Replies

Hm...I'm sitting here trying to figure out what to think. And to be honest, I just don't know. He didn't say when he would sign them into law, did he? (dreaming) ;-)

When just elected, Bush said "send me a bill, and I'll sign it."
At the time, Republicans held all the powers, and he probably thought the bill would be fair.
Then Jeffords kissed gepfart, and the plans changed.
Now, a completely bogus, unconstitutional bill sent by Marxist dumpocraps and traidor McVain was sent to make Bush a liar.
Does he veto and relive his fathers downfall, or does he sign to prove he wouldn't lie to the American people?
The REAL crimminals here are the dumpocraps and traitor McVain. They should be the FR target! Not Bush for trying to fulfill his "promise."
Hopefully, God will reward him for his truthfullness somehow. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Bush has stated his reservations relative to the constitutionality of certain provisions. Does anyone here not think that the WH counsel and Solicitor General have not poured over this bill and id'd the weak spots. Why do you think Mitch Mc and Trent Lott went out and got more time? The pretty much esteemed Congressman's plan is still on track, except Bush and Co will target the clearly unconstitutional provisions of the bill. To expect an attack on the whole bill was probably not reasonable.

BTW, a veto was out of the question. In addition to your stated reasons, this thing has to be made to go away. A veto would not have done that.

Right, I know that...we should be banging the heads of the RINO's that let this even GET to the President. But...something in the 2nd part of his statement has got me thinking. You know that feeling when you're trying to come up with a word and it's right on the tip of your tongue but you still are stumped? That's where I am. Taps fingers....;-)