Signing statements?

There is an op-ed piece in the New York Times about President Bush and something called signing documents. I'd never heard of such things before but am completely dumbfounded that this is permitted in a democracry.

"The signing statements are documents that earlier presidents generally used to trumpet their pleasure at signing a law, or to explain how it would be enforced. More than any of his predecessors, the current chief executive has used the pronouncements in a passive-aggressive way to undermine the power of Congress."

According to the piece, which you can read here, Bush has issued 100s of these documents and does so whenever he believes a newly passed law "impinges on his constitutional powers."

I must be naive. How can the leader of a democratic country ignore its legislation?

The op-ed piece goes on to discuss the latest signing documents. The first Bush signed was against a Congress-sanctioned commission to look into the fraud, waste and abuse surrounding contracting in Iraq; the second, a law that would protect those who expose this type of fraud, waste and abuse; and the third, a measure that would require intelligence officials to respond to queries from the Armed Services Committees of Congress. If those acts weren't evil enough, Bush rejected a piece of legislation -- "which states that none of the money authorized for military purposes may be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq."

Q: When is the U.S. pulling out of Iraq?
A: Never, ever, ever.

At least if Bush were to have his way. Good thing the American pres can only hang around for eight years.

Now don't mess up in November, people! Get out there and vote; don't leave your country in the hands of the religious right. With a possible recession on the way, the last thing you want a right-winger to have at his disposal is the economic advantage of keeping on with a war to bolster the economy.

Colleen