Because he didn't want to veto his war department money!
And the parts Bush didn't comment on, reader?
He's just going to ignore those rules. That's why he didn't mention them.
Congressional restraints mean nothing to a dear dictator, readers, or didn't you know that?
"Signing statement is president's first since 2006; Had used tactic often before power shift in Congress" by Charlie Savage/Boston Globe December 1, 2007
WASHINGTON - President Bush this month issued his first signing statement since the Democratic takeover of Congress, reserving the right to bypass 11 provisions in a military appropriations bill under his executive powers.
Sig Heil!
In the statement, which the White House filed in the Federal Register on Nov. 13 but which initially attracted little attention, Bush challenged several requirements to provide information to Congress.
Took the MSM over TWO WEEKS to dig this out?
For example, one law Bush targeted requires him to give oversight committees notice before transferring US military equipment to United Nations peacekeepers.
Bush also challenged a new law that limits his ability to transfer funds lawmakers approved for one purpose to start a different program, as well as a law requiring him to keep in place an existing command structure for the Navy's Pacific fleet.
Bush's statement: "The Act contains certain provisions identical to those found in prior bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities. To avoid such potential infirmities, I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions."
Translation: I'll ignore those laws that I've already ignored earlier!
You still with me, readers?
Am I the only one filled with outrage when this lying, law-breaking mass-murdering war criminal invokes the Constitution?
I shouldn't be!!!!
Bush says it is just a goddamned piece of paper!!
By referring only to objections voiced in past documents, Bush's new signing statement struck a less aggressive tone than those he issued during the years when his own party controlled Congress.
In the past, Bush's assertion that he could bypass laws was backed by the invocation of broad theories laying out the scope of a president's power to defy congressional statutes.
Where exactly is that in the Constitution?
I've read it, and I can't find those "broad theories" he's talking about!
They wouldn't be "conspiracy theories," would they?
In a further sign that the White House adopted a muted tone, the new signing statement also said nothing about two higher-profile provisions in the bill that limit presidential power: One law prohibits the military from using foreign intelligence information that was collected illegally, and the other forbids expending funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq.
Oh, yeah, he'll go right around those!
As lawmakers drafted the bill earlier this year, the White House warned Congress that the illegal intelligence and Iraq-base provisions "impermissibly" infringed "on the president's constitutional authority" over national security and foreign affairs.
Then IMPEACH, CONVICT, INDICT and IMPRISON, Congress!!!!!
But Congress kept the provisions in the final bill and Bush's statement did not mention them.
Analysts said the president's less aggressive tone may be an effort to avoid reigniting a controversy that erupted last year after it came to light that Bush had used signing statements to challenge more laws than all previous presidents combined - including a torture ban."
Yeah, keeping his damn law-breaking covered up and quiet!
C'mon, MSM, start doing your fucking Constitutional duty!
That's why you got an Amendment, remember?
Otherwise, you are going to be replaced with the likes of me and other independent news outlets!
Like, PEOPLE-GENERATED NEWS, not reiterated Zionists propaganda!
