SwiftVets.com

jalexson · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 3:48 am Post subject: Veto it Mr. President

President George Washington only vetoed two acts of Congress while he was president. One veto was because Washington believed the act was unconstitutional. The other was because he believed the act was bad military policy that would make it more difficult to protect Americans.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/veto.html

The Congressional proposal to set a deadline for withdrawal in Iraq should be vetoed for both reasons.

The Constitution explicitly assigns the power of determining how to use American military forces exclusively to the President because the President is better able to make decisions than the two houses of Congress. The founding fathers also recognized that foreign policy and military actions sometimes required secrecy to prevent the other side from knowing what the United States was planning to do.

The Constitution authorizes Congress to declare war, but not to declare peace except through ratification of any treaties presented by the President.

Congressional Democrats are clearly attempting to illegally alter the Constitution and President Bush should veto the act to protect the Constitution.

I'm not a poker player, but I know one important fact about how to play. If you want to win you never let the other players know how much you are willing to bet on a given hand. If they know you're limit, one of them needs to bet only one chip more on a hand and you will lose every time.
Democrats are telling al Qaida and other terrorists in Iraq, they only need to continue to kill for a few more months and we will quit.

There is no reason to quit in Iraq. The conflict is going much better than others the nation has participated in.

In fact the nation continued to fight wars when the situation was much worse than this conflict. During the War of 1812 the British invaded the Capital and destroyed several buildings, but the United States didn't surrender.

President Abraham Lincoln had to delay issueing his Emancipation Proclamation freeing the slaves during the Civil War because his army was having trouble winning any battles. But President Lincoln didn't give up. He eventually found a general named Grant who knew how to win.

During World War II the United States left an army behind in the Phillipines because the war began very badly for the U.S., but Americans didn't give up. General Douglas MacArthur lived up to his promise and returned to defeat the Japanese in the Phillipines and elsewhere.

American forces had to retreat in the Korean War but didn't give up and forced the North Koreans to stay out of South Korea.
_________________
"That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoe making and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poor house."
-- Mark Twain

Schadow · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:32 am Post subject:

I wonder what would happen if the President were to actually sign the surrender bill then issue a signing statement declaring that all of those provisions of the bill relating to the conduct of the war were the sole province of the Executive and that such provisions were to be ignored? Take the money, swallow the pork and run.

It would be gutsy, to say the least. Congressional heads would explode. Impeachment would probably follow, nothwithstanding the solid ground the President would be standing on, constitutionally.

The trouble with impeachment is that no law can stand in the way of such action. All they need is votes.

I guess the best way to move is to veto the thing. Sigh.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

LewWaters · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:32 am Post subject:

Personally, I hate seeing politics played with our Troops lives again. Bush has no real choice but a veto, I think.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

four-niner delta · Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject:

He has to veto that bill. He also has to really pin the dems down to EXACTLY what they are....COWARDS AND APPEASERS! The majority house and majority senate are the ones who gave the POTUS a bill with their pork. The dems have to live with their decision to bring that fiasco to the President's desk. I truly believe this bill will backfire on the dems. If the public actually follows the dems, then we as a country are in very big trouble! Crying or Very sad

_________________
Gary Armitstead
Burbank, CA
U.S. Army Vietnam 1966-67 Mekong Delta
Mobile Riverine Force
A Co. 3/60 9th INF DIV

streetsweeper95B · PO2 Joined: 25 Nov 2004 Posts: 365 Location: Texas

Agreed, President Bush should veto that bill.....
_________________
"Proud Member of the Freak Show"

dusty · Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:03 am Post subject:

If he asks, I'll be glad to hold the paper still while he slams the Veto stamp down on it.

Dusty
_________________
Left and Wrong are the opposite of Right!

Fort Campbell · Vice Admiral Joined: 31 Aug 2004 Posts: 896

Bush vetoed this Bill and the Dems failed to verride the veto. Good for President Bush!

Schadow · Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 1:07 am Post subject:

One of the most disingenuous things Pelosi continues to trumpet is that the surrender bill was "bipartisan". Technically, it was since two Republican congressmen voted for it. BUT, she fails to note that 13 Democrats voted against it, thereby making the vote against the bill even more bipartisan.

Yep, Mr. President, there's a new Congress in town. Evil or Very Mad

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54