This post was made Oct. 22, 2007 in response to a Huffington Post article by Valerie Plame-Wilson, a covert CIA officer who was exposed by the Bush administration because her husband wrote an article calling Bush on a LIE Bush made in a state of the Union address in 2002

Mrs. Plame-Wilson

Thank you for your service to our country.

On behalf of myself and, as you by now know many others as well, I would like to apologize for the treatment you received from this disgusting administration.

To those that think that BushCo didn't have a hand in outing you, just consider what happened to the Frost child when he spoke out against the veto of the SCHIP program.

Our Idiot-In-Chief and his cronies in the far right press just couldn't wait to spew out lies about this poor defenseless child.

I am truly glad that YOU are in a position to hold these slime balls to at least some measure of account for their dastardly actions.

BushCo thinks that he can avoid criticism by refusing to turn over people and documents for scrutiny.

He's wrong and any sane person knows it. Look at the things that are still coming out from in under rocks placed there by Nixon.

I know that this won't rectify what was done to you, but at least you will have the eventual satisfaction of knowing that the future will vindicate you...and not Bush.

Once again thank you and I hope you are proud of the way Ambassador Wilson has supported you. I've been impressed with both of you for some time.

Signing Statements vs. Line Item Vetos

Signing Statements

George Will (NYT) wrote an interesting OpEd piece on "Why the Line Item Veto (that Mitt Romney wants) is unconstitutional. If you would like to read it, check out the (free) New York Times web site for his Sunday Oct. 21st. piece
I subsequently sent him an email as follow:

Mr. Will,
Thank you for your, as usual, well written article. I did not realize that a "Line-item" veto could be contrary to the Constitution. Your article has made that clear.

Question:
Given that a bill must be approved as "it" is submitted to the President for his signature or veto, how is it that Bush (and others) can get away with "signing statements" that effectively change or even void the intent of the bill submitted?

The classic example that occurs to me is the McCain bill prohibiting torture. Bush's signing statement effectively renders this bill meaningless and unenforceable.

How is a signing statement different then from a line item veto?

Truly,
R. Paul Alderson