Read full story for latest details.

View the full article here.

No surprise that Bush doesn't care what Congress thinks - he doesn't care what the citizens think either.

He reallhy is an arrogant prick ain't he...And why he is arrogant I don't know???

He's not afraid to be a prick because the Democratic leadership already announced that they have no intentions of even considering impeachment, which is the ultimate check on the executive. Maybe Nanci Pelosi should rethink her statement that "impeachment is a waste of time", because saving lives certainly isn't a "waste of time."

He has always been an arrgonat prick. Even when he lived here.

An arrogant prick, this of a President who has vetoed on bill from Congress. Hmmm let's see, Clinton vetoed 37 times that amount. I guess that makes good old bill a really,really,really,really,really,really,really,r eally,really,really,really,really,really,really,re ally,really,really,really,really,really,really,rea lly,really,really,really,really,really,really,real ly,really,really,really,really,really,really,reall y,really, arrogant prick.

dmk

Not really. We had divided government in most of Clinton's administration; meaning Congress differed not just by party but ideologically from Clinton most of the time and produced more bills that he would be inclined to veto. Not to mention that the Democratic Party is more fragmented than the Republicans and it's hard to produce many Democratic bills where every Democrat is in on it.

On the other hand, Republicans don't tend to question authority, especially during the Bush administration. Bush has had a unified government all throughout his entire presidency up until this point. He hasn't had to veto anything because the Republican leadership in Congress were rubber-stampers for the executive at unprecedented levels. Really the only Republican I know of that actually votes ideologically instead of on the Party line is Congressman Ron Paul (many times he's the only dissenting voice in the Republican Party), and he's basically libertarian.

So, if this Democratic leadership can (key word can) produce something like an Iraq War timetable or universal health care, Bush will use his veto powers.

Not to mention Clinton at least generally operated on the consensus of the American people. I can understand sometimes doing something that may be unpopular, but President Bush has been very arrogant on things that are really stupid and the vast majority of Americans are against (such as selling our ports to Dubai, or now his Iraq War plans).

I agree it's a waste of time.
First - it ain't gonna happen.
Secondly - it's just a time-wasting censure - remember, that impeachment is NOT removal from office. It's just a public hand-slapping. Bush's impeachment wouldn't save one life.

By impeachment we generally mean the entire process which entails the subsequent vote on removing the official and conviction. If Bush was removed, we certainly would save lives (that is, if Cheney were convicted too).

And you most likely do have a point on it not happening. Likely the Democrats would get the vote on impeachment in the House but he would probably get acquitted by the Senate, like Clinton. But I think that the case of convicting Bush is very high; probably higher than any other prior President including Nixon. I think if irrefutable evidence is presented, then if the Senate doesn't convict him then he will probably get indicted by a federal grand jury. Just because he may have rubber-stampers in Congress doesn't mean he can do whatever he wants and be above the law.

Bush is the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, giving Congress no chance to override his judgments.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Bush challenges hundreds of laws - The Boston Globe



ImpeachBush / VoteToImpeach: