|
"From the outset of the administration, Cheney focused on national security. Look, for example, at I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, an attorney who served at the Pentagon (1989-93) while Cheney was in charge. Scooter Libby not only carries the designation of Cheney’s chief of staff but also has the title national security advisor to the vice president, and he is an assistant to the president (the highest title on the White House staff). Libby’s foreign-policy background (and title) clearly reflects Cheney’s perception of, if not his preoccupation with, his war role in the Bush II administration. But Libby was just the beginning. To support his national security work, rather than relying on the National Security Council (NSC) – a statutory creation, which is part of the Executive Office of the President (and where Condi Rice as national security advisor to Bush was cutting back on staff) – Cheney formed what is, in effect, a shadow NSC. Indeed, it was actually Bush’s NSC staff who first called Cheney’s operation a ‘shadow’ government. This shadow operation, while informally integrated, actually has its own agenda as well as the power to realize it through the vice president’s clout. It is a secret government – beyond the reach of Congress, and everyone else as well.
"Cheney has under him some fifteen experienced national security experts – aides such as Eric Edelman, a foreign service officer and former ambassador to Finland who was with Cheney at the Defense Department (and who he later sent to Turkey as ambassador, not to mention the eyes and ears for the vice president), and John Hannah, who had been at Bush senior’s State Department and is an expert on the Middle East. To serve as Hannah’s top assistant, William Lutti, a former adviser to House Speaker Newt Gingrich, was hired (and later dispatched to the Defense Department when Cheney’s shadow operation increased its outsourcing). * Cheney’s academic and scholarly bent (he holds a master’s degree in political science from the University of Wyoming) explains his reliance on others with advanced degrees. Not only is Cheney’s staff smart, they know how Washington works. And running through this staff is the common thread of a shared neoconservative political philosophy. As the New Republic noted, ‘Cheney’s office came to be viewed as the administration’s neocons sanctuary.’
" * -- Investigative journalist Sy Hersch has reported at some length in the New Yorker – for example, ‘Who Lied to Whom’ (March 3, 2003) and ‘The Stovepipe’ (October 27, 2003) – about Cheney’s out-of-channels intelligence-gathering operations. In addition, the information about Cheney’s hidden intelligence-collection operations has been further puzzled together by Robert Dreyfuss and Jason Vest reported that dubious and untested intelligence was assembled by the Office of Special Plans, set up in the Pentagon ( a ‘shadow agency within an agency’) and composed largely of neoconservative ideologues, assembled to make the case for war in Iraq, and did so when others in the government’s intelligence community had no information justifying the case that Cheney and Bush wanted to make." -- Cheney’s Shadow National Security Council; Chapter 4: Secret Government; from John Dean’s "Worse Than Watergate"; pages 101-103.
Yesterday, in a DU:GD thread titled "Necroconservatives," we examined the genesis of the neoconservative movement. I wrote the OP in response to a couple of articles that have been in the corporate media recently – which have led to some interesting discussions on progressive political internet sites, including the Democratric Underground – in part because there is evidence of a growing attempt to re-define who the neoconservatives are, and what threat they pose to our Constitutional democracy.
The question we might do well to consider today is: why would the neoconservatives be engaged in an attempt to re-define themselves? One article from the corporate media apparently made note of the fact that some of the early neocons had been "liberals," and were supporters of the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s. Thus, yesterday I though it worth pointing out that they split from the civil rights movement because of their belief that non-violence was an approach that should be limited to black Americans seeking civil rights. But that same non-violent philosophy didn’t translate into the neocon’s global approach to conflict.
The neoconservatives rejected the message of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr in the 1960s. They learned lessons about secrecy and lying from the Nixon administration. And they found ways to ignore, and indeed damage, the Constitution of the United States during the Reagan-Bush 1 years. There was nothing non-violent about their approach to Iraq, and the espionage scandal involving Larry Franklin and the AIPAIC officials is all about attempts to spread the same "democracy" that the shadow government advocated for Iraq to Iran.
As the American public has soured on the war in Iraq, and many of the republican puppets in Washington DC have soured on the neocons, we begin to see another perception management campaign unfold. The neocons are taking the position that: {1} it’s not important to look at how we got into the war – we are there, so we must move forward; and {2} the Bush administration’s non-neocons are to blame for not handling the war correctly, and that is why the darned thing didn’t go as well as Wolfowitz and Feith had promised.
As we move towards 2008, we need to consider what the goals of the neocons are? From reading a couple of paragraphs from John Dean’s "Worse Than Watergate," we see that they obtained an unprecedented amount of power – clearly a form of power that is a threat to our Constitutional democracy – that is known as the "shadow government." It’s headquarters are in the Office of the Vice President, and it has cells within a number of offices and agencies throughout the federal government. Is it realistic to assume that the neocons will go quietly into that good night in 2008, respect the public’s intentions, and willingly give up power?
Or will they look to manipulate the public’s perception of who they really are, in an attempt to divide both the democratic and republican party in a way that allows them to retain the power of the shadow government? Is there any lie that they would not tell? Any law they would not violate?
How far are they willing to go?
Might they be invested in the John McCain & Joe Lieberman campaign to sell the public on the need to stay in Iraq for "national security"? Lieberman was on Fox two days ago, saying that the public is demanding that Washington stop the partisan politics, and focus on what is "best" for America. He noted that he is considering supporting a 3rd party ticket for the presidency in ’08. Think about that. What possible 3rd party ticket would Joe be thinking of? What ticket might – in theory -- be a non-partisan attempt to united segments of both the democratic and republican party?
What we will see is an attempt to promote "neo-liberals" within the conservative democrats. And they will pretend they like us, and talk about all those wonderful things we used to have in common in the "good old days." It’ll be as if we are attending a high school reunion, and our old friends the neocon/neo-liberals will talk about when we all marched in Selma. They will say that we have much more in common than that which divides us. They are just worried about our national security, and don’t think we can afford to make the mistake of leaving Iraq too early. And we surely cannot allow Iran to have WMD.
At the same time, they will be appealing to the right-wing of the republican party. They will be attempting to maintain their power not by having a neocon as the party’s presidential candidate, but by having a fellow-traveler on the ticket in the VP’s spot.
Now, usually whenever a person says things like I have said here, someone will pop up and say, "No, no, no. You’re wrong. You don’t know what a neo-liberal is," or "You’re wrong; Cheney has never been a true neoconservative." That’s a good thing. Minister Malcolm X used to say that he could measure how well he was telling the truth by how high he made his enemies jump. And I’m confident that Malcolm would be telling the progressive democrats to be awake, and be aware, because our enemies will be trying to trick us with many lies. Our enemies know that ’07 and ’08 are all about power.
And I believe that Malcolm would remind us of something that Frederick Douglass said about "power" on August 4, 1857: "Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both.
"The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
