1) Couldn't just say yes or no eh?

LOL .. of course not! You would have looked like crap if you did. So you spun your one word answer ("NO") into "Signing Statements ARE a way the Executive Branch can disagree – disavow certain aspects of legislation – yet allowing the legislative process to continue."

Nice try!

Thanks for showing you agree with their intent via your "disavow certain aspects of legislation" though.

2) I don't care if Bush vetoed once or 1,000 times. I didn't agree with Jim, nor did I agree with you on the issue. In fact, I didn't say ANYTHING on the veto issue at all.

My point is that he's made up for his extremely few vetoes with an extremely high (RECORD) number of signing statements.

3) I don't care when signing statements date back to. It's a needless point, since I didn't claim a date of origin. The point was that Dubya has used a RECORD number of them to dilute laws rather than veto them.

Translation: He has TWO means of defanging legislation he doesn't like – veto it OR a slap a signing statement on it.

4) I could care less if he is breaking the law or not since, like with your veto and "origin of the signing statement" redirections above, I never made a statement on that issue one way or another. So, basically, you have two poor spin attempts and one useless question in a single post.

Now stop arguing points I didn't make – it makes you look like an idiot. You do this repeatedly. And if you CONTINUE to do so, I'll just ignore your posts entirely.

I'll take your resistance to answer my question (How many vetoes has Bush used) as your agreeing with me the Jim/New Hampshire is off base.

Specifically your question,
"Are you saying that signing statements AREN'T another way to dilute laws and circumvent having to follow them as they are written when you DON'T choose to veto them?"

Signing Statements ARE a way the Executive Branch can disagree – disavow certain aspects of legislation – yet allowing the legislative process to continue.

Signing Statements date back to James Monroe (early 1800s). FDR, Carter, Regan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 – have all used them.

Is President Bush breaking the law, Rick?

Ummm ... feel free to reflect on my original post if you need to, but ...

Did I mention ANYTHING about Dubya VETOING anything?

Did I say I agreed with Jim's statement? Or that I thought it was historically factual?

If you're accusing me of EITHER of the above, you must have obviously flunked your English as a Second Language course. Because (and by all means feel free to reflect on my original post if you need to) the answer to ALL of my questions posed above would be a resoundingly apparent NO.

Are you saying that signing statements AREN'T another way to dilute laws and circumvent having to follow them as they are written when you DON'T choose to veto them?

Yes or No? One word. Thats all I need from you in the next post.

And no answering my question with OTHER questions either.

Just YES or NO will be fine.

LOL! Looks like YOU'RE the one that's gonna "need some help" spinning out of this one .... especially since the Republican debate tactic of accusing me of making a point I never made didn't quite work eh?

Hopefully the Riddlin will kick-in and you can follow along....

Jim from New Hampshire wrote,
"Congress cannot do much law making when every single constructive bill that goes to the President's hand is VETOED. Blame the President homie!"

Now surely you have good reading comprehension skills and I don't have to direct you to Jim's specific mention of VETO?

Again, Rick, help us out here... HOW many times has President Bush actually used a veto?

It's a simple question. Come on – help us out, Rick. You can do it! If you can count up to 3 using your fingers you'll pass the number along the way.

Need help yet?

They were all basically written while he drinking his juice from his sippy cup and say (in crayon): "WAAAAAA! I don't wannna follow this law ... and you can't MAKE me! WAAAAAA!"

Ready to start spinning now?

three .. two .. one ...

GO!

Now Levin and other must go after the government leaders (who I frankly have no use for, taking a month off while we fight for their freedom?) BUT....who were elected by the people.

Let them decide who is in charge of their own country as that will be the only way to legitimize the Government.

Time is running ought though for them to get their act together.

"Congress cannot do much law making when every single constructive bill that goes to the President's hand is vetoed. Blame the President homie!"

Yo, Jim, can you provide for us all the instances when President Bush stopped lawmakers by using a veto? It must be a huge number!

Oh wait – it's been TWICE in 7 years?

Either YOU'RE unaware of Bush's record on vetoes or you're saying congress has only put together 2 pieces of meaningful legislation in 7 years.

Which is it?

Congress cannot do much law making when every single constructive bill that goes to the President's hand is vetoed. Blame the President homie!

Try General Dynamics Growler program for some clarity on how Levin handles government.

You say you are going to vote out this US congress...what are you going to replace it with? Another republican congress? Please Homeofthebrave, I beg you! Don't torture the American people like that...

REALLY stupid question there .. but with an equally easy answer!

Because somebody's sons and fathers are doing all the fighting and dying over there with a monetary cost to ALL of us of 10 BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. And all this for Iraqi's who don't take the freedom of their OWN country seriously enough to show up for training more than once every 5 days? All this for tribes in a govt that spend more time squabbling over whether someone is a Sunni, Shiite or Kurd, and then quitting – when they're not discussing vacation plans – than formulating workable political solutions that will get our troops home.

And this is due to people like YOU who keep saying "it'll be worse if we leave", "it'll become a breeding ground for terrorists", and "we have to get them THERE or they'll come HERE" ... and all sorts of other things that destroy any leverage we have in making them do their own dirty work to stop their own civil war in their own country.

Keep telling them we cant afford to leave and that we'll just stay there forever and continue doing most of the work for them and keep wondering why they fall woefully short of any meaningful progress benchmarks. Why should they make any progress when you're telling them we can't (and wont) leave which only keeps them reliant on us and the incredibly expensive training wheels we keep providing?

Why not keep our coalition of "Where is the rest of the willing?" there to support the Iraqi "We need a vacation cuz it's too hot" tribal govt?

You got nothing to lose but money.

I mean ...after all, it's not YOU who is doing either the fighting or the dying for any of this right?

Four years, 500 billion dollars and over 3600 dead AMERICAN troops is enough. Either they get their act together NOW or we're GONE – and that is exactly what we should be telling them.

Their incredibly long grace period is over!

But, staying out of other countries would be irresponsible. For example, should we just "stay out" of Darfur and ignore the genocide?

A VERY brief mention of the fact that the Senator, who has been a very strong critic of the war, thinks that progress is being made as a direct result of the troop surge.

Regardless of how media outlets like CNN try to slant the story, people are beginning to take notice of the fact that the surge is working.

You certainly wouldn't know it by listening to the "sky is falling crowd" that includes Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton. However, when the NY Times and Carl Levin start agreeing that the surge is working, it is hard for either side to deny it any longer.

The wonderful do-nothing congress that you wax on about includes Republicans.
You do realize that, don't you?
"beholden to non-religious and secular leaders"...what are you talking about? We wouldn't waste so much time with idiotic issues such as gay bashing and teaching completely fabricated mythologies as science if it weren't for the Republicans pandering to the Religious Right.
Tell me what Carl Levin has done so wrong to deserve your disapproval? Or, are you just a partisan drone who hates Democrats no matter what.

Maris from Grosse Point-
Seasoned politicians who've served for years regarding foreign affairs have a little more credibility with foreign politics than the military. Besides, even most military leaders are saying that the solution needs better politics in Iraq.
Go watch Dr. Strangelove. There's a good idea of the military running things. Or maybe you want a country where leaders wear uniforms?

Don't you Remeber the Bush plan from Jan 2007? Benchmarks vs. Time Table

Either way we need to do the Right thing in Iraq for the Iraqi people.

More likely the military would be for 3 autonomous regions but so far the majority of the Iraqi people aren't for that idea because they are all paranoid. The Sunnis and Kurds are paranoid they will get screwed out of oil revenues. The Shi'ites are paranoid that they will get screwed.

In all likelihood we should be controlling the borders and letting the Iraqis hash this out for themselves. It took us two tries to establish a government that worked and it didn't happen overnight. It also took a civil war to solve the slavery question later. So only an idiot would think it would be so easy to pull off in in a region devoid of any true democracies.

Unfortunately as long as everyone continues to be paranoid and doesn't try working together it will not get much better.

As for the two-time Arm service comity chairman (who has served on that comity for nearly all of his 28 years in senate), credentials on this matter; I ask you, who do suggest speak up on these issues? You State “Since when has Carl Levin become a General.” Since when do we have our generals advise foreign leaders on how to run their governments? The military is A-political, and while they are fighting for stability on the ground, it is essential, that the Iraq government do it job, to insure a political stability in the country. You don’t have to be a general to know that!

The military has nothing to do with his conclusion.

Why are you expecting so much more from the Iraq's?

And guess what?

Yep .. he ignored that piece of intel.

SHOCKING eh?

Completely non-functional, unable to produce any political settlement because it is beholden to non-religious and secular leaders.

Hopefully Carl, we too will vote a do nothing Congress out of office next year. You included..