I'm a bit confused about NDAA... [View all]

[vaberella]

First off, did the White House say they will support this bill or not?! I need a bit of clarity. I read the Carney statement which left me confused but seemed to have given clarity to one side. That President Obama will sign this bill into law.

However when I read some articles on the statement it seems as though the White House is still on the fence about this and finds it problematic. For many articles I've read they end their commentary with this statement "The White House, which had threatened a veto of the original House and Senate versions of the legislation, said it “remained concerned about the uncertainty that this law will create for our counter-terrorism professionals.”"

The quote used came from this site:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/14/white-house-will-not-veto-national-defense-authorization-act/

I personally don't like the bill and won't defend President Obama from criticism even if I am a fanatic. I did read Carney's earlier remarks which I do find troubling. However I don't see how this suggests Obama will sign the bill.

Carney makes no claim that the President supports the bill. He definitely did not the first time around and with recent changes he still seems to be troubled by it. Carney only stated that the senior advisors would not advise against.

My point of confusion, is why is the NDAA position sold as a fact and that Obama will sign the bill and/or Obama will move forward with the bill. It seems to me that the bill is in troubled waters---and not a smooth sail; despite the questionable exemption I see touted by others on this site.

I also have to wonder about our Dems in Congress who went along with this move. It seems the only way this bill could have made it through is if a considerable number of Dems supported this. Who are they and why aren't we looking to reseat these people?

I'm sure we all know that even if Obama vetos the bill it can still be overturned by Congress if they truly want the bill to go through; correct? My main concern is actually for that possibility of happening since it did happen to Bush about two or three times.

In any event...I support keeping Obama aware that this would be foolhardy move. But I must say that the idea that Obama supports this bill and will sign it into law is at best an exaggeration of what is going on from my readings. There are posts and sites that are saying the man already signed the bill into law.

And on this site for many threads I wasn't sure if he did or not. I understand holding his feet to the fire. But can we keep the headlines on the facts rather on the sensationalism...because a few of get confused by the amass of hyperbole over the truth.

As a point of clarity for my posts...I have problems with those who state Obama will sign the bill or the White House supports the bill--which seems to be false. And I have a problem with those who defend the signing of this bill with the "exemption", which I don't find to be strong enough or clear enough language to protect citizens. With that point in mind...I do take issue with this defense as though anyone else who is not a citizen gets what ever they deserve. I was an immigrant when I came here...ditto for my family and I think many of you. I sincerely doubt you would have wanted anyone one in your family who is an immigrant to be indefinitely detained...you'd want them to have access to some sort of protection. So that defense is lame at best and disturbing at worst.