If the New York Times editorial board thinks Bush's signing statement on the Defense Authorization Bill is so damned important, why is it that its news pages didn't mention it?
What does that signing statement say? Among other things, that
four sections of the bill unconstitutionally infringe on his powers, and so the executive branch is not bound to obey them."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," Bush said. "The executive branch shall construe such provisions in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President."
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."
I don't know about you, but that looks to me like he intends to build permanent bases in Iraq no matter what Congress says, which would lock the United States into that country long past his term and tie the hands of any future President who might think that's a bad idea.
While several members of Congress noticed and spoke up against it (Froomkin, pages 2-3), the news pages of the NYT, WaPo, LAT and WSJ have not reported on it (yet). I wonder why.
Posted by Linkmeister at January 30, 2008 08:46 AM | TrackBack