[Mb-civic] The American body politic laid low - Henry Porter - Observer

[William Swiggard]

*The American body politic laid low*

Washington (George) led the way in political rhetoric. Now Washington 
(DC) leads the way in crises and scandals

*Henry Porter*
*Sunday November 13, 2005*

*Observer*

Watching Dick Cheney on US TV, I tried to remember a quote from George 
Washington's farewell address in which he outlined all the dangers which 
might encircle the new republic. So I looked up the speech and found 
myself captivated by the beauty of the language and by Washington's 
wisdom and knowledge of human nature. It is right to call it one of the 
great works of civilisation.

Language is the man. Washington's virtue, his learning, courage and 
experience shine in every phrase of that address, just as President 
Bush's inadequacy is laid bare whenever he tries to explain his 
policies. If a politician cannot write or speak fluently, you can bet he 
or she is not thinking fluently, perhaps not even thinking at all.

I would guess Bush falls into the latter category. He has plenty of 
reflexes, of the loony patriotic and religious kind, but no reflection. 
When you listen to him stumbling at the microphone, there is no sense of 
anything but the most average of intellects. It is not that he is 
lacking Washington's powers of expression; it is that he has nothing to 
say, for, in truth, the interior dialogue of George W Bush is little 
more than random flares of static.

Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't speak much but when he does, he is 
clear-headed to a point of chilliness. He knows where he's going and how 
to get there. He is one of the more terrifying figures ever to ascend to 
a position of power in America.

The quotation I was trying to remember comes when Washington warns of 
the dangers of parties and factionalism. 'They are likely to become 
potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will 
be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for 
themselves the reins of government; destroying afterwards the very 
engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.'

No one can yet claim that Washington's grim prediction has been 
realised, but controversies surrounding the Vice President should alert 
us to the danger of at least the perception of conflicts of interest.

Cheney represents an administration that stands accused of barbaric 
capitalism, unflinching greed for oil, the exploitation of nature, the 
violation of the American wilderness, the torture of untried prisoners, 
the bombing of innocent civilians and the lies that preceded the war in 
Iraq. He is seen as the heartless embodiment of the military-industrial 
complex, a phrase, incidentally, invented by President Eisenhower in his 
valedictory address in 1961, at just about the time a young Cheney 
flunked Yale and went to work as a power lineman.

It is worth remembering what Eisenhower said, because he also saw the 
dangers of potential conflicts of interest, but more specifically than 
Washington. 'This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a 
large arms industry is new in the American experience... 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 
and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination 
endanger our liberties or democratic processes.'

Cheney has been around a long time. He embedded early, serving under 
Donald Rumsfeld in the Nixon and Ford administrations, as a congressman 
for Wyoming, Secretary of Defence under the first Bush and finally Vice 
President to the second Bush. This relentless political and technocratic 
career was interrupted once when he went off in the Nineties to head 
Halliburton, the products and service provider to the oil industry and 
military, and made himself $60-$70 million, in what could be perceived 
as an advance payment for the billions Halliburton has earned during 
George W's presidency.

Eisenhower was right. The weight of the power of the combination does 
endanger liberty. In its focus on profit and military might, it could be 
seen as careless of all humane considerations. To know this, you only 
have to look at last week's statements from the White House after the 
Washington Post revealed the existence of a secret network of facilities 
in eastern Europe in which terror suspects were being interrogated. 
After a week almost as bad as Tony Blair's, the President assured the US 
public that his government had not authorised the use of the torture in 
this re-purposed gulag.

The Vice President has laid himself open to criticism. Lewis Libby, his 
chief of staff, stands indicted for leaking Valerie Plame's name to the 
New York Times and then lying about it.

Cheney cannot rid himself of claims that contracts have been steered 
Halliburton's way. And it is widely assumed that his membership of the 
National Petroleum Council, an oil- man's club, is responsible for the 
administration's resistance to energy conservation and the general 
hostility to climate scientists.

But it is Cheney's campaign to go to war against America's former ally 
and armaments customer, Saddam Hussein, which might be the undoing of 
him. There is a new, rigorous standard being applied in Congress, almost 
totally absent in the last four years. Senator Harry Reid, the Democrat 
minority leader, ambushed the Republicans with a demand to go into 
closed session, having made a speech about the Republican's 
prevarication on the investigation of the intelligence which led to war.

How did the Bush administration set out its case for war? he demanded in 
the name of the American people. Who did it listen to and who did it 
ignore? How did senior administration officials manipulate and 
manufacture intelligence presented to Congress? How did the 
administration co-ordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared 
to challenge its assertions? Did this come from Cheney's office?

Blair survived similar probes, but here the anger is more intense 
because most Americans trusted and believed Bush when he said Iraq 
harboured al-Qaeda terrorists. They could barely credit his brass neck 
when, wearing his goofiest expression, he admitted: 'We have no evidence 
Saddam was involved in 9/11.' He looked like a juvenile offender unable 
to comprehend his crime or the pain it had caused.

The mood has swung since I was last here in May. The mainstream media 
then were so in awe of the White House's vindictiveness and Teutonic 
discipline that few dared step out of line. But journalists have taken 
heart from the polls which are registering a deep concern in the 
American people, even among some Republicans, who have finally grasped 
the unwholesome nature of their government: 57 per cent of Americans 
believe Bush deliberately misled the public before the war; 70 per cent 
believe Cheney was responsible. And 79 per cent believe the indictment 
of 'Scooter' Libby is a serious matter. At the height of Lewinsky 
affair, only 65 per cent thought it was serious matter.

There is a long way to go. It is impossible to predict the outcome of 
the multiple crises and scandals gripping the administration. But the 
fact remains that there is almost no greater crime for a President than 
taking the country to war on falsified evidence. That penny has dropped 
with the American people and they want answers to Senator Reid's questions.

George Washington's ideals can still be heard in the speeches of men 
like Reid and his fellow Democrat, Robert Byrd, who made the most moving 
appeal in the Senate before the invasion. 'To contemplate war,' he said, 
'is to think about the most horrible of human experiences. Yet, this 
chamber is, for the most part, silent - ominously, dreadfully silent. 
There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation 
the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing.'

At least that is no longer true.