The difference, Brandon, is that we have a man squatting in the Oval Office who obviously is an incompetent, bumbling idiot, most likely due to his drinking and drug use and we have a VP who is the real "decider".
And people like you keep him there, knowing full well that the old war lord Cheney is the real power on this throne. Hell, just yesterday I read an article in one of the major newspapers which said basically that everything that goes to Bush goes to Cheney first. Apparently Cheney is the one preparing the "signing" statements......... over 800 of them now... trying to seize more and more power for the president. What's he planning to do.........knock off Bush so he can have the title & the power officially?
You can try to shrug it off now Brandon, but you and I both know that if a Democrat ends up in office in the next election, and starts to use the same powers that Bush has utilized, you will be oneof the first be screaming your head off that it's impeachment time! Accusations & photos are not to blame for the harm Bush and his thugs are causing. Bush bears that responsibility all alone. After all he wanted the title so bad that he had it stolen for him, two times. I would say hang the bastard, but I would rather enjoy seeing him prosecuted, imprisioned and all his ill-gotten assets seized. Same for Cheney and all the rest of the old war lords. Loss of money and power is the only things those slimeballs will ever understand.
Read the Fine Print
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/opinion/25tue2.html
Published: July 25, 2006
Over 212 years, 42 presidents issued "signing statements" objecting to a grand total of 600 provisions of new laws. George W. Bush has done that more than 800 times in just over five and a half years in office.
Most presidents used signing statements to get legal objections on the record for judges to consider in any court challenge. For Bush, they are far more: part of a strategy to expand presidential powers at the expense of Congress and the courts. His signing statements have become notices to Congress that he simply does not intend to follow the law, especially any attempt to hold him accountable for his actions.
Some of Bush's signing statements have become notorious, like the one in which he said he didn't feel bound by the new law against torturing prisoners. Others were more obscure, like the one in which he said he would not follow a law forbidding the White House to censor or withhold scientific data requested by Congress.
But all serve the "unitary executive theory" cherished by some of Mr. Bush's most extreme advisers, including Vice President Dick Cheney and his legal staff. This theory says that the president ?- and not Congress or the courts ?- has the sole power to decide how to carry out his duties. According to a study by a bipartisan panel of the American Bar Association, Mr. Bush objected to 500 provisions of new laws just in his first term ?- the majority of them because they conflicted with the unitary executive theory. The A.B.A. said that theory was specifically mentioned 82 times.
The Bush administration often says the president is just trying to stop Congress from interfering with his ability to keep the nation safe, and that other presidents also included constitutional objections in their signing statements. That's just smoke.
For one thing, under this president, all laws are screened by Mr. Cheney's staff for violations of the unitary executive theory. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton had the Justice Department report constitutional concerns about new laws to the White House. Mr. Bush often does cite national security as an excuse for ignoring an act of Congress ?- but that is almost always because lawmakers are trying to rein him in on issues like the treatment of prisoners, and the withholding of information from Congress.
The A.B.A. called Bush's use of presidential signing statements "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers" and recommended that Congress enact legislation clarifying the issue.
We agree on both points, even though we fear that if Congress passes a bill, Mr. Bush will simply issue a new signing statement saying he also does not intend to follow it.
