Article

2007-05-09 Home Front: Politix

Pelosi threat to sue Bush over Iraq bill

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2007-05-09 00:35|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 So, with the same quality of logic...
Bush could sue Pelosi for trying to be the president?

Posted by 3dc 2007-05-09 03:13|| 2007-05-09 03:13|| Front Page Top

#2 Lawsuit lawsuits lawsuits. Sounds like it's trying to be used as blackmail to me, only not illegal. Now exactly how legal was that trip to the ME, Pelosi? Prove it . . . .

Posted by gorb 2007-05-09 03:25|| 2007-05-09 03:25|| Front Page Top

#3 Last November the President admitted Operational problems in the Iraq Theater and solicited solutions. Rantburgers, Reps, Editorialists and others joined in what was an open and inclusivist democratic process. Field troops and scrutineers - as myself - are generally supportive of the new policies.

Nancy: your no-nothing contribution to the debate was heard and waste-basketed. It is time for you to shut up and act out your wallpaper role.

Posted by Sneaze 2007-05-09 06:39|| 2007-05-09 06:39|| Front Page Top

#4 An old Democrat mantra. "If you dont have the votes, try Legislation by Litigation."

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-05-09 08:45|| 2007-05-09 08:45|| Front Page Top

#5 The longer the dems chase their tails over Iraq to the exclusion of all other concerns, the more it looks like a Bush / Rove jedi mind trick has been played. Works for me...

Posted by M. Murcek">M. Murcek 2007-05-09 09:09|| 2007-05-09 09:09|| Front Page Top

#6 Good luck with that plan, little missie!

Posted by mojo">mojo 2007-05-09 10:01|| 2007-05-09 10:01|| Front Page Top

#7 "Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced legislation to that end last year, but the idea of a lawsuit has yet to gain traction in Congress."

Again, why did we support this old a-hole for reelection when there was a better candidate that was thrown to the wolves? Thanks RNC, you'll never see another dime from me.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-05-09 10:14|| 2007-05-09 10:14|| Front Page Top

#8 More of the dhemocrats trying a creeping coup d'etat to seize power from the executive branch. Traitors and seditionists. All of 'em.

Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader 2007-05-09 10:22|| 2007-05-09 10:22|| Front Page Top

#9 These "signing statements", made by several presidents, but overused by Bush, carry no impact. They are merely opinions. If the executive uses these to actually modify laws, this is illegal and Congress has a remedy. It is impeachment.

Posted by Woozle Elmeter2970 2007-05-09 11:52|| 2007-05-09 11:52|| Front Page Top

#10 Woozle: technically correct on signing statements: they are indeed opinion. The opinion of the President. Now that opinion doesn't have the force of law, but it makes clear a) what the President thinks the new law says and b) how he's going to enforce it.

Congress could impeach a President if said President fails to enforce a law. But then you get into whatever that means. And let's face it, most legislation has a lot of ambiguity and slackness written into it.

Again: if the Dhimmicrats want the war to be over, all they need do is withhold funding. They have a majority in both houses; if they keep their caucus together, there's no money come October 1. The President would have no choice then but to exit the war.

And the Dhimmicrats would be seen then as responsible for whatever happened next. If the fighting stopped and everyone in Iraq kissed, made up and started grooming fluffy bunnies, the Dhimmicrats would get credit.

And if there was a bloody civil war and an even bloodier middle east war in the next year, the Dhimmicrats would get blamed, and correctly so.

Now then, Woozle: which outcome do you think is more likely?

I bet Pelosi has put her marker down on option #2. She wants us out of Iraq but she doesn't want to be blamed for what happens afterwards. And that's why, instead of just stopping the funding, she and her party are partaking of all this stooopid nonsense.

She doesn't want her fingerprints on what happens. Not exactly a leader.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-05-09 12:18|| 2007-05-09 12:18|| Front Page Top

#11 At one time in this nation, traitors were shot. Now, I guess, we elect them to Congress. Our nation is in deep doo-doo.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-05-09 13:31|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-05-09 13:31|| Front Page Top

#12 Like the Pearson Puppeteers - she's a Hindmost!
see Ringworld and Known Space Sagas

Posted by 3dc 2007-05-09 13:49|| 2007-05-09 13:49|| Front Page Top

#13 Lawsuits are the last refuge of scoundrels and charlatans.

Posted by JohnQC 2007-05-09 16:08|| 2007-05-09 16:08|| Front Page Top

#14 Nancy (& cohorts): Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2007-05-09 16:18|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2007-05-09 16:18|| Front Page Top

#15 Congress could impeach a President if said President fails to enforce a law. But then you get into whatever that means

SCOTUS recently came down on the side of making a Federal Bureaucracy regulate. Not that they COULD regulate something, but that they have been negligent in NOT previously regulating.

Posted by eLarson 2007-05-09 17:48|| 2007-05-09 17:48|| Front Page Top

23:46 Zenster
23:43 Zenster
23:42 RD
23:28 Swamp Blondie
23:23 Swamp Blondie
23:13 Swamp Blondie
23:02 Zhang Fei
23:01 Jan
22:45 Eric Jablow
22:36 Ptah
22:29 Abu do you love
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:18 Jonathan
22:10 Jan
22:07 Frank G
22:06 Baba Tutu
21:58 Jan
21:53 Zenster
21:51 xbalanke
21:36 Pappy
21:20 Jan
21:14 Rob Crawford
21:11 Jan
20:40 Thavirong Snomort7998