Bush just used a signing statement to completely and totally REVERSE the intent of a key provision of the DHS spending bill. Not content to use the statement to alter or nuance the intent of the legislation, he just used the statement to nullify it. Oh my f'ing God, we are really at the mercy of a dictator.
The DHS spending bill is the bill in question. Look at the atrocity below:
From the AP via
Yahoo news:
In the law Bush signed Wednesday, Congress stated no one but the privacy officer could alter, delay or prohibit the mandatory annual report on Homeland Security department activities that affect privacy, including complaints.
But Bush, in a signing statement attached to the agency's 2007 spending bill, said he will interpret that section "in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch."
Translation--he has the power to do the very thing Congress JUST said only one person (not him!) had the power to do. How's that for a big Fuck You! from Bush to his "subordinates"?
In the "Duh! No surprise!" department:
Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.
So when pesky Congress actually TRIES to monitor the executive branch...well....access denied.
Oh, and it gets worse. You'd think after Katrina, FEMA'd be a no-brainer. A political hot potato that Bush wouldn't mess with. Well, you're wrong. Congress tried....Bush just denied:
Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.
Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."
His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."
That bolded statement may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ignoring the "five-year experience minimum" because it may rule out the best candidates? WTF? By the way, how can you just "disregard" the fucking LAW???
Somebody please...please...stop this madness.