The pattern I see developing here is worrisome.
The financial industry in the US is its 800 pound gorilla, and oen theory I've speculated about for Obama's giveaway to them is that they can effectively blackmail him.
"Nice economy you have there, Mr. President, be a shame if something happened to it."
Now, we have a commentator suggesting the intelligence community might need to be appeased. "Nice long stretch without a terroist attack, Mr. President..."
Now, while it approaches tin foil territory to go too far down the road on that, I'm familiar with many incidents of the president feeling this sort of thing.
I forget where I saw it, but I recall one apparently informed commentator say 'the truth has never come out about how badly the military undermined President Carter'.
I know JFK had some similar thinking - there's a reason he said he wanted to cut the CIA into a thousand pieces and thrown them to the wind, there's a reason he created the DIA to get around the JCS organizations, why he put 'his guy' in place as the middleman between him and the JCS. A reason why FDR said he wanted the Pentagon to be a temporary building for WWII, because if they military got any such huge bureaucratic base they'd get too much power and be harder for the government to control.
JFK was also known to tell friends he found the coup in "Seven Days in May" plausible and that he felt he was 'one more Bay of Pigs' away before it might happen to him, early on
Remember even Reagan - if you take him at all about his word - claiming shock at what his own staff had done with things like 'arms for hostages'.
Does this sound like a President in charge of his people, one immune to being undermined by them if they so desire? (Reagan televised national speech):
For the past 3 months, I've been silent on the revelations about Iran. And you must have been thinking: "Well, why doesn't he tell us what's happening? Why doesn't he just speak to us as he has in the past when we've faced troubles or tragedies?" Others of you, I guess, were thinking: "What's he doing hiding out in the White House?"...
I've paid a price for my silence in terms of your trust and confidence. But I've had to wait, as you have, for the complete story. That's why I appointed Ambassador David Abshire as my special counselor to help get out the thousands of documents to the various investigations. And I appointed a special review board, the Tower board, which took on the chore of pulling the truth together for me and getting to the bottom of things. It has now issued its findings.
I'm often accused of being an optimist, and it's true I had to hunt pretty hard to find any good news in the Board's report. As you know, it's well-stocked with criticisms, which I'll discuss in a moment; but I was very relieved to read this sentence: "... the Board is convinced that the President does indeed want the full story to be told." And that will continue to be my pledge to you as the other investigations go forward.
I want to thank the members of the panel: former Senator John Tower, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie, and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. They have done the Nation, as well as me personally, a great service by submitting a report of such integrity and depth. They have my genuine and enduring gratitude.
I've studied the Board's report. Its findings are honest, convincing, and highly critical; and I accept them. And tonight I want to share with you my thoughts on these findings and report to you on the actions I'm taking to implement the Board's recommendations.
First, let me say I take full responsibility for my own actions and for those of my administration. As angry as I may be about activities undertaken without my knowledge, I am still accountable for those activities. As disappointed as I may be in some who served me, I'm still the one who must answer to the American people for this behavior. And as personally distasteful as I find secret bank accounts and diverted funds - well, as the Navy would say, this happened on my watch.
Let's start with the part that is the most controversial. A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and the evidence tell me it is not
Naturally, the president will never want to scare the American people by saying much about these issues - with the very rare exceptions like Eisenhower's farewell speech.
When we see Obama pursuing policies so opposed to his base's preferences, to the apparent national interest, where he pays the enormous prices both political (reversing his positions on the wiretapping) and literal (hundreds of billions for the financial industry), it raises some worrisome concerns about his 'freedom of operation'.
If there's a consolation, it's that he's *said* that there are big changes needed which would address these things long-term. Those words are sounding more hollow, with bad choices.
Facebook
Twitter