Primary Factors

[H2O Man]

“Even the president’s father had confided that he was unhappy with Rice. ‘Condi is a disappointment, isn’t she?’ the former president had offered, adding, ‘She’s not up to the job’.”
-- Bob Woodward; State of Denial; Simon & Schuster; 2006; page 420.


In the midst of the two major political parties’ presidential primaries, reports on a new biography of Bush the Elder should be of some interest. It isn’t the first time that the Elder has blamed others for the dismal failures of his son. More, the acrimonious relationship between the Elder and Donald Rumsfeld went back decades. What was “new” was the Company Man’s attack on the reputation of Dick Cheney.

This could easily be dismissed as a minor conflict between two old republicans. It might be viewed as some lingering tensions between the more corporate republican machine, and the Frankenstein monster of the neoconservative movement of the late 1990s to 2008. But it is actually more than that: it is the dried snakes skin, dropping off as an institution wrestles with the re-emerging neoconservative grasp for power within the republican party.

While on its surface, it lacks the entertainment value of The Donald Trump Show, or Dr. Ben Carson’s scientific melt-down when caught in a series of lies, it really has more important undertones. One must put it into a context that includes Cheney and Libby attacking two CIA employees -- Ambassador Joseph Wilson, and Valerie Plame -- one who had “official cover” with the State Department, and one who did not. And to fully appreciate that, one must know the full relationship between Bush the Elder and the CIA, which was not at all limited to his brief service as Director of the agency. (More, one should understand what “Arbusto Energy” really was, and the son’s failed attempt in the “energy”/intelligence field.)

It’s tempting to say that Dick Cheney is such a repulsive, evil human being, that we should simply ignore him. It is a disgrace that he wasn’t prosecuted for the many, many crimes that he committed as Vice President. If this was actually only about Cheney, it might be that simple.

But it’s not that simple. The fact that Cheney was “considering” the use of WMD in Iraq isn’t just a long-past episode of one deranged individual. No, it is about a sub-group found primarily within the republican party, that continues to pose a substantial threat to humanity. And some of these people are still found in and around Washington, DC, waiting to be re-cycled into government positions.

Indeed, well-informed people no doubt have noticed the manner in which Cheney’s “Dr. Strangelove” desires were presented in the classic two-step manner: first, the report that Bush the Elder vocalized criticism of VP Cheney; then, second, that Cheney had considered WMD for possible tactical use in the war. This is not the mere recollections of an aging politician, noting where there were minor policies differences being advocated in his son’s administration.

As strongly as people here on this forum feel about the two leading Democratic Party candidates -- and it is safe to say that both positive and negative passions are routinely expressed for and against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders -- it is important to understand this, and its implications. One does not have to be either “pro-” or “anti-” Hillary Clinton to appreciate a number of factors. These go beyond what candidate that Joe Wilson and/or Valerie Plame currently support.

A person might think about some events connected to the Benghazi hearings, for example. I’m thinking about how a republican “leaked” that Ms. Clinton had released the identity of an important asset; the following day, a CIA official corrected the record, noting that this did not happen. More, I’m thinking of how republicans hint at, but never really pressed the issue, regarding the possible transfer of arms to non-“official” military combatants.

I have zero interest in suggesting that readers should vote for or against any individual in the Democratic primary season. But I cannot stress enough that we all look very closely at who among the republican candidates that the various factions in that party are pushing -- and, obviously, why.

Surely, some of the republican candidates are -- to use a term I learned years ago on this forum, and that I think captures their essence perfectly -- ass-clowns. Others are just downright terrible. But two of them are extremely dangerous. And I’m not saying we need to settle for the old “lesser of two evils.” Not even close. I am saying that we are at an extremely dangerous and volatile period in human history. Be aware, be awake.

Peace,
H2O Man

[NCTraveler]

1. Truly sobering. K&R Nt

[H2O Man]

2. Right.

The other day, I posted an OP in this "primaries" forum, suggesting that there might be better ways to invest our energies than arguing, attacking, and insulting either the candidates or each other. I didn't venture onto this often acrimonious neighborhood, simply because I am uncomfortable with quarreling. Rather, it's because I know that we do not have the luxury of engaging in destructive nonsense at this particular time.

The 2016 presidential election is incredibly important. And not due to personalities, or clever quips that make the news. Instead, it is because of factors that rarely are covered in the mainstream news.

More, I can very clearly remember a time when DU offered cutting-edge news and analysis on "politics." In fact, quite a few old-timers here may recall DU's "Plame Threads." People read things here that: 9a) weren't reported for at least two weeks later in the mainstream media; or (b) were never reported upon at all in that mainstream media.

I believe it would be far better if we were to resume discussions at that level, rather than wrestling in the gutters.

[NCTraveler]

3. I finished reading your op and sat back for a minute.

The thoughts truly are sobering.

As for the gutter, I'm not one to speak. I have crawled in it myself.

But in a response to a post today I stated that there is still a lot of really intelligent and thought provoking writing. Unfortunately, most isn't getting a lot of the attention right now. They seem to sink quickly. If I don't have time to give a thoughtful response to one of those ops here, even if I disagree with it, I try to at least give it a K&R.

I enjoyed reading the case put forth in your op. It is real and certain forces are strong. I truly feared Cheney and Rummy in positions of power. Their influence is all over the Middle East, entrenched in many minds in our military, and can't be understated. Truly impressive and morally corrupt men. Impressive simply for the control and power they amassed. Damn near everyone in on the republican side would fill their cabinet with Cheney and Rummy protégés.

[H2O Man]

5. One of the things

that Cheney et al did was to embed neoconservatives in un-elected, "career" positions. Some, for example, are at State, and more are in other various positions. One could easily mistake their being at 3rd or 4th tier positions as rendering them powerless. And, at times, they almost are. But in other key times, they are able to influence what information is sent up the chain.

Every president in modern times -- Democrats and republicans -- have had instances of being ill-served by career bureaucrats who purposely impact the flow of information. That obviously is bad in any instance, but it becomes much more significant when you have a Dick Cheney or a Donald Rumsfeld, using the inaccurate information to push their agenda.

I would say that none of the republican candidates should ever be either president or vice president. But some among them are far more dangerous, and largely due to the neoconservative agenda in international relations.

[Hekate]

20. Cheney liberally salted the Civil Service with his moles before leaving, by changing job categories

Thanks for bringing that up as well. It's another thing I learned first at DU, back when DU was still my go-to for info.

[H2O Man]

21. Right.

People correctly consider who a president might put upon the US Supreme Court. And a seat on the court, of course, can be held for a long time. However, placing moles in the bureaucracy -- in un-elected positions -- is another thing that a president (or vice president) can do, that has long-term consequences. More, these individuals don't require congressional approval, nor are their decisions "on the record," like a USSC ruling.

[7wo7rees]

7. +1,000 times H2O!!

Important msg for everyone to pay attention to.

Promise please to never leave us!

[H2O Man]

11. Thank you.

I hope that people will read and think about this. And I appreciate your kindness. I think that DU is stuck with me.

[corkhead]

4. I believe that once the primary season is over the electorate will come to its senses

lick our wounds, and send the republicon nominee to the dustbin of history.

If i'm wrong then I'm afraid we will get what we deserve

[H2O Man]

6. Hopefully!

I think that the republican candidates are un-electable. But, I have to admit thinking approximately the same thing about Reagan and W.

[Fumesucker]

8. It's interesting how the different versions of people sometimes hold diametrically opposite views

For instance Dick Cheney v1.9.94 had this to say about Iraq.

[H2O Man]

12. It makes you wonder,

doesn't it?

Thanks for that!

[RobertEarl]

9. Well

There is one D candidate that has the propensity to use force when diplomacy would suffice.

There being a record of such actions proposed and certain friends and associated members in cahoots.

We have been living 'on the edge' for a long time, and one could certainly imagine that GW did consider pushing that button just to see what would happen. We've backed up now with Obama, but the likelihood of not using the weapons decreases day by day.

It is, in my mind, very important who wins the nomination.

[H2O Man]

13. Well said.

That image of "Curious George" pushing a button ....yikes!

[malthaussen]

17. But let's not go overboard.

Curious George did not push any buttons, despite having Darth Cheney in his office. The only President to ever push any buttons, the only person who ever pushed any buttons, was Harry Truman.

I distinctly remember people saying in 1980 that a vote for Carter was a vote for nuclear war. The fence next to the railroad station where I worked was plastered with posters of Carter's face inside a mushroom cloud. I have a less distinct memory of people saying the same thing about Barry Goldwater (hey, I was only 8 at the time, who knew from nuclear war?). I have a feeling that, at some point or other, every candidate since Harry Truman has been alleged to be a threat to push the button. But the button remains unpushed. (We'll set aside, for the nonce, the issue of using uranium-depleted warheads, which also lies at our doorstep, and no one else's).

I don't disagree that the current crop of GOP candidates are lunatics, and we would be well-advised to make every effort to see to it that they are not elected. But I doubt even Mr Trump would be fool enough to push any buttons (Mr Huckabee a different story, as he probably wants to immanentize the eschaton). The damage they will do will be less dramatic, if not less crippling to the US and the world.

-- Mal

[H2O Man]

22. I would tend

to agree with you about the post-Truman presidents, except for JFK. I think his detractors were inclined to claim that because he wouldn't push the button, he put the nation at risk.

There have been a number of military "leaders" who have advocated the use of WMD, obviously including in Vietnam. Luckily, saner minds prevailed. And, of course, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought us close to the brink of a war in which there would have been no winners.

The idea that Cheney was considering WMD as an option in our recent history really should not come as a surprise. The neoconservatives have advocated "strikes" on Iranian facilities, using extreme weapons. While the image of W was an attempt at humor, the very real possibility of the neoconservatives regaining power and influence is no joke.

[MisterP]

10. there is no place for people who ride 9-11 to slaughter a million Iraqis and 5,000 Americans

in or outside the party

[H2O Man]

14. Yep.

I agree.

[H2O Man]

15. On "All In," Chris Hayes

focused, in part, on these issues. Older DUers will recall a similar dynamic between MSNBC's reporting, and DU's Plame Threads.

[ms liberty]

16. K&R, for later reading; am at work. n/t

[H2O Man]

23. Thanks!

[antigop]

18. and how many Wall Streeters are lying in wait?

Wall Street "continues to pose a substantial threat to humanity".

http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes. One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity. On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.” This, from the chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically abolished the constitutional right to trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative beyond the dreams of avarice — certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee. [3]

The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General David Petraeus joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance. General Petraeus’ expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy. [4]

Petraeus and most of the avatars of the Deep State — the White House advisers who urged Obama not to impose compensation limits on Wall Street CEOs, the contractor-connected think tank experts who besought us to “stay the course” in Iraq, the economic gurus who perpetually demonstrate that globalization and deregulation are a blessing that makes us all better off in the long run — are careful to pretend that they have no ideology. Their preferred pose is that of the politically neutral technocrat offering well considered advice based on profound expertise. That is nonsense. They are deeply dyed in the hue of the official ideology of the governing class, an ideology that is neither specifically Democrat nor Republican. Domestically, whatever they might privately believe about essentially diversionary social issues such as abortion or gay marriage, they almost invariably believe in the “Washington Consensus”: financialization, outsourcing, privatization, deregulation and the commodifying of labor. Internationally, they espouse 21st-century “American Exceptionalism”: the right and duty of the United States to meddle in every region of the world with coercive diplomacy and boots on the ground and to ignore painfully won international norms of civilized behavior. To paraphrase what Sir John Harrington said more than 400 years ago about treason, now that the ideology of the Deep State has prospered, none dare call it ideology. [5] That is why describing torture with the word “torture” on broadcast television is treated less as political heresy than as an inexcusable lapse of Washington etiquette: Like smoking a cigarette on camera, these days it is simply “not done.

"

[H2O Man]

25. Well said!

Thank you for this. Much appreciated.

[Hekate]

19. "Two of them are extremely dangerous." Cruz was one of the speakers at the Kill The Gays meeting.

That spittle-flecked arm-whirling deranged creature who led off was introducing three GOP candidates: Jindal, Huckabee ....... and Cruz.

Rachel Maddow covered it. Who else has?

H2O Man, I have never forgotten that no less than Alan Dershowitz once devoted an Op-Ed to Cruz's character ( which I don't think he liked). He added that Cruz was the most brilliant student that he, Dershwitz, had taught.

I loathe Cruz, but ever since then I have seen his words and behavior through that lens: whatever else he may be, he is brilliant.

As to the other dangerous candidate, the latest Bush scion is in this election for the long haul. He looks and acts like a dweeb's dweeb, and he may be -- but he is a Bush and has the backing of what we at DU used to be aware of as the BFEE.

We lose sight of these things at our considerable peril.

Thank you.

[H2O Man]

28. Great point.

In our culture, a person can be a petty, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, lying, vicious thief, and still hold a position of "honor," such as a seat in the US Senate. Or on a federal court bench. People who know you might very well dislike you, but you will still be treated with respect.

I think that the fact that George W. Bush considered Cruz to be an arrogant, obnoxious dweeb is hilarious.

[Samantha]

42. Dam*n, that last line is hilarious -- it made me laugh out loud

And I really needed a laugh. You should get a thousand recs just for relaying that information. Other than that, great thread.

Sam

[7wo7rees]

24. Kick

[sabrina 1]

26. Good OP as usual, I read the reports of Bush Sr and Cheney. And all of what you remind us of

in your OP are the reasons why I support the one candidate who saw through the lies and refused to facilitate them.

Sometimes we have to stand up STRONGLY against things that are, were as evil, and I don't use that word often, as what WE ordinary people SAW back then, but so many our far more informed Representatives apparently either did not see, or agreed with.

I know from history what happens when we pander to evil.

[merrily]

27. Can you name a period of American history since the World War I years that was not presented

to us as dangerous in one way or another?

And I’m not saying we need to settle for the old “lesser of two evils.”

Then what are you saying? Because it does seem to me you are saying exactly that. And how is what you are saying relevant to primary season, rather than the general?

I ask both questions as someone who enjoys your posts.

[H2O Man]

29. Fear, of course, has

frequently been used by various governments/rulers around the globe, as a means of organizing large populations. Hence, of course it's presented as a "dangerous time" when elections roll around. But that is only slightly related to what I said about current times. I hope that I made clear that it is my impression that we are in a dangerous time. And I accept that others might look at the exact same circumstances that I do, and think it's not a particularly dangerous time, or even that it's a safe time.

I think it is good for people to look at the facts, or circumstances, and decide things like that, for themselves. Hence, while I'm aware of what "they" who always present times as dangerous, their opinion is distinct from mine. It doesn't influence me. But, again, I agree they are out there.

Being a person who trusts others to think for themselves, I do not feel any desire or need to tell anyone who they should vote for .....except in situations where I am an active part in a campaign. I helped an area candidate win his contest in the recent election. There, of course, I spoke as part of the campaign, and definitely asked people to vote for a specific candidate.

I do advocate that people vote. I don't think that voting alone can bring about necessary change. I think people need to be active participants in social and political events. I'll spare you the list of current social-political activities that I am or have recently been engaging in. The things I'm active in are obviously important to me. But I recognize that the next person is going to hold different interests. That's a good thing.

Now, I suppose that I might come off as a person focused upon locating the safety of the lesser of two evils to some people. Still others might think very differently.But I don't worry about that, one way or the other. Maybe I should, but I honestly don't.

In terms of a "dangerous time" et al, and how it relates to the primaries, and potentially the general election, that's something that I accept is understood by some, and not by others. The responses to the OP document that. But from my perspective, I think that the business about old Dick Cheney is important in ways well beyond his serving as vice president for eight years. I think that some Cheneyites are still in positions influencing our government. Again, just my opinion, but I view Cheney and his ilk pose real dangers to our constitutional democracy.

[merrily]

30. Thank you. Cheney is not running in the Democratic primary, but someone who helped

sell that war to Americans is.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. in 08, you said Hillary was like a lynch mob and said she's unfit for Democrats.

Strange Fruit Campaign
Posted by H2O Man in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon Feb 25th 2008, 01:28 PM
"Southern trees bear a strange fruit,
blood on the leaves and blood at the root.
…strange fruit hanging from the poplar trees.
…Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck,
for the rain to gather, for the wind to suck,
for the sun to rot, for the tree to drop.
Here is a strange and bitter crop."
--Lewis Allen/ sung by Billie Holiday

You can tell a tree by it’s fruit. The Obama campaign is providing a crop of positive messages. The fruit of the Obama tree is hope. It is safe to serve to your entire family.

The Clinton campaign’s yield has rotted over the weekend. It looked sweet at the end of last week’s CNN debate, but it has a strange and bitter odor now. It is poison, and unfit for democratic consumption.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4761164


I keep thinking about that OP this year.

[H2O Man]

33. Histrionics are so unappealing.

Perhaps even you could recognize, painful as it may be, that there is a distinction between her and her campaign. The people involved in her campaign were terrible.

[lunatica]

37. His entire family's careers are Dick Cheney

I've known that for decades. Liz and Lynn do his bidding about everything. Lynn, his wife, retired a long time ago to write her Republican version of American History for grade schoolers. She used to complain that the history books weren't "positive" enough or "patriotic" enough. You can imagine what that means. I also believe his daughter ran for state legislature, or was it Governor, just to do his bidding. He wants tentacles into everything. And I think he has them too.

Cheney and his ilk have always had his sights set on the long term. He's patient. But I always thought the Bush family was in it too. Of the same ilk. That's why they were together with George W. they thought their time had finally come. They had the PNAC up and ready to go. They've since taken it down. Perhaps that makes them more dangerous.

They've been very dangerous for a long time.

[H2O Man]

40. I agree, 100%.

This nation does not need another Cheney or Bush in any office, elected or otherwise. The same holds true for any of their associates.

[lovemydog]

31. This also made me think of other characters

in American history. Some in Eisenhower's cabinet proposed dropping a nuke on China. I believe some on the joint chiefs of staff (like Curtis LeMay) nuking Vietnam. McCain and other republicans seemed obsessed with bombing Iran. If we actually bombed all the various places in the world that republicans have proposed heavily bombing, I think we'd be left with the US, parts of Western Europe and maybe Antartica.

A sobering history lesson indeed. Bringing it to current times, republican presidential candidates are now proposing large scale bombing in the middle east. And I'm sure other regions as well.

Agreed we should think carefully about how we vote, and also look closely at who among the republican candidates factions in that party are pushing and why.

[H2O Man]

36. Right.

After WW2, there were plenty of people -- especially in the military -- who advocated the use of nukes in numerous situations. The more time passed, the less frequent that thought was seriously considered. One would have hoped that by 2000 ad, no American in government would have viewed WMD as a possibility.

Curtis LeMay was a strange human being. Admittedly, all that I have read about him tended to focus on his character from mid-WW2 on. He appears to have become addicted to the thought of causing wide-spread death, on both an impersonal and vicious manner. His mind became twisted. There are some unfortunate similarities between his pathology, and that of Dick Cheney. However, at least one can say that LeMay actually donned a military uniform, and was an active participant in warfare. Cheney is a more cowardly version.

[lunatica]

34. Now that I can look back

I'm more sure than ever that my lifelong perception that if you remember the things that happened 20 years ago (about a generation's time) you can see the causes of the present wars and other nefarious events happening now. There are some very long roots that connect things over a span of many years.

I guess I'm not the only one who's paranoid like that...

And Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz et al have been around for more than just one generation. We are living in dangerous times.

Thanks for your insights.

[H2O Man]

38. You are absolutely right.

Almost all human behavior is mechanical. Thus, what happens today is a direct consequence of what took place yesterday; likewise, tomorrow will be a direct consequence of today. That sounds terribly obvious, yet far too many people do not see the connections. Yet, it is for this very reason that some people are able to predict, with pretty good accuracy, what the future holds, if we remain on the path we are currently on.

The only thing that can change is people. Again, it sounds obvious, though our society tends to continue down similar paths, over and over, hoping for a better outcome. But for that much-needed different outcome to possibly occur, most people in our society would need to change ....in the sense that in order to do better, one must be better. And in a society that is fueled by anxiety and fear, hatreds and self-righteousness, that would be difficult -- though not as difficult as not changing will be.

[NurseJackie]

35. Great post. Thanks.

[H2O Man]

39. Thank you!

[Blue_In_AK]

41. Excellent post, as always, H2OMan.

Food for thought.

[lunatica]

43. kick'd and rec'd

This needs to be read by more people