Signing It Over
An interesting article from today's Boston Globe concerning Bush's signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2008. It appears that the White House has a few complaints with the bill that Bush signed into law:
1. The White House thinks it is unconstitutional for Congress to refuse funding for permanent military bases in Iraq and US control of Iraq's oil resources
2. The White House opposes increasing protections for whistleblowers connected to taxpayer supported federal contractors
3. The White House opposes a provision stating that intelligence agencies should when requested supply intelligence in a timely manner to the house and senate armed services committees unless the White House opposes the requests in writing
4. The White House questioned the constitutionality of establishing a bipartisan commission to investigate fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan contracting
All told, this adds up to a recipe for fraud and abuse of power by the Bush White House, doesn't it? Does anyone have a positive interpretation of these ridiculous "statements"?
1. The White House thinks it is unconstitutional for Congress to refuse funding for permanent military bases in Iraq and US control of Iraq's oil resources
2. The White House opposes increasing protections for whistleblowers connected to taxpayer supported federal contractors
3. The White House opposes a provision stating that intelligence agencies should when requested supply intelligence in a timely manner to the house and senate armed services committees unless the White House opposes the requests in writing
4. The White House questioned the constitutionality of establishing a bipartisan commission to investigate fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan contracting
All told, this adds up to a recipe for fraud and abuse of power by the Bush White House, doesn't it? Does anyone have a positive interpretation of these ridiculous "statements"?
posted by Bill | 10:12 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home