Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act today. Here's part of his reasoning why:

shortformblog:

Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.

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. (read more here)

Do you guys buy his explanation? Did Obama have to sign this bill the way it was presented to him?

(via pipperipembo)

1 month ago Via shortformblog
  1. bryceluxe reblogged this from pipperipembo
  2. swagandpassion reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    Idk how Ron Paul would be as commander in chief, but I just assume Congress would override him on everything. I couldn’t...
  3. swagandpassion reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    Idk how Ron Paul would be as commander in chief, but I just assume Congress would override him on everything. I couldn’t...
  4. ryanbeolve answered: It wasn’t worth it.
  5. kaitoupirate answered: I think if he was seriously unhappy with something the bill said, he should have voiced his opinion about it. After all, he can do that.
  6. aquaticcastle answered: no
  7. burntjohn reblogged this from evilteabagger
  8. sans-nuage reblogged this from americawakiewakie and added:
    either way, fuck you, obama.
  9. flame821 answered: What happened to that ‘line veto’ thing? Couldn’t he remove that section while keeping the funding?
  10. americawakiewakie reblogged this from shortformblog
  11. thepoliticallyincorrectgroup reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    How convenient that you left out that this bill ***does not authorize the detention of American citizens.*** Hate when...
  12. nonyap answered: Short answer? Yes, because there is no line item veto…
  13. librilzilla answered: Probably. That how they keep getting crap through.
  14. noumenology answered: As “leader of the free world” (or what others call “establishment”), Obama will do anything to increase presidential power and privilege.
  15. guitarmageddon answered: Why not veto and demand the detention clauses be removed?
  16. imgonnaregretthis reblogged this from shortformblog
  17. thedariel answered: Order from most to least likely: A) He was bought B) He is a hypocritical douchebag C) He means it and appeals it before his term is over.
  18. upolitic reblogged this from shortformblog and added:
    Mr. President, if...“serious reservations” about a bill, you DON’T SIGN IT.
  19. breccias reblogged this from shortformblog
  20. dangerous124 reblogged this from thegayrepublican
  21. jito57 answered: Why not ? He already signed away our sovereignty at Copenhagen.
  22. operapourlepaix answered: I find it odd that he expresses reservations about portions of the bill his administration demanded be included.
  23. timoneil answered: His reasons matter not. He signed the bill. Thus, he condones it more than he is against it. Actions speak louder than words.
  24. observedintoexistence answered: It sounds like he’s just saying the safest thing he can about the bill. He has to be aware that he’s deregulating the military.
  25. freepressnews reblogged this from shortformblog
  26. thehermitkrab answered: A few days ago it was reported that the President insisted on detention of American Citizens being included, today POTUS claims this?
  27. eme1 reblogged this from shortformblog
  28. sharaiahwhat7 said: I’m completely pissed he even signed this damn bill. So now the Bill of Rights have been taken away. This idiot forgot that if it wasn’t for the Bill of Rights he would not be president. What a dick.
  29. trxfreely answered: I don’t buy it, but the President decides only a few fights. Not deciding very well.
  30. thundalicious reblogged this from shortformblog
  31. pipperipembo reblogged this from shortformblog