Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (320425)	1/12/2007 6:29:54 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1573900

"Or a "non signing statements". Presidents don't sign bills when their veto has been overwritten. " I remembered that after the time to edit it expired.

To: TimF who wrote (320425)	1/13/2007 1:23:15 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573900

On this whole subject of Congress not being able to dictate the level of US involvement in Iraq: As a means of forcing Bush to remove troops - How about if Congress passed a bill saying that funding will be cut to a level that will only support 50,000 troops, effective Sep 1st, 2007? In other words, they would be withdrawaing funding for the troops in the field, but giving Bush what they consider ample time to get the unfunded troops out of the field.

To: TimF who wrote (320425)	1/13/2007 3:13:49 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573900

You might get conflict between the white house and congress, you might get more calls for impeachment, but actually impeachment, combined with conviction/removal? Its a really extreme long shot. I think you may be underestimating the situation. There are enough attornies in the Senate who don't want Bush in office. All they have to do is make a convincing case with a few examples of misdoings and it will be a done deal. Mr. Bush is skating on very thin ice IMO.