Bush Defies Ban on Permanent Bases in Iraq

There's new evidence that President Bush has no intention of ending the United States' involvement in Iraq. On Monday, when he signed the fiscal year 2008 defense authorization bill into law, Bush also issued a "signing statement" claiming he reserved the right to disregard a section that bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq. [Congressional Quarterly, 1/28/08]

The signing statement is a slap in the face to the majority of Americans who want an end to the war and an insult to the Iraqi people. President Bush says he can disregard various provisions passed by Congress, including one that bars funding for bases or installations that would provide "permanent stationing" of U.S. forces in the Middle East Republic. That provision also would bar the use of federal funds "to exercise control of the oil resources" of Iraq.

The president's continued drumbeat for endless war should come as no surprise given his refusal to sign into law a responsible exit strategy that would bring our troops home. It also raises major concerns over a declaration of principles signed by President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki this fall pledging that the two countries would negotiate and sign by mid-next year a long-term political, security economic and cultural pact.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq and only 3 percent [pdf] support keeping a significant number of troops in Iraq for longer than five years, President Bush is clearly moving to commit the United States to a long-term occupation of Iraq well beyond the Bush presidency.

Anti Iraq war groups have gone on the offensive, organizing opposition to the endless war agreement and urging Congressional action. Lawmakers have since introduced legislation in the House and Senate to bar the president from making a long-term obligation to Iraq without their approval and convened the first of a series of hearings on the controversial pact between the two nations.

With this signing statement making his intentions for a protracted occupation clear, President Bush has raised the stakes and the urgency of this fight. It is encouraging that Congressional leaders took the first steps to halt the president's march for endless war. However, Congress must move swiftly to further investigate the Bush administration's long-term plans for Iraq and take up binding legislation to bar a long-term commitment and permanent bases. With negotiators set to hammer out the details this spring, time is of the essence.

Comments

[Independent_voter]

It is my understanding that signing statements are illegal. If somebody knows the facts on this, please let us know.

Having said that, why do we need a congress at all if Bush can do whatever the heck he wants?

[Gatormouth]

A signing statement intended to amend or change legislation is a gesture that seeks to mimic a legality. It is not provided for by law and runs contrary to the separation of powers doctrine. It is also totally uninforceable in court. Only a tyrant can make it stick, and only while the opposition is too cowed or confused to resist. The use of these signing statements is an attempt to rule by dictat (see "dictator") and as such should result in an immediate and UNANIMOUS motion to impeach. That it does not impugnes the honor and loyalty of those who thus support dictatorial rule.

[ultomatt]

Here's another in a long long line of impeachable offenses. This one is quite specific to the separation of powers. His claim that he has "the right to disregard a section that bars funding for permanent bases in Iraq." clearly indicates that he claims legislative authority. The legislature controls the purse strings, and this signing statement says he can disregard the ban on funding bases in Iraq...which means, he will provide his own funding! That's illegal. The President has no rights when it comes to generating moneys, and no right to re-direct moneys allocated for other things. And, when the legislature specifically forbids money for things like bases in Iraq (which are multi-billion dollar profit-fests for the military-congressional-industrial-fascist complex), end of story.

But of course, this is just the beginning of another story, one which ends tragically, with the death of the US Constitution. Actually, it's already dead...this just puts one more nail in it's coffin.

IMPEACHMENT NOW

JAIL TO THE CHIEF

[leftLibertarian]

The only thing that will stop Bush is for the Democrats in Congress to grow a spine and impeach this criminal.

[starislon]

"There's new evidence that President Bush has no intention of ending . . ." (fill in the blank.)

The Great Decider has been all the evidence one needs for quite awhile now.

Rather like Peck's Bad Boy, with an attention deficient disorder, he has run out of energy, and vainly attempted revitalization by
dispensing with traditional checks and balances, custom, courts, habeas corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the rules of war, common law, common sense, the Constitution, and castor oil, all to no avail.

While some suggest a purgative cure, in my opinion, only a through impeachment can reverse further progression towards a disease of pandemic proportions to the entire body of politics.

[Boobaloo]

Our Dear Leader has spoken.

Seriously though, a blind man saw this coming. It's one of the top three reasons to be in Iraq: another military base to add to the 200 or so we maintain around the world in nations whose citizens dont want us there.

[LyricalLexicon]

This man has a serious "God Complex", I can't wait for next January so I can see Bush leave the White House and hopefully a Democrat will take his place.

[jhamm1]

More than just "protracted occupation", this decision solidifies Bush's intention to mount a springboard for an impending invasion of Iran, to be carried out, if not by him, then his equally war-mongering prospective successor, John McCain.

[BatedBreath]

Why did you think they were building all those Iraqi military bases for the last 5 years?

Bush is busily planting mines for the next president to deal with: first he refuses to plan for funding the war in the next budget and now he commits us unilaterly (how else) to bases until the oil runs out. And I'm sure he's laughing himself sick while he does it.

[fairwitness]

This, of course, the definition of Life In A Neo-Fascist State--if you've been watching this develop under Bush/Cheney and the brownshirt Republicans (and their cowering democratic enablers) as it took its inevitable course, you know this.

If not, you are its fodder.

[knowhelpnow]

This is what he wanted all along, why is this a surprise to anyone. He thought that it would be much sooner he didn't think that Americans would catch on this fast. He hasn't given much to research to make us energy independent because he figured that we would control the two countries in the world today that have the most Oil, Iraq and Iran.
Congress must stop him before he sacks Iran and then all is lost, we will be fighting this until the oil runs out.

[desmirl]

So, oil wars for the next 100 years? Maybe that's what McCain means by his '100 years in Iraq' statement. One can only wonder when young people will get so sick of the horrors of war that they will stop supporting the Military/Industrial Complex and stop enlisting. Using oil to produce power for transportation and other energy uses is a cheap way to avoid facing the real problem of long-range energy needs - except in lives and blood - and until the average person figures that out, and stops encouraging another generation of young Americans to engage in sacrificial behavior, we will face still more death and destruction based on the lies of people like Bush and Cheney.

[Grunty1]

Why do we care what Georgie scribbles on a bill (likely in crayon)? It has the same legal weight as any other person writing notes on a napkin.

[Sundialsvc4]

Small problem with that "signing statement" of yours, Mister President. Small, wee, problem in fact with every single one of them.

"The President is not a King."

If the Congress of the United States sends you a Bill and you Sign It, that entire Bill becomes a Law, exactly as Congress has written it, and that Law is now binding also upon You.

Furthermore, if you do not obey this law yourself, you have now broken the law and for this offense you "shall be" Impeached.

Perhaps this "man who would be king" should consider how his noble predecessor, George Washington, responded to a letter written to him by Col. Lewis Nicola on behalf of the military, proposing that the President should be installed as King. Washington rebuked them sharply:

"No occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, and I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severity. You could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable."

Later, he said again:

"Do not take any measures, which viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained. (I must reject anyone who seeks) to overturn the liberties of our Country, and who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord, and deluge our rising Empire in Blood."

[image18301]

All we need to do is try to keep poor George from breaking anything else before he goes away. Can we do that please?