Bush Fears that the New Truman Commission Could Be a Threat to National Security: Jedi Knight Webb Strikes Back

On Monday, Bush signed the 2008 Defense authorization bill into law. In it he singled out four of 2,887 sections for his now notorious signing statement. He said that these four provisions "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."

What were these egregious provisions that could tie the commander-in-chief's hands and threaten our national security? They all had to do with oversight. According to the Congressional Quarterly:

One such provision sets up a commission to probe contracting fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another expands protections for whistleblowers who work for government contractors. A third requires that U.S. intelligence agencies promptly respond to congressional requests for documents. And a fourth bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq and for any action that exercises U.S. control over Iraq's oil money.

I will leave it to others to discuss the provision about barring funding for permanent bases. As some of my readers know, the Freshman Democratic Senators, lead by Senators Claire McCaskill and Jim Webb, pushed through a Wartime Contracting Commission, patterned after the old Truman Committee that was so successful at exposing World War II contactor fraud while the war was still going on. The old Truman committee was reported to save $15 billion (1943 dollars) in taxpayer dollars.

I know that there have been dozens of commissions looking at the DOD for years and all to show from it was reports gathering dust in the archives. But these Freshman Senators were determined to set this up to actually investigate contracting fraud and send referrals to the Department of Justice for prosecution even as the war continued. This commission will also look at ways to stop the hemorrhaging of contractor money. It is surreal that this president feels that he has to single this commission to ignore at his whim because he thinks it could threaten his ability to protect this country.

Another provision that he included in the signing statement was a provision that gave more protection to contractor employees who want to expose fraud. In the course of researching my book, Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War, I interviewed dozens of contractor employees in Iraq. Most of them were too afraid to go public but were outraged at what their employers were doing in Iraq, especially to the detriment of the troops.

But Webb, the Jedi Knight of the Freshman Democratic Senators, stormed to the Senate floor and declared his defiance to this signing statement.

"...the President of the United States -- who has been in charge of the conduct of this war and whose administration has been in charge of executing these contracts, supervising them, making sure that they meet the requirements of fairness in the law -- is now saying that he believes that a legislative body can enact a law that he can choose to ignore because he says it would interfere with his responsibility to supervise a war as Commander-and-Chief.

I am at a total loss here. I am amazed to see this kind of language employed with respect to this legislation.

The Commission was put into place with broad bipartisan and bicameral support, with the intention of studying systemic problems. I would think that these are the sorts of problems that this president would want to root out.

The Commission's historic precedent goes back to the Truman Committee of World War II. Then-Senator Harry Truman wanted to look at wartime waste, fraud, and abuse so that the American government could get a proper handle on the federal spending that was going into mobilization and the projects that were being put on the line. And we certainly didn't see President Franklin Roosevelt trying to say that the Truman Committee's work was going to interfere with his ability to conduct World War II...

...If the administration would like to explain to us what their constitutional issue is with a piece of legislation that the President has just signed, we would be happy to hear that. In the meantime, we are moving forward with this Commission. It is vitally important to accountability in the government, and I'm very proud to have introduced it. We are marching forward."

Webb and Bush have tangled before about Iraq, even to the point of discussing Webb's son and his deployment to Iraq. Let's just hope that the Congress has the same moxie as Webb, inserts its constitutional rights and begins this commission soon. We need to get control of the contractor money and also get some of the ill gotten gains back. Otherwise, the war service industry contractors will have a permanent institutional hold on the US Treasury without oversight.

Follow Dina Rasor on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dinalynnrasor

Comments

[outnow]

"One, two, three, what are we fighting for? I don't know and I don't give a damn, the next stop is Vietnam."

We are fighting to enrich Bush's supporters.

I remember Harry Truman whom I met as a child from Independence, Missouri. Truman uncovered 10 billion dollars in waste,fraud and abuse. Ike tried to warn us about the MIC. He fired MacArthur.

The Pentagon and its contractors control this country along with Wall Street with its investments and shady financial dealings.

Maybe Jim Webb can bring the hammer down on these crooks. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will never do it. I doubt that either Obama or Hillary would either. This is the reaching across the aisle that Obama talks about. "Hey, guys, don't steal and kill and torture. Be nice." Or else what? This is what I want to see. The "or else" part. My guess is "or else nothing." Bets anyone?

[LeftRight]

I'm less concerned about what Sen Webb is saying than I am about this:

"...inhibit the president's ability to carry out his constitutional obligations to take care that the laws be faithfully executed..."

Now, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't the defense authoriation bill technically a law? And, once the shrub signs it into law, doesn't that mean that he's constitutionally obligated to take care the the law be faithfully executed?

Remember, although signing statements have long been a part of the executive perogative, they have never been used by an executive to eliminate a portion of a law. The President has only three options when a bill is given to him by the Congress:

1) He can sign the bill into law, thus becoming obligated to faithfully execute the law.
2) He can veto the bill, thus sending it back to Congress where they will have the oportunity to, with a 2/3 majority, override his veto, in which case it becomes law, and he must execute it.
or
3) He can sit on it. This has two possible outcomes:
a) If there are ten or less days until Congress goes to recess, then the bill is vetoed without possibility of override.
b) If there are more than ten days until Congress goes to recess, the bill becomes law, and the President MUST then faithfully execute it.

The only 2 forces in America who can overcome certain provisions of a law are the Supreme Court, which may decide that a provision of a law is unconstitutional, and the Congress, which can, at a future date, decide that they wrote the law incorrectly, and therefore they write a new law which eliminates that provision. The President is not listed anywhere in there.

[steven]

First, Contractor fraud is a secret weapon- the terrorists die of laughter watching these patriots steal the country blind and pay less and less in tax. It is true patriotism to bankrupt our country and the reward is all those ill gotten gains.

Second there is a religious foundation to contractor fraud. All the money they are stealing is for Jesus, but Jesus has no pockets- so they stuff theirs. Can it get any more holy than that?

[jvarga]

Hard to believe that Senator Webb could compare FDR to President Bush and find President Bush wanting :P

[oldpotsmuggler]

What the heck is Webb doing putting funding for oversight of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch in a Defense Authorization Bill. Congress alread provides for its own funding. If regular funds are insufficient for the purpose make an addition in a Bill designed to fund the Legislative Branch. Was the fear that Bush would more readily veto the money there? If so, it was a mistake to avoid the head on confrontation, particularly since such a confrontation appears inevitable.

So Congress forms and staffs a Committe for the stated purpose, which Bush is powerless to stop. It's only at the point where the entity tries to perform its assigned duties that Bush could try to be recalcitrant. The Committee surely has subpoena power and has nothing if it is not willing to use it. The President refusing to honor Congressional subpoenas is a classic Constitutional confrontation and one the nation needs to witness because there is no way for BUSHCO to do anything but create a precedent affirming that the government belongs to We The People, and not vice versa.

The guy needs to have his ass publicly kicked and we need to have the process splashed all over every news source. It is exactly this which Democratic Leadership is loath to commit to and, under the rules, our refusing to fight creates an automatic victory for rogue presidential power.

So what's it going to be? Fight or bend over again?

[timm0]

Why is Webb "amazed" to see that language? They should have all seen that coming and have articles of impeachment ready for the first moment ANY defiance to conform with actions of the new Truman Commission occurs. Dickwad says he won't comply. So now even reluctance to comply becomes a violation.

We need a showdown on the Constitution right now. Dems, grow some stones and don't shirk your Constitutional duties like has been done over and over...

[Countess]

Jim Webb would be an excellent running mate for Obama. They would slaughter any republican candidate.