A trip through his archives is enlightening, to say the least, for people who were either to young to remember the scandal or who were busy not paying attention to the congressional hearings on the matter. Admittedly it was a mind-numbing experience to watch those hearings day after day. Nevertheless, it is impossible to understand fully understand the mess in which we currently find ourselves, without knowing what Iran/Contra was really all about, whom the players were and where they are now.
Sam Husseini has an article at Znet that looks back darkly at Lee Hamilton, once (still?) one of the most respected Democrat elder statesmen:
Many think they now see through the Democrats' complicity with the Bush administration's illegal wars and unconstitutional actions. If they think this is new, they don't know that half of it.
Exactly twenty years ago today, on July 13, 1987, I witnessed the Democratic Party establishment covering up -- and therefore helping -- the subversion of the U.S. Constitution. It was actually on national TV, but few seemed to care.
The Iran-Contra hearings were going on. I watched them almost in their entirety, ...
For a while, I was admiring of the co-chairs of the Iran-Contra committee, the Democrats Sen. Daniel Inouye and Rep. Lee Hamilton -- who would go on to co-head the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Commission.
But, following events closely, it became clear Inouye and Hamilton were covering things up things. This became glaring on July 13, 1987 when the following exchange took place as Rep. Jack Brooks, a Democrat from Texas questioned Oliver North:
REP. BROOKS: Colonel North, in your work at the NSC, were you not assigned, at one time, to work on plans for the " continuity of government " in the event of a major disaster?
BRENDAN SULLIVAN (North's lawyer): Mr. Chairman?
SEN. INOUYE: I believe that question touches upon a highly sensitive and classified area so may I request that you not touch on that, sir?
REP. BROOKS: I was particularly concerned, Mr. Chairman, because I read in Miami papers, and several others, that there had been a plan developed by that same agency, a contingency plan in the event of emergency, that would suspend the American constitution. And I was deeply concerned about it and wondered if that was the area in which he had worked. I believe that it was and I wanted to get his confirmation.
SEN. INOUYE; May I most respectfully request that that matter not be touched upon at this stage. If we wish to get into this, I'm certain arrangements can be made for an executive session.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=13285
I can understand Husseini's point here, especially now that "continuity of government" plans sound more and more suspiciously like potential totalitarian makeovers for our Democracy.
-------------------------------------------------------
Living in Southern Indiana, I used to think of Lee Hamilton as one of the most highly respected names in politics. But I was a little taken aback when he agreed to chair the blatant whitewash (as I saw it) Commission for 911. He also chaired the Iraq Study Group, which I tend to view as having been less a reconsideration of Iraq strategy than an attempt to save W's bacon. In general, he seems to be tight with the Busheviks today. For example,
Lee Herbert Hamilton ...currently serves on the President's Homeland Security Advisory Council
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hamilton
Isn't that interesting, considering that Homeland Security seems to be little more than a propaganda arm for the Bush administration? Too, I've read that W was considering Hamilton as possible ambassador to the UN back in 2000. What does that say about Hamilton, considering Bush's later infatuation with John Bolton?
So I'm becoming sympathetic to Sam Husseini's view of Hamilton. Who IS Lee Hamilton? His view on impeachment, back in the eighties, sounds eerily similar to Pelosian appeasement today, according to Wikipedia:
As chair of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Hamilton
Was it good for the country, Rep. Hamilton, to put us through two more decades of anti-constitutional and imperial ravishment at the hands of Nixon-Reagan-Bush cronies, cronies who have been gradually building up the Nixon-Reagan-Bush notion of the Imperial Presidency, without ever having to face any real consequences, or push back in defense of the Constitution, which you claimed to embrace during those Iran/Contra hearings, back in the eighties?
In a seemingly reasonable speech from April 6, 2006, about the necessity of meaningful consultation between the President and Congress on foreign policy (ie. respect for Congress' role), Lee Hamilton offered this self-contradictory gem:
...The George W. Bush administration consulted well to forge a national consensus for immediate action in the days and weeks after 9/11.
... consultation must take place, to the extent feasible, prior to decisions, not after they have already been made.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=director.things&typeid=...
Is that a sick joke, Rep. Hamilton? Did you forget about how the President crammed the Patriot Act down Congress' throat before many Congressional members had even read it?!
In a September 7, 2006 speech on the aftermath of 911, Hamilton made this curious statement:
Within the executive branch, we recommended the creation of a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
To counter terrorism, government has not only increased in size, scope and resources, but it has become more intrusive into the lives of Americans. Much of this intrusiveness has been accepted by Americans. But these powers must be reviewed and – if need be – checked by an independent authority.
The Board is up and running. It must now prove to be a strong voice that offers a second opinion. ...
Within Congress, we recommended strengthening the committees that oversee intelligence and homeland security. ...
The American people will not be as safe as they could be – and their freedoms will not be protected – unless Congress does the hard and unglamorous work of overseeing the executive branch. Our Founders intended for Congress to be a co-equal branch of government to the Executive. It’s time for Congress to start acting like one.
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=director.things&typeid=...
Well, of course it's good to call for Congress to exert more oversight, but one must recognize that Congress is more than co-equal, according to the Constitution. Congress is the originator of the laws that the President is to execute, and Congress is judge and jury over the President (via impeachment). But, more to the point, what is this absurdity of calling for a "Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board" WITHIN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH and then calling it "independent authority" and "a strong voice that offers a second opinion"? That's flat out bullshit. If the oversight board is IN the executive branch it is NOT independent, and under this administration, with its track record for muzzling any and all independent voices under its authority, it certainly is NOT a second opinion.
-------------------------
What is Lee Hamilton's game? Why does he talk relentlessly about the importance of bipartisanship, while never (that I know of) mentioning the extreme partisanship of the Bush administration, which he seems to serve as a useful faux Democrat?
I don't know Lee Hamilton, so maybe I've got him all wrong, but I think he's just one more member of the cabal that I think is destroying Democracy in American and creating Empire. Here's perhaps the crowning irony: one of his projects (one of his board memberships)
is the National Endowment for Democracy. Sounds good, right? It's an organization that spreads democracy. How cool is that?
Well here's what the Cato Institute, hardly a screaming lefty organization says about the NED:
"NED, which also has a history of corruption and financial mismanagement, is superfluous at best and often destructive. Through the endowment, the American taxpayer has paid for special-interest groups to harass the duly elected governments of friendly countries, interfere in foreign elections, and foster the corruption of democratic movements."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democr...
Former CIA officer Phillip Agee put it this way:
During the late 1970s there was new thinking at the highest levels of the U.S. foreign policymakers, and they reconsidered whether these ugly murderous military dictatorships of the 1970s were really the best way to preserve U.S. interests in these countries – U.S. interests being defined traditionally as unfettered access to the primary products and raw materials, to the labor and to the markets of foreign countries. This new thinking led to the establishment in 1983 of the National Endowment for Democracy.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democr...
So it's not about democracy. It's about imperial control.
And does this kind of intervention remotely relate to Democracy?:
Several articles about the political process in Haiti, Iraq, and the Palestinian-occupied territories have appeared in The New York Times, NPR, and other mainstream US media. The impression is given that the articles are from bona fide journalists, but it transpires that several of them are paid by the NED or its affilated organizations. The case of Regine Alexandre is particularly interesting. She wrote articles for the New York Times, AP, and commented on NPR. It transpires that she is on the NED payroll, and the NED confirmed this fact. However, when confronted with this information both the NYT and NPR failed to respond or take this seriously.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Endowment_for_Democr...
To me that doesn't sound like Democracy in action; it sounds like what I'm beginning to think Lee Hamilton does: it's providing cover for the rise of Empire. Shouldn't we at least ask why Hamilton seems to be Johnny on the Spot when the Bush family needs cover?
Hamilton and Iran/Contra
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/hamiltoniran-contra.htm
Hamilton and the October Surprise
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/hamiltonoctsurprise.htm
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
No comments:
Post a Comment