Hopping mad,
Yep – noticed and wondered. Seems like it’s pile on Cheney time (Scowcroft: “I don’t know Dick Cheney” – does he recognize Rumsfeld?), make Cheney and his side-kick Libby the bad guys, compartmentalize, limit damage to the OVP – see we cleaned it all up. Move along now.

Posted by: Hamburger | Nov 5 2005 12:05 utc | 4

A must read article:
All the King’s Media
excerpts:

George W. Bush’s plight leads me to thoughts of Louis XV and his royal court in the eighteenth century. Politics may not have changed as much as modern pretensions assume. Like Bush, the French king was quite popular until he was scorned, stubbornly self-certain in his exercise of power yet strangely submissive to manipulation by his courtiers. Like Louis Quinze, our American magistrate (whose own position was secured through court intrigues, not elections) has lost the “royal touch.” Certain influential cliques openly jeer the leader they not so long ago extolled; others gossip about royal tantrums and other symptoms of lost direction. The accusations stalking his important counselors and assembly leaders might even send some of them to jail. These political upsets might matter less if the government were not so inept at fulfilling its routine obligations, like storm relief. The king’s sorry war drags on without resolution, with people still arguing over why exactly he started it. The staff of life–oil, not bread–has become punishingly expensive. The government is broke, borrowing formidable sums from rival nations. The king pretends nothing has changed.
The burnt odor in Washington is from the disintegrating authority of the governing classes. The public’s darkest suspicions seem confirmed. Flagrant money corruption, deceitful communication of public plans and purposes, shocking incompetence–take your pick, all are involved. None are new to American politics, but they are potently fused in the present circumstances. A recent survey in Wisconsin found that only 6 percent of citizens believe their elected representatives serve the public interest. If they think that of state and local officials, what must they think of Washington?
…
As an ex-Luddite, I came to the web with the skepticism of an old print guy. Against expectations, I am experiencing sustained exchanges with many far-flung people I’ve never met–dialogues that inform both of us and are utterly voluntary experiences. This is a promising new form of consent. Democracy, I once wrote, begins not at election time but in human conversation…

Posted by: Malooga | Nov 5 2005 15:10 utc | 6

It’s Cheney first, then the rest will be weeded out. Rumsfeld will come later, probably leaving to spend more time with his family after he sees that his power is severely diminished.
There are several groups participating in or supporting this silent, slo-mo coup:
1) The intelligence community, particularly the CIA, is running point. Fitz will get all the info he needs to keep his investigation going until the new cabal gets the result it wants. I also believe the Italian channel of info will keep flowing until Cheney is gone; the CIA’s SISMI connections will see to that. Poppy is in on this. Remember, he was very popular as head of the CIA when he defended it from “the excesses” of the Church committee hearings. Per Kevin Phillips, many of the CIA officers Carter fired went to work for GHWB in 1980 and formed the nucleous of his VP staff. (Phillips thinks these were the folks that pulled off the October surprise and Iran-contra.) Poppy’s CIA contacts at the CIA continue today; he knows how they feel and what is happening.
2)The military. They are the ones doing the bleeding in this messianic, imperialist crusade. They tried to slow the march to the Iraq war, or at least inject some common sense into conducting it and were brushed aside (Zinni, Shinseki, etc.). They hated Rumsfeld before he broke the military and they hate him more now. When Cheney and his supporters go, Rumsfeld will be isolated. He’ll be pressed to resign and will go. No indictments, but no medal of freedom, either. Unlike, Tenet, the PTB don’t have to buy his silence.
3) The State Dept. Many top State Dept personnel resigned prior to the Iraq war, so you can bet there is deep seated resentment still in this Dept over foreign policy in recent years. They would love to see the realists return, will do absolutely nothing to help Cheney stay and anything they can to help the effort to remove him and his supporters. Rice? She will resign to “pursue other opportunities” after a decent interval following Cheney’s resignation just so the sheeple don’t connect the two resignations – a bit of face saving for her. But she looks silly and is quite an embarassment to Old Guard diplomats now. Those who want to rebuild the State Dept and our alliances cannot do it with her at the helm.
4) The corporate wing of th Republican Party! This one may seem surprising in view of all the goodies the Cheney administration has given them. However, they have been signaling in speeches and articles during the past year (sorry, no time to find links) that the WoT is hurting Brand America overseas and they don’t like it. A survey in Forbes the other day reported that two thirds of corporate CEOs see this as a big problem for their companies. And, it’s a problem better marketing can’t solve. They’ll keep their goodies, thank you very much, but want the, ah, overseas business climate to improve. They are behind the Old Guard and the articles and editorials being published in the corporate fishwrap are starting to show this. They aren’t leading the charge, but their contribution – before and after – shouldn’t be underestimated.
5) The others. These include deficit hawks and traditional conservatives who now believe Cheney/Bush has not governed as a conservative. (Well, that took a long time, didn’t it? What was it that finally pissed them off? Interventionist foreign policy? Runaway deficits? The Patriot Acts? Marrying church and state? Torture? Gulags? No, it was Harriet Miers. Jesus Rollerblading Christ!) While they are not major players, Cheney will not have them as allies in any fight he wages for survival.
Not that we have reached the last act yet, but it seems that Cheney and the go-it-alone crowd are finally alone. Logical end, poetic justice for them though they deserve harsher punishment than poetry.
But what of Bush? I believe the Old Guard wants to keep him on right now while they take operational control. Too much trauma otherwise. This could change, particularly if Cheney gets to Syria or Iran before the Old Guard gets to him. There has to be doubt about how well W would adapt to new, unfamiliar people while being muzzled in a choke collar for three years, particularly one held by Poppy’s pals, but I think they would like to try it that way and hope polling figures stay north of 30%. Sometimes, I think that, post Cheney, the best result we could – realistically – hope for is that Rove is removed by indictments while Bush stays. That way an emasculated Bush has to dance on stage without Rove pulling the strings. The country richly deserves the humiliation of a spectacle like this, and so does the play-acting Bush. I doubt the PTB will allow it, though; they don’t want us to grow up.
Well, I’ve gotten quite a bit ahead of our story. That is my fevered little brain for you, always getting carried away. Just my take on the current drama and some future speculation for whatever entertainment value it may have.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Nov 5 2005 15:57 utc | 8

Pretty much what I’ve been saying all along too. Except that they won’t be able to save Georgie. They waited to long to do damage control. He will not finish his term.

Posted by: gylangirl | Nov 5 2005 16:22 utc | 10

Enjoyed the new Greider article.
____________________________________________
IF dems gain House majority in ’06, and IF Bush and Cheney are impeached . . .
House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi would become the 45th President of the United States of America.
Current seats: 231 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 Independent and 1 vacancy.
http://impeachpac.org/

Posted by: Anonymous | Nov 5 2005 16:23 utc | 12

it seems we have quite a few people who know their theory of elites & any tool which can help us understand what are the schisms that are occuring witin the elites, the appareil or the state itself – are steps for us to understand more deeply the crisis we have entered & the crisis to come

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 5 2005 16:32 utc | 14

What pisses me off, is that if the Dems retake the senate in 06, it’s more of the same but with better PR (and greenbacks)

Posted by: Rupert Murdoch | Nov 5 2005 16:51 utc | 16

operation steel curtain? sounding kinda soviet. of couse this should come as no surprise, still it’s crushing.
president pelosi rolls off my tongue very comfortably. dare i dream.

Posted by: annie | Nov 5 2005 17:05 utc | 18

A nice fairytale from Krugman

Hans Christian Andersen understood bad rulers. “The Emperor’s New Suit” doesn’t end with everyone acclaiming the little boy for telling the truth. It ends with the emperor and his officials refusing to admit their mistake.
I’ve laid my hands on additional material, which Andersen failed to publish, describing what happened after the imperial procession was over.
The talk-show host Bill O’Reilly yelled, “Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!” at the little boy. Calling the boy a nut, he threatened to go to the boy’s house and “surprise” him.
Fox News repeatedly played up possible finds of imperial clothing, then buried reports discrediting these stories. Months after the naked procession, a poll found that many of those getting most of their news from Fox believed that the emperor had in fact been clothed.
Imperial officials eventually admitted that they couldn’t find any evidence that the suit ever existed, or that there had even been an effort to produce a suit. They insisted, however, that they had found evidence of wardrobe-manufacturing-and-distribution-related program activities. …

Quite funny

Posted by: b | Nov 5 2005 17:43 utc | 20

uncle $cam
of course, i’m interested – but i still possess such a rudimentary knowledge of exchanging files etc – i’m frightened it will be like placing semtex inside my old black powerbook

Posted by: r’giap | Nov 5 2005 19:21 utc | 22

& again outraged the information you give here i find of immense value & utility – the devil is in the detail & it is this form of detail which for me at least gives me a clearer landscape with which to view this ongoing catastrophe
there was an interesting thing you & pat were discussing last week – re that monster judith miller & her acces durinf her embedement with the occupation forces – what you were both saying was very clear – but it still left the question of how she got that access. perhaps either of you has answered it & i missed it

Posted by: r’giap | Nov 5 2005 19:30 utc | 24

thinking of little scali & the damage he wants to escalate within american jurisprudence i am reminded of bob dylan again
“william zanzinger, who at twenty-four years
owns a tabacco farm of six hundred acres
with rich wealthy parents who provide and protect him
and high office relations in the politics of maryland
reacted to his deed with a shrug of his soldiers
and swear words and sneering, and his toungue it was snarling
in a manner of minutes on bail was out walking
but you who philosophise disgrace & criticize all fears
take the rag away from your face
now aint the time for your tears
….
in the courtroom of honour, the judge pounded his gavel
to show that all’s equal and that the courts are on the level
and that the strings in the books aint pulled and persuaded
and that even the nobles get properly handled
once that the cops have chased after and caught’em
and that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom
stared at the person who killed for no reason
who just happened to be feelin that way without warnin’
and he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished
and handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance
william zanzinger with a six month sentence
oh, but you who philosophise disgrace and criticise all fears
bury the rag deep in your face
for now’s the time for your tears”
the lonesome death of hattie carroll
this wm blake of our time speak still & still speaks

Posted by: r’giap | Nov 5 2005 19:48 utc | 26

@RememberingGiap
Re Judith Millers ‘supposed’ security clearance …
What we were fleshing out for MOA is that there’s basically no way she could have had one, if in fact she did, unless it was granted via undue process, in effect, illegally, by senior officials exerting inappropriate and undue influence/coercion …
Unless of course Judith M was actually fully entitled to have a security clearance because she was/is, in fact, a federal, ahem, employee, or more specifically an operative … ‘Aspen roots’ and all that … Judith has an interesting bio & career … 😉
Now what was that disinformation bureau Rumsfeld created just before Gulf War II … the one whose manadte was to use taxpayer funds to manufacture false news reports and articles in the ‘foriegn’ press ?

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 20:07 utc | 28

Worth the read, especially re ‘lessons learned’. L.G Grau is an expert on the former conflict in Afghanistan:

THE SOVIET-AFGHAN WAR: A SUPERPOWER MIRED IN THE MOUNTAINS
by Lester W. Grau, Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS.
This article was previously published in
The Journal of Slavic Military Studies March 2004
Volume 17, Number 1
———————————————————————
The Soviet-Afghan War involved more than the Soviets and Mujahideen resistance. Afghan communists (the DRA) were involved in the immediate struggle and a large number of countries supplied the Mujahideen during this “Cold War” hot war. Their struggle and their lessons are outlined. The author does not usually write without footnotes, but he wrote this article during a trip to Iraq and lacked his reference library. Needless to say, he drew on his knowledge about the war and the knowledge he gained from noted authorities on the subject. These include Ali Jalali, Barnett Rubin, Riaz Khan, Mohammad Youssaf, Brace Amstutz, Artem Borovik, Aleksandr Lyakhovskiy, Aleksandr Mayorov, Scott McMichael, Makhmut Gareev, David Isby, Boris Gromov, Rasul Rais, and Louis Dupree.
Soaring mountains dominate Afghanistan and shape its culture, history, social structure, customs, politics and economy. Vast, trackless deserts, mighty rivers and lush cropland further define this remote country. Militarily, the operational key terrain is the limited road network that connects its cities in a giant ring with side roads to Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. There are only 24 kilometers of railroad in Afghanistan–and these are split in two unconnected segments–leftover spurs from the former Soviet Union’s incursion. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, many countries offered to build railroads in Afghanistan, but Afghanistan was bordered to the north by the Russian Empire, to the East by the British Empire and to the West by Persia, heir to the late Persian Empire. The rulers of Afghanistan noted that the armies of empire traveled on rail and no railroads were built in Afghanistan. Militarily, this was probably a wise choice, but it exacted a severe economic and political price. To this day, Afghanistan is one of the most poverty-stricken and isolated countries on the planet.
There are some eternal truths about Afghanistan. First, it is a fragmented land in which a strong central government is an anomaly. Tribal chiefs and regional warlords exert considerable power and the central government requires extraordinary leadership to control and dominate its unruly regions. Rural Afghans think of themselves primarily in tribal and peer group [qwam] terms, not as Afghans. The one event that unites all Afghans in a common cause is foreign invasion. The central government’s army has seldom been strong enough to repel external invasion, but the country’s true combat power lies in the rural lands and remote mountains where warriors hold sway…

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 20:28 utc | 30

@Steel of Dan- Google Spell Check
Thanks! I had that on my Google but didn’t know it.

Posted by: Soandso | Nov 5 2005 20:34 utc | 32

@Pat
Here’s the link to my original post … the discussion wandered over multiple threads after that … here here and here, at least 🙂

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 20:57 utc | 34

Forget the specific links above, the clearance posts re J Miller were pretty much concentrated in the Plame IV thread.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 21:09 utc | 36

I just can’t see how it would be in the interests of the ‘old guard’ to have a full on coup.
Apart from the fact these guys are once were’s/has beens, which means that they are no longer in day to day contact with the opinion/decision makers of the other elites, so being able to create a coup would be problematic, it isn’t in the interests of Poppy/Scowcroft or any other old guard republican to destroy their power base from within.
They aren’t be happy with some decisions, some of these neo-cons have made. Let’s face it, these guys are pragmatists and will want to avoid any sort of self destructive impulses, they have no interest in creating enemies needlessly.
Power bases like Washington don’t work by the group at the top having all the skills and knowledge within their purview and controlling it’s trickle downwards and outwards toward the intended goal.
The place is full of ‘independent contractors’ who jealously guard their domain and will never allow someone like Poppy no matter how influential he may be at this moment it time, to destroy or nullify their personal fiefdom.
So if the old guard were allowed their head of steam, they would make just enough examples of either total incompetents or fall guys to keep the sheeple content. Then reach a series of compromises with any/everyone who actually had any juice.
Scowcrofts remarks about Cheney tells us that Scowcroft isn’t pulling any sort of j’accuse he is saying ‘here is a regular guy who on first glance may have gone off the tracks a bit’ The next move from Wilkerson was a classic piece of power play. It’s not enough to really hang Cheney; just a shot across the bows, a c’mon lets sit down and talk this thing out.”
Cheney has been building up his personal fiefdom for 35 years and yes many others would like to get their grubby hands on it, but to even try do so would be extremely expensive and difficult. So let’s compromise guys.
This isn’t a spiel on how hopeless it is but if the push against the neo-cons is left in the hands of the vet-cons, who are the fore-runners of the neo-cons ,all that has occurred is a vain attempt to turn the clock back.
Similarly leaving it up to the jack-asses will allow them to only engage with and defeat the parts of the elites that threaten the demopublicans. The rest will be cajoled/suborned to back the new game in town and everything will continue as before until the next asshole begins to believe his/her own bullshit.
So by all means use Poppy, use Pelosi, but don’t be waiting around for them to do the work because what flows from that work will not be in the best interests of Amerikans it will be what’s in the best interests of Poppy or Pelosi.

Posted by: debs is dead | Nov 5 2005 21:18 utc | 38

“…granted that we know so little about the events converging on the Plame affair, it can’t be wise to exclude any possibility (such as military participation) based on the too little that we know thus far.”
Okay, alabama. I remain a skeptic, not least wrt the role you’ve given Powell. I’d be more inclined to entertain the possibility that the military side of the house has tried to force a major policy change on the WH in order to forestall some imminent disaster (self-preservation is the first rule of armies) and having failed is desperate to somehow bring in people amenable to it. Motive, motive, motive. But the Pentagon seems resigned to a course of muddle through, shedding as much direct exposure in Iraq as it can in any given quarter. (And further wars at this time are simply out of the question and off the table.)
I don’t think Plamegate figures prominently, if at all, in the workaday occupations at the Pentagon.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 5 2005 21:53 utc | 40

@Pat
Not surprisingly, the actively serving, military and otherwise must carefully weigh the consequences of even the most limited /action’ …

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 22:10 utc | 42

Outch! this has got to sting…
FBI: Financial Gain Drove Uranium Forgery
but for who???

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 5 2005 22:45 utc | 44

@Pat, speaking of coups, do you know anything about who was behind the last one, that goes by the Misnomer of “watergate”? It’s amazing they pulled that one off completely while remaining hidden behind 2 “cub reporters”, one of whom was from ONI basically. At least this time the players are pretty obvious.

Posted by: jj | Nov 5 2005 23:13 utc | 46

@Slothrop
Looks interesting, thanks for the ‘Heads Up’.

The very impressive documentary “Why we fight” by Eugene Jarecki. Absolutely the most brilliant film about America’s militairism i’ve ever seen. In january, this new film won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2005 Sundance Film Festival.
“Why we fight” orginally is the title of an American series of World War II propaganda movies.
In this 100 minutes long 2005 documentary, a very good picture is digested about the development of the American militairy -industrial complex since WW II. It sketches the increasing danger from this power structure to world peace and freedom. Even an American president already warned for a doom scenario in 1961 at his farewellspeech: Eisenhower. The Bush regime is put in perspective very well. After you have seen this film, it is farely impossible to have a bit of confidence left in Bush & co. And you will realize that it is very obvious that Iraq is not the last country wich is going to be invaded by the U.S.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 5 2005 23:28 utc | 48

Ike was a consumate diplomat who, for a time, wore a uniform. I for one can believe his son’s claim.

Posted by: Outraged | Nov 6 2005 0:07 utc | 50

i would have presumed that id such schism exist amongs the elites they would also exist within the appareil of the military. they are not neutral – neither ideologically or practically
wilkensons & scowcrofts recent comments for me mask more than they reveal about the schisms, if any

Posted by: r’giap | Nov 6 2005 0:20 utc | 52

ONI, jj? First I’ve heard.
I think the bar is being set way too high, and hopes and expectectations are going to continue to be frustrated. Just sayin’.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 6 2005 1:08 utc | 54

“Not surprisingly, the actively serving, military and otherwise must carefully weigh the consequences of even the most limited /action’ …”
Sorry, Outraged. Somehow I misread. Yes, they do have to carefully consider. What I think is often overlooked, however, or not well understood is that… well, look, they aren’t called the ‘services’ for nothing. There’s a distinct mentality that attends and is a part of such ‘service’. That has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with the nature of the institution itself.

Posted by: Pat | Nov 6 2005 1:33 utc | 56

Thanks, catlady, for the GAO report link. You hit this mark.
Between now and next November, I am splitting my meager “power of one” between “verified voting” and the defeat of a received-money-from-Jack-Abramoff Republican in my district.
Learned earlier today of a lawsuit in my neck of woods that “has the potential to alter the face of American elections.”

Posted by: manonfrye | Nov 6 2005 2:40 utc | 58

I think we can clearly see the unpredictable flux of events that makes up worldly life. Look at France these last nine days. The racial situation there has been a powder keg waiting for ignition. Ethnic, class, ideological, racial struggles are universal. They work themselves out only to be re-created. We are all guilty. The imperialistic attempt of America is a speck in the continuing attempt of one group to dominate another. From within the family, to the tribe, to the states, to the countries, we are in it together. Many of these poor countries being invaded and dominated have some of the most vicious internal warfare imaginable.
No matter how it happens, the fall of the top in this country is here. I think it will increase in the next 20 years. As this unfolds, the rebuilding from the bottom up is on deck, as good local government becomes vital. I’m already turning my attention to this, especially as a result of my state’s sensible election.(52-48, jj).
The power struggle between the elites and the commoners has never been won. There is an overall equilibrium in the dynamic, as one can’t exist without the other. The commoners labor and the elites provide the goods the people desire and demand. All events move in an attempt to maintain equilibrium. There won’t be a victor.
A couple of years ago, I withdrew all my investments in the stock market and put the bread into local grass roots business. It has changed everything and given me a boost of independence, control, and power that was unforseen in its magnitude. And it has diminished my guilt.
I couldn’t complain any longer about unethical corporations and still have money going into them. And I refused to voluntarily contribute to the manufacture of weapons and pharmaceuticals.
As long as we consume their products and contribute to their growth, they will flourish. We’re stuck in many ways, but we have ways out as well, if we really put ourselves into it.
There will be many, many opportunities arising as seeds are planted and sown in communities all over the country. The problems are begging to be fixed.

Posted by: jm | Nov 6 2005 7:20 utc | 60

Well, the Democrats won’t attack Iran, what a relief!
If chicken flu hits Iraq, they’ll have to withdraw the troops!
(I need to laugh, bar jokes, not meant to be critical of anyone)
Seriously,
If I may, from my distant moutain, the Old Guard, the Democrats, the faux Liberals, part of the Public, the neo-cons, the PTB behind the scenes – whoever they are – the Army by extension (footnotes, see above) all broadly agree that the US must ‘reform’ or somehow control, often ‘take over’ the ME, or large chunks of it anyway.
The reasons are essentially geo-political and deal with the control of natural ressources.
The divergence between the different camps concern overall strategy, tactics (e.g. the spin to be presented to the public..), and timing.
Some would prefer formenting internal coups (meaning rainbow revolutions, running out of cheerful colors though) coupled with economic takeover (democrazy and all that Soros jazz), some prefer semi-legal routes (UN resolutions, coalitions, alliances, the West ganging up in good cheer together, lots of meetings with suits jawing away, sanctions), some prefer a stronger hand, perceiving that a show of military force, such as in carpet bombing, or invasions, is both a necessary and profitable part of the enterprise. Some say, eff all that, just do it. Create the reality.
In all cases, complete transformations and puppet governments figure large.
Some prefer a slow (and I mean slow, 50-year plans..) approach. Others prefer shock and awe, reliance on tipping points (dominos, MacWorld, etc.), as they possess the confidence to believe that unexpected outcomes are not a problem, can be managed, and will be profitable in any case.
Some even clamor for a World Government, which would apportion ressources fair and square (meaning to those who sit on the board and do the dividing).
All these different options are mixed up in endless acrimony and create a tremendous brou-ha-ha where the main question is obscured:
Can the ‘West’ (US, EU, Aus, Japan..) accept that the future belongs to energy-rich countries, in the ME ( + Russia, + a few other spots)? Moreover, that if they do not take control, they will have to fight China?
( I’m leaving India, South America, etc. out )
No.

Posted by: Noisette | Nov 6 2005 16:08 utc | 62

the fbi’s illegal cointelpro programm paralleled closely the war in vietnam & opposition to it
& cointelpro was child’s play compare to the legal aspects of the truly heinous patriot acts

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 6 2005 16:41 utc | 64

Kenneth Tomlinson head of Corporation for Public Broadcasting (and close associate/pal of Karl Rove) is now under investigation for various misuse of funds. It just never ends does it?

Posted by: anna missed | Nov 6 2005 20:33 utc | 66

the company you keep

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Nov 7 2005 1:53 utc | 68

Where the hell is Jerome ?
Oh, here he is …

Sarkozy would likely be an improvement over today, in that he would have a clear mandate if elected, and full powers, but he would be likely to run a Bushist policy of tough posturing, tax reform for the rich – and, this is France, getting the TVs not to talk about the banlieues anymore. He is an opportunist and a power hungry reactionary, I don’t even see him “liberalising” the economy. But the banlieues do not need more growth, what they need is for the State to come back in full force – bring back the local police presence, give real support to the schools and all the associations that do integration work (it’s criminal to cut subsidies to literacy classes, for instance), and actually get things done on improving the housing stock, instead of shuffling money between departments as emergencies arise, and, where necessary, improving transportation links to the big city where the jobs are.

Posted by: DM | Nov 7 2005 2:07 utc | 70

Debs:
I just can’t see how it would be in the interests of the ‘old guard’ to have a full on coup….it isn’t in the interests of Poppy/Scowcroft or any other old guard republican to destroy their power base from within.
I am using the word ‘coup’ loosely here and don’t think it will be full on but behind the scenes with plenty of public cover – to preserve their power base to the extent they can. If they were worried about not destroying their power base from within, Wilkerson and Scowcroft would not have made their public remarks. The fact that they did reflects either 1) a deep division in the Republican Party over the Iraq war and the fear that there will be future wars in spite of the disaster this one has become or 2) isolated popping off on the part of a few disgruntled former players who didn’t get their way. I believe #1 is the case in spite of the fact that some pro-war columnists are pimping #2. Yes, I’m trying to read tea leaves here, sort of the way Kremlinologists used to read public statements or published articles in the Soviet press to deduce the opinion trends in the old Soviet Union, and may simply not be very good at it. But how many times have we heard statements as strong as these from within the governing party – naming names and criticizing policies – in past administrations? This just does not happen unless there are critical divisions within the party’s elite. I also don’t see Cheney as having the extensive power base you believe he does; Scowcroft and Powell, for example, were part of his circle for years and they are gone along with the company they keep. Who does Cheney have besides the PNAC crowd who gave us the catastrophe the realists are objecting to?
Pat,
I included the military based on many articles during the past year that describe it as being under considerable stress by general officers still in the military as well as some who have retired. Two, three and four rotations of service along with low enlistments can’t be helping this. The possibility of future wars has got to scare the stripes off at least some of these officers. One currently serving officer was quoted last spring as saying it might not hold up after 2006. (Sorry, no links, just doing this from memory now.) One often reads articles quoting officers repeating the party line early and then providing a statement that undercuts that line – at least it seems that way to me. I also read a poll last summer that said support for the Iraq war among the families of those serving in it favored the war by only 49% – 47%. (This is the only such poll I have ever seen, I can’t vouch for it and would want other validation before believing it, but I’d have thought pollsters would have to lie to get a result like that.) As for retirees speaking instead of active participants, I believe that is fairly standard when dissent from within is expressed. Ray McGovern, Larry Johnson and the Christisens’ have all written that they still speak to people within the CIA, get information from them and use it to form their own opinions. Other organizations, like the military, must work the same way. The opinions expressed are certainly not universal within an organization and may not even be a majority but the fact that they are expressed publically when such expression is controversial signifies that at least a significant minority objects strongly to the current policy. I may be reading too much into this as you suggest, but still believe that sharp differences of opinion must exist within the military just as they do elsewhere and that many would welcome a change in top management – meaning Cheney, his neocon strategists and Rumsfeld – in hopes of some improvement. (Just as an aside, how is Walter ‘freedom fries’ Jones candidacy doing? The only thing worse than an enemy is a traitor and he did a 180 on the war in a district with a huge military vote. If he isn’t thrown out for flipping, that should tell us a little about the military’s opinion of the war.)
Corruption and bribery are generally less deadly than the current Wild West foreign policy, so I do hope for Cheney’s removal along with all of the PNACers. However, the elites’ squables over how we play the Great Game are pretty much as Noisette describes them above so our strategic goals will remain the same. The larger question the country should have asked itself long ago is: Are we an empire or a republic? We can’t be both. Our elites have already answered that one without consulting us or even letting us know it was ever an issue.

Posted by: lonesomeG | Nov 7 2005 6:45 utc | 72

This post is rated CD (CRITICAL DISERNMENT)
Will he flee to Israel?
As all-ways, “think for yourself”.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Nov 7 2005 14:10 utc | 74