question.... What does the veto really say about *'s signing statements?

[nebenaube]

I mean, doesn't he routinely rewrite the legislation that he signs by using signing statements? Does this veto of the supplemental funding bill show that the signing statements don't really apply and are meaningless?

[Rude Horner]

1. I've heard some people wonder why

Bush didn't just sign this Iraq funding bill with his usual signing statement, nixing the withdrawal part. My opinion is that most Americans have never even heard much about Bush's signing statements in the past because they don't really pay attention to what's going on. However, even the most brain dead Americans seem to be paying attention to Iraq and what goes on about that situation, and if Bush signed this funding bill with a signing statement disgregarding the withdrawal, it would have drawn a huge amount of attention, which probably would have eventually led to most Americans hearing about all the previous legislation that Bush has signed with signing statements. I think they realize that a good majority of Americans wouldn't like the president signing bills into law with an asteriks, stating that he doesn't have to follow the law. And that is the kind of scandal they don't want.

That, and the fact that Bush knows the entire country is watching his butting heads with the Democrats on this legislation, and his massive ego would make it impossible for him to actually appear to back down.

[gasperc]

2. Pelosi and Reid should just come right out and say that

if Bush wants the money so bad but objects to the timetable, why doesn't he just staple on one of his signing statements that he won't enforce the timetable