SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (73842)1/17/2007 11:37:35 AM
From: Crimson Ghost  Respond to of 89467
 
Cheney’s Dead-Enders


Rumsfeld is gone, but the veep’s other loyalists remain.

By Laura Rozen




With the departure of his longtime friend Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton’s resignation as U.N. ambassador, and Democrats taking over Congress, times seem grim for the Dick Cheney wing of the Bush administration. The vice president’s vision of a “unitary executive”—otherwise known as the imperial presidency—will almost certainly be challenged by congressional oversight committees, and perhaps by the courts. But Cheney—former aide to Rumsfeld in the Nixon administration, chief of staff in the Ford administration, defense secretary in the first Bush administration, and House intelligence committee chairman during the Iran-Contra scandal (in which he backed the Reagan White House)—is no novice in the art of bureaucratic warfare. He has long surrounded himself with impeccably loyal aides who both share his worldview of a powerful presidency unchecked by the legislative branch, and who have also installed like-minded allies throughout the government. Such allies provide crucial intelligence of inter-departmental debates, enabling Cheney to make end-runs around the bureaucracy and head off opposing views at key meetings. Call it Cheney’s state within the state. Herewith a brief guide to the Cheney network, dwindling and beleaguered, but by no means to be underestimated:

First stop, Cheney’s office itself and its extraordinarily large staff, presided over by Cheney’s Cheney, chief counsel turned chief of staff David Addington, who replaced “Scooter” Libby following Libby’s indictment in the Valerie Plame investigation. “A friend of mine counted noses [at the office] and came away with 88. That doesn’t count others seconded from other agencies,” said Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, previously chief of staff to former secretary of state Colin Powell. Wilkerson’s source also noted a National Security Council staff of 212, instead of the usual 110 to 150. The build-up signals Cheney’s desire to consolidate power in the White House—where, not incidentally, it’s harder for Congress and the press to pry. (When I inquired about a staffer’s rumored move to the Veep’s office, a Cheney press officer answered sweetly, “If we have a personnel announcement we’d like you to know about, we’ll tell you.”)

Moving to Foggy Bottom, where Cheney’s progeny has until recently reigned. State Department colleagues aren’t sure what’s become of his daughter, Liz Cheney, promoted in 2005 to principal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs and head of the Middle East Partnership Initiative—effectively the czar of promoting democracy in the region. She went on maternity leave last summer and hasn’t returned. Department sources say Cheney fille will not resume leadership of the Partnership Initiative. (That post remains unfilled, as the administration’s democracy promotion goals stumble on multiple fronts.) Liz Cheney is said to be updating the necessary paperwork to become a senior adviser to Condoleezza Rice, but few have seen her in the building.

Her former top aides, deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs J. Scott Carpenter and senior advisor David Denehy, both democracy specialists formerly with the International Republican Institute, who did Iraq tours as CPA advisors, are allegedly feeling orphaned during her absence. Denehy is reportedly mulling a move to the vice president’s office to work on Iran. The concern? Since spring 2005, Deneny has overseen the mysterious Iran-Syria Operations Group, conceiving ways to poke at, or perhaps dislodge, the Tehran regime. If Denehy is seconded to Cheney’s office, he’ll take the interagency group farther underground with him. (He’d also join a large group on the axis-of-evil portfolio, including Cheney’s principal deputy assistant for national-security affairs, David Wurmser, national-security advisor John Hannah, both of the neoconservative-hawk persuasion, as is Samantha Ravitch, Cheney’s deputy assistant national-security advisor with responsibility for Iran and North Korea counter-proliferation issues. What the other 84 people working for Cheney do is anyone’s guess.)

Across the river at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld’s exit hits Cheney loyalists hard, as does the departure of Rumsfeld’s right-hand man, Stephen Cambone, formerly the Pentagon’s intelligence czar, torture-enabler and overseer of a vast expansion of domestic spying. But incoming defense secretary Robert Gates may also ponder the pedigree of undersecretary of defense for policy Eric Edelman, a career foreign-service officer and former national-security advisor to the vice president (and said to be more moderate than his predecessor Douglas Feith).

Deeper in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Gates should also watch a secretive Iranian directorate de facto supervised by Abram Shulsky, a Straussian neoconservative intelligence expert who oversaw the controversial Office of Special Plans (OSP), which produced discredited intelligence analysis tying Saddam to al Qaeda and hyping the WMD threat. Two other OSP veterans toil in the six-person directorate: John Trigilio, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst, and Ladan Archin, a former graduate student of Paul Wolfowitz. Archin, who went to the vice president’s office briefly last year, returned to the DoD a few months later, continuing to advocate for a harder line against Iran. Whether she and other denizens of the Iran directorate and larger policy shop will remain under Gates—who has called for negotiations with Iran—remains to be seen.

Also to watch at DoD, general counsel William J. Haynes II, author of a Nov. 2002 memo outlining harsh interrogation techniques echoing Cheney’s views. Consequently, Haynes’ nomination for a federal judgeship is probably dead. According to Jane Mayer’s New Yorker series, Cheney’s pro-torture network included Addington; Haynes, Rumsfeld and Cambone at Defense; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Only Cheney, Addington and Haynes remain. The OLC’s acting head, Steven Bradbury, “is not a true Addington believer in the way John [Yoo] was,” said a former Justice Department official. “But [he] recognizes Cheney/Addington as his client.” Nevertheless, with former White House counsel, now attorney general, Alberto Gonzales generally inclined to see things the White House’s way, it’s hard to envision his department vigorously resisting the controversial philosophies of Cheney and his network.

Wilkerson concludes: “Their modus operandi has been to make policy and force the bureaucracy, which often has not had an opportunity to participate in the making of the policy, to execute it.” He adds: “That is a technique that could still work, but it may be diminished in effectiveness. The bureaucracy now understands how beleaguered and isolated the Vice President has become.” And may just bite back.

- - Advertisers - -



To: American Spirit who wrote (73842)1/17/2007 3:22:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Convicted Watergate 'plumber' claims LBJ may have had JFK assassinated

rawstory.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (73842)1/17/2007 6:50:56 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 89467
 
How Obama stacks up against JFK

By Jonathan Alter

msnbc.msn.com

Jan. 16, 2007 - Judging by the middle name alone, you gotta give Kennedy the edge. John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Barack Hussein Obama. “Fitzgerald” was gold among Catholic voters, about a quarter of the 1960 electorate, who voted more than 80 percent for JFK. “Hussein”? Well, it might be an asset with a few Muslim voters in Michigan who mistakenly think he’s one of the faithful. For everyone else, Barack’s got, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, some ‘splaining to do.

OK, maybe I’m getting a bit ahead of myself by indulging in these Kennedy-Obama comparisons. But with the junior senator from Illinois announcing today an exploratory committee (the labored and faintly comical but de rigueur prelude to a full candidacy), the subject is in the air. Kennedy’s close aide in the Senate and the White House, Theodore Sorensen, told me recently that Obama “reminds me in many ways of Kennedy in 1960. The pundits said he was Catholic and too young and inexperienced and wasn’t a member of the party’s inner circle. They forgot that the nomination wasn’t decided in Washington but in the field.” As far as I know, Sorensen has made no other such comparison to his boss in nearly half a century.

The most common reason the two candidates are mentioned in the same breath is that hackneyed word, “charisma.” This is, more precisely, sex appeal. There’s a famous picture of a smiling President Kennedy coming out of the surf wearing only swimming trunks. Over the holidays, paparazzi caught a bare-chested Obama vacationing with his family in his native Hawaii. Like JFK, Obama attracts big audiences that include “jumpers,” those anxious fans—often young women—who jump from the back of the crowd to catch a glimpse of their crush. There’s a grasping intensity on his rope lines that’s also reminiscent of Robert F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton—but very few others in the history of modern politics.

Kennedy and Obama also share a strong, if slightly exotic, television presence. (Kennedy’s TV exoticism came from his pronounced Boston accent; Obama’s from his name and mixed racial origin). Each comes across "cool" on the tube, the recipe for success. That’s partly because, off camera, each is viewed by former classmates, friends and acquaintances as cool in that powerful if ill-defined way that counts as much in politics as it does in high school. Neither was a glad-hander; both were the kind of guys in school that lots of other people just wanted to hang around with, if they got the chance.

They obviously come from different ends of the American experience. Kennedy’s father was a millionaire and ambassador to England. He grew up knowing all the right people. Obama’s father was a foreign-exchange student and the son of a Kenyan goat herder who left Obama’s mother (a white Kansan) shortly after his birth. Obama arrived in Chicago after college knowing no one and with little money.

But time has eroded these disparities. Both were products of the Ivy League, and it didn’t take Obama long (after his first year at Harvard Law) to win the confidence of prominent lawyers and other members of the American meritocratic elite. And the speed with which money can be raised on the Internet will likely make him at least competitive with Hillary Clinton in fund-raising and far exceed any cash Joe Kennedy gave his son in 1960. As for personal wealth, Obama is now living in a Chicago mansion, thanks to multimillion-dollar book contracts. Like JFK, who authored the best-selling “Profiles in Courage” while in the Senate, Obama’s reputation is based in part on his writing—though in Obama’s case there’s no doubt that he wrote his books himself. (Mike Wallace, among others, aired charges that Sorensen ghost-wrote “Profiles in Courage,” which the Kennedys and Sorensen denied.)

Kennedy was 43 years old when he won the White House in 1960 by what was then the tiniest margin of victory until George W. Bush’s in 2000. If Obama wins in 2008, he would be four years older than Kennedy—at 47—when he takes office. Kennedy had more Washington experience, though he, too, was derided by the pundits as too green for the job. After narrowly missing out on the vice-presidential nomination at the 1956 convention, Kennedy gave a gracious concession speech that put him on the map—in a manner reminiscent of Obama’s stunning 2004 keynote address at the Democratic convention. As the 1960 campaign approached, Kennedy was still talked about as a possible No. 2 on the ticket. Like Obama, Kennedy had never been a governor, the most common route to the White House. JFK was elected to the House in 1946 and the U.S. Senate in 1952, meaning that he served eight years in the Senate before becoming president. He was ill (and briefly near death) during his Senate years and his legislative record was about as thin as Obama’s (or Hillary Clinton’s for that matter. The Democrats have been in the minority until this year). “Jack the Zipper,” as he was sometimes known, was viewed as a playboy with a lot less gravitas than other potential 1960 candidates like Sens. Hubert Humphrey, Stuart Symington and Lyndon B. Johnson, not to mention former Democratic nominee Adlai E. Stevenson.

Obama in 2008 will have served half as long as Kennedy—four years in the U.S. Senate—after his eight years in the Illinois state Senate. This would make him, as he readily reminds people, the most politically inexperienced president since Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860 with only two years’ experience in the U.S. House under his belt (1846-48), following six years in the Illinois Legislature. (This tally doesn’t include generals, who have a different kind of political and managerial experience). To confront the experience gap head on, Obama is expected to announce his candidacy on Feb. 10, two days before Lincoln’s 198th birthday, in Lincoln’s hometown of Springfield, Ill. The aim: to point out that Lincoln, too, had a thin résumé, and look how he turned out.

Kennedy was a Catholic when that was seen as a serious handicap for a presidential candidate. Before he ran, only one Catholic had ever been nominated for president—Al Smith in 1928—and he was drubbed by Herbert Hoover. “The time hasn’t come when a man can say his [rosary] beads in the White House,” Smith said bitterly. Kennedy gave a famous speech to Protestant ministers in Houston during the 1960 campaign that directly confronted the issue and helped calm fears he would owe allegiance to the Vatican. Obama lives in a more tolerant age, but no one can say for sure that “the time has come” when Americans are ready for a black president.

The most important comparison between the two men will not be clear for some time. John F. Kennedy succeeded because of a great capacity for growth. He began the 1960 campaign as a halting and not terribly effective speaker—far worse than Humphrey—and ended it with a stunning inaugural address. His campaign made few mistakes, though he had never run before. We don’t know yet if Barack Obama, already a good speaker, will grow this year and next, and whether he’ll be able to avoid the many pitfalls of presidential politics. If he does, the JFK comparisons will grow louder still.

© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.