"Too often, the Bush administration does what it wants, no matter the law. It says what it wants, no matter the facts,"

-- Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.

It's not enough that the Bush Administration can't consider a piece of legislation lest it be slathered with myriad "signing statements" -- i.e. presidential admissions of contempt for the rule of law. Now, it seems, they can't even work within the canyon-fitted leeway afforded by Bush's law-skirting actions. At least that's what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) said in their report (though they worded it a bit differently;)

The Bush administration sometimes fails to follow all provisions of laws after President George W. Bush attaches "signing statements" meant to interpret or restrict the legislation, congressional examiners say...

The limited GAO study examined signing statements concerning 19 provisions in fiscal year 2006 spending bills. It found that in six of those cases the provisions weren't executed as written. [FYI: That's 6/19= 31.6%]  

In one case the Pentagon didn't include separate budget justification documents explaining how the Iraq War funding was to be spent in its 2007 budget request. In another, the Federal Emergency Management Agency didn't submit a proposal and spending plan for housing, as Congress directed.

Bush argues that "the president has a right to control executive branch employees and officers, that he has authority to withhold from Congress information sometimes considered privileged or that Congress shouldn't interfere with his constitutional role as commander in chief." And that Bush has "the prerogative to address matters of national security and express reservations about the constitutionality of legislation."

Constitutionality? What the Hell does the Bush Administration know about that 'Goddamn piece of paper'? I'll tell you what they know. They know that you can cloud any Constitutional argument with an opaque veil of 'national security' -- a simple term morphed into a Rovian catch-all, revved up to address every issue from military spending to healthcare to Grandma Betty's apple biscuits.

Just slap that 'national security' label on legislation of your choice, and BOOM! Now you can 'withhold information from Congress' and insist that 'Congress not interfere'. Blah, blah, blah.

Don't even get me started on 'Bush's role as Commander-and-Chief'! What a joke!

And in case you think this is the end of Bush-era 'signing statements'  -- yes, the ones that the administration can't seem to follow -- White House jabber-jaw Tony Fratto assures us, "We expect to continue to use statements where appropriate, on a bill-by-bill basis,"

I expect they will also continue to illegally ignore the statements as it suits their needs. Well hey! If you let the children get away with Hell, you better believe that is exactly what they'll do.

...imagine if Gore had taken his rightful place in 2000.

Imagine.

Notes:

• Bush has issued 149 signing statements. 127 of those raised objection, according to Senator Byrd and Congressman Conyers. "They said the statements often raise multiple objections, resulting in more than 700 challenges to distinct provisions of law."
• "The GAO said signing statements accompanied 11 of the 12 spending bills in 2006, singling out 160 specific provisions in those bills."
• The American Bar Association (ABA), "approved a resolution condemning use of signing statements, saying presidents shouldn't resort to diluting or changing laws passed by Congress rather than using their veto powers."