Signing Statements Redux; AP Has Your Back, BHO

01/01/2012 While running for the Presidency four years ago, Barack Obama specifically pledged (when asked in early April of that year) that he would not employ the use of signing statements with legislation in order to get around Congressional mandates.

He strongly criticized then-President Bush for the use of signing statements, saying that the use of signing statements was extra-Constitutional on the part of the Bush Administration. And he pointed out that as a former professor of Constitutional Law, he knew better and would respect his proper constitutional role by refusing to employ the tactic to "do an end run around Congress."

Here was exactly how he put it on April 8, 2008, in response to being asked"

"When Congress offers you a bill do you promise not to use Presidential signing statements to get your way."

Said he, unequivocally, "Yes."

Following the applause and a few shouts of approval from the audience, he tapped the microphone to make sure it was on, and went in to full professorial mode, proceeding to give everyone a little civics lesson in the separation of powers, in the course of which he deeply criticized the Bush Administration for the use of signing statements, which he said had been done in violation of our Constitution.

"Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. Uhh, you know we got a, uhh, a government, uhh, designed by the founders so that they'red be checks and balances. You don't want a President who is too powerful, or a Congress that is too powerful, or Courts that's too powerful. Everybody's got their own role.

Congress's job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is he's been saying, 'Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying I don't agree with this part, or I don't agree with that part. I'm going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.'

Uhh, That's not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he's going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We're not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.

All right?"

Setting aside for the moment his serious exaggeration about what President Bush had attempted to accomplish through the employment of signing statements, the fact remains that if Obama seriously believed that Bush-era signing statements were so fundamentally unconstitutional, there were remedies, including through the courts to challenge the Administration, remedial measures which the former "Con Law" professor never pursued, other than rhetorically.

Since becoming President, and in contravention of his views expressed before becoming President, Obama has continued to regularly employ the use of signing statements to attempt to stamp his administration's policy views on legislation passed by Congress.

Just yesterday, for example, he attached a lengthy and highly critical signing statement to the Defense authorization bill recently passed by both Houses of Congress, in which he voiced "serious reservations" over a few provisions, and in which he added that he would interpret and implement the new law as he saw fit.

Here are a few key provisions lifted from his statement:

. . .
"The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa'ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.

Against that record of success, some in Congress continue to insist upon restricting the options available to our counterterrorism professionals and interfering with the very operations that have kept us safe. My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.
. . . . (my emphasis added)

The Associated Press, per reporter Julie Pace, chose to cover the story with as positive a spin as she could possibly muster, including by completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's campaign position from back in 2008.

From her story:

". . .
Signing statements allow presidents to raise constitutional objections to circumvent Congress' intent. During his campaign for the White House, Obama criticized President George W. Bush's use of signing statements and promised to make his application of the tool more transparent.
. . . ."

That statement is completely disingenuous, and it would be downright laughable, if it were not for the fact that this bill dealt with matters so fundamentally affecting our national security.

As can be seen from the video clip, above (and the transcription) neither the views expressed in that "signing statement" above, nor the AP representation of that specific 2008 commitment regarding signing statements, in any way harmonize with, or can be coordinated with the views expressed his 2008 position.

The AP just made that up.

But the President has little to be concerned about in this regard. As usual, the AP has his political back.

As Mel Brooks once (actually thrice) put it in another "historical" context, "It's good to be the King!"

First the Prize! Then the Performance!

Brent Bozell's Media Research Center has captured (embedded below) what can only be termed a funny and revealing moment in mainstream media pomposity (ht, Rick Noyes NewsBusters, here.

After having intensely covered the President's first reaction to the then-breaking story of the surprise announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize award to Barack Obama -- who was in office all of 11 days when the nominations were closed -- Brian Williams preemptively and dismissively carps in anticipation at the blogosphere and the pundits, broadly tagging them as the comic elements of our civilization!

White House reporter Chuck Todd quickly concurs, of course, and takes one last stab at reiterating an Obama political point -- emphasizing the reality of the President's job.

Here's a transcript:

WILLIAMS: "Chuck Todd remains at the White House. Chuck, the way our society and civilization is set up now, um, it's almost as if we ... we're heading into a weekend now. The comic element of our society the blogosphere, pundits, the opinion-based economy in the United States will now just get a free shot and have at it for the next three days at least."

TODD: "They will. But you know, one other point the President himself touched on that we ought to, uh, we ought to point out is the fact that the reality of his job really sets in when he has another meeting of his war council to talk about Afghanistan."

Take a look:



Hey . . . remember all those times when folks like Brian Williams and Chuck Todd in the mainstream media stepped in to remind viewers of the reality of President Bush's job?

Yeah. Me neither. But then, the Nobel Peace Prize was not given to President Obama for actually doing anything. It was given to him by his cheerleaders on the Peace Prize Committee for what they hope he will do.

As reported in the Times (of London), the Norwegian Committee Chairman (the Peace Prize is entirely separate from the various Swedish Committee awards for substantive accomplishment in a variety of fields) made it clear that the award was not being given to Obama for anything he has done. Instead, it was given to politically underscore what they eagerly anticipate.

The award is also an example of what Nobel scholars call the growing aspirational trend of Nobel committees over the past three decades, by which awards are given not for what has been achieved but in support of the cause being fought for.

Thorbjørn Jagland, the committee chairman, made clear that this year’s prize fell in that category. "If you look at the history of the Peace Prize, we have on many occasions given it to try to enhance what many personalities were trying to do," he said. "It could be too late to respond three years from now."

In other words, they are merely shilling for Barack Obama's political agenda. In a way it is a twisted version of Lewis Carroll's delightful twisted royal logic from Alice In Wonderland. Said the King:

"First the sentence, then the verdict!"

And, in this instance, to paraphrase Carroll, Thorbjørn Jagland has essentially said, "First the prize, then the performance!"

But, as Brent Baker at Media Research Center points out, that didn't stop the other mainstream media clucks from breathlessly climbing all over one another last evening to emphasize the wonderfulness of the award to The One.

During the Friday evening, Brian Williams at NBC took one last stab at the critics, and called the prize,

"one of the last remaining towering honors on Earth."

No, he did not say tiring. He said towering.

Like the "towering honor" that Yasser Arafat somehow garnered?

Just read the official biography that the Nobel Committee itself has posted on their website, memorializing to some extent Arafat's life of terrorism, and including a quick subsequent summary description of his governing style, after having been elected the President of the Palestinian Authority in 1996, following the Oslo Accords of 1993! Their final paragraph in the bio, the man to whom they had awarded the Prize, included this understated but telling acknowledgement:

"Like other Arab regimes in the area, however, Arafat's governing style tended to be more dictatorial than democratic."

Never once did that man seriously try to break from a cycle of terror and murder, nor from the exploitation and sacrifice of, and not for, his people. That lasted a lifetime - except of course, once very briefly back in 1994 -- to go and receive the Nobel Peace Prize!

How "towering" of him . . . and tiring of them!

Who Woulda Thunk?

Even as recently as 24 hours ago, who would have thought that President George Bush would prove to be, at least for the moment, John McCain's most effective campaigner? When you can get Joe Biden to go "off his meds," forcing him to retreat to "malarky," you just have to smile.

Like Glen Reynolds, who himself had "a fun take" on the issue, I must say, "Heh!"

I'm waiting for someone -- anyone in the MSM to acknowledge that, for his comments, Bush received a "Standing O" from the entire Knesset. Even Fox News channel played only a few seconds of the applause following the comment. And in their story, CNN arbitrarily cut it off at the end of his comment -- they played none of the applause track at all.

(Update: 05/16)

If you watch the entire video posted at ABC, you can see that that deliberate CNN edit actually distorted the coverage of his speech.

Here is the original ABC News blog post by Ed O'Keefe at Political Radar, which linked to the video of Bush's remarks to the Knesset. There are over 1,500 comments on that post at the ABC website already.

Fom a political perspective, Obama and Biden were not the only dupes here. Nancy Pelosi also promptly hoisted herself on her own petard with her fustian comment (also posted about at The Crypt) calling Bush's remarks "beneath the dignity of the office." That, of course, only served to remind everyone of her looking silly in Syria, wearing that babushka-style burqa . . . or was it a hijab?

And John Kerry jumped in as well. Last night Fox showed a clip of him claiming that Republicans were trying to "raise the flag and waive fear . . ." whatever that means. Hillary also chimed in that the remarks were "offensive and outrageous" apparently oblivious of the very warm reception those remarks received in the Knesset. And, coincidentally that is the exact same phrase she used recently to describe the comments of Jeremiah Wright.

Today Obama himself continued to show his defensiveness over being politically snookered.

Fox News Channel reports that Obama is trying to go on the offensive in South Dakota by accusing both the President and McCain of "fear-peddling" and "exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s dividing our country and that alienates us from the world."

Again, neither he nor Hillary nor any of the critics make any mention of the warm applause and the "Standing O" Bush received in the Knesset for his remarks.

Happiness Under This Sky -- For Most A Better Life?

* * *
UPDATE III, 08/24. For a little perspective, I'm not sure anyone could say it better. Senator Lieberman release, posted at the Weekly Standard, (ht: Jon at Exurban League).

"I share the frustrations about the performance of the Iraqi government. But the fact is, as my colleagues know, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus are meeting every day with Iraq’s democratically-elected leaders to help them reach compromise and reconciliation on a range of complex, painful, and existential issues. Political progress in Iraq depends on this kind of steady statecraft and patient diplomacy on the ground in Baghdad, rather than scapegoating and congressionally-ordered coups.
. . .
"Ultimately, the choice we face in Iraq is not between the current Iraqi government and a perfect Iraqi government. Rather, it is a choice between a young, imperfect, struggling democracy that we have helped midwife into existence, and the totalitarian, terrorist regime that al Qaeda hopes to impose in its place, should we retreat."
. . . .

* * *
UPDATE, 08-24. Scott's exhaustive post at Powerline, found here focuses a considerable amount of additional information on English writer, William Shawcross, and the evolution of his thinking on Cambodia and Southeast Asia, especially as that history now relates to Iraq. It makes for fascinating and provocative reading.
* * *

Peter W. Rodman has published an important piece (ht: Hugh Hewitt) on the importance of considering the potential for a bloodbath, or even genocide, should we too quickly abandon Iraq. The reason it was so important is that yesterday, in his speech to the VFW, the President raised the issue in the context of not repeating what we now know was one of the great blunders of the Viet-Nam era.

The press today immediately miscast that portion of the speech, by saying that the President was comparing Iraq to Viet-Nam, when what he really said was that it would be tragic for us to repeat in Iraq, what the Congress back then forced on the Administration by precipitously cutting off funding in Southeast Asia.

And, in doing so, he forcefully laid down a line in the sand.

These days, of course, cutting and running is precisely what the left is vehemently demanding of Congress. Should they succeed in forcing the issue, one wonders if some of their attitudes, among their leftie "cultural heros" will be the same? One immediately comes to mind.

Asked for his reaction to the emerging Cambodian genocidal bloodbath, William Kunstler once said,

"I would never criticize the actions of any Socialist government."

One wonders what sort mentality would lead anyone to make such a comment? Hard to imagine, isn't it?

Hugh Hewitt, however, points out that the left is not only fully aware of the consequences of what they are demanding, some of them are actually gearing up for it!

Now we are watching a replay of that debate of 30 years ago, but this time no one is even bothering to deny that American withdrawal at this point would lead to a bloodbath. It is a strange time, because the "screw 'em" school of cut-and-run advocates includes many folks arguing for doing something for Darfur just as we did in Kosovo. It is as though the prospective slaughter of Arabs just doesn't rank with them.

English writer William Shawcross once published a book called "Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia," Simon & Schuster, 1979, suggesting that the Nixon Administration policy had devastated Cambodia. He later reconsidered some of what he wrote, at least in his assessment of what the expected impact of the fall would be, horrified as he was by the excesses of the Khmer Rouge. (See, UPDATE, 08/24, above).

Shawcross later became a strong proponent of deposing Saddam Hussein. Today, of course, the left views him as a traitor.

Recently, Shawcross and Peter W. Rodman, (author of the piece at the first link above), two men who had clashed sharply years ago over United States policy in Cambodia and Southeast Asia, joined in writing an Op-Ed piece, "Defeat’s Killing Fields," which was published in the New York Times (on June 7, 2007), supporting President Bush's determination to avoid a military defeat in Iraq.

The President referred to that piece in his speech yesterday to the VFW. He said:

Recently, two men who were on the opposite sides of the debate over the Vietnam War came together to write an article. One was a member of President Nixon's foreign policy team, and the other was a fierce critic of the Nixon administration's policies. Together they wrote that the consequences of an American defeat in Iraq would be disastrous.

Here's what they said:

"Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences." I believe these men are right.

The speech the President made yesterday is quite astonishing in the breadth of its historical perspective, and should really be read in the entirety. He addresses all of the historical commitments we have made since World War II, including pointing out the doubts expressed by the critics at the time, given their religious and cultural backgrounds, about whether Japan, or Korea would ever embrace democratic ideals. And he also addresses what he defines as the tragic consequences of our policies vis-a-vis a too-precipitous pullout from Southeast Asia.

Here is the link to that Op-Ed he referred to, as it appeared on June 7th the New York Times. Here are a few of the many points they made:

SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely. Lending intellectual respectability to all this is an argument that takes a strange comfort from the outcome of the Vietnam War. The defeat of the American enterprise in Indochina, it is said, turned out not to be as bad as expected. The United States recovered, and no lasting price was paid.

We beg to differ.

. . .

The 1975 Communist victory in Indochina led to horrors that engulfed the region. The victorious Khmer Rouge killed one to two million of their fellow Cambodians in a genocidal, ideological rampage. In Vietnam and Laos, cruel gulags and "re-education" camps enforced repression. Millions of people fled, mostly by boat, with thousands dying in the attempt.

The defeat had a lasting and significant strategic impact.

. . .

Today, in Iraq, there should be no illusion that defeat would come at an acceptable price. George Orwell wrote that the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. But anyone who thinks an American defeat in Iraq will bring a merciful end to this conflict is deluded. Defeat would produce an explosion of euphoria among all the forces of Islamist extremism, throwing the entire Middle East into even greater upheaval. The likely human and strategic costs are appalling to contemplate. Perhaps that is why so much of the current debate seeks to ignore these consequences.

As in Indochina more than 30 years ago, millions of Iraqis today see the United States helping them defeat their murderous opponents as the only hope for their country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have committed themselves to working with us and with their democratically elected government to enable their country to rejoin the world as a peaceful, moderate state that is a partner to its neighbors instead of a threat. If we accept defeat, these Iraqis will be at terrible risk.
Thousands upon thousands of them will flee, as so many Vietnamese did after 1975.

. . .

Our conduct in Iraq is a crucial test of our credibility, especially with regard to the looming threat from revolutionary Iran. Our Arab and Israeli friends view Iraq in that wider context. They worry about our domestic debate, which had such a devastating impact on the outcome of the Vietnam War, and they want reassurance.

. . . .

Peter W. Rodman, an assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs from 2001 to March, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. William Shawcross is the author of “Allies: Why the West Had to Remove Saddam.”

And here is a link to an essay/review from Commentary Magazine entitled, "Was Kissinger Right?" by Gabriel Schoenfeld (ht. Powerline) that reviewed Henry Kissinger's book, and addressed the larger issues of genocide in the historical context of the Cambodian experience in the aftermath of the defeat of the United States in Viet-Nam, including the impact of the congressional cut-off of funds.

It is not for the faint-hearted, particularly, I would think, when you read the following account. Among other reactions, it will likely sadden and then anger you:

. . . Only six months after the Paris Accords were concluded, Congress barred the further use of American force "in or over Indochina," rendering the agreement impossible to uphold. Despite Ford and Kissinger's intensive lobbying, the provision of supplies that might have given South Vietnam a chance to defend itself on its own was progressively slashed by Congress, from $2.1 billion in 1973 to $1 billion in 1974 to a paltry $700 million in 1975 (not all of which was actually disbursed).

As SOUTH VIETNAM, deprived of sustenance and support, began to crumble, even longtime congressional supporters of the war turned their backs. Although Kissinger finds villains across the political spectrum, he singles out for special censure the late Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, "scourge of detente and Ford administration critic for its alleged softness on Communism," who in early 1975 abandoned his perduring support for the war and, to "our immense surprise and huge disappointment," voted to throw South Vietnam to the wolves just as it entered a last desperate struggle to survive.

With the United States reduced to the role of bystander, the fall came swiftly. Cambodia succumbed first. As he does also with Vietnam, Kissinger retells the riveting tale, recounting how, as the Khmer Rouge closed in on the capital city of Phnom Penh in early April 1975, the United States offered a number of Cambodian officials a chance to escape. The reply addressed to the U.S. ambassador by Sirik Matak, a former Cambodian prime minister, and reprinted by Kissinger in full, is one of the more important documents of the entire Vietnam-war era.

Dear Excellency and Friend:

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion.

As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it.

You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on the spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we are all born and must die. I have only committed this mistake of believing in you [the Americans].

Please accept, Excellency and dear friend, my faithful and friendly sentiments.

Immediately after the Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh, writes Kissinger, Sirik Matak was shot in the stomach and left to die over the course of three days from his untreated wounds.

In the beginning, middle, and end of this episode, Kissinger shows to telling effect, the barbaric natureof the Communist Khmer Rouge was painted over in soothing tones by much of the American press.

The New York Times was the most flagrant offender. In one dispatch, its correspondent Sydney Schanberg described a ranking Khmer Rouge leader as a "French-educated intellectual" who wanted nothing more than "to fight against feudal privileges and social inequities." A bloodbath was unlikely, Schanberg reported: "since all are Cambodians, an accommodation will be found." As the last Americans were withdrawn, another upbeat article by Schanberg appeared under the headline, "Indochina Without Americans: For Most, a Better Life." In short order, the Khmer Rouge proceeded to march nearly two million of their fellow Cambodians to their deaths in the killing fields. Also in short order, Schanberg went on to greater glory and a Pulitzer prize.*

The President also mentioned Schanberg's "report," though he did not not cast it polemical terms. There is no mistaking the meaning, however.

A columnist for The New York Times wrote in a similar vein in 1975, just as Cambodia and Vietnam were falling to the communists: "It's difficult to imagine," he said, "how their lives could be anything but better with the Americans gone." A headline on that story, date Phnom Penh, summed up the argument: "Indochina without Americans: For Most a Better Life."

One can only hope that Hugh Hewitt was correct when he said on a positive note:

The tide appears to be turning at home just as it has in Anbar Province, so the world may avoid a sequel to the killing fields played out in the desert. But if not, President Bush's speech lays down the clearest of markers: The United States has a choice between holding off genocide in the hope of seeing a stable government and renewed region come out of that effort and great sacrifice, or the U.S. can disengage and permit the killing to commence. President Bush is for the former. Most Democrats want to make the other choice. Clarity is a great thing, and nothing could be more clear than this choice.

UPDATE II: 08/24: In a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed today, Max Boot argues that the President's analogy to Southeast Asia is not incorrect, but that it is incomplete. Again, as noted with the first update above, Scott Johnson at Powerline, covers the topic thoroughly.