this would be true if we were not in iraq.

Well that's the great debate see. One argument is that he's broken the constitution with his use of signing statements that change the entire nature of a bill rather than choose to go head to head with the senate and congress with a veto. Yes, signing statements were around long before Bush was in office and have been used by other presidents in the past- but not to nullify or change key parts of a bill... the executive is not supposed to be able to do that. By the time a bill gets to the president's desk it should be either sign the bill or veto it. "Since taking office in 2001, President Bush has issued signing statements on more than 750 new laws, declaring that he has the power to set aside the laws when they conflict with his legal interpretation of the Constitution."- Boston Globe. See, in doing that, the president has become what's called a 'unitary executive'- this essentially nullifies many of the checks and balances in your system, and changes the U.S from a nation of laws to a nation of men. The scary thing is, no one stopped him from doing this, and much as I dislike the democrats I was hoping that they would open impeachment proceedings against Bush when they took congress. Instead they continued to play politics and sit on their hands.

There's many other examples that I believe Bush is guilty for, and should be held accountable- the signing of the military commissions act of 2006, for example. This bill effectively repeals the rights of habeas corpus. What this bill says is that if the U.S government determines you are an 'unlawful enemy combatant' that they can detain you indefinitely, you have no real legal rights, they do not have to inform your family, they do not have to tell you why you are being held or the evidence against you, in the interests of preserving national security of course. Backup you say- "what the heck is an unlawful enemy combatant?!?"- well according to this bill, if the government says you are a terrorist, you are a terrorist. They don't have to take you before a member of the judicial branch and explain the charges against you. Furthermore, the bill makes it so that you will not be tried by the U.S legal system, but by a military tribunal. Who are the members of the tribunal? Military officers appointed by the government. This law is one of the most damaging pieces of legislation passed by the U.S government, and Bush, the members of congress and the senate that voted for it should be prosecuted (in my humble opinion)

if he has done this then the democrats who are looking for a reason to impeach for payback of clintons impeachment. would impeach him.

since their not then he hasn't.

i believe this was taken before the supreme court and was upheld to a degree.

if we called them pow's we would be able to hold them indefinitely or until the war was over. no courts no rights except geneva.

what wait i thought you said that he did this all on his own.

I do not know if Bush broke our laws but I do know that what he has done to this country by invading Iraq, with his trade policies and the way he has put our country into debt will create great harm for decades into the future. His refusal to enforce our immigration laws has increased the number of illegal’s in the country and his prescription Drug plan without funding this new entitlement will harm Medicare in the future. So even if Bush did not technically violate the law he and his policies have placed a POX on our country and his legacy will be the most negative since Nixon!

Yep. Like the beginning, middle and.... oh wait there is no end.   

Now, that was a quote. And you'll notice, those 9 words are nowhere to be found. It's the prejudicial lead-ins that the media & you like to use that are intellectually dishonest and evidence of preconceived bias. You are not an honest broker of information, Gene, you are a propagandist, pure & simple.

And yet he's already declared victory at least once?

No wonder no one believes him when he says things are improving.

They believed him when he said there was a threat. There wasn't. They believed when he said we'd won. We hadn't and we haven't. Is it really that the left are just Bush haters or that their just not blinded like the Bush lovers.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2007
Now, that was a quote. And you'll notice, those 9 words are nowhere to be found. It's the prejudicial lead-ins that the media & you like to use that are intellectually dishonest and evidence of preconceived bias. You are not an honest broker of information, Gene, you are a propagandist, pure & simple.

You like all that support Bush are in total denial.

here gene let me help you. i am not a writer like you.

but this should read.


LIKE ALL YOU THAT SUPPORT BUSH ARE IN TOTAL DENIAL. there see how much better that reads.


it is a lie but now it reads better.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, September 30, 2007
“You like all that support Bush are in total denial.


Here gene let me help you. I am not a writer like you.

But this should read.


LIKE ALL YOU THAT SUPPORT BUSH ARE IN TOTAL DENIAL. There see how much better that reads.


It is a lie but now it reads better.”


Take a look at my Blog on the Health care cost of the Iraq war. This is a factual story that was on the front page of the National section in our paper today. After reading this story anyone that does not understand just how much damage Bush has done is simply in TOTAL DENIAL!

What I undestand is that, in your little world, everything Bush does is bad, everything bad that happens is Bush's fault, and nothing bad ever happened to anyone ever, until Bush was in office.

Keep using grade school comebacks in bold caps & lots of exclamation points when confronted with your deceptions. Shows you for the childish, intolerant fool you are.

Citizen)ParaTed2kOctober 1, 2007 10:55:07Reply #64
“What I understand is that, in your little world, everything Bush does is bad, everything bad that happens is Bush's fault, and nothing bad ever happened to anyone ever, until Bush was in office.”

Are you saying the $700 Billion in VA medical costs is a GOOD thing? Are you saying that these costs are not the result of the Iraq war that Bush started? Are you saying that all of us in the BIG WORLD will not have to pay for these and other costs that are a direct result of the Iraq war Bush caused?


(Citizen)DaiwaOctober 1, 2007 15:07:42Reply #65
Keep using grade school comebacks in bold caps & lots of exclamation points when confronted with your deceptions. Shows you for the childish, intolerant fool you are.

Not nearly as childish as your responses.

Gene, you are barking up the wrong tree there. I think the entire VA medical services department is a waste and an insult to our vets. Every dime spent there goes to a bloated bureaucracy that is incapable of giving our vets what we deserve.

The ONLY things the VA should be doing medically is funding research for service related illnesses and conditions and funding disability to vets according to our ratings.

What we deserve and should be offorded by Congress is payment strait to the private healthcare professionals that WE choose. That way we will get state of the art health care at reasonable rates, instead of what passes for "care" in those warehouses they call "VA Hospitals" and "VA Clinics".

There is nothing to be gained by continuing to flush revenue down the toilet that is the VA Medical System.

come on be nice to gene. he can't help it if he cares about kids.


ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.


sorry i couldn't hold it in.