Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008

Andrew Card - A dangerous Boy Scout

Remember this man?  He was White House Chief of Staff.  He was an Eagle Scout.  He was head of the White House "Iraq Group," the collection of courtiers, party hacks, and sycophants who were put in charge of selling the idea of war with Iraq to the American people.  By fair means or foul, they proceeded to do that, driving the propaganda machine forward with relentless zeal, clearing human obstacles away like brush on Caesar's "ranch."  The only truth that mattered for them was the pathetic, ignorant, simplistic drivel that Bush, Cheney and Rice spouted continuously to the servile media.

Today on the MSNBC "Morning Joe" show, Card was asked by Pat Buchanan if the American people did not have the right to be informed in advance of deliberations that might lead to a new war.

Card's reply was that the citizenry have a right to be informed only if that does not limit the president's freedom of action in deciding how to defend us (America.)

There you have it.  The man was the president's chief of staff and he thinks of the presidency as a nearly unlimited monarchy.  pl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Card

Madison, Federalist # 46 and gun rights

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

James Madison (Publius) in Federalist Paper #46
arguing for the ratification of the present Constitution including the Second amendment.

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

To "sweeten" the medicine of an insistence on individual gun rights in the US, it is usually claimed now that Americans want guns for; hunting, target shooting, home defense, collecting...

In fact "Publius" argues here that the possession of firearms by the citizens and the potential for resistance to tyranny implicit in that possession is necessary as part of the system of checks and balances that holds tyranny at bay. 

As one of the three authors of the Federalist Papers Madison is engaged in trying to persuade the states to ratify the present constitution.  Without such assurances as this one, it is quite possible that the constitution might never have been ratified.  In fact, two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island had voted against ratification by the time that Virginia voted in favor by the slimmest of margins thus establishing a majority.

NB that the private possession of weapons is mentioned by Madison BEFORE he mentions the similar effect of armed militias belonging to the states.  It is stated as an absolute good.  This explains the structure of the clauses in the second amendment.  The militia clause is intended to stand as an example of what in Madison's view was an absolute right of the citizens.

For those who would reply that an armed citizenry could have no effect against a modern army, it is only necessary to direct their attention to the history of the last years.

To those on the left or right who think an unarmed citizenry is a good idea, consider your true thoughts regarding the scruples of government servants and possible future regimes.  pl

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Addington/Yoo Show Yesterday

"Think of Addington as the id of the Bush White House. Though his hidden hand is often merely suspected -- in signing statements, torture policy and other brazen assertions of executive power -- Addington's unbridled hostility was live and unfiltered yesterday.

He sat slouched in his chair, scratching his mustache, as Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Constitution subcommittee, warned about "the unaccountable monarchy" before offering Addington five minutes to make an opening statement. Addington spoke for a minute and 12 seconds -- most of which was devoted to correcting two errors in Nadler's introduction.

"Is that the entirety of your statement?" the chairman asked.

"Yes, thank you," Addington replied. "I'm ready to answer your questions." "

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

Caliban maybe?

Although Addington is rumored to be a neighbor, I have never seen his "unbridled hostility" stalking the streets of our neighborhood.

The Congress in its particular human components is often less than impressive, but the institution is an essential part of the scheme of government that has kept people like Yoo and Addington from running this country as they please.

The arrogance with which these nasties behaved before a committee of the people's tribunes is appalling.

Milbank apparently was appalled as well.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603456.html

Overflight Clearance for an Israeli strike at Natanz

"The exercise involved Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots, the newspaper reported.

The helicopters and refuelling tankers flew more than 1,400km (870 miles), roughly the distance between Israel and Iran's main uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

The New York Times reported that Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise.

A spokesman for the Israeli military said the air force "regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel". "  BBC

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

We went over this once before in a study of what Israeli routes would likely be in an attack on Natanz.  Rick Francona has looked at this on his blog.  He is a skilled and experienced air force officer and I trust his judgment as I always did.

My thoughts on the overflight clearance issue:

"Overflight Clearance" is the granting of permission for one country's military or civilian aircraft to fly over and through the air space of another sovereign political entity.  For one country to overfly the territory of another without permission is a clear violation of international law which invites engagement by air defense forces of the country overflown or any country that has effective authority to grant or deny overflight permission.

"could be used to rescue downed pilots"  Really?  Where?  Routes to and from Natanz would have to cross some combination of the territories of Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Turkey.

Jordan and Saudi Arabia are extremely unlikely to grant overflight clearance for this purpose.  Presumably this would include Search-Air Rescue (SAR) missions over their territory as well as the strike itself.  Egress from Iran after a strike might well involve Israeli aircraft with combat damage or mechanical problems.  Downed aviators in Jordan, Iraq or Saudi Arabia would be a distinct possibility.  Are the Israelis envisioning fighting their way into and out of these countries on SAR missions?  Would the United States, Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Iraq allow damaged Israeli aircraft to land on airfields in Iraq or these other countries?

Is Turkey going to grant Israel overflight clearance for a routing of the strike or SAR that would enter Turkey at its Mediterranean coast near Iskendurun, turn east to reach Iranian kurdistan, then south to Natnz and return by same route?  Opinions?

Is a Syrian route a realistic possibility?  Certainly the Syrians are not going to grant such overflight permission.  Was the "celebrated" Israeli mission in Syria a while back a test to see how difficult it would be to use Syrian airspace?

Finally, there is the issue of whether or not the Israelis would have overflight clearance for Iraqi airspace at all.  At present, the US exercizes airspace control for Iraqi airspace under the authority it has from the UN for the coalition's operations.  This authority from the UN is to expire soon.  Because of this (and other reasons), the US is seeking acceptance from the Iraqi government for two agreements. One is a SOFA agreement and the other amounts to a mutual defense and cooperation pact.  Among the things the US wants under these agreements is a continuation of its authority over Iraqi airspace.  The Iraqis are reluctant to concede this as well as a number of other points.

I wonder why.  pl

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7465170.stm

“the necessity to forgive.” McCain

Mr. McCain’s 1974 thesis, though, also revealed a welter of other emotions about his years as a prisoner of war, including a deep anger at those he considered collaborators, a tough-minded disdain for public hand-wringing about captives like himself, and a sharp impatience with the American government for failing to “explain to its people, young and old, some basic facts of its foreign policy.” But at the same time, Mr. McCain also urged that any military survival training should include lessons in what he called “the necessity to forgive.”  NY Times

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

The Senior Service Colleges (War Colleges) are year long mid-career courses for the most promising officers.  Selection for attendance is by national board and the selection rates for officers are very, very low.   McCain as Lieutenant Commander was quite young to go to one of these as a student, but the Navy does things its own way.  There are some civilians from other parts of the government in each class.  They are there for "broadening" and to provide some successful civil servants for the officers to interact with in an educational environment.  Some of the officers have spent their careers to that point in regimental duties and know few civil servants.  Attendance at such a course is a major "gate" in a career and is as much therapy and a chance for familiy repair as a chance to do research.  A War College "thesis" is often as much a way to get things out "on the table" as anything else.  I would judge this one to be that.

He seems to be much the same man now.  There is a certain rigidity about him, and an inability to deal with new paradigms of thought that I find worrisome.  He seems locked into a paradigm made up of World War II, the Cold War and Vietnam.  This is a problem.  That paradigm is no longer supported by reality.

The Soviet Union is no more.  The takfiri jihadis are not the Soviet Union.  They do not have the capacity to destroy the United States. There is no Al-Qa'ida equivalent to the "Red SIOP."  Why is there not such a plan?  Simple.  They lack the weaponry and always will.  They are a regional threat in the Middle East.  They are losing both in terms of physical destruction of their assets and in their appeal to Sunni Muslims.  Muslims are not fools.  Al-Qa'ida's cause has been demonstrated to be a very expensive adventure in medieval thinking. Iran is not Hitler's Germany nor Mao's China re-born.  Once again, Iran is a regional threat which should be dealt with through aggressive diplomacy and minimalist police and special operations.

McCain does not seem to be able to grasp the complexity of that set of ideas.  He often lapses into confusion over the basic facts of the situation regarding the Middle East and sometimes seems to resemble the intellectually isolated souls across the country who insisted during the primary season that Obama is a Muslim because for them he fits neatly into the category of "other" and therefore must be one of them "Ayrabs."  When told that Obama says he is a Christian, such people often replied with something such as, "Well, he's a Muzlim (sic) to me."

“the necessity to forgive.”

Someone will tell us who it is that he wanted to forgive.  The collaborators?  Some of us are not particularly good at "forgiving."  pl

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15pows.html?hp

Wesley Clark's opinion on McCain

"During a debate last year, McCain criticized Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for earmarking federal money for a Woodstock museum to honoring the three-day 1969 rock concert. "I wasn't there, I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event," he joked. "I was tied up at the time."

The campaign promptly turned the quip into an ad that included footage of McCain as a POW.

And this week, the campaign is running a new ad called "Safe" that displays black and white photos of McCain's father and his grandfather — both admirals — followed by images of the wreckage of his shot down A-4E Skyhawk and of a wounded McCain imprisoned in Hanoi.

"Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. When I was five years old, my father left for war. My grandfather came home from war and died the next day. I was shot down over Vietnam and spent five years as a POW. Some of the friends I served with never came home. I hate war. And I know how terrible its costs are. I'm running for president to keep the country I love safe," McCain says in the ad, speaking directly to the camera."  AP

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

John McCain is an admirable man.  There are many such who wore the uniform of the United States in adverse circumstance.  Jim Webb, Chuck Hagel, Daniel Inouye, Bob Dole...  Shall I go on?  How many names would there be?  How many million names?  In their new found love of soldiers Americans ascribe something almost sacramental to the experience of military service.  This is unexpected.  There has emerged a kind of reverence for those who have served which is unfamiliar to the veterans of earlier generations.  I am old enough to remember the aftermath of World War II.  Veterans of that war were treated with respect, but not with veneration.  Perhaps there were too many of them for that. 

McCain's brief experience as a junior naval aviator and his extended suffering in North Vietnamese hands seem to be thought by many to be serious qualifications for the ultimate job of making national level policy decisions about the country's security.  Television newsies gush about his empathy with soldiers and understanding for the horrors of war.  Sentimentality abounds in these discussions.  Sentimentality is good in Valentine's Day cards.  It is bad in picking a president for the country and a commander in chief for the armed forces.

Now Wesley Clark has challenged the reality of the level and extent of McCain's real experience of command responsibility in the life and death business of leadership in war and peace.  McCain never commanded anything but small naval aviation units in war and a middling sized squadron command in peacetime.  He was a prisoner of the wretched North Vietnamese.  He was abused by them in violation of international law.  We Americans owe him a debt of gratitude for that.   The "job" of POW does not involve a lot of command responsibility except with regard to one's own conduct.  McCain has spent a lot of time in the Congress.  The Congress has many vital functions.  Command is not one of them.  McCain never exercised command authority over anything but his own office when in the House of Representatives or the Senate. 

When Clark says that McCain does not have significant  command experience he is undoubtedly correct.   One might say that Senator McCain has thought about national security issues a lot.  I am sure that is true, but it is not necessary to have served in the military for one to have thought about national security issues.

Abraham Lincoln had a few month experience as a militia officer.  Franklin Roosevelt had been a civilian Secretary of the Navy.  Thomas Jefferson never served in the military.

There is no reason based on historical evidence to think that Barack Obama would not run a creditable administration in regard to national security.  Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman found George Marshall to help them with their burden.  Let us hope that Obama is looking for his Marshall.  pl

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g_04MU_tdKQBoTxdnni_wNUYeoewD9180MG00

Obama's Chances

"But in the end, Obama wheezed across the finish line. He lost nine of the last 14 primaries, and although Democrats are uniting behind their nominee, there is a lot to make them nervous about Obama's ability to beat rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the fall.

Leon Panetta, who served as White House chief of staff under former President Bill Clinton, says Obama still faces problems with swing voters in swing states.

"By virtue of having lost some of those big states and some of those very important constituencies that are important — Latino, white, rural, a lot of the blue-collar women's vote — he can't afford to not get those votes back in the Democratic Party. … Those fault lines have cost the Democrats, I think, seven of the last 10 presidential races," he says.

"If they open up and stay unhealed, then there's no question that he ultimately loses," Panetta adds."  Mara Liasson

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

If you think that smoldering resentment towards the trashing of the United States by the Bush Administration will necessarily elect Barack Obama to be president, then I think you are wrong.  His appeal is more limited than his urban, liberal, coastal, and black admirers are willing to admit to themselves.  The country remains very nearly evenly divided in basic sentiment no matter how much the Bush Administration and things like the "K Street Project" have angered many citizens.

Control of Congress is a different matter.  "Throw the bastards out" is likely to be the thought of the day on 4 November.  An even more strongly Democratic Congress is probable.

The presidency is another matter.  Many Americans have been propagandized into seeing the president as a temporary king, the CEO of America, the father, the Commander in Chief.  This last in spite of the fact that the president is CinC of the armed forces, not the United States.

As a result, many people think they are electing a semi-divine being to rule them from the Olympian setting provided by the White House, Air Force One, the Secret Service, etc.  People going to meetings with POTUS (What an ugly term!) are told not to speak unless spoken to.  The John Adams view of the image of the presidency has at long last prevailed.  Will "court" uniforms come next?  The presidency is thought by many to be effectively all-powerful.  It is said the new president will change this, or that, or perhaps that.  The idea that the presidency is limited in its power has become an unfamiliar concept.

As a result, the fear of electing the "other" is stronger than ever.  This is a fear of consenting to rule by an alien being.  Obama is a bit exotic, a creature of the intelligentsia, someone who does not seem inclined towards plebeian ways.  He has a strange name.  He has strange associations.  His rhetoric is, if anything, too good, too skilled.  And then, there is the undeniable blackness of the man.

Thomas Jefferson was a man for the people, not a man of the people.  So was Franklin Roosevelt.  Perhaps Obama would be the same.

Unless he manages to communicate that as a probability, I would rate his prospects as no more than 50%.  He should choose a Vice-Presidential candidate carefully.  That person will have to "translate" Obama to the men and women in whose hands his fate will rest.  pl

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91366795

Avnery Thinks Obama is a faithul friend for AIPAC

"And what was the first thing he did after his astounding victory? He ran to the conference of the Israel lobby, AIPAC, and made a speech that broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning.

That is shocking enough. Even more shocking is the fact that nobody was shocked.

IT WAS a triumphalist conference. Even this powerful organization had never seen anything like it. 7000 Jewish functionaries from all over the United States came together to accept the obeisance of the entire Washington elite, which came to kowtow at their feet. All the three presidential hopefuls made speeches, trying to outdo each other in flattery. 300 Senators and Members of Congress crowded the hallways. Everybody who wants to be elected or reelected to any office, indeed everybody who has any political ambitions at all, came to see and be seen.

The Washington of AIPAC is like the Constantinople of the Byzantine emperors in its heyday.

The world looked on and was filled with wonderment. The Israeli media were ecstatic. In all the world's capitals the events were followed closely and conclusions were drawn. All the Arab media reported on them extensively. Aljazeera devoted an hour to a discussion of the phenomenon."  Uri Avnery

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

I doubt if I would like Mr. Avnery.  There is a sneering, condescending, politically correct paragraph in this screed devoted to the usual ill informed Israeli opinion on American "genocide" towards the noble red man (somehow the genociders missed those of my ancestors who were NRM) and the unforgivable sin of slavery.  Most Americans do not understand our history on these issues and I have yet to meet an Israeli with any real understanding of American History.  Hell!  Most Americans would have a hard time telling you if the Civil war was before or after the Spanish War.

Nevertheless, Avnery has the common sense to be shocked at the spectacle of American politicians and generals bowing down before a lobby explicitly devoted to the welfare of a foreign state.  It makes him uneasy, as well it should.  This is an unnatural situation and it can not persist indefinitely.  One must ask if Israel is well served in other than a colossal exercise in conceit by this "tail wags dog" folly.

Israeli state survival is a self appointed task assumed by the US.  I have no problem with that.  Groveling before this lobby?  I have a big problem with that.

I see that Arnaud de Borchgrave has similarly held forth.  Great minds, etc.  pl

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1212871846/

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/06/06/commentary_aipac_and_liege_fealty/38a0/

"Jesse Jackson: Clinton 'power' for ticket"

"The Rev. Jesse Jackson said today that Sen. Hillary Clinton has made "a powerful case'' for her candidacy for vice president.

Sen. Barack Obama should take his time choosing a running mate, Jackson said in an interview with the Associated Press today, but Clinton offers some major advantages.

"As he surveys the field, it must be someone who is compatible with him philosophically, someone who is loyal to his agenda and someone who brings a constituency that matters and the capacity to become the next president, as the Constitution requires should disaster strike," Jackson said, and Clinton meets those requirements. "She may not be the only one who does, but she certainly does.

"She starts with 18 million votes," he said. "She starts having gained a following among Latinos and she has substantial support among African Americans. ... Women will be looking to her place in the scheme of things." "  Baltimore Sun

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

Well, there you have it boys and girls...  The Reverend Jesse has spoken.  If you think this man is sticking his neck out for Hilary for altruistic reasons, you haven't been watching him for the last thirty or forty years.  The Reverend Al Sharpton will probably be next, and then Bill Richardson maybe?  What a great chance to jump back into the good graces of his old friends.

These are practical politicians who are looking ahead to what the next four years will bring.  Firstly, they want their party to be in office.  Without that there will be no patronage, the coin that Washington really runs on.  They calculate that Obama needs her to win.  Then, there is the issue of whether or not as practical political men they can really trust him once the speechifying dies down and the "goodies" for constituents and selves start being passed around. 

For them, "change we can count on" means change that brings power and the rewards that go with it.  Jesse Jackson's statement in this matter has nothing to do wth race and everything to do with political realism.

Jackson is a clever man.

Bill Clinton will make an admirable ambassador somewhere.  pl

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/06/jesse_jackson_clinton_powerful.html

Obama as Mitzvah

"Now, here's a change we can believe in.

A mere 12 hours after claiming the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee yesterday -- and changed himself into an Israel hard-liner.

He promised $30 billion in military assistance for Israel. He declared that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force has "rightly been labeled a terrorist organization." He used terms such as "false prophets of extremism" and "corrupt" while discussing Palestinians. And he promised that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Vowing to stop Tehran from getting a nuclear weapon, the newly minted nominee apparent added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally, Israel. Do not be confused."

How could they be confused? As a pandering performance, it was the full Monty by a candidate who, during the primary, had positioned himself to Hillary Clinton's left on matters such as Iran. Yesterday, Obama, who has generally declined to wear an American-flag lapel pin, wore a joint U.S.-Israeli pin, and even tried a Hebrew phrase on the crowd."  Dana Milbank

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

"Now, here's a change we can believe in."

A politician like all others, he came to make his kowtow before the most powerful lobby in Washington.

Hilary Clinton probably lost the election before the primary process started, not because she is a woman, but because of her vote to enable Bush to intervene in Iraq.  That vote cost it her the support of the anti-war forces in her party and she never recovered from that.  Her vote to label the Quds forces of the IRGC as a terrorist organization and therefore the Iranian government as terrorist only reinforced her alienation from the "progressives."

Some of the people who advised her to make those votes were probably sitting in the audience at the AIPAC convention yesterday.

Two of AIPAC's former "staffers" are under indictment and awaiting prosecution in federal court for espionage on behalf of Israel.  Their lawyers are playing a most skillful game of "greymail" with the prosecutors.  Will these two men ever be tried?  Maybe...

McCain's world view is clear.  The forces of darkness are arrayed against the forces of light.  The forces of darkness gathering behind the Dark Lord, Sauron will march forth from the Iron (or maybe Iran) Gates of Mordor.  They must be stopped, somehow, by a gathering of the knights.  He has seen these dark forces before.  So have I.

Obama said to the AIPAC  devoted that he would do "anything in his power to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, anything."  Anything is a lot for an American president.  Under the authorities still in force an American president has complete operational control of the strategic nuclear force.  A launch order from him will be obeyed.  Why?  Easy.  It would be a lawful order.  An American president would not do that?  How sure are you?

In the light of the McBush world view and their designation of Iran as a threat equivalent to a super-power, I question anyone's sureties about such a possibility.

If Cockburn has the story right on the SOFA negotiations in Iraq, one must ask why it is that we want all those bases and control of Iraqi airspace.

This fellow Milbank must have what the WASPs used to call "private means."  He is destined to find a home other than the Washington Post.  Perhaps he could start a blog of his own.  pl

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990490.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/04/AR2008060403508.html

Download Revealed.doc