No Oversight

Like everyone else, I sometimes wonder what conservatives are going to think about the Bush administration's headline executive power grabs when it's castrating harpy Hillary Clinton or Muslim black nationalist Barack Obama who's got the power to arbitrarily detain people, torture them, etc. In that context, you need to give some props to stuff like this:

House issued a new executive order effectively gutting the Intelligence Oversight Board (IOB), “created in 1976 in the wake of widespread abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies.”

Bush waited pretty late into his lame duck period to pull this particular stunt, so it seems this is mostly a favor to his successor. He wants John McCain, Clinton, or Obama to be in a position to commit widespread abuses and not just hog all the glory for himself.

Comments

Hey, what some people call "abuses", others call "uses". You know, Acres of Diamonds in your own backyard, etc.

Posted by El Cid | March 3, 2008 11:04 PM

Matt,

You raise an issue that has received almost no attention in the mainstream press; with their fervor for consolidation of power in the Executive branch, the Bushniks seemed to have overlooked the possibility of a President Barack or a President Hillary. I can't imagine that the Right is going to be all that enthused about conferring a lot of power to a Democratic President. What the hell were they thinking?

Posted by cajun | March 3, 2008 11:08 PM

Of course your premise presupposes that he is actually going to leave.

Posted by Will | March 3, 2008 11:11 PM

That's "The White House", not "House". Hugh Laurie was not involved.

Posted by KCinDC | March 3, 2008 11:16 PM

I think you overlook the dynamics of the GOP, they practice what they preach - self interest above all.

This won't be a missive coming down from the top, it will be some low ranking snot trying to ingratiate himself with his superiors. And even though it may be crystal clear to everyone outside the White House that the chances of a McCain Presidency are slim to none, thats not a view that is likely discussed often within the bubble, certainly not by people who want to ingratiate themselves.

The same dynamic is seen in the various pieces of 'corporation friendly' legislation. Contrary to what most people on the net believe, these schemes don't originate in the boardrooms, they come from K street lobbyists cooking them up by themselves. It is absolutely not unusual to see these people peddling ideas that are actually contrary to their corporate interests but are designed to go down well with the GOP.

Real companies are focused on their business and the next couple of quarters. Lobbying for contracts adds to the bottom line but lobbying for legislative favors makes very little sense unless you are trying to reform a regulation that really does not work (e.g. patent reform) or force people to buy product like you sell (Sox, privacy directive, breach notification).

What tends to happen is that supporting the GOP line on legislative priorities is the cost for getting the contracts. Then folk like Mathew, Atrios and so wonder why business has so little interest in the legislation purportedly for its benefit, truth is very few of us could care less from a business point of view. If you reduce costs for me and my competitors then prices will adjust, likewise if you raise them.

The idea that removing regulatory agencies for safety is a help is ridiculous. I know bankers who complained about the bankruptcy act as it was happening. They could see the effect that it would have in the short term and where that would leave them in the longer term.

Posted by PHB | March 3, 2008 11:24 PM

If Hillary Clinton did HALF the stuff George Bush has done and the Republicans controlled the House she would be impeached. The Republicans would have no qualms about doing that and they would be right to do it.

Posted by Callimaco | March 3, 2008 11:27 PM

Bush looks in the mirror and sees a man of integrity and consistency, so there is no reason to believe that his dedication to the expansion of executive power is purely cynical. He may honestly want to give the next prez freedom from oversight. Since he seems totally enveloped in his lame duck-ness, maybe he just doesn't care about the fortunes of his party after his term ends.

Hopefully, the next democratic president will say "no thanks".

Posted by Steve from MA | March 3, 2008 11:31 PM

http://s273.photobucket.com/albums/jj213/accoladearts/?action=view¤t=clintons_rezko.jpg

Clintons posing with their pal Tony Rezko

Posted by xenon | March 3, 2008 11:47 PM

"He may honestly want to give the next prez freedom from oversight."

This is the only plausible view. The fact that it is very likely to be a Dem congress and a Dem president, and the fact that Bush and the conservatives must know that this is the case, is proof enough that they really believe in this dangerous view of executive power (I mean come on--as scary as it is to imagine what has happened to some terrorist suspects under Bush, there's no evidence that he only wanted the power so that he could blow up safes in the Brookings Institute or break into Democratic party email accounts). They believe it enough that, yes, indeed, they're willing to give this power to Hillary or Obama. The idea that they haven't thought ahead 11 months, or think they can reverse it and tie Obama's hands come next year, or that Bush plans to stay forever, is pretty daft.

Posted by Colatina | March 4, 2008 12:04 AM

MattY might consider asking if he could get special dispensation from his handlers to cover some of the things that Jerome Corsi has been covering.

JC - and in my own way, me - can cover things from across the spectrum, but MattY only seems to be opposed to things when the Democratic Party opposes them, and when most of the opposition is coming from the right side, he reflexively supports the things being opposed.

For instance, his kneejerk reaction to the NAFTASuperhighway, despite there being a map of it on a Canadian government website (since taken down but cached chez moi). Or, his failure to look in to Obama's support for Bush's SPP scheme. Perhaps MattY might consider being a bit more "comprehensive" in his opposition to such power grabs.

Posted by TLB | March 4, 2008 12:05 AM

You poor bastards will squeal like stuck pigs when McCain wins the election. So sure, so arrogant... almost religious in your beliefs. My friends, make contingency plans now, because you idiots will nominate another electoral loser.

Posted by Give It Up | March 4, 2008 12:08 AM

Give It Up,

Well, if we don't squeal like stuck pigs when he wins, we'll probably do so when Intelligence Agencies round us up in compliance with the Loyalty First Act, or some such, and subject us to enhanced interrogation. Looking forward to that.

Posted by wj | March 4, 2008 12:29 AM

If Hillary Clinton did HALF the stuff George Bush has done and the Republicans controlled the House she would be impeached.

Which is sorta why the House GOP impeached Bill: to inoculate a GOP successor. Though it will be interesting, should the GOP retake the House, to hear the kind of bullshit justifications they have for impeaching a Dem who follows. If Bush can't be impeached, the impeachment clause is mere verbiage. Until a Democrat comes along.

some of the things that Jerome Corsi has been covering.

--such as Whack O'Mole's head, with tinfoil, to protect him as he hides under the bed, shitting himself yet again in fear of OH NOES THE BROWN who are plotting the overthrow of the US. Go and tend to your Stormfront commenters, Kelly.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 4, 2008 12:52 AM

"He may honestly want to give the next prez freedom from oversight."

This is the only plausible view. The fact that it is very likely to be a Dem congress and a Dem president, and the fact that Bush and the conservatives must know that this is the case, is proof enough that they really believe in this dangerous view of executive power.

If you believe that's the only plausible view then you're not nearly cynical enough, certainly not as cynical as the Bush Administration is. What this is really all about is protecting Bush's legacy.

1) Bush believes that protecting his legacy means never admitting mistakes, so there's no turning back on the concept of unlimited Presidential power;

2) Bush also believes that an important tool in protecting his legacy is setting up the Democrats to fail; and

3) any Democrat who actually takes advantage of a lack of oversight in ways similar to how Bush has will be impeached and removed from office post haste.

If a Democrat doesn't use the power handed to him or her by Bush, it's no loss for Bush and it lets the Republicans portray the Democratic President as weak. If a Democrat does use the power handed down by Bush, then Bush believes that history will view him as a white Republican knight between two impeached Democratic Presidents. Not, of course, that that will actually be history's judgment, but Bush believes it will be and it's the judgment he seeks.

Is this definitely what Bush is thinking? Nah, but it's certainly plausible given what we know of him.

Posted by R Johnston | March 4, 2008 1:10 AM

They aren't leaving. The gutting of the IOB is simply another indicator of that. Either the election will be firmly fixed or a false flag attack will be deployed in order to declare a state of emergency and suspend the election. Count on it.

Posted by Anon | March 4, 2008 2:59 AM

Like everyone else, I sometimes wonder what conservatives are going to think about the Bush administration's headline executive power grabs when it's castrating harpy Hillary Clinton or Muslim black nationalist Barack Obama who's got the power to arbitrarily detain people, torture them, etc.

I've been terrified of that for years, minus the Muslim Black Nationalist part. Speaking of which, while Republicans are definitely bringing up Farrakhan and this crazy Chicago preacher, the Obama/Muslim thing is coming from your team, not ours.

Posted by Shinyk | March 4, 2008 3:32 AM

This is, of course, presuming that there will be a next President Clinton, President Obama, or President McCain.

For a "lameduck" president, Bush is acting anything but like a lameduck president.

Just the other day, the Vancouver Sun reported that Bush and the Canadian prime minister just over two weeks ago signed a "security agreement" whereby in case of an "emergency" in Canada, U.S. troops can go and help out, and vice versa, in case of an "emergency" in the United States, Canadian troops can cross the border and help out.

Strange thing, neither Bush nor the right-wing Canadian prime minister announced their little agreement at time, especially one that begs for some type of treaty signing.

So, if one goes down the list of fascist acts by the Bush administration, I just wonder if there will be a next president, from whichever party, or will Bush and Cheney declare themselves to be dictators for life.

They both should have been impeached a long, long time ago and thrown into jail, or at least some institution for the criminally insane.

Posted by The Oracle | March 4, 2008 4:41 AM

This smells more of Cheney than Bush to me. He's always been explicit about his goal to leave the executive "stronger" than he found it. He seems to see his mission as to roll back everything that followed from the Church Committee.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | March 4, 2008 6:04 AM

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric.

"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Can we finally dispense with the idea...

...that Hillary Clinton is a good and loyal Democrat?

Posted by Kathy Millet | March 4, 2008 6:31 AM

Remember, for Republicans and right wingers, there is no past outside the past they want, there is no irony, and there is no sense of hypocrisy.

If a Democrat is elected, and the Democrats hold or increase their strength in Congress, the previous 8 years of the Bush Jr. administration will be instantly and utterly irrelevant in any way harmful to the GOP's interest.

The GOP will begin screaming and squealing and yelping about Democrat abuse of authority, and Democrat lawlessness, etc., whether or not any such powers are used.

All of a sudden it will become the biggest priority in the Universe to repeal these extended Executive powers and the general sense of lawlessness Republicans have so heartily adopted. Maybe they will find some trivial yet marvelously unconnected justifications on which to scream that Bush Jr. did it just find but the Democraps can't handle it.

The media will similarly fall into line, generally forgetting on all but the most casual recollections that the preceding 8 years are the conditioning factors.

And the Democrats will gladly play along -- happily and properly restraining the GOP precedent of Executive Authority Baal worshiping and the attitude that neither laws nor regulations can touch GOP initiatives.

Until, of course, the next Republican President, which will prove to be the perfect time to grow the Presidency out of the unfair and anti-American restrictions those Democrats saddled it with beginning in 2009.

Posted by El Cid | March 4, 2008 7:24 AM

"If Hillary Clinton did HALF the stuff George Bush has done and the Republicans controlled the House she would be impeached. The Republicans would have no qualms about doing that and they would be right to do it.

Posted by Callimaco | March 3, 2008 11:27 PM"

If she did as much as Bush, they would string her up like Mussolini and spit on her corpse.

These guys are legacy-obsessed and power mad. Maybe they feel they have enough of their own guys in the bureaucracy and have corrupted those institutions enough it will be like they never left. Maybe their egos are so fragile they could never believe the electorate would dare vote for a Dem over their successor. Maybe they are really setting up Jeb, Mary, Lynne, etc. to come into the Oval Office one day. You really have to be a shrink with an expertise in criminal psychology and megalomania to figure out what passes through these torturers' brains.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2008 7:25 AM

Ultimately, I don't blame George Bush for these abuses. The Constitution sets up a very neat way to deal with the occasional tin-pot Pol Pot that accidentally finds his way to the White House, and that's IMPEACHMENT.

I fully blame the people in Congress for ignoring their responsibility to the People and for not holding impeachment hearings.

Eventually, George Bush will be gone and the butt of "worst president" jokes. It's the men and women in Congress who have let us down.

Posted by Pope Ratzo | March 4, 2008 7:28 AM

No Matt, this is not about future presidents. This is about shredding the documentation of what this one did. It's clear they do not think at all about what comes next, other than their not being put in jail over what they did.

Of course, if Cheney is McCain's VP, all bets are off.

Posted by jayackroyd | March 4, 2008 7:31 AM

There's still time to bomb-bomb Iran, or at least cause a lot of trouble there, especially without oversight.

Posted by An Outhouse | March 4, 2008 7:47 AM

The Republicans don't mind giving Hillary or Obama the power to torture, imprison, spy domestically etc. because they know that they won't actually do it.

The situation is assymetrical. Its like Lex Luthor agreeing that both he and Superman have the right to kill with impunity.

Posted by Junius Brutus | March 4, 2008 8:35 AM

Cheney sits in his study and mumbles to himself, "Now, we're really turning the corner."
Since they're at it, might as well say: FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

Posted by carsick | March 4, 2008 9:07 AM

Bush looks in the mirror and sees a man of integrity and consistency, so there is no reason to believe that his dedication to the expansion of executive power is purely cynical.

I'm pretty sure that when he looks in the mirror he sees a successful gangster. You can't lie the way he has and be encumbered by lots of scruples.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 4, 2008 9:11 AM

Ultimately, I don't blame George Bush for these abuses.

If you don't "ultimately" blame the person who commits the act, you're just chasing fluff. You can also spit on a cowardly Congress and a sniveling Supreme Court -- there's lots of blame to go around -- but George Bush is the Gangster-in-Chief.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 4, 2008 9:15 AM

"Just the other day, the Vancouver Sun reported that Bush and the Canadian prime minister just over two weeks ago signed a "security agreement" whereby in case of an "emergency" in Canada, U.S. troops can go and help out, and vice versa, in case of an "emergency" in the United States, Canadian troops can cross the border and help out."

Oracle, can you give a link to this story please?

Posted by Drinksforyall | March 4, 2008 9:43 AM

The story orginated at Daily Kos.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/1/112537/4829/221/466600

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/3/12159/20209/348/467490

Posted by smintheus | March 4, 2008 11:50 AM

So, georgejr & Dick are going to voluntarily leave office next January? Whose army is going to force them out?

And, if they do leave & we get Hillary or McCain, which of them is going to willingly surrender power that they were complicit in granting to Bush?

The really amazing thing is after all these years, and all the unfettered power exercised by Bush & Cheney, and (retroactively) granted them by the courts & congress; and just as Congress is on the verge of totally and permanently destroying the Fourth Amendment by passing the "protect america act" with immunity for those who have ignored it anyway over the past seven years, there are still True Believers, like us, who persist in expecting our government to become answerable to us again.

Posted by judyinnm | March 4, 2008 12:30 PM

Let me get this straight...there are people here that seriously believe that GWB will attempt stay in office (by force if necessary.)

Really ?

No. Really really ?

Posted by JohnC | March 5, 2008 8:48 PM

I think you overlook the dynamics of the GOP, they practice what they preach - self interest above all.

To augment to this, everyone acts in self-interest. Even your donations to charity are an act of self-interest. But then again, tautologies are supposed to be tautological, right?

If Hillary Clinton did HALF the stuff George Bush has done and the Republicans controlled the House she would be impeached. The Republicans would have no qualms about doing that and they would be right to do it.

Perhaps, but if you're implying that Clinton shouldn't be charged simply because of this fact, tu quoque.

Posted by Daniel Reeves | March 6, 2008 7:03 PM

Matt,

I'm disappointed that your blog here seems to be attracting the conspiracy freaks and other wackos. I don't think it's anything you've done, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

Posted by DBL | March 6, 2008 8:09 PM

Matt,

I'm disappointed that your blog here seems to be attracting the conspiracy freaks and other wackos. I don't think it's anything you've done, but it's disappointing nonetheless.

Posted by DBL | March 6, 2008 8:10 PM