Why didn't Bush just issue a signing statement for the funding bill?

[ck4829]

Is there a 700 signing statement limit or does he not want the American People to know about his signing statements?

[MessiahRp]

1. There's more political significance in the veto

He's trying to push this onto Democrats. With the veto he makes the argument, as weak as it may be, that Democrats didn't want to fund the troops and if they were serious about the troops they wouldn't have sent this PR stunt bill to them. Their words, not mine.

On the flip side if he adds a signing statement it takes that argument away because it actually funds the troops.

The entire exercise is about scoring political points.

Ironically, exactly what the Chimperor accused us of.

Rp

[lazyriver]

2. Because it was called "The Iraq Accountability Act"

and a signing statement wouldn't change the fact that he would have to put his precious little name on a document with such a title. His hubris is his greatest fault in a veeeeeeeeery long list of faults.

[JHB]

3. And look like he's "putting limits" on himself and "establishing deadlines"?

Remember, this is *. Image is what counts (uber alles), not substance.

Also, such a signing statement would likely be directly challenged, and the most likely outcome of that would not be in his favor.