Robert Parry: Obama in "Seven Days in May" Scenario?

[JackRiddler]

http://smirkingchimp.com/print/20400/

Published on The Smirking Chimp (http://smirkingchimp.com)
Obama's 'Seven Days in May' Moment
By Robert Parry
Created Feb 21 2009 - 11:28am


Only one month into his presidency, Barack Obama is finding himself confronting not only George W. Bush’s left-behind crises but an array of influential enemies in the military, financial circles, the political world and the media – determined to thwart Obama’s agenda for “change.”

(...)

In addition, former Bush administration officials are making clear that they will fight any effort to hold them accountable for torture and other war crimes, denouncing it as a “witch-hunt” that will be met with an aggressive counterattack accusing Obama of endangering American security. It is not entirely inconceivable that Obama’s powerful enemies could coalesce into a kind of “Seven Days in May <2>” moment, the novel and movie about an incipient coup aimed at a President who was perceived as going too far against the country’s political-military power structure. Far more likely, however, Obama’s fate could parallel Jimmy Carter’s, a President whose reelection bid in 1980 was opposed by a phalanx of powerful enemies at home and abroad, including disgruntled CIA officers, angry Cold Warriors, and young neoconservatives allied with Israel’s right-wing Likud leaders furious over Carter’s Middle East peace initiatives. Carter little understood the breadth, depth and clout of the opposition he faced – and the full story of how his presidency was sabotaged has never been told. (For the most detailed account, see Robert Parry’s Secrecy & Privilege <3>.)

Hobbling Obama

(...)

Santelli suggested that Obama set up a Web site to get public feedback on whether “we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages.” Then, gesturing to the wealthy traders in the pit, Santelli declared, “this is America” and asked “how many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills, raise their hand.” Amid a cacophony of boos aimed at Obama’s housing plan, Santelli turned back to the camera and said, “President Obama, are you listening?” Though Santelli’s behavior in a different context – say, a denunciation of George W. Bush near the start of his presidency – would surely have resulted in a suspension or firing, Santelli’s anti-Obama rant was hailed as “the Chicago tea party,” made Santelli an instant hero across right-wing talk radio, and was featured proudly on NBC’s Nightly News. One can only imagine the future reaction from CNBC’s commentators – and Santelli’s rich traders – if Obama decides to nationalize some of America’s giant insolvent banks or if his administration imposes stricter limits on Wall Street’s executive compensation.

Military Opposition

(...)

“The decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the President and senior military officers over troop withdrawal,” Porter wrote <10>. “There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy. “A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilizing public opinion against Obama's decision.” According to Porter, that group includes retired Gen. Jack Keane, who was a leading proponent of the Iraq troop “surge” and a longtime friend of Petraeus. Obama also can expect fierce resistance from the Right if he pushes ahead with plans to rein in Pentagon spending. Already, Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, a prominent neocon, has written a column entitled, “No Time to Cut Defense <11>.”

And the defenders of the Bush administration are gearing up for a full-scale political war if Obama’s Justice Department moves forward on criminal investigations relating to Bush’s authorization of torture and other crimes committed under the umbrella of the “war on terror.” So, just one month into his presidency, Obama finds himself surrounded by a growing A-list of powerful enemies. This may not become his “Seven Days in May” moment, but he can be sure that his adversaries want him – like Jimmy Carter – to be a one-term President.

_______

About author

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com <12>. It's also available at
Amazon.com <13>, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

Robert Parry's web site is Consortium News

[grasswire]

1. where are the K&Rs on this??

Robert Parry is a national hero, blacklisted for breaking Iran Contra news way back when.

Every Obama supporter ought to be reading this and digesting it.

[enough]

2. I already R'd it. Here's my K. (nt)

[tritsofme]

5. Sounds like a kook to me.

I'll pass thanks.

[grasswire]

7. you're displaying your ignorance

Educate yourself.

[tritsofme]

8. Wake me up when the coup starts... or when the movie is on cable.

Whichever comes first.

[JackRiddler]

9. No worry - modern coups try not to disturb your sleep if possible.

And I'm sure you're a sound sleeper.

[bananas]

13. Robert Parry is not a kook

He's a well-known journalist.

[blm]

21. tri knows it, but, some NEED to smear Parry ever since he noted the protection Clinton gave Poppy

Bush throughout the 90s.

[truedelphi]

25. and Parry emphasized how the Clintons work when he

Further exposed the Carvill/Hillary shenaighans that on NOv 3rd, 2004, helped coerce Kerry into his early concession.

[tblue37]

3. K&R

[gordianot]

4. Seven Days in May could be literally prophetic depending on President Obama's popularity.

The more popular he is the more desperate the enemies will become. When John and Bobby Kennedy took on organized crime there was kickback. President Obama is faced with a similar dilemma by the sheer numbers of a criminal enterprise covering the last 8 years. I understand his reluctance pursuing government prosecution even though I wish it would happen. Where would you put them all?

There is an attempt to do a Jimmy Carter on Barack Obama. President Obama is a far more astute Politician than President Carter. Barring that working a coup similar to the 1930's has not worked out well "Seven Days in May style" and the lapse of protection by the Secret Service will not be as easy circa 1963. The time are so desperate today the GOP hack Senator Shelby has even tried to resurrect questioning President Obama's citizenship. There is no longer a loyal opposition in this country. Anything is possible and I am sure somewhere in this country all options are on the table. Given time they will become more desperate.

:tinfoilhat: Today more so than ever.

[JackRiddler]

10. But Obama's not doing much to strengthen that, you know...

If he were serious about reform and wanted permanent loyalty from the majority, the next move would be a no-apologies all-media offensive for single-payer universal health care, with an open embrace for the French and German systems. No commissions, no two-year process to create a proposal. Just lift the outline wholesale and modify a bit to American circumstances.

Or he'd fight to get wages up.

Or at least a crusade against crime in banking.

Ain't happening. And if he doesn't set out on bold reforms and give people something to really believe in, the popularity will decline and he'll get bogged down into the usual Republican bullshit.

My understanding is, he belongs to the machine, but most of the machine no longer understands itself.

Scratch that, it's always been this way:

When FDR came to save the capitalists from themselves (and it's absolutely what he did), they still hated him and a cabal hoped to overthrow him. Kennedy was devoted to vigorous imperialism (he ran on the "missile gap"!) and mainstream anti-Communist ideology (though it looks like he was ready to withdraw from Vietnam, I'll give him that). But the right still saw him as a fifth-column Commie -- very similar to today's "foreign Muslim" vision of Obama. Clinton did almost everything the Republican way and still, he was the Devil incarnate and forced to spend eight years denying chickenshit real estate deals and affairs. (The latter is entirely his own fault, of course: I long for the politician who finally says, SEX IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.)

It's the Democrats' function, it seems: Pander utterly to corporate power and most of the right-wing core beliefs about American mission and empire, and still be put in the stockade as an extreme left liberal commiesymp traitor.

.

[Horse with no Name]

14. They couldn't beat Obama

I think Obama was "chosen" as the candidate because "they" really felt that America wouldn't elect a Black man.
However, as it went, we experienced a landslide election. They couldn't even steal it.
So, now they will try to pull a "Jimmy Carter" on him. If that isn't successful, their next move will be to try to pin a "Bill Clinton" on him--I expect he is smarter than to let himself be compromised on that. However, their final move will be to "JFK" him.
Historically speaking--the republicans have hindered the agenda of EVERY Democratic President in 40 years.
They even threw LBJ to the dogs when they were through with him...and he played the game.
The insulation is completely gone from my bubble. I know how it is.
The rules to their game requires the participants to "pay or play".

[gordianot]

20. I agree. The GOP approaches politics as war and will not change.

It is not about changing Washington but about changing the GOP, which I am convinced will never happen short of dissolution of the Republican Party. I have a friend in College who wrote a very convincing Masters thesis comparing the GOP with the Soviet Communist Party. You have a good analogy; pay phase is coming, which is why Obama is being so public on the play phase.

[AtomicKitten]

6. K&R - Parry is prophetic in his warnings.

Patraeus and Gates have made an end-run around Obama on Iraq somehow in the process forgetting that Junior signed the Status of Forces Agreement that put a period at the end of our occupation of Iraq. They aren't having any of it.

And for weeks BushCo and cronies have been trying to say Obama is continuing Junior's policies vis a vis a leak purposely misstating his directive on rendition vs. extraordinary rendition. For crissakes both Junior and Cheney have admitted their war crimes, proudly.

Forewarned is fair-warned, but it is clear Obama has to step up assertively and knock this shit back by prosecuting the evil-doers.

[JackRiddler]

12. Agreed - "Prosecute the criminals or be Whitewatered"...

Earlier thread, from Jan. 13, 2008:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4822017

Obama's pragmatic choice: Prosecute the criminals or be Whitewatered!

Machiavelli says:

There are those who mistakenly believe that pragmatism means avoiding a treatment of the many crimes of state, war crimes and violations of the Constitution commited by the outgoing regime. They call themselves realists and moderates and say investigations, prosecutions or truth commissions will bog down the new administration in a focus on the past, when it's "time to move forward."

First of all, this is wrong. When justice and truth are secondary, no republic, no democracy will survive. When crime pays, criminals receive new incentive.

Second, it's unrealistic. Pragmatism should not be confused with a cowardly push to sweep it all under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Has anyone been paying attention the last 30 years? What do you think the right wing reaction will be to a "post-partisan" "moderate" "time to move on" program? Anyone remember 1993? Clinton was all about moving on, after succeeding to another famously criminal government.

What happened then provides the pattern for what will happen now:

They will dig up every minor piece of bull they can sling at members of the new administration. Sooner or later, something will stick; we live in a country where "real estate" and "financial sector" are synonyms for low-grade corruption. Or something else will catch the media's attention as a decent spectacle. And off we'll go: everything will revolve around some bullshit about someone's sexual affairs, or how they took a payoff when they were dogcatcher, or some insult.

The beast that brought you the recent disasters is still running free, people. If you want change, you need to deal with them.

The choice is not between "pragmatism" and prosecution. If the criminals are not rooted out now, they will return, and the right wing will play dirty. The choice is between prosecution and Whitewatering.

.

[truedelphi]

11. K & R so I can read later. n/t

[KoKo]

15. Interesting Read...thanks.. K&R

[autorank]

16. k*r

outstanding!

[HamdenRice]

17. But a "Seven Days in May" scenario presumes Obama is "the change we need"

In other words, I don't think a 7 days scenario is consistent with Obama being a DLC plant who's "in on it."

So does that mean you think Obama really is a threat to the status quo -- enough for the military industrial intelligence complex to be pushing back?

[JackRiddler]

19. I don't know. Just a couple of points:

1) Please read post #4, including the brief comments on past presidents. None of those prior Democrats were "the change we need," yet all were were subjected to right-wing demonization, pressure from militarists because they were thought insufficiently imperialist (no matter how they blustered or who they bombed!), and undermining by the spook world. A Democrat can never be enough "in on it" to be trusted.

2) I believe this is a matter of deep ideological faith on the right and also widespread among the higher imperialist elements, not just another variation on "good cop-bad cop." It's easy for us on the left and at the bottom (relatively speaking) to see the commonality of interests among the two corporate parties, and how they follow most of the same key policy programs, and yet: they don't see it that way. They play hardball -- and historically, because the dominant ideology system has usually been nationalist and know-nothing, that means the right plays hardball and "the left" panders in the false hope that this gives better chances for survival. (Why do the Yankees and Red Sox fight each other so hard for the prize? They're both just friggin' baseball teams. More relevant: How come hardcore Mormons and Fundies think they're enemies with irreconcilable differences?)

3) THE STATUS QUO IS NO MORE. That's the biggie. Everything is now explicitly in crisis and (so far only implicitly) in question. Not a situation in which most of the powerful want any populist experiments, even though their way is bereft of all remaining ideas. They collectively have nothing to offer to the people, perhaps not even to themselves. That kind of thing produces reaction, no?

3) There's a lot of territory in between "plant of the DLC" and "change that we need." I figure that's where you'll find Obama. Parry, based on history, sees ways in which the spook and military world can move to condition him accordingly. Me, I'm still crazy enough to imagine ways in which the people will rise up in sufficient numbers to push him to "be the change we need" and even to sweep the big-money and the militarist/right out of their historic hegemony in the institutions.

Thanks Hamden. Love to hear more from you.

[AllentownJake]

18. Obama is not Carter,

Sabotaging him would be difficult because he has his party backing him up right now. Carter never really had that much support from the democratic party.

The other thing is Obama's popularity and ability to talk and spur the American people into action.

Also to remember Carter came to power with massive Evangelical Christian support. The leaders of the Evangelical Christianity literally sold their flocks to the Right Wing and Ronald Reagan. In order to attack Obama they would need to have a part of his base that can be given over to a new Right Wing President.

[mopinko]

22. in other news- water still wet.

who here doesn't know every bit of this? who here thinks that obama does not know every bit of this?

[JackRiddler]

23. Okay, so if he's so smart, why is he playing into their hands...

with all the bipartisan, "bailout" and Afpak war nonsense?

Watch: As Geithner-Bernanke justifies more taxpayer trillions for the banksters, the Republicans are about to claim the mantle of the anti-banking party!

By next year, many of them may even be calling for an Afghan withdrawal (even if this will be about as honest as Nixon's promise to get out of Vietnam, or Bush's "compassionate conservatism").

We've just had the executive declare that the sovereignty of the executive is total, unlimited and self-declared. They committed every crime they felt like, launched aggressive war, tortured, plundered trillions and bankrupted the country and the world.

The logic now facing Obama: expose and prosecute all crimes of state, or be maneuvered into Whitewater bullshit. If it happened to that other big brain, the Rhodes Scholar Clinton, it can happen to Barry.

.

[truedelphi]

24. Robert Parry is usually an excellent read and

No time like the present