The word 'veto' comes from a Latin word and literally means I Forbid. It is used to denote that a certain party has the right to stop unilaterally a certain piece of legislation.
A veto gives power, possibly unlimited, to stop changes, but not to adopt them. The influence that the veto conveys to its holder is therefore directly proportional to the holder's conservatism, broadly defined. The more the holder likes the current state of affairs, the more useful the veto.
This word has reared its ugly head several times recently in the media, particularly due to President George.W.Bush. The US House has voted for a third time to pull troops out of Iraq, despite the fact that the President has already “vetoed” the motion twice in recent history! It is these kinds of notions and terms of legislation that really baffle me.
It seems to me that this very piece of legislation absolutely contradicts everything that democracy stands for. I may be mistaken but I made the assumption that we live in a world where the majority rule. The ruling of the people should be by the people and for the people, shouldn’t it?
It is clear to see that this is not the case at all. "It is time for the president to listen to the American people and do what is necessary to protect this nation," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. He also went on to say “That means admitting his Iraq policy has failed”.
His own peers and colleagues do not agree with his foreign policies:
This shows that the leader of the USA, the so called land of the free, does not particularly care what his own people want. So what is it that differs President Bush from Saddam Hussein for example? Saddam was portrayed as a vicious dictator and we know that he killed many people, but does Mr Bush not have blood on his hands also? With the help of the UK they are well on the way of annihilating one million people in the Middle East. This is not so far fetched when hundreds of Iraqi’s are murdered daily and Bush is adamant that he will not withdraw before 2008!
I would like to end by quoting the last sentence of the definition of the word “veto”:
“The more the holder likes the current state of affairs, the more useful the veto.”
The evidence to support this statement is overwhelming. Why pull out the troops from Iraq if he is happy with the current state. After all, he hasn’t had his fill just yet.
