From the Associated Press:

"President Bush had rejected an earlier version of the legislation (the $696 Billion Defense Bill) because he said it would expose the Iraqi Government to expensive lawsuits.

"The new bill, which passed 369-46, would let Bush grant Iraq immunity under the provision, which otherwise guarantees that U. S. victims of state-sponsored abuse can sue foreign governments in court.

"The decision to change the bill without attempting to challenge Bush's rejection reflects the difficulty Democrats have had in challenging the president on even minor issues.  Democrats lack the two-thirds majority needed to override a presidential veto."

There are many logical contradictions with this.

It presumes that George Bush has the power to grant immunity to another sovereign country.  What Iraq does about lawsuits is up to the courts, not George Bush.

It presumes that George Bush can prevent victims of abuse from seeking redress in a court of law, whether Iraqi, US or International court.

If George Bush can do the above, then he is the de facto head of state of Iraq, and the victims can re-direct their abuse claims, in court, to George Bush.  If George Bush has taken on the role of determining what Iraq can and can't do, then he has taken on personal responsibility for any claims against Iraq and must pay any judgment out of his own pocket.

The Constitutional provisions for the president's powers do not include the power of veto.  The president has no veto power.  Its not there.  The Constitutional provisions for Congress passing legislation and sending it to the president for signing does not include presidential veto.  Its not there, either.  The president cannot veto a bill.  The procedure requires that the passed bill be sent to the president.  He then has 10 days to sign it or send it back to Congress to be  "reconsidered."  If he doesn't send it back within 10 days, it automatically becomes law.

The Constitutional provisions for a bill returned to Congress from the president do not include the requirement that the bill be revised to fit the president's version of what he thinks the bill should say.  The provisions only require that the bill be reconsidered.  The Congress does not have to revise it.  The Constitution does not say that they have the power to revise it.  Its not there.  They can say, we've reconsidered it, and its fine just the way we considered it the first fime, and it stays the same after we've reconsidered it.

When at least 268 people say the bill should be one way and one man says the bill should be another way, all the one man, the president, can do is send it back to Congress.  He must send it back to Congress.  He can't veto it.  Congress can then say, fine, the president doesn't want this bill signed into law, so that's the end of it.  The Democrats, who are the majority in Congress, have no obligation, and in fact have on Constitutional power to revise a bill to fit the president's wants.  There is no Constitutional provision for revising a bill returned by the president, only that it be reconsidered.  They can say, fine, we've reconsidered it and its what we want, and we're not revising it.  The Constitution doesn't give us the power to do that.  If George Bush wants to kill the bill, that's up to him.  Let him take the responsibility for it.

So, why do the Democrats keep custom tailoring the bills to Bush's specifications?  That's what Republicans do.  That's the question we've all been wondering about.  Why do they keep saying they don't have the power to overcome a veto when there is no veto and they don't have to overcome it?  Why do they do it when they don't have to?  Its because they are Republican sheep in false prophets clothing.  We didn't know that when we elected them in 2006, but we know it now.  They told us they were Democrats, but they're not.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are as staunchly in support of Bush as the previous Republican Congress was.  And, the big question is, why are they in support of Bush when they don't have to be?  Why do they curry favor with George Bush when they don't have to, don't need to, when its to the detriment of the United States, and when the great majority of the people of the United States despise George Bush and want him out of office immediately?  That's the question we need to ask them and not allow them to get away with the false answer about not having the votes to overcome a nonexistent veto.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar, lawyer or expert.  But, I can read and understand the very clear, straightforward language of the Constitution and see what the law is.  The people we so proudly elected to Congress are not following the law and are, for reasons that we should be very concerned about and very suspicious of, allowing George Bush to continue to get away with his lawlessness.  I know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can read and understand the Constitution just as well as I can.  They know that they have the power to stop George Bush in his tracks.  But, they're not doing it.  There are reasons why they are going along with George Bush, sucking up to him and granting his every wish.  We just don't know what they are and its really frightening to think what they could be.

Its frightening (yes, we should be frightened, outraged, full of the famous fear and loathing, not of terrorists but of Bush and his Republicans) to think that the events of 9/11 were allowed to happen by George Bush, his Republican administration and his Republican Congress.  Its even more frightening and outrageous to think of the continuing damage that George Bush, his Republican administration and his demonstrably Republican control of Congress can do.

 1  |  2