To Lionize or Demonize...

[salin]

RIP Gerald Ford. Condolences to your family.

I can't work myself up to mourn you, nor to glorify your memory. No offense meant. I was a kid when you briefly stepped into the presidency. Two years really isn't much time to make a mark on history - save the Pardon. I doubt you could have known what some of your top aides would become - I can't hold you responsible for their arrogance, for their actions 25-30 years after they worked for you, nor for their direct contributions to the weakening of this country - domestically and internationally.

Nor can I work myself up to vilify you. Yours was what now (hindsight) seems to have been a bit part in a bigger movie that put some of the initial foundations into the lunacy we are currently living through. You didn't cause Cheney to take the lesson away from his experience that his role was to expand the presidency into a near imperial role at the expense of the Constitutional system of checks and balances. I think that many who are venting anger today, are doing so in part because of the great anger and frustration with what is happening today.

Frankly I don't think that had you withheld the pardon that things would be any different today. I do, however, think that the rationale to pardon - morphed into a similar rationale 12 years later - and one that has a much more direct role in moving us to where we are today. In the mid-late eighties after the Iran-Contra story unfolded - the bipartisan investigations on the Hill moved quickly to begin to paint a very ugly picture. The executive branch of govt worked extra-constitutionally to avoid following the laws set by Congress regarding ending ALL funding (direct and indirect support) for the Contras in Nicaragua. The behavior of the executive branch was beyond illegal. When the depth of the actions became clear to top members on the investigative panel, there was a decision that "the country couldn't handle this on the 'heels' of Watergate" in the sense that all faith in our democratic institutions could be lost. The decision was made to back off from the investigations, tie up some loose ends, let some of the 'hearings' go forward but without much press attention - grab a few convictions and a few more slaps on the hands and tie things up quickly.

IMO, that set up much more directly the problems and players that we have at work, undermining our system of government, pillaging our treasury, gutting our infrastructure, trashing our international reputation, and threatening the futures (economic security) of the next generations. Many of the players of bushco - who simply believe that they can work around congress - that they are not constrained by international treaties, bodies, or opinion - who believe that "they create reality" and thus are not constrained by reality - those folks got their games going in the Iran Contra era.

I write this - as I believe that we - the grass roots who just helped to bring about a small correction on the Hill - could repeat the mistakes to be learned by these two episodes (Nixon being pardoned vs the backing off from the Iran Contra investigations). Seriously, what would have changed had Nixon NOT been pardoned? While I would have liked a real trial - I honestly don't think the results would have changed anything. Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang would still be active. By convincing the public that Nixon was the epicenter of the problems and bad acts of government... the GOP could quickly bounce back and take back the Presidency just a short time later.

However had the Iran Contra investigations and subsequent prosecutions continued at a serious depth - many of the players of today would have been unable or at least unlikely to ever be seated near power again. Indeed the public would have had a much greater understanding of the extent to which the executive branch actively worked to undermined the Congress (the legislative branch and representative body of the people) - and would have been much more vigilant (and expected the press to be as well) to prevent such a threat to our constitutional system to arise again. Instead much of the malfeasance was swept under the rug, as were the finance issues relating to the BCCI and the collapse of the Savings and Loans. Thus while the GOP was pushed out of the executive branch - they quickly and ferociously took Congress. There was no accountability - and in the publics mind no need for accountability.

How does that relate to today? The quick calls for impeachment would set the stage for a top level cleansing (or attempt thereof) without FULL exploration of the in numerous ways that our country, our constitution, our security has been compromised by not just the Administration - but the GOP in congress who enabled such governmental malfeasance. Series of hearings on a myriad of issues involving most (if not all) of the executive branch agencies are needed - START at the near top and move vertically on each one (vertically down - how deep and widespread were the resultant problems due to mismanagement or worse at the top of the agencies; and vertically up to the Cabinet and White House) - Let the public begin to have a full understanding through REAL transparency to the actions of this administration and the enabling GOP in congress. The BIG picture has to be seen in order for the public to be repulsed enough to knock the current GOP party out of power for a generation or more.

All that said - I see no need to lionize nor demonize the late President Ford. I wish his family well.

I have a great need to cry out that we should look at the big picture when expressing our angst at the rebirth (politically speaking) of some of the most horrendous movers and shakers in this administration - and we should really consider which place played a bigger role in enabling these folks to come back (again and again) and which episode really had the better opportunity to expose. Me - I say backing down from Iran Contra was a much more serious issue than the pardon of Nixon - and I think it had a much greater direct link to where we are today. Most important - the parallels between the two when we consider 'what might have been different' - if a) Nixon had not been pardoned vs. b) If the Iran Contra hearings/investigations and prosecutions had been allowed to go on and to go more deep - can give us a lesson for moving forward. Do we just want to be rid of Bush/Cheney? Or do we want the party that raised them to power, and continues to enable them - and the minions being trained in high level jobs around them to get "cleansed" b/c the bad apples are swept away - or do we want them 'punished' politically and in the publics' minds eye? I choose the latter. Not sure why it took for today for me to see or think about the parallels. But it did - so as you all debate whether we should demonize, ignore or lionize the late President Ford - I chose to think about the difference of the two GOP scandals/controversies that had implications for our system of government - and to think about what course of action coming up in 2007 makes the most support if the goal is really "Never Again."

[iamthebandfanman]

1. relating to the subject line...

how about neither ?

[salin]

3. twas a reflection on the types of threads all day... and an analogy

imo for what the dem congress could chose per their priorities in providing "oversight" over bushco.

All day the parallel between the pardon, vs the backing off during the Iran Contra hearings have been bouncing around in my head. All day I have been thinking about the consequences of the Roads not travelled in those two instances.

I think most of the anger at Ford has to do with the pardon. Hence the subject line.

But is that misguided anger - I know it isn't an either or - but was jailing Nixon going to do much per stopping the march of the neocons in the next 30 years? In hindsight, probably not. But had their been full throttle and depth in the Iran Contra hearings rather than the bakcing off "for the good of the nation" (rationale used both by Ford for the pardon and by the chairs of the IC hearings) would their have been any possible hindrance in the march of the neocons? Much more likely.

So how should congress procede now? How will the rationale "for the good of the country" play out now? Seems rather relevant to me.

[uppityperson]

4. indeed. How about neither?

[salin]

6. I would suggest that my post concludes the same

the title was really just describing my thinking that led me to think about the parallels of the scandals - the likely differing outcomes had their not been a pardon, vs had iran contra not been backed off of - (I think the pardon had less impact, btw) and what the implications are for the new congress and their priorities. I don't think it is an either or - but the reflection (based on the thread titles across the day) opened, at least for me, a whole other line of thought.

[uppityperson]

7. you do, it does, I am agreeing

thank you for the thoughtful post too

[blm]

2. That's nailing it, salin. And Robert Parry agrees with you about FULL INVESTIGATIONS

and opening ALL the books. The cost of NOT DOING IT, is too great to this country and to democracy itself.



Robert Parry:
Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:



http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

These Democrats also called on the party to reject its “non-interventionist left” wing, which opposed the Iraq War and which wants Bush held accountable for the deceptions that surrounded it.

“Many of us are disturbed by the calls for investigations or even impeachment as the defining vision for our party for what we would do if we get back into office,” said pollster Jeremy Rosner, calling such an approach backward-looking.

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

‘Politicized’ CIA

After winning Election 1992, Clinton also rebuffed appeals from members of the U.S. intelligence community to reverse the Reagan-Bush “politicization” of the CIA’s analytical division by rebuilding the ethos of objective analysis even when it goes against a President’s desires.
>>>>>>

Parry has given permission to post this article in full on the internet, but DU prefers we post an excerpt due to bandwidth issues. Those of you who wish to repost at your own sites can repost Parry's entire article.

[salin]

5. I had hoped you would see this.

Congressman Hamilton was an acquaintance of my late father. Dad always respected him, as did I. When I learned later his role in backing down on those hearings - a part of me could understand the "for the good of the nation" - but I had to ask - but what good serves the nation if these bad acts are repeated? How can they be prevented if they are not openly known? Sadly here we are with the answers to those questions in front of us. This has a huge implication for the next eight months - and after that for our and the next generations future.

The forgive or not forgive Ford for the Pardon threads - just pushed me to think about what the parallel scandal and the implications for today.

Thanks for the links and text. Parry's work continues to be imperative reads.

I am going to have to sign off til much later this evening (family holiday gathering, and all) - if there is any discussion to be had on this thread, and if you are around - I hope that you can keep it moving.

Always great to see you! *hugs*

[blm]

12. My hope is that more eyes will open to the realization that TRUTH MATTERS

and matters to the very issue of life and death for this nation, its soldiers, innocent citizens of target nations, and its very own democracy.

[salin]

13. This current administration has pushed things to the extreme

on so many levels. I am hoping that at least some of the truths come out (and there are so many - that it would be foolish to hope that ALL came out - as who could find all of them - buried in x y and z bureacracies) - that more of the public becomes appalled, aware and begins to ask more of those who are (s)elected to lead. I hope that as awful as this era is, that it is the precursor to a sort of enlightenment period in American democracy.

[blm]

15. We need to recommit to government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people

and accountable TO the people.

[damntexdem]

8. He was not worthy of either.

But to lionize would be totally ridiculous.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. All "leaders" roles should be examined and responsibility levied.

"Good" or "bad".

There's a lot of "Mussolini made the trains run on time" kind of logic around here. The "leaders" we put into office are supposed to be accountable to us, the citizens.

The fact that Gerald Ford was a Republican doesn't necessarily make him a tyrant or a crook or evil. Nor does someone being a Democrat make them angelic purveyors of good government. It's what they do in office, their deeds and misdeeds, that decides the fate of people, even whether they live or die.

They are accountable.

[blm]

10. Seems to me that neither Democratic or Repub administrations believe in

accountability, and that is what has ruined this country and brought it to this point in time where we are reviled in the world.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. It's all too easy to shuck our responsibility to govern ourselves.

Of course, in a nation of this size, we can do little but attempt to hold our "leaders" responsible for their actions. But, ultimately, it is us who will pay the price for not doing so. Whether directly, or indirectly, we will pay the price, whether it's the roads not being paved or the scorn and hatred of the rest of the world.

[blm]

14. Exactly - the reason we don't have universal healthcare right now goes back

to Clinton's decision to not pursue the outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate, CIA drugrunning. Had he opened the books and sided with JUSTICE, this country would be enjoying a booming economy, fair wages, universal healthcare and we would have amended the constitution so he could have run again in 2000.

[flashlighter]

16. Ford never would have been elected today

He probably wouldn't even have gotten as far as he did in Congress (minority leader). He was a honest and hardworking man, and there simply aren't any more of those people in Washington anymore- especially in the Republican party.

Nixon was forced, by the Democratic house and Senate, to choose Ford as his VP. Tip O'Neil basically told Nixon that Ford would be the only person Congress accepted, because he was the only one the D's couls trust.

We make a big deal about this pardon, but Ford knew doing it would end his political life, and did it anyway. Helped cover up a crime or helped heal the nation, what ever you think about this pardon, he did what he thought had to be done at the time, without thinking about the polling data. Politicians wouldn't do that today.