11-27-06, 2:37 p.m.

Many years ago, I received as a birthday gift an LP (also known as 'vinyl' to those unfamiliar with the format of sound recordings prior to compact discs and MP3's) entitled 'Richard Nixon Superstar' by vocal impressionist David Frye. One of the tracks featured Frye, as Rev. Billy Graham, saying of Richard Nixon: 'He ignored his critics. He ignored the polls. He ignored the wishes of the American people.' I am getting somewhat that same sensation about Vice President Dick Cheney.

The Vice President, according to respected journalist Seymour M. Hersh's article, 'The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?' that appears in the November 27, 2006 issue of the New Yorker magazine, reports in its opening paragraph:

'A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting 'shorteners' on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put 'shorteners' on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.'

Although Cheney's office issued a statement to Hersh that they had 'no record of the discussion,' a prime example of what became known to journalists covering Nixon's Watergate scandal as a 'non-denial denial,' there is no doubt that Cheney and his ultra-right allies have genuine contempt for Congress (even when it was controlled by the GOP) and that Iran has been in their cross-hairs for a while.

Hersh's article goes on to site an analysis produced by the CIA on the issue of how close Iran is to becoming a nuclear threat. The Bush administration, notes Hersh, is hostile to the analysis, as are their neo-conservative allies. One such individual, Joshua Muravchik, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, began his op-ed that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on November 19 with the words 'We must bomb Iran.'

There are a number of questions which bear (rhetorical) asking, one being 'Are we going to see an Iran-focused version of the 'Downing Street memo' in which intelligence is 'fixed' to conform to a policy the ultra-right wishes be pursued? A second question is: What impact will Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary have on this, as Gates has previously served as Director of Central Intelligence? (The president's father, it is sometimes forgotten, also served as CIA director).

Apart from foreign affairs, Cheney's overt contempt of the Congress in his stated willingness to 'get around' any obstacle posed by the Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, merit the closest attention.

On one hand, it is really nothing new. The ultra-right playbook has always been to view Congress as either a pliable tool at best or the equivalent of a legislative speed bump at worst. The Iran-Contra affair was one such example, resulting in the Boland Amendment.

On the other hand, there is much that is new. Venezuela under the leadership of President Chavez is not only firmly anti-imperialist, but has also made tangible efforts to provide heating oil and funding for school clinics in working-class communities; FSLN leader Daniel Ortega was elected president in Nicaragua; Evo Morales and his Movement for Socialism emerged victorious in that nation's presidential contest; and the Democrats control both House and Senate following the November 7 elections in which the US electorate voted NOT to 'stay the course.'

While it might be somewhat comforting to believe that this is causing Vice President Cheney, also known as 'Mr. Undisclosed Location,' a bit of distress the fact is that it probably causes him no distress at all. If Hersh's account of the Vice President's statement are accurate, and a journalist of Mr. Hersh's reputation deserves belief in the absence of contrary evidence, there is every reason to take Mr. Cheney at his reported word.

While the Bush administration may be less able after November 7 to rely on the mechanism of 'signing statements' to interpret legislation as they will and to avoid submitting reports to the Congress, they will still be able to use the umbrella of 'national security' as a shield. They haven't hesitated to do so in the past, and it can probably be anticipated that they will expand their use of this privilege.

It should be remembered that Richard Nixon attempted to use the CIA to block the FBI investigation into the Watergate break-in, and that he came reasonably close to succeeding. In an interview with David Frost that took place shortly after he resigned the presidency, Nixon denied illegal acts by saying, 'When the president does it, that makes it legal.'

This notion of 'Executive Privilege' was soundly rejected by the United States Supreme Court. Since Watergate, members of the executive branch have been called upon to testify before federal grand juries and the legislative branch asserted oversight responsibilities in realms previously regarded as off-limits, such as the FBI and CIA.

While all governments have had a need to safeguard the security of their nation, the present Bush administration, using the terrible events of September 11, 2001 as pretext, has elevated the principle of secrecy to the level of high political art. Nixon feared and hated the media, and it was the media's reporting of Watergate that had a major impact in forcing Nixon's resignation.

The present Bush administration, in contrast, does not have Nixon's paranoia of the media. They do not need that baggage. Their constant references to September 11th and exploiting fear of further terrorist incidents was all the justification they needed to keep information from the legislative branch as well as the public. They were convinced that that was sufficient to tame the media, control the Congress, and placate the media.

In the wake of the Democratic Party's victory in the mid-term elections, perhaps it is time to remember certain universal truths and chief among these is that government rarely gives up its secrets willingly. It is well to remember that the FBI's infamous COINTELPRO operations came to light only because of a break-in at one of the FBI's small 'resident agencies' in Pennsylvania.

Since Cheney seems bent on ignoring the wishes of the American people and has expressed a willingness to go around the Congress, it does not seem out of bounds to push for increased oversight of the intelligence community. At the same time, Congress should insist on timely, complete, and accurate reports from this administration. The public, too, is entitled to view these reports. Finally, the House or Senate may wish to take on the issue of overclassification; the practice of identifying a document as classified when it has no national security value.

Sir Humphrey Appleby, the fictional Cabinet Secretary in the BBC's 'Yes Minister' and 'Yes Prime Minister' comedy series once commented that Britain's 'Official Secrets' act was not at all about protecting secrets; it was about protecting officials. We cannot and should not allow our government officials to use national security as cover for all their actions. And Iran should not be a military target to satisy the Vice President's lust for 21st century lebensraum.