Pakistan Bigger Danger the Iraq or Iran!

Now Musharraf has expelled the chief justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court. It also has been reported that the Supreme Court has ruled that Musharraf election is invalid because he refused to give up his position as head of the military. Some democracy!!! Sounds like something Bush would do!

when has bush tried to do this.


Clinton did it sort of.


on the day he was supposed to be before the house for impeachment. he attacked, now who did he attack, i think no i am not sure. what yes he attacked Baghdad. and on the day he was impeached he stopped attacking. oh and guess what for that 7 days of attacks. all of our smart bombs that we used 85% of them MISSED their targets.

Yup. you are right, Daniel, the reason USA's military equipment was deficient is because your president didn'T wanted to be impeached.

I think you nailed it just right, and you saw trough the lies!

the reason they were deficient was because he didn't want to hurt anymore than he had to. at least that is what i hope.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Saturday, November 03, 2007
Sounds like something Bush would do!


When has bush tried to do this?

Every time he tries to force HIS spending policies on the Congress who has that power. When he ignores the requirement under FISA to obtain court orders before wiretapping. When he attaches Signing statements to bills passed by Congress in an attempt to alter the laws which is NOT within the power given to the President by our Constitution. He took our country to war WITHOUT the Declaration of War as the Constitution requires. The Iraq war Resolution was not a declaration of war and Bush did not have the power to take this country to war! Bush has not attempted to go as far as Musharraf but he abuses his power when ever he gets a chance.

These are examples where Bush has abused his power!

sorry that is part of his job. and part of congresses job is to stop him. and part of his job is to stop the pork spending.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2007
Every time he tries to force HIS spending policies on the Congress who has that power.


Sorry that is part of his job. and part of congresses job is to stop him. and part of his job is to stop the pork spending.


First Bush spent the first 6 years approving more PORK then any democrat.

The Bush Veto of the S-Chip has nothing to do with PORK.

Bush now threatens to veto the bill for health and education because he does not agree with the spending levels Congress wants to approve. Health and education has NOTHING to do with PORK.

What Bush is trying to do is set the spending levels in all areas of the government which is NOT his responsibility.

actually yes it does. anything and everything above and beyond what its was supposed to do when it started is pork. pork is when you are trying to buy votes. the democrats are trying to buy votes. and if they can't buy the votes then they will say that bush doesn't care about children just like your doing.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2007
The Bush Veto of the S-Chip has nothing to do with PORK.



Actually yes it does. Anything and everything above and beyond what its was supposed to do when it started is pork. Pork is when you are trying to buy votes. The democrats are trying to buy votes. And if they can't buy the votes then they will say that bush doesn't care about children just like your doing.


YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. First it is Congress who says where the limits on spending are not the President. Second, any spending that is debated and not tucked into some other bill is not PORK. Pork is something that benefits a small area and that is inserted into another bill. The S-Chip was a bill dealing with that issue and would benefit any children all over the country so long as their families income fell between $22,000 -62,000. Bush is attempting to usurp the power of Congress when it comes to how much and on what this country spends money on. I do not think a veto on appropriations is what the founders wanted. If they wanted that they would not have so clearly put the power of the budget and spending in the hands of Congress. The role of the President is to advise Congress of his thinking when he sends Congress the Budget. That advice from the President is not in any war binding on Congress and when a president simply uses the veto to alter what Congress has chosen to spend, the president is usurping the power of Congress. The Constitution does not require a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress to set spending. That is what Bush is doing when he uses a veto on spending bills.
I would like to see a challenge on a president using a veto on appropriation bills.

Let's get back to the nitty gritty. Muhammed Jinna oversaw the transfer of rule from the British, and his country, Pakistan, was born with a population of mainly Muslims. Like other Muslim nations elsewhere there is a toss-up between being pro-US or anti.In the present, Musharraf chose to co-operate with the US and laid himself open to criticism, inter-tribal conflict, and opposition from Al Quaeda, THe Taliban and every Muslim who had a headache in the morning. I jest not. As anti-US fever grips every blood vessel of any Muslim, yaysayer or naysayer, Pakistan is as ripe as a Pomegranite for eating. Iraq and Iran will pall against such intended disruption.

Pakistan has many troubling times ahead.Let us hope that Musharraf, with Bhutto, can solve some of the problems.

I agree. However our invasion and occupation of Iraq has ADDED to the unrest and has helped the radical Moslems recruit people into the camp of the radicals. We are complicating the unrest in the region and even Moslem leaders like Musharraf find it harder and harder to look as if they are willing to help the U.S. Bush has managed to alienate more Moslems and has created distrust from our non MOSLEM ALLIES THROUGHT THE WORLD.

lets see there were 100% musloms that were anti american during the 90's. now there os about 99% ante american.

this is called the power of the veto. why do you think the founding fathers didn't go with a prime minister. prime ministers answer to the legislators not the people. our president answers to the people. this is called the power of the vote.

This is called the power of the veto. Why do you think the founding fathers didn't go with a prime minister? Prime ministers answer to the legislators not the people. Our president answers to the people. HE IS NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT) This is called the power of the vote.

Sorry that does not make sense. The Constitution says Congress sets spending not the President. By using the veto, it requires a super majority to pass appropriations and that is not what the Constitution says. Bush has no business using a veto to alter what Congress wants to spend. Congress needs to continue passing the same bills and if Bush continues to veto them allow sections of the government to stop for lack of funding. No more continuing resolutions. Force Bush and then any that would support his vetoes to be responsible for cutting off essential services. It is time we get back to the constitution and stop DICTATOR Bush!

i see so when you said that bush should have vetoed when the gop was spending. that was just a lie from you then

Reply By: danielost Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2007
I see so when you said that bush should have vetoed when the gop was spending. that was just a lie from you then

WHY should the Congress when controlled by the GOP be able to approve the spending levels but when the democrats control the Congress Bush vetoes the spending? Give me a good reason for that. The truth is Bush is trying to impose his will ABOVE Congress despite the fact that the Constitution gives that power to Congress NOT THE PRESIDENT!
When the GOP controlled Congress they approved what the President wanted and so Congress had allowed Bush to get his way. He is just like a dictator!

non of this makes any sense.


look here the congress is not supposed to be above the president any more than the president is supposed to be above the congress. all bills go through congress if voted for then it goes to the president to either sign or veto. again the number of bills that congress says yes to then goes to the president to either sign or veto is ALL. if the president vetos it then congress can over ride it. just because the president vetoed something that you wanted him to sign does not make him a dictator. the president is doing his job. the democrats are not they are trying to campaign instead of pass laws and pay bills.

Last I checked, the Presidential veto was very much Constitutional, regardless of the nature of the bill. The Congress has a remedy available if it feels strongly that a veto was inappropriate. Maybe some remedial education is in order for you, Gene, assuming your repeated admonitions that our Constitution be adhered to literally is something other than posturing (something I strongly doubt). Your irrational emotionality gets the best of you every time.

All that does not change the fact it is Congress that has the power of the budget. It is time that Congress takes control.

The Congress has the power of the budget, provided they can pass one & have it signed into law by the President, according to the dictates of the Constitution. If a budget bill is vetoed, the Congress has a remedy.

You are quite right that it is Congress's job to take control. Let's see them do it. Quit blaming Bush for Congress's actions or inactions. This is the way our system works. If you don't like it, start a petition for a Constitutional amendment & see how far you can get.

Reply By: Daiwa Posted: Sunday, November 04, 2007
The Congress has the power of the budget, provided they can pass one & have it signed into law by the President, according to the dictates of the Constitution. If a budget bill is vetoed, the Congress has a remedy.

You are quite right that it is Congress's job to take control. Let's see them do it. Quit blaming Bush for Congress's actions or inactions. This is the way our system works. If you don't like it, start a petition for a Constitutional amendment & see how far you can get.


Bush is acting not as the majority of Congress or the American People want. That is the issue. Bush is acting like a Dictator-- He was elected to serve as President of ALL of us not to just try and force whet HE wants.

I hope the voters look at why nothing is getting done in Congress. It is the refusal of the GOP members to act and more interested in supporting Bush who is clearly out of touch with the vast majority of Americans. The fix is to vote those members of Congress out of office who refuse to vote as the majority want and support a President that is totally out of touch with the majority of Voters. The democrats should continue passing measures that benefit the middle income and poor and force the GOP to side with Bush and the wealthy. There are a lot more poor and middle income voter’s then wealthy voters. When I see low and middle income people supporting Bush and his policies I know they have no idea just how his policies are harming their interests. The clearest statement I have heard is that Bush and the GOP act of the Middle Class are invisible. I think that can also be said for the low income Americans as well. Tax cuts, jobs, help for higher education and health care are all examples where the Bush/GOP policies simply ignore the needs and wants of the low and middle income families. There may be some people in these categories who support Bush because of abortion or gay marriage but if they support his social and economic policies they do not know what they are doing and are causing great harm for themselves.

Should I save that quote gene?  Because if a democrat like Hillary is elected, she is going to force more social programs on America. 

For you to sit there and call Bush a dictator shows how far out of reality you are.  Why don't you take a trip to Cuba gene, and tell me again how Bush is a dictator.

 

His 'job' is to uphold the Constitution as he determines appropriate, along with his other designated responsibilities, not to 'do what the people want' - elections are how we handle that issue.

I have to laugh at you again Gene. You sit there and tell us that one country or group is "more" dangerous than others when we have just seen a kid terrorize an entire area of a state armed only with a few matches.

News Flash!!! Any group or nation who dedicates its resources to fight against the US is a danger to us. The weapon of choice is politically charged but actually irrelevant.

Should I save that quote gene? Because if a democrat like Hillary is elected, she is going to force more social programs on America.

The only way we will get more social programs is if BOTH congress and the president enact them.