Permanent Bases - Bush Gives Congress the Finger. Again.

And lining haliburton employees mattresses Damo.

Iraq is not likely to be secular now chap. That was only with a guy like Saddam arround.
Our permenant bases there will cause just as much hatered as if they were in SA.
 
Beefy said:
So why isn't Bush sitting in a cage eating bread and water?
Click to expand...
Because he's never enforced one of these silly "signing statements" yet, as he knows he can't. At least, not without Congressional help.

Only things passed by Congress AND signed by the Prez, are law. (Where does that leave Executive Orders?). The Prez can add all the "signing statements" he wants, but they weren't passed by Congress, so they have no effect. They are basically Bush's "wish lists", and he knows it.

Only odd thing, is that some on this board seem to NOT know it, and are screaming accordingly. Get a life.

BTW, on the subject of "No permanent bases in Iraq"... the Congress is too late. Have you looked at some of the bases we've already built? Giant concrete runways you can stage B-52s out of, huge steel and concrete buildings, truck parks, massive fuel installations, bomb shelters, tank storage and repair facilities, artillery storage buildings, machine shops etc.... those bases already built weren't designed as "temporary" installations. Also note that half of them are very close to the Iran/Iraq border... their primary purpose was not to support the IRAQ war.

Long before 9/11, the principal threat in the Middle East was never Iraq, but Iran. They were the principal ones supporting terrorists, blowing up other countries, hijacking planes, etc. Iraq came in second. But it would have been impossible to overturn the spread-out 13th-century "government" in Iran - most power is in the hands of hundreds of mullahs spread throughout the country, with more jockeying for power all the time. This was the source of most of Jimmy Carter's frustration when trying to negotiate the return of hostages in 1979 - there was no one central authority controlling things in Iran, to negotiate with.

Bush has known from Day 1 that the real enemy to be defeated is Iran. But he's doing it in stages. Afghanistan harbored bin Laden, so he knocked their government off and built a few bases, coincidentally near the country's Iranian border. Iraq was violating cease-fire agreements like crazy and harboring, supporting, and training terrorists as well as trying to get WMDs, but had an unpopular and unstable one-man government. So he knocked them off next, and built some more bases, coincidentally near the country's Iranian border.

If I were an ayatollah looking at a map of U.S. installations right now, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out what the ultimate purpose of those bases on either side of me, really was. And they will be there, ready to use, for at least the next several U.S. Presidents' administrations - they aren't going anywhere. Even a Hillary or Obama (if they win), though they'll slash the military as head-in-the-sand leftists always do, won't actually dismantle those bases - they'll still be there, ready to use, when a serious President gets into office.

Congress saying that no permanent bases can be built in Iraq, is the proverbial closing of the barn door after the horses have gotten out. And Bush is probably laughing as he signs those silly "signing statements", knowing there isn't the slightest need for them now... while having a fine joke at the expense of the screamers who think they matter somehow.
 
Last edited:
Dungheap said:
So, Congress passed a Defense Authorization bill including a provision that barred the use of any funds from being used to esrablish permanent bases in Iraq:




Well, President Bush signed the bill. Great, right? No permanent bases. No so fast. Bush also issued one of his signature "signing statements" which essentially says that he will disregard the above section as it infringes on his ability to carry out his "constitutional obligations that laws be faithfully executed:"



What a fucking joke.


Links:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:2:./temp/~c110SNBktH:e1220293:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/01/20080128-10.html
Click to expand...

Wow. Such doublespeak.

The president has a duty to execute the laws faithfully, and that includes the limitations the laws place on his ability to act. I don't know how anyone could construe that clause to mean that the president can go willy-nilly with any funds provided to him without having to worry about restrictions.
 
This is probably a tangeant off of that bullshit unitary executive doctirine.

Bush has to execute the laws congress provides. If congress provides that Bush has to execute it in a way that some of his decision making is deferred, then that's that. Bush certainly doesn't have the ability to ignore parts of laws because he feels it's inconvenient.
 
The ironic thing here is that the part of the constitution that he cites is the part of the cosntitution that FORBIDS him from doing shit like this.
 
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...tement_bush_looks_to_bypass_four_laws/?page=2

interesting


In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." The ABA called on presidents to stop using the device and to limit themselves either to signing a bill and then obeying all of it or vetoing the bill if they consider it unconstitutional.

Among the leading candidates in the 2008 presidential primary elections, Republican Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, has said he would issue signing statements if he is elected, while Senator John McCain of Arizona has said he would never issue one.

The two leading Democrats, Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, have both said that they would issue signing statements if elected, but that they would do so much less frequently than Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top