0
   

REVERSING BUSH'S LEGACY IN 2009

 
 
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 10:23 am
November 18, 2007 at 07:42:16

Reversing Bush's Imposed Legacy in the Next Administration

by Ron Fullwood

http://www.opednews.com



WHEN, and if, Bush leaves office it will take an internal revolution by the next administration to reverse and undo the damage he's done to our democracy at home and to our influence and relationship with other countries around the world. Assuming that a Democrat will assume the presidency, he or she will be challenged to dig through the layers of anti-democratic initiatives and autocratic appointments which the Bushites have imposed on America without any significant interference or control on them from those legislators charged with exercising the checks and balances proscribed by the constitution they're pledged to uphold and defend.

When Bill Clinton left office, he issued a record number of executive orders on the environment and other issues which he'd been unable to legislate through the republican-controlled Congress. During his two terms, Clinton had averaged about one executive order per week (over 30,000 pages of new regulations in the last 90 days). Clinton's last minute EOs included issues like banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in federal hiring, bans on permanent striker replacements, an order to allow poor nations manufacture generic versions of expensive AIDS medicines, and a host of environmental orders which reserved hundreds of acres of federal land as refuges for wildlife and national monuments.



When Bush came into office, he promptly set out to reverse those Clinton orders by issuing his own contradictory ones and advancing legislation which ignored or overturned them. Many were allowed to stand, but others were challenged in court and in Congress. For instance, when Bush took office he rescinded Clinton's EO establishing labor management groups for federal govt. workers who were in unions with his own EO reversing Clinton requirements that federal contractors follow union standards. Bush also brought back an order which Clinton had struck down which required unions to inform workers of their right to refunds for dues used for politics.

An EO issued by Clinton to ensure environmental justice for minority and low-income populations was 'reinterpreted' by the administration and broadened to include 'everyone' as a dodge on their specific responsibility to the disadvantaged populations who suffer greater exposure to environmental hazards than others. The Clinton orders on the environment were bypassed in legislation like Bush's plan to allow coal-fired power plants to buy credits from cleaner plants instead of reducing their own emissions, ignoring the impact of those who still had to live with the offending plants and their hazardous emissions. On Oct. 1, 2001, Bush's Fish and Wildlife Service reversed a Clinton order to increase Missouri River flow to protect species. Jun. 9, 2003, Bush's USDA reversed Clinton ban on logging and road building on 58.5 million acres of federal forest land.

Bush has had his own executive order revolution in his two terms and we should brace for many more. This power-grabbing administration will do more than pilfer a few typewriter keys and abscond with WH furniture and silverware. In November, Bush signaled that he intended to bypass any opposition which the new Democratic majority might pose to his autocratic ambitions, by ordering agency staff to produce a myriad of executive orders for his consideration.

In January of this year, Bush issued an EO which directed that each government agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. In July, Bush issued a presidential order giving him the authority to confiscate the assets of whoever opposes his Iraq occupation under the pretext of protecting his U.S. sponsored Iraqi regime. The same month, Bush issued an order broadening the law which had restricted the interrogation methods which can be used on terrorism suspects, absolving and allowing the CIA to resume their activities which were suspended after criticism which accompanied their revelation.


Everything from Bush's career appointments in Justice, Defense, Intelligence, the Courts, and the myriads of other government institutions he has dominion over, will stand in place and operation until the next administration moves to upend and dissolve them.

At the Justice Dept., there were reports that under the leadership of Bush crony, Gonzales, the WH had scrapped the civil service process which normally guided the selection of judges and other appointees in favor of a political process which focused on how much loyalty to the administration nominees demonstrated instead of considerations of merit and expertise. That political abuse of the hiring process was capped by the dismissal of nine U.S. attorneys based on their dissent from administration orthodoxy. Most of those appointees will have to be carefully and systematically evaluated by the next administration as they seek to return our system of Justice to its expected role as an impartial, apolitical arbiter.

At Defense, there is the obvious influence of Bush's appointments which led us into Iraq and have kept us bogged down there. Many of the Pentagon's Bush cabal will be able to shrink back into the military fold when the next administration team takes charge. A great deal of the transformation of Bush military expansionism will be directed from the Pentagon where there is an institutional support ingrained into a career military which is almost never shy about their eagerness to demonstrate the strength of their forces. A strong leader will be needed to actually transform their mission instead of merely acquiescing to them because if some inexperience in foreign affairs, or a lack of expertise or influence in managing the military management structure.

In almost all of the agencies which Bush has so thoroughly infected with the influence of his craven political ambitions, there are already effects of the traditional flight of loyalists from lame-duck administrations poised for a reversal of party control. The NYT has reported on the large number of interim appointments which now exist in many Cabinet positions which would require congressional approval. The Bush administration has decided, in their interest or because of the opposition of the new Democratic majority in Congress, to leave these positions in the hands of the deputies-in-charge instead of pressing for replacements. Many of these seconds are appointees which have even more political and operational baggage than their predecessors. Although there will be a certain flight of these figures from an ascending Democratic Executive, there will still be a need to systematically dismantle the webs of assumed authority Bush has encouraged and allowed.

Who knows just how many of Bush's political prisoners are still detained in the CIA's secret prisons around the world? Who can actually quantify all of the agents dispatched around the globe who are infected with Bush's imperious mission to meddle and obstruct in the internal affairs of sovereign nations?

Like Israel's use of cluster bombs in their recent assault and invasion of Southern Lebanon, making the previously settled territory uninhabitable because of the deliberate minefield-effect of the residual bomblets left littered everywhere, the Bush administration will leave a legacy and infrastructure at home and around the world which will pose dangerous and pernicious obstacles to any efforts to reform or reverse the effects of Bush's autocratic constructions.

As we look to the future without Bush and his anti-democratic minions in power and assumed authority, we will still need to remain focused on the malignant and infectious consequences of his unilateral meddling. One thing is certain; if we don't persist in removing these incendiary traces of his legacy that he's deliberately deposited at home and abroad, the Bush regime will have effectively institutionalized the tyranny they've so obviously craved and attempted throughout their term.



Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,286 • Replies: 20
No top replies

 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 12:04 pm
The Late Molly Ivens recorded how almost all of Bush's EO's as Governor were successfully reversed. I can only hope that the 8 years of the present admin wont cause irreprable damage to the country and its present course of destroying the middle class.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 12:58 pm
Pulitizer Prize-winning historian Isadora Tribe's much-awaited "The Restoration Years: America in the Post-Bush Era" jumped to the top of the best-seller lists almost immediately. The Harvard professor and I spoke in her Cambridge home about the revelations in that volume.

BW: Why don't we start with the title of the book? Why "Restoration"?

Tribe: George Bush the Younger, as many may remember, was, in historical terms, a kind of usurper of the crown. Not only was he installed into power and "re-elected" by fraudulent means, but he was, how shall we say, a bit over his head in the job. He knew nothing, he didn't want to know anything, he ignored those who did know something. In short, he surrounded himself mainly with incompetents and mean-spirited ideologues like himself, and tried to keep all his administration's outrageous behaviors totally secret from any meaningful oversight.

The reason why Bush was adjudged widely as "the worst president ever," even during his tenure, was a direct result of his years of unnecessary wars and chaos, bungling on a monstrous scale, the mangling of the Constitution, ideological extremism, and out-and-out corruption and larceny. In other words, he and his cronies laid waste to the institutions of our democratic republic.

When he was finally gone, nothing less than a thoroughgoing cleansing of the foul-smelling stable was in order. That was "The Restoration" era, years of undoing the great damage his administration has foisted on the country. Restoring our country's commitment to Constitutional rule and to sanity and realism in our foreign policy -- that was the Herculean job of his successors.
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays7w/restoration.htm
Of course it will be a irksome arduous Herculean job.
None of the present candidates have the stomack or stamina to correct the Bush's ACHIEVEMENTS.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 01:12 pm
The nation is on an irreversible course of totalitarian usurpation of the public's rights. It was a slow process before, but, Bush accelerated it. The brake will be put on, once he leaves office, but there will be no reversal. My personal thought. I don't feel optimistic, as one might surmise.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 04:15 pm
Quote:
Like Israel's use of cluster bombs in their recent assault and invasion of Southern Lebanon, making the previously settled territory uninhabitable because of the deliberate minefield-effect of the residual bomblets


aw crap, people are still using those? i suppose i better support that kind of thing, or i'll be some kind of bigot Neutral
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Nov, 2007 08:15 pm
tinygiraffe wrote:
Quote:
Like Israel's use of cluster bombs in their recent assault and invasion of Southern Lebanon, making the previously settled territory uninhabitable because of the deliberate minefield-effect of the residual bomblets


aw crap, people are still using those? i suppose i better support that kind of thing, or i'll be some kind of bigot Neutral


No, you wouldn't be a bigot. But, I don't believe everything I read, or hear. Not to say anything I read or hear might not be the truth, but since what I read or hear is usually taken out of some specific context, I would only be gullible to accept everything as the complete picture.

I say the above in context of the quoted article being about the Bush legacy; how did Israel's war in Lebanon over a year ago suddenly get a paragraph? Squeezing Israel into a Bush article seems odd?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 02:33 am
farmerman wrote:
The Late Molly Ivens recorded how almost all of Bush's EO's as Governor were successfully reversed. I can only hope that the 8 years of the present admin wont cause irreprable damage to the country and its present course of destroying the middle class.

fm
Don't ya miss that girl?

But I think the problem is different in this case, not merely as a matter of magnitude but also because of the consequences of what Rove (and other ideologues like Norquist and DeLay and the movement conservative political organizations like the AEI and Federalist Societies, etc) managed to do towards achieving a single party state. The Supreme Court being the clearest example.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 05:16 am
All those policies have a sunset with each successive admin. Of course we have the 'Medical Precription fiasco", "Patriot ACtII", "A very immoral war with its attending 1/2 trillion dollar dent in our economy", "No energy policy ""A Supreme Court that could be years in the present makeup","A bankruptcy and fiancial accountability law that favors only the super wealthy" " A foreign policy that turned Reinhold Neibuhr into the Nostradamus of politics". Ok, Ok , Ok , besides those we have a good chance of trundling this admins policies off to the dustbin
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 07:39 am
This ought not to cheer you.. Stiglitz on the post bush economy
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 07:52 am
Remember when journalism was actually taught at schools and people had to actually study to become journalists?

It's a pity blogging is the new journalism where any half-wit can get quoted and taken seriously.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:12 am
It would be very interesting to see you describe the criteria which define or detail 'proper' journalism.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:24 am
McGentrix wrote:
Remember when journalism was actually taught at schools and people had to actually study to become journalists?


Aren't you the guy who argued that Jeff Gannon "obviously met whatever credentials" were needed to get daily press passes to the White House press conferences?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:24 am
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Remember when journalism was actually taught at schools and people had to actually study to become journalists?


Aren't you the guy who argued that Jeff Gannon "obviously met whatever credentials" were needed to get daily press passes to the White House press conferences?


Was I?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:28 am
McGentrix wrote:
Was I?


Yes, I think so...
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:35 am
old europe wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Was I?


Yes, I think so...


Yep. Looks that way, huh?

Wikipedia wrote:
White House press credentials

Gannon first attended a White House press conference on February 28, 2003, and there asked a question of then White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. At this time Gannon had never had an article published, and was not associated with any kind of news organization (Talon News had not been created yet[5]). However, Gannon states that he was editor of his high school student newspaper, as proof of having some journalistic experience. [8]

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan later said that there was no breakdown in security and no one intervened on Guckert's behalf to ensure his access, despite the fact that Gannon had been able to get a press pass for the White House using an assumed name. Gannon's response was that the alias Jeff Gannon was a professional name used for convenience, saying that his "real last name is hard to spell and pronounce," and that the Secret Service was aware of his identity.[5]

Journalists have said that it can take weeks to get the kind of clearance Gannon received. The Augusta Free Press reported that its acquisition of a single one-day pass was a two-week process.[9][not in citation given] Furthermore, it was said that, highly unusually, Gannon was issued one-day press passes for nearly two years, avoiding the extensive background checks required for permanent passes, and sidestepping Gannon's inability to gain the necessary Congressional press pass. Gannon applied for a Congressional press pass in April 2004 but was denied one by The Standing Committee of Correspondents, a group of congressional reporters who oversee press credential distribution on Capitol Hill, on the grounds that Talon did not qualify as a legitimate and independent news service.[10] On his resume Gannon said he is a graduate of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism, a two day seminar for "conservatives who want a career in journalism."[11]


Doesn't mean my point is wrong though, does it? In fact it kind of reinforces it.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:43 am
You up to trying to define 'proper' journalism? It is tough, after all, to establish what meets the criteria and what doesn't if we haven't said what it ought to look like.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 09:46 am
blatham wrote:
You up to trying to define 'proper' journalism? It is tough, after all, to establish what meets the criteria and what doesn't if we haven't said what it ought to look like.


Facts vs. Opinion.

I do not really consider most of the talking heads to be actual journalists. Oh, and that includes both sides of the aisle.

They are fine opinionists, but not really journalists.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 10:28 am
I heard a news item this morning that the dollar is in free fall. I blame Bush's policies for this. I hope that this can be reversed.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Nov, 2007 01:48 pm
McGentrix wrote:
blatham wrote:
You up to trying to define 'proper' journalism? It is tough, after all, to establish what meets the criteria and what doesn't if we haven't said what it ought to look like.


Facts vs. Opinion.

I do not really consider most of the talking heads to be actual journalists. Oh, and that includes both sides of the aisle.

They are fine opinionists, but not really journalists.


Something like that seems to be central, doesn't it? Of course, that criterion can be tripped up pretty easily if real care for factualness is missing or if proper procedures for establishing factuality are not present, eg multiple dependable sources.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Nov, 2007 12:20 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Remember when journalism was actually taught at schools and people had to actually study to become journalists?

It's a pity blogging is the new journalism where any half-wit can get quoted and taken seriously.


McG: Loading 16 tons and I shovel every ounce of it right onto A2K.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » REVERSING BUSH'S LEGACY IN 2009
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 04:31:41