And it is not congresses job to just give him every thing he wants? If Bush does not sign the funding bill, its HIS fault alone if the troops run out of money. And for the slow witted ones here, the time-table is not set in stone, its open ended, and allows for troop increases and redeployment as long as Bush can go before congress and give reasons for it. Bush has the only bill he will be getting, they will ALL have time tables in them. Its no longer up to Bush alone what he does. Its called checks and balances, and if the republicans had some balls to begin with, this would not be an issue today, they would have fixed it 3 years ago.
2007-04-27 07:56:44 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Harley, Congrats. you now embarrassed yourself 6 times in 1 day. Way to go kid, way to go!
2007-04-27 08:02:06 · update #1
And can you post a link to where Bush drafted legislation, or can you post a link to someone saying that Bush drafted legislation?
Thanks.
2007-04-27 07:59:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No he can't draft legislation, and he doesn't have to sign the bill. The only thing is, this is going to backfire on someone, either the republicans or the democrats. It is a game of chicken sooner or later someone will give in, and it won't be Bush, he has nothing to lose. The question is who will give in? On the vote in the house, more dems voted against it, than cons voted for it. So if that trend continues, and the next bill doesn't make it out of the house, the blame will be put on the dems, even if it is Bush's fault.
2007-04-27 15:01:50 · answer #2 · answered by Angelus2007 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You make a good point. The Constitution gives the president no legislative ability. He cannot write or introduce a bill. He only has verbal persuasion to influence Congress to bring up bills he can sign. This is a bad sign for how well this issue is taught in High School.
2007-05-01 13:43:58 · answer #3 · answered by johnlloydscharf 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You do realize that Bush is the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces, don't you? That nowhere in the Constitution does it require him to go before Congress and justify SQUAT when the security and safety of this nation is at stake.
The Democrats wanted a showdown on this to quiet their more radical leftist elements who keep screaming "we elected you, end the war NOW!" They'll be able to go back to them and say "we tried...but it's all Bush's fault!"
The Democrats will pass a funding bill now that is "clean" of unconstitutional intrusion into the military - like they should have done before they put on this show for you!
2007-04-27 15:03:43 · answer #4 · answered by jbtascam 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you realize that the bill was so loaded with Political Pork that the Ragheads that it was meant to help would be so afraid of the smell, they would all fall in that well that that preacher is waiting to jump out of!! You really blame that on Bush????? He wants to help the troops and America--the Dem's just want votes--they don't care if it kills some troops--Hell, they can blame it on Bush!!! USMC 60-68
2007-04-27 15:44:09 · answer #5 · answered by grizzlytrack 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, if your parents tell you that if they catch you running around with a friend, whom they hate, that they will suspend a privilege of yours, whose fault is it if you are caught with that friend? Same type of scenario, with the government. Bush said he would veto any bill with a pull out date, or anything resembling one. Yet, they wasted OUR time by sending the very thing he said he would veto. I'm sorry to be offensive, but, this is a no brainer. Congress is at fault for trying to say to the voters that they are going to be bi-partisan, and then send bills to the President that are NOT bi-partisan. A lie by any other name sounds the same.
2007-04-27 15:05:48 · answer #6 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not sure what the question is, but NO, bush cannot draft any legislature as stated by the checks and balances of our constitution.
In my opinion, we should not have a scheduled pullout (as it would be vietnam deja vu), but instead, pullout abruptly WITHOUT ANY NOTICE.
Bush is an idiot who doesn't know that he can't play gam,es with the young men of the country, and can't use them to take foreign oil by force.
sorry to go on and on.....probably has nothing to do with the question.
2007-04-27 15:04:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey you are funny. Really. I mean it. Do you actually think the Congress is going to send bill after bill with a deadline? What a total joke.
2007-04-27 23:30:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Dems knew that the bill would get vetoed before it was drafted if written the way it was. That is why they did it. The Dems need to quit using our Troops as political pawns, it is outrageous.
2007-04-27 15:00:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You are correct... if he does not sign this bill.. which he won't.. then he can stand there and blame anyone he wants.. but it is all on his head.. all of it.. just as this war and the dead on both sides are his legacy. Hope he likes that... he wanted to be famous.
If he does not sign this, and does not find a compromise, he is as guilty of murder as if he took a gun and shot someone in the head.... of course we know he is too chicken to do that.. but he is guilty just the same. him and only him!
2007-04-27 15:03:29 · answer #10 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋