You sure he's leaving in 2009, readers?
"Bush asserts authority to bypass defense act; Calls restrictions unconstitutional" by Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | January 30, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush this week declared that he has the power to bypass four laws, including a prohibition against using federal funds to establish permanent US military bases in Iraq, that Congress passed as part of a new defense bill.
Bush made the assertion in a signing statement that he issued late Monday after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. In the signing statement, Bush asserted that four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them.
Bush said: "Provisions of the act . . . purport to impose requirements that could inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, to protect national security, to supervise the executive branch, and to execute his authority as commander in chief. The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
Justifying himself by using the Constitution he has destroyed!
How galling!
Yeah, "laws be faithfully executed" not IGNORED, you fucking war criminal!
One section Bush targeted created a statute that forbids spending taxpayer money "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."
WHY we went there to begin with!
The Bush administration is negotiating a long-term agreement with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The agreement is to include the basing of US troops in Iraq after 2008, as well as security guarantees and other economic and political ties between the United States and Iraq.
The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration has said it does not intend to designate the compact as a "treaty," and so will not submit it to Congress for approval....
Did you Sig Heil, Congress?
Congressional Democrats also took issue with the signing statement.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California:
"I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute. His job, under the Constitution, is to faithfully execute the law - every part of it - and I expect him to do just that."
Oh, she is a real piece of work, isn't she, readers?
What a FUCKING SHITSCUM Pelosi is!!!
This is Ms. "Impeachment is off the table," right?
After she and Reid have caved and enabled this mass-murdering bastard, she says this?
Un-FUCKING-believable!!!
.... Bush's frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency. Previous presidents occasionally used the device, but Bush has challenged more sections of bills than all his predecessors combined - among them, a ban on torture.
Bush signing statements prompted widespread controversy when his record came to light in 2006....
Where is the controversy, Charlie?
This issue is hardly ever brought up in the MSM press, and I never see it on T.V.
Oh, that's right, I'm not watching MSM T.V. anymore!
The signing statement also targeted a provision in the defense bill that strengthens protections for whistle-blowers working for companies that hold government contracts....
Yeah, don't want that Halliburton and Bechtel looting to be exposed, do ya?
In addition, Bush targeted a section that requires intelligence agencies to turn over "any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion" requested by the leaders of the House and Senate armed services committees within 45 days. If the president wants to assert executive privilege to deny the request, the law says, White House counsel must do so in writing.
Finally, Bush's signing statement raised constitutional questions about a section of the bill that established an independent, bipartisan "Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan" to investigate allegations of waste, mismanagement, and excessive force by contractors....
Right. He doesn't want all the looting and stealing his war-profiteering buddies are doing to see the light of day.
When the American people find out how much $$$$ they've been bilked out of by this lying asshole and his wars, we are going to lynch his ass!!!!!!!
The White House did not respond to a Globe request to explain the objections in greater detail. But the Bush administration has repeatedly insisted that its use of signing statements has been both lawful and appropriate.
And the Bush administration would never lie about anything, right, readers?
I think I'm going to be sick, folks!
Still, the signing statement makes one thing clear, according to David Barron, a Harvard law professor. The White House, he said, is pressing forward with its effort to establish that the commander in chief can defy laws limiting his options in national security matters. The administration made similar assertions in recent disputes over warrantless wiretapping and interrogation methods, he said.
Translation: We got an AmeriKan DICTATORSHIP on our hands!!!!!!!!!!
Barron, who was a Justice Department official in the 1990s:
"What this shows is that they're continuing to assert the same extremely aggressive conception of the president's unilateral power to determine how and when US force will be used abroad, and that's a dramatic departure from the American constitutional tradition."
In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers."
Then Bush is a CRIMINAL, dammit!
So, Investigate - Impeach - Indict - Imprison, Congress!!!!!
Sorry, too late!
Thanks, Nan!!!!!!!
