What's fiscally irresponsible is starting a war with no end in sight that promises to hand off the conclusion of the war to a "future" (not even "the next") president.

Where are the right-wing, fiscally conservative nutcases on this?

The most prolific spending Prez in history is worried about Congress spending?????

Now I've got one of those stupid George Bush looks on my face!!!!

It would be to the country's advantage if he were to slam the door and not open it until time to go back to Texas. Even playing politics, this guy has a lot of nerve trying to project himself as a strong President. Only due to the slim Senate majority and the resulting inability to overide a veto, has this guy any power. If it were the Republicans with the Senate majority there would never be a veto or strong language to any Republication action or inaction. Does any else ever yearn for a recall process for Presidents.

I would hope on election day we all remember not only what this arrogant fraud represents but also the Republican congressman that put party over people with their bush protectism.

Mr. Bush,

YOU are wasting Congress's and this country’s time with your continual ridiculous irresponsible veto’s. Again, I repeat, you can take your attitude and stick it. You are a disgrace. If you don't like Democracy's and how they are supposed to operate, you can resign. In fact, “Dopey”, resign anyway and take “Sleepy” with you.

This is what Bush thinks is a waste of time.Now,will all the robots who defend the Republic party and oil companies go to confession?

Oil giant BP settles price-fixing charges
Ex-employees also expected to face federal indictment
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:07 p.m. CT Oct 25, 2007
WASHINGTON - Oil and gas giant BP PLC agreed Thursday to pay $373 million in fines and restitution to end investigations into whether it manipulated energy markets and violated environmental laws, the Justice Department said.

Additionally, four former BP employees were indicted by a federal grand jury in Chicago on 20 counts of mail and wire fraud charges connected to the price-fixing scheme.

BP, Europe’s second-largest energy company, will pay an estimated $50 million as part of an agreement to plead guilty for violating the Clean Air Act as a result of a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery that killed 15 employees and injured more than 170 others.

Additionally, it will pay $20 million in criminal fines and restitution to the state of Alaska and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for pipeline leaks of crude oil that polluted tundra and a frozen lake in Alaska.

The rest of the fines aim to punish BP for conspiring to manipulate propane prices.

Federal investigators have been looking at whether BP traders tried to pump up profits by cornering the propane market, driving spot prices in February 2004 as high as 94 cents a gallon in places like New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois.

Investigators alleged that traders at BP Products North America Inc. bought massive quantities of propane to be delivered over a pipeline that starts in Texas and then withheld supplies, forcing other buyers in the wholesale market to pay an unnaturally high premium.

The over-the-counter market includes trades conducted on the phone or electronically in products not listed on exchanges. In the end, BP did not profit because the financial benefits of the scheme were outweighed by the unexpectedly huge costs associated with carrying it out.

BP also is grappling with fallout of earlier problems, such as the Alaskan oil spill and the refinery blast that have resulted in ongoing higher maintenance costs.

BP told The Associated Press the company has cooperated with authorities and will continue to do so. It declined further comment.

This is how King George "reaches across the aisle"?

In other words Congress... give him what he wants and only what he wants or he will veto it.

Some "Uniter".

Bush is right in this regard. It's stupid for Congress to have wasted MY tax dollars resending him a bill that they know full-well he's going to veto. Why bother if not for some political stunt?

Bush said he's willing to compromise on this bill and outlined his compromises. Rather than take any of that to heart Pelosi has decided to just blow him off and any idea of compromise and WASTE TIME DOING THE SAME OLD THING.

That's the definition of insanity.

When Bush complains about the Senate not working on the DOJ confirmation do you think he remembers why that job is open to begin with?

Is the lack of leadership at the DOJ really Congress's fault?

Do you people writing these comments even know what the child health bill even contains. It plans on raising the age of an eligible child to 25 and to increase the amount that a family can make to 80,000.00 to be eligible for this plan. If a family making 80,000.00 a year needs this bill they should probably go to a credit counselor and see where their problem really is. Maybe all you people are 24 and still living at home without a job to want this bill passed. It's the democrats first step to get socialized medicine and if you feel that's a good direction to go take a visit to Canada and as their residents.

Former Democrat are you really that naive?

Roger...I could slam you for being a moron and an uninformed clown but you proved that already with your post.

Bush is a disgrace, the mere fact that he's using his veto pen again because Congress won't do exactly as he wants proves that he has no care for the people. Those that oppose this bill stop supporting your party out of reflex and actually read about the changes Congress made. They compromised enough to get this bill passed.

So Bush is a fiscally responsible President now? Uh, no.

The health-insurance bill still hasn't had fundamental changes made to it that it needs, I'll grant him that. The bill is written so that individual states can define a "child" and define "needy" within certain guidelines. The problem is that the state's also are getting funding proportionally to the number of enrollees that they have. So if the state of Utah decides to have a very broad definition of a needy child, the entire country will support their poor definition. That is to say that the state of MD will be paying for Utah's hypothetically crazy idea.

The Federal tax system should not be supporting a state-based health insurance system. If the Feds want to support the idea of children's health insurance being mandated, well and good, set up think-tanks or give them drafting resources. But the state legislatures should be setting up CSIP's on their own, using their own tax basis, and not relying on the rest of the country to pick up the slack by buying more cigarettes.

Bush isn't fiscally responsible in general, but he has the right idea here.

Roger, have you read the bill? The limit is about 62,000 for a family of four. Three times the poverty level. Get your facts straight before you attack. I cannot believe the petulance that is routinely displayed by Bush and his administration. He is like a spoiled toddler, who is cranky because he didn't get his nap. Further He has the sheer gall to say the Dems haven't done what they promised to do?? He's correct, in that what they promised to do is end the war and put an end to Bush's war crimes. Of course the Republican cronies have, without conscience or social awareness, blocked that initiative. PLEASE EVERYONE GO TO IMPEACHBUSH.ORG and sign the petition! It is time to end the reign of this idiotic baby.

"It’s congressional spending that has put the president in a particularly foul mood on this gray Washington morning, apparent in the stern and public tongue-lashing he gave Democratic leaders from a perch in the Roosevelt Room of the White House."

Sorry to here Mr Bush is in a foul mood. I'm sure the troops stuck in Iraq for endless tours of duty have bad days as well. The people of Iraq who now have chaos as a way of life most likely are in a foul mood today too. Come to think of it I'm in a feeling grumpy knowing that my American brothers in arms are getting shot at in a hot sh%thole that used to be country, while our a%shole president thinks he's having a bad day. Yep sure was a good idea to throw the Middle East into chaos and spend billions of tax dollars propping up a nonexistent government. Mission accomplished douche bag!!!

"Former Democrat", if after the mess and overall inept leadership bush and this Republican Congress has presented to the American people over the course of their tenure in office, you can still fine positives with this guy and the dark side, you deserve it and the slime you come away with. Proud to see you there.

I agree with our great President. I only wish he could serve at least two more terms. He was bashed for his response to Katrina, but upon his arrival back from visiting California's fire victims, the Senate majority greets him with their usual politics.

Do you people writing these comments even know what the child health bill even contains.
Posted by: Roger Licht | October 26, 2007 12:25 PM

Ah, Right-wing talking points-so easy to swallow.

Roger,

It's odd that you should chastise people for not understanding the healthcare bill and then get it wrong yourself (have you read it or are you just quoting the GOP sound bites). The bill st the limit at 3 times the poverty level or $60K FOR A FAMILY OF 4!

If you think that is a lot of money for a family you either don't pay your own bills or you are well above that level and have no idea what how little that is.

Let us all recall that under the man who slammed this door in anger on the way out of the press conference, Discretionary spending has gone up faster than under even LBJ.

This isn't an assertion of principle, this is damage control for six years of irresponsibility, and sleight of hand to cover for his party's complete lack of fiscal discipline.

How can people compare the Presidents response to Katrina?

Estimates put the damages at about $1 Billion. That is tragic I agree. But Katrina was $40 Billion and all they got was a fly over.

And the last time Bush went there he tried telling the people who live there how much better it is getting. In other words he is STILL responding poorly to Katrina.

Where are the right-wing, fiscally conservative nutcases on this?

Posted by: Bud McFarlin | October 26, 2007 11:03 AM

Bud,

No self-respecting fiscal conservative is going to grace such an insulting B.S. question with a substantive answer.

Is the lack of leadership at the DOJ really Congress's fault?

Posted by: Carl L | October 26, 2007 12:01 PM

If they take too long in the confirmation process, then, Yes, they are at fault. It's their job to finish the work of filling the post. The President only gets to make a nomination.

John,

I think you missed my point. The DOJ has been leaderless since Bush gave the job to his unqualified cronie "Fredo".

The root cause here isn't the congress it is Bush.

Look out..(Off subject,but not really)

This just in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7064428.stm

Could it be that when GWB gazed into Vlad's eyes, he saw....himself??

Mark Stone, will you kindly start your own country somewhere else, and take the moron-in-chief with you if you want him for your president that much. This country would never survive another four year term much less another eight.
PS. Take Darth-Cheney along too, Bush will probably need someone to tie his shoes.

"Former Democrat", if after the mess and overall inept leadership bush and this Republican Congress has presented to the American people over the course of their tenure in office, you can still fine positives with this guy and the dark side, you deserve it and the slime you come away with. Proud to see you there.

re the picture a few words come to mind;

petulant, childish, spoiled, bully

Poor boy, somebody threw some sand back in your eyes?

Or, 'John Barleycorn takes his toll'?

If Bush wants to act like a petulent child, then Congress should treat him like a petulent child.

When a petulent child is holding a candy bar in one hand and uses the other one to snatch a candy bar from another child, you don't cave in and let him have both. You take BOTH candy bars and the child gets NONE.

Every time Bush vetos SCHIP, congress should send it right back to him with enough funding for 250,000 MORE children than the last bill. If Bush wants to veto that, then fine, he's getting MORE insured children the next time, not less. He can choose to either sign the current legislation or veto away until EVERY child in america is covered, regardless of Daddy's income (I know, the horror! Imagine our great country catching up to every other developed country on the planet and ensuring children have access to healthcare under any and all circumstances, regardless of what their parents do or don't do... what a horrible thing to even imagine!).

Let's not forget, SCHIP is something 80% of Americans support. And they won't stop supporting it just because Mr. Bush vetos it. If anyone has a right to be "in a particularly foul mood", it's Congress and the American people, not the President.

Having finally found out how to use his veto after a six year Republican spending spree, it's only natural that Dubya wants to play with his new toy.

If only it had taken him that long to discover he commands the military...

* * * * *

Posted by: Carl L | October 26, 2007 1:46 PM

I understood you just fine.

But now that Fredo is gone and a new nominee is awaiting confirmation, why is the Senate sitting on their collective hands? There IS some blame to allocate here for the reasons stated.

John W, The president needs to nominate a qualified individual that Congress can accept. Mukasey seemed to fit the bill until he started equivocating over what constitutes torture. Is waterboarding torture or is it simply an enhanced interrogation technique that simulates the sensory experience of drowning? Is the rack torture, or is it an opportunity for personal growth and confession of sins? Mukasey said he opposes torture. That statement doesn't mean anything until he defines what he thinks constitutes torture.

* * * * *

Posted by: Tom O | October 26, 2007 2:48 PM

I agree that the Attorney General should know what torture is. But, it is unhelpful for him to merely define what "he thinks constitutes torture." Someone in the Senate should give him a copy of the federal statute criminalizing torture. That is what defines the meaning of torture under U.S. law. The AG nominee’s definition can’t change it.

The whole process would move along a lot faster if the Senate could simply get Mukasey a copy of that law, and then get him to agree to enforce that law and its definition of torture, instead of playing 20 questions and charades. That’s why I think they are screwing around.

BTW, the definition of torture under the federal torture law includes both physical and mental torture. By way of illustration, the statute specifically includes under “mental torture” any conduct which creates the imminent apprehension of death. By that definition, waterboarding is torture if continued to the point of creating that apprehension. If I can figure this all out in the couple of minutes it took me to write this post, then I’m sure those geniuses in the Senate could too. Thus, the fact they have taken days and weeks is telling.

W slams the congress, I think the congress should slam W, Oh I forgot, The congress is too weak. They are a joke, they rate right up there with the senate. I wish someone could come up with a solution to obsolve them all and install a working intelligent federal gov't.

President Bush is right the Democrat Congress which polls a deplorable 11 percent doesn't have an appropriation bill done and the fiscal year started October 1.
Dem Congress is wrong on the SCHIP bill it was designed for poor children now in some states there is coverage of 37 or 38 percent for adults.
$35 billion is a waste of of money maybe as John Boehner said $15 billion might pass. These Democrats are obstructionests who want to just stick it in the eye of W rather they're shooting their partisan mouths off.Stop the games Harry, Dickie, Nancy and Ram Rod Emmanuel. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Maybe Congress should go spend a month or two at their ranches and think it over.

John W.

You can't use the Federal Statue for Torture. It does not apply to "detainees". As "Enemy Combatants" They are not afforded the protection of US law.

And just to make sure we keep them in foreign juridictions (like Gitmo).

Additionally, as "Enemy Combatants" they are not classified as POWs and they are not afforded the protections of international law - such as the Geneva convention.

These are the legal distinctions "Fredo" helped to craft as Counsel to the President and they are the distinctions he defended as AG.

I am not blaming Mukasey. What he told congress was that he could not give a legal opinion on the administrations definition of torture because he had not seen it.

So the White Says "We don't torture"... then they play with the definition of torture and even manipulate the "we".

Only 15 months left... so much to hide and so little time....

>>>BTW, the definition of torture under the federal torture law includes both physical and mental torture.

Great! Then we can impeach Bush.

He is both mental and physical torture.

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

I agree that the Attorney General should know what torture is. But, it is unhelpful for him to merely define what "he thinks constitutes torture." Someone in the Senate should give him a copy of the federal statute criminalizing torture. That is what defines the meaning of torture under U.S. law. The AG nominee’s definition can’t change it.

Posted by: John W. | October 26, 2007 3:32 PM

John... the AG's definition CAN change it... that's EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED ALREADY!!! I don't believe the federal statute has a list of everything that is torture and everything that isn't... it can't possibly, because there are literally millions of things you can do to torture someone. It's the AG's job to interpret the statute into real-world scenarios. So how the AG defines torture is profoundly important, because his definition will dictate how the statute is applied!

Former Democrat, good riddance. The GOP are represented by inept, corrupt, losers!

* * * * *

Posted by: Carl L | October 26, 2007 4:35 PM

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with the Bush administration on the protection of detainees at Guantanamo. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Court held the protections of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applied to the detainees at Guantanamo. Thus, it makes little difference if they are called “Enemy Combatants,” “Unlawful Enemy Combatants,” or otherwise. They have the right to be treated as P.O.W.s with all the protection of the Geneva Conventions regarding humane treatment.

Fredo failed.

More recently, in Rasul v. Bush, the Court also held that detainees have the right to petition for habeas corpus because: 1) Guantanamo is virtually U.S. territory (because we have a perpetual lease on it), and 2) the commander of the detention facility is amenable to service as a U.S. Citizen and military officer.

Fredo failed again.

So, yes, the definition of torture, as found in the federal statutes, is relevant to the treatment of the detainees at Guantanamo. It is relevant because it applies there directly since U.S. personnel are engaged in the interrogation process. It is also relevant because the Geneva Conventions demand humane treatment. Obviously, a country can’t claim they are treating prisoners humanely if, according to their own law, what they are doing is torturing them.

All of these legal “defeats” for the Bush administration came up while Fredo was still AG. Being so much water under the bridge, the Senate could not have balked in the manner you suggest for the reasons you suggest. So, I stand on my previous statement that Mukasey could have consulted federal law, and he could have been questioned regarding his ability to enforce that law as worded – the administration’s definition of torture be damned.

They are dragging their feet for no good reason.

John W, I agree that the AG should be enforcing the definition of torture in U.S. law. But after Inquisitor Gonzalez, I certainly don't blame the members of the senate for asking him about it. Since waterboarding plainly is torture under US law, this should have been an easy one, right? If he can't answer it, is he qualified for the job?

This from the one who has wasted or ruined so many lives along with our nation's fiscal well being.

I see the advantages of having the white house be one political party and the congress be another: compromise. A veto is a non-starter on compromise.

Let me tell you a story form history:
One upon a time in the 1600's there once was a king who wanted to go to war and asked Parliament to provide the money. When Parliament refused, the king dismissed them and ruled without a legislature for over 20 years. As time dragged on and the war grew longer, the king realized that he needed Parliament and the money. The king asked for money and Parliament said, "Sure, you can have the money, BUT first you have to agree to these other bills." The king said NO and claimed a Divine Right.... in the end there was a Civil War and the King - Charles I - lost his head.

* * * * *

John... the AG's definition CAN change it... that's EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENED ALREADY!!! I don't believe the federal statute has a list of everything that is torture and everything that isn't... it can't possibly, because there are literally millions of things you can do to torture someone.

Posted by: crafty b | October 26, 2007 5:50 PM

The AG has no power to change the definition of torture. It has a definition unalterable by any body other than Congress itself. Nor must the federal statute have an exhaustive list of every conceivable method of torture. Instead, it defines torture by the results intended by the torturer. It says, that torture is:

“. . . an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control . . .”

(See 18 U.S.C. § 2340, sub. (1); Italics added.) This definition of torture is nearly identical to the one found in the Torture Victims Protection Act (or “T.V.P.A.” See 21 U.S.C. § 1350.) The reason for the similarity is that both statutes were intended to implement the International Convention Against Torture (or “C.A.T.”).

Under this definition, torture means more than the inflicting or attempting to inflict pain. Torture involves an act intended to inflict mental or physical pain so “severe” that one would describe it as cruel, extreme and outrageous. So, for example, striking a person in his or her limbs or torso a few times with ones fists is unlikely to be considered torture. Such actions may inflict pain, but it is not likely that it would inflict severe pain or be the result of an intent to inflict severe pain. However, a change of an act’s frequency (e.g. to daily beatings), duration (e.g., from seconds to hours), target on the body (to one more sensitive to pain, like genitals), and weapons (e.g. to knives, electrodes, heated metals, caustic chemicals, etc.) will likely result in a finding that an act is torture – as the means themselves reflect a cruel intent to inflict severe mental or physical pain.

Gonzales and Co. tried to interpret the “torture” laws out of existence by focusing on the result – e.g. the pain itself – rather than statute’s focus on the intent with which an assault is carried out. An memo from his office (the now famous “Bybee memo”) tried to claim that torture was the infliction of excruciating pain, or pain of a type associated with an organ failure, impairment of a bodily function or death. The problem with this view, as mentioned, is that the language of the statute focuses less on the actual result than on the intended result due to the means employed. Thus, neither an unintended act nor or an intentional act resulting in unintentionally inflicted severe pain is “torture.”

"With this, Bush pivoted and left the room without acknowledging a question tossed at him, and the slamming of the door to the Roosevelt Room fell like a gavel on this stormy day."

The author forgot to add, "The magnificent figure of our strong-willed president naturally intimidated the lesser beings gathered in the press box. History watched a great figure leave the Roosevelt room with his classic, handsome head held high, his spirit indomitable as ever--a shamed congress aware of the storm they had helped to brew by giving such a man more grief than his broad shoulders already bear for his country."

Ya fergot that part dang it!!! If you're going to slather Master Beelzebush with molten gold, be thorough, will ya?!?

* * * * *

Posted by: dogjudge | November 1, 2007 11:31 AM

First, signing statements have no legal significance. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution gives the President only two choices when presented with a bill passed by both houses. He can either: 1) veto it and return it to the house in which it originated, or 2) approve it by signing it into law. The Constitution does not give him the third option of approving it in part and vetoing it in part. The Supreme Court has said so twice. Thus, he cannot accomplish a partial passage, or an amendment, by means of a signing statement. Nor do those signing statements become part of the law, because the President has no power to make laws.

So, if the President chooses not to enforce a law as completely as it is written, he is simply acting unlawfully, in violation of his duty under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . . .” To be sure, a signing statement cannot make conduct legal if the law he signed make it illegal.

Second, the trouble with Mukasey’s answer concerning torture arises from the wording of the torture law itself. 18 U.S.C. § 2340, subsection (1) defines torture as an act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering on another person.” The statute further defines “severe mental pain or suffering” as “prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from –

(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;

(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;

(C) the threat of imminent death; or

(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; . . .”

(See 18 U.S.C. § 2340(2), subs. (A)-(D) .)

Thus, merely inflicting pain of any kind is not torture. It is torture only when it is intended to inflict “severe” pain or suffering which, in the case of mental pain or suffering, must be likely to cause prolonged mental harm. In a legal setting, one rarely has direct access to the would-be torturer’s state of mind concerning intent. Thus, application of the law requires an evaluation of the duration, frequency, and specific methodology employed to determine the putative torturer’s intent from circumstantial evidence.

This doesn’t change simply because water-boarding is the method under discussion. Water-boarding clearly can be torture, especially if it is employed to a degree that it creates an apprehension of immediate death. It is also theoretically possible, however, to use water-boarding a minimum number of times in a manner that does not cause severe physical pain or even severe mental pain from the threat of imminent death. If one employed water-boarding in a limited manner, and in a calculated attempt to avoid the severe physical or mental pain associated with torture, then it would not be torture. The law says so.

This is Mukasey’s quandary. He is right in saying that the law demands an examination of the circumstances to determine whether water-boarding constitutes torture. The law does not, on its face, declare water-boarding to be torture or unlawful under all circumstances. The answer to the questions posed to him do indeed depend on the circumstances.

If Congress wanted to get less than uncertainty from Mukasey, they should do one of two things. Number one, they should ask him to answer hypothetical questions concerning certain factual scenarios, especially scenarios clearly involving the torturous use of water-boarding. That way they can figure out whether and to what degree he would approve or disapprove of the torturous use of water-boarding. Number two, they can simply pass a law that says water-boarding is, per se, unlawful under all circumstances. They have the power to do this, and they really ought to do so.