Greenwald's Lying Statements

Update: I want to add a few points as to why I find Greenwald and the Globe so disingenuous on the signing statements non-issue referenced and linked below.

The statements have no defined legal weight, consequently Bush is "taking" nothing unto himself. Whatever he does or doesn't do in the future is still bound by the same laws it would be without the signing statements. It's no different in some ways than a privacy notice at the end of an email, with an even less clear legal heft.

If someone plans to secretly break into your home while you are asleep or away, they don't put a sign on your lawn before hand declaring they are going to do it. Consequently, Bush is making his general interpretation of the Constitution known publicly. That doesn't alter any legal arguments behind the ultimate interpretation of that authority.

The statements are probably as much or more defensive, as they are offensive in a legal sense. He, like many, know the type of perverted extra-political tactics Democrats wish to exert against him, especially should they take control of the House.

The irony there is that the same group who suggested Clinton was distracted from the threat of terrorism by the Lewinski debacle now seek to tie this President's hands and distract him at every turn with mostly empty rhetoric and false charges. They would put the country at higher risk for solely political purposes.

That type of behavior, where politicians use our legal system to launch investigations most know will come to nothing, or very little at nest, are more like witch hunts then prosecutions. They begin with any charge they can to gain access to legal instruments which allow them to dig through anything and everything, usually resulting in some relatively minor issue while the charges starting everything fade away as unfounded.

Those tactics are fascist in nature, not democratic, and they present a much more significant threat to our democracy than does Bush's lawful execution of his Constitutional powers. Both sides need to grow up and get away from this tactic of furthering their political ends by perverting our system of justice. Ultimately, it is the Republic which suffers most.

Maybe Glenn Greenwald should start issuing signing statements admitting he's a liar when he posts. This one citing a Boston Globe article.

reporting as clearly and unambiguously as I have seen on the fact that the President not only believes that he has the right to break the law but has been exercising that right with staggering frequency, in almost every area of significance

The Left seems intent about going on and on over this non-issue. And I'm glad to see Bush is at least continuing the Reagan tradition of reining in Congress and the judicial branch. Both have encroached on the Executive Branch over the years and they continue to try and do so.

That has less impact in times of peace, it's a disaster in time of war. Here check out this signing statement:

Furthermore, the bill contains several objectionable language
provisions.  I am concerned about section 8074, which contains certain
reporting requirements that could materially interfere with or impede this
country's ability to provide necessary support to another nation or
international organization in connection with peacekeeping or humanitarian
assistance activities otherwise authorized by law.  I will interpret this
provision consistent with my constitutional authority to conduct the
foreign relations of the United States and my responsibilities as Commander
in Chief.

The above is from Clinton. The Left apparently has no trouble with a President preserving his authority as long as the topic is humanitarian aid, or peace keeping, though it is the principle and not the topical discussion for which they claim concern.

Greenwald can't cop to his real motivations, so he attempts to disguise the issue. And here's the rationale for a signing statement, the same rationale Bush is using - only below is from the Clinton Justice Department.

If the President may properly decline to enforce a law, at least when it unconstitutionally encroaches on his powers, then it arguably follows that he may properly announce to Congress and to the public that he will not enforce a provision of an enactment he is signing. If so, then a signing statement that challenges what the President determines to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power, or that announces the President's unwillingness to enforce (or willingness to litigate) such a provision, can be a valid and reasonable exercise of Presidential authority

The Left refuses to admit the truth. They weren't as worried when Clinton did it because they knew he didn't have the desire or willingness to actually conduct a serious war in defense of the country. Thankfully, Bush does.

It isn't about the process for them, as many on the Left would proclaim. They would have had to attack Clinton were that true. As with their use of the courts, liberals can't get their way at the voting both policy-wise, so they attempt to trip up Bush by pretending to stand on principles other than the ones which are actually motivating them. Ultimately, that's because the more people learn about them and their real agenda, the more their power and influence in American politics continues to decline.

Comments

[Gideon S.]

I'm guessing the GOP hasn't sent you its talking points yet, because your defense of Bush's actions is laughable: "Clinton did it, too!" Only he did not.

Clinton -- in the ONE signing statement you site -- said he was troubled by some provisions of a law, but you offer no evidence to prove that he translated his disagreement into illegal action.

Bush -- over 750 TIMES -- used a signing statement to declare his disagreement with a law, then proceeded to break that law.

As always, the Right refuses to admit the truth: George W. Bush behaves less like a president and more like a monarch. It's pathetic to see right-wing extremists defending a man like Bush, a man whose behavior epitomizes the type of "big government" tyranny Righties have always claimed to fear.

[Gideon S.]

Correction: Bush has reserved the *right* to break the law 750 times. As if that makes it any better.

You people really have lost your way; this is why America now rejects your party.

[Mona]

Mr Riehl. this is the concluding two paragraphs of the lengthy Boston Globe story Greenwald links to:

--Bruce Fein, a deputy attorney general in the Reagan administration, said the American system of government relies upon the leaders of each branch ''to exercise some self-restraint." But Bush has declared himself the sole judge of his own powers, he said, and then ruled for himself every time.

''This is an attempt by the president to have the final word on his own constitutional powers, which eliminates the checks and balances that keep the country a democracy," Fein said. ''There is no way for an independent judiciary to check his assertions of power, and Congress isn't doing it, either. So this is moving us toward an unlimited executive power."--

This is more on who Bruce Fein is, for he wrote:

--President George W. Bush should pack the United States Supreme Court with philosophical clones of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and defeated nominee Robert H. Bork.--

This is more on what Fein thinks about Bush's unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, as states in the Washington Times:

--Congress should insist the president cease the spying unless or until a proper statute is enacted or face possible impeachment. The Constitution's separation of powers is too important to be discarded in the name of expediency.--

(Do read that whole article to understand how erroneous are your notions about congresional power grabs and Bush's purported right to therefore ignore laws. You don't seem to have a tag protocol here or I'd be embedding links: this is the url: http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20051227-092503-6702r.htm)

Now, that is all from the arch-conservative, WashTimes columnist Bruce Fein. No moonbat, left-wing source, that.

And I ask you, how do you know what Greenwald was saying about Clinton during the '90s? Answer: you don't. And you should not confidently lump him with the left; he isn't left or right.

Nor is he lying.

[jamie]

Sorry, but I don't see a shred of evidence that the Iraq war was waged "in defense of this country." Afghanistan, yes. But Iraq? NO. For all the pretense of national defense, we have no evidence that Iraq had any capability of threatening us. And while we wasted lives and resources on iraq, Iran was left alone to develop its nuclear capability. No matter how the Bush apologists try to spin this, his policies have been disastrous.

[Enlighten-NewJersey]

Thanks for writing this post. For those trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill -A ‘signing statement” is a method of preserving the prerogatives of the executive, not only for the president producing the signing statement, but for all future presidents.

Some may find this paper of interest. - A Comparative Look at the Constitutional Signing Statement( http://mpsa.indiana.edu/conf2003papers/1031858822.pdf) of interest. The practice began with President Monroe and includes 105 constitutional signing statements issued by President Clinton. Since 1986, the presidential signing statement has become part of the “Legislative History” section of the United States Congressional Code and Administrative News (USCCAN).

Our friends on the left may enjoy how President Carter employed a signing statement:

“For example, in the “Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, the Judiciary, and related agencies for fiscal year1978”5, an amendment6 was added that prohibited “the use of funds under this Act to carry out [President Carter’s] amnesty program [for the Vietnam War draft resisters].”

When President Carter signed the law, he noted his objection to the amendment because it interfered with his pardon power, was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and denied due process of the law.

To carry out the pardon, President Carter would have to process all of the re-entry applications for those draft resisters that left the country. Even though the Justice Department announced that the restriction would prevent the re-entry of many of the draft resisters, in the end the Carter administration ignored the amendment and processed all of the applications.”

[Tano]

Danny boy, you are a riot!

Takes you but a few short paragraphs from pretending to deal seriously with the issue of executive power-aggrandizement to end up calling the democrats a bunch of fascists.

Why are you so intent with going down with this ship? Are you not a citizen first, and a partisan hack only second? Its your Constitution too, y'know. Do I really have to make the tendentious point that you don't really want King George to be followed by an equally powerful Queen H?

Repeat after me. Constitutional principles first, partisan hackery second (if your really must).

[Ed]

"They begin with any charge they can to gain access to legal instruments which allow them to dig through anything and everything, usually resulting in some relatively minor issue while the charges starting everything fade away as unfounded."

Whitewater? TravelGate? Rose Law Firm billing records? Arkansas State Troopers? Paula Jones? Monica Lewinsky?

Can you name one of these that was a 'major' issue? And I'm glad to see that you think "Those tactics are fascist in nature, not democratic..."

The selective memory and hypocrisy is staggering and the Jonestown kool-aid is getting closer and closer for you, the 17% of true believers, isn't it?

[rwilymz]

"Sorry, but I don't see a shred of evidence that the Iraq war was waged "in defense of this country." Afghanistan, yes. But Iraq? NO."

See your optician.

"For all the pretense of national defense, we have no evidence that Iraq had any capability of threatening us."

Iraq attacked us half a hundred times between mid-1991 and 2002.

"And while we wasted lives and resources on iraq, Iran was left alone to develop its nuclear capability."

1] lives are always lost in military actions, so saying "lives were wasted" is a] prejudicial, and b] irrelevant;
2] the resources were already tied up in the Iraq "containment" effort, orchestrated by the UN and which we could not extricate ourselves without UN permission -- which we asked for and did not get.

Iraq violated the 1991 cease fire; cease fire violations are, according to international law, acts of war "in severality" and those violations allowed the US to take military action against Iraq.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, and rationalists who keep wanting to assert that which they know nothing of are never going to be able to get around it.

"No matter how the Bush apologists try to spin this, his policies have been disastrous."

His policies are not in favor by his critics, but a "disaster" is something which history must judge. So unless you've got a time machine in your pocket, "jamie", you can't validly make that statement.

[rwilymz]

"Can you name one of these that was a 'major' issue?"

Paula Jones was a major issue to Paula Jones.

She sued Clinton [foolish lawsuit allowed by a foolish law, in my opinion, but still...], and the USSC ruled that a civil tort against a sitting prez may proceed [foolish ruling, in my opinion, but still...], and thus Paula Jones is entitled to her day in court, without prejudice, and without other parties attempting to manipulate the legal proceedings using their power to deny Jones a non-prejudicial hearing.

As you know, if you paid attention to anything other than "Those mean Republicans are picking on my boy Clinton!!" is that Clinton told a few people about the Jones case -- one of them was Monica -- and that makes those people [including Monica] accessories after the fact. In short, they had information about what happened between Clinton and Jones and what they knew was important to the case.

But Clinton refused to divulge one name: Monica Lewinski.

Why? Because he was face-f***ing her in the closet.

But her name came out anyway.

Why? Because she was a naive little girl who heard Clinton being deposed over Jones, knew that he didn't give an accurate answer to "who did you talk to about this", and was afraid *she* would get in trouble. So she went to wutsername, the horse-face lady, and **she** bawled out Clinton for taking advantage of Lewinsky and gave her name to Starr, who asked permission from Reno to include this in the expanding litany of investigation, and Reno gave it.

Bottom line: Jones was entitled to a fair trail over her [idiotic] sexual harrassment charges, Clinton gave others information about it, and then tried to get that information suppressed because it would be embarrassing to disclose why the information was held by one specific indivudual. He then used his office to help suppress that information.

If the prez is willing to use his office to suppress information that would merely lead to a dollar judgment and in violation of US laws, how else would he misuse the office?

While the cause of misuse is trivial and frankly moronic, the issue is misuse of the office, and that's not a minor thing.