|
{1} Introduction
In the time since Barack Obama was declared the President-elect, a number of interesting developments have taken place. These include Obama’s being briefed by US intelligence agencies; his selection of Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff; his first press conference; and a shift in the status of Joseph Lieberman in the US Senate.
On the surface, these things may appear to be unrelated post-election events. However, I think that there are connections that are beneath the surface, and which include information that the news media either cannot or will not report. In this essay, I will attempt to show some of the events that are taking place in Washington, DC.
As always, I accept that there will be some DUers who will consider this idle speculation, or worse. A handful of others may think I have it partly right. And a few people will likely agree with the general outline provided here.
To approach this topic, I will start with events from 48 years ago. I shall attempt to be brief. This example will be of some potential value, for two reasons. The first is that we can say, without any question, that the corporate media has provided misinformation when reporting that Senator Obama has begun to receive high-level intelligence reports since winning the election.
In fact, as pointed out on page 176 of Ted Sorensen’s book "Kennedy" (Harper & Row; 1965), candidates from both the democratic and republican party have received high-level intelligence reports from the White House as soon as the general election contest begins. These are reports that are above the level that most Senators receive, and campaign staff is not entitled to receive the information. Now, let’s look at the second issue involved.
{2} "Kennedy further seized the advantage during the debate when he looked bored or amused as Nixon spoke, as if he were thinking, ‘How silly.’"
--Robert Dallek; An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy; Back Bay; 2003; page 286.
There were a number of similarities between the Kennedy v Nixon debates, and the Obama v McCain debates 48 years later. Some are obvious: Kennedy, like Obama, appeared young and strong, while both Nixon and McCain’s appearances are best summed up in a Mayor Daley quote from 1960 – "My God! They’ve embalmed him before he even died!" (Dallek; page 286)
Kennedy was on friendly terms with Nixon in Washington, but held his campaign style in utter contempt. Nixon, on the other hand, resented JFK’s graceful style, and believed he lacked the experience to be President. Sounds familiar.
The greatest cause for Nixon’s long-term bitterness, however, was a result of their debating the issue of Cuba. Nixon believed, incorrectly, that JFK was using information from an intelligence briefing to put Nixon in check. (Sorensen; pages 205-206) More than any issue involving possible voter fraud, Nixon would cling to this belief as being the real reason that he lost the 1960 presidential election.
{3} "Even though such a venture presented the tantalizing possibility of an immediate and decisive victory in the sharply escalating Cold War, it also carried the risk of a devastating defeat whose repercussions would shape policy for years afterward."
--Howard Jones; The Bay of Pigs; Oxford; 2008; page 6.
President Kennedy’s greatest failure was the Bay of Pigs. This was a plan that was put into motion under Vice President Richard Nixon before Kennedy won the 1960 election, and the source of Nixon’s resentment from the presidential debates. As President, however, Kennedy was responsible for allowing the ill-conceived plan to go forward.
Barack Obama understands history. And while there is not another Bay of Pigs in the works, there are a number of risky programs, closely associated with the Middle East policies of VP Cheney, that have the potential of causing more wide-spread conflict in that region, which would impact American policy for years to come.
During the presidential election campaign, there have been US military strikes in both Syria and Pakistan. More, Bob Woodward’s newest book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008" (Simon & Schuster; 2008), details how the Bush administration’s "surge" in Iraq threatens to keep our military stuck in Iraq in an endless war of occupation.
No US Senator has been more actively associated with promoting VP Cheney’s policies in Iraq than Joseph Lieberman. This is why the democrats in Connecticut chose Ned Lamont in their 2006 primary. Lieberman refused to honor his party’s wishes, and ran as an independent.
In July of 2006, Lieberman said, "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008." In August, he attacked Lamont’s position on Iraq, and connected the war of occupation in Iraq to 9/11. Lamont responded by noting that Lieberman was taking the same false stance as VP Cheney.
On December 17, 2007, Lieberman endorsed John McCain for President. He said that McCain’s stance on the "war on terrorism" was the primary reason for his endorsement. McCain had placed Lieberman at the top of his list for vice presidential candidates, before being convinced to select Sarah Palin. Lieberman gave a speech at the Republican National Convention, and campaigned vigorously for McCain and Palin. Lieberman viewed a McCain-Palin administration as a vehicle to continue down the Cheney path in the Middle East.
{4} "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril. It is time for Republicans in the White House and Congress who distrust Democrats to acknowledge that greater Democratic involvement and support in the war in Iraq is critical to rebuilding the support of the American people that is essential to our success in that war. It is time for Americans and we their leaders to start working together again on the war on terrorism. To encourage that new American partnership, I propose that the President and the leadership of Congress establish a bipartisan Victory in Iraq Working Group, composed of members of both parties in Congress and high ranking national security officials of the Bush administration."
--Joe Lieberman; December 7, 2007
Joe Lieberman stood behind John McCain, nodding his head in agreement, when the republican nominee attacked Barack Obama for his past associations with people the republicans hoped to use to discredit Obama. Let’s take a look at some of Lieberman’s recent associates, in order to determine if he is a bipartisan friend of our party.
In his 2006 election campaign, he was endorsed by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck. Among his supports helping to raise funds for his campaign were Alfonse D’Amato and Mel Sembler (the former RNC chair who helped head Scooter Libby’s defense fund).
Another supporter of Lieberman’s 2006 campaign was Sam Fox. In 2007, Lieberman spoke to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in favor of confirming Sam Fox as ambassador to Belgium. Fox was a moving force behind the 2004 "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth."
This summer, Lieberman spoke at the Christians United for Israel’s national convention. There, he compared CUFI founder and president John Hagee to Moses.
These examples serve to reinforce the images of Lieberman on the receiving end of President Bush’s infamous "kiss" after the 2005 State of the Union address, and of Lieberman whispering in John McCain’s ear, to correct McCain’s inability to identify the two major groups in Iraq.
Lieberman played his hand in the 2008 elections, and lost. Harry Reid is pushing to strip him of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. Lieberman reportedly humiliated himself by begging to keep the position; the Democratic steering committee will make the final decision.
It is important that the democrats remove Lieberman from this position. Although he is trying to pressure them by mentioning Mitch McConnell is offering him a position with the republicans, the fact is that there is little for McConnell to offer him.
Meanwhile, President-elect Obama has appointed Rahm Emanuel, a staunch supporter of Israel, to serve as his Chief of Staff. This is an important move on Obama’s part, as when the new administration begins to change course in the Middle East, Joe Lieberman’s closest friends will accuse the new President of being anti-Israel, of risking American security, and – of course – of not being "pro-American."
All of which brings me to this final quote from John F. Kennedy in a debate where Dick Nixon was attacking him in similar fashion: "I really don’t need Mr. Nixon to tell me about what my responsibilities are as a citizen. … What I downgrade, Mr. Nixon, is the leadership the country’s getting, not the country."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
