I beg to differ. You held consistently from the start that his signing it was a good idea, because the House and Senate would override the veto and waste a lot of time (don't know where you got that idea, neither had the 2/3 vote necessary).
Sorry. Would you like for me to drive to D.C., lay down on the Mall and let people spit on me because I didn't say I hated Bush for what he did? What will satisfy you? If I said he was an [expletive deleted], would that satisfy you? If I said he shouldn't have ever been elected, would that satisfy you? If I said he was just like his daddy, would that satisfy you? If I said he was the worst president we ever had, would that satisfy you?
That's a bit over the top, don't you think? And watch your language - this is a family-friendly forum.
We've been over this on this very thread; I never said it was a GOOD IDEA; I discussed the reason why he did it. I can only guess at why you continue to put interpretations on my words that aren't there.
And I never said that the House and Senate would override the veto and waste a lot of time BECAUSE I DIDN"T KNOW THAT. Ask anybody on here; I'm the worst person with numbers on this forum.
I said that the SC would rule parts of it unconstititutional. I was wrong. So were a lot of other people.
Except you, of course.