is the checks & balances system not enough anymore or what?

Question

President Bush signed a bill Friday to pay for military operations in Iraq after a bitter struggle with Democrats in Congress who sought unsuccessfully to tie the money to U.S. troop withdrawals.

The new bill basically gives money to the troops but doesn't establish any timeline or new strategy. So the troops can keep doing the same things they were doing before and getting killed pointlessly but they get money to do it anyways.

The democrats "realized that there was no point in trying to pass more decent bills if the president was going to keep vetoeing them all". But I mean, isn't this a lame argument? I thought he couldn't be an *** like that or otherwise the House would cut down his pay. And there IS a Democratic majority. Why isn't this happening?!
Why can the president do anything he wants and no other branch can stop him from destroying the US? Did I miss something?? At what point did we become a dictatorship?

Answer 1

It took Congress 109 days to finally decide to fund our Troops.

Answer 2

We became a dictatorship when Bush stole the 2000 presidential election. It was a voter fraud in Florida that just happened to be the state that his brother Jeb was governor of at the time. The Supreme Court ended up making a decision on a Judges vote of 5-4 some of the judges had been appointed by his father and other Judges received other benefits afterward.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5266005172448029956&q=2000+presidential+election&hl=en

Without George W. Bush in the White House there wouldn't have been a 9/11/01. He was pressured into appointing a commission and interferred with the investigation. The 9/11 Official Commission Report only supported the reason that had been used on the multi-billion dollars of insurance claims before the end of 2001. It completely ignores the collapse (Pull) of WTC 7.
The BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minuets before it fell. Please check out this 4 min music video. It contains some of the unanswered questions as well as a decent song.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVBd03ibziM

There was also voter fraud in Ohio which gave Bush the 2004 election also.

There are more 9/11 and other videos free downloadable at:
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

We will not stop until the truth is out.

Answer 3

Congress gave up its only chance at limiting the president's war powers when they voted to attack Iraq. Its too late to take back their vote. I find it hypocritical of Congress to lay the WMD issue at the feet of the president when they all voted for the war too.

I hope all of you who voted for democrats so they would "end the war" realize first that they can't do that, only the Commander in Chief can, and second that they played you. How's it feel to be duped? Do you realize why cons think you're stupid?

As far as your comment: "So the troops can keep doing the same things they were doing before and getting killed pointlessly but they get money to do it anyways"
Your military changes tactics as the situaton on the ground changes. Clearly they're not "doing the same things" now that they were doing when we destroyed Saddam's regime. Likewise our enemy changes tactics. That's the nature of warfare. Also, the money does NOT go to soldiers, it is used to buy fuel, ammo, spare parts and medical supplies. If Congress doesn't appropriate additional funds, the soldiers will still fight the war, they'll just have to buy their own ammo, fuel, and spare parts. But soldiers don't stop fighting for your freedom just because some politicians don't sign a check - its called honor. The only politician who can recall the soldiers is the president, and the soldiers will return when the president says so - thats called discipline.

Answer 4

You perceive the basic problem, but you need to look deeper. I was hoping the Democrats would just keep sending a bill to Bush that included a deadline for withdrawal, and if he kept vetoing it, the funding would run out, and the troops would come home. Bush could blame the Dems for a cynical political manuever, and Dems could counter that Bush did it to himself, by vetoing the funding. Voila! Bush gets out of a lose-lose war, saving his all-important "face," and Dems run for re-election claiming they supported the troops by passing a funding bill. But no, that would have been too easy. My guess is that the Dems figured a qucik end to the war would give voters too much time to forget there ever was a war, and by election, amnesty for illegal aliens might be hotter than Bush's buffoonery in Iraq. So in an even more cynical manuever, they sacrifice more American lives to keep Bush's war front and center, eh? Or perhaps they're ALL bought off by the lobbies and big corporations, who seem to favor perpetual war as a way of keeping the stock market booming and everyone's eyes off the corporate crime and outsourcing and outright thievery - that sort of thing.

Another distinct possibility is that the Dems don't have as much clout as it might appear. They recently assumed control of both Houses, and they added a number of junior members to do it. That means less seniority for committee assignments, and you can be assured the Republicans aren't surrendering one iota of their lost power tamely. That goes double for Bush, who received unprecented powers from the Patriot Act - the checks and balances are way skewed compared to those of prior administrations, and the creepy guys on Bush's team have no respect for law anyway. What's the shadow government doing these days? Haven't heard much about it lately, but I'm guessing that Dick Cheney has. And when Gonzales isn't opening your mail, he's engaged in covering up something far worse than the Valerie Plame scandal, or the secret minutes of those energy meetings. It will take prosecutors and even an impeachment to restore our system of government.

Answer 5

The power is divided between a president, a hundred senators, 435 represeentatives, and 9 supreme court justices. They are checking each other. Currently we have a deadlock. A lot of what the politicians are doing is posturing. They knew what the result would be before they began. Congress, like the wheels of justice, moves slowly. Only in a dictatorship are decisions made quickly.

Answer 6

It's not "just" Republicans...I am neither. The fact is that the Democrats could have, and should have, kept their agenda in check and tied this up in the system forever...slowly our war-mongering President would run out of funding and the military would be forced to return our people back home where they belong...not fighting a war of economics and who uses the USD versus the Euro. And, it's not ALL Republicans who support our present presidential idiotic and gross agenda either, nor all Democrats who don't. Sadly, this is mere politics, and as old as our nations own agenda...I Love the USA and would be dead elsewhere...But! We sit in the same apathy as the young of Rome did as it burnt...how, then, can we expect our so-called leaders to risk their political lives, when we don't risk speaking out loud. Bush is an arrogant and pompous self-appointed godhead...but it is "WE" whom allow him to be thus..."they" simply follow our "rules of engagement". We have always been dictated through and to...if not by the local relgious leaders and government (such as in "The Burning Times"; wars where we are taught to Hate others for a reason and cause; or for whatever useable cause such as white hating black so we waste our energies on one another versus where they belong, on making "OUR" world right before any other is judged), or through a media of half or full lies, with it's own agenda, such as William Randolf Hurst used in his powerful media business during the Spanish American War; then it has been by Kings or those such as Hitler and Napolean...and soon by the one's like Bush...Now? Now we have what we asked for, sadly!

Answer 7

The democrats don't have the spine to cut funding, because all they do is follow poll numbers. they want to have their cake and eat it too. they don't want to look anti-troops, just anti-bush. Why would you ever give a timetable for surrender? do you not understand that if you kill more of them over there, that makes less to kill us over here.
that may be harsh, but so what.
and don't bring the oh but its a civil war argument. the democrats are screaming that we should do more about the genocide in darfur --- but this is due to a civil war.
they just hate bush and won't agree with anything he does

Answer 8

it was a compromise. the president got the money to support out troops and democrats got their $20 billion in added pork. everyone is happy now and the system worked

Answer 9

Politics is not a subject where ordinary people can meddle with.Real politic is a dangerous subject.
As per American constitution President Bush has got the
authority to do it.For this unwise act Republican party may have to lose its Presidential Election in Nov 08.

Answer 10

What checks & balances?

Homeland Security: When The Phoenix Came Home To Roost
http://www.bigeye.com/phoenix.htm
After the eerily preordained terror attacks of 11 September, Bush embarked on his Holy Crusade. But something insidious was happening behind the scenes. With little fanfare, his régime announced the formation of the Office of Homeland Security to detect, prevent, and recover from terrorist attacks, and/or "weapons of mass destruction" attacks on American soil. The obscure or Office of Homeland Security was created officially by executive fiat on 8 October 2001. Less than three weeks later, again with overwhelming Congressional support, Bush signed the draconian USA Patriot Act into law, vastly expanding the intelligence and law enforcement powers of the government while rolling back individual rights and protections from government intrusions.

Thanks to the terror attacks of 11 September, the stigma of his having stolen the 2000 presidential election was replaced with the popular war of revenge in Afghanistan and Bush's standings in the polls nearly doubled. In the absence of any opposition from the anthrax- challenged Democratic Party leadership, his rationale for "eternal war on terror" evolved over the next year, and on 20 September 2002 it was set in stone with the promulgation of "The National Security Strategy of the United States" (Manifesto Bush), through which Bush conferred upon himself the divine right to launch preemptive attacks on any nation he characterizes as a terrorist threat.

Homeland Security for Whom?

Are Bush, Ashcroft, and Wolfowitz Protecting America or Their Own Regime?
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine08112003.html

Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers
Directive for emergencies apparently gives authority without congressional oversight
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55825%20
President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.

It was issued with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive.

The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."