The Threat Of Section 1222
By James Rothenberg
08 February, 2008
Countercurrents.org
The White House has given ever-shifting
rationalizations for invading and occupying Iraq, running the gamut
from a claim of self-defense to a purported mission of bringing democracy
and thus freedom to the citizens of that country.
Dissenters claim that the two central tenets were instead the establishing of a permanent military presence in order to control Iraq’s oil resources.
Who’s right? The White House or its dissenters? Recently some new evidence has been uncovered. Firsthand source material.
Lets listen to Bush:
“Today, I have signed into law H.R. 4986, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008… Provisions of the Act, including sections 841, 846, 1079, and 1222, 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.”
The President is claiming that Section 1222 could inhibit his ability to defend the Constitution, so he claims the right to ignore it. The drafters of the bill were also sworn to defend the Constitution. What are the requirements in 1222 that the White House finds so inhibiting?
Here is the entire text of 1222:
No funds appropriated pursuant to an authorization of appropriations in this Act may be obligated or expended for a purpose as follows:
(1) To establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.
(2) To exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq
No, this is not a formal confession from the White House. But it is as formal as you can get.
jrothenberg@taconic.net
