Rove defends Bush’s signing statements.
By on Feb 21st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Rove defends Bush’s signing statements.
During a speech at the University of Pennsylvania last night, former White House political director Karl Rove defended President Bush’s use of signing statements, claiming that his former boss “got unfair treatment on the matter.” Defiant, Rove said that “those who disagree” with Bush’s use of signing statements “can take on the White House in the courtroom if they feel strongly enough about it.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
“can take on the White House in the courtroom if they feel strongly enough about it.â€
Sure, and if it goes to the Supreme Court, the RATS will agree with bush and rove. (with Stevens as the swing vote)
February 21st, 2008 at 10:35 amRove said that “those who disagree†with Bush’s use of signing statements “can take on the White House in the courtroom if they feel strongly enough about it.â€
and Bush will simply say “Executive Privelege” and will refuse to testify.
Such begins the Bush circle:
if you don’t like it sue us -> if you sue us, we’ll claim you have no right to sue us -> since you can’t sue us, you apparently agree with us.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:37 amNice thought, but since W now views himself not as President, but as Commander in Chief of the Unitary Executive, who would pursue the case. Not the UE’s own DOJ. So, if not it, then who would have standing to sue . . . . I’m certain that this little fact won’t stop the right from using his talking point endlessly
February 21st, 2008 at 10:38 amfrom Rove’s speech:
“History has a funny way of deciding things,” he said. “Sometimes history sends you things, and 9/11 came our way.”
Very strange way of putting it I must say.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:40 am“Bring it on!!”
Where have we heard that before?
February 21st, 2008 at 10:41 amI don’t understand why any one want’s to pay to listen to this ugly, evil piece of shit…I won’t listen to him when he speak’s for free on the tube….
Time to send him to jail……Blessings
February 21st, 2008 at 10:41 am‘Mr. Rove noted that when the president issues a signing statement, he does so to express his view that a provision within a law violates the U.S. Constitution’
Well then, Bush should take it to “the courtroom” if he feels that strongly about it, right? Using Rove’s logic.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:42 amYeah, have to agree with everyone else. Funny that Rove suggests taking Bush to court…would that be the same court that Bush stacked in his favor? THAT court?
Heh.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:43 amsuch a CHUMP…
February 21st, 2008 at 10:43 amdamn, i can’t wait to see that fat twirp tied up in the courts
and frog marched to detention… at the least.
Rove and Bush are both arrogant SOBs
February 21st, 2008 at 10:44 amWell, the Hague is a court room but I think even Bush should only have one trial at a time, so signing statements are down the list.
This is the ogrish regime supposedly representing the people, running at 19% and under 40 for many months and utterly pleased with itself.
If you disagree, you must use a lawyer and be able to afford legal fees, just to have your case dismissed for being “unable” to prove you disagree with signing statements or they adversely affect you.
My only question is did Rove and Bush have a signing statement for forfeiting their souls… “Upon the date of leaving office, we request our souls be returned and we can lounge around with some cocaine.” But Satan is a strict fundamentalist in contract law.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:45 amHe says go to the courts he and Bush have packed with their coronies.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:48 amThe only way to never have another unitary president is to
IMPEACH BUSH and CHENEY .
Over 750 signing statements more then all presidents combined.
But congress dosent seem to mind being irrelavant and should give back their paychecks .
Yeah, good golly, go back and read BC’s 140 and then go and read W’s 1000 +. Let me know what you think about the statements being made — one set likely clarifies while the other says, yeah, I signed it but I’m not gonna do it. Big difference, but then differences aren’t your strong suit when it comes to comparing any other President’s actions to our Unitary Executive’s.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:49 amGood Golly, it ‘Bill Clinton did it too’ is the only justification you Bush Cultists need, why did you hate Bill Clinton so much?
I mean, it seems you all agree his judgment was flawless on most issues because you cite Bill Clinton chapter and verse.
-GSD
February 21st, 2008 at 10:55 amTheir “plants” have no jurisdiction in the Hague!!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:58 am#24 – indeed. Prior to the “unitary executive” nonsense, signing statements were basically press releases.
Only under Bush did they claim to set aside the law by executive fiat, in explicit contradiction to the executive’s constitutional mandate to see that all laws are duly enforced.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:03 amYeah, good golly, go back and read BC’s 140 and then go and read W’s 1000 +.
Comment by po — February 21, 2008 @ 10:49 am
First, let’s get the numbers right. Bush has issued 157 signing statements as of January 2008. Bill Clinton issued 105. In his signing statements, Bush has challenged the law being signed 1,100 times. Clinton did it 140 times.
I have no problem with any of those. Presidents are welcome to comment on a law any way they like.
The problem is when the signing statement expressly directs a federal agency to not enforce the law being signed, as Bush did in the recent signing statement on long-term bases in Iraq. That is blatantly unconstitutional, and that’s what we oppose.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:05 amTaking on the White House isn’t the proper setting. Are signing statements included in the Constitution? What is the oath that every president takes?
What’s needed is a political martyr that takes this cause to the supreme court. Someone who looks past his/her rise in their party and believes it’s time to put the checks and balances back in place.
Signing Statements that circumvent the laws being signed is wrong. It’s wrong when Bill Clinton did it and it’s wrong now.
Good Golly, you stick to partisan crapola instead of what is right for this country. You are helping to hurt this country.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:06 amWell said toasterhead.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:07 amDo they not have police readily available at University of Pennsylvania to arrest Rove?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:08 am“good_golly” writes @ #17: “It’s interesting how most liberals had no problem with signing statements when Bill Clinton issued 140 of them.”
Of course, one should remember that Bill Clinton is no liberal. Neither is his wife. Maybe they’re more liberal than some, but they are far to the right of most Democrats.
While president, Bill Clinton used the signing statements in the way in which they were intended to be used: to provide instructions to Federal agencies on how to carry out the laws that Congress passes and make it past a presidential veto. He didn’t use them to instruct his subordinates to circumvent the law or to have a proxy line-item veto.
And comparing the number of signing statements made by President Clinton vs. Bush will show just how out of control Bush is.
Bush 43 will be remembered as the worst president in American history. His “unitary executive” theory will be soundly denounced and future presidents may find their powers restricted by Congress since this one pushed the limits to the breaking point.
If there is any justice, Rove will indeed have his day in court – as a defendant. I can only hope that President Obama will support investigations into the activities of the Bush Administration rather than saying “it’s in the past, we must move on” and allowing to stand so many of the authoritarian powers claimed by Bush.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:09 amgood golly has no interest in the law or the Constitution. gg has only kneejerk reactions to the truth of republican corruption.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:12 amyou’re right, 33, but good_golly doesn’t care and won’t let facts get in the way because they’re liberally biased…
February 21st, 2008 at 11:15 amIn fact, if Bush told her/him that the sky was falling, she/he would go into a bomb shelter…
February 21st, 2008 at 11:16 amgood golly has no interest in the law or the Constitution. gg has only kneejerk reactions to the truth of republican corruption.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — February 21, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Well, it’s so much easier than actually learning about a topic and debating with facts.
Speaking of facts, there’s a fantastic resource on Presidential Signing Statements at:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/signingstatements.php This is an archive of all Presidential Signing Statements issued from 1929-2008, and a good way to compare their use in prior administrations.
Of course, now we can expect “Hoover did it too” to become a talking point whenever the topic comes up.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:18 amIts a mystery to me why there wasn’t a court challenge. I can only assume the stakes were too high to lose. Bush appointees to the SCOTUS were vetted by cheney/addington for one thing: the belief in the imperial presidency. Roberts and Alito have lengthy judicial records of supporting radical powers for the POTUS, hence the hesitation to slap down the tyrant.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:19 amRove will get his. He is going to be convicted for conspiracy and willful prosecution for politcal gain. Even if he gets pardoned, he will at least be found guilty as an un-indicted co-conspirator.
Its a mystery to me why there wasn’t a court challenge. I can only assume the stakes were too high to lose.
Comment by moondancer — February 21, 2008 @ 11:19 am
I’m not sure how someone would challenge it, actually. I’m talking legally here, not politically.
Not that they would, but can a government agency or an official in a government agency actually sue the White House to overrule a signing statement? It’d be career suicide for anyone who did.
The only scenario I can imagine is if a private citizen or corporation was personally wronged by the non-enforcement of a law that would have benefited them. But then how do they prove that it was the signing statement that caused the non-enforcement of the law?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:26 amI see the Clinton Envy troll has reared his ugly head – the lower one.
Comment by satirev — February 21, 2008 @ 10:48 am
Goon_golly has run off to find more talking points from wingnut blogs. If the trolls responds at all here it will only be to post links to some outdated post from newsmax. Being a Bush apologist is tough work.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:30 amThe problem as I see it is that the Rove / Cheney/ Bush / Gonzales doctrine has done so many things that could be taken to court, that it will take a couple of decades to take them all to court and get their stable mucked out.
Taking them to court will be such a flurry of lawsuits that it will make the dems look bad for finally getting some backbone and defending the constitution.
And I’m sure the neocons hope that there will be many items which should be challenged that will fall between the cracks.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:31 am#39, indeed. This court doesn’t rule the wrong way on Bush as much as it desperately tries to avoid having to make a ruling by citing standing.
I think they know if they took the case they’d have to rule against Bush, since the case on his side is so weak.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:31 amgood golly! you are a tooly.
IF Clinton issued signing statements to circumvent the Republican Congress’ legislation, does ANYONE doubt that the Republicans would have jumped all over this and made this another impeachment article?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:31 amKarl Rove and signing statements are non-starter, dead issues. Move on, TP…..
February 21st, 2008 at 11:32 amOf course, now we can expect “Hoover did it too†to become a talking point whenever the topic comes up.
Comment by toasterhead — February 21, 2008 @ 11:18 am
Best line of the day so far.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:33 amKarl Rove and signing statements are non-starter, dead issues. Move on, TP…..
Comment by Badmoodman — February 21, 2008 @ 11:32 am
The Constitution is never a dead issue.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:34 amWhy is Rove being paid to speak ANYWHERE?
Why is he not considered a pariah?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:37 amWTF is wrong with Universities?
Turdblossom & Gonzo should be paying people to listen to more lies.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:42 amWhy is Rove being paid to speak ANYWHERE?
Why is he not considered a pariah?
Comment by Zooey
same reason Olly north has been touring the country for the last 20 years living well. Same reason Colin powell was considered a credible witness at the UN even after his participation in the shooting in the back of thousands of fleeing Iraqi’s at the end of the first gulf goof….etc. Same reason Mccrazy is considered a war hero for gods sake…..it’s all hype.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:47 am#48, I’m sure it’s the College Young Republicans, backed by their big money friends, who are behind these little shindigs.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:48 amThat greasy pig would defend murder if he benefited from it.
*spit*
February 21st, 2008 at 11:54 am#48, I’m sure it’s the College Young Republicans, backed by their big money friends, who are behind these little shindigs.
Comment by PeterW
exactly, it’s all about production. Like Johnny Cash being a great singer….how can that be, he had a range of 4 notes. I liked Johnny but I never thought he was a great singer.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:54 amA hateful manipulate lying bastard defending the boy who would be king. A marriage of evil and stupidity that millions of foolish dupes swallowed hook, line and sinker.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:55 amAnd congress really should take it to the courts, but then again this War Criminal Bush administration has corrupted the courts, as well as every other department of government.
If Congress isn’t being Blackmailed by Bush’s illegal wiretaps, then why are they not doing enough about this. The Jackass is at 19%, come on get with it congress.
Buck Fush
February 21st, 2008 at 11:55 am…take on the White House in the courtroom if they feel strongly enough about it.â€
Must be nice to know you have the Supreme Court in your back pocket. This attitude explains the supreme hubris of the entire Bush administration from day 1. After all, if the Supreme Court illegally installs you in the White House, you obviously have their permission to violate the Constitution in any way you please, and that was even before Bush’s appointments of his own fascists, Alito and Roberts, to the bench.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:58 am56 I thought it was a coup at the time……it was but it has evolved slowly.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pmSame reason Colin powell was considered a credible witness at the UN even after his participation in the shooting in the back of thousands of fleeing Iraqi’s at the end of the first gulf goof…
Comment by Fred — February 21, 2008 @ 11:47 am
Since I fought was wounded in GW1, you are gonna have to back that one up. I never shot anyone that wasn’t armed or shooting at me. And there were no orders to shoot people in the back either.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:03 pmSince I fought was wounded in GW1, you are gonna have to back that one up. I never shot anyone that wasn’t armed or shooting at me. And there were no orders to shoot people in the back either.
Comment by Wayne
You’re saying that it never happened?
February 21st, 2008 at 12:05 pmAnd there were no orders to shoot people in the back either.
Comment by Wayne — February 21, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
you’re just one guy, wayne. the Bush family’s behavior over the past century unfortunately gives credibility to this point of view. Many iraqi soldiers were buried alive by bulldozers as well. mass-murder is a typical bush tactic.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:06 pmYou’re saying that it never happened?
Comment by Fred — February 21, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
I never witnessed anything of the sort.
If I had I would have spoken out.
Got a link for this accusation?
February 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pmLefty & Fred,
I’d rather see some evidence of your allegations, than see you continue to question the honor of a man like Wayne.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pmLet’s hope the next president cares enough about the Constitution to not try to subvert the inherent separation of powers with ’signing statements’.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:12 pmI think the perception of shooting in the back came when the republican guard was fleeing up the highway and our fighter planes were whacking them, as I best recall. Had nothing to do with ground troops.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pmThere were reports of Iraqis being buried alive in trenches by American heavy equipment, but I don’t recall seeing any testmony or evidence of that.
Just my 3 cents.
Comment by Wayne
just one from wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
The bombings were cited by some observers as a “war crime” — the deliberate bombing of a stretch of highway where fleeing and out-of-combat Iraqi troops were stuck in a frenzied traffic jam.
Wayne, I am a vet too but you surley know that these things have happened…….airstrikes like this are not ordered by a few out of control grunts in the field.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:14 pmC’mon, Fred. You can’t use the Wiki to cite facts.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:17 pmGotta get to class. I’ll check back later.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:18 pmHappy Mathing Z!
February 21st, 2008 at 12:19 pmok then try theCommission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal
will that be acceptable. I’m sorry guys but I am really surprised that this is not known and accepted as fact……..where were you…..I was getting my info on the invasion from a russian website that was updating every hour and getting much better info than we were getting here in the states.
http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-death.htm
U.S. planes trapped the long convoys by disabling vehicles in the front, and at the rear, and then pounded the resulting traffic jams for hours. “It was like shooting fish in a barrel,” said one U.S. pilot. The horror is still there to see.
not exactly like shooting them in the back but not really that different.
google highway of death………sorry I brought it up as it is painful as an American Vet to know these things happened….
February 21st, 2008 at 12:23 pmhighway of death
http://www.rense.com/general33/vs.htm
Our forces did not wait for the fleeing people to surrender, they did not surround them and force them to surrender, they just exterminated them. Americans never heard about the “Highway of Death,” they just paid for it, a slaughter that, in Barnes’ words “ranks among the great atrocities of modern warfare.”
February 21st, 2008 at 12:26 pmFred is correct. It was a slaughter. This doesn’t take away from Wayne and his service.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pmOn the other hand, take heart in the fact that 3 out of 4 threads here today are about the Botch Admin either backing down to public pressure or apologizing, and the MSM FINALLY finding the testicular fortitude to “Do the Right Thing”.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:41 pmI think y’all might want to dig a little deeper about that highway. According to PBS and the Foreign Policy Research Institute, most of the Iraqis had abandoned the vehicles and taken off before the bombing began, and that actual casualties were low.
And, no matter how much of a “turkey shoot” this was, it did not involve shooting people in the back. I think you owe Wayne and the other soldiers an apology.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:42 pmI think the perception of shooting in the back came when the republican guard was fleeing up the highway and our fighter planes were whacking them, as I best recall. Had nothing to do with ground troops.
Comment by RUCerious — February 21, 2008 @ 12:14 pm
Since I spent most my time doing recon closer to bagdad, I didn’t see the bombing on the highway.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:46 pmWhen I passed by after, I saw a lot of charred bodies, but not “thousands”. Wasn’t a pretty sight though.
And, no matter how much of a “turkey shoot†this was, it did not involve shooting people in the back. I think you owe Wayne and the other soldiers an apology.
Comment by gummitch — February 21, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Thats what got me, the “shooting in the back” charge.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:56 pmAlso, as I stated, there were not “thousands” of bodies. Most vehicles were empty.
Only seen charred bodies in pictures and it wasn’t easy to look at.
Any film footage of a person dying, being killed, or already dead is difficult to deal w/, in my experience.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pmWhat do you call it when they are running away from a battle and you kill them…….the orders were given and the fact that the Iraqi’s ran doesn’t change that fact…..one human or one thousand….what is the difference under those circumstances?
This was a black mark for our country and Colin Powell was involved and that is the whole point.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:04 pmFred, were they running away or retreating? Do you mean to suggest that attacking retreating troops is the equivalent of shooting people in the back?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:12 pmI’d rather see some evidence of your allegations, than see you continue to question the honor of a man like Wayne.
Comment by Zooey — February 21, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Too bad so much of that evidence has been buried, like the Iraqi soldiers. Those reports were contemporaneous, and have been disappeared.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:16 pmI’m done with this……
February 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pmSome of you guys might have valid point to make about the US military in Iraq, and you need to tighten the chokes on your shotguns. Right now, you’re hitting everyone in the room, whether they deserve it or not.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:19 pmOnly seen charred bodies in pictures and it wasn’t easy to look at.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 21, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Its worst in person. You can close your eyes to try not to see it, but the smell…..
Some things still get to you even years later.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pmWar sucks, period.
I have been told that few things in this world smell worse than a dead human body.
There’s a very good WW II documentary about a squadron of P-47s stationed on Sicily in 1944 called “Thunderbolt”. It was shot in 16mm color. I was amazed to see how young the flyers were. Early 20’s? They kept referring to their squadron leader as “the old man” and he was 26, maybe 28…
Near the end of the film, a fighter crashes trying to land and they reach into the smoking wreckage w/ long, hooked poles to pull the pilot’s charred, still smoking body from the cockpit. It’s hard to watch.
I can only imagine Wayne. I hope it fades w/ time.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:28 pmWayne, AMEN.
Don’t think for a moment that we stopped shooting and strafing VC and NVA when they were disengaging from an attack on any of our firebases in Nam.. Nope.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:30 pmOne image that stays with me is the charred wreckage of a Phantom that crash landed on the DaNang airstrip and burned to a crisp.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pmWe got there about five minutes after the impact.
There were still pieces of the pilot in the cockpit. And yes, the stench was godawful. The odor of burning fuel, plastic, rubber and body were all just overpowering.
What do you call it when they are running away from a battle and you kill them…….
Comment by Fred — February 21, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
When they are not dropping their weapons that they have been firing at you, or surrendering, you have no idea if they are going to stop and the next hillside and start shooting at you again.
I thought you said you were a veteran.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:36 pmI thought you said you were a veteran.
Comment by Wayne
we going to turn this into a pissing match?
February 21st, 2008 at 1:41 pmWayne, you are starting to make this personal now so I am not going to respond here again…..sorry it came to this is all I can say.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:42 pmwe going to turn this into a pissing match?
Comment by Fred — February 21, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I believe it was you that made the “shoot in the back” charge.
February 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pmWhy are you always playing the “victim”, Fred?
Don’t think for a moment that we stopped shooting and strafing VC and NVA when they were disengaging from an attack on any of our firebases in Nam.. Nope.
Comment by RUCerious — February 21, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
Oh, hell no.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:00 pmIf they are not dropping the weapons and surrendering, you knew good and well they would be shooting at you again later.
Why are you always playing the “victimâ€, Fred?
Comment by Wayne
so Wayne, this was personal for you from the start….
February 21st, 2008 at 2:03 pmThere’s a joke all martial artists tell, and the punch line is always…
“Well, geez, I didn’t think he was going to hit me!”
February 21st, 2008 at 2:04 pm“Well, geez, I didn’t think he was going to hit me!â€
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — February 21, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
Couldn’t have said it better, ROS =)
February 21st, 2008 at 2:15 pmLearn’t that one from experience, ‘n got the scar tissue ta back up the story! :-D!!!
February 21st, 2008 at 2:22 pmso Wayne, this was personal for you from the start….
Comment by Fred — February 21, 2008 @ 2:03 pm
One thing you better realize, if you are going to smear a veteran, you better have the facts supporting you, because I will defend a fellow veteran, no matter which political side he is on, if the smear looks to be false.
I jumped on a few regulars here for degrading Hacker Bob’s service ( when he used to post here ), for example. That didn’t mean I wouldn’t debate him on issues, though.
Just like those who will decry McCain’s service and enduring as a POW. Hit him on the issues, not on his military service. That smacks too much like what the Repugs did to Kerry.
And I believe I was one of the first on this board to cry war crime when WP was dropped on civilians at Faluhja, burning the skins off women and babies…….
February 21st, 2008 at 2:32 pmDefiant, Rove said that “those who disagree†with Bush’s use of signing statements “can take on the White House in the courtroom if they feel strongly enough about it.â€
Speaking of courtrooms, why isn’t Rove in jail?
Cheers,
February 21st, 2008 at 2:51 pmThe first three words I want to hear out of Obama’s mouth on January 20, 2009, right after “So Help me God,” are: “Arrest these MEN!”
February 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pmHere is information that Rove “forgot” to include in his discussion of Clinton vs. Bush II signing statements:
“At first glance, it does not appear that President Bush has departed significantly from prior practice in the signing statement context, having issued 152 signing statements as compared to 381 during the Clinton Administration. However, the qualitative difference in the Bush II approach becomes apparent when considering the number of individual challenges or objections to statutory provisions that are
contained in these statements.
Of President Bush’s 152 signing statements, 118 (78%) contain some type of constitutional challenge or objection, as compared to 70 (18%) during the Clinton Administration. Even more significant, however, is the fact that these 118 signing statements are typified by multiple constitutional and statutory objections, containing challenges to more than 1,000 distinct provisions of law.”
– From CRS (Congressional Research Services – Report to Congress: Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications, Updated September 17, 2007: (see the whole report here: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf )
February 21st, 2008 at 4:11 pmComment by gummitch — February 21, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
Thats what got me, the “shooting in the back†charge.
Also, as I stated, there were not “thousands†of bodies. Most vehicles were empty.
Comment by Wayne — February 21, 2008 @ 12:56
Wayne & Gummitch, thanks for clarifying the situation and for the service to this country. I appreciate your patience in explaining the situation.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm