Obama orders review of Bush's signing statements

[cybok0]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20090309/Obama.Signing.Statements/

[Bob Haller]

another great obama move.


the constitution can be violated by any president

[Madtown HD Junkie]

another great obama move.


the constitution can be violated by any president

hardly a great move....just politics as usual instead of change we can believe in.;)

[markh]

This has bugged me since Bush started claiming any signing statement means anything. The law means what it says on the bill being signed. I don't care if it's Bush or Obama, the law is what he signed and anything said can't change it. Sure they always have a few words about why the law is important but a signing statement can't change the law.

[vurbano]

hardly a great move....just politics as usual instead of change we can believe in.;)
I think Obama's supporters believe in the tooth fairy as well.

[iceturkee]

I think Obama's supporters believe in the tooth fairy as well.

i believe if the tooth fairy had been president, he or she probably would have been ranked higher than georgie porgie. but then my disdain dislike for our former president is very well documented. i do like the sound of ``former'' president!!

[fallout2600]

This has bugged me since Bush started claiming any signing statement means anything. The law means what it says on the bill being signed. I don't care if it's Bush or Obama, the law is what he signed and anything said can't change it. Sure they always have a few words about why the law is important but a signing statement can't change the law.

Signing statements have been abused by many presidents well before Bush or Obama...it has become common practice but is unconstitutional....wait, did I say constitution...what's a constitution?!?!?!?! :rolleyes:

[Bear Paws]

Hiya Fallout. Nice to see your well.
I have never seen an administration, especially from the top down, that is so bent on fighting with the previous administration. I don't recall Bush being so classless to ever say anything bad about his predecessor. Even on the campaign trail but especially once he was in office. Its just bad form to constantly blame and beleaguer the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
You wanted it, you bought, now you own it. Live with it and move on..

[fallout2600]

Hiya Fallout. Nice to see your well.
I have never seen an administration, especially from the top down, that is so bent on fighting with the previous administration. I don't recall Bush being so classless to ever say anything bad about his predecessor. Even on the campaign trail but especially once he was in office. Its just bad form to constantly blame and beleaguer the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
You wanted it, you bought, now you own it. Live with it and move on..

Hey Bear, good to be back around chatting with everyone, after hurricane season and the markets last fall, I've been busy...

Yes, I agree, its a shame to see the blame game after the elections and especially in the Oval Office. Its time for business not games....

[vurbano]

I think Obama wants to read them because he doesnt know how to write one.

[HDRoberts]

...
I have never seen an administration, especially from the top down, that is so bent on fighting with the previous administration. I don't recall Bush being so classless to ever say anything bad about his predecessor. Even on the campaign trail but especially once he was in office. Its just bad form to constantly blame and beleaguer the previous occupant of the Oval Office.
You wanted it, you bought, now you own it. Live with it and move on..

Maybe because, aside from some personal indiscretions, there was little bad to say about Bush's predecessor. However, I do believe Bush, and many conservatives, were quick to blame Clinton for 9/11.

In Obama's case, there is certainly plenty to blame the previous occupant for.

The signing statements should be ignored, period. What's in the law congress passed is all that matters. Yes, some presidents in the past used them, but none to the extreme Bush did. Issuing a signing statement is not a line item veto.

[fallout2600]

The president doesn't even have a line item veto...all he is allowed to do by law is veto the entire bill!

[HDRoberts]

The president doesn't even have a line item veto...all he is allowed to do by law is veto the entire bill!

Exactly my point. But it seems to me Bush tried to turn signing statements into such, effectively saying he would ignore or "differently interpret" parts of the law as he saw fit. Wrong no matter the political party.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Maybe because, aside from some personal indiscretions, there was little bad to say about Bush's predecessor. However, I do believe Bush, and many conservatives, were quick to blame Clinton for 9/11.

In Obama's case, there is certainly plenty to blame the previous occupant for.

The signing statements should be ignored, period. What's in the law congress passed is all that matters. Yes, some presidents in the past used them, but none to the extreme Bush did. Issuing a signing statement is not a line item veto.

i don't think Bush did, put did some conservatives...yes. It was the way they operated against terrorist, with a law enforcement mentality. Just like Holder and Obama.

[fallout2600]

Exactly my point. But it seems to me Bush tried to turn signing statements into such, effectively saying he would ignore or "differently interpret" parts of the law as he saw fit. Wrong no matter the political party.

You just heard about it more when Bush did it than past presidents. As I'm sure we'll hear about it when Obama does it....regardless, we agree, its unconstitutional.

[Bear Paws]

Maybe because, aside from some personal indiscretions, there was little bad to say about Bush's predecessor. However, I do believe Bush, and many conservatives, were quick to blame Clinton for 9/11.
Oh... Please..:rolleyes::rolleyes: Your in my territory now.
The whole 911 was planned under Clinton's nose. It was Clinton and his justice dept that built the "THe Wall" , an over extension of the 70s Church Committee, and it was his orders that shut down "Able Danger' in Jan 2001. And disallowed communications between "Alex Base" (CIA) and "Able Danger" (Army SOCOM) Both having definitive and accurate information on most of the actors and immanent plans for 911. Through pressure on the Joint Chiefs Clinton even created a war between my old out fit, DIA, and our brothers, the Army and prohibited intra-agency, even those under SOCOM, any cross communications of information.. It was so bad that a CIA could be prosecuted for just talking to a FBI about the weather in Somalia.
Clinton loathed everything Military and especially Covert Ops. He de-nutted every Agency to skeleton status. 911 is squarely at Clinton's feet.

[Skyhi]

Maybe because, aside from some personal indiscretions, there was little bad to say about Bush's predecessor. However, I do believe Bush, and many conservatives, were quick to blame Clinton for 9/11.

In Obama's case, there is certainly plenty to blame the previous occupant for.

The signing statements should be ignored, period. What's in the law congress passed is all that matters. Yes, some presidents in the past used them, but none to the extreme Bush did. Issuing a signing statement is not a line item veto.

:bravo-009:

[Bear Paws]

:bravo-009:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink38.gif More Kool-Aid?

[HDRoberts]

Oh... Please..:rolleyes::rolleyes: Your in my territory now.
The whole 911 was planned under Clinton's nose. It was Clinton and his justice dept that built the "THe Wall" , an over extension of the 70s Church Committee, and it was his orders that shut down "Able Danger' in Jan 2001. And disallowed communications between "Alex Base" (CIA) and "Able Danger" (Army SOCOM) Both having definitive and accurate information on most of the actors and immanent plans for 911. Through pressure on the Joint Chiefs Clinton even created a war between my old out fit, DIA, and our brothers, the Army and prohibited intra-agency, even those under SOCOM, any cross communications of information.. It was so bad that a CIA could be prosecuted for just talking to a FBI about the weather in Somalia.
Clinton loathed everything Military and especially Covert Ops. He de-nutted every Agency to skeleton status. 911 is squarely at Clinton's feet.

Hmm, I wonder how many presidential daily briefings Clinton had entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US"?

Did Clintion ignore some early warning signs? Yes. Dis Bush ignore larger ones? Absolutely.

But, this is another thread. This is about the Bush signing statements.

[Bear Paws]

Hmm, I wonder how many presidential daily briefings Clinton had entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US"?

Did Clintion ignore some early warning signs? Yes. Dis Bush ignore larger ones? Absolutely.

But, this is another thread. This is about the Bush signing statements. No.. you brought it up...THere is a difference between in actionable ans actionable intel.
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US"...??? We already knew that. What would the actionable response to that be?

[vurbano]

No.. you brought it up...THere is a difference between in actionable ans actionable intel.
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US"...??? We already knew that. What would the actionable response to that be?
pulling the trigger when he is in your sights or at least taking him into custody when offered to you?

[HDRoberts]

No.. you brought it up...THere is a difference between in actionable ans actionable intel.
"Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US"...??? We already knew that. What would the actionable response to that be?

I bought it up because some had alleged republicans/Bush never blamed their predecessor for anything.

A reasonable reaction would have been to further investigate, putting together all the pieces available.

Here is the PDB memo given to Bush: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Here is a memo FROM THE MONTH BEFORE warning of OBL followers learning to fly: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412042phoenix1.html

Here is Coleen Rowley's memo detailing the failings that took place in 2001: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

Clearly several actions could have been taken. But you labor under the assertion that killing OBL in the 90s would have prevented it. Who is to say someone else wouldn't have stepped up to fill his role?

[fallout2600]

Clearly several actions could have been taken. But you labor under the assertion that killing OBL in the 90s would have prevented it. Who is to say someone else wouldn't have stepped up to fill his role?

With that logic, please explain to me why Obama is continuing to hunt OBL? If we kill him tomorrow, who's to say another leader won't rise up...

[Bear Paws]

I bought it up because some had alleged republicans/Bush never blamed their predecessor for anything. You brought it up trying to equivocate Obama playing to the still Deranged out there by constantly crying "it's not my fault.. it the previous guy's fault. Something Bush never did. President Bush nor his administration ever blamed his preceding, or any other for that matter, administration. Just like the other day when Bush said "he would honor Obama with his silence " when asked to comment on Obama and his policies. That's class... unlike what the Bush Deranged Syndrome Bush Bashing Obama and his henchmen are doing every day...
I put the blame on Clinton.


A reasonable reaction would have been to further investigate, putting together all the pieces available.

Here is the PDB memo given to Bush: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

This was not reasonable "reaction"? This from the PDB memo.... " The FBI is conducting approximily 70 full field investigations throuh out the USA that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in MAy saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planing attacks with explosives."

That's a pretty big investigatory operation considering they had no date, location nor methodology "actionable" information. Explosives? Like his previous MO? The WTC was already hardened under Bush. . I know. We used to make truck deliveries there. THe line to get in went 5 blocks some mornings because of the security mounted by Bush. It took three hours sitting in the streets just to make a one piece delivery. We used to charge shippers waiting time to deliver there.


Here is a memo FROM THE MONTH BEFORE warning of OBL followers learning to fly: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412042phoenix1.html

Here is Coleen Rowley's memo detailing the failings that took place in 2001: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html
THat is the exact culture of the Bill Clinton/Jamie Gorelick "wall" that was forced on the Intel agencies for any intra as well as inter agency information. Sharing analyst [real or speculative] information was forbidden... Even between or from field offices to HQ. It had to be "stove piped" to a dead end career bureaucrat rather than a officer/superior agent.

Clearly several actions could have been taken. But you labor under the assertion that killing OBL in the 90s would have prevented it. Who is to say someone else wouldn't have stepped up to fill his role?
Labor? Killing? I never said such thing. How about putting him in jail when offered to us by the Sudanese government?? Clinton had 8 years to prevent 911 with far more oppertunity than a 8 month president that couldn't even get his cabinet nominations confirmed because of the partisan retaliatory foot dragging Clintoniestas in Congress. You know.. the ones that said (probably like you) that Bush was a not president.