Bush Issues Signing Statement on Defense Act, Waiving Ban on Permanent Iraq Bases

Posted by Amanda Terkel, Think Progress at 2:07 PM on January 29, 2008.

Throughout his presidency, Bush has issued more than 151 signing statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws.

Post Tools
EMAIL
PRINT
14 COMMENTS

Bush

Share and save this post:

AlterNet Social Networks:

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

PEEK RSS Feed

Main AlterNet RSS Feed

President Bush yesterday signed the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act after initially rejecting Congress's first version because it would have allegedly opened the Iraqi government to "expensive lawsuits."

Even though he forced Congress to change its original bill, Bush's signature yesterday came with a little-noticed signing statement, claiming that provisions in the law "could inhibit the President's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations." CQ reports on the provisions Bush plans to disregard:

One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

In his "Memorandum of Justification" for the waiver, Bush cited his Nov. 26 "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship" between Iraq and the United States. This agreement has been aggressively opposed by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress as not only unprecedented, but also potentially unconstitutional because it was enacted without the agreement of the legislation branch.

Today on CNN, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA) voiced concern that this declaration may indefinitely commit U.S. troops to fighting Iraq's civil wars:

Involved in those declaration of principles, there is an implicit potential for the United States military forces, years from now, being involved in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. And I don't believe that's where the American people want us and I don't think that's in the best interest of our national security.

Earlier this month, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) introduced legislation requiring the Bush administration "to consult with Congress before moving forward with any agreement that could lead to long term security arrangements and other major economic and political commitments."

Throughout his presidency, Bush has issued more than 151 signing statements challenging 1149 provisions of laws.

Tagged as: bush, iraq, signing statement

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Deputy Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

Return to PEEK » Post Tools: EMAIL PRINT 14 COMMENTS PERMALINK

Also in PEEK
Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense" You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads. Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.	House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America. Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.	Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill. Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.

Comments	Turn comments off sitewide	Give us feedback »
Comments closed. The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.		View:
Hardly anything new, [Report this comment] Posted by: oregoncharles on Jan 29, 2008 8:41 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] but it sure underlines both his breathtaking arrogation of power and the Democrats' refusal to do their duty and protect the Constitution. The truth is that refusing to impeach a President who commits such egregious "high crimes and misdemeanors" can only mean that they are in league with him. Despite their rhetoric, the Democrats in Congress actually support what this administration is doing, or they would at least try to remove the President. Words can lie; actions tell the truth, and so do inactions. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: cherylholmes » RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: Spock » RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: peacefullaim williamf [Report this comment] Posted by: WilliamF on Jan 30, 2008 3:43 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] This signing statement phenomenon has a history but to use it for the alteration of legislation is a direct usurpation of the powers of congress (in my opinion). It seems to me that if the President has an issue with legislation he does what the constitution says he can do and that is to veto it. Not to change it. He cannot legislate. Congress cannot allow him to continue this practice. The most direct route for congress to put a swift halt to this is to impeach him. Going to the Supreme Court would be folly. Those jokers over there are bought and paid for. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Great picture... [Report this comment] Posted by: adp3d on Jan 30, 2008 3:57 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] ...I love it. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Too Little, Too Late [Report this comment] Posted by: Sissy on Jan 30, 2008 6:08 AM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Too bad "The Texas Turd" didn't do this the first 6 years of this misbegotten presidency. Perhaps the debt wouldn't be so devastating. Up until '06 he never saw a Republican budget he didn't like. Now all of a sudden he is so concerned about the money. Give me a break. I say again, what a complete and utter failure this ineffective, disingenious, incompetent and one brain cell president we've had hanging on us for these last 7+ years. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Security Agreement [Report this comment] Posted by: chaoslegs on Jan 30, 2008 7:10 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] That sounds like a Treaty to me. Unless Congress has signed away its right (like with fast track on trade agreements) that has to go through Congress to be binding. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Impeach, convict, execute. [Report this comment] Posted by: thekidde on Jan 30, 2008 10:08 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] . [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] » RE: Impeach, convict, execute. Posted by: MindyB How can you tell when a politician is lying? [Report this comment] Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 30, 2008 11:21 AM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] What, we're supposed to be surprised by this? A permanent position in Iraq was the idea all along, as was gaining control over Iraq's oil. If anybody in the "tea and debating society" that Congress has become expresses any surprise over this, they are either lying or even more delusional than our president. Bush's neocon cronies apparently have accurately concluded that, given the 200-year history of relatively forthright relationships in government, Congress and The People would not be able to shift their paradigms fast enough to keep up with the move to a criminal dictatorship the neocons engineered. This is what happened in 1930's Germany and what has been happening here for more than seven years; and this is what the neocons meant when they claimed that they make their own reality, and everybody else can never catch up (or catch on). (The only difference between the Nazis and the Bushies is that the Nazis wanted to rule the world, but the Bushies just want to make themselves and their corporate buddies filthy rich. Of course, either way, it's still fascism.) Honest people almost always are taken aback, then taken over, by growing criminality, until and unless they finally start thinking like criminals and recognize the threat – hopefully, before it's too late. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Deb [Report this comment] Posted by: debmcd on Jan 30, 2008 12:13 PM Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] Exactly how many treaties has this faux president ignored? Right. Who says that any treaty that that bozo creates has to be honored by the next pres? I just wish he would get the hell out of dodge. The man is a menace and should be put away someplace he can't do any more damage. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] Il Duce [Report this comment] Posted by: willymack on Jan 30, 2008 12:46 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] And his decrees (signing statements) both belong in a dumpster. [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5] And our Gov. bitches about Chavez! [Report this comment] Posted by: MindyB on Jan 31, 2008 2:51 PM Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent] It's interesting how our government has expressed so much concern over Venezuela's president Hugo Chaves at obatining APPROVAL from his Congress to rule by decree for a specified period of time. Yet, our own idiot of a President does something worse!! Bush's so called "signing statements" are the same thing as "rule by decree"--different words same definition. The only difference is that President Hugo Chavez obtained the approval to rule by decree of his Congress, while Dubya Bush usurped any consideration by Congress to approve or disaprove his "signing statements" (aka rule by decree) at all. Who is trully the most dangerous and reckless President? hmmm, I wonder now.... [« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

«	November 2009					»
Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30

» RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: cherylholmes

» RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: Spock

» RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: peacefullaim

» RE: Impeach, convict, execute. Posted by: MindyB

Newsletter

PEEK archive by date:

Use » and « to view other months.

Search:

» RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: cherylholmes

» RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: Spock

» RE: Hardly anything new, Posted by: peacefullaim

» RE: Impeach, convict, execute. Posted by: MindyB