Jump to content
The Education Forum

George Bush: 12 Weeks of Unaccountable Government


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

The recent US helicopter attack in Syria, near the Iraq border, and the missile attack by US drones in Pakistan has caused outrage in those countries. The White House has remained silent, as has the cowardly Western media. The combined death toll was about 34.

The US considers itself above the rule of law and continues to violate the sovereignty of other nations with impunity. In this regard they share a common trait with Israel. Indeed, it's clear they are working in tandem, most likely with some larger strategy in mind. One would hope they are not setting a precedent for an unprovoked attack on Iran--the US/Israel axis of evil is clearly itching for a war with Iran--with the tired old 'war on terror' line as their flimsy but ever reliable excuse. Iran shares land borders with seven countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan so it's possible the US might send in Team America for another attack close enough to the Iranian border to provoke an Iranian military response. This is what the Bush regime, and especially Israel, dearly want.

Bring on the war crimes trials.

The bombing of Syria was clearly an act of war. Americans should ask themselves how they would react if any country bombed their territory. Lucky for the world (and Obama) the Syria did not declare war on the United States.

What else can Bush try to get the Republicans elected? He probably realised it is too late to do anything to help McCain now. However, Bush will remain president for 12 more weeks. He is no longer accountabe to American electors and he can do what he likes.

Some presidents have used this time wisely. For example, Ronald Reagan in January 1989, upset the Jewish lobby by recognizing the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people.

In the dying days of his administration, George Bush put US forces in Somalia and gave pardons to his mates involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Clinton spent the final weeks of his time as president to get a peace deal with Israel and Palestine.

What will George Bush do? Probably, he will do the same as his father. Whereas he left Clinton to deal with the foreign policy disaster of Somalia, he will probably cause Obama problems in Iran. As Jonathan Freedland recently pointed out: "Bush may be thinking of a parting gift more in keeping with the record of the last eight years. He and Cheney might decide, what the hell, we have one last chance to whack Iran - and let the new guy clear up the mess."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recent US helicopter attack in Syria, near the Iraq border, and the missile attack by US drones in Pakistan has caused outrage in those countries. The White House has remained silent, as has the cowardly Western media. The combined death toll was about 34.

The US considers itself above the rule of law and continues to violate the sovereignty of other nations with impunity. In this regard they share a common trait with Israel. Indeed, it's clear they are working in tandem, most likely with some larger strategy in mind. One would hope they are not setting a precedent for an unprovoked attack on Iran--the US/Israel axis of evil is clearly itching for a war with Iran--with the tired old 'war on terror' line as their flimsy but ever reliable excuse. Iran shares land borders with seven countries, including Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan so it's possible the US might send in Team America for another attack close enough to the Iranian border to provoke an Iranian military response. This is what the Bush regime, and especially Israel, dearly want.

Bring on the war crimes trials.

The bombing of Syria was clearly an act of war. Americans should ask themselves how they would react if any country bombed their territory. Lucky for the world (and Obama) the Syria did not declare war on the United States.

What else can Bush try to get the Republicans elected? He probably realised it is too late to do anything to help McCain now. However, Bush will remain president for 12 more weeks. He is no longer accountabe to American electors and he can do what he likes.

Some presidents have used this time wisely. For example, Ronald Reagan in January 1989, upset the Jewish lobby by recognizing the PLO as the representatives of the Palestinian people.

In the dying days of his administration, George Bush put US forces in Somalia and gave pardons to his mates involved in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Clinton spent the final weeks of his time as president to get a peace deal with Israel and Palestine.

What will George Bush do? Probably, he will do the same as his father. Whereas he left Clinton to deal with the foreign policy disaster of Somalia, he will probably cause Obama problems in Iran. As Jonathan Freedland recently pointed out: "Bush may be thinking of a parting gift more in keeping with the record of the last eight years. He and Cheney might decide, what the hell, we have one last chance to whack Iran - and let the new guy clear up the mess."

John-

Clinton spent his final weeks handing out pardons, including pardons to his brother, to a billionaire tax evader and to people represented by his wife's relatives.

How can you fail to mention Clinton's deplorable last minute pardons while talking about Clinton's final days?

And, make no mistake, that Obama's nominee for Attorney General will be Eric Holder, from the Clinton Adm. Justice Department, and Holder is the person who helped facilitate the pardon of Mark Rich.

Why would a prosecutor try to facilitate the pardon of a fugitive from justice that his office had prosecuted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John-

Clinton spent his final weeks handing out pardons, including pardons to his brother, to a billionaire tax evader and to people represented by his wife's relatives.

How can you fail to mention Clinton's deplorable last minute pardons while talking about Clinton's final days?

And, make no mistake, that Obama's nominee for Attorney General will be Eric Holder, from the Clinton Adm. Justice Department, and Holder is the person who helped facilitate the pardon of Mark Rich.

Why would a prosecutor try to facilitate the pardon of a fugitive from justice that his office had prosecuted?

Good points. I am sure Ronald Reagan also did similar things in his last 12 weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, make no mistake, that Obama's nominee for Attorney General will be Eric Holder

Has Obama already indicated this or is this an educated guess?

Obama hasn't said that Holder will be his appointee, but I would put good money on it.

I was quite surprised that Obama put Holder on his VP search committee, along with Caroline (whom I thought was a good selection) and Fannie Mae CEP James Johnson (who quit when it was disclosed that he got a sweetheart loan from Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozillo).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John-

Clinton spent his final weeks handing out pardons, including pardons to his brother, to a billionaire tax evader and to people represented by his wife's relatives.

How can you fail to mention Clinton's deplorable last minute pardons while talking about Clinton's final days?

And, make no mistake, that Obama's nominee for Attorney General will be Eric Holder, from the Clinton Adm. Justice Department, and Holder is the person who helped facilitate the pardon of Mark Rich.

Why would a prosecutor try to facilitate the pardon of a fugitive from justice that his office had prosecuted?

Good points. I am sure Ronald Reagan also did similar things in his last 12 weeks.

John-

I don't remember what Reagan did, so I wouldn't hazard a guess.

But, I remember Clinton's last antics pretty well.

I expect chicanery from W, though, before his term ends. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Stephen Turner
Apres mois le deluge..... and they are just getting 'warmed-up' [just wait for the long list of pardons....]

AMY GOODMAN: As the media focuses on President-elect Obama and the transition of power here in Washington, the Bush administration is quietly trying to push through a wide array of federal regulations before President Bush leaves office in January.

Up to ninety proposed regulations could be finalized by the outgoing administration, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment. According to the Washington Post, the new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era. They include rules that could weaken workplace safety protections, allow local police to spy in the so-called “war on terror” and make it easier for federal agencies to ignore the Endangered Species Act.

While it’s nothing new for outgoing administrations to try and enact these so-called “midnight regulations,” the Bush administration has accelerated the process to ensure the changes it wants will be finalized by November 22nd. That’s sixty days before the next administration takes control. Most federal rules go into effect sixty days after they’ve been finalized, and it would be a major bureaucratic undertaking for the Obama administration to reverse federal rules already in effect.

Matthew Madia is a regulatory policy analyst at OMB Watch, which is a watchdog group here in Washington, D.C.

We welcome you to Democracy Now!

MATTHEW MADIA: Hi, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Hi. So, talk about exactly what’s happening, what this date is, to begin with, the November 22nd, and how unusual this is.

MATTHEW MADIA: Yeah. In order for a rule to—in order for the Bush administration to really tie the hands of the Obama administration, they need to make sure that not only are all these rules final, but they’re in effect. And by law, an agency needs to wait either thirty or sixty days—as you said, in most cases, sixty days—before a rule takes effect. So if a rule’s not effective by January 20th, then the Obama administration could come in and suspend the rule. So what the Bush administration is trying to do is make sure that doesn’t happen.

AMY GOODMAN: So explain what these rules are that the Bush administration is trying to push through. And how unusual is it? I mean, did Clinton do this before Bush?

MATTHEW MADIA: The rules really cover a broad array of topics. One rule could make it harder for employees to claim leave when they’re sick or when a family member is sick. A lot of the rules would affect the environment. One makes it easier for mining companies to dump the waste for mountaintop mining into rivers and streams. Some of the rules affect traffic safety. One would allow truck drivers to drive for longer, for longer consecutive hours, and that puts both the truck driver at risk and the motorists at risk.

So, we see a lot of rules mostly rolling back existing requirements on industry, not in the name of job creation or in the name of increased competitiveness, just sort of to remove that government oversight, to widen the gap between government and business. And it could allow businesses to pollute more or to infringe upon their employees’ rights.

As you said, this is not unusual. The Clinton administration did do—we did see this kind of flurry of activity. But what’s different is what we talked about earlier, that the Bush administration really wants to get all this through by the end of November so that the Obama administration can’t undo it.

AMY GOODMAN: Continue with the rules that you think are the most significant that are being pushed through now.

MATTHEW MADIA: Yeah, a couple other ones on the environment. One, you mentioned the Endangered Species Act. This would essentially allow the government to approve big development projects on federal lands without adequately considering the effects on endangered species. They’re required to do that by the Endangered Species Act, but the rule would eliminate that existing requirement. Another rule on the environment would allow power companies to build polluting facilities near national parks. Currently there’s lots of restrictions on that. This would end those restrictions, and we’d see another big increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

Another rule would require mandatory drug and alcohol testing for miners. This is something the mining industry has been pushing for for a long time. The mining union opposes it and rightfully thinks that it’s an unnecessary infringement.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking right now about these midnight regulations and talking about how many are being pushed through. Who are the forces behind this?

MATTHEW MADIA: It’s everyone inside the Bush administration, all the senior political officials that we’ve come to know and love these last eight years. In some cases, we think the White House is making a push for these things, and in other cases, it’s just coming from within federal agencies. But one of the real problems is there’s not a whole lot of transparency in this area, so sometimes we don’t—we simply don’t know who the real architects of some of these deregulatory actions are.

AMY GOODMAN: So what do you think can be done? I mean, this is in their right, right, to do this?

MATTHEW MADIA: Well, absolutely. And unfortunately, there’s not much in the way of preventative action that we can take. All these rules had public comment periods, which are now closed. Many of them received overwhelmingly negative comments. The Endangered Species Act rule received about 300,000 comments, most of them negative.

But what we can do is hope that they’re overturned in the new year. Even if the Obama administration can’t do anything, the new Congress, when they come back in January, will have an opportunity to take a look at these rules. They’ll have sixty session days, under something called the Congressional Review Act, to determine which rules they think are the worst, and they’ll be able to introduce a resolution to disapprove these rules. And if that’s passed by both houses and signed by the President, then it’ll be like the rules never came into effect at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Can there be some kind of pressure that’s brought to prevent this from happening, some kind of deal-making or negotiations that go on?

MATTHEW MADIA: Well, I don’t think—I don’t think that the Bush administration would respond much to that now to sort of stop these rules before they come. Certainly, I think the pressure being brought by a lot of the news coverage—the public is very concerned about this. We’ve seen that. OMB Watch has seen that in the responses that we’re getting to some of these issues. So, if people can contact their congressmen in the new year and tell them about this Congressional Review Act and why it’s important to undo some of these rules, I think we could see some progress made in 2009.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain further the administration’s proposal to change the Family and Medical Leave Act?

MATTHEW MADIA: Yeah, basically, what this does is, it’s a bunch of different requirements, or more accurately, it’s rolling back existing requirements that could make it more difficult for employees to claim leave. One of them would make it harder for an employee to use sick time or vacation time when they’re claming leave. This leave is unpaid. But currently, an employee can use their existing time so that they can take their leave without having to suffer the economic consequences.

Another particularly concerning part is the rule would allow an employer to contact someone’s healthcare provider directly. And this obviously raises lots of—lots of privacy concerns. So this is something that we see the industry lobbyists here in Washington pushing for, and they’re kind of getting what they want, and it’s going to affect employees in a negative way.

AMY GOODMAN: And the whole issue of abortion being taking on through these regulations?

MATTHEW MADIA: Yeah, there is one rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that sort of uses the strings of federal funding to impose the administration’s ideological views on reproductive health rights. The rule would require healthcare providers that receive federal funding to have some sort of process in place if one of their employees objects on moral or religious grounds to abortion or contraception or whatever it is. If they don’t have that process in place to allow their employees to deny people coverage in those areas, then they could risk losing their federal funding.

www.democracynow.org 11/13/08

Can't Obama just repeal them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...