In a column at Newsmax yesterday, John L. Perry suggested that there is a chance "America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the ‘Obama problem.’" In arguing the case for why the military would do this, Perry urges the reader to view the current situation "through military eyes". He then produces a list of motivations that are nothing more than typical right wing distortions and projection. I have selected a few items from his list for discussion.

Top military officers can see the Constitution they are sworn to defend being trampled as American institutions and enterprises are nationalized.

The bailout provisions for the auto industry did result in the government replacing the head of GM. Can anyone point out to me any companies, let alone entire industries, that were actually nationalized? All I saw was a massive hand-out to large firms, and this hand-out started during the last few months of the Bush Administration.

As for the trampling of the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment died during Bush’s term. The provision for impeachment also disappeared when Pelosi took it off the table, despite ample evidence of crimes committed by Bush and Cheney, among others. Bush abandoned habeas corpus. Yes, Obama is continuing the shredding of the Constitution, with his desire not to punish Bush crimes, his desire to establish "pre-crime" indefinite detention without charges, and his continuation of warrantless wiretapping, but these trends had their start under Bush. What new Constitution-shredding has Obama done that did not start with Bush?

They can see that the economy — ravaged by deficits, taxes, unemployment, and impending inflation — is financially reliant on foreign lender governments.

Do you think maybe two wars, with over a trillion dollars spent, massive tax reductions for the richest individuals and corporations with a simultaneous dismantling of oversight of the financial industry under Bush had anything to do with this situation? Apparently Perry doesn’t.

They can see this president waging undeclared war on the intelligence community, without whose rigorous and independent functions the armed services are rendered blind in an ever-more hostile world overseas and at home.

I guess Perry wasn’t aware that a number of intelligence professionals have been speaking up in favor of torture prosecutions. In fact, just yesterday there was an open letter to the President published from Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Here’s an excerpt:

-Tenet was the chief enabler of torture. He also oversaw widespread kidnapping ("extraordinary rendition"), which in some cases led to torture.

-Our sources tell us that Tenet knew about the overstepping of the guidelines approved by the lawyers and that he knew the people doing it. Rather than restrain them, he pushed them still harder, in an attempt to please his masters.

We strongly believe that investigations of possible wrongdoing cannot, in all fairness, be limited to the proverbial "bad apples at the bottom of the barrel." Rather, in our view, such investigations must be allowed to go wherever the evidence leads.

The huge irony here, though, for Perry arguing against torture prosecutions is the impact that our policy of torture has for our military. Even though Perry claims he is describing conditions as seen by the military, he overlooks the most obvious consideration of a torture policy. Now that the entire world knows that torture is the policy of the United States in dealing with detainees, what is the impact of that policy on our own troops who fall into enemy hands? Our torture program virtually guarantees that our own troops will be tortured if they are captured.

The realization that our torture program puts our troops at greater risk may well be behind the action of a group of retired military officers who have come out in favor of the closing of Guantanamo (h/t bluebutterfly):

The retired officers, who met with Attorney General Eric Holder and other senior administration officials in Washington this week to discuss the issue, are planning a series of events, including appearances at universities and local community groups across the country, to make the case for closing Guantanamo.

"We’ve been disturbed by the disinformation that is out there, that is playing on fear, and that is leading people to be diverted from the issue of closing Guantanamo," retired Army Gen. David Maddox said Tuesday, in an interview with the group.

It sounds to me like Mr. Perry is a proud purveyor of that disinformation that Maddox mentions. Perry is going further than just the issue of Guantanamo, however. In a move of classic projection, he is trying to put the massive failures of the Bush/Cheney neocons onto the shoulders of Obama. In fact, it would seem that Perry’s arguments in favor of a military coup made more sense in September, 2008 than they do in September, 2009. The electorate found a way to deal with the "Bush problem" at the polls. Obama risks a similar electoral fate to the extent he continues the Bush abuses in defiance of his electoral mandate, but Perry is living in a fantasy world if he believes even a portion of the drivel penned under his name yesterday.

Update: The link to Perry’s column no longer works; it just goes to the Newsmax front page. Links to other, older Perry columns still work. Did Newsmax pull the plug on the column? It appears that the the "Newsmax colmumnist problem" might be getting a bit bigger.

Update 2: A large portion of the column is archived at Media Matters (h/t eCAHNomics)

Update 3: MediaMatters pdf of entire Perry column.