The Middle East is a relevant example of this saying. But, this diary is about something closer to home - the GOP. The GOP has mutated from loyal opposition to domestic enemy of democracy. The Benghazi Committee (henceforth, B.C.) has put one of the prime aspects of totalitarianism on display:
Totalitarianism in power invariably replaces all first-rate talents, regardless of their sympathies, with those crackpots and fools whose lack of intelligence and creativity is still the best guarantee of their loyalty.
- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
I do not see the B.C. being a comic symbol of the downfall of the GOP, but rather, I see the B.C. as evidence for the rise of American totalitarianism. The members of the B.C. are gerrymandered for life, and will face no consequences for their ignorant thuggery. So, it is not enough to just stand up to these people (i.e., to be a "first-rate talent" who refuses to be "replaced" ). One must go further. One must address the Wall St./MIC/oilCo proto-totalitarianism that pulls the strings of the "crackpots and fools". The point deliberately lost in the media coronation of HRC is that it is possible to be the enemy of the GOP and not be the enemy of Wall St. and the MIC.
This whole B.C. vs HRC dustup reminds me a whole lot of the Big Dog's (WJC) term in office. Namely, he was attacked for non-policy reasons by means of endless fishing expedition "investigations". And, all Democrats rallied around WJC because the Gingrichian methods in use were disgusting, the subject matter puerile, and the media coverage was unprecedentedly biased and disrespectful.
In the end, WJC was seen as productive despite the interference; and he left office widely popular amidst peace and prosperity. It was only eight years later that the bill came due for the repeal of Glass-Steagel, the Telecom Deregulation (media concentration) act, the end of welfare, the failure to wind down the Cold War military, the explosion of the prison population, and many other Third Way/MIC bits of economic looting and militarization. WJC's presidency was a magnificent piece of magician's distraction: you rubes look at the scandals, while we let Wall St. and the bloated MIC pick your pocket.
It was often said that WJC was lucky his opponents were idiots.
Whatever you think about Bill Clinton, you have to give him this: He is exceedingly fortunate in his enemies…
As fate would have it, three of his most prominent adversaries - Linda Tripp, Paula Jones and Kenneth Starr - were given center stage this week, and each in turn helped the president's cause.
- Donald Kaul, 1998
And so, today, we have the exact same headline today about Hillary:
Clinton is fortunate to have the enemies that she does
Hillary Clinton may lack her husband Bill Clinton’s ability to slip through whatever traps political enemies set out, but she shares his good fortune in having enemies as likely to score own goals as get one past her.
Pardon me, but I have seen this show before; and I am holding onto my wallet.
Ritual disclaimer: I will vote for anyone the Democrats nominate, because the GOP are insane fanatics. But, I will not vote for HRC in the primary. If that is not an allowable position, then democracy is over. This diary is about the primary.
I have never thought HRC isn't a fighter. But, I have always asked exactly whom she (and WJC) is fighting for. For example, if you want to investigate Benghazi, then you should ask about
the "consulate" that seemed to be more of a CIA arms transshipment point from Gaddafi's looted stores to Al Qaida in Syria. (The link, which is the first one that came up in a search, is to the UK Telegraph (Torygraph), hardly a left wing source.)
Here is Sy Hersh's take on the big picture:
A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdoğan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn’t always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)
The operation had not been disclosed at the time it was set up to the congressional intelligence committees and the congressional leadership, as required by law since the 1970s.
- The Real Benghazi Story
That is the Benghazi story that will never get investigated because CIA. And because the corporate media are covering for all these warmongers by hyping the bullshit B.C.
Here is a reader comment from the "HRC is fortunate" quote:
Hillary Clinton should be thankful she had the “vast right-wing conspiracy” after her. A legitimate investigation into U.S. involvement into Libya might have been more damaging to her presidential campaign while being less partisan. Now, however, it’s Republicans who are reeling.
That POV is what inspires this diary.
It was said about Oliver North that he was someone you would want with you in a foxhole, so long as you didn't ask how he got you into the foxhole in the first place. Well, I have that exact same feeling about HRC and the foxholes in Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and Honduras.
But, according to TPTB, none of this shall be discussed, because HRC is now "inevitable" again. (I actually saw this as a newspaper headline today.)
Again, pardon me, but I do not see how the events of this week make HRC "inevitable" four months before the first primary.
1. The B.C. is complete political theatre.
The media keeps it going by refusing to tell the simple truth about the committee members and their agenda, and the complete lack of new evidence. Given the McCarthy gaffe, and the admirable support of Reps. Cummings, Schiff, et al, HRC had everything she needed to survive, even thrive. As many said, the GOP gave HRC 11 hours of free air time.
2. Joe Biden's "candidacy" was more theatre.
It was designed to suck the media oxygen away from Sanders' and O'Malley's genuine anti-establishment policies. It conveniently expired the day after Hillary stopped being a total loser.
3. The DNC (Don't want Nobody but Clinton) has deliberately kept the debates to a minimum.
When they actually had a debate, the viewers said that Sanders won. But the corporate media said HRC won and denounced the results of their own focus groups. Then they censored Bernie's soundbites to neuter his message (about media not talking about policy). Finally they ran a poll in which 74% of the respondents did not watch the debate, but declared HRC the winner. They declared this farce to be the only reliable test.
These carefully choreographed bits of political theatre make HRC's "more of the same" (more militarism, more coddling of Wall St., more triangulation about global warming.) campaign inevitable? Not to me.
A lot of Democrats (and even black Democrats) think that Obama has been a huge disappointment, that he campaigned to the left and governed to the center-right. So, putting HRC, who has a long record of political opportunism, up on stage pretending to be an economic and military liberal (as opposed to a social liberal) is more of the same. The base will be turned off, while the rabid GOP base will be energized because she is a longtime nemesis.
The whole HRC pitch to the Democratic base reminds me of Charles Colson:
When you've got em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
I'm headed to the bunker now. Might stick my head up when the first barrage is over.