Will Bush Ever Leave Office?
by Jeff Davis
All the really interesting and important news always seems to come from foreign sources, never from American media. When the mainstream media isn’t repeating word-for-word the latest propaganda from the neocons, it’s riveted to American Idol, the Paris Hilton jail saga, and Lindsay Lohan’s choice in pharmaceuticals.
A recent Alternet article should be banner headlines in every newspaper in the country and covered 24/7 by dozens of cable TV talking heads –if the American news media hadn’t been completely co-opted and silenced by Bush and his little neocon friends. The article reports “[President] Bush has issued a directive that would place all governmental powers in his hands in the case of a catastrophic emergency. If a terrorist attack happens before the 2008 election, Bush and Cheney could use this to avoid relinquishing power to a successor administration….The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive, signed on May 9, 2007, would place all governmental power in the hands of the President and effectively abolish the checks and balances in the Constitution. If a ‘catastrophic emergency’ — which could include a terrorist attack or a natural disaster — occurs, Bush’s new directive says: ‘The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government.’”
Alternet goes on: “What about the other two co-equal branches of government? The directive throws them a bone by speaking of a cooperative effort among the three branches, ‘coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers.’ The Vice-President would help to implement the plans. ‘Comity,’ however, means courtesy, and the President would decide what kind of respect for the other two branches of government would be proper. This Presidential Directive is a blatant power grab by Bush to institutionalize the ‘unitary executive.’”
Now, here is where it gets interesting, because the fact is that even with my relatively high level of erudition regarding the scams that the neocons pull in their little Constitution-destroying power grabs, I admit I had never heard the term “unitary executive” before this. The Alternet article continues: “A seemingly innocuous phrase, the unitary executive theory actually represents a radical, ultra rightwing interpretation of the powers of the presidency. Championed by the conservative Federalist Society, the unitary executive doctrine gathers all power in the hands of the President and insulates him from any oversight by the congressional or judicial branches. In a November 2000 speech to the Federalist Society, then Judge Samuel Alito said the Constitution ‘makes the president the head of the executive branch, but it does more than that. The president has not just some executive powers, but the executive power — the whole thing.’ These ‘unitarians’ claim that all federal agencies, even those constitutionally created by Congress, are beholden to the Chief Executive, that is, the President. This means that Bush could disband agencies like the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Reserve Board, etc., if they weren’t to his liking… Indeed, Bush signed an executive order stating that each federal agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee….this doctrine took shape within the Bush administration shortly after 9/11. On September 25, 2001, former deputy assistant attorney general John Yoo used the words ‘unitary executive’ in a memo he wrote for the White House: ‘The centralization of authority in the president alone is particularly crucial in matters of national defense, war, and foreign policy, where a unitary executive can evaluate threats, consider policy choices, and mobilize national resources with a speed and energy that is far superior to any other branch.’ ”
“Unitary executive” sounds a lot better than “dictatorship,” and apparently George W. Bush likes it.
Alternet notes “Six weeks later, Bush began using that phrase in his signing statements. As of December 22, 2006, Bush had used the words ‘unitary executive’ 145 times in his signing statements and executive orders…. One wonders what Bush & Co. are setting up with the new Presidential Directive. What if, heaven forbid, some sort of catastrophic event were to occur just before the 2008 election? Bush could use this directive to suspend the election. This administration has gone to great lengths to remain in Iraq. It has built huge permanent military bases and pushed to privatize Iraq’s oil. Bush and Cheney may be unwilling to relinquish power to a successor administration.”
Ah, now, here we get to the nub of something which even most “conservative” commentators seem afraid to mention. Bush himself isn’t exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he seems to live in a strange little world of his own untouched by reality, but people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and various subterranean neocons know full well that this whole plan for Middle East conquest has blown up in their faces. It is going to get a hell of a lot worse before it gets better, and it won’t get better. If things get out of hand, there exists at least some possibility that the whole neocon gang might end up facing some kind of trial or tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Even the apparently feather-brained Condi Rice might have an uneasy sense that she is on the back of the tiger, and that it might not be a good idea to get off right now. Or in 2008.
So the big question is: will there, in fact, ever BE another election? Or will there be a conveniently time “terrorist” attack resulting in the end of our Republic. The election would be delayed until “it can be done safely” —a time which will never come. We really should be impeaching Bush and Cheney right now. Waiting until they leave office (which is what most Americans seem content to do) appears to be a worse idea every day.