Top Defense Industry CEOs Earn Combined $1 Billion Since 9/11
By Logan Murphy Wednesday Oct 31, 2007 12:14pm
Ike tried to warn us, I wonder if he really believed his predictions would come true so quickly. His warnings cannot be repeated enough.
Via Truthdig:
Not to stoke any of the inane conspiracy theories running wild on the Internet, but if Osama bin Laden wasn’t on the payroll of Lockheed Martin or some other large defense contractor, he deserves to have been. What a boondoggle 9/11 has been for the merchants of war, who this week announced yet another quarter of whopping profits made possible by George Bush’s pretending to fight terrorism by throwing money at outdated Cold War-style weapons systems.
Thanks to bin Laden and Bush’s exploitation of “war on terror” hysteria, the taxpayers have been hoodwinked into paying for a sophisticated military arsenal to fight a Soviet enemy that no longer exists. The Institute for Policy Studies calculated last year that the top 34 CEOs of the defense industry have earned a combined billion dollars since 9/11; they should give bin Laden his cut. Read more...
Login or Register to post comments.
Perpetual War = Perpetual Profits
"Earn". Pfft.
individual investors have also done very well; i started gulagwealthfund.com to track the best picks; it's up 22% this year which is about as good as Warren Buffet does on any given year...
Who thinks the Bin Ladens don't have an interest in some of these corporations?
Obscene.
We need jobs in Arkansas and it is a great thing for the people who work in the area around the plant involved, but why are we manufacturing 2.2 Million dollars worth of boots with this description while we are currently engaged in combat in the Middle Eastern heat:
"The technical boot design offers total performance in a broad range of temperatures and optimum compatibility with tools commonly used by the Special Operations Forces in specialized ski warfare, ice climbing, and snowshoeing expeditions."
Google Bates, Boots and Gvt Contract for more info.
I'm with SJD... it's totally obscene and time to put a stop to those greedy piggies at the trough.
For those cheerleading a Hillary presidency, take a look at the prominent members of the Carlyle Group. It's filled not only with Bushies but all sorts of Clinton folks as well. Not only is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton succession a middle-finger to our founding fathers, it fosters the insider environment that makes military industrial complex possible.
This is the deal. No conspiracy, no explosives, no shady New World Order government, just something as tacky as skyrocketing profits for defence contractors, all of whom have Cheney/Rumsfeld disciples on the board.
That's the result of the re-starting of large scale re-armament in the wake of the 11th September attacks. Of course, the diplomatic result from the later invasion of Iraq and sabre-rattling at Iran means that the neocons may get their beloved Cold War back after all...
*sigh*
dancingwithdragons @ 6:
Maybe so our troops can relax in Turkey?
Dont forget Eisenhower originally described a "military-congressional-industrial complex," but dropped "congressional" in later drafts of the speech.
Entirely different concept really.
And much more apt for this bunch of Carnies 'running' things (with apologies to any real carnies out there).
war = what our economy is dependent on
the defense industry funnels enough dirty cash into the political system that they ensure that there will never be a war-deficit.
of course the media and the entertainment industry are complicit. there isn't a military-industrial sector of the economy, our economy IS a military-industrial economy.
"Tora Bora Alpine Combat Boot"?
It is interesting that they name a combat boot after a geographical location.
unfrozencaveman @ 8:
Hmm, looks to me like there are 3 former Clinton appointees, of whom one was a Bush Sr. holdover fired by Clinton in 1994, another was a second choice appointed in 1997 and the third was appointed head of the SEC for his financial savvy rather than political affiliation.
This clip is taken from the powerful and very relevant 2006 film "Why We Fight" which, as this clip indicates, uses as its linchpin Eisenhower's farewell address. What it especially telling is that Eisenhower was a former military man who was not blinded by mindless allegiance to the military and big corporations. C. Wright Mills also discusses this theme in his classic work The Power Elite, written way back in 1956, but still, for the most part, very relevant to the 21st century. What he could not have foreseen was how powerful the military would become along with the rise of the conservative media in this country.
For a couple thousand years, there's a simple question prosecutors ask when trying to solve a crime. And you can ask yourself the same question about the crime of 9-11. Who benefits?
I like Ike...
Erroll @ 15:
could not have foreseen?
A little over a decade prior to that, the whole world got a lesson in the power of the military industrial complex.
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/
Here is the link to the movie. If you rent it or buy it watch the directors commentary for extended inteviews with Chalmers Johnson.
Along about 1997 the Captains Industry (Oil,Insurance,Drugs,Guns etc) went to the republican congress and said; "This surplus thing is ridiculous" We want that money directed our way". The Pubs said "we can't do that-The Prez is a Demo". The Captains said "well get us a Repub Prez and here's $75Million to do it". They said" Who shall we get?" They said "We don't care . Just get some stupid happy face that will follow orders". "And oh yes, tell him to talk up a tax break for everyone. That will get them every time". This worked very well until Aug/Sept of election year when a fellow name Gore lead in the polls. Well Gore didn't win despite the popular vote. Florida and the Supreme Court saw to that. Well, we all know that the surplus is only memory and that the credit card debt is piled so high now that our great grand children will be working it off. Why? The greatest money scam in the history of American Politics, that's why. One that makes the Columbian Druglords insanely jealous. You've got the Energy Bill w/ tremendous Oil Co incentives. You've go the Medicare Rx Bill with tremendous incentives for the Ins/Drug Cos and the Iraq War that insures the Arms Industry profits for the next 35-50 Years. George Bush will be well taken care of. That's why he so insensitive to the public opinion. He's going back to Crawford with his "mortage" paid" He has "delivered" on a grand scale. Even the tax breaks he promised went to oil and healthcare increases. It's worked like a charm and to think some in our mist believe he needs continued support. What next? Higher oil prices? nah! Higher healthcare costs? nah? More war? nah. And all this has happened while the Public has sat around and played "switch" with itself. Pity us poor dumb asses.
JPsy @ 14:
No, the one fired by Clinton was his chief of staff and supposedly one of his closests friends. He was not a Bush holdover.
This is what it's all about: Blood for money.
And it's always just the CEOs who are blamed, while the armies of corporate workers who hustle their little asses off for the benefit of the corporation ("It's good for the company, so work hard") never share the blame.
Well, we will just have to take that money back from them. My kids will need it for college and since it's theirs anyway . . .
slippytoad @ 23:
Oh your kids are going to be paying for the current debt for a while, as are their kids probably.
Did Ike think that it would happen so soon? I think that Ike knew that it had already happened.Events are now drawing to a climax and all vestiges of democracy will be crushed by the corporate cartel, by way of the government that they control.
And Bush's family directly profits from their investments in war contractors like The Carlyle Group, yet the gullible american people don't acknowledge the obvious conflict of interest. I'm not even going to get into Cheneys profits from Halliburtan as most people here already know about that.
[deleted--please respect the siteowner's wishes re: discussion of 9/11. Keep your comments on topic.]
Horses have been out of the barnyard for a long long time, quite a job to round to them all up and herd them back into the pen.
[deleted--you are going off on a tangent that has historically led to huge flame wars and thread hijackings. The mention of the date 9/11 is not all that's required for you to hijack the thread into that territory.]
Bu on the bright side, this morning Congress was voting/debating a funding bill that did NOT include any new monies for defense costs. Of course, Bushmeat will veto it... wouldn't be prudent. (;>
I believe that what enraged the neocon military industrial complex about Farenheit 911 was not the conspiracy theories, but the scenes showing the leaders of the defense industry encouraging the pigs to line up at the trough before the best parts were eaten.
Osama's cut is gonna be pretty small, after AIPAC, the Bushits, the CrazyChristianZionists, the sex-crazed rest of the Republicans get their cuts of the windfall.
Not to mention the tax-deductible contributions to their favorite U.S. charity, Israel.
Well at least someone made lots of money so the soldiers didn't die in vain. Thanks Bush and all war hawks.
Yet people claim there's no motive for governments and corporations to participate in false flag terror.
ProlefeedTV @ 27:
Especially when they all have Barrett M82's ..........
Well we all have our personal favourites as far as defense boondoggles goes. Mine is the missile defense shield. Designed to have a fifty percent probability of knocking out a single inbound ICBM launched warhead provided it isn't mirved, decoyed or shielded. This is supposed to protect us from rogue nations like North Korea (who are finally dismantling their nuclear plant) or Iran (who aren't going to be allowed to develop any such weapons). At an estimated cost of only 100 billion dollars (so multiply by at least three) this shield will do a half-assed job of defending against an attack that will never come because any nation that launches such an attack would suffer massive retaliation and everyone knows it. On the other hand a rogue nation could send a nuke over in a shielded shipping container without it being traced back to them. How much port security do you think that kind of money could buy?
unfrozencaveman @ 21:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mack_McLarty
[i]"He has a distinguished record of business leadership and public service, including various roles advising three Presidents: Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton."[/i]
But still, he was fired regardless of his personal attachment and the fact remains that you do have to associate with some slippery characters if you hold Presidential ambitions. But although Hillary would be far from my first choice among the Democratic candidates (not that it matters, I'm from the UK), to say that a second Clinton presidency would hold parity with the current administration in terms of mendacity is a little excessive.
um, isn't that like 30 Million per CEO over 6 years? $5 mill / year? That's not really that much for CEO's of massive companies. Unless you have the "before" and "after" amounts, this is a rather useless statistic.
CEO's of big companies make lots of money.
Samson @ 12 hit the nail on the head...we have been a garrison economy since the 50's. Eisenhower helped it along, like every president since Truman, and like a fair number of them, attempted to bring the War Department to heel late in their administrations...too late.
Everyone should read House of War by James Carroll (Houghton, Mifflin 2006). All the names you love and all the names you love to hate drawn together by a long string of "whoa...shit" feelings from the reader. Furthermore, Carroll doesn't have any axes to grind, only a compelling story to tell.
By the way...and not attempting to hijack the thread...that plane crashed into the Pentagon 60 years, almost to the minute, after the building was dedicated. Then again, Mr. Stimson warned of a tragic arms race on that same day in 1945. That day and the Pentagon have a long history together.
WAKE UP. we are being had by these guys. war is the biggest racket I've heard of. they set it up. I'm telling you.
seems like a lot of $, but by obscene comparison, the Robert Reich blog stated that just one of the top hedge fund guys pulls in nearly that each year at the 15% capital gains tax rate (what was your tax rate?). The top 1 % holds 21% of the country's wealth while the bottom 50% hold 12%.
As Smirnov says "What a country!"
I'm talking about the vodka and soon will be talking on vodka.
These conspiracy nuts are awfully right lately...
The edited videos coming out are also priceless that even the MSM cannot deny the fakery.
Two video cameras, a blank wall and guys in turbans and America thinks its in a "war".
South Park "The Terrorists are attacking our imaginations"...
Whoa, you don't want to be called a "conspiracy nutjob" do you?
We seriously should search out evidence that our government was not complicit to the degree that many conspiracies claim, or even complicit at all. I search continually in order to keep my insanity at bay, and I continually fail to find anything that could be considered proof that the government is not complicit. I'm literally on the fence with no clear ground on either side to land safely....
3,000 Americans being killed on 911 was the best thing that ever happened to BushCo, the GOP and their war profiteering surrogates (and those Dems in the defense contractor districts as well) and they are all milking those deaths for all they're worth.
JPsy @ 36:
In the U.S. presidency, there is a lot of turnover in the chief of staff position and 1 or 2 years on the job is not that unsual. Anyway, my broader point is not that the Clinton's are as blantantly corrupt as the Bushes, but that it's getting very incestuous in Washington. The media game of government of Bush vs. Clinton, Right vs. Left, masks a more disturbing truth that once their handlers and players are out of the public eye, they behave in quite similar ways. In fact, even the way they play the media game is strikingly similar - arrogant, elitist and incredibly cynical.
I wish we citizens had the fortitude to do what the politicians will never do; TAKE as much of it back as possible. Revolution might be the only cure for the sickness that infests our government and its corporate benefactors. We can already make a nice long list of those who have stolen our money under the promise of providing services that were never done or done improperly. Besides W, Cheney, and the rest, I'm thinking of guys like that hideous asswipe who runs Blackwater. There will be no justice for any of their victims under the current political system.
So it's really not a surprise that our beloved Commander in Chimp is soooooo interested in repealing the inheritance tax, is it?
Mustn't let those welfare mothers and hippies have any of the BushCo profits once Poppy descends into Hell.
Ike was indeed prophetic.....
...as was a highly decorated Marine Gen a few decades earlier.
http://warisaracket.org/racket.html
"Ike tried to warn us, I wonder if he really believed his predictions would come true so quickly"
He was not speculating about the future. He was talking about Lyndon B. Johnson and his Brown (& Root Halliburton) political 'backing.'
LBJ directed NO-BID contracts to Brown from the beginning of his Senate career, for Korea, to the end of his Presidency, for Vietnam. This company that had zero experience in base building SUB-CONTRACTED the projects, increasing profits at every turn.
It's the SAME conspiracy we are currently faced by, the same one which five star general Ike would have been VERY worried about.
(left out a tag, apparently)
Here is what a true Patriot says.. And just because he is old doesn't mean he is outdated. The boy is a hero.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780922915866-0
WAR is a RACKET
True Stories are the worst. Especially if you don't believe them.
that's only 10,000,000 dollars/year on average. what's the problem?
Orangutan. @ 51:
one of the people that smedley refused to conduct the coup for was prescott bush.
Paul in LA @ 49:
was the bush family business wrapped up in there somewhere?
How convenient for these people that 9/11 happened. You think there could be any connection? Nah, that would be just downright crazy now. This sort of thing could never happen in the good ole US of A. We are the good guys…..right? Riddle me this, if I know a murderer is going to kill an innocent child, and I allow him kill that child just so I can in turn kill the murderer and take his belongings, are my actions justified? Am I at that point any better than the murderer? Am I not just as sick as the murderer to allow an innocent life to be lost? Look at the FACTS not the conspiracy, at the very least this was allowed to happen, and if it was is there really any difference at that point? Is this not treason? Is this not murder?
I've used Eisenhowers words many time before on this blog and I'm grateful that John has finally posted it. Let those words sink in really deep and don't be surprised at how fast the power brokers of war have moved against their own people for nothing other than greed and bottom line profits for share holders.
For those of us who are investors in companies that make up the war machine, you are just as guilty of greed built upon the death of innocents. Take a long hard look in the mirror. As Dr. Oppenheimer said after the first above ground testing of the A-bomb. " I am become death". This insanity has now brought the world to the brink.
What a novel idea for the war machine now to turn its talents to helping save the earth, creating new industires that made America great to begin with. Using our vast talents and work force to create new and cleaner forms of energy which in turn will take us in a new direction. This is what we need as well as the leadership to get us there.
Ahhhh ain't that sweet... Nice to know those poor poor put upon gunnut appeasin/dictator proppin up, armaments CEO's can still afford to buy those second houses in the Hamptons or whatever gated richie richville they want to hide out in when they aren't in their exec suites ruinin the world via the old motto, 'better livin thru bigger dicks err I mean bigger guns'.... Heaven forbid those bastards should have to want for a meal or something....
I sure wish Ike was still around... I don't even care that he was a republican... He was a hellova like more straight up and honest than anyone trolling these days... That statement includes 'all' republican politicians still breathing air and taking up space and more than a few democrats... unfortunately....JD
nick911 @ 55:
If one lists all the "coincidences" in 9/11 and all the benefits that it consequently provided to the Bush cabal for the reaping, be it in the form of political clout and Carte Blanche for a presidency that was dead in the water by the summer of 2001, obscene benefits for the cronies of the Bush and Cheney families, and the massive transfers of public funds into the hands of few private hands with nary a complain.
One has to wonder if Bush is pretty much the luckies person on earth, if they are truly "coincidences," or if the man does genuinely "talk to god," or lastly if maybe this is not only the stupidest person to hold office but also the most corrupt and evil anti-American asshole to ever reside in the White House.
I have taken enough math classes to understand the odds involved, I was always led to believe that god talks to very few if any people on earth and they tend to be either the pious kind of the martyr kind -- and this asshole is neither -- so I am left with just one choice....
A billion doallrs, huh? Well, thank God. That's just more money to trickle down to those of us regular people. Right?
Eisenhower first sent our military into Vietnam to replace the newly driven out French as So. Vietnamese trainers and warriors (body bags with U.S. soldiers were already coming back to the USA before Kennedy was elected). He justified US military involvement in Vietnam by coining the phrase "Domino Effect" of Communist aggression, which (no coincidence I'm sure) happened to fit his Vice President Nixon's very near-future ambitions to run and win the presidency in 1960 as the most famous "commie hunter" in the race. What began on commander in chief Eisenhower's orders became one of the biggest military/foreign policy blunders in history.
This came hot on the heels of Eisenhower overthrowing the nascent democracy in Iran in order to install the brutal Shah regime. This, of course, led directly to the 25 year backlash known as the Islamic Revolution, culminating in the eventual overthrow of the Shah regime by Islamic religious leaders, the Ayatollahs and resulting in ANOTHER one of the biggest military/foreign policy blunders in history and one that plagues us to this very day.
How is it that Eisenhower gets a pass on cultivating the two most colossal "military industrial" blunders of all time because he hustled out a few Cover Your Ass statements about it in the 11th hour of his presidency?
Eisenhower, the president, was little more than another Republican fear mongerer, fashioning much of his foreign policy decisions and promoting his VP and Party's political ambitions around the Red Menace and looking for a Commie under every bed.
unfrozencaveman @ 8:
You might also look into the Bilderbergers (new world order). Clinton, bush, Kissinger, etc.
Its me@59
Ya know, I ain't going to dispute your points... I think you are right on your history lesson. I also know we had advisers in country (VN) at least as far back as 58... And I do believe if we hadn't put the Shaw in power, who knows what our relations with a ligitimate Persian democracy might be like today...I would offer that those actions in relation to Iran at the time consituted a criminal involvment in another nations ligitimate process of choosing their own leaders... I will question whether it was Ike exclusively on that or if Truman had some hand in it... There was a lot of jockeying for power post WWII by alot of people, nations an business interests.. High on that last list being oil companies as well as the armaments trade...
Be that as it may, warts and all, Ike was still ten times the ligit leader for America that any of the current jerks who would aspire to be pretenders to the crown now... I think the real point you make is that we are just not really a pack of white hat wearin good guys at all and haven't been for a damned long time if ever.. AND THAT my fellow bloggers is the fundamental paradigm that HAS to change if we are ever to see out way out of these woods now..
And maybe some intellectual Kissinger type brainy foreign policy expert can maybe make a case that this was what had to happen way back in the 50s... But those days are over and we need to change that shit now and stop with the underhanded backroom, backdoor Ugly American world manipulatin power mongering... And we aren't going to get any kind of fundamental change like that with any of the current bought and paid for republican.. and probably damned few dems either... Maybe a Kucinich with maybe an Edwards in tow or some other more hawkish dem like a Clark type might be able to stare down these monied interest assholes who live for war and misery to put bread on their tables...and sorrow in our hearts....maybe...JD
Maybe it's the military-industrial complex and governemet's way of "cleaning out the basement". They had all these weapons stockpiled, that were useless in Rummy's new 21st-century-war-machine. Instead of (very expensively) destroying them, why not use up AND steal oil?? BRILLIANT idea!! "Every American wins": too bad about the rest of the world though. (Oh well, fuck them.)
Jack Damage @ 61:
ONLY AMERICANS see themselves in the white-hat wearing role. It's like you never grew up from Westerns at the cinema and cap guns. The rest of the world sees a resource-hunting pack of rabid dogs. (Not quite that bad, as I'm from another rich Western country myself, but it got your attention; you know what I mean.)
the parasites in the military industrial complex need to be stopped. we need a new truman comission to stop these robber barons
Edwin @ 62:
If you are being sarcastic, nod twice!
This is just what nasty, greedy, warmongering assholes get when war is attached to no-bid contracts and profiteering. You get fools who will sacrifice other people's children for a dollar.
M. Moore Fahrenheit 911 showed a scene where these awful people were in a hotel banquet room giddy with dreams of profits from chimpy's war.
Edwin@63;
Yes, I know exactly what you mean..... THAT is exactly what has to change... More and more of the average citizens, at least in the so called blue states are getting it... The politicians and troglodytes from the so-called red states?? So far....Ehhh not so much....JD
BaScOmBe @ 54 "was the bush family business wrapped up in there somewhere?"
I think that developed later, certainly Caro mentions no connections. Looks like GHWB was in the CIA as early as 1960, and forms another line of intersection with the (originally) oil-services company and their boy Lyndon.
The Vietnam war was just as much of a put-up as Iraq. Immediately thereafter, agent becomes head of the agency. Carter is savaged because he didn't have a machine, and the Gulf War Family was installed -- going from agency head, to head of the conspiracy (Team B) -- an effort soon turned over to a 'Richard Cheney' task group, whoever he was.
Anyone know a 'Richard Cheney'? Seems he was working on a shadow gov't during RRR's reign of Look The Other Way.
It's Me @ 59 "Eisenhower first sent our military into Vietnam to replace the newly driven out French as So. Vietnamese trainers and warriors (body bags with U.S. soldiers were already coming back to the USA before Kennedy was elected)."
Right, because Ho Chi Minh was the hero the left thinks of him as. Because two million Catholics were allowed to leave North Vietnam...oh wait, they weren't.
"He justified US military involvement in Vietnam by coining the phrase "Domino Effect" of Communist aggression,"
The same sort of 'effect' that was seen in some war we fought with Japan? Seems to me Ike was involved in that somehow. There is no doubt that Red China funded the N. Vietnamese side of the conflict.
"his Vice President Nixon's"
Ike despised Nixon, who was forced on him at the convention.
"What began on commander in chief Eisenhower's orders became one of the biggest military/foreign policy blunders in history."
It wasn't a 'blunder.' What began as relatively ordinary Cold War funding of the remains of the French colonial state was put on steroids by LBJ. The efforts to tie those more ordinary anti-democratic (and otherwise) efforts to the disasters that followed are further along a conspiracist's timeline than I am willing to follow.
This is basic to grasping the leftist LIE that Gore would have invaded Iraq, etc. It's fundamentally untrue. But in my eyes LBJ was a DINO -- he was despised by most of the Northern part of the party, and was put onto JFK's ticket to get access to the Southern (Yellow Dog) machine. JFK hated him as well, and the feeling was mutual.
"Eisenhower overthrowing the nascent democracy in Iran in order to install the brutal Shah regime."
Which was mainly support of a British geopolitical strategy, rooted in the oil politics of WWII. Again, not the same thing as just 'blaming it on the US or Eisenhower.'
"How is it that Eisenhower gets a pass on cultivating the two most colossal "military industrial" blunders of all time"
Because, for one thing, there is ZERO evidence that Eisenhower, the last decent Republican, took a penny on any of these foreign policy disasters. Unlike LBJ, and unlike Bushco, Eisenhower was not warmongering, and that's a BIG issue when it comes to credibility.
Given that we, that is the entire N. Hemisphere, nearly disappeared into a cloud of fire and smoke in 1963, there is a limit on how much geopolitical tragedy can be heaped on Eisenhower's bier. He wasn't in it for the money and power (unlike LBJ and Bush), and he wasn't particularly evil -- and warned us about the conspiracies racing to seize control of US foreign policy. When JFK suggested disbanding the CIA (not exactly on the continuum you seem to insist upon), the results became our history to date.
Bravo Ike -- you served your country far better than any other Republican of the 20th century.
Edwin @ 63 "ONLY AMERICANS see themselves in the white-hat wearing role."
That's odd, because I know all kinds of foreigners who love America and Americans, and who credit America for helping them in some crucial way. Seems to me that Kosovars had quite a party for one 'Bill Clinton,' whoever he was. Apparently he saved 150,000 of their lives from racist white Serbs.
"It's like you never grew up from Westerns at the cinema and cap guns."
H'yeah, it seems that way to you, because apparently Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Musolini never made it into your history books. Any idea how many tens of millions of people those four men killed? Compare with US warcrimes, get back to me.
Paul in LA @ 69:
...Ike despised Nixon, who was forced on him at the convention.
...and (he) warned us about the conspiracies racing to seize control of US foreign policy.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, well then we ought to be able to find all kinds of instances when Ike made his big, anti-Military-Industrial Complex warning speech BEFORE or DURING the 1960 presidential campaign instead of waiting until LONG AFTER the results were in and, in so doing, kicked most of wind out of "Commie Hunter" Nixon's nearly successful presidential bid, right?
So where are the links? Has anyone ever heard of Ike delivering that speech at any time when he was pitching the Domino Effect quagmire or when "Commie Hunter" Nixon was running for president? No. He waited until the fat lady had sung loud and clear after that election.
Whether it was for money, glory, power or simply to help his Party control the White House for at least another 4 years, Ike had no problem ratcheting up the "Commie under every bed" scenario and rewarding Nixon with the Vice Presidency for ruining the lives and careers of dozens of innocent Americans as a chairman of HUAC.
He played the fear mongerer game for the sake of the Republican Party's political ambitions no different than any of them have since. In fact, if his lasting impression overall is one of the kindly old gentleman who was above such political considerations, then he played it BETTER than the rest of them.
Can you imagine seeing a clip like this of George Bush, 46 years from now?
First of all, he's never said anything profound enough that anyone would care, and secondly, one would not be able to make it through the clip without laughing their ass off and wondering out loud 'this guy was the President?'
Well said, Ike. And who has taken more from the defense industry than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican???
McCain?
Romney??
Giuliani???
Thompson????
Uh, uh. Hillary.
Wake the F*ck up.
Well said, Ike.
Bud @ 17:
Last decent Republican President and was the last right Republican.
Old news.
Mike Gravel has been on this for years.
As he said in the debates (before he was disinvited), "The military-industrial complex owns this country lock stock and barrel"... they "control out culture".
This country is #1 in war implements and lags in just about everything else.
Ike was a Republican, a patriot, and he was damn right.
If a Dem gets elected president in Nov. 2008 don't be surprised if Bush doesn't try to pull one of those 11th hour conversions just like Ike did after his VP lost the 1960 election.
I'm sure the speech will be something about how we really ought to be wary of presidents who try to use military force on sovereign nations as a means to rally phony patriotic support behind him or her. Whatever it takes to make his successor from the opposition Party look like an asshole for addressing the precise conditions as he left them by the only realistic means available.
It's Me @ 71 "Oh, well then we ought to be able to find all kinds of instances when Ike made his big, anti-Military-Industrial Complex warning speech BEFORE or DURING the 1960 presidential campaign instead of waiting until LONG AFTER the results were in"
Obviously, he did not feel he could oppose those powers in his own party until he was leaving office.
"and, in so doing, kicked most of wind out of "Commie Hunter" Nixon's nearly successful presidential bid, right?"
Eisenhower was not a politician, and he did not particularly want to be president. He was a general, a war hero, elected by public acclaim. I respect him on too many counts to endorse your desire to down his heroism. Let's see you put on five stars, buddy.
"rewarding Nixon with the Vice Presidency for ruining the lives and careers of dozens of innocent Americans as a chairman of HUAC."
As I pointed out, it was the REPUBLICAN PARTY which nominated Nixon for the VP. Ike himself did not like or trust Nixon.
"In fact, if his lasting impression overall is one of the kindly old gentleman who was above such political considerations"
No, the lasting overall impression was the general who effectively used the Allied forces to retake Western Europe. That never happened in your report on his life. To you, he is a person who never proved himself. To me, and to most of America, he was a solid gold HERO.
You invoke Eisenhower, so I must point out what I think is obvious:
1) The president who followed him was considering de-escalating the Vietnam conflict when he was assassinated.
2) The brother of the assassinated president ran for the office with an end the war platform and was assassinated.
3) The presidents after that escalated the Vietnam war, and were not assassinated.
Eisenhower chose not to give this warning until just as he was stepping out of the limelight. Far from coincidence, I think.
It's Me @ 76 "Whatever it takes to make his successor from the opposition Party look like an asshole for addressing the precise conditions as he left them by the only realistic means available."
So now you are claiming that Ike did it to embarass Kennedy?
Whatever theory will fly, it seems. The difference between your approach and my approach is that I give regard to the persons PROVEN CHARACTER, while you simply see which of your paranoias can be shoehorned into a negative assessment of history.
Ike was a proven hero, a proven servant to the country. He didn't have a 'modern' view of the world -- he was a general, and they have rarely made good presidents. Of all the generals who were president, only Washington and Eisenhower can be considered good presidents. Even then, they were not in full control of their destinies, and by nature of their ignorance of politics were heavily reliant on others for counsel, much of it bad.
You also attack Nancy Pelosi on a constant basis here. I wonder if you have ever reviewed her voting history? Probably you aren't interested in knowing what she has accomplished, but that IS the actual context, along with her character, which is among the best you can find in 220 years of this country. A fine person, being slandered by those who simply see things in terms of the negative context and their own paranoia, while ignoring the obvious goodness in some of these figures. Ike was a good man -- he was not evil. He wasn't sufficient to the times, but he wasn't the cause of our problems. He did not give birth to Nixon, and he did not choose him.
And Speaker Pelosi did not elect all those Bushovic Senators that make an impeachment conviction unavailable. It's time you got a more nuanced set of opinions.
Jack Damage @ 61 "I do believe if we hadn't put the Sha[h] in power"
That was mostly a British program. It is ahistorical to put this on Ike's plate as if it was his program. You have to figure against that complicity the blocking of British plans for the Suez Canal under Truman, and the concession to Zionist terrorism (against British and Arabs) in Palestine by Truman, and the results of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th century itself, with the chaos and tragedy that entailed. Of course, planting the Shah was for oil, and nothing else. But it is highly unlikely that Ike did more than approve the action -- it was not his program (it was a programme of the British).
"we are just not really a pack of white hat wearin good guys at all"
Ike was about as close to that as we come, for a general. And the freeing of W. Europe (and later, E. Germany, etc.) was the very real accomplishment of his lifetime. Put the Shah into context with the actions of his counterparts, like Khrushchev, for instance -- guilty of serving Stalin's purges and signing off on millions of lives destroyed through famine and gulags -- and you get a different view of what DDE was, and the crime against Iran's nacent democracy IN THAT CONTEXT is no where near this modern-looking-back illusion of some high evil, some unique American evil, such as leftists constantly try to sell in their contextless screeds.
Paul in LA,
You're defending Eisenhower, the general. From the very beginning I specifically referred to Eisenhower, the president. Your passionate defense of Eisenhower, the general, is completely off point.
Eisenhower, THE PRESIDENT, had a hand in the seeding and cultivating two of the worst foreign policy disasters in U.S. History; sending troops into Vietnam in military service to his "Domino Effect" (it wasn't. it was a civil war) and overturning a nascent democracy with a parlimentarily elected president in Iran in order to intall OUR Shah, thereby fomenting the anti-American Islamic Revolution backlash.
Meanwhile, his one great warning about the pending Military-Industrial Complex is nice. But he conveniently held off mentioning it on a national level until after the obvious political beneficiary of his ratcheting up the "Red Menace"/"Commie Under Every Bed" line, Richard Nixon, was clearly not going to take the oath of office in January, 1961.
I'm sorry, but the historical facts are too blatant for anyone to convincingly sell the revisionist suggestion that there are "good" fearmongering Republican politicians like Ike out there that might deserve our vote someday, but, darn it all, we've just had a run of bad ones lately.
And unless someone points out a few of these historical facts whenever Ike's great "Military-Industrial Complex" speech gets trotted out, that is exactly what might inadvertantly get sold.
"You also attack Nancy Pelosi on a constant basis here. I wonder if you have ever reviewed her voting history?" - Paul in LA
btw, I think you have me confused with another poster. I have never attacked Nancy Pelosi here or anywhere else. I am a big supporter of Pelosi.
In fact, I have made a couple of posts here defending her and the Dem Congress' reasons for not being able to successfully impeach Bush/Cheney.
From the farewell speech:
"During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight"
Will someone please send a copy of this to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, for their record and each time they allow more funds to these tricks, we need to wash their faces with it and kick both of their asses out of office for not standing up and blocking the funds.
This shit is sickening and to think, we have another fourteen months of this hell and they can wipe the entire country out in that time Span.
My God, what the hell are these people thinking about?
It's Me @ 81 "You're defending Eisenhower, the general. From the very beginning I specifically referred to Eisenhower, the president."
It is the SAME man.
"Eisenhower, THE PRESIDENT, had a hand in the seeding and cultivating two of the worst foreign policy disasters in U.S. History;"
What you call 'seeding' doesn't exist. Eisenhower's actions taken in themselves were NOT the cause of the Vietnam War, and the 'domino effect' was in fact a REAL concept having a real application to the events of his day. The USSR WAS threatening the freedom of other states, and RED China WAS threatening any chance of SE Asian democracy after the French withdrawal.
Eisenhower did not establish the French colonialism, and was mainly trying to stabilize S. Vietnam to prevent expansion of communism (a Cold War concern inseparable from the superpowers conflict).
"sending troops into Vietnam in military service to his "Domino Effect" (it wasn't. it was a civil war)"
It was a war of liberation against colonialism on one side, and against communism on the other. That doesn't qualify as a civil war, since foreign powers were inherently involved.
"overturning a nascent democracy with a parlimentarily elected president in Iran in order to intall OUR Shah,"
The British component of this strategy is left out of most leftist documentations of that event.
"Meanwhile, his one great warning about the pending Military-Industrial Complex is nice."
Nice. Well that's a handy way to backhand slap him.
"But he conveniently held off mentioning it on a national level until after the obvious political beneficiary of his ratcheting up the "Red Menace"/"Commie Under Every Bed" line, Richard Nixon, was clearly not going to take the oath of office in January, 1961."
Now you are asserting a theory of his motivations which does not on any level acknowledge that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY fostered that Red Scare, and Eisenhower was not enough of a politician to stop them.
"I'm sorry, but the historical facts are too blatant for anyone to convincingly sell the revisionist suggestion that there are "good" fearmongering Republican politicians like Ike out there that might deserve our vote someday, but, darn it all, we've just had a run of bad ones lately."
This is fantasy. Nothing I have said has anything to do with that absurd idea. Were you alive during the Cold War? Because it was VERY real -- not some kind of fantasy. We were in REAL danger of evaporating into a cloud of fire and smoke, and your failure to notice that is either a sign of your age, or your agenda -- I'm not sure which.
"And unless someone points out a few of these historical facts whenever Ike's great "Military-Industrial Complex" speech gets trotted out, that is exactly what might inadvertantly get sold."
So you say. But your one-sided recounting of history ignores the context, such as China's Cultural Revolution, which exposed to all the world the dangers of state communism, if the Stalin version wasn't news enough. If your worldview doesn't include Khrushchev and Mao -- who you entirely fail to mention -- then you are simply ignoring the context in order to bash Eisenhower.
It's Me @ 82 "btw, I think you have me confused with another poster. I have never attacked Nancy Pelosi here or anywhere else. I am a big supporter of Pelosi. "
I apologize. The lack of a seating chart makes these rhetorical spitballs hard to keep straight.
StCyrlyMe @ 84 "Will someone please send a copy of this to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, for their record and each time they allow more funds to these tricks"
The idea that a coup (and its war disaster) involving one party and the Executive can be immediately stopped by a thin Congressional majority is hopelessly false. We simply don't have the political power some people think we do.
So, instead, scapegoat the leaders? NO, look to WHO YOU SEND TO WASHINGTON, because neither Pelosi nor Reid are guilty of electing those people.
I apologize for Senator Feinstain. On the plus side, we put Rep. Diane Watson into the House, and Senator Boxer into the Senate. Who are YOUR contributions? A lot of Americans are sending evil people to represent them, either because they have been avoiding political effort locally, or because they support that evil. In neither case is that Pelosi or Reid's fault.
I wrote: "look to who you send to Washington, because neither Pelosi nor Reid are guilty of electing those people."
The obvious rejoinder is, "Well, they campaign for the incumbents." And that's true -- and unavoidable. How do you gain the support of a caucus except by supporting its incumbency?
But critically they do not vote for those incumbents, the public does. It is our task to take on these politicans and try to dissuade OUR peers from voting for their reelection. You expect too much of the leadership if you think your own actions or inactions is partly to blame. Take responsibility for ¥OUR choices, your efforts LOCALLY, every time you think to blame the leadership for not having a magic wand.
We're going to pick up a lot of seats next year, but crucially we ARE going to replace a chunk of the Democratic incumbency too. And then the leadership will support THOSE incumbents, and so on. So if the change is going to come, it's going to come FROM US.
"You expect too much of the leadership if you think your own actions or inactions [aren't] partly to blame."
It's Me @ 81: "the revisionist suggestion that there are “good” fearmongering Republican politicians like Ike out there that might deserve our vote someday, but, darn it all, we’ve just had a run of bad ones lately.”"
Pardon the extra writing, but you may be right that people interpret it that way, but Eisenhower was actually a person with HUGE credentials -- unmatched credentials. There are no Republicans to match our only five star general. There's no bench.
Most of modern Republicans are war-avoiders, not five star generals. Though the naive might make such assumptions, that has very little to do with defending the General, because I think its specious to try to compartmentalize these people. No legal presidency has absolute power -- Eisenhower had nothing like the power of Bushco. He was not able to say no to the British on Mosadegh.
Also, on Vietnam, actually Truman planted the first seed.
All this said, I would have voted for Stevenson.
Here's Eisenhower taking a crap on Nixon's head:
--wikipedia
Too bad Ike dropped the ball on mentioning the one word that would have motivated the brain-dead conservative zombies of 1956 out of their passive support of allowing the government to control so much of the economy: "Communist".
Granted, "Communist" wouldn't have been entirely accurate to refer to MIC dependent economies. But its use in that context would have been a hell of a lot more accurate than its use at any other time an Eisenhower era politician used it to rouse the rabble into SUPPORTING a state controlled economy. Or, for that matter, more accurate than its use by any other conservative since.
He could have said "state run economy", he could have said "socialistic redistribution of wealth", he could have said "dangerous level of control over our private industry" instead of phrasing it the other way around. But no, he deliberately skipped key economic references so that the idiotic producers of newsreels could say he was pleading "for peace" - a conservative buzzword for "red" if there ever was one.
He may have "warned" us in his famous farewell (and other times), but it can't be denied that Eisenhower and his GOP controlled Congress (for most of his admin) were the very forces that kept on allowing increasing levels of public money support to this widget making industry all to avoid an even worse post-war recession than they were facing.
And all the time, he sat silently while the raging drunk Joe McCarthy called anyone who believed in liberty - economic, political or otherwise - a "Communist".
Yeah, thanks for the "warning" that wasn't, Ike. Historians sure go all ga-ga over your "legacy" and your ego was perhaps saved. The American economy was not.
Weaseldog @ 4:
>> It's not even a secret. The Bin Laden family are major shareholders in various BushCo companies -- especially the Carlylse Group, where Bush Senior is the Chairman of the Board. It's just this insane altered reality of the media that this isn't an issue.
Dubai, the UAE (well-known terror group bankers), China, Ukrainian mobsters and Bin Laden's family ALL have huge investments in Bush family companies. Why aren't these huge issues and conflicts of interest? Why are these people not trying to prove they are innocent?
We can apply extenuating circumstances for every misstep in history.
But the fact remains that in only eight years Eisenhower, the president, played a major role in:
1) Overthrowing a duly elected government in Iran in order to install the brutal Shah, thereby triggering the decades long anti-American Islamic Revolution backlash right up to this very day.
2) Moving our troops into Vietnam, characterized our military participation in their war as justifiable for the cause of blocking the Domino Effect of Communist aggression.
3) Elevating the status of Richard Nixon as a viable and, eventually, a successful presidential candidate.
Anybody care to wait for a fourth strike or will those three do for now?
Stevenson? You bet. I'll go along with that. I appreciate Ike's sentiment in that final speech, but his timing for giving it undermines whatever good will about his intentions one might struggle to read into it, imo.
Login or Register to post comments.