Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Not a bang, but a splat

What with the Libby affair exploding like a balloon full of shit, the blog waves are full of comment, outrage, and bloviating. The press reports the 'facts' and these are used as the basis of the commentary.

What has struck me most about the reports is that great attention has been paid in attributing the decision to commute to Bush and Bush alone. Based on that, the commentary has been critical of Bush and his unitary actions. Cheney, who is the clearest beneficiary of the decision (after Libby) is not mentioned. The WaPo, one of Libby's biggest supporters, has an article by Michael Abramowitz, "A Decision Made Largely Alone" that manages to relate the Bush position without even mentioning Cheney. Bravo!

Forgive me for calling bullshit. This has Cheney written all over it, and once again goes to show who is in charge. It also once again reinforces the nature of the Cheney regime, who's primary nature can be described by the term 'gangsterism'. Bush is the fall guy, it's a natural part for him and the only part (but one) that he still might have to play.

The prosecution of Libby was an attempt by the old establishment to reign Cheney in. It has clearly failed and there doesn't seem to be a backup plan around. Please don't say Congress because it hurts my sides when I laugh too hard. So there are almost eighteen months left for the Cheneyites to run things and cement their power for the future. That is going to be the most interesting part of the next eighteen months, how can the gang preserve its power against the difficult problem of the elections? Let's look at some possibilities and their pros and cons.

1. Rely on the press and the stupidity of the American electors to put a Cheneyite in power. The most obvious candidate for this is Fred Thompson, he's right out of the Reaganesque mold of a Hollywood airhead who does what he's told while keeping the press all hot and bothered by his 'leadership qualities'. The other side of this will be the usual character assassination campaign against the Democratic candidate. Election fixing will be available to tip the balance if it gets too close. The major benefit of this is that the facade of normalcy will be maintained. The risk is that the stupidity of the Americans might have limits, this risk is exacerbated by negative economic factors. The housing market is a ticking bomb, if it goes off Fred might not be enough.

2. Play the terrorism card. This could be done in a variety of ways, but the effect of any of them could mean a radical and apparent transformation of the country. It fits in well with the character of the actors, and has a giant repressive apparatus at its beck and call. It is risky, as all big changes are.

3. Go back underground. Allow Clinton (or Obama) to be elected, it's not that she's going to change the Bush policies very much, there can be many scandals found or invented to keep the press happy and the public distracted. Many of the moles that have been installed won't be chased out, and will be ready for action when called upon. The risks are mostly in the realm of paranoia, but gangsters are by necessity paranoid. Others can be gangsters, too, and putting other hands on the main levers of power makes you rely on their normalcy.

Oh, Happy Fourth.


Post a Comment

<< Home