Headlines deliberately engineered to smother the facts. Gotta love 'em.

[WilliamPitt]

You know these.

It's a "surge," not an escalation.

It's "abuse," not torture.

It's "amnesty." Or the "Death Tax." Or the "Clean Skies Initiative."

A new entry to the list came along today, courtesy of the Washington Post. You'll probably see a lot more of the "I"-word below being used if this story gets going.

It's a good'un. Ready?

'Signing Statements' Study Finds Administration Has Ignored Laws
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/18/AR2007061801412.html?nav=hcmodule

Isn't that freakin' great! I love it.

Ignored laws. Ignored.

Not "Broken." Ignored.

I find this strangely liberating. I mean, what a concept.

I think I'll start ignoring laws. I'll smoke a joint in City Hall, and that's OK, because I'm only ignoring the laws. I'll shoot fireworks at school buses in traffic, pee any damn place I please, determine pants to be optional, and that's just fine as paint, since I'm not breaking any laws. Me? I'm like the president.

I just ignore them.

It's like the next sentence after Nixon saying "If the president does it, it's not illegal."

Next sentence: "We're just ignoring the laws."

Liberating, I say. Truly. Yesterday, were I to do any of those crazy things, I'd have been arrested immediately. Yesterday, I somehow assumed that ignoring laws...just ignoring them, pretending they're not real...wasn't, like, possible or anything. Even when I break a law - run a red light, speed, shoot fireworks at children, my usual stuff - I'm not ignoring the law. I'm fully aware of it as I decide to defy it. Right? That was the deal?

Yesterday, that was the deal. Now there's this.

So, look out. Tomorrow, I might just decide to be like the president. I might just decide to ignore the laws. If he can do it, so can I.

La la la la la no laws I can't hear you la la la la la...

Brave new world. Or something.

[jaysunb]

1. K&R

Uh Huh....

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Misled the American people. Not lied to, but misled.

Include 'misled' Congress in that too. Not lied, misled.

[formercia]

26. That's what leaders do

Lead or mislead, depending on their motives.

[lapislzi]

60. Hallmark of pathological narcissism

"The rules don't apply to me."

Rules? Piffle!

They believe they deserve special treatment for reasons that make sense only to them. Or for no reason at all, save the fact that they are good, kind, magnanimous, and magnificent enough to grace the planet with their sublime presence. :sarcasm:

[Major Hogwash]

73. True, but Bush has set a whole new standard for lying about leading.

How long did it take the American people to find out that the Gulf Of Tonkin incident was a hoax?
Years.

How long did it take the American people to find out that Saddam had no WMD's?
Months.

When was the last time the Federal Government took scientific findings out of a report on the impact of global warming on the environment?
Not before Bush was in office.

When was the last time a covert CIA officer was outed in AMERICAN newspapers and then the entire party of the President went on a national tv and radio campaign blitz to claim that she was NOT a covert CIA officer at the time?
Not before Bush was in office.

When was the last time that treaties regarding trade were ignored by the Federal government when foreign countries broke the terms of those trade treaties constantly and consistently?
Not before Bush was in office.

Want to know what finally woke up half of the redneck, numb-from-the-neck-up Republicans here to just how bad Bush was for America?
When the CEO of the largest company in the state said they were going to build their brand new 1 BILLION DOLLAR fabrication plant in CHINA!!
That may be great for the bottom line of the company, but not for the people who work there.

[EFerrari]

3. Enhanced interrogation. If I had interrogated my teenagers

with "enhancement" I'd be in San Quentin right now.

[ginnyinWI]

4. Laws?

They don't gotta follow no stinkin' laws--they're Republicans, dammit! They are morally superior to us hippie-lefties, so we can't possibly fathom their reasons for breaking the law! But rest assured, it's all for our own good. :sarcasm:

[PurpleChez]

24. But, you see, they DIDN'T break the law

because, as you said, they're Republicans. You can't break a law that doesn't apply to you in the first place.

[TahitiNut]

5. AIL - Aliens Ignoring Laws.

There. That fixes it. No more complaints about "illegal." :rofl: :rofl:

[jaysunb]

6. What if the " Aliens " are from Mexico ?

:evilgrin: sorry...just asking. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

7. "Extranjeros que no hacen caso de leyes"??

:evilgrin:

[az chela]

8. bush is a traitor,a liar,criminal and we need to put IMPEACHMENT

back on the table and keep putting it there.bush will tire of it and show his truly violent side and then ,just maybe we can get rid of all of the trash in the white house

[Rex]

9. Well it is what applies to their everyday life.

They ignore anything that doesn't involve, making money or gaining power. Morals? Families? Americans?

Ha.

And to the brain dead lurkers out there, ignore danger at your own peril.

[SeattleGirl]

10. And don't forget, if for some reason you DO get arrested, just tell

them "Mistakes were made." Bingo! You're outta jail!

[az chela]

11. Great Response!!!!!!!After all we are just following the presidents

rules and examples.he breaks the law so as the leader of this country I guess that gives us all the right to act just like him

[SeattleGirl]

12. Well, we must do what Our Dear Leader does, right?

B-)

[PurpleChez]

25. Didn't a non-Thug-controlled court recently rule

that they could not fine broadcasters for using, on the air, language that Darth Cheney felt free to use on the floor of the Senate? As Hedly Lamar would say, "Perhaps there's a legal precedent!"

[Quixote1818]

13. Big KICK and R. nt

[Quixote1818]

14. You should write an article tomorrow that rips that article an new one. nt

[HCE SuiGeneris]

15. ahhh

that satirical laugh was cleansing
thank you Will

[bleever]

16. Yeah! Bring it on, everyone,

who knows that this administration began in the courts, and is going to end there.

The obfuscations about "legal" vs. illegal torture never confused many people.

Likewise with the distinctions proffered about "legal" vs. illegal domestic spying, "legal" vs. illegal election conduct, and so on, and so on.

Time for this clarity to be common knowledge, as they peddle "ignorance" of the law as an excuse.

Shit, even Snoopy knows better than that. That might not be where I first learned it, but that's where I first remember it from.

:thumbsup:

[sellitman]

17. I didn't ignore the law......I think...

umm....I can't remember.

(Gonzalas was here?}

[Blackbird_Highway]

18. Sadly, Ignore is Correct

It's only breaking the law if you get caught, and so far this administration hasn't been caught, and most likely never will.

[Bjorn Against]

28. Ummm, have you been paying attention these last few years

This administration has been caught breaking the law many times they just haven't been held accountable.

And by the way you don't have to be caught to be breaking the law, a broken law is a broken law no matter if anyone catches you.

[Decruiter]

19. Damn it all Will, you just have a way with words. We are joining in with you,

though. We believe if the Prez can ignore the rule of law, well so can we.

Here's to a "brave new world"!

Scary, isn't it?

Bless you, Will. You are truly a sweetheart and a damned good journalist to boot.

Peace.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

20. I feel your frustration.

I do.

[Disturbed]

22. Busholini ignored the FISA Law for just a few weeks.

Nothing to get upset about. Move along.

[Philosoraptor]

21. Stop making sense, they'll hear about it.

[Jim Warren]

23. What was it I heard so many times growing up....

Oh yeah: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. You might like the 'Unspeak' blog

in which the way words are used to hide the truth is analysed. An example of the offical terms found in the Hersh/Taguba interview (short - normally he'll analyse in greater detail, but torture has shown up so much over the months that there's not much more to say):

Doctrinally appropriate techniques: torture.

Strategic interrogation techniques: torture.

Setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees: torturing them.

Loosen this guy up for us: torture him.

Executive action: whacking people.

Special Access Programs: plans to torture or whack people.

Preparing the battlefield: whacking people around the world.

‘Case law’ policy: reserving the right to lie. “(Rumsfeld) did what we called ‘case law’ policy — verbal and not in writing,” Taguba says. “What he’s really saying is that if this decision comes back to haunt me I’ll deny it.”

http://unspeak.net/doctrinally-appropriate/

[Gregorian]

46. That's good. I still put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the Amrican people.

But it has gotten more complex in the ability to decipher. Plus, lying doesn't help matters. Anyone convinced that 9/11 was pulled off by Saddam had little reason to be skeptical about the so-called news they were watching.

I blame the people. But then even common sense falls victim to the lobster in warm water effect. Unless, like in engineering, people have enough common sense to step back and look at the whole picture. Again and again.

What I see is a bunch of stupid lobsters.

[iamahaingttta]

29. I ignore the law all the time...

...and so does every damn last one of you.
Get off your high horses and admit it!
Granted, you may not ignore laws that affect millions of other human beings, the scale may be different, but you do it and you do it every single day.

You may not smoke that joint in city hall, but you do it in the privacy of your own home. You probably do it so often, that you even forget that it's against the law.

Is it even possible to drive a car at 25 miles per hour? No, you drive 32 in that 25 zone, and 66 on the highway where the speed limit is 55. You've never gotten a ticket for that and you never will. In fact, you yell at the asshole in front of you for going so damn slow because you've got somewhere to go!

I don't have a car, but do you really think I'm gonna stand on the corner like a jerk when there's absolutely no traffic in sight just because the sign says "Don't Walk"? Neither will you.

I'd LOVE to see all of your tax returns!

Should I continue?

So... the point is that this may not be the best approach to take. We ALL ignore laws we don't like. There are PLENTY of other approaches to take when it comes to squashing those reptiles, it doesn't befit us to engage in pure hypocrisy. While the OP and some of your responses may be amusing, it's just as amusing to know that every single one of us does the same damn thing...


((((La la la la la I can't hear you flaming me La la la la))))

[sinkingfeeling]

36. No, not ALL of us ignore the law. I for one, do drive 25 MPH on the city streets and

55 in the 55MPH zone. I do not smoke joints. I do not cheat on income tax returns. I do not keep the extra $10 or the extra $.05 in change that a cashier mistakenly tries to give me.

I can think of no law that I've broken in my 59 years.

[Hong Kong Cavalier]

38. .

:eyes:

[treestar]

45. But if we were caught and the media reported it, the headline would

saw we "broke" the law.

[AwakeAtLast]

30. I'm gonna have fun on the Interstate tomorrow

ignoring those pesky speed limit signs and all. Do you think 95 MPH is too fast w/ a husband and child in tow? ;)

[madokie]

31. Laws, what a quaint idea

[marions ghost]

32. I truly believe

that until white collar crime is taken JUST as seriously as street crime, we will never be able to really change the way things are done in this country. There is no such thing as "justice" in America--that is a romantic fantasy. The abuses of the B*sh administration should convince us of this sad fact.

We need to see prosecutions, jail time, large fines and public disgrace for those who perpetrate civil crimes which injure others and deprive them of their rights. Serious ethical problems are found at every level, in any arena you can name. It's epidemic.

These politicians ARE mostly lawyers. They know just exactly how to ignore, circumvent, & evade the law. And how to cover their crimes like the most creative mafia dons. They own the media. Once you control the headlines, then everybody can "move on" in collective delusion.

This is the most serious rot in this country, leading to all other forms of rot.

[babylonsister]

33. Wow. Not nice. True. Sad. Thanks. nt

[IndianaJones]

34. How does this compare to Clintons use of the signing statement?

I would like to post this article on another group I frequent, and inevitably, this will be brought up as defense for bush's actions.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. Do a little Googling.

http://www.slate.com/id/2134919/
Signing statements are presidential announcements added to a piece of legislation on signing. They range from benign executive branch throat-clearing—thanking and praising the bill's sponsors—to something that approaches a line-item veto: expressions of presidential reservations about the law. These statements are perfectly legal. Presidents have used them since Monroe, and, as Bush supporters are quick to point out, Bill Clinton was one of the most prolific issuers of signing statements. But, as professor Phillip W. Cooper's paper in the Sept. 2005 issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly reveals, the difference between President Bush's use of the statements and that of his predecessors is a matter of frequency and kind.

President Ronald Reagan, guided by his Attorney General Edwin Meese III (and urged on enthusiastically by a young lawyer called Samuel Alito), launched a concerted policy to start to use signing statements as a means of reinforcing the executive's message and consolidating its power. Meese arranged to have them published for this very reason. Until the Reagan presidency, the executive branch had only ever issued a total of 75 signing statements. Reagan, Bush I, and Bill Clinton deployed them 247 times between them. (Clinton issued more statements than Bush I, but fewer than Reagan). According to Cooper, by the end of 2004, Bush had issued 108 signing statements presenting 505 different constitutional challenges. He has yet to veto anything.

First, consider the substance of Bush's statements. Of the 505 constitutional objections he has raised over the years, Cooper found the most frequent to be the 82 instances in which Bush disputed the bill's constitutionality because Article II of the Constitution does not permit any interference with his "power to supervise the unitary executive." That's not an objection to some act of Congress. That's an objection to Congressional authority itself. Similarly, Cooper counted 77 claims that as president, Bush has "exclusive power over foreign affairs" and 48 claims of "authority to determine and impose national security classification and withhold information." Bush consistently uses these statements to prune back congressional authority and even—as he does in the McCain statement—to limit judicial review. He uses them to assert and reassert that his is the last word on a law's constitutional application to the executive. As he has done throughout the war on terror, Bush arrogates phenomenal new constitutional power for himself and, as Cooper notes, "these powers were often asserted without supporting authorities, or even serious efforts at explanation."

[Contrary1]

58. Watch this video from Countdown last night...

It explains things better than I could.

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=0d90cd8d-2f79-4c4d-a91e-ebf11a8083ab&p=Source_Countdown&t=c1149&rf=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/&fg=

And this: http://fe33.news.sp1.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070618/ap_on_go_pr_wh/signing_statements

[blondeatlast]

35. Complex issues, political movements, and corruption have been reduced to sound bites.

It's gotta fit in the headline (who bothers to read the article, which all too often contradicts the headline anyway) or the screen crawl.

Can't take up that precious mirror time to actually study and analyze the issue.

You're a relic, Will (for which I'm grateful)!

[ordinaryaveragegirl]

39. HUGE K&R!!!! n/t

[amb123]

40. K & R

On target as usual. So much for "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse".

:toast:

[Demeter]

41. If the Reports Admitted Bush Broke the Laws, Then Someone Would Have to do Something!

and it's summer, doncha know? Vacations and what not.

[spanone]

42. I'm on the roof, jumping off and landing on my head. No other cure.

The complicity of the media will be noted by historians.....hopefully.

[DeeDeeNY]

43. Words and phrasing are important

That's why the Republicans used Frank Luntz. And of course the media just goes along.
"Mistakes were made, etc." Or Monica Goodling's "I crossed the line --- But I didn't mean to!!!"

[OwnedByFerrets]

44. What I keep asking but getting no answer to is.........

why hasnt he and so many other LAW breakers been arrested. HE is a citizen and subject to the laws of America. He has broken laws. WHY HASNT HE BEEN ARRESTED!!!!!!!!!!

[rhiannon55]

47. 'cause he's the pretzeldent, silly...

Laws don't apply to him. :sarcasm:

[Vilis Veritas]

53. Oh...they will....they will....

When the pendulum swings back it will slice the heads off these criminals. It may take years...it may take a decade...but it will swing back.

The pendulum always swings back...

Peace...

Be the Pendulum...

[lonestarnot]

48. I think I'll ignore them too. Do we have a button for that?

:P

[wryter2000]

49. Yeah

And more and more we're fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq.

[Javaman]

50. And what does the congress do? ignore the ignoring. nt

[1620rock]

51. Well, see...laws are in effect rules...

...and rules are made to be broken. (Repuke reasoning.)

[dorkulon]

52. Ha! Apparently, "ignorance of the law" now IS an excuse.

"But officer, I was ignoring drug prohibition while I smoked that joint."

"Oh! Well, okay then. Run along!"

If only...

[Raskolnik]

54. Yeah, shoddy journalism is the shits.

Speaking of which, how is Mr. Leopold?

[Joe Fields]

55. 'laws' sounds so confining, Will...from here on I will view them as....

'guidelines.'

[Vilis Veritas]

56. It is my right to ignore.

To ignore...we use it in society all to often. It has become common place. It is the defacto standard response to the connected world we live in.

We use ignore here on DU as a response to silence the critics of our opinions.

We ignore the small things that really should irk everyone...you have to in the world we live in - over-crowding, pollution, complicit media, food companies poisoning people, healthcare systems that suck...the amount of SHIT makes it impossible to live and remain sane - thank goodness, I can just ignore it all sometimes and chill out...

We ignore lifes problems all the time. What is that joint your smoking, the beer your drinking, the tv your watching? I ask you, are these all not forms of ignoring that which we should be FIGHTING?

To ignore is our right as a society. The current usage of the IGNORE button by the BFEE is only capitializing on what WE ourselves created. We chose to ignore. Now they are ignoring back and it is biting us in the ass and, well, that is just hard to ignore...

They ignore the laws. Newsflash...that is not news. What is news? That they throw it in our face now and say, nyah, nyah, nyah...lalalala...excuse me while we ignore your public outcry...here have some cake...I hear Microsoft has a new $10,000 table that is going to CHANGE THE WORLD!!!!

Peace.

[Martin Eden]

57. IGNORING the BIG issues

What really blows my mind is how some really BIG issues are downplayed or ignored, like when Bushitler recently stated he envisions a US presence in Iraq along the lines of the Korean model -- where we've been for more than half a century!.
:wtf: :nuke: :wtf:
How many years has chimpy been declaring there would be NO PERMANENT BASES and that we'd "stand down" when the Iraqis "stand up"?

Now -- with the vast majority of Americans wanting a conclusion to to this costly fiasco -- the chimperor casually mentions we're going be there permanently -- AND IT BARELY MAKES A RIPPLE IN THE NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
:crazy: :grr: :shrug:
Would someone care to explain how something like that receives less than a tenth of the press coverage than any occasion when Paris Hilton gets into or out of a car on her way to or from jail?

[AikidoSoul]

71. Does the media ignore these big issues because they work for the CIA like Carl Bernstein

wrote about in his 1977 Rolling Stone article "The CIA and the Media" where he disclosed that over 400 journalists had done work for the CIA? Should we believe that this situation has improved? The CIA is deeply connected to corporate interests.

I just found out about this fact and something weird happened... I felt a deep shock to my system.

I must still care about what happens to our Democracy.














edited to add question mark

[thereismore]

59. Here's another one: President `challenged' laws by signing statements.

I heard that a lot last night on MSNBC. CHALLENGED. How about Annulled, Gutted, Neutered, Spayed.

[ejbr]

61. Undoubtedly, a useless letter to the author

Mr. Weisman:

Can you please explain the difference between "ignoring" laws and "breaking" them? Don't you find it dangerous to use "ignoring" laws instead of "breaking" laws in your headline? Won't there be some simpleton who will now feel justified in "ignoring" a few laws, since your title seems to diminish the seriousness of these so-called "signing statements" which most would argue is breaking the law?

It is unfortunate that you are intent on pampering an administration that is vilified by most people. Do you think the general objection to Bush's actions are irrational? Is torture, violating the Fourth Amendment, breaking treaties, preemptive wars based on lies (and so on) so acceptable to you that you wish to convince your readers that Bush is merely "ignoring" laws, not breaking them which would indubitably require punishment?

When this country completely turns to shyte, and trust me with this administration and your coddling it most certainly will, I hope you can live with yourself for having helped it happen. How many people simply “ignored” your article because of the title alone? Count me as one of them. How many people will now be more comfortable with a future administration "ignoring" a law by jailing a minority group for no reason or worse? Thanks to your headline more than there should be.

Sincerely,

[Ian David]

62. Bush's "Signing Statements" constitute evidence of a willful criminal conspiracy to violate the laws

He's essentially using them as instructions to commit high crimes and misdemeanors.

[Supersedeas]

63. Beltway Accomplices and Apologists

[mnhtnbb]

64. That's why they hate us for our freedoms...like ignoring the law.

:sarcasm:

[northofdenali]

65. Rule of Law? How do you spell that?

Laws apply to Repukes? Balderdash! Big money, big oil, big pharma, big agriculture.... Laws? Hogwash! We've made ours..........

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[robinlynne]

66. good one. I especially liked "la la la" at the end...

[Greyskye]

67. happy to be rec #50!

with a :kick: for good measure.


Nice job Will, you law-ignorer you!

[LuckyLib]

68. They have their own damned language. And if Amerkins would read something

weightier than the TV Guide, some light bulbs might go on.

[HardRocker05]

69. how 'bout "detainees," instead of "prisoners." nt

[Jackpine Radical]

70. Sorry--We were playing baseball and

we ignored your window.

[David Zephyr]

72. Hearty K&R!

Euphemisms. It's 1984...all over again! :;)

[Blue_Tires]

74. lol...it's all in the latest edition AP stylebook

edited by the moneyed elites

[BlooInBloo]

75. Here's a new one for the books!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1148818

:rofl:

[WilliamPitt]

79. That goes in the Pantheon.

Struggled. Mmm. I feel the pain.

Nice pull. :toast:

[BlooInBloo]

80. Just had the good fortune of reading that thread & this in quick succession.

[Major Hogwash]

76. Bush thinks the Constitution was just a set of guidelines anyway.

You know, they weren't really "set in concrete".
They were just "guidelines".
Cuz we can't have "judges legislating from the bench", even though their job is to interpret the laws.

Well, not now, not with our new 3-in-1 President, anyway.
Hell, he can decide which laws he likes, and which laws he doesn't like, and have "signing statements" or just flat out ignoring laws, or just completely ignoring facts.

"I don't have to accept your numbers."

Remember when Bush said that to Gore during the 2000 debates?

He sounded like a 4 year-old, spoiled brat.

And that's just what we have in the White House today, a spoiled brat.

"I'm doing it my way. And if y'all don't like it, well, that's tuff."

[Major Hogwash]

77. Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales: The Geneva Conventions are quaint.

I'm pretty sure that at one point in time in history somebody said that about the guillotine, as well.

And about the Iron Maiden.

And about the rack.

And about the garrote.

And about water boarding.

All brought back - by popular demand - by this Bush administration.

[Caoimhe]

78. Doesn't it seem like these neocons read "1984" by Orwell

and instead of seeing it as a warning, they saw it as a blueprint?