Well if newsweek says so . . .

"Most significant of all, the new partnership deal with Iraq, including a status of forces agreement that would then replace the existing Security Council mandate authorizing the presence of the U.S.-led multinational forces in Iraq, will become a sworn obligation for the next president."

*****

Lucky for us the next president will have the accompanying signing statement that precludes any swearing to agreement or any law existing on the books.

Thanks all that is good in the world for presidential signing statements.

Bush has not respected anything from any previous president. He violates every tenant every rule and every law.

Why should the next president be any different? We know darn well the next president can do the same and NEVER be impeached so . . . .

["Lucky for us the next president will have the accompanying signing statement that precludes any swearing to agreement or any law existing on the books."]

Yeah, and what are the chances that any "electable" Democrat (OR Republican) will undo that signing statement?

Give BACK an unConstitutional power, once siezed?
An American Politician from among the powerful elites in either wing of Mobius Party?
Not Bloody Likely!!

Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, probably, but Hillary, Rudy, or any of the others?
No F'ing Way!

["Bush has not respected anything from any previous president."]
Actually, Bush HAS "respected" every bad precedent and unConstitutional assumption of power ever foisted on the American people by ANY and ALL Presidents, whether Democrat or Republican, such as deploying US forces into war zones without a Declaration of War from Congress as the Constitution stipulates, for example. (A tradition Harry S. Truman began in 1950)

Why is Bush still in office?