bush/snowjob to congress: Go F*** yourself, we do what we want

[radfringe]

Tony Snow: Democrats Can Cut Off Funds, But Can't Stop President's 'Surge'
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003529196

Q Do the Democrats or any of the opponents have the executive authority to stop anything that the President is going to present? In other words, is he going to need to ask Congress to approve something?

MR. SNOW: Well, ultimately, anything you do has budgetary implications. I think there was a question earlier today, are we seeking resolutions, and that sort of thing -- and I want to wave you off of that. What you do have, though, is basically budget is policy. So Congress is going to be engaged in the appropriations and authorization process and, you know, through those, they're going to be debating a lot of things. And so that's sort of par for the course.

Q But in terms of anything out of the Pentagon -- the troops, deployment, any of the programs we initiate - the President, alone, has the authority to --

MR. SNOW: You know what, I don't want to play junior constitutional lawyer on this, so let's wait until we see what happens, if you have specific questions about constitutional authority. But, you know, Congress has the power of the purse. The President has the ability to exercise his own authority if he thinks Congress has voted the wrong way.

meanwhile - snowjob/bush is in denial:

Q The President, obviously, though, did not read what happened November 7th as a mandate to start bringing troops home.

MR. SNOW: The President believes that -- if you take a look, Jim, at the elections, you can read any number of messages -- I mean, when people were asked in exit interviews what was their top concern, Iraq was number four, corruption was number one. And guess what? You had 10 members of the Republican caucus who had problems, and they all lost.

So you can read a lot of results. There is an understandable -- people don't want to be at war; we don't want to be at war, the President doesn't want to be at war. But the fact is you've got a situation where terrorists and a terror network is determined to try to do whatever it can to destabilize this country and other parts of the world --

Q But the President is comfortable, then, with saying to the American people, I saw what happened November 7th -- actually, you're upset about corruption?

MR. SNOW: No, I think, Jim, people would be a lot less upset if he didn't take seriously his obligations as Commander-in-Chief.

[sam sarrha]

1. Well.... looks like this week we find out if the "Decider" is really a "DickTator"..!!

will Negroponte finally get to loose his death squads on the American people..

[ClintonTyree]

2. "The President doesn't want to be at war"

You could have fooled me. For a man who didn't want to go to war he sure twisted intelligence and outright lied to the American people and the world to do so. That doesn't sound like a man who "doesn't want to be at war" to me. It sounds like more bullshit from Snowjob and the Moron in Chief, if you ask me. :mad:

[rodeodance]

5. oh, he liked being at war-but now finds it lots of WORK!!

[sam sarrha]

3. they know that dis-funding ended Reagan's death quad militia war,in central america and they are

stocking up the worlds largest stock of heroin to pay for it.. just like Iran Contra.. who most of the present WH Staff were involved in..

i should note that i dont intend to slander a poor senile reagan for all the murder and slaughter of innocents in central and south america during period.. that bloody job was all the doing of *'s father
and his cronies who still reside in the staff of this white house

[tservo]

4. haven't they heard of checks and balances?

[rodeodance]

6. so, the bushies like this poll---selective use as usual