Signing Statement Shows Ulterior Motives

Filed in Uncategorized by on January 29, 2008

I have always thought that part of the reason for Iraq was the desire to put military bases there to secure access to the oil resources there.  Bush issued a signing statement today that lends credence to this possibility.  This falls in line with The Project for the New American Century (or NAMBLA) goals of expanding US military presence throughout the world.

Can we have a law that bans signing statements?  Or how about one that specifies that they have no legal weight?  Hopefully President Obama will rein in these powers and work with Congress for a peaceful transition back to democracy.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Comments (21)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Brian says:

    Can we begin the transition back to a republican form of government now please?

  2. jason330 says:

    A peaceful transition back to democracy.

    Who would have ever guessed that we’d need such a program?

  3. fred says:

    No one who pays attention to such things has to be surprised at this action. Bush regards any attempt at restraint as nothing. He does as he pleases.

  4. Brian says:

    Great. Those are the qualifications we should all ask of a candidate. Let’s keep up the good work! We can put 20 more Bushes in office. Wooohooo

  5. Chris says:

    “President Obama”

    Putting the cart before the horse aren’t we?

    By the way, what has Obama actually done? I mean, yeah, he seems to be a great guy and he certainly “says” what people want to hear….but so does the guy who slices up cheese for me at the local supermarket. But I don’t think he is fit to run a country…and he has had more experience running something that Senator Obama has.

    So why the coronation? Please, enlighten me.

  6. Brian says:

    “he has had more experience running something that Senator Obama has.”

    Please enlighten me, who is he?

  7. jason330 says:

    Such red Herring mongery.

    What do you make of the main point of the post. Do you favor Democracy or not?

  8. Chris says:

    “Do you favor Democracy or not?”

    Democracy yes. Socialism no. So that leaves out pretty much the entire Democrat field.

  9. Brian says:

    “Do you favor Democracy or not?”

    Jason keep in mind North Korea is a “people’s democracy” but it is not a republican form of government. It is an oligarchy. And I doubt too many people would like to live in that beauty.

    I think we should always qualify democracy with the type we mean. There are basically two kinds in the American tradition, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian. One embodies the whig movement whose ideas many of todays republicans like, and one identifies what both democrats and republicans used to stand for.

    Neither of them quite capture the current admistration becuase it is full of european power politick ideas. And it is not republican- ignores congress, commits crimes of all sorts etc.; or democratic- listening to voice of the people. In the 40’s they would call that a stooge government, today we call it a banana republic.

    So which kind of republican democracy shall we be?

  10. jason330 says:

    Chris –

    Democracy yes. Socialism no. So that leaves out pretty much the entire Democrat field.

    Good stuff. Too bad we don’t have any socialists around here to get all pissed off about your nutty observation.

    Brian –

    I think you’ve hit on a good point. Until recently we all (liberal or conservative) agreeded on certian set of American Democratic principles. Things like:

    – Nobody is above the law.
    – Congressional oversight of the executive office and vice versa.
    – A desire to err in favor of protecting the Constitution over protecting the freedom of the Executive to act unilaterally.

    After all it was a Republican, James Baker, who really pulled the plug on Nixon.

    Since Bush, however, we have a whole group of lunatics who regard themselves as Republicans who simply don’t agree with the basic tenents that we all held in common for over 200 years.

    It is sad really. How eager guys like Chris seem to chuck it all out like so much garbage.

    I think of the men who died on the beaches of Normandy or Iwo Jima. All the sacrifice and for what? So we could have a dim wit king, untouchable by the law or even the laws of common sense. Sad. What a waste.

  11. Chris says:

    “It is sad really. How eager guys like Chris seem to chuck it all out like so much garbage.”

    Please, it is easy for you to be so sanctimonious as long as your “people” aren’t in the top seat. If, God forbid, we do get a Dem President, the silence on these issues will be intensely deafening.

    Lets look at your points from the another perspective.

    “Nobody is above the law”

    Then why is Ted Kennedy walking around free. I guess killing a woman because you were too drunk to drive is not an illegal act in Mass, especially if your name is Kennedy.

    – Congressional oversight of the executive office and vice versa.

    Laughable. Congress, under the current Dem control, can even find its butt right now. And they most certainly would not tolerate any interference from the Executive Branch.

    “A desire to err in favor of protecting the Constitution over protecting the freedom of the Executive to act unilaterally.”

    And this coming from someone on the side that thinks the Constitution is a document that should continually be rewritten to suit the whims of the populous, provided it is a liberal ideal being promoted.

    I might let Dana get away with a diatribe like this, but not a party hack like you Jace.

  12. Dana says:

    Face it: none of the three rmaining Democratic candidates have any experience in running anything. Bill Richardson is a governor, so he ran a state, but he’s out. Even Dennic Kucinich was a mayor, so he had some experience in running something, but he’s out, too.

    The only executive experience that any of the remaining three have is when Mrs Clinton was asked to lead the health care reform effort in 1993 — and she was a miserable failure in that one!

  13. jason330 says:

    Chris –

    Your argument is typically shallow. The heart of your argument is that Democrats are bad , so Republicans should be able to be bad. That is a line of reasoning not worthy of a fifth grader.

    The point of my comment was that while we once had a set of values in common that transcended party – now we don’t. And you willful blindness to the situation supports my case.

  14. Dana says:

    Mr Geek wrote:

    Can we have a law that bans signing statements? Or how about one that specifies that they have no legal weight?

    When the President signs legislation, he is part of the legislative process; when the courts have to interpret an ambiguous part of the law, they frequently take congressional intent, as stated in the legislative record, into consideration. Why shouldn’t they be able to take presidential intent, as stated in the record, into consideration?

  15. Dana says:

    Mr Geek wrote:

    This falls in line with The Project for the New American Century (or NAMBLA) goals of expanding US military presence throughout the world.

    The Proiject for the New American Century is commonly abbreviated PNAC; NAMBLA is the repugnant North American Man-Boy Love Association, a group which promotes pedophilia. Somehow, I have doubts that this was an innocent mistake on your part.

  16. jason330 says:

    Dana –

    Welcome back from the cave you’ve been in for seven years. Things have changed since you went into hybernation.

    Bush has used the signing statement to say that he finds laws invalid and will not abide by them. In so doing he is acting as all three branches of government.

    It is a situation that the founding fathers explicitly wanted to avoid. Geek is saying that we should get back to a more traditional sense of the balance of powers and most patriotic Americans agree.

    Folks with GOP partisan blinders on still try to make excuses for Bush’s extra-constitutional approach to his job, but even those hard core few are begining to get it.

  17. liberalgeek says:

    And Dana, NAMBLA is a joke started by The Daily Show. I try, try, try to be funny.

  18. cassandra m says:

    Please, it is easy for you to be so sanctimonious as long as your “people” aren’t in the top seat. If, God forbid, we do get a Dem President, the silence on these issues will be intensely deafening.

    Sort of like your silence re: these extralegal signing statements, or the lack of Congressional oversight when the repubs ran the Congress, or how about the biggest explosion of earmarks in history when your guys were in charge?

    Frankly, its gonna be fun to watch you guys try to criticize a Dem president for stuff you gave your guy a pass on.

  19. cassandra m says:

    Why shouldn’t they be able to take presidential intent, as stated in the record, into consideration?

    Congress gets to make law, the President gets to enforce law, and the Courts get to referee the differences. If there is any presidential intent it can be in the narrow role that he is assigned by the Constitution. The President does NOT get to rewrite the law just because it does not suit him.

  20. donviti says:

    Why shouldn’t they be able to take presidential intent, as stated in the record, into consideration?

    how about because he isn’t a king? hellloooooo

  21. Brian says:

    Cassandra-

    You seem to be under the impression that we still live in a Republic governed by the rule of law. I hate to disabuse of this, but when was the last time you saw both sides agree on so many issues? When was the last time we actually followed the Constitution as the rule of law you discussed? That Republican Democracy stuff is all gone now. We have changed. We have Gitmo and a network of secret prisons to prove how we have changed.