A more restrained manner?

WASHINGTON: Calling into question the legitimacy of all the signing statements that former President George W. Bush used to challenge new laws, President Barack Obama on Monday ordered executive officials to consult with Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. before relying on any of them to bypass a statute.

But Obama also signaled that he intended to use signing statements himself if Congress sent him legislation that had provisions he decided were unconstitutional. He pledged to use a modest approach when doing so, but said there was a role for the practice if used appropriately.

You can do that...but...you know...don't do that.

I'm beginning to think our current sitting president is a bit wishy-washy. It's either that...or he truly believes that the vast majority of Americans hold the metality and intellect of second graders.

The signing statement approach became necessary for Reagan, because the Democrat heavy congress would continuously stuff in unconstitutional ryders and entries into each bill. He was forced to add signing statements to assure that important legislation didn't sit in "limboland" or require a veto because some moron from Massachusetts added language that would counter the "right to own guns" or exercise free speech...etc. As you will recall, the United States was in a nasty recession thanks to Friar Carter's touch. It required action and the application of supply side economics to bring us back to prosperity.

George W. Bush used signing statements more routinely because the processing of the Patriot Act, and shoring up our internal security became a priority, and portions of that Bill could, indeed, be perceived as unconstitutional. In short, it is the closest we, as a country, have gotten to a "line item veto." The amusing thing here is that President Obama is questioning the legitimacy so as to retain the support of the all powerful "American Bar Association."

The American Bar Association declared that such signing statements were "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers," calling on Bush and all future presidents to stop using them and to return to a system of either signing a bill and then enforcing all of it, or vetoing the bill and giving Congress a chance to override that veto.

But, out of the other side of his mouth, President Obama is telling us that he plans on using the same tool in his presidency.

In his memorandum, Obama wrote: "Particularly since omnibus bills have become prevalent, signing statements have often been used to ensure that concerns about the constitutionality of discrete statutory provisions do not require a veto of the entire legislation."

Obama's policy directive was consistent with what he said during the 2008 presidential campaign. Responding to a Boston Globe questionnaire about executive power, he criticized Bush's aggressive use of signing statements as an abuse, but also said that he would use them, too, albeit in a more restrained manner.

Let's correct the journalist's obvious bias here...shall we? Here...try this:

President Obama is going to use the signing statement as well. Only, he's going to use it to promote his agenda...and therefore, it is warranted...and not an abuse.

Personally, I don't think President Obama would recognize the US Constitution if it came up and bit him on the a$$.

Leaky Leahy...

WASHINGTON (AP) — The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal to launch a "truth commission" to investigate the Bush administration's anti-terror programs and other matters got a lukewarm response from President Obama, who said he would rather "get it right moving forward."

Fantastic!!!

Then, let's put together a "Search Committee" charged with finding those opportunistic politicians who have no problem leaking classfied information to the press in an effort to score some political points...

Let's start with LEAKY LEAHY...

Pi$$ing down a well...

William Teach (Pirate's Cove) highlights President Bush's radio address, and then points out a missed opportunity:

See, what Bush should have done was blame it all on Israel, at which point all the moonbats with Bush Derangement Syndrome would have all of a sudden decided that Hamas is the bad guy and switched their normal support of any terrorist and/or America hating group/country to Israel.

There is some surreal truth in that...

Of course, one would have to wonder why in the name of all that is Holy the Bush Administration keeps doing this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States announced on Tuesday it would give $85 million to the U.N. agency providing aid to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

The announcement comes as the humanitarian situation is worsening in Hamas-ruled Gaza, which has been pounded by Israel for the past four days in retaliation for rockets fired into the Jewish state by Hamas and other Palestinian factions.

The U.S. funds, which will help cover appeals for aid by the agency for 2009, would pay for urgently needed food, medicines and other humanitarian aid for Palestinian refugees, said the department in a statement.

Show of hands...who is deranged enough to think that any funding given in cold hard currency through the surrogate United Nations is going to be used as intended? And, if by some miracle, the currency finds itself in the hands of the Palestinians...which of you has the extreme optimism to believe that it will be used for food, medicines and humanitarian aid?

Hatchet job of inanity...

WASHINGTON: President George W. Bush's last effort to seal an agreement to dismantle North Korea's nuclear weapons program during his presidency collapsed Thursday, leaving the confrontation with one of the world's most isolated and intractable nations to Barack Obama's administration.

Four days of negotiations in Beijing ended in impasse after North Korea refused to agree to a system of verifying its promise to end all nuclear activity. Among other things, the North Koreans have objected to soil and air samples being taken near nuclear facilities and being taken overseas for testing.

Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times' red-headed stepchild, the International Herald Tribune, does his best to paint Bush as a failure in this piece.

"...eludes Bush's grasp"
"...collapsed..."
"...progressed erratically, punctuated by brinkmanship and breakdowns..."
"...depriving him of a late diplomatic breakthrough in the sunset of his presidency."

The truth of the matter is that the Bush Administration wants a substantive and verifiable agreement. Because, guess what happens when you take North Korea at their word?

Sherman...to the Wayback machine....
Ok, Mr. Peabody...

There is good reason to distrust any talking solution to the missile crisis. North Korea has not been very nice in recent years. Some in the Red Team still cling to the notion that being nice to brutal dictators is the only way to solve problems. This solution has not worked with Kim and will never work.

Kim stuck the Clinton administration with the bill after years of talk, dancing, wining and dining the dopey State Department diplomats hired by the boy president. In 1994, Clinton sent Jimmy Carter to negotiate. Jimmy solved the crisis by declaring that there was no crisis as long as we sent Kim money. Yet, even before Carter got back to D.C., Kim had already cashed the U.S. aid checks and restarted his nuclear weapons program.

Madam Albright called Kim "charming" and danced with him – as if there was nothing to resolve. Kim's tactics worked very well with the Clintonoids. The years of chatting about solving the crisis gave him time to develop long-range missiles and nuclear weapons.

In 1998, Clinton misled the American public and Congress, getting the Pentagon's top general and the CIA to both attest that North Korea could not get a missile together for at least 10 to 15 years. Only weeks after the chairman of the Joint Chiefs testified before Congress, Kim shot a Tae'Po Dong missile over Japan, with bits and pieces falling just short of the U.S. coast.

Trust, BUT VERIFY...Right President Reagan, sir?

AP's time machine...

Asif Ali Zardari made the appeal in a speech to a U.N. interfaith conference initiated by Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah and designed to bridge differences between religions and cultures.

President Bush, who spoke just before Zardari in what was likely to be his last address to the world body, echoed the call for moderation.

How, exactly, do you echo something that hasn't been said yet? The conference, itself, strikes me as the usual United Nations circle-jerk. Although, Zardari gets points for painting a bull's eye on his chest.

On a related note, I happened to be coming back from lunch on Water Street and watched President Bush fly by in one of the two Presidential Limos along with about a 40 cycle/ vehicle escort. He was having a rather animated conversation with whomever was tagging along. I couldn't see the other guy's face too well. A couple minutes later, Marine One shot out of the heliport (usual depature).

Inconceivable!!!

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

"Bush has openly mocked law and proclaimed a certain pleasure in sadism and exulted in holding prisoners and mistreating and torturing them, really," Shawn rants. "Of course this affects one emo tionally: my emotional life has been very strongly affected by the fact that Bush was president and my writing life is affected by my emotional life."

And here I thought that Wally was such a piss poor playwright because he was always picked last for kickball when he was little…uh…’little-er.’ Try and catch "Aunt Dan & Lemon" sometime should it ever see the light of day again. The references to Henry Kissinger as a genocidal killer are quite...moving...in a lower intestine kind of way.

Bonus: Here's a photo of little Wally sitting on the counter at age 3.