Bush Threatens a Veto Over Intel Bill

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 13, 2007.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #1
    AP

    as the new congress is creating new legislation, it's more clear than ever exactly what this administration thinks of oversight or even open gov't. its "reasoning" against these measures is almost laughable, were it not so serious.
     
  2. NotFound macrumors 6502a

    NotFound

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    #2
    ``These provisions are all intended to improve our ability to make decisions, leading to better intelligence for the military and policy makers,'' Rockefeller said on the Senate floor.

    Improving decision making and better intel for military.. we would need more than a bill to help us there.

    Lets try impeachment. :)
     
  3. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #3
    "-Required reports on interrogation activities and secret prisons, which the administration says would raise ``grave constitutional issues'' and jeopardize sensitive information that should not be widely distributed."

    so is this their way of admitting that they are violating the constitution and don't want us to know about it?
     
  4. halfprep455 macrumors regular

    halfprep455

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2007
    Location:
    Maryland USA
    #4
    Basically, Yes, Yes it is. I wonder why they don't want congress or the people who they are suppose to serve see some of the things there up to. This administration is almost as corrupt as the Nixon administration. Gotta love it.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  6. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #6
    I'm beginning to detect a pattern here:

    Bush wants his toys (war or intel money).

    Congress says, "Not unless you promise to listen and behave."

    Bush throws a tantrum and threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue.
     
  7. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #7
    Bush a Democrat? I don't think so.
     
  8. spork183 macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #8
    The huge difference between this administration and the Nixon administration is that Nixon was pretty astute in foreign policy. Bush, on the other hand, seems to lack any sense of finesse. Interesting that LBJ couldn't pull the trigger on getting out of Vietnam, and Bush can't pull the trigger on getting out of Iraq. Texans in the white house seem to have problems changing course. I guess you can take the man out of Texas...
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
  10. spork183 macrumors 6502a

    spork183

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2006
    #10
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    I'd go a little further than that. Saying that Bush lacks foreign policy finesse is like saying that Hannibal Lecter has poor table manners.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Everyone needs oversight. Everyone. We do it with law enforcement, we do it with politicians. We pretty much have to because there's way too much potential for abuse.

    Love to see what they'd say if it was Clinton wanting to do this. :rolleyes:
     

Share This Page