:15 pmRELIGION = MIND CONTROL
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pmObama is the best candidate. Place your vote for Obama versus Clinton and read why Obama is the better candidate: http://www.dailykos.com/ storyonly/ 2008/ 2/ 2/ 0181/ 84501/ 394/ 448113
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pmMcCain scares me. He really does.
He is as crazy and Huckabee, but he seems much more warlike.
“Let’s bomb Iran” indeed.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:47 pmWhy would the Republican strategists , in 2000, chose Bush over a popular , experienced war hero ? Because McCain scares them too.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pmCould also be that McCain isn’t as “manipulable”… is that actually a word?
McCain prolly isn’t as obedient a puppet as Geo Botch is.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pmI don’t believe a word McCraneFly is saying. If, in the bizarro world we live in, he gets elected, he’ll use signing statements in lieu of getting anything his way in an opposition congress.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm#59: Nothing wrong with fascism. Hitler only gave it a bad name.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
This just speaks so loudly for itself, that there’s no comment I can make that adds or takes away from it.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmTypical of the fearful, authoritarian seeking populace who are undeserving of the heritage of this democracy.
Two notable things in the picture:
The Exit sign over Bush’s head.
The letter C spelled by the bookcase, obviously for Chymp.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pmSince religion has been historically used to bludgeon, control and mislead people, I’m all for a government that follows a strict humane set of rules. Something like a constitution maybe? Have you not heard about all the problems that theocracies have created in the past??
I’m really tired of hearing people imply that Christians are the only people that have humane values. All the mainstream religions have these values. It’s just that all cultures and religions have people that thirst for power and have no problem with hurting others to obtain it. Time and time again, it’s the human beings that can’t be trusted!
I’m all for thought of having a benevolent higher power to look up to, but we need a system that works on basic UNIVERSAL values and information that we can actually prove. Otherwise we have the case where we have to deal with leaders who are born-again drug addicts that have never done anything to deserve a leadership role.
Fair enough Fank?
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pmFebruary 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Frank’s a leftie playing games, folks. No American citizen is that out of control. he’s just having fun.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pmSuch a naughty boy that Frank is!
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm#54: It’s not a long list. We need a strong leader who understands post-9/11 world, we must have unified people who obey God and government, and lastly we need a stronger military. That’s it. God gives us what we need, our leader leads us and the military protects us.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
Imagine if an Iranian (Alledged terrorist state, never mind the US’s terror) said precisely the same words!!! Imagine that!
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pmFebruary 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Frank de Merda!
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 pmFormer Republican Lincoln Chafee has written a memoir, excoriating Bush, as well as Democrats who supported Bush’s war because it was politically expedient for them. If the war were to go well (quickly, few casualties, cheap gasoline) they would look foolish if they opposed Bush.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:40 pmI think this came from Carpetbagger Report.
Merda!
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:41 pmI know a few Italian swear words, too.
You’re so right.
Duck Soup,
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pmI am voting Obama, also.
Read the Carpetbagger Report 2/2/08 — the article on Lincoln Chaffee.
God SEES the EVIL acts of GENOCIDE that Bush has done.
God will NOT likely forget the SLAUGHTER of his CHILDREN.
If McCain supports this GENOCIDE, he will ALSO be in God’s SIGHTS…
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmA corrupt president + corrupted courts = coup d’etat
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pm#59: Nothing wrong with fascism. Hitler only gave it a bad name.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
ROTFL!!! Spoken like a TRUE NAZI!!! Thanks for being HONEST (still WRONG but HONEST) for a CHANGE - TARD!! ;)
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm#54: It’s not a long list. We need a strong leader who understands post-9/11 world, we must have unified people who obey God and government, and lastly we need a stronger military. That’s it. God gives us what we need, our leader leads us and the military protects us.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
So what you’re describing is Saddam and Iran’s current president. Interesting how you always describe your SUPPOSED ENEMIES when you describe WHAT YOU WANT FOR YOURSELF!! HYSTERICAL ENTERTAINMENT - TARD! ;)
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pmwell, those democrats keep talking about ceasing funding…..
but have they done it?
no!
yo dems: get some cajones and stop funding the war
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pmright on, darla!
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pm#59: Nothing wrong with fascism. Hitler only gave it a bad name.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
that’s why every fascist has died a violent death, frank. are you next?
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pmIs Frank an incarnation of that old warhorse, Jake? Their lunacy seems to run parallel.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:18 pmPhoto Caption:
Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dee.
I’m thinking more like, “Tweedle-Dumb and Tweedle-Dumber”.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:35 pmTime after time I sit and I wait for your call
I know Im a fool what can I say
Whatever the price Ill pay for you, madame blue
Once long ago, one word from your lips and the world turned around
But somehow youve changed, youre so far away
I long for the past and dream of the days with you, madame blue
Suite madame blue, gaze in your looking glass
Youre not a child anymore
Suite madame blue, the future is all but past
Dressed in your jewels, you made your own rules
You conquered the world and more …………..heavens door
America….america…america..america..
America….america…america..america..
America….america…america..america..
Red white and blue, gaze in your looking glass
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pmYoure not a child anymore
Red, white, and blue, the future is all but past
So lift up your heart, make a new start
And lead us away from here
With impeachment off the table, King George can do whatever He wants.
I’m surprised He hasn’t suspended Parliament, er, Congress, yet.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:33 am#59: Nothing wrong with fascism. Hitler only gave it a bad name.
Comment by Frank M — February 2, 2008 @ 12:48 pm
I absolutely appreciate this statement, frank, and I thank you for posting it. Because of your honesty Americans can see the clearly the far right-wing position. Fascism is the submission of the individual to the authority of the state. Crushing the liberties of people, the “freedoms from” that Americans have enjoyed while setting authority free to rule for it’s own sake without constraint of any kind. Fundamentally un-American, fundamentally hostile to the notion of government of the people, by the people, for the people. Has it ever puzzled you, reader, what the hell those Nazis were thinking in say, 1937? Read Frank, he’s a living time-capsule.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 amwell, those democrats keep talking about ceasing funding…..
but have they done it?
no!
yo dems: get some cajones and stop funding the war
Comment by darladoon — February 2, 2008 @ 5:06 pm
Yo DarlaDumBass, the green party buffoon, get some BRAINS and realize that without REPUBLICAN SENATORS this is NOT POSSIBLE! You LUNATICS are as BAD as the RIGHT WING EXTREMISTS! MORON!
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 amhey war criminal idiot Bush, why don’t u pay us a visit here in Vermont? Coward ex-alcoholic-turned-to-war-profiteer-junkie! We got our handcuffs ready! Just come on down idiot devil worshipping freak!
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 amBill Clinton put out more signing statements than GW Bush. There, I said it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:09 amBill Clinton put out more signing statements than GW Bush. There, I said it.
Comment by thirdparty — February 3, 2008 @ 3:09 am
Yes, but he didn’t use them as a line-item veto. Clinton’s use of signing statements was Constitutional. Bush’s use of them is not.
There, I said it.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 amLet’s face it, my friends. John McCain won’t be happy until he sees a chicken in every pot and an American soldier in uniform and armed in every country of the world.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pmThe President runs the Executive branch, and they follow his orders, illegal though they may be. So signing statements do have the desired (by Bush) effect.
Unfortunately, the only remedy is impeachment.
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:47 pmHow are any signing statements constitutional, first of all? Second, you may want to read this memo to Pres. Clinton:
To begin with, it appears to be an uncontroversial use of signing statements to explain to the public, and more particularly to interested constituencies, what the President understands to be the likely effects of the bill, and how it coheres or fails to cohere with the Administration’s views or programs.
February 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pmClinton may have done it a couple of times, but that is in the past.
Bush has used the signing statement HUNDREDS OF TIMES in order to
SUBVERT THE LAW he just signed.
So his INTENT is CLEARLY to NOT OBEY THE LAW he just signed.
This IS unconstitutional, and in particular, he does this to avoid implication as a WAR CRIMINAL, which he and Cheney and the PNAC clearly ARE.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm