Statement by the President: "... I will sign (CFR) into law."

Office of the Press Secretary ^ | March 20, 2002 | George W. Bush

[hchutch]

There is only one reason I could see Bush caving on this issue, and it would be similar to why Bush Sr. caved on taxes in 1990.

I think Daschle made some threat about funding for the war on terror. Period. Given a choice between vetoing the bill and seeing the rug pulled out from our troops who are IN COMBAT, or signing the thing so we can win the war we are in, what would you do, knowing the media will cover fo rthe a$$hole who just gave you that Hobson's choice?

I'm still angry he's going along with this abominable bill, but he's had a good track record aside from this action. Frankly, I think there is more than what we see in this statement. Stuff the press won't report.

Besides, Congressman Billybob and others seem to think they can kill this bill outright and permanently. And having it killed permanently will still make all this worthwhile, and Bush will has set it up by signing the frigging thing. We aren't dead yet.

[Buckeroo]

sinkspur is the official internet greeter for FR and 10,000,000 other web sites. He maintains tallies upon how folks think as opposed to realizing how far he has succumbed in debate and more importantly in wit and imagination.

[Buckeroo]

I don't care about what other folks think. I care about the Constitution and the fact that the president swore to defend it.

CFR violates the first amendment of the Constitution. Bush, therefore has violated his oath.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Oh, for crying out loud!

This is terrible. The bill is unconstitutional and what guarantee is there that the Supreme Court would reject it?

[dittomom]

Because the plan was for Ari Fleischer to make a comment tomorrow that would not indicate one way or the other whether Bush would sign it. Now that this statement has been put out, it looks like the game plan has changed.

[ppaul]

So here it is.....
Republicans refused to stand on principle, their apologists excusing their lack of backbone by saying, "Well, they know Bush will veto it anyway."
Well, here we are.
President Bush jams his thumb into the eyes of conservatives and FReepers.
What now?

[NittanyLion]

I think Daschle made some threat about funding for the war on terror. Period. Given a choice between vetoing the bill and seeing the rug pulled out from our troops who are IN COMBAT, or signing the thing so we can win the war we are in, what would you do, knowing the media will cover fo rthe a$$hole who just gave you that Hobson's choice?

Bush will sign the bill because he believes his popularity would suffer if he vetoed it. There's no big conspiracy here.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Bush has stated his reservations relative to the constitutionality of certain provisions. Does anyone here not think that the WH counsel and Solicitor General have not poured over this bill and id'd the weak spots. Why do you think Mitch Mc and Trent Lott went out and got more time? The pretty much esteemed Congressman's plan is still on track, except Bush and Co will target the clearly unconstitutional provisions of the bill. To expect an attack on the whole bill was probably not reasonable.

BTW, a veto was out of the question. In addition to your stated reasons, this thing has to be made to go away. A veto would not have done that.

[Pit1]

We aren't dead yet.

But we're sure roasting on the grill.

[concerned about politics]

I think sinkspur is ok. Everyone has a right to their opinion.
FR has queer posts, abortion supporters, Marxists, and a number of libertarians and liberals from DUnderwear.com.
They all say what they want to say,too!

[tpaine]

"If congress passed a law REQUIRING all FUTURE candidates to be Conservative/Christians (Which I am) I would STRONGLY OPPOSE it because it violates the Constitution, even though it would be of GREAT benefit to my personal agenda."

Who in the hell are you trying to kid? - sinkspur -

Sigh. -- Sinky, -- this has to be one of the most personally offensive posts I have ever seen on FR. -- I have no proof that the poster is truely sincere, nor do you, -- but judging from his previous posts on this thread, I'd have to conclude that he is.

For you to scornfully imply that he is lieing is simply beyond decency. -- Apologise, if you have ANY honor left.

[ppaul]

Thanks for the ping.
I'm sick to my stomach now.

[sneakypete]

Before the election I was predicting that Bush would use gun owners as a bone to throw to the Libs.

Don't worry,it's still early. You'll be right before it's over with.

[DJ88]

Right, I know that...we should be banging the heads of the RINO's that let this even GET to the President. But...something in the 2nd part of his statement has got me thinking. You know that feeling when you're trying to come up with a word and it's right on the tip of your tongue but you still are stumped? That's where I am. Taps fingers....;-)

[Rome2000]

I'm still angry he's going along with this abominable bill,

Nothing to be angry about.

This law will never be implemented, it will be subject to legal challenge immediately and will never silence anybody, except for that PSYCHO John McCain and his rat minions in 2002 and 2004 who can finally shut up about CFR.

Pretty soon the only thing the Rats will have to run on is more welfare and higher taxes.

Don't worry, be happy.

[concerned about politics]

What now?

Well, voting dumpocrap or libertarian is out. Might better trust Bush to pull this off somehow. The war isn't over yet! Fight on!!!

[sinkspur]

President Bush signing this bill is not politically astute--it is political cowardice and a betrayal of his oath of office.

Well, I guess you'll vote for Howard Phillips, then.

[SUSSA]

It looks like it's time to restart FReeping the White House.

[Buckeroo]

The so-called, "War on Terror" is a violation of the US Constitution as it leaves an indefinite time period about the same war.

Congress and the President have over-stepped their Constituional authority by ensuring these "open-ended" wars; you don't appear to recognise that they are stripping you of your rights, liberties and freedoms unconstituionally.

What is even worse, you agree with the bastards and deserve everthing they do to you within the new American police-state.

[hchutch]

Bullcrap. Everyone knows the media and the Dems are all that care about this issue.

The scenario I outlined is the only possible explanation, IMHO, although the fact he said "send me a bill, and I'll sign it" before Jeffords switched may also be a factor.

But think about the opposition here, folks. We know that Daschle and the others Dems have chosen to say or do anything to get and maintain power. Do I put threatening to pull the rug out from under our troops beyond him? No.

The fact is, Enron had him in a box, and the Dems pushed hard and ruthlessly. Let's try to keep Daschle from that sort of power after November.

It's the best we can do, until we defeat that punk in 2004.