| Page 3 of 5 < > |
Cover-Up Exposed?
"Gonzales testified that the Globe had retracted the figure. The news paper has not retracted any stories or figures on Bush's signing statements. The paper corrected an editing error in one follow-up story that referred to Bush challenging 750 'bills' instead of laws; a single bill often includes many separate laws.
"As of last week, Bush's signing statements covered 807 laws, according to Christopher Kelley, a government professor at Miami University of Ohio who has studied presidents' use of signing statements through history."
The First Veto
  Save & Share |
Saving options
Mary Dalrymple writes for the Associated Press: "President Bush readied the first veto of his presidency to stop legislation to ease limits on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. The veto is expected as soon as the measure reaches his desk. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said that was expected to happen about midday Wednesday, and that Bush would veto the measure as promised."
Bush is scheduled to give a speech about stem cells today at 2:15 p.m. ET. ABC's The Note calls that speech make or break for his party's hopes in 2006: 'If today's remarks make you think of the best work of Karen Hughes and Mike Gerson, bet on [Republicans to hold the House]. If the remarks make you think of the passionless and defensive words that come out of a bureaucratic process, double down on [the Democrats].
NBC's First Read reports: "If you keep your eyes trained on news out of the Middle East today, you risk missing the first veto of George W. Bush's presidency and the House vote that will sustain it. Which may be what some Republicans are hoping as they seek to put the matter behind them."
Is It Murder?
Here are Tony Snow's strong words at yesterday's press briefing: "The President believes strongly that for the purpose of research it's inappropriate for the federal government to finance something that many people consider murder; he's one of them. . . .
"The simple answer is he thinks murder is wrong. . . .
"[T]he President is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something that is living and making it dead for the purpose of research."
And yet, Snow notes: "There is nothing that makes embryonic stem cell research illegal; it simply says that the federal government will not finance it. As you know, there are ongoing efforts in some states, including, I think, California and Massachusetts, to use state money for it, and I daresay if people think that there's a market for it, they're going to support it handsomely."
How do you reconcile those two positions?
A Washington Post editorial asks that very question: "We understand that people can in good faith disagree on this question. But we don't understand the logic of Mr. Bush's position. If using discarded embryos to extract stem cells is murder, how can he permit it to proceed with private funding? If this is murder, isn't it also immoral to allow federal research on existing lines of embryonic stem cells, as the current administration policy permits, though they are the fruit of a homicidal act?"
Karl Rove Watch
Jeremy Manier and Judith Graham write in the Chicago Tribune: "When White House political adviser Karl Rove signaled last week that President Bush planned to veto the stem cell bill being considered by the Senate, the reasons he gave went beyond the president's moral qualms with research on human embryos.