"in his farewell presidential address..to warn that the war profiteers had an agenda of their own.."

[omega minimo]

    Ike Was Right
    By Robert Scheer
    TruthDig.com
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/122706F.shtml
    Tuesday 26 December 2006

    The public, seeing through the tissue of Bush administration lies told to justify an invasion that never had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 or weapons of mass destruction, now has begun a national questioning: Why are we still in Iraq? The answers posted most widely on the Internet by critics of the war suggest its continuation as a naked imperial grab for the world's second-largest petroleum source, but that is wrong. It's not primarily about the oil; it's much more about the military-industrial complex, the label employed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower 45 years ago when he warned of the dangers of "a permanent arms industry of vast proportions."

    The Cold War had provided the rationale for the first peacetime creation of a militarized economy. While the former general, Eisenhower, was well aware of the military threat posed by the Soviet Union, he chose in his farewell presidential address to the nation to warn that the war profiteers had an agenda of their own, one that was inimical to the survival of American democracy:

    "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

    Ponder those words as you consider the predominant presence of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney in the councils of this White House, and how his old company has profiteered more than any other from the disaster that is Iraq. Despite having been found to have overcharged some $60 million to the U.S. military for fuel deliveries, the formerly bankrupt Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root continues to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in lucrative contracts.

<snip>

    The big prize here for Bush's foreign policy is not the acquisition of natural resources or the enhancement of U.S. security, but rather the lining of the pockets of the defense contractors, the merchants of death who mine our treasury. But because the arms industry is coddled by political parties and the mass media, their antics go largely unnoticed. Our politicians and pundits argue endlessly about a couple of billion dollars that may be spent on improving education or ending poverty, but they casually waste that amount in a few days in Iraq.

    As Eisenhower warned: "We should take nothing for granted, only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.... We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

    Too bad we no longer have leading Republicans, or Democrats, warning of that danger.

  -------

edit for text of farewell address:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1760612

[Old and In the Way]

1. Funny how Ike is airbrushed out of the modern Republican pantheon.

I can't recall the last time any Republican of note mentioned Ike by name. A great general in WW2, a reasonable administration who was instrumental in developing our interstate transportation system. A real conservative, too.

Guess he really burned his bridges with the war profiteers and Big Oil with that parting volley.

[omega minimo]

2. You're so right. Well put. "airbrushed out"

Nobody's "moderate" poster boy, is he?

[liberal N proud]

3. Ike would not fit the current Republican definition

There were many things he recognized as too dangerous to a democracy
He would not be nominated by the Neocons today.

[omega minimo]

4. Maybe the "third Party" should be Neocons

Democrats, Republicans (if there are any "true" Republicans left) and NeoCons.

[H2O Man]

10. I agree.

He was an interesting character, who has far more in common with today's moderate democrats than with the majority of republicans in Washington. And today's republicans do not seem to want people to view him as worthy of more attention than perhaps having him on a postage stamp.

[omega minimo]

5. "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.'

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm
Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system-ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. <> Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we-you and I, and our government-must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

[pberq]

6. Kick & Nominated - Ike's words are worth repeating over and over

[porphyrian]

7. We must remove all corporate influence from our government.

Unless and until corporations can be held as responsible for their actions as individual citizens, which cannot occur by their nature, corporate interests should always come second to the interests of the American people. For this to happen, we must stop allowing our government to be bought and sold. By anyone. We own our government, and we determine its direction, not the biggest campaign contributors.

[omega minimo]

8. "For this to happen, we must stop allowing our government to be bought and sold."

Well put. A worthy New Year's Resolution.

We don't have to support the corporate entities that "buy and sell" our government. As Jello says, "Don't give them any more of your money than you have to."

[rman]

9. kick