Obama Issues Signing Statement On War Spending BIll

On Friday, President Obama signed a new war spending bill into law, but "not without taking a page from his predecessor and ignoring a few elements in the legislation," the Hill reports.

Obama included a five-paragraph signing statement with the bill, including a final paragraph that outlined his objections to at least four areas of the bill.

President George W. Bush was heavily criticized for his use of signing statements, declaring he'd ignore some elements of legislation by invoking presidential prerogative.

The Obama administration announced in the statement it would disregard provisions of the legislation that, among other things, would compel the Obama administration to pressure the World Bank to strengthen labor and environmental standards and require the Treasury department to report to Congress on the activities of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The full text of Obama's statement is below, and available on the White House website here.

* * * * *

Today I have signed into law H.R. 2346, the "Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009." This Act provides the necessary resources for our troops while supporting ongoing diplomatic and development efforts around the world.

We face a security situation abroad that demands urgent attention. The Taliban is resurgent and al Qaeda is increasing its attacks from its safe haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. The funding provided in this Act will ensure that the full force of the United States is engaged in an overall effort to defeat al Qaeda and uproot this safe haven.

At the same time, funding contained in this Act will provide resources to help create political and economic stability in post-conflict areas. These funds will assist Afghans and Iraqis in protecting and sustaining their infrastructure and building their capacity for more responsive and transparent governance. The Act also provides critical support for continued U.S. diplomatic and development activity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

In addition, this Act includes funding for other domestic and international issues, including nearly $8 billion to enhance our Nation's capability to respond to the potential spread of the H1N1 flu outbreak. It also expands the resources available to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by allowing it to boost its lending ability. Many developing countries are experiencing severe economic decline and a massive withdrawal of capital, and the IMF needs to make sure it has the resources necessary to effectively respond to the current financial crisis.

However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.

Comments

[RRG64]

"Brutus has long warned against the divide-and-conquer tactics of outgoing World Bank president James Wolfensohn ("Wolfy 1"), who was perfectly willing to fund Bush's illegitimate neocolonial rule in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti."

http://www.counterpunch.org/bond03232005.html

[Kassandra]

See what you make of THIS. I'm no Ron Paul fan, but.............
International Bailout Brings Us Closer to Economic Collapse
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14076

[RRG64]

"The International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved a $685 million loan for Iraq on December 24. Now the country’s war torn economy will be fully integrated into the global economy—indefinitely. The reconstruction of Iraq will soon be open to even more industrialized nations and interests.

Iraq will not be sovereign or independent in the near future, even if President Bush says so. The country’s financial future will instead be dictated by a new colossal economic occupation, complete with ground forces, tanks, foreign military bases and the like—all thanks to the United States, Britain and the IMF."

what happened to that 685 million dollars that went to Iraq for reconstruction?

[RRG64]

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/frank12262005/

Let the oil drilling begin:2005

I wonder who would stand to profit the most from oil drilling in IRAQ?

[Incubus]

SLAM! Tell it like it is....The Global Empire marches on......Thanks Mr. Change

[RRG64]

in 2005? When the BUSH administration was in power.

Mr Change just got here Jan 20th, 2009. Try again.

[kassandrasduplex]

Here is all you need to know about the Obama admin.:
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/3/9/headlines#19
(which was just recently overruled June 15th. by a federal judge thank the lord) and the following
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/4/3/utah_student_who_prevented_bush_admin
the O admin. prosecuting an American hero while defending Bush cronies.

These two stories along with the appointment of Gary Gensler are fairly proof enough for any reasonable observer of Obama's pro-corporate regressive bias. The credit card bill and this bill, which Zer"O" should have vetoed, are just additional proof of what has already been established.

[lj9283]

Interesting that you show such a prime example of why the left will never hold power in this country.

You elect a moderate to the Presidency, and expect him to fully champion a left progressive agenda. Then when he promotes a left centrist agenda, the left splinters in many pieces and begins to mount an attack on the centrist left agenda along with the Right Wing.

You then position the president into a position where he must move closer to moderate right to accomplish anything, causing the left to splinter more while mounting ever increasing attacks along with the Right Wing.

Meanwhile the Right Wing stays on message, reclaims power from the moderates, and keeps it's message consistent.

The Right Wing do not attack their own, but keep the attack constant on moderate agendas as leftist and dangerous to the country.

And the country suffers.

The left and many liberals remind me of the old Saturday Night Live sketch of the Family called the "Whiners".

[research]

We expect him not to be working for the bankers.

We expect him to preserve democracy against plutocracy.

Is that too much to ask?

The Conservative win because they have all the money and power behind them and against any true populists, like Kucinich and Dean. Both sucker punched by the media. Duh!

[Kassandra]

Obama is no "center-left" politician, OK? He even has said he's a "New Democrat" which is short for Reagan democrat of Blue Dog....one can sorta tell by his choice of chief of staff.

[justsomeguywhocameby]

The Democratic party inspired the coining of two sayings;

1) Herding cats
2) Circular firing squad

Is this who we really want to be?

[BillN]

The right wing stays "on message"...?

The Right Wing do not attack their own?

Give me a break.

[dojinho]

If you consider Obama to be leftist, you obviously don't know your left from your right!

[RRG64]

here is what you need to know about why the United States economy is in tatters....

"Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes have calculated the cost to Americans of Bush's Iraq war to be between one and two trillion dollars.

This figure is 5 to 10 times higher than the $200 billion that Bush's economic adviser, Larry Lindsey, estimated.

Lindsey was fired by Bush, because Lindsey's estimate was three times higher than the $70 billion figure that the Bush administration used to mislead Congress and the American voters about the burden of the war.
You can't work in the Bush administration unless you are willing to lie for dub-ya.

Americans need to ask themselves if the White House is in competent hands when a $70 billion war becomes a $2 trillion war.

Bush sold his war by understating its cost by a factor of 28.57. Any financial officer any where in the world whose project was 2,857 percent over budget would instantly be fired for utter incompetence.

[RRG64]

Bush's war cost almost 30 times more than he said it would because the moronic neoconservatives that he stupidly appointed to policy positions told him the invasion would be a cakewalk. Neocons promised minimal US casualties. Iraq already has cost 2,200 dead (now well over 4000)Americans and 16,000 seriously wounded-and Bush's war is not over yet. The cost of lifetime care and disability payments for the thousands of US troops who have suffered brain and spinal damage was not part of the unrealistic rosy picture that Bush painted."

http://rebellenation.blogspot.com/2006/01/bushs-con-jobs-will-us-need-imf-bail.html

where did this money go? and the 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon? and the 9 billion in cash they flew to IRAQ? not to mention the complete defrauding of the American taxpayers by the all of the shill companies owned by the only Butcher of Baghdad Iraq ever had...dirty dick cheney himself.

2857% higher than anticipated, pure economic fraud.

[kassandrasduplex]

I thought the IMF was all about disaster capitalism and exploitation to profit their board and cronies? Perhaps I was wrong.
Ironic that Obama is rejecting a provision pertaining to labor standards put forth by his own Dremocratic party (the traditional friend of labor) and he is at the same time NOT using the Bully Pulpit to push Specter for a PURE EMP. FREE CHOICE ACT, instead of the watered down one they have cobbled together...
There is a pattern here of ANTI-LABOR policy. But what do you expect from a guy who so blatantly lied to the LGBT community?

[justsomeguywhocameby]

The President is objecting to Congress encroaching on his turf. The rest of your post is inflammation blather.

[dsws]

Here's what I sent:

Dear Mr. Bush,

What are you doing in the White House, and what did you do with the guy I helped elect last year?

You write:
However, provisions of this bill within sections 1110 to 1112 of title XI, and sections 1403 and 1404 of title XIV, would interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations by directing the Executive to take certain positions in negotiations or discussions with international organizations and foreign governments, or by requiring consultation with the Congress prior to such negotiations or discussions. I will not treat these provisions as limiting my ability to engage in foreign diplomacy or negotiations.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-upon-signing-HR-2346/

The Constitution does not contain the phrase "conduct foreign relations". It doesn't say anything in Article II that even remotely resembles your claim of absolute presidential supremacy over Congress in foreign relations. On the contrary --

The Constitution of the United States writes:
The Congress shall have Power
... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
... And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
(end quote)

The law is the law, and you are not above it.

[kassandrasduplex]

It's no use. The power of modern prop o ganda has convinced too many that O (or ZerO) is the anti-Bush. Despite the fact he increasingly resembles Bush exactly in policy decisions, his faithful cannot see that.

[RRG64]

if he resembled bush you would not have a concern in the world, just like you didn`t the last 8 years instead of spending time here trying to tie him to Bush because you believe if you tell that lie for the next 4 years the American people will forget that the Republican party is nothing a bunch of economic thieves, murderers, liars and warmongers.

[research]

Good stuff. As if congress didn't have the right to set terms for the 8B$ we are giving the IMF(who has 100B$ in gold. Hmmm....)

[RRG64]

when did the Republican ghostwriters come up with that?

lmao

[dsws]

Bzzt. I defend Obama more often than not. For example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcelrath-renna/obama-and-the-gays-wheres_b_215165.html?show_comment_id=25638819#comment_25638819

[dsws]

And here's another one: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/29/liberal-groups-vexed-by-o_n_222507.html?show_comment_id=26369355#comment_26369355

[lj9283]

3/9/2009

Presidential Signing Statements

I will issue signing statements to address constitutional concerns only when it is appropriate to do so as a means of discharging my constitutional responsibilities. In issuing signing statements, I shall adhere to the following principles:

1. The executive branch will take appropriate and timely steps, whenever practicable, to inform the Congress of its constitutional concerns about pending legislation. Such communication should facilitate the efforts of the executive branch and the Congress to work together to address these concerns during the legislative process, thus minimizing the number of occasions on which I am presented with an enrolled bill that may require a signing statement.
2. Because legislation enacted by the Congress comes with a presumption of constitutionality, I will strive to avoid the conclusion that any part of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional. In exercising my responsibility to determine whether a provision of an enrolled bill is unconstitutional, I will act with caution and restraint, based only on interpretations of the Constitution that are well-founded.
3. To promote transparency and accountability, I will ensure that signing statements identify my constitutional concerns about a statutory provision with sufficient specificity to make clear the nature and basis of the constitutional objection.
4. I will announce in signing statements that I will construe a statutory provision in a manner that avoids a constitutional problem only if that construction is a legitimate one.

Full memo:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-on-Presidential-Signing-Statements/

[Sweetbay]

Okay. I'm out of here. There's no intelligent discussion going on here.

[kassandrasduplex]

Keep defending the regression of Obama.

[research]

How many times does Obama have to give into the Bankers over the people, for you to figure it out?

7trillion to 1 doesn't do it for ya?

*B$ to the IMF which has 100B$ in gold already doesn't do it?

Protecting the IMF from audit as a condition of funding, doesn't do it?

What, what will it take?

Obama is charming, but seemingly bought and paid for by the bankers.

[kassandrasduplex]

His first two largest donors as of July 07 were the second richest hedge fund manager in the US and UBS bank. I believe some 60% of his donors were above $250 per donation, (or was it $2500?) belying the advertised ruse that it was the "little people" who put him in. Bill Clinton said after his wife's loss and I paraphrase" It was the most rigged media coverage in modern history." I believe that You Tube and Google even filtered searches favoring Obama.

[research]

I had so hoped Obama was not corrupt......

[RRG64]

Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz have long worked hand-in-glove on a global quest for U.S. domination over world affairs. This latest action is as bold as the invasion of Iraq two years ago.

Dick Cheney, a long-time beneficiary of World Bank largess, has moved to take ownership of the world's development coffers through his man, Wolfowitz. For his part, Wolfowitz will have a chance to extend his Iraq reconstruction theories to the global level. These concepts mostly involve U.S. control over energy resources. While the Bank, over which the U.S. holds de facto veto power, has done a lot for the nation's oil interests over the years, his nomination is a clear signal that the administration craves more.

"Wolfowitz's words and deeds are antithetical to World Bank pretenses of multilateralism and development," said long-time World Bank critic John Cavanagh, director of the Institute for Policy Studies. "Between this and John Bolton's nomination as ambassador to the UN, it's March Madness on Pennsylvania Avenue."

http://www.counterpunch.org/vallette03222005.html

[Palemoon]

I'd prefer Obama had vetoed the entire bill if he didn't agree with even just 1 sentence of it. That's a President's job, by the way. You don't just take the liberty to choose what laws you want to follow, or not, in the same fashion as Bush did. That's how our image in the world got so tarnished in the first place. Because Bush never followed the rule of law, and he always insisted on behaving as a "unitary executive" that didn't have to answer to anyone.

And now you got Republicans Pelosi and Reid slipping out this legislation before they go on their lavish, and lengthy, holiday vacations as if to DARE Obama to refuse to sign it or veto it. He should have, and he should have called them immediately back into session to deal with it. That's what strong Presidents do. You don't back down, going along with it by saying "Just because you made it federal law doesn't mean I have to obey federal law". That gives the perception of making ones self "above the law". Funny, the Republicans always accused the Democrats of behaving that way. Last thing we need is to give them vindication.

[lj9283]

Signing statements have been used by Presidents since James Monroe in the early 1800s.

"In eight years as president, Reagan issued statements which objected to 72 congressional provisions, a record at the time. His successor, George Herbert Walker Bush, easily topped that mark in only four years in the White House. Bush objected to 232 provisions, with a third relating to foreign policy. President Bill Clinton followed with 140 objections in eight years, with over half relating to foreign affairs. Through July 11, 2006, George W. Bush had objected to 807 provisions in 5 1/2 years as president."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Presidential_signing_statements#_note-0

[Palemoon]

People have been smoking marijuana since the dawn of time, but does that make it currently legal to do so in the US?

[Sweetbay]

It's not a law when congress thinks it has the authority to undermine the power of the presidency.

They were clearly out of their legal authority to wrest control of a president's duties just because they sneaked it into a bill.

Otherwise, it's a good bill. Have you read it?

[Palemoon]

I know a bit about the bill, this isn't about the merits of the bill. It's about authority. And yes, the authority in it is two-fold, but is interpreted in a fashion in order to justify the signing statements. The article above makes no mention of that stuff, except in passing in which Obama mentions it in passing by way of the posting of his rebuttal. He cites no factual arguments, nor constraints that were apparently being placed upon him. Which was none.

[research]

Are folks asserting that if congress,

With the sole power of the purse,

Ok's a purchase of Whatever,

that the president can ok the transfer of funds,

but write a singing statement canceling delivery of Whatever?????

Really want to defend that???

[cered]

His "singing" statement had nothing to do with canceling deliveries of anything and did have to do with preserving constitutionally derived authorization and separation of powers.

[research]

power of the purse belongs to congress. we are giving the IMF 8B$ Congress has the constitutional right to set terms in exchange for that money.

Why shouldn't we insist on an audit if we are giving them money,

[Kassandra]

I got tired of the excuses and mindless followers of Bush and I'm getting tired of the excuses and mindless followers of Obama.
See any JOBS lately?
And healthcare? pooft! We'll all be paying thru the nose for nothing here pretty soon and it will get worse and worse.

When Obama flipped on FISA, ( among othe things)I knew we were in trouble; then all that "looking forward" about war crimes and treason.
Well, I'm "looking forward" and I see disaster for America AND the world under this guy. He's bought and paid for.
Just keep repeating "Obama is a politician" and you'll eventually get it

[Ohsherri]

Obama leans to the right on every issue.
And he can't stop the shovelling money to the Military Industry and BIGCorporations.
No questions asked.
And there is no accountability.
For Bush/ Chenny.....and even the "Stimulus Monies"...
some states are using their stimulus to pay down their deficit instead of going to NEEDY
SCHOOLS!!!! This is outrageous!

[Kassandra]

Yeah and he SAID he'd watch the distribution of the "stimulus like a hawk" so this wouldn't happen; even put Biden in as "overseer" so much for that.
This gov throws our $$$$ around like it's got it. One wonders if the very purpose is to bring US into a total economic collapse

[RRG64]

See any JOBS lately?
-------------

why dont you ask the Governors of the states who received the stimulus money and what they did with it?

[kassandrasduplex]

I've come to the conclusion there are paid hacques defending the obviously right of center regressive Obama administration. There will be nothing progressive to come from this administration, it is MORE OF THE SAME.

[RRG64]

lying shill

[research]

Congress is authorizing 8B$ to the IMF, which already has 100B$ in gold BTW, Congress has every right and power to set the terms for that money. Money is what congress does.

[Sweetbay]

You don't get it, so I can't keep correcting your false statement.

Either get informed or stop posting nonsense.

[research]

"You don't get it, "

BS

You can do better than that.

Learn about the IMF, they suck.

[Kassandra]

Plus, I could have sworn that Obama pledged the IMF a TRILLION while at the G-20 earlier this spring.

[RRG64]

Obama did?

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown says LEADERS at the G-20 summit have agreed to give $1 trillion to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank to help struggling nations around the world."

leaders at the G20,

G2O....I wonder what the 20 stands for

The Group of Twenty (G-20) Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors,that`s not Obama,it`s the G20 which the United States is a part of.

do you ever post anything remotely true?

[research]

The IMF is for all intents and purposes, a Bank.

Congress has the power of the purse.

That would seem to include the IMF.

[davenav]

What part of 'International' do you not understand?

[research]

What part of banks are not countries, don't you understand?

[CarlyHope]

YES COMMON SENSE

a bank in which we are.............the main stockholder! Congress, power of the purse, HELLLO!

[Sweetbay]

Poor Carly......power of the purse in the U.S. does not translate into power of the purse for all nations.

The IMF does not belong to us. It is an international fund that many countries contribute to in order to help poorand underdeveloped nations deal with their economic and development projects.

[Sweetbay]

NO.....it doesn't. It is an international fund. The U.S. does not control it. The U.S. is not the only country that contributes funds to it. Hence, the name INTERNATIONAL.

This is about Congress trying to wrestle power away from the president. Only the president has the power to enter into treaties and agreements with foreign governments.

That's what this is about.

[research]

Congress, with it's power of the purse, is giving the IMF 8B$.

Congress has every right and power to set terms.

[research]

BTW the USA has controlling interest in the IMF.

Learn something. the IMF is not one of the good guys.

Look it up.

[TheThinkerCometh]

Great insight, Sweetbay.

[Kassandra]

Maybe not, but the US set up both the IMF AND the World Bank. Just like Wall Street and K Street our monsters are loose and running the world.

[dsws]

Congress has the authority to make any law necessary and proper to implementing *any* powers of *any* department or officer of the US. The commerce clause is the basis for a ton of federal powers assigned to Congress, and it explicitly includes foreign countries.

These supposedly-inherent powers with no basis in the Constitution are a crock. Insisting on them when they directly conflict with the clear text of the Constitution is even more so.