But President Obama could still issue a signing statement essentially nixing the provision -- or simply stall on implementation. [emphasis added]Notice how casually they are implying that they expect Obama to follow in Bush's footsteps. This is not the only example. On the issue of Karl Rove's testimony Jim White at firedoglake.com writes "the conflict here is between "truth" and the "institution of the presidency", at least in the eyes of Obama's administration. Obama and/or his representatives are confused.
Obama was hired to set things right, not to defend the imperial Presidency.
The more important the issue, the more the media treat it like a teenager's game and thereby enabling the wrong behavior.