Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008

"Jackson Circle" Sidney O. Smith III

"Some at Sic Semper Tyrannis have asked about the successful rise of David Addington -- Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff and the leading apostle of the unitary executive theory. I’ll leave it to others to offer high octane legal insights, but Jane Mayer, in her excellent article “The Hidden Power”, goes into great detail when describing Addington’s approach. And, after reading her article, if someone asked me to choose one sentence to write on a chalkboard to sum up Addington and his weltanschauung, then I would offer the following: Addington doesn’t believe in the US Constitution.

What else does anyone really need to know? If you want an academic description, I suppose one could say that Addington’s intent to destroy the US Constitution is the source of his praxeology and thus drives all of his actions. One therefore can analyze his work based upon the assumption that he wants to decimate the US Constitution so as to create an imperial presidency. But, in simpler terms, this description of Addington simply sums up his "m.o.", or for those who believe he should face prosecution, his “mens rea”, that is, his “guilty state of mind”.

Of course, if you want to take it a step further and construct an argument against the views of Addington, then you must first decide the venue and audience. And because the tempo and motif of Sic Semper Tyrannis is one of The Butcher’s Cleaver and the Confederate Secret Services, I suggest tailoring such an argument with the specific intent of triggering a particular “collective memory” of anti-imperialism -- a collective memory long forgotten. By relying in part on the insight of Dr. Christine Helms that the "collective memory is a toolshed" that may lead to social change, the hope is that the revival of this specific collective memory will help end the days of Addington and Cheney as a political power. .."

Sidney O. Smith III

Download jackson_circle.pdf

Turkey, Syria and Israel?

This is very good news.  One can hear the string section warming up for the concert.  This must enrage many in the US and Israel.  Imagine the effrontery of the locals!  Taking things into their own hands like this!  Who do they think they are to do this?

The Syrians have been sold to the American people as altogether "black" in the usual Manichean construct.  How could Israel, land of milk and honey stain itself by making peace with these human devils?  Unthinkable!

Out there in Middle America (something like Middle Earth but with less cachet and more rust), there are going to be a lot of puzzled people if an Israeli-Syrian peace were to actually occur.

What about the purple thumbs?

Psst.  That was Iraq.

It was?  Oh well, one of those places.  pl

PS - Anything about this in the MSM?

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/turkey/8800883.asp?gid=231&sz=40500

People who can't shoot - anything.

For most of my life I have listened to people who "bitched" that they could not hit anything with the M1911A1 .45 caliber US automatic pistol.  I always shot "expert" with that gun.  So many people "bitched" about the .45 that the military got rid of it and replaced it at considerable expense with a fancy-dancy Italian designed Beretta 9 mm. I don't know, but I would bet that the same kind of people can't hit anything with that either.  Now, commercial manufacturers across the world are making all kinds of variants of the M1911A1 .45.  People who can shoot love them.  The picture, "Knocking out the Moros" is about the "birth" of the Army .45.

For most of my life I have listened to people "bitch" about the M16 rifle and now its lineal descendant the M4.  It's a "toy," it jams, it breaks, etc.  Guess what.  You have to clean it.  A soldier in combat who has not cleaned his rifle today is a slacker.  I always shot "expert" with the M16 also.

What's next? Laser rifles?  The same kind of people will "bitch" about them.  Some people just can't shoot and they are not all in the Air Force.

That reminds me.  I need to buy another gun just to make myself feel good.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601753.html?tid=informbox

Syria, North Korea, Iran? What are US Intentions?

" Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."

Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.

Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.

In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat." "  Tyson in Wapo.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is increasingly clear that Cheney and the War Party side of the Israeli establishment are pushing what is left of the Bush Administration toward a new war in the Middle East (oh, sorry, in MSM parlance "the Greater Middle East). 

Shoval, the former Israeli ambassador here, said the other day something to the effect that Hamas, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are the major sources of evil in the world.  My!  My! A clearer example of an inability to mentally separate one's own interests from those of others could hardly be found.

"Cheney and the Israelis." That will be the subject matter or title of some future piece of popularizing history.  Perhaps it will prove impossible to get it published.  What is the source of this affinity between Cheney and the Israeli Right?  He has his "1% solution."  They have their unwillingness to live with any sort of ambiguity in foreign relations or deterrence.  What is this "love affair" based on?

Unless the ground level pictures displayed around Washington were faked somehow, it is probable that Syria was building a reactor out on the Euphrates.  It seems that they were building it with help from North Korea.  The North Koreans usually do such things for money.  This was a foolish thing for both those countries to do.  Why?  It enables the propaganda of their enemies without providing any real benefit for themselves.

As David Albright has said; "One small reactor does not equal a nuclear weapons program."  Where is the refining plant for the by-products?  Where is the program for engineering and building the weapon itself?  Where are the delivery systems?  Were the Syrians going to stick their home made "nucs" on the ends of the North Korean SCUDS that they have?  That would be interesting to see.  Probably not even the most hysterical Israeli strategic thinker believes that. 

Now we have Mullen and Gates beating the drum against the Iranians.  I have been traveling a lot lately in my own country and it is clear to me that many, many people in the USA are not in a position to resist propaganda spread in the MSM and by people like Mullen and Gates.  "Guns of August?"  Or maybe some other month?  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html

Israeli Spy Arrested

"Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel, asked about the arrest, said: "We know nothing about it. We heard it from the media."

Kadish's lawyer, Bruce Goldstein, did not immediately return a call for comment.

Pollard, accused of passing on large quantities of classified materials, pleaded guilty in 1986. Israel granted him citizenship in 1996 and acknowledged in 1998 the former U.S. Navy intelligence analyst was one of its spies. Israel has unsuccessfully sought Pollard's release.

Kadish is a Connecticut-born U.S. citizen who worked as a mechanical engineer at the U.S. Army's Armament Research, Development and Engineering Centre at the Picatinny Arsenal in Dover, New Jersey.

His spying lasted roughly from 1979 to 1985, and his contact with the unidentified Israeli handler continued until March of this year, the federal complaint against him said. Based on circumstances of the case, DiGenova identified Kadish's contact as Yosef Yagur, who has been linked in court documents to the Pollard case. A Justice Department spokesman said he could not confirm that."  Swissinfo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK.  There was more than one Israeli spy working in the US at the time of the Pollard case.  Is this supposed to be a surprise?  People who were knowledgable have known for decades that the FBI has been working on espionage cases involving Jewish Americans spying for Israel.  It takes a long time to assemble court worthy cases for charges like that, especially against political resistance from administrations of both parties.  What you have seen in the last few years is the maturation of some of these cases in the presence of some sort of leverage whichthe FBI has developed that allows them to get the Department of Justice to prosecute.  There may well be more.

Americans (and others) should understand that all (grown up) countries spy on each other.  Information is the coin of international relations.  Spying is better than warring.  One should not assume that any country is "innocent" of such things.  If it is, the citizens of that country should be unhappy.  Their government is not meeting its security obligations to them. 

The Mossad or whichever Israeli agency was involved have long and tragic histories of using Jewish citizens of other countries to spy on their governments.  That is a most irresponsible thing to do.  The practise has led to the deaths or imprisonment of many Jews around the world.

What is their problem?  They can't recruit Gentiles?  pl

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/American_arrested_as_nuclear_spy_for_Israel.html?siteSect=143&sid=9004224&cKey=1208896681000&ty=ti

Absence

I am in the midwest teaching this week.  I will try to post something this afternoon.  pl

They did not Drink the Koolaid?

"These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”"  NY Times

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and those who did not "play ball" were systematically excluded from access by the Pentagon.  The MSM picked up those cues (presumably transmitted by the Administration) and stopped talking to many of the best people. 

I was invited to one briefing at the Pentagon.  At the meeting, many of those mentioned in this article were present.  The purpose of the meeting was to give Rumsfeld the chance to explain the Abu Ghraib mess.

I asked some awkward questions and was not invited again.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

The Newshour. Where is it going?

I told the Newshour some time ago that I was no longer interested, but I still watch.  What else is there to watch, "Battlestar Galactica?"  David Brooks is always amusing and his plug ugly Irish friend is so familiar that how could one pass up the chance to watch the two of them "duke" it out?   Shields' point tonight about the utter insignificance and emptiness of the gesture of wearing a piece of tin in the shape of the US flag struck me as "the real stuff."  People ask me at times why I don't wear one.  My answer?  "I gave at the office."  I don't fly a modern American flag at home either.  This is not a post office.  I fly flags with inscriptions like; "An appeal to heaven," or "Don't Tread On Me."

Tonight we had Robert Satloff, the intelligent and fervent Zionist director of AIPAC's thinktank, "The Washington Institute For Near East Policy" (WINEP) debate Mark Perry, who is something or other with the "Crisis Fora."  (forums?)  They squared off over the issue of whether or not former president Jimmy Carter (never one of my favorites) should talk to the Hamasniks.

Satloff's response was prophetically pre-ordained.  I won't go into it.  Perry professed to believe that Hamas's position is so nuanced that it should be explored.  Maybe so. 

My problem with discussions like this is that the participants are so compromised by sponsorship and ideology that their statements are meaningless.

In my opinion, Satloff is basically an Israeli with ties to the US.  Perry is a man whose leanings toward the Palestinians are so pronounced and unequivocal that his objectivity is as much in question as that of Satloff.  His sponsorship and that of his British colleague; Ramsbotham, Cruikshank or whatever is so deeply affected by partisan money that his words lack meaning.

Why doesn't the Newhour actually try to find some neutrals, instead of just matching up the usual talking heads? 

Not me.  Go find someone new or watch the Newshour decline into insignificance when Jim leaves.  A Georgetown socialite as anchor is not going to "cut it."  pl

Shia (and other) Politics in Iraq.

"Iraqi troops have cordoned off the Basra office of Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's followers, preventing them from holding Friday prayers.

Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman Major General Abdul-Karim Khalaf said the operation is only aimed at recovering offices he said were unfairly occupied by political groups.

Sadr supporters say they have been given 48 hours to leave the premises.

There were no immediate reports of fighting between Iraqi troops and Sadr followers."  VOA News

------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's see...  What is going on at present in Iraq.

1-  The intensive pushing and shoving among the Shia politico-military factions continues with the "Iraq Security Forces" (Dawa/Badr/Hakim/ISCI) seeking to leverage American support for enough power to neuter Moqtada al-Sadr and his band of merry Mahdists (or Mahdinistas if you prefer) before the putative provincial elections in the Autumn. (maybe there won't be elections if the neutering does not go well)

2- The US continues to insist that its chosen Iraqi faction has already achieved the status of "legitimacy" in the eyes of "the Iraqi people."  No. It has not, but, you never know, this might work if we stick with that idea for enough years.  McCain would give us the chance to find out if that is possible.

3- The Iranians continue to play all sides against the middle waiting to see what happens.  Who knows?  We might even decide to talk to them on a serious basis.

4- The Sunni international jihadists (AQ in I) are trying to stage a comeback by blowing themselves up in suicide attacks against the "Sons of Iraq."  This is unlikely to have much political effect since the Sunni Arabs have pretty much opted against them.  (The fish in the sea... Remember that old stuff?)

Bottom line,  "there will be blood," but not as much as there used to be.  pl

Incidentally, I did not like the movie.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-18-voa20.cfm

The pope and the bishops

"Four years ago, the National Review Board of laity, established by the American church to investigate the scandal, declared that “there must be consequences” for the bishops, not just for the more than 700 pedophile priests hurriedly dismissed after the scandal broke in the secular press. Some board members called for dismissal for prelates who instead of protecting children protected the abusers, denying the crimes and moving the abusers on to another parish. There has been no diocesan resolve to lay bare the hierarchy’s guilt.

The review board also found the Vatican’s response ineffective, which underlines Benedict’s opportunity to confront his bishops. There is a lot on the papal agenda, from immigration to world poverty. But the American church remains deeply wounded. By the church’s accounting, more than 4,000 priests, or 4 percent, across two generations, were reported to have committed abuse. Five dioceses have gone bankrupt as payouts to victims total $2.4 billion and counting. "  NY Times

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

It is surprising that the New York Times should have something this interesting to say about religion.   

I find it difficult to summon up much enthusiam for the pope's visit to the US in the context of the unfinished business of the clerical abuse of children.  It does not seem that "the Church" yet comprehends how badly renegade priests wounded the "Body of Christ" in this country.  In that context It is not edifying to witness the spectacle of an army of bishops processing in vestments so splendid that they can only be a reinforcement for the vanity of men who should be humbled.  This is a group of men who have failed in their duty, and the pope refers to them as his "brother bishops?"

As an example of their failure, the Catholic Church's system of parish schools has been a mighty force for good in the United States.  The poor and the ignorant have found food for the mind and the soul in those schools.  Now the Church is forced to close schools across the country because of a shortage of funds.  Money is a fungible commodity.  There is only so much of it available for the various functions of the Church.  Money paid out in settlements for the crimes of churchmen is not available to be used for other things, like parish schools.

The bishops collectively are responsible for a failure in this pastoral responsibility and in so many others.  The bishops of the Catholic Church are quite autonomous in their territorial "rights."  They are also a kind of self-perpetuating "club," rather like generals and admirals.  They will do nothing to discipline each other.  It is the pope's responsibility to do that.

Benedict the Sixteenth likes to think about liturgical details and the symbolism of the renewed use of old forms of vesting?  Maybe he ought to think about the opinion of all those people out there, the "people in the pews," or the people who used to be in the pews.  It is heart warming to hear Spanish used in his homily today, but the trend in the English speaking majority of Catholics in this country is to vote with their feet against the Catholic Church.

Maybe he ought to think about whether or not the hierarchy here is really going to do anything about that.  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/opinion/17thu2.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin