Why did it take Bush THREE years to sign a bill banning protesters at military funerals?
535343
Because it took him that long to ask his wife and all the other women in the United States to help him decide. He doesn't have a mind of his own.
990930
Dude, calm down.\nFirst of all, the Constitution and its amendments are not laws.  If something contradicts the constitution it is deemed unconstitutional.  Not illegal.\nSecond.  Bush can't write a bill let alone pass a bill.  Did you ever hear that School House Rock song "I'm Only A Bill". . .Only Congress can pass law and write bills.  The president can either sign it, veto it, or ignore it.  Learn some civics.  What you are referring to is Executive Order 13198 (and a handful of others subsequent to this one) executed on January 29, 2001.  And before you go jumping off a bridge, read them carefully.  They don't say what you apparently think.\nThird.  You are incorrect about your interpretation of the Supreme Court rulings regarding whatever specific faith based initiative you are stuck on.  If the Supreme Court has ruled and it exists, you must be wrong.  QED.\nFourth.  Saying that you don't mind as long as ALL religions are represented is a very cute way of avoiding saying what's really in your heart.  If we represent ALL then we really are representing NONE.\nLast.  There are numerous things that are better done by religious and other community organizations (as opposed to the government).  For example, the Catholic Church does a wonderful job providing adoption services for disabled orphans.  A better job than the government.  The church avoids some of the thornier issues regarding church/state by separating its adoption services from its core purpose (to grossly paraphrase, a requirement for receiving federal money).\nBut really dude, calm down.
1105948
They apparently violated the UCMJ. It wasn't a decision that was up to Bush. The military did the right thing.
808622
Uh, no- Bush was elected for his second 4 year term.  Bush will be forced out of office by law in 2 more years.  A person can only be president 2 times, then they're banned for life by federal law
351349
George W. Bush is trying to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow 3 presidential terms.\n\n\nSorry, you said funny not scary
666396
Hardly breaking news. We need to vote the rascals out in Nov. 2006. This will put pressure on President Bush, and it will bring up the possibility of impeachment.
828627
Yes the President will veto it.  The Military does not want people that don't want to be there.
1075375
Because Clinton overcut the military budgets when he became president. He used the end of the 'cold war' as an excuse, but his real reasoning is he has always had a personal vendetta against the military. They were grossly underfunded for eight years, and those nice little amenities like body armor and guns that don't jam take mucho cashy money- money the government has only in the last 4 years or so actually begun delivering, and that has been somewhat squandered, to a degree, by the civilian powers-that-barely-be at the Pentagon (which means that Bush is also responsible, to a degree, because he either appointed these morons, or appointed the people who hired these morons).
317763
it was January 23rd (but i didn't vote for him). he was elected into a minority government. which means that he has to get votes from other party's to get bills past. Its a delicate balancing act. But i do not believe he will last long.
714344
In violation of his oath of office, Bush used signing statements to negate laws passed by Congress, not with a veto, but with his personal opinion. Bush, thus, elevated himself above the rule of law that has protected America from becoming a tyranny and made a mockery of the separation of powers that are a foundation of American liberty.\n\nThe notion that Americans can be protected from "terror" by giving up the Bill of Rights(and we have) is absurd. Democrats are complicit in this absurd notion. Too many have been intimidated into voting for police state legislation, because they lacked the GUTS to call police state legislation by its own name. The fact is, some legislation passed during the Bush administration is far more dangerous to Americans than Muslim terrorists. \n\nWith the overnight destruction of civil liberties that were 800 years in their creation, the United States stands at a watershed. If the legislation that has been put on the books permitting spying on Americans without a court warrant, legalizing torture and self-incrimination, and repealing habeas corpus and the right to an attorney remains on the books, the United States will be controlled by regime regardless of which party is in power.
1071140
I agree with the protest of funerals..but I dint see it in person, the worst thing I saw in person was a group of haitian migrants trying to come illegally to FL, their boat sank, when we arrived on seen they were mostly eaten by sharks already
735656
The law condemns man. God offered himself to torture and death to pay the price for those who accept the atonement of Jesus Christ. Bush is not God.
839191
I think shrty0525 is trying to protest the ACLU for helping picket soldier's funerals. I don't think an e-mail will help because they can filter the e-mails. The best is to have Law Makers passing laws on picketing any service personnel's funeral just out of respect for the family who needs to mourn.
824194
The Pentagon ban on media coverage of returning war casualties was initiated in January 1991 by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney during the administration of President George H. W. Bush, just weeks before the start of the Gulf War against Iraq.\n\n"I have never considered the release of images as a political issue," said Begleiter, noting that both Republican and Democratic administrations imposed the image ban. "But, seeing the cost of war, like any highly-charged political issue, can have strong political consequences."\n\nBegleiter's Freedom of Information Act requests, and the lawsuit, asked for release of both still and video images. The Pentagon's "final response" in the case includes no video images of the honor ceremonies for returning war casualties. "I'm surprised at this," said Begleiter, "because the U.S. military uses video and film technology extensively in its public relations efforts."
128070
According to my uncle who was a senior millitary officer at the time. Bush Sr. did want to occup Baghad . Schwarzkopf and the other generals at the time told him that it would take 5 -10 years of millitary occupation to ensure a stable Iraqi government.  The U.S. politicans also felt that if they sponsored internal political rebellions ( Such as the Kurdish guriella fighters) they could ensure debstablizing of the Iraqi government. Plus remember the U.N. said that their goal was to ensure that Iraqi would not invade another country.
121203
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, obviously receiving a limited amount of support from Democrats, and must be considered an overall unsupportive vote when compared to the "war vote" for the Second World War and other more poplularly supported conflicts. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.\n\nThe Resolution cited several factors to justify a war:\n\n    * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire\n    * Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"\n    * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"\n    * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"\n    * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War\n    * Iraq's alleged connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda\n    * Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States\n\n\nThere were numerous valid reasons to finish the job in Iraq... the main one being (in spite of Clinton's non action) the violations of the terms of cease fire that ended the hostilities of "Desert Storm"\n\nI am 37
827679
unfortunately Conservatives such as sway are making it much more difficult for people like you and I to speak freely and openly on whatever subject we see fit. The right to free speech is important, otherwise we would live in a police state. That is why it is important, we need to avoid Martial law, something many people are afraid Bush is capable of.