Skip to content

Short and sweet...?

Well, not particularly sweet, but it's short and it makes its point - I'll reproduce it in full here:
The Threat of Section 1222

By James Rothenberg

31/01/08 "ICH" -- -- 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.

James Rothenberg - jrothenberg@taconic.net
(Source)


I wanted to double check the text of 1222, thinking that maybe the author did a bit of selective editing - but it's exactly as he said, in The Library of Congress.

So Bush is saying he either wants to establish a permanent base in Iraq, or "exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq"> I think it's the first that's the real problem for him, as the second is never going to be done directly and formally, but as much control as possible is exercised via the oil companies that have been guaranteed advantageous contracts in legislation passed by the Iraqi government. See Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity, or Whose Oil Is It, Anyway? (free registration needed).
tweetbackcheck