Evaluation of the policies of George W. Bush and his Republican conservatives on America.
Published on October 7, 2007 By COL Gene In Politics



The U.S. Constitution is the foundation for our rights and essential for the success of our nation. The federal government was brought into existence by the people through our Constitution. Second, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land that controls the actions of our public officials in all three branches of the federal government. Every elected official swears to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution. The very foundations of Our Constitution are being violated by the highest elected officials in America and we are allowing this travesty to take place.

The most basic principal upon which the rights of our system are based is the Separation of Powers. This was intended to split and therefore limit the power of each of the three branches of our government. That principal, which was set out by our founding fathers, can not be violated if our government is to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Two powers granted to Congress and ONLY to Congress by our Constitution are the power to Declare War and the Power of the Budget. Both of these Congressional responsibilities have been usurped by President Bush. In the case of the budget, Bush has been allowed to establish his spending priorities and the Congress has in effect abdicated their responsibility to set the spending. The most recent example is the S-CHIP funding which Congress passed in a bipartisan vote. Bush has vetoed that decision by Congress which is an abuse of his veto power. If Congress does not override this veto Bush and NOT Congress, as the Constitution Requires, will set the spending policy of our country. Once the majority of Congress chooses a spending level, they have a responsibility to insure that it is established and must override any Presidential veto to insure their constitutional responsibility is met.

What does our Constitution say about war? Our Founders divided war into two separate powers: Congress was given the power to declare war and the president was given the power to wage war. What that means is that under our system of government, the president cannot legally wage war against another nation in the absence of a declaration of war against that nation from Congress. When Congress passed the Iraq War Resolution they delegated that Constitutional power to declare war to the President. There is NO provision in our Constitution to delegate that power to the President. When Congress passed this clearly unconstitutional law, a case should have been initiated to challenge that Iraq War Resolution. No such action was undertaken and the third branch of our government, our courts, was unable to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to insure Congress and the President do not act outside the Constitution.

In both these examples George W. Bush violated his oath of office. Every time Congress does not insure their decision on the budget is enacted they fail their responsibility. The Iraq war resolution is a failure of first Congress then Bush and finally by the fact that a case was not brought to the Federal Courts to challenge the Iraq war Resolution. Technically the Courts did not violate their constitutional responsibility because they can only exercise that power WHEN a case has been initiated. Thus the fact that no case was brought to challenge the action of Congress to delegate a power only Congress can exercise was because no American choose to challenge the resolution in court. I for one believe that such a suit should be brought today to make it clear for the future that ONLY Congress has the power to declare war. Congress DID NOT declare war against Iraq. On December 8, 1941 Congress did not say to President Roosevelt he had the power to declare war against Japan, Germany or Italy. Congress DECLARED WAR and that enabled President Roosevelt to act under his power as Commander-in-Chief. That is NOT what took place in Iraq. Bush acted as both the Congress and as Commander-in-Chief.

We need to STOP the destruction of our Constitution by the President or Congress. The first step in that quest is to tell Congress they and not Bush need to set the spending of the United States. The second action is to bring a case that challenges the Iraq War Resolution which continues today to be the authority by which Bush continues the Iraq War. There is no greater danger then to allow the President or Congress to violate our Constitution!

Comments (Page 7)
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9 
on Oct 10, 2007
If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.


me too because i doubt that there would have been a country after 9-11
on Oct 10, 2007
The 3,500 people who completed ballots that were voided in Palm Beach County. They all voted and their votes for Gore were not counted.


You do understand that a secret ballot makes it impossible to say who had their ballot kicked out because of stupidity? Any 3500 people can make that claim. For all we know it was republican votes that were kicked out allowing the democrats to get double the votes.
on Oct 10, 2007
which is why i keep saying that unless you know for a fact that you have talked to those 3500(and there is no way you would ever know) then there is no way you can say that al gore would have won...
on Oct 11, 2007
Reply By: danielost Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007
“If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.


Me too because I doubt that there would have been a country after 9-11.”

You are full of BS. Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda. Gore may have treated those warnings with more relevance. We will never know but what we do know is that Bush ignored those warnings; we were attacked just as the warnings said and Bush then attacked a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11. I do not know how Gore would have done after 9/11 but he could not have done any worse then Bush!!!!!
on Oct 11, 2007
Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda.


You are a political hack! If the problem was so obvious that Mr. Bush ignored all the information for the eight months he was president what does that say about Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore who were in charge for the eight years prior to the attack? Five of those years they were in charge was the planning stage of the attack. The last two years of their administration was when the terrorist had gotten into the country to put the plan into action. The PDB with the title of “bin Laden determined to attack the United States” was a historical document based on the last six years prior to their attack so none of this was new information. If Mr. Gore ignored these warnings for years what makes you think that he would suddenly do something about it once he was president?

The fact is that Mr. Bush did not ignore the warnings at all. Plans were put into effect to destroy AQ, but there was not enough time to do anything because all the time wasted by the previous administration.
on Oct 11, 2007
Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda.


You are a political hack! If the problem was so obvious that Mr. Bush ignored all the information for the eight months he was president what does that say about Mr. Clinton”


The CIA Warnings about al-Qaeda planning to attack the U.S. started in March 2001 AFTER Clinton was no longer President. In addition, Clinton met was President Elect Bush in December 2000 and told him face to face that he ( Clinton) considered one of the greatest threats to the U.S. to be al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. It was Bush that ignored both Clinton and the CIA warnings as to the danger from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!
on Oct 11, 2007
It was Bush that ignored both Clinton and the CIA warnings as to the danger from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!


How did he ignore the warnings? He asked for an increase in troops, he ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden. DIA was sent out to do what they could but before any of that could be implemented we were attacked. Why did not Mr. Clinton do something he had 4 years to do something? You say the warnings came in March of 2001 giving Mr. Bush only six months to stop AQ but Mr. Clinton knew about it and did nothing other than tell the new president to look out for AQ. Either Mr. Clinton lied about the warning in January of 2001 or did the first real warnings come in March of 2001. If Mr. Clinton warned Mr. Bush before he took office why did not Mr. Clinton do something about it? Which lie do you want me to believe this time?
on Oct 11, 2007
Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA t


and clinton ignored 2 years of warnings. and then did his best to make sure bush didn't know about them .
on Oct 11, 2007


Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“It was Bush that ignored both Clinton and the CIA warnings as to the danger from al-Qaeda and Bin Laden!


How did he ignore the warnings? He asked for an increase in troops, he ordered the CIA to kill bin Laden.



Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
Bush IGNORED six months of warnings from the CIA t


and clinton ignored 2 years of warnings. and then did his best to make sure bush didn't know about them .”


The CIA Warnings that we were to be attacked by Bin Laden started in MARCH 2002 and lasted up to Sept 6, 2002. That was AFTER CLINTON left office. Clinton knew there was a danger from bin Laden and that is why he told that to Bush in December JUST before Bush took office. Bush did NOTHING in response to direct and repeated warnings that we were about to be attacked for 6 months before 9/11. Bush DID not ask Congress to increase the Army or Marines after 9/11. If Bush had said we need more troops after 9/11 and told Congress we did not have the troop levels NEEDED to invade Iraq as the Military Planners and generals said, Bush would have got the increase in the troops. What he did is NOTHING and went to way with less then 1/3 the troop levels that were REQUIRED. Bush allowed the violence to develop in Iraq and Bush allowed the Foreign terrorists to begin operating in Iraq because we did not have enough troops to prevent that from taking place!
on Oct 11, 2007
CIA Warnings happened after 9/11?
on Oct 11, 2007
If Gore had been successful in 2000 as he should have been, I doubt Bush would have been elected in 2004.


You don't know that, though. Quit living in the past, man!
on Oct 11, 2007
Reply By: Jythier Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
CIA Warnings happened after 9/11?


No the CIA warnings strarted in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001. The twin towers were attacked Sept 11, 2001.
on Oct 11, 2007
NOTHING you or anyone has said changes the fact the Bush is president because of this error not because the majority of voters voted for him in Florida or in total.


I totally agree with you here!

The problem is that the laws don't provide for such a thing as you want. The laws say that the votes were invalid just like the votes of the american service men and women were invalidated by the American hateing Albert Gore Jr. Following the laws of the land is what made Mr. Bush president and you can not re-write history. Live with it.
on Oct 11, 2007
No the CIA warnings strarted in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001. The twin towers were attacked Sept 11, 2001.


If what you say here is true then you lied when you said that President Clinton warned Mr. Bush before he took office. Or are you telling us lies now not then or then not now? It gets confusing keeping up with you.
on Oct 12, 2007
Reply By: Paladin77 Posted: Thursday, October 11, 2007
“No the CIA warnings started in March 2001 and went up to Sept 6, 2001. The twin towers were attacked Sept 11, 2001.


If what you say here is true then you lied when you said that President Clinton warned Mr. Bush before he took office. Or are you telling us lies now not then or then not now? It gets confusing keeping up with you.”


What are you talking about? Bush took over January 20, 2001. The meeting between Clinton and Bush where Clinton told Bush that the danger was from al-Qaeda and bin Laden took place in December 2000 one month BEFORE Bush took office. The CIA warnings that bin Laden intended to attack the U. S. started in March 2001, two months AFTER Bush became president and continued up to 5 days before the attack on 9/11/2001.
9 PagesFirst 5 6 7 8 9