On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > *Bush's Third Term? > **You're Living It > *By David Swanson <http://tomdispatch.com/authors/davidswanson> > > It sounds like the plot for the latest summer horror movie. Imagine, for a > moment, that George W. Bush had been allowed a third term as president, had > run and had won or stolen it, and that we were all now living (and dying) > through it. With the Democrats in control of Congress but Bush still in the > Oval Office, the media would certainly be talking > endlessly<http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/02/in-big-media-bipartisanship-beats-policy/>about > a mandate for bipartisanship and the importance of taking into account > the concerns of Republicans. Can't you just picture it? > > There's Dubya now, still rewriting > <http://www.davidswanson.org/node/1926>laws via signing statements. Still > creating and destroying laws with > executive orders. And still violating > laws<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42584>at his whim. Imagine Bush > continuing his policy of extraordinary rendition, > sending prisoners off to other countries with grim interrogation reputations > to be held and tortured. I can even picture him > formalizing<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/42905>his policy of > preventive detention, sprucing it up with some "due process" > even as he permanently removes habeas corpus from our culture. > > I picture this demonic president still swearing he doesn't torture, still > insisting that he wants to close Guantanamo, but > assuring<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/ongoingtorture>his subordinates > that the commander-in-chief has the power to torture "if > needed," and maintaining <http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43507> a > prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan that makes Guantanamo look like > summer camp. I can imagine him > continuing<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41847>to keep secret his > warrantless spying programs while protecting the > corporations and government officials involved. > > If Bush were in his third term, we would already have seen him > propose<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/41507>, > yet again, the largest military budget in the history of the world. We might > well have seen him pretend he was including war funding in the standard > budget, and then claim that one final supplemental war budget was still > needed, immediately after which he would surely announce that yet another > war supplemental bill would be needed down the road. And of course, he would > have held onto his Secretary of Defense from his second term, Robert Gates, > to run the Pentagon, keep our ongoing wars rolling along, and oversee the > better part of our public budget. > > Bush would undoubtedly be following > through<http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175093/michael_schwartz_twenty_first_century_colonialism_in_iraq>on > the agreement he signed with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for all > U.S. troops to leave Iraq by the end of 2011 (except where he chose not to > follow through). His generals would, in the meantime, be leaking > word<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/43006>that the United States > never intended to actually leave. He'd surely be > maintaining current levels of troops in Iraq, while > sending<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/45520>thousands more troops to > Afghanistan and talking about a new "surge" there. > He'd probably also be > escalating<http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/pakistan_map.html>the > campaign he launched late in his second term to use drone aircraft to > illegally and repeatedly strike into Pakistan's tribal borderlands with > Afghanistan. > > If Bush were still "the decider" he'd be employing mercenaries like > Blackwater <http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/scahill> and > propagandists like the Rendon > Group<http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=64348>and he > might even be > expanding <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125089638739950599.html> the > number of private security contractors in Afghanistan. In fact, the whole > executive branch would be packed with disreputable corporate executive > types. You'd have somebody like John ("May I torture this one some more, > please?") Rizzo still > serving<http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/22/rizzo-acting-counsel/>, > at least for a while, as general counsel at the CIA. The White House and > Justice Department would be crawling with corporate cronies, people like John > Brennan<http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/14/domestic_spying/index.html>, > Greg Craig <http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44976>, James > Jones<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/44386>, > and Eric Holder <http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/45197>. Most of > the top prosecutors hired at the Department of Justice for political > purposes would still <http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/38639> be on > the job. And political prisoners, like former Alabama Governor Don > Siegelman <http://www.donsiegelman.org> and former top Democratic donor Paul > Minor <http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/10/hbc-90001343> would still be > abandoned to their fate. > > In addition, the bank bailouts Bush and his economic team initiated in his > second term would still be rolling along -- with a similar crowd of people > running the show. Ben Bernanke, for instance, would certainly have been > reappointed<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/6089569/Ben-Bernanke-appointed-for-second-term-as-Fed-boss-with-Obamas-fulsome-praise.html>to > run the Fed. And Bush's third term would have > guaranteed <http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/04/22/obamas-nafta-flip-flop>that > there would be none of the monkeying around with the North American > Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that the Democrats proposed or promised in > their losing presidential campaign. At this point in Bush's third term, no > significant new effort would have > begun<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/katrinas-children---still_b_271216.html>to > restore Katrina-decimated New Orleans either. > > If the Democrats in Congress attempted to pass any set of needed reforms > like, to take an example, new healthcare legislation, Bush, the third > termer, would have held secret meetings in the White House with insurance > and drug company executives to devise a means to turn such proposals to > their advantage. And he would have refused to > release<http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407>the visitor logs so that the > American public would have no way of knowing > just whom he'd been talking to. > > During Bush's second term, some of the lowest ranking torturers from Abu > Ghraib were prosecuted as bad apples, while those officials responsible for > the policies that led to Abu Ghraib remained untouched. If the public > continued to push for justice for torturers during the early months of > Bush's third term, he would certainly have gone > with<http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/45537>another bad apple approach, > perhaps targeting only low-ranking CIA > interrogators and CIA contractors for prosecution. Bush would undoubtedly > have decreed that any higher-ups would not be touched, that we should now be > looking forward, not backward. And he would thereby have cemented in place > the power of presidents to grant immunity for crimes they themselves > authorized. > > If Bush were in his third term, some of his first and second term secrets > might, by now, have been forced out into the open by lawsuits, but what > Americans actually read wouldn't be significantly worse than what we'd > already known. What documents saw the light of day would surely have had > large portions of their pages redacted, and the vast bulk of documentation > that might prove threatening would remain hidden from the public eye. Bush's > lawyers would be fighting in > court<http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama>, > with ever grander claims of executive power, to keep his wrongdoing out of > sight. > > Now, here's the funny part. This dark fantasy of a third Bush term is also > an accurate portrait of Obama's first term to date. In following Bush, Obama > was given the opportunity either to restore the rule of law and the balance > of powers or to firmly establish in place what were otherwise aberrant > abuses of power. Thus far, President Obama has, in all the areas mentioned > above, chosen the latter course. Everything described, from the continuation > of crimes to the efforts to hide them away, from the corruption of corporate > power to the assertion of the executive power to legislate, is Obama's > presidency in its first seven months. > > Which doesn't mean there aren't differences in the two moments. For one > thing, Democrats have now joined Republicans in approving expanded > presidential powers and even -- in the case of wars, military strikes, > lawless detention and rendition, warrantless spying, and the obstruction of > justice -- presidential crimes. In addition, in the new Democratic era of > goodwill, peace and justice movements have been strikingly > defunded<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30antiwar.html>and, in some > cases, even shut down. Many progressive groups now, in fact, > take their signals from the president and his team, rather than bringing the > public's demands to his doorstep. > > If we really were in Bush's third term, people would be far more active and > outraged. There would already be a major push to really end the > wars<http://www.nogoodwar.org>in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan. Undoubtedly, > the Democrats still wouldn't > impeach Bush, especially since they'd be able to vote him out before his > fourth term, and surely four more years of him wouldn't make all that much > difference. > > David Swanson is the author of the new book Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial > Presidency and Forming a More Perfect > Union<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1583228888/ref=nosim/?tag=tomdispatch-20>(Seven > Stories Press, 2009). He holds a master's degree in philosophy from > the University of Virginia and served as press secretary for Kucinich for > President in 2004. Swanson is just beginning a book tour of 48 cities and > hopes to see you on the road. Check out his tour schedule by clicking > here<http://davidswanson.org/book> > . > > http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175135 > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
<<attachment: crackpot.jpg>>
