Bush's veto vs. signing statements
Wednesday May 02, 2007
With President Bush's veto of the funding bill for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm wondering why the president isn't doing what he's done with past bills to which he objected to some aspect: add a signing statement saying he's going to ignore certain parts.
Actually, I don't really wonder. He knows with a Democratic majority on Congress, a signing statement for this bill would cause a heap of trouble. It would draw attention to all the other signing statements he's made, for one thing. Secondly, the Democrats would go after him for it.
I've wondered at times about these signing statements that say "I'm ignoring this part of this law." Isn't that saying the president will not defend the laws of the nation, even though the president took a vow to do that very thing? I've also wondered if that in itself is an impeachable offense.
