With President Bush, you always have to read the footnotes, that Mr. Bush never intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to an unceasing American military presence in Iraq
- From: rst0wxyz <rst0wxyz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:33:09 -0800 (PST)
The Fine Print
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/opinion/30wed1.html?th&emc=th
Published: January 30, 2008
With President Bush, you always have to read the footnotes.
Just before Monday night's State of the Union speech, in which Mr.
Bush extolled bipartisanship, railed against government excesses and
promised to bring the troops home as soon as it's safe to withdraw,
the White House undermined all of those sentiments with the latest of
the president's infamous signing statements.
The signing statements are documents that earlier presidents generally
used to trumpet their pleasure at signing a law, or to explain how it
would be enforced. More than any of his predecessors, the current
chief executive has used the pronouncements in a passive-aggressive
way to undermine the power of Congress.
Over the last seven years, Mr. Bush has issued hundreds of these
insidious documents declaring that he had no intention of obeying a
law that he had just signed. This is not just constitutional theory.
Remember the detainee treatment act, which Mr. Bush signed and then
proceeded to ignore, as he told C.I.A. interrogators that they could
go on mistreating detainees?
This week's statement was attached to the military budget bill, which
covers everything except the direct cost of the war. The bill included
four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only
if he wants to.
The president said they impinged on his constitutional powers. We
asked the White House to explain that claim, but got no answer, so
we'll do our best to figure it out.
The first provision created a commission to determine how reliant the
government is on contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, how much waste,
fraud and abuse has occurred and what has been done to hold
accountable those who are responsible. Congress authorized the
commission to compel government officials to testify.
Perhaps this violated Mr. Bush's sense of his power to dole out
contracts as he sees fit and to hold contractors harmless. The same
theory applies to the second provision that Mr. Bush said he would not
obey: a new law providing protection against reprisal to those who
expose waste, fraud or abuse in wartime contracts.
The third measure Mr. Bush rejected requires intelligence officials to
respond to a request for documents from the Armed Services Committees
of Congress within 45 days, either by producing the documents or
explaining why they are being withheld. Clearly, this violates the
power that Mr. Bush has given himself to cover up an array of illegal
and improper actions, like his decisions to spy on Americans without a
warrant, to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions
and to fire United States attorneys apparently for political reasons.
It's glaringly obvious why Mr. Bush rejected the fourth provision,
which states that none of the money authorized for military purposes
may be used to establish permanent military bases in Iraq.
It is more evidence, as if any were needed, that Mr. Bush never
intended to end this war, and that he still views it as the prelude to
an unceasing American military presence in Iraq.
.
- Prev by Date: Police Shooting of Mother and Infant Exposes a City's Racial Tension
- Next by Date: China sends in army to battle snow chaos
- Previous by thread: Police Shooting of Mother and Infant Exposes a City's Racial Tension
- Next by thread: China sends in army to battle snow chaos
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
