Looks like DUHbya is up to his assinine tricks again.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23526436

Thats his right as President. Dont like it, then wait till someone else is in there.

Sadly, it is.

Only a little time left now!

This does not bother me all that much. Of course he's gonna veto. What does he have to lose, having done a whole bunch of this crap?

Had I done the things he has, I would totally go to the limit to keep trouble at bay.

The more worrysome bit is that we actually have a Congress that can't pass a veto proof majority legislation on this!

There is a significant percentage of nut-bags in there. That's the greater problem that Bush only makes worse.

I wonder if he vetoed it strictly on the water boarding issue or did congress and the senate tie a bunch of other stuff to the bill that he vetoed?

The lovely press fails to mention that.

That's why the President needs Line Item Veto.

Who knows, there may have been some worthwhile parts to the bill that got vetoed because of one part.

Well, remember, Clinton DID have the line-item veto.

The Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional.

The line item VETO is the wrong way to fix this.

Make it single subject legislation instead.

Make it single subject legislation instead.

That works. It accomplishes the same thing.

I think we all agree with that KSKD, the problem is Congress seems too happy to slap the pork on the barrel and push through their own special-interest stuff and without the checks-and-balances that SHOULD be alloted to the President, it will always continue.

Single subject legislation would be great, and I am sure that ANY President would sign that into law ... but would it ever get through Congress?

The system has worked pretty well for over 200 years, The current system makes it possible to get coalitions together, and a Congressman from Georgia can go back to his district and say, yeau I voted for a bill you don't like, thats because it had this other thing in it, and a congressman from Maine can go home, and say, yeau I voted for it, and you don't like it, but it had this in it.

As they say, if you like sausage or the law, you should never watch either being made.

OK, so here's an excerpt from an article about the veto.

It "says" that the Army banned waterboarding in 2006 and that the CIA admits to using it in 2003. It doesn't say if they have used it since then.

The article also states that in order to use waterboarding, it must be approved by the Attorney General and the President.

Here's the excerpt;
Bush said he did not veto the bill specifically over waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning. The Army banned the use of waterboarding or sensory deprivation on uncooperative prisoners in 2006. The CIA, which also prohibited the practice in 2006, has acknowledged using waterboarding on three suspected terrorists in 2003.

"My disagreement ... is not over any particular interrogation technique; for instance, it is not over waterboarding, which is not part of the current CIA program," Bush said in his veto message to the House.

The attorney general has deemed that program legal under domestic and international law, he said.

Still, waterboarding remains in the CIA's tool kit. The technique can be used, but it requires the consent of the attorney general and president on a case-by-case basis. Bush wants to keep that option open.

"I cannot sign into law a bill that would prevent me, and future presidents, from authorizing the CIA to conduct a separate, lawful intelligence program, and from taking all lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack," Bush said in a statement.

Democrats say the CIA should be restricted to the techniques in the Army Field Manual. They include the "good cop-bad cop" routine; making prisoners think they are in another country's custody; and separating a prisoner from others for up to 30 days.

In addition to waterboarding, the field manual prohibits hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes; stripping prisoners naked; and forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts. It also prohibits beating, burning or physically hurting prisoners in other ways; subjecting them to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation.

Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years to the Spanish Inquisition and is condemned by nations around the world and human rights organizations as torture.

Here's the whole article;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336257,00.html

My one problem with the article is that they used the words; Sen. Dianne Feinstein and intelligence in the same sentence. Talk about an oxyMORON!!

"n addition to waterboarding, the field manual prohibits hooding prisoners or putting duct tape across their eyes; stripping prisoners naked; and forcing prisoners to perform or mimic sexual acts. It also prohibits beating, burning or physically hurting prisoners in other ways; subjecting them to hypothermia or mock executions. It does not allow food, water and medical treatment to be withheld. Dogs may not be used in any aspect of interrogation."

Apparently the Army didn't solicit advice from the field manual at Abu Ghirab then. ALL of those were broken, repeatedly.

Well, then it's a power struggle.

This administration has maintained executive privilege throughout. Essentially, no checks from Congress then.

IMHO, that's broken and is highly likely to go away, if the next President is even close to sane where working with others is concerned.

What worries me is that there are no bounds on 'necessary'. That is why we have the checks and balances in the first place! Get somebody scared enough, or angry enough and necessary really means what they think it means and that's just not good for us.

Everybody reaches breaking points, or ends up with somewhat dangerous "nothing else matters but" value judgments. Just happens.

Having the check in place means bringing some sanity to the process in that significant buy in is required to do really questionable things.

It also limits abuse, just by sheer numbers in the loop.



I think the most direct way to begin dealing in single subject legislation would be a modification --actually a series of amendments to the house and senate rules.

Provide an option for a single subject path.

That would provide a very interesting dynamic for those cases where poison pills might get added to something, yet preserve the gravy train option for coalitions and such to continue to do their thing.

Such a path would have been handy this session for sure.

Look at Bush's vetos over his presidency. What a pathetic record he has created.

Bet he's in history books for YEARS.

Hey kids! Think facisim can't happen here? Pull up a chair and let me tell you how it almost happened. In fact, we are still struggling with it today.

There was a President called...

On the top worst lists, he will appear there too.

Later, when the peak oil matter becomes fully manifested in our daily lives, he will be there too. He will be the guy that tried to approach the problem with brute force, as in winner take all, screw the rest of them.

Set us back years.

Maybe they will mention Carter, who did start this, and whose influence really did squeeze a lot of oil consumption out of our manufacturing. Those were solid gains that did us good.

Well, those are outsourced now. All we really are equipped to do is wash each others laundry, fix cars, do nails, tell stories, and try to litigate away competition.

Oh yeah, that ownership society. Well, he created some new problems, didn't work on existing ones and redistributed wealth to the top, where it promptly left the nation.

We own the problems now.