H20Man: A Riveting Analysis Of Cheney

This is a long read, but well worth it as it provides the click on the VP that puts all the pieces in place. Copied from his blog in its entirety with full permission.


Saturday, December 10, 2005
18.5 : Dick Cheney

"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 statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications ....

"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.

"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 the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
-- President Dwight D. Eisenhower; January 17, 1961

{1} Who is Dick Cheney?

In the years since Eisenhower warned the nation about the potential threat that the military-industrial complex poses to the democratic process, Dick Cheney has been a part of every republican administration except one -- that of two-term President Ronald Reagan. Because of his secretive manner, many Americans know little about him. He has been considered the "co-president" in the Bush2 administration, and ranks as perhaps the single most powerful vice president in history, yet his actual role remains largely unknown.

Parts of two reports from earlier this week are significant: first, on MSNBC's "HardBall," host Chris Matthews noted that Cheney has never been considered one of the "brains" of the neoconservative movement he fronts for. Rather, he has been of value because of his business connections and political skills. Second, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern reported that many of Washington's "insiders" are discussing the possibility that Cheney is preparing to retire in early 2006.

Timing is important in all things political. Why might VP Cheney be considering stepping down? Could it be that his ranking as the most unpopular figure in the administration has resulted in President Bush looking to distance himself from Cheney? Perhaps Cheney's close association with Donald Rumsfeld, also rumored to be "looking forward to spending time with his family,"
both of whom are associated with the failed war in Iraq and the looming torture scandal? Or, might it be that VP Cheney is aware that Lewis Libby's defense on the Plame indictments will expose his role in a criminal cover-up?

It seems possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is taking a close look at Richard Cheney. He is not concerned with the image created for public consumption by those engaged in "perception management" for the neoconservatives. Instead, Fitzgerald has been examing who Dick Cheney really is, and how that plays into Cheney's role in the exposure of Valerie Plame's identity and the cover-up that followed.

Perhaps we should take a closer look at VP Cheney, too.

{2} Cheney's Vietnam Experience

The American participation in the war in Vietnam, which began in the Eisenhower years, would play a central role in the lives of most Americans of Dick Cheney's generation. As we will see, the war was something that even the young Dick Cheney felt strongly about. Unlike many of the people his age, Dick believed that the war was a patriotic effort, and well worth the investment of American lives.

However, Dick believed that other people should fight, kill, and die in the jungles of Vietnam. Now, in the world of politics, most of the men from Cheney's generation have their military experience from that era examined closely. Men like Al Gore and John Kerry had records to be proud of. George W. Bush had been in the National Guard, as a result of family connections; those same connections allowed him to avoid meeting his obligations. In Dick's case, he got a half-dozen deferments that allowed him to avoid serving in the war he supported so fully.

This is of interest to us not so much in the political sense, as far as it applies to considering Dick. He is most likely not running for office again soon. Still, it is worth noting that in the numerous campaigns Cheney was involved in, he would only been asked pointedly about his lack of military service. He responded by saying he had "other priorities" at that time.

Thus we see that Dick Cheney was able to learn enough about a system to manipulate it fully, as his deferments show, to his advantage. And "his advantage" included having others do the high risk fighting that he was too cowardly to do himself. These are the things that someone like Patrick Fitzgerald will consider as among the most important qualities that Dick displayed in this time period.

{3} "Watergate at its core was -- pure and simple -- a power struggle." John Dean; Worse Than Watergate; page 196.

In 1969, Dick Cheney was hired to work in the Nixon administration. His political career would be closely tied to that of the man who hired him: Donald Rumsfeld. Together, they ran the Office of Economic Opportunities.

Cheney would, more than many of the younger political folks of his generation, see Watergate as less of a problem of criminal behaviors on the administration's part, than as part of a larger struggle between the three branches of the federal government. Cheney believed strongly that the executive office should be the strongest of the three. He was convinced that President Nixon was betrayed by some in the intelligence agencies, who helped the House and Senate damage the administration by leaking state secrets.

Though he felt that Nixon should have fought to maintain power by any means necessary, Dick Cheney would find a job in an investment firm in 1973. Again, Cheney moves away from the struggle he believes in so strongly. Equally significant is that he is developing strong ties to a business world that appreciates the favors that a man with political connections can provide. Dick has learned how to manipulate the system for his own needs. He is a crony capitalist.

Don Rumsfeld would again hire Dick Cheney to work for him in the Ford administration. He became Rumsfeld's deputy Chief of Staff. They were bitter about what they considered the humiliating defeat in Vietnam, which they believed had greatly weakened the United States on the world stage.

While both Rumsfeld and Cheney were considered to be from the "crony capitalist" branch of the republican party, they would become allied with a branch of radical democrats, who were associated with the military hawk, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. These people represented the beginning of the true neoconservative movement. Like the corporations that valued men who could move easily between government and business, the neoconservatives found both Rumsfeld and Cheney to be of great value.

Thus, the two would influence President Ford to take up an aggressive foreign policy, while moving sharply to the right on domestic issues. In particular, Cheney was concerned that the old California governor, Ronald Reagan, would attempt to unseat Ford in the 1976 primaries. Though the history of that era has been glossed over by republicans since, at the time Reagan was considered divisive, and was not fully accepted by some of the corporate interests that Cheney represented. He and Rumsfeld believed it was essential that they keep Ford in office.

In order to prepare for the expected primary run against Reagan, the person they believed posed the greatest threat to President Ford, they urged him to get rid of three people in his administration. Thus, Ford dumped Defense Secretary James Schlesinger; national security advisor Henry Kissinger; and VP Nelson Rockefeller. They also urged him to drop efforts for the SALT II Treaty.

Ford survived his primary challenges, of course, but lost to democratic challenger Jimmy Carter. A journalist named Robert Novak wrote, "(deputy) White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney is blamed by Ford insiders for a succession of campaign blunders..."

{4} "Few U.S. industries sing the praises of free enterprise more loudly than the oil industry. Yet few industries rely so heavily on special government favors. These favors are defended in the name of national security." -- Milton Friedman; Newsweek; June 26, 1967

During the Reagan years, Dick Cheney would use his contacts with U.S. corporations to his best interests. He would become, as a congressman from Wyoming, one of only 21 who opposed the Clean Water Act. He was opposed to extending the historic Civil Rights Act; voted to cut funding to the Veteran's Administration; and attempted to prevent the EPA from forcing industry to pay for the clean-ups of SuperFund sites. Cheney was noted for being one of the "top five" radical conservatives in Congress.

Cheney was of particular value to two "special interests": first, the energy corporations, including several based in Texas, found Representative Cheney a capable advocate; more, the growing neoconservative movement, which was interested in placing "neocons" in both elected and un-elected positions in Washington, saw that Cheney could promote their policies, particularly as they related to the Middle East.

Thus, when President George H. W. Bush took office, Cheney would return to the executive branch. Although Secretary of State James Baker warned Bush1 to keep Cheney "at arm's length," he made Dick Cheney the head of the Defense Department. And, while it struck some as odd that Bush1 would put a draft-dodger in charge of the military, events would soon show that Cheney's service to the energy corporations played the more significant role.

Just as Reagan did not offer Cheney a position in his administration, Bush1 had not offered one to Rumsfeld. This is significant in helping us understand that even in the republican party, there are differences of opinion, factions, and in-fighting. Thus, while the images of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam as he prepared to sell him deadly weapons stands out, Dick Cheney was more closely tied to other oil interests in the Middle East. By the time that Iraq prepared to invade Kuwait, the Bush1 administration was sending very mixed messages. Cheney, who favored Kuwait, had made some statements indicating the U.S. would not allow Iraq to invade their neighbor. Yet other administration voices countered that there was no American interests involved.

When Iraq invaded, President Bush1 began an effort to organize a large alliance to remove Saddam's forces from Kuwait. He sent Cheney to Saudi Arabia, to convince the royal family to allow the United States to station troops in the Islamic Holy Land. Cheney, along with his top aide, Paul Wolfowitz, convinced the Saudis that Saddam had plans to destabilize their country next, in an effort to control all of the Middle East. They reached an agreement that US troops could be stationed in Saudi Arabia for the brief time needed to kick Iraqi troops out of Kuwait.

In his description of events in "Against All Enemies," Richard Clarke describes his surprise when Cheney became upset that Clarke was able to line up numerous allies. "Stop asking them," Cheney ordered Clarke, who concluded that Cheney seemed intent on having the US troops go beyond an international agreement to "free" Kuwait: Cheney, he believed, wanted the US to invade Iraq. (see pages 57-61)

When the Gulf War ended without an invasion of Iraq, the neocons were furious. Cheney believed that Saddam could thumb his nose at the US, making it almost as much of a failure of our military power as Vietnam. At the time, Cheney made clear what his true concern was: on page 313 of Kevin Phillip's "American Dynasty," Cheney is quoted as saying that Saddam would "seek domination of the entire Middle East," and attempt to "take control of a great portion of the world's energy supply."

In an effort to advocate for the neoconsevatives, Cheney had Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby write a "classified blueprint to set US policy direction for the next century," as Patrick Buchanan details in "Where The Right Went Wrong." (page 42) The plan called for the US to set up large and permanent military bases on 6 continents, to deter any "potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role." Their stated goal was to establish a "new world order."

Democratic senators, including Biden and Kennedy, noted that the neocon plan would increase the budget of the military-industrial complex to levels far above that of the Cold War. As Defense secretary, Cheney began turning huge portions of this government investment in military support operations over to PMCs, or "private military corporations."

Also, as noted on page 72 of "A Pretext for War," by James Bamford, Cheney was assigned by the president to work upon a plan outlined by Ollie North for a "shadow government" that would take control of the United States in times of national emergency. The plan would have no input from either branch of congress, or from the judiciary, because it would suspend the constitution. Cheney worked with Donald Rumsfeld, at the time the CEO of GD Searle & Co., and James Woolsey, then a private attorney, on the plan.

It is worth noting that it was during this time that Dick Cheney established ties with a shadowy figure from the Middle East, named Ahmad Chalabi. Cheney and the neocons were hoping that Chalabi, the head of a "shadow government" in waiting, the Iraqi National Congress, would replace Saddam Hussein.

{5} Texas Radio and the Big Beat

During the Clinton presidency, Dick Cheney became the head of Halliburton. It was at a time when he was able to overlap his positions and linkages with interests including Texas oil, Ken Lay and Enron, and Chalabi. Dick Cheney represented a combination of crony capitalism and neoconservative politics.

In 1995, New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato introduced a bill to ban trade with Iran. Cheney strongly opposed it. Though the US would restrict commerce with Iran, the conservative senator would lose backing among the radical branches of the party, and would lose in his attempt to be re-elected. The neocons were sending a message.

Cheney and his friend Donald Rumsfeld were among those who pressured President Clinton to fund Chalabi and his INC. Dick was active in attempting to advance corporate interests in the Middle East, despite any concerns that these moves were not in the best interests of the US. In the 2000 campaign, Cheney would claim that as the Halliburton CEO, he "had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq." ("The Lies of George Bush"; David Corn; page 189) However, the Washington Post would find that two Halliburton subsidiaries had $73 million contracts for equipment sales as part of the UN oil-for-food program in Iraq.

From these actions, we get a picture of a man who believes in advancing the interests of his corporate world, in a coordinated effort with shadowy, corrupt figures such as Chalabi, despite the fact that it goes against the national interests. More, it shows Dick Cheney is willing to violate the law, though he favors having subordinates do it, and then to lie about it.

{6} "Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." -- Dick Cheney, advice to aides in 1976.

Former President Bush1 suggested that Dick Cheney serve as his son's running mate in the 2000 election. It was widely recognized that his son lacked foreign policy experience, and having the older man as a "co-president" would serve to lessen conservative republican's concerns. In many ways, it was almost the opposite of Bush1 choosing Dan Quayle for the VP spot.

It was assumed Cheney would focus on national security issues. When Dick Clarke briefed him in January of 2001 on the threat from al Qaeda, Cheney appeared interested. He told Clarke that he would be going to CIA headquarters to learn more. Clarke felt this was good, because he knew CIA Director Tenet shared his concerns with al Qaeda. However, it soon became apparent that Cheney was more interested in Iraq and Saddam.

Cheney was also focused on the US energy policy. He had secret meetings with energy executives, including Ken Lay (at least 6 times), who had been the #1 funding source for Bush2's campaigns. VP Cheney refused to allow either the congress or the public to know the agenda of those meetings. From early on, it was clear that Cheney viewed executive politics as the "power play" contest of strength from the Watergate days. (Readers are encouraged to read Corn's book, particularly chapter 6 on "high-octane lies.")

From both Clarke and Paul O'Neill, we know that the administration had decided early on to remove Saddam from power in Iraq. Buchanan has noted that the Cheney memo from 1992 had become the official policy of the Bush administration in 2001.

Despite the warnings from Clarke and others, and even briefs with such subtle titles as "Bin Laden Seeks to Strike Within US," those in the administration who should have been aware of al Qaeda were instead focused on Saddam and Iraqi oil. The attacks of 9-11 occurred on the Bush-Cheney watch.

It was later revealed that on that afternoon, the "shadow government" was put into place. This is detailed in John Dean's book, "Worse Than Watergate," James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," and Senator Robert Byrd's "Losing America." In theory -- or at least in Dick Cheney's mind -- this meant the suspension of congressional oversight, or judicial imposition of constitutional law. The man who viewed Watergate as a power struggle had made the ultimate grab at power, one that overshadowed anything Al Haig could have hoped for.

When shades of reality returned to Washington, DC, Cheney was among those most strongly opposed to any congressional investigation of 9-11. He told democrats that they risked doing serious damage to the war on terrorism. Not surprisingly, Cheney and his old friend Don Rumsfeld were among those advocating that the US respond to what had been identified as an al Qaeda attack on the nation by invading Iraq.

Most readers are familiar with the campaign to frighten America into supporting the Bush plan to invade Iraq: both the president and vice president would repeatedly speak of 9-11 and Saddam in the same breath; they skillfully used the media to imply that Iraq had been the state-sponsor of 9-11.

More, they began a campaign to convince the public that Saddam Hussein had WMDs which posed a serious threat to the United States. In August 2002, Cheney told Americans, "Simply stated, there's no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Also, "Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

More, you say? How about, "What we know now, from various sources is that he .... continues to pursue a nuclear weapon." (August 7, 2002)

On August 26, he noted that could use a nuclear weapon to threaten "anyone he chooses, in his region or beyond." And on September 8, "We do know, with absolute certainty..." Saddam was working on a nuclear weapon.

Cheney, Libby, and Newt Gingrich were making repeated trips to the CIA to pressure analysts to confirm their conclusions about Iraq and WMD. Although the administration has attempted to deny this, there were at least three complaints filed with the CIA ombudsman about the pressure being put on them.

Although the IAEA had reported in 1997 that Iraq had previously stopped attempts to buy nuclear weapons components, when Cheney saw a later report that indicated Italian intelligence had evidence that Iraq had sought to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger, he became very interested. He was told that previous investigations had discredited the report. However, he requested that the CIA re-evaluate the possibility.

People close to the administration and intelligence agencies have noted that it was in this period, that VP Cheney and his neocon friends became highly secretive, and began to rely more upon their own "intelligence operations." Thus, although the CIA sent at least two notes in October, reporting that their recent investigation (by Joe Wilson) had discredited the Niger report, the most rabid of neocons refused to accept the finding. Though the Niger information was removed from President Bush's speech that month in Ohio, it would be put into his State of the Union address three months later. More, although the White House has denied it, a CIA officer had informed an NSC official that the Niger report was false in January ..... but the neocons refused to believe it. ("The Lies of George W. Bush"; David Corn; page 294)

In March, the IAEA reported that after examining the Niger documents, they had concluded that they were crude forgeries. An administration official told CNN, "We fell for it." Shortly thereafter, Joseph Wilson told CNN that the administration had "more information" on this.

It was then that a group from the administration's "White House Iraqi Group" began to hold a series of meetings in VP Cheney's office, to do a "work up" on Wilson. It is known that Libby and Gingrich ran these meetings. It is unclear if Cheney attended them. The meetings were geared towards determining options for dealing with Wilson if he challenged the administration on the WMD claims.

In "Chain of Command," on page 239, Seymour Hersch reports that one of the more common theories is that some people believed a group of retired CIA operatives produced the crude Niger forgeries, in an effort to discredit the administration. That theory holds these people believed Cheney & friends would announce they had "proof" of WMD production, be humiliated when the documents were identified as forgeries, and that this would slow the march to invade Iraq, perhaps allowing UN inspectors enough time to conclude there were no WMD in Saddam's world.

Apparently, at least some of the Cheney forces believed this, and were intent upon punishing those in the CIA they believed were responsible. More, many people believe that the VP's office were concerned that the front group Wilson's wife worked for was coming dangerously close to uncovering something else they needed to hide.

For whatever the reason, VP Dick Cheney told Lewis Libby that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. And now, Patrick Fitzgerald is intent upon finding out what conversations went on between Cheney and Libby in regard to Valerie Plame.

http://h2oman.blogspot.com/

Laid out like it is, what has been going on, sometimes right under our noses becomes clear. I found it very powerful because H20 makes it very easy to track the path Cheney has followed all his life and makes it impossible for anyone who reads this to dismiss any of the actions of our despicable, lying veep.

Knowing that on his deathbed, the old bastard will have the awful realization that he can't take any of it with him.

Our revenge will be to do the heavy lifting. To create a new society, of justice, equity, support, and opportunity. Not some soviet 4 yr plan. but a workable, rational and effective plan for growth of all society. Our revenge will occur when we succeed.

Which we must, if we are to survive as a sentient species.

Note the stress on sentient. I submit that no fundie can be sentient so long as they place religion above humanity.

that his plan to conquer and rule the planet is a miserable failure, even Wolfowitz is disavowing the great scheme, at least in public. I would also hope that Gingrich gets tied to the nasty mess in some way, before long.

get in the way of winning and any American who does not believe the neocons are playing for keeps with no holds barred and no prisoners taken is blind, ignorant, a fool, or maybe all.

just from reading the work. As always, H2O informs and provides details most of us would never know were available.

A DU treasure -- H2O.

Thank you me for posting and thanks you H2O for writing this and enlightening me. :grouphug:

Vote #5 and counting. :applause:

glad to see you around and on an H20 thread. Hope things have improved for you.

but others aren't so fortunate and we have a long ways to go. x(

Keep sending those postive energies and good wishes this way. :hi:

Glad to hear things are better for you now. As you know all too well, things are so bad in Mississippi that even the Rethug governor there is speaking sharply about the lack of assisstance in hurricane recovery:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5547330

Our old friend Dick Cheney! Seems like the Plame Threads had taken off a year and a half ago, when we started talking about our old friend Dick Cheney.

Let's hope that even if both he and Don Rumsfeld retire in early 2005, they are prosecuted to the fullest extent possible.

:hug: I hope they retire, get the hell out of the way. I pray for justice, which would include them facing war crimes charges.

All of our debate and research, we have it figured out, I wish the rest of the nation would catch on.

:hi:

tomorrow night, if possible. Hardball has a special on the case. They are spoon-feeding the public information that many DUers knew 18 months ago!

I might try to stomach it, just to see how they handle it.

thanks for the heads up :thumbsup:

Matthews knows that Cheney is the central figure in the scandal. Tonight, the program is going to reveal things that most of the public is only beginning to suspect .... in regard to how Cheney & Co lied us into war.

Thank you for the heads up!

:hug:

Will he be more vulnerable, would it leave Scooter twisting in the cold, dark wind?

number of people are asking. Of course, we can only speculate at this time, but let's look at a few things: first, what difference would it make to Fitzgerald? None. He is pretty focused on something that he knows happened. Cheney resigning will have the exact same effect on Fitzgerald as Cheney changing from wearing a dark blue suit on Monday, to a brown one on Tuesday: none at all.

How about for Dick? (I hope we can be informal here. Most DUers would have the word "Dick" come to mind when discussing the vice president.) It kind of fits the pattern of sneaking off when the fight gets rough that one can associate with Dick. But any legal consequences that come from Fitzgerald continue. It does remove the need to begin impeachment hearings. Now that brings us to our next item.

Would Dick resigning in para-humiliation, rather than total disgrace, help the administration? In the sense that it removes a cancer from the presidency, perhaps. But it also leaves the administration with a severe wound. Cheney has some of the highest rates of unpopularity since anyone in an administration since James Watt .... but he was an intended "lightning rod." Cheney isn't. He was supposed to be the wizard behind the curtain; his post 9-11 role was that of the president, while Bush willing accepted the VP cheerleading spot.

Next, would it help Karl Rove? Yes, in the very short run .... providing he is not indicted by mid-January. But Karl has to either become more willing to produce the goods on Dick & Scooter, or he has some serious trouble upcoming.

For Libby? It provides more of a relaxed opportunity to make a deal. But, as we know, the only thing that kept Scooter from making a plea was that Fitzgerald insists on significant jail time. That will not change.

Players like Hadley have problems that Cheney can not help them with. And that leads us to the neocons, who want to remain entrenched in the executive branch. Remember that about nine months ago, a fellow named Bob Woodward started floating the idea of having a "draft Dick Cheney in '08" movement. He could not have done that without Dick's wanting him to. I'm guessing that idea has shit the bed.

would nudge the neos from their WH nest, as I can't think of anyone who could fill the position that has been in that bed you mentioned like him. I also think with him gone, we would see winds of retribution directed towards the WH. It will signal weakness and failure all round and abused vultures will circle. Good point about him running again and leaving others holding the bag, for now.

Peace.

it sums up the whole situation in a nutshell. Mommy's boy bush gets to prance around in military outfits and pretend he actually has male sex organs, while cheney controls (and fucks up) all aspects of our executive branch. It's amazing to me that you can fool people into thinking you know WTF you're doing if you snarl and grunt a lot. Wish I'd learned that before I retired...

something like that. It is a great read, and thanks goes out to you for posting it and to H2O man for brilliantly writing it.

"The Scorpion's Gate" is excellent. And perhaps a John W. Dean book or two.

knowledgeable, experienced people who post at Democratic Underground. His instinct for and expression of what is wise and right have inspired and calmed me many, many times. He has the gift of being kind while saying what needs to be said, even if - especially if - it's hard news. What he says is ALWAYS worth not only listening to but thinking through carefully. You won't see him joining in the counterproductive and depressing screaming matches that break out all too often at DU.

Cheney is such a monster, it's getting hard for the Administration to keep it hidden, even with the compliant US "free" press.

ETA: recommended, kicked, bookmarked. I have a folder just for important H2O Man posts, as well as one for Cheney.

.... one for your outstanding posts, as well.


Peace.

and I'll bet lots of other people do too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5205585

Mr. Fitzgerald makes it absolutely clear whom his target is ....


Peace.

been used for Iran for some time:
see VIDEO presentation on the parallel language: http://www.bushflash.com/signals.html

They have also been lying in saying Iran has or will soon have nuclear weapons, despite the best US intelligence that they couldn't build them for something like a decade:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4252778
thread title (Aug 3, 2005): Three extremely important threads on Iran nukes & the Bush agenda

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5363050
thread title (Nov 15, 2005): U.S. atomic expert doubts report of Iran weapons

Iran has always been a target. Now the Bushies are trying to pull the same thing that they did with Iraq. Cheney will be in the forefront, along with other PNAC members and Israeli hawks like Netanyahu:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051205/wl_afp/israelirannuclearpoliticsnetanyahu;_ylt=AlPTPfR7UyyVdlhB3su_rzYDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
title: Netanyahu hints could consider Iran nuclear strike

We cannot let Cheney and the other greedy, insane monsters get away with this.

will be picked to replace Dick.

wants John McCain. The PNAC/neocons don't really want him, I don't think. But the other GOP faction does and they are getting stronger by the day. McCain himself will do anything, sell out anyone to get the presidency - what honor he had is long gone. You'll note that the full-press media campaign to frame him as the anti-Bush - brave, a war hero, smart, good relationship with his dad - is well underway. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1818584
thread title (May 30, 2005): Framing for the presidency: TV Movie is pure pro-McCain propaganda

He's portrayed as Mr. Clean - after all, he's against torture, right? - but he's dirty too and it would be a disaster if he were elected. I also think it would be a disaster if a DINO were elected - they're joined at the roots and truly stand for the same things.

during the primary process. If they don't want him, they will make it difficult or impossible to get through those middle American and southern state primaries. Can McCain survive South Carolina?

My understanding husband wife teams are not that uncommon, what better way for a couple to have something that approaches a normal life and understanding when they live in a shadowy world. I always found it odd that Joe Wilson was assigned when you think about it a task you would suspect of an intelligence agency.

Dick Cheney lives a life that is at odds with both politicians and intelligence agencies. He appears to be some sort of corporate lap dog.

of thumb, going back to let's say 1972, that about 25% of diplomatic staff in each foreign embassy was connected to the Agency. Obviously, there would be differences from one country to the next. There could be a country with 33%, for example.

This is, of course, the essential difference between agents with official cover (meaning part of the US ambassador's operations), and "NOCs" (no official cover) such as Valerie Plame Wilson. NOCs operate as independent from the government; they might be an energy consultant, or any number of individuals who engage in commerce etc in foreign lands.

The IAEA had determined in the late 1990s that Niger's uranium business was "air-tight." There is also reason to believe that around that time period, CI had reviewed the situation. Probably they would have relied upon someone with ties to Niger to have looked into reports regarding any contact between Iraq and Niger, especially as it is known that some Iraqi officials had passed through Africa. Wilson, of course, had been the person the United States sent to be the last US diplomat in Iraq leading up to the Gulf War. The stories of his confrontations with Saddam are, in my opinion, a "must read," told best in his book.

One of the amusing parts of the VP's office's denials in the Plame case is their saying Cheney didn't send Wilson to Niger. Of course not. The Agency did, because he was the single most qualified person for the job. It's safe to say it wasn't the first time; many people believe he was probably the person sent in the late '90s. Of course, this is not anything he can discuss openly, but the way the administration has tried to bait him into saying something along this line makes it seem likely they know more about him than that he enjoys a cool glass of sweet mint tea.

I wonder if even their opponents understand the working of the Bushco cabal. There appears to be many different layers in Bushco, some of which operate independently. You would think Cheney is losing power as he defends himself from those he has angered and betrayed. It doesn't hurt Cheney to have one foot in the grave.

it put the pieces together. Let's hope that Fitzgerald is doing the same.

:kick:

Cheney is one of the most dastardly characters ever written about. It's too bad for all of us that it's not fiction.

Excellent work H2OMan.

Much of it I already knew (or at least suspected), but one very critical part of it I did not: a point I will take up again in a subsequent paragraph.

What I find most indicative is the preponderance of evidence Cheney is -- in every sense imaginable -- an advocate for what I have repeatedly labeled the "tyrannosauric" elements at the core of capitalism.

Part of the underlying, mostly untold history of the Central Intelligence Agency is an ongoing (and sometimes quite savage) struggle between those who believe it should serve the interests of the United States as defined by progressive consensus -- that is, a combination of the values implicit in our founding documents plus informed popular will -- versus those (obviously represented by Cheney and his ilk) who believe the Agency should be merely another tool of the corporate oligarchy: part of the machinery by which the American corporate will is imposed on the world. Throughout most of this struggle, hinted at in several books I have read about the CIA (but described in detail in none of them), the oligarchy obviously prevailed: note in this context William Blum's lengthy and superbly documented catalogue of U.S. outrages entitled The CIA: A Forgotten History; Zed Books, London: 1986). But in the post-Vietnam era a unique combination of factors -- chiefly the shock of losing a war plus affirmative action forcefully imposed by the Clinton Administration -- broke the oligarchy's stranglehold on the Agency and revitalized the progressive faction, certainly resurrecting it to the power and influence it had during the united-front years of World War II, quite possibly elevating it to a stature never before achieved. The Plame affair thus needs to be viewed in this context: Wilson working on behalf the progressives, Cheney as an agent of the oligarchy (and therefore determined to discredit and eventually neutralize the progressives -- at any cost and by any means).

As the damning collection of facts assembled by Blum demonstrates so conclusively, the oligarchy-dominated CIA respects neither truth nor human dignity: its activities on behalf the torture-government of Augusto Pinochet in Chile are repugnantly typical of the entire corporate/spook enterprise. In the "good old days" -- that is, after Sen. Joe McCarthy had weeded out all the "subversives" and "fellow travelers" -- the Agency would have merely built whatever estimates the administration needed to (once again) unleash the U.S. soldiers and spies as the oligarchy's goon squad: Matewan or the Coal Creek War on an international scale. But Wilson had openly sided with the progressives, and the oligarchy thus made him an object lesson of its vengefulness: they not only discredited Wilson himself, they destroyed his wife's career. Which -- at least in my opinion -- is the ultimate significance of the Plame affair. Thus my belief the outcome of Fitzgerald's investigations (and the subsequent trials) will be a vital measurement of the extent to which we have already been thrust toward the fascist theocracy capitalism requires for survival in a world of increasing scarcities -- a world in which socialism (precisely because of its fairness in apportioning burdens) can only become more attractive to the great mass of us who are ever more murderously oppressed merely because we are neither the plutocrats nor their storm troopers.

Which brings me back to that part of Cheney's resumé I had not known at all: his Nixon-era association with the Office of Economic Opportunity -- and therefore with the Nixon chapters of the corporate/Republican effort to destroy the New Deal. While by deft spin Nixon managed to create the impression he was leaving intact both the New Deal and its daughter the Great Society, in truth he worked to destroy it from the moment he took office. Job-training programs and financial aids for higher education were viciously curtailed, and desperately needed local-government infrastructure jobs financed by New Deal and Great Society programs were ruthlessly eliminated. The aid cutbacks forced tens of thousands of Americans out of school -- I was one -- and the abolition of jobs flung millions into unemployment. Because the job programs Nixon eliminated were intended to get people off welfare and out of poverty by providing both educational opportunities and training in genuinely marketable skills -- for example computer programing (as opposed to peddling hamburgers at McDonalds) -- many of the people who lost their jobs thanks to Nixon were hurled back into the underclass with no hope of escape. Cheney as part of the OEO no doubt played a vital role in these early corporate/Republican efforts against the poor.

Finally in a 1973 post-inaugural interview with William Randolph Hearst Jr., Nixon admitted that a major underlying purpose of his administration was not only war on the New Deal/Great Society social safety net, but on the American Dream itself: Americans "had it too good," Nixon said, and needed to be disciplined with deliberate re-introduction of Depression-era hardship. Within six months, the so-called "Arab Oil Embargo" -- deftly engineered in collaboration with the Shah of Iran -- sounded the death knell of the American dream: as subsequent events have so vividly proven, forever. What role Cheney might have played in this -- especially given the probability his Oil Baron contacts were already well established -- remains to be seen.

In this context it would be very enlightening to closely examine Cheney's conduct during all the Nixon years. The emergent portrait might confirm many of our suspicions -- and tell us much we don't know -- about the people and powers that now control our government. Which in turn might provide vital indications as to the extent to which they will resist the potential Democratic (and democratic) restorations of 2006 and 2008.

difference between Nixon and Cheney would be that Nixon would eventually realize just how wrong he had been. Few things show the strange side of Nixon more, in my opinion, than his testifying for Mark Felt in his trial. Nixon knew that Felt was at very least part of the FBI group known collectively as "Deep Throat." I think Felt must have been surprised when Nixon sent a bottle to him after Reagan had granted the pardon. Compare his behavior to Cheney's, and Nixon seems .... well, almost human.

Regarding the CIA, there are a wider range of people now there than in the "bad old days." Some are democrats, some are republicans. But they are good and decent people, who are patriotic. They aren't killing peasants and priests and raping nuns in Central America. But there are plenty of the old-school folks .... in fact, the new director was brought in to put the brakes on progressive forces.

I'm impressed with your points about the goals of the Nixon administration. It gets me thinking about that period .... especially with Eugene McCarthy dying today. I was thinking about some of the tensions between him and RFK, and between their "camps" .... which are not so different than today. I've read the usual information on the surprising show by McCarthy in the first primary .... Fox reported that "he really didn't win, but came so close that LBJ quit." Close: before another primary, LBJ was told he would be beat by McCarthy, and that RFK had decided to enter .... and then LBJ quit.

After he heard about RFK's getting shot, a number of party leaders tried to convince LBJ to get back in the race, because of the threat of the Nixon forces. "You don't understand," LBJ said sadly, "It's over, it's over, it's over." He wasn't talking about his presidency.

RFK was murdered...and I wasn't talking about the election.

I was not just an RFK supporter but an impassioned one -- don't know anybody in the NY/NJ press corps who wasn't (we had all noted his popularity in the ghettos and with wildly uplifted hopes believed he would not only get us out of Vietnam but bring genuine racial peace to America) -- yet all of us respected the idealism of the "Get Clean for Gene" people also. Moreover, while there was a huge Democratic Party schism between hawks and doves, there was none of the intra-left viciousness there is in the party today: the McCarthy people I knew (mostly NYU students) all said they'd back RFK if he was nominated, and I don't think there was a one of us Kennedy people who wouldn't have backed McCarthy were the tables reversed. This was also true of the RFK supporters at CCNY and Hunter College -- the majority in these free-tuition (and therefore minority and/or blue-collar schools). In fact throughout the City and its environs there was a lot of talk about an RFK/McCarthy ticket, or if not that, a major role for McCarthy in an RFK administration. And some of us -- I was one -- believed after RFK was slain that a Humphrey/McCarthy ticket could have easily beaten Nixon. But instead we got Humphrey-Mondale and a whole segment of the younger progressive-minded voters -- in those days you had to be 21 to vote -- said "fuck it" and stayed home.

Makes me very sad remembering those years: the coup of November 22, 1963 (the only time in my career I would ever give the order, "stop the presses"); the steady descent of the U.S. into banana Republicanism thereafter -- with the killings of MLK and RFK giving dread confirmation to our doom.

"The young people of today reject a morality that measures everything by profit. They know that certain heads of large corporations conspire to fix prices, and that they meet in secret to steal a few pennies every month from the people. They have seen us throw marajuana smokers into jail, but they also see us refuse to limit the sales and advertising of tobacco, which kills several thousand Americans every year. They have seen us hesitate to impose even the most elementary norms of safety on automobile manufacturers, to require department stores and loan companies to reveal the true rates of interest they apply. They have come to realize that organized crime, corruption, bribery and extortion flourish not only becauseof government tolerance, but also because of the complicity of labor, economic and political leaders ...

"The gap that exists between the generations today will probably never be completely filled, but it must be straddled. It is vital that our young people be made to feel that an evolution is possible, that they can be made to realize that this mad, cruel world can give way before their sacrifices ... Each generation has its principal preoccupation. The youth of today seem to have chosen the dignity of man ..."

That seems like a long time ago ..... thank goodness for the new generation!

A speech so brilliant that it makes me cry...

"A corporation does not want democracy. It does not want free markets, it wants profits and the best way for them to get profits is to use our campaign finance system which is just a system of legalized bribery to get their stakes, their hooks into a public official and then use that official to dismantle the market place to give them a competitive advantage and then to privatize the common, to steal the commonwealth, to liquidate public assets for cash, to plunder, to steal from the rest of us."

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091705Z.shtml

A New Day. I can't read it without getting tears in my eyes.

I read the book when it first came out in 1968, mentally cheering (and sometimes shouting aloud "yes man yes") all through its pages, but my original copy was one of hundreds of books destroyed in a fire.

the tie clip that Robert Kennedy handed out on the steps of the Norwich, NY (Chenango County) Court House, when he was running for the US Senate in 1964. I still find the film clips and pages of books that cover the final years of his life moving, in much the manner you describe. There are times when, watching or listening to Robert, Jr., that I see that same power, that same energy. One night, a few years back, Robert spoke in Oneonta. I got out that tie clip, and wore it. Robert stared at it, and I asked him if he wanted it? He didn't, but I think it gave him an idea how much his father meant to people.

I wrote that "...in the post-Vietnam era a unique combination of factors -- chiefly the shock of losing a war plus affirmative action forcefully imposed by the Clinton Administration -- broke the oligarchy's stranglehold on the Agency and revitalized the progressive faction, certainly resurrecting it to the power and influence it had during the united-front years of World War II, quite possibly elevating it to a stature never before achieved." I failed to note in passing that while the CIA wasn't officially created until 1947, its predecessor, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), was set up by FDR in 1941. Except for some leadership changes, the CIA inherited virtually all the OSS personnel -- analysts and field operations people alike. Hence my reference to progressive influence over U.S. intelligence during World War II is factually correct, though I should have made it clear this was in the OSS under FDR; the methodical purge of progressives from the U.S. intelligence apparatus began literally the day World War II ended and continued long after the CIA's creation.

Sigh. How easy it is for these people to relegate others to less. Not that it would ever apply to them. Such a parsimonious mentality when it comes to the citizenry at large. No wonder we have landed in such a dire place.

Good post.

No president was ever as damaged by his childhood as Nixon. There is a story -- which is true -- about his father looking to buy a small piece of property for a business. For reasons having to do with the elder Nixon's being tight with a dime, he passed on on piece that then turned out to have a huge deposit of oil under it. For a poor family, it created one of the central stories that helped them understand their place in the universe. It helped create the bitterness and jealousy Nixon was famous for: the Kennedy clan was nothing, if not a progression of the richer family that bought the said plot of land, and reaped its oil wealth.

Nixon -- unlike the current clown -- was a highly disciplined man. He went to colleges he considered lesser than those the Kennedy-types attended, and there is no question he was an extremely intelligent man. Curious about other cultures, and about world history. He believed he was far smarter than his contemporaries, and resented anything others had that he did not .... such as JFK's charm an ease with people in one-on-one situations, or large crowds.

It's a shame that the young Nixon never had anyone to help him process his circumstances. As Kissinger said, he could have been such a great man, if only someone had loved him as a child. Neither parent invested much in him emotionally. No relative, neighbor, or even teacher did, either. Thus, in many ways, Nixon neve grew emotionally, in that range anyhow.

which needs a Dick Cheney thread. And preferably an "Indict Dick Cheney" thread.

was an evil, vicious bastard.

When it was reported that he had bought a mansion along the Eastern Shore, I thought then and there that Cheney was about to hang up his whip, er, hat.

What a busy bee he has been.

He is looking worse each day. That heart, as black and cold as it is, can't last much longer.

May he burn in hell.

:kick:

Kicked and nominated!

:kick:

Why did Cheney and Rumsfeld target Iraq, as opposed to Iran? What force (or forces) were pushing the neoconcabal these two led toward taking out the leader of the austensively secularist Ba'athist regime along with its brethren in Syria?

The Ba'athists in Iraq and Syria are, in effect, the political organization of the Sunni populations in those states. If you scrape their secular surfaces, underneith these are religious groupings. They are also viewed as apostates by the rival Sunni power, the sect in Saudi Arabia.

From the beginning, its been obvious what parties would most benefit from a divided Iraq: the Kurds, the multinational oil companies, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

The Kurds sit atop the majority of Iraqi oil, but are reliant and compliant, most of all upon the US and Europeans for protection from the Turks, what's left of the Sunnis, and from Iran. That makes them likely to accept an oil revenue sharing agreement with the multinationals, the terms of which are most disadvantageous to the locals and most profitable for foreign oil companies.

The Iranian regime is byzantine in its internal politics and requires delicate backchannel diplomacy, which Cheney excels at.

In order to keep the essay relatively short, I edited about 1/2 of it. You are right about the need for more on why Cheney, and later Rumsfeld, target Saddam's Iraq. It was clearer in the early 1990s: there were more quotes that filled out around the one I used, which showed that Cheney was primarily concerned that Saddam would use WMDs, along with the pride among many in the Islamic world that he had "stood up to the USA," to increase his power. The concern that he could become an established regional power flew in the face of the "new world order" that Cheney aides Wolfowitz and Libby detailed in '92.

Although any objective view showed the US sanctions had crippled Iraq's economy (which, by starving children to the point that the diseases that feast on malnutrition killed hundreds of thousands, causing Islamic people to hate the US), and the "restricted" northern and southern "no fly zones" had kept Saddam in a box, and the UN inspections showed he had no real weapons that threatened anyone beyong his own nation, Cheney and the neocons wanted to invade Iraq. The real reason, I believe, is found in the Wolfowitz-Libby '92 plan to establish military bases around the globe. The US needed to get out of Saudi's holy lands, as Cheney had promised the royal family.

Your descriptions of the divided Iraq, as well as the parts on Iran, are absolutely on-target. Part of what I left out had to do with how the neocons actually were convinced (thanks to Chalabi) that if they invaded Iraq, the "progressive" forces in Iran would be in a position to acquire greater power and influence -- peacefully -- in Iran. Could they have been more wrong? Do we not now have a situation where the conservative forces within Iran are now becoming the regional power in the Middle East that Wolfowitz-Libby had said needed to be prevented?

The Iranian economic relationships with Russia and India, as well as many other things, allow Iran to say "no" to Uncle Sam, if not "thumb its nose at Uncle Sam" in much the manner that Cheney feared Iraq would. At the same time, in many ways, forces in Iran have attempted to reconcile old differences with the US. At a time when tensions threaten the world stability (tensions primarily between the Islamic world and the west), we really need people with greater insight than Dick Cheney to be representing our nation. It is hard for me to see how he has done any better as VP, than he did for the Ford campaign in 1976. He is a failure.

Now we're hearing Israel is planning to attack Iran in March. No big news there, for if I remember rightly that was always the neocon plan. Israel would do a first strike and we would go in as back-up. That was when they had rosy dreams of world domination and being greeted with flowers. Is Israel planning on going in alone or are we still expected to do mop up? Given how badly the war in Iraq is going I'm wondering how all this will play out. It's not as if the Iranians will just lie down and let us walk all over them. And if we're hearing about this, you can bet the Iranians have too.

Is that one of the effects of the Iraq war?

--IMM

that I understand you correctly. Could you explain what you mean by "more distant"? I'm thinking you might mean more distant as an ally, or perhaps more distant as a significant player. Or it could be sometrhing different!

I have been hearing that there is more tension between Bush and his Pooty-poot. I am not on top of the issue. If Russia desires more influence in the area, could cooperating with Bush chill relations with say, Iran?

--IMM

even in the on-going controversy over Iranian nuclear programs, Russia and most European nations are not willing to take the hard-line the Bush administration has. Certainly there is a branch of the republican party -- the neocons -- that is increasingly hostile towards Iran, due to the potential threat they believe it poses to Israel. Few other nations have a relationship with Israel that resembles our own.

A conflict between Iran and Israel, or Iran against the US, is in no one's interests. All rational minds would want to reduce tensions. That leaves the irrational folks who like to threaten and bully. A sad fact is the US has a significant number of them, in places of power in the federal government, as well as in businesses that pull political strings.

It is difficult to imagine a Middle East where, in the next fifty years, Iran is not the most powerful Islamic nation. Russia and others likely recognize the benefits found in peaceful coexistence. The Bush administration has done more to isolate us from our old friends and allies, and more to make us hated around the globe, than all of the previous administrations combined.

that can't do anything right.

--IMM

Thanks Me.

Are we there yet? Can it be stopped?


The Second Coming -- W. B. Yeats

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

I thought it should have been used by Jim Morrison. It reminds me of some of the wonderful poetry he wrote that is found on the album they put together in the late '70s (I think), called "An American Prayer."

Can what has been brought about since WWII be stopped in time or must we face the peril of the consequences before we can move forward?

the Phillipine spy working out of Cheney's office!!!

That perspective has a great starting point with what I believe is Eisenhower's Farewell Address before the start of the Kennedy Administration. Immediately, I was reminded of L. Fletcher Prouty's book JFK: The Cia, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy. I remember he opened his book referencing those quotes in an attempt to explain his view of how the powers that be really operate in our government. There is the temptation among those who are aware of the level of conspiracy that must exist in this crime to fix the blame on a particular organization, such as the Council on Foreign Relations (which Cheney is a member of). What Prouty explains is that there is not necessarily one all powerful organization in control, but rather a collection of people from many different places he refers to as the "Global Elite".

I think what H2O Man has done here is lay the foundation for how Cheney came to be a powerful part of the Global Elite. Especially damning is the information on how Cheney came to become a bridge between neo-conservative political power and the military-industrial complex. There is the Constitutionally devoid shadow government to worry about, but this bridge that Cheney has formed has enabled him to get away with subversion right out in the open. I'm not aware of Scalia being tied to CFR, Bilderberg or even the PNAC. But considering his actions in helping Cheney cover up the agenda of his meetings with energy leaders in 2001, I would definitely include Justice Scalia as a member of the Global Elite.

So thank you, H2O Man, for providing some insight into how relationships are formed that perpetuate the fraud known as the Global Elite. It's good to remember where it all started and who the key players are now that dominate it. You've done a brilliant job in this analysis of one of the Chief Stinkers.

Mr. 19% still thinks he is riding high.
Here's hoping that he gets taken down :toast:
:dem:

does not cause cancer.

But it will make you sick to your stomach

not learning about Dick Cheney can cause the death of young men in your community.

or is this another CIA? Has the culture at Langley changed enough so that we can look at them as career professionals who are risking their lives for the constitution rather than the independent web of insiders who operate outside any commonly accepted version of morality or law?

In your opinion, is there any distinction between Valerie Plame investigating the sale of WMD components, and the CIA activities in the Bay of Pigs? I suppose we all should consider that question.

Seriously, though, I do not see how the CIA, which I personally heard John Stockwell lecture on in the early nineties, could have changed enough that I would champion that agency or its operatives in any situation. He and Phil Agee had quite a lot to say about that gang and I still have their lectures on cassette tape. I recall towards the end of Mr. Stockwell's lecture he told everybody to go home and look up the word "safe" in the dictionary and tear the page out. Because, in his words, there isn't anywhere that is "safe" in the world anymore due to the mechanations of the CIA.

I do not have anything concrete to add to the conversation other than my admission that I am undecided as far as to whether there is any faction at the CIA that the American people can rely on in this crisis.

ps--off-topic, sort of: the video octafish recommended on the jfk assassination is definately worth a look!
http://jackblood.netfirms.com/home/multimedia.shtml