The Boston Globe's Charlie Savage, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his coverage of the story surrounding George W. Bush's signing statements, reported on Saturday that after taking a hiatus for most of the first session of the Democratic-controlled 110th Congress, signing statements are back:

President Bush this month issued his first signing statement since the Democratic takeover of Congress, reserving the right to bypass 11 provisions in a military appropriations bill under his executive powers. In the statement, which the White House filed in the Federal Register on Nov. 13 but which initially attracted little attention, Bush challenged several requirements to provide information to Congress. For example, one law Bush targeted requires him to give oversight committees notice before transferring US military equipment to United Nations peacekeepers. Bush also challenged a new law that limits his ability to transfer funds lawmakers approved for one purpose to start a different program, as well as a law requiring him to keep in place an existing command structure for the Navy's Pacific fleet.

Interesting. Bush uses a signing statement to challenge a law limiting his ability to transfer Pentagon funds from one approved use to another. Why might he do that? Could it be so that he can find and move alternative funding in the face of any Congressional restrictions on the conduct of the Iraq operation(up to and possibly including defunding)? Perhaps. Of course, it could also just be a matter of doing it because he can, and doesn't want anyone to forget it, whether he has the intention of exercising that option or not.

But here's something else equally interesting. Savage sees the new signing statement language as less aggressive and even perhaps more conciliatory than the strident phrasing used with previous, Republican Congresses:

"The Act contains certain provisions identical to those found in prior bills passed by the Congress that might be construed to be inconsistent with my Constitutional responsibilities," Bush's statement says. "To avoid such potential infirmities, I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions." By referring only to objections voiced in past documents, Bush's new signing statement struck a less aggressive tone than those he issued during the years when his own party controlled Congress. In the past, Bush's assertion that he could bypass laws was backed by the invocation of broad theories laying out the scope of a president's power to defy congressional statutes. In a further sign that the White House adopted a muted tone, the new signing statement also said nothing about two higher-profile provisions in the bill that limit presidential power: One law prohibits the military from using foreign intelligence information that was collected illegally, and the other forbids expending funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq.

I'm not so sure. It's certainly true that the "further sign" is indisputable. Bush did say nothing about the limits on the use of foreign intelligence (though he'd previously issued signing statements on exactly the same language) and permanent bases. Exactly why he didn't is a mystery. And if it was because he hoped, for instance, that forbearance on the intelligence issue would buy him the retroactive amnesty he demands for his friends in telecom, well then devious though it might be, it has to count as conciliatory. And no one can argue that silence isn't an indicator of "a muted tone."

But...

Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, denied that there was any "public relations" motive behind the change. Shorter signing statements, he said, are "just easier." "It's been said," Fratto said. "It's our position and it hasn't changed."

One instance where can usually take the White House at its word on is when it insists it hasn't changed its position with respect to disrespecting Congress.

As for the first sign of this new, muted tone, I'm not so sure. Here's Bush's language:

To avoid such potential infirmities, I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions.

That's what lawyers would call an "incorporation by reference," which Black's Law Dictionary defines as:

The method of making one document of any kind become a part of another separate document by referring tot he former in the latter, and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part of the latter the same as if it were fully set out therein.

So when Bush says, "I will interpret and construe such provisions in the same manner as I have previously stated in regard to those provisions," that's just a fancy way of saying, "What I said last time still applies." It's less aggressive looking, to be sure. But it's not substantively different from his last rejection of this restriction.

One might contemplate (in times when the prospect of defunding the war is being bandied about) exactly why Bush would insist on retaining the power to move Pentagon funds from one approved project to any other, including projects specifically disapproved by Congress. Just as one might wonder whether Bush's belief that the August FISA revisions (and the upcoming FISA revisions) have retroactively legalized his intelligence collection methods influenced his decision not to comment on the restrictions in this bill.

If the White House is to be taken at its word that its position "hasn't changed," the proof will be in the pudding. Congress will feel it must wait and see if Bush defies their legislation (though in truth they would feel exactly the same way even with an explicit statement of opposition), which means more waiting and watching. And wondering whether Congressional oversight will pierce the veil of this "administration's" secrecy before the deed is done, and political considerations move them to declare it's "too late" to do anything about it anyway.

The clock continues to run, and nobody's really sure whether this president believes the Congress truly has the power to legislate in any area he declares touches on his "inherent powers" or the "national security." That's a pretty big question mark to have 220 years into the game.