The use of a presidential VETO only shows what the president opposes It does NOT say a law is just. The Courts fill that task!

We weren't talking about whether or not a law is just. Just who makes them...and it AIN'T the courts! And even THEY can't say if it's just or not. Only if it's constitutional or not. Which is not the same thing.

This is good, cause we are not there to fight a CIVIL WAR! You are arguing that we are fighting something we are not fighing. Good argument on your part. Not very bright but that is just like you.



Once again you prove you are less than bright. The three branches of our government works like this. The legislative branch makes a law. The President signs the document to make the law valid and legal. The Judicial branch is called in only as a last resort to declare if the law is constitutional or not. What is just in this country is what passes through the two branches of government. And if necessary the judiciary is called in if a bad law is signed but the president. If the president veto’s a bill and the Congress does not have the constitutional two thirds majority to override the veto then the law was not just. You would know this if you graduated 6th grade.

You seem to read only the current events that make us look like we are losing. How about the current events that you seem to miss, like the captured Iranian generals, or the facts like Iran is funding both sides of the “civil war” or that AQ is also working on both sides of the “civil war” does not sound like a civil war when the people who want to kill us are fighting on both sides of the conflict. It is hard to call it anything other than the war on terrorism. We have a nation state supporting the destabilization of a fledgling nation and add to that AQ who is sworn to destroy us is fighting on both sides of the conflict as well as their own attacks. Take them both out of the mix and your “civil war” dies a quick death.



They settled this issue with the elections. Things were getting quiet and then Iran and AQ kicked in and all this because for months prior to that the democrats were screaming that we had to leave because there was a civil war and we can’t fight in a civil war. We told the enemy how to get us out of the country without having force us out. The democrats seem to be working with the terrorist here. What do you think?

“They settled this issue with the elections.”

We were told that was the answer. The government in Iraq has not been able to control anything. The reconstruction effort is a total failure. Billions can not be found. There is no water, electric and the oil production has not materialized. The projects that have been completed were done so poorly they are not working and the terrorist attacks have destroyed most of what was done. The latest Inspector general report on the reconstruction said is just about a TOTAL FAILURE. We wasted $20 Billion dollars and have NOTHING to show for it. We handed out another $9 Billion in cash which can not be accounted for. The number of U.S. dead, Iraqi dead is at an all time high. There are between 2-3 Million Iraqi people that have fled the country because of the violence. If you believe we are winning on ANY front you are dreaming!

More lies from a political hack.



Is this another case of you making up the facts to agree with your argument? You have lied so much I don't waste time looking up your lies anymore I just ignore them.

You sir, are a political hack!

and all of the representitives and senaters try to get their pork onto bills that the president cannot veto

such as hurricane relief

with an line item veto the president could veto all or at least most of that pork

if you want to know where all of that surplus went it went to pork

yes and i do mean both demos. and repub.

“if you want to know where all of that surplus went it went to pork”

I suggest a basic Math course for you. I agree we should end the PORK but the TOTAL OF ALL THE PORK is not close to the $5.7 Trillion Surplus Bush claimed would be developed from 2002 to 2012. The TOTAL PORK in the current year budget is about $30 Billion. The annual budget deficit last year was $600 Billion or 20 TIMES the TOTAL PORK.

Yes, we are. Show me a battle we have lost. Show me ground given up to the enemy. Not one place in the war on terror have we lost ground except in Spain. We win the battles yet you claim loss. The only way that can be if you are on the side of our enemy.

You claim to have been in the military and you claim to have gone to War College yet you seem shocked and surprised to find out that in wars we get attacked by the enemy. I guess that is because you are a socialist liberal democrat and used to attacking your own side during war. Welcome to reality where just because we get attacked does not mean we have lost the battle or the war.

these new radicals are yesterdays non radicals as i have said there is no real non radical muslim





if these two groups have been killing each other for 1300 years how do you blame that on bush

i believe the keyword here is develop means that it wasn't going until he came on the scene



but sense you have stated that these two groups have been killing each other for 1300 years and bush has only been on the scene for 6 years



they had been trying to shoot down american aircraft sense the end of the first gulf war in which part of the agreement for us not to take baghdad was the no flight zones

so that we could protect the kurds and the shii from air attacks from saddam

xaddam broke the treaty in the first or secound month of it by trying to shoot down american fighters and he countined to do so until the secound war

just before we invaded the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ threatened to use their non existant chimical weapons on us. so it wasn't just us that thought iraq had these weapons so did the iraqi government.

saddam had the weapons and he gave/sold them to sieria and iran which went from not knowing what a nuke was to being within 5 years of building one

which is about were the iraqis were when we invaded

"i believe the keyword here is develop means that it wasn't going until he came on the scene"

Saddam prevented the fighting by force. When we deposed him and his government and did not have a level of force to stop the factions that hated each other from organizing and fighting each other the Civil War Began. If Bush had listened to the Generals and sent a force level capable of controlling the factions and prevent them from arming and organizing we would not be seeing g the level of violence we see today. If we could have prevented foreign terrorists from coming into Iraq after Saddam fell we would not have the al Qaeda operations in Iraq. Thus it was Bush first by deposing Saddam who
kept control and then by not sending a force level capable of controlling the factions in Iraq that has caused the Civil War that exists today!

they had been trying to shoot down American aircraft sense the end of the first gulf war in which part of the agreement for us not to take Baghdad was the no flight zones

so that we could protect the Kurds and the shii from air attacks from Saddam

xaddam broke the treaty in the first or second month of it by trying to shoot down American fighters and he continued to do so until the second war

just before we invaded the GOVERNMENT OF IRAQ threatened to use their non existent chemical weapons on us. so it wasn't just us that thought Iraq had these weapons so did the Iraqi government.

NONE of these things posed a danger to the U.S. The sanctions and the no Fly zones were keeping Saddam under control. We had the UN Inspectors back into Iraq and if Bush had allowed them to complete their job we would have learned what we KNOW TODAY-- Saddam did not have WMD or and sort of a nuclear program!

you mean those people who answered to the ones taking bribes from saddam

pay close attention. The quote is yours not mine, so you are arguing with yourself.