Comments on: About cutting off those war funds: beware the veto

By: Sergey

Sergey — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 01:27:39 +0000

One thing I can not figure out: formally and legally, is US in war or not? If it is, does President have more executive powers than in time of peace, or no? If legally US is not in war, this is damn hard to make war anyway. And how you can hope to win, if you can not even decide for yourself this Hamletian question, to war or not to war?

By: grackle

grackle — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 23:48:10 +0000

The Democrats should simply go along with the Bush’s plan for the war.

If it goes well, they would get credit for hanging in there, instead of ruining their chances in ’08 by being seen as the defeatist Party they really are.

If it goes bad they can always claim later that they were misled and lied to, just like they have so far.

Simple, no? They should have me as an advisor. Move over, Rahm Emanuel.

By: kevino

kevino — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 20:46:23 +0000

The issue about overriding a veto is not significant. Congress can pass a spending measure that the President doesn’t like, he’ll veto it, they don’t have to pass a spending measure, and the result is that the Presdient doesn’t get the money that he needs.

Congress is definitely in the driver’s seat: they have the power to cut off funds or cripple the effort.

By: SDN

SDN — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 16:16:39 +0000

And adding provisions you know in advance are unconstitutional is law-abiding? Besides, ignoring laws in the name of a “higher good” has been a Leftie standard for years. I’m just using your playbook.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 11:36:53 +0000

I thought that the U.S. of A was supposed to be founded on the rule of law (well, at least in theory).

Another trick by the Left is to always propagandize on the “rule of law” when the law is for them, but never mention the rule of law in cases like Sandy berger and what not. You notice why, right?

By: Charlemagne

Charlemagne — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:41:02 +0000

Interesting to see that in the twilight of the neocons, they are openly encouraging/advocating that the President flout the Constitution.

I thought that the U.S. of A was supposed to be founded on the rule of law (well, at least in theory).

How wonderful to see the fig leaf now coming off.

Fortunately, the American people will not tolerate this for very long. Evidently the neocons are failing to see the writing on the wall. A fatal case of hubris.

By: SDN

SDN — Sun, 14 Jan 2007 05:33:33 +0000

A variation on this is their threat to add various “oversight” amendments hostile to President Bush into various funding bills, then daring the President to veto. Hopefully, Bush will sign the bills, spend the funding, then ignore the other crap. After all, if they don’t have the votes to override a veto, they don’t have the votes to impeach either.

By: Scrapiron

Scrapiron — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:51:26 +0000

I seriously doubt that the republicans are willing to share the blood of millions that will be slaughtered as a result of congressional stupidity with the democrats. They’ll want the dhimmi’s to be totally responsible and get all the credit as the were/did in the 70’s. This could easily put the total over 6 million that the dhimmi’s are responsible for getting slaughtered. That’s a lot of nightmare material.

By: strcpy

strcpy — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:45:44 +0000

Possibly, however I do not think that they can get much of the political gain they got during that period. The media reports on it were horrid, much worse than what we have now. In fact, if they do the same thing again it will go really bad for them.

That period is what cemented me as, at the least, anti establishment-Democrat and put the mainstream media on pretty much the bottom of my list of who to trust. I watched a lot of live c-span speeches and hearings on it, the reporting of it was 90% fabrication. The reporters didn’t need to go to the speeches and hearings (I suppose they did – journalistic integrity and all) as a decent portion of stuff never occurred, let alone the vast majority that was “spun” into their political ideology.

Even if Blogs aren’t around we have Fox and talk radio – they can not redo that time period now. Lets face it, if we were in the year 1996 would anyone even know about the exclusion of Samoa in the minimum wage bill? At the least watching the dems in power for the first time since they can no longer count on a totally complicit media is amusing.

By: David L.

David L. — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 09:44:25 +0000

The votes are probably not there, at least now, for a veto override. We should be aware, though, of the possibility that a standoff between the President and the Congress could create a fiscal trainwreck in a manner similar to the government shutdowns of late 1995 – early 1996.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown