Sic Semper Tyrannis 2008

War Against the American People - McClellan Speaks

"...in a chapter titled "Selling the War," he alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war. . . . In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary." "  WAPO

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

" "If I had served my God", the Cardinal said remorsefully, "as diligently as I did my king, He would not have given me over.." " (Wiki)

Change a couple of words and this probably will serve as an epitaph for Scott McClellan.  Perhaps if McClellan had had the welfare of his country closer to his heart than the idea of service to his emperor then fate might have been kinder to him.  Or perhaps not; duty is a hard thing.   "Duty is the most sublime word in the English language"   Apparently, McClellan has only recently developed a sense of duty that the epigramist would have understood.

McClellan's book will be believed by those who have known or suspected the truth of the massive and continuing propaganda campaigns waged by the Bushies and the Jacobin flatheads.  It will not be accepted by those who still believe that Saddam hid his nuclear program in a lake somewhere, or in Syria or maybe in Ruritania.  In the end his book will have little impact.  I hope it makes him a few dollars.  He will need them.  In Texas where the easily deceived seem legion, he will find it hard to go home again.

I recommend meditation in the Rothko Chapel in Houston as a kind of way station on his journey to the future.

The administration manipulated the "sources" of public opinion?  Really?  Can that be?  (irony alert)  The administration and its Ziocon allies systematically drove truth speakers out of the public square? Really?  Well, folks, the American people were stupid enough and gullible enough to have allowed that....  Are we to believe that the American people have become smarter and more discerning in the eternity of the last years?

The media?  Has the catastrophe of our foreign policy changed the media?  Let us see how much "play" McClellan's book receives.  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052703679.html?hpid=topnews

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

http://www.rothkochapel.org/

"I will never surrender in Iraq! Never! Never!" McCain

"The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.

Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an  air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents. In January 2007, US forces raided the Iranian consulate general in Erbil, Iraq, arresting five staff members, including two Iranian diplomats it held until November. Last September, the US Senate approved a resolution by a vote of 76-22 urging President George W Bush to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization. Following this non-binding "sense of the senate" resolution, the White House declared sanctions against the Quds Force as a terrorist group in October. The Bush administration has also accused Iran of pursuing a nuclear weapons program, though most intelligence analysts say the program has been abandoned."   Asia Times

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

McCain said today that "he will never surrender in Iraq!"  What the hell is he talking about?  Surrender to whom?  To Al-Qa'ida? (alkayda) They have been beaten to a pulp by the Sunni rising against them and Petraeus' new-old tactics.  McCain would have to find Al-Qa'ida before he could surrender to them and then everyone else in the country would have to go along with the idea.  This is unlikely.  Surrender to Muqtada al-Sadr?  Have I missed something?  "Mooky" is now the leading Shia factional leader in the country?  I guess you never know...  Maybe the Mahdi has anointed him.  Surrender to Maliki and actually let him run the country?  I have had a couple of people (American) say to me recently things that demonstrate a reflexive idea that we are going to "call the shots" in Iraq indefinitely.  Is that what McCain means?

And then there is the matter of the IAEA's plaint today that Iran has not yet answered all its questions.  That's what it said, folks.  Read it.  This was immediately seized upon by McCain as proof that the Iranians are intent on bomb making.  Then that was followed quickly followed by a CNN lady anchor who asked Christiane Amanpour what the IAEA statement had said about Iranian INTENTIONS.  Sweet Jesus, save us from these people. Iranian intentions? 

Bush/Cheney will bombs things in Iran?  Well, why not?  At least that would be consistent with the stupidity of the rest of their reign.  Things have come to an interesting pass when Olmert appears to be a real statesman by comparison.  pl

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs

Download IAEA_Iran_Report_May2008.pdf

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

"Iraqi Forces vs. The Extremists"

When Joe Lieberman corrected McCain's "senior moment" in Jordan, he had McCain say that the Iranians were training "extremists," not "alkaydah" (sic).  The two of them and Graham had just come from Iraq, so I guess Joe had gotten the word there that the baddies (Jeish al-mahdi) were going to be referred to as "extremists."   McCain just couldn't keep it straight.  Hmmm.  The enemy is who?  Say it again...

It is clear that US policy is to back Maliki/Dawa/ISCI/Badr Corps (Iraqi Forces) against Moqtada al-Sadr and his "army" of "shirtless ones."  Fine.  Why not?  I guess the US has no choice but to back someone.

I suppose that the powers that be will shift the Main Supply Route (MSR) to the west (Nasiriyah) if the Basra area becomes too obstructed.

My problem with the present course of events is the ruthlessness of the propaganda campaign being successfully waged by the Bush Administration.   The president has succeeded in "framing" the discussion in such a way that Maliki and his assembly of Badr Corps militias are represented as being the equivalent of George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion.  The noble Maliki is portrayed as motivated by a selfless desire for "national" unity.  The MSM has re-transmitted that idea without serious question.

In fact he is merely acting on behalf of an emerging alignment of pro-Iranian forces in Iraq that have successfully pulled the wool over American eyes.

You may have noticed that no Kurdish units of the "Iraqi Forces" have been brought down from the north for this "fandango."  You may also have noticed that our Concerned Local Citizens/Sons of Iraq (read Sunni tribal Arab auxiliaries) are not involved.  Show me some engaged units in this that are not Shia.

They don't seem to fight so well, these "Iraqi Forces " at Basra.  We have spent a lot of time and money on these people.  They are not making much progress at Basra.  I used to know Montagnard Special Commando Unit troops who fought better than this, but, then, they were well led by some wonderful Special Forces sergeants and junior officers.

That brings up the inevitability of heavy US involvement in this suppression of the "Whiskey Rebellion."  It's just a matter of time.

McCain must fear that terribly.  pl

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726132,00.html

Zuckerman on Iranian Intentions

Sunday mornings I devote to watching the newsy talkies.  Sad, but necessary.  The terriers get me up by 0730 anyway.  Good coffee helps to bolster spirits for the experience.  One of the weeklies that I watch is the McLaughlin thing.  In spite of the yelling and rudeness, the views of some of these people are worth knowing, if only for the influence they have and the money they spread around among the merely "officed."

Mort Zuckerman is one such.  A billionaire press baron on the model of Beaverbrook or the "dirty digger," (a British epithet), Zuckerman never misses a chance to push his world wide agenda.

Today, he said (if I heard right) that the mere possession by Iran of a cascading centrifuge setup for uranium enrichment is "proof" of Iranian intention to produce nuclear weapons.

Now, I am no "nucular" engineer, but if I read the available materials right, it is necessary to enrich uranium somewhat to produce fuel for nuclear electricity plants.  A further enrichment is necessary to produce weapons grade enriched uranium. 

Iran claims that it wants nuclear generated electricity.  There is a plausible case for that.  Iran has a lot of gas and oil deposits, but they are not infinite and they are pretty much the country's only economic resource other than caviar, carpets and pistachio nuts.  The Iranians say they want to exchange the petroleum for foreign exchange rather than burn it for electricity.

The IAEA says that they have not found proof of Iranian progress toward nuclear weapons.

Mortimer Zuckerman thinks otherwise.

Does this sound like the Iraq farce to anyone but me?  pl

Friedman and Brooks- Inhabitants of a Flat Earth

By that I mean that they live in a specialized world of their own imagination in which the needs of; career, editorial boards, producers, and vapid news program hosts are the stuff of dreams come and gone.

Friedman wrote a book called "Flat Earth" (or something like that) in which he posited the idea that all of mankind is being ironed flat by the steamroller of globalization.  (metaphor - somewhat mixed).  In the Friedmanean dictum below he writes that the Arab sheikhs of Iraq are the answer. I am here to tell you folks that if there are people on earth who do not inhabit Friedman's "flat earth," they are Arab sheikhs.  they are the upholders of traditional and particularist life.  They are the guardians of 'urf (tribal law).  Those are the very characteristics that have made them rise in rebellon against Al-Qa'ida.  You think it was our money?  Yes, they like money?  They need money.  Their people need money.  How many of us do not like money?

Brooks?  He is one of the "most scholars," etc. whom he bashes in his piece.  I guess the wind has blown the other way now.

The New York Times pays these men to write this tripe?   pl

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/09/04/opinion/04brooks.html?th&emc=th

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/opinion/29friedman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

"The Libby Affair" Washington Times

"President Bush's commutation of the 30-month prison sentence for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, is neither wise nor just. It is clearly within the president's executive powers, but that is beside the point.

We also agree that the 30-month sentence ordered by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton — a Reagan and Bush appointee — is harsh. It exceeds the 15-21 month guidelines for first-time offenders. A first-time offender who is no danger to the community with an admirable record of public service deserves the lower range, and for that reason the unusually long sentence was unjust.

But none of this exonerates the commutation. Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence.

Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070704/EDITORIAL/107040022/1013/editorial

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

The Washington Times has taken the high road here.  This should be applauded.  This newspaper has been remarkable in its persistent support for policies that are hard to support.  Evidently, there is a "sticking point" for everyone.

The president has now made it clear that he will probably pardon Libby before leaving office.  That means (to me at least) that the commutation is merely a device to keep Libby from "singing" to the prosecutor and judge rather than go to prison.  The felony conviction and fine would, of course, also disappear with the grant of a pardon.

This whole business is clearly a cynical manipulation of the criminal justice system for factional advantage.  We will now see if the American people care about this.  pl

Two interesting stories..

This one is one of the more obvious propaganda efforts by the Cheney/Luti/Abrams/Addison wing of the Bush Administration to plant stories in the press that seek to demonize Iran enough to make war with that country seem desirable.  According to this tale, Iran, AQ and the Taliban are all just one big happy Muslim family...  Any "takers" on that one?  pl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/syria/story/0,,2085702,00.html

And then there is this one, from Ignatius, the generals' favorite columnist.  This is clearly another "plant."   In this case it is from the other side of the fence, from the generals and admirals.  The "onliest" way that Ignatius could know this is to be told it "authoritatively" for the purpose of floating a trial balloon in the Post.  That would be done by the "starmen" and their thinkers to see if there is any receptivity on the part of the "commander guy," who, after all, remains the Commander in Chief.  Good luck, fellahs!  pl

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052101439.html

Can we take 24/7 news seriously?

That's an M-48 tank out on a firing range.  The Lebanese Army has these.  This is an old tank from before the Vietnam period, but, how new do tanks have to be when used for shelling refugee camps full of civilians?  The fighting around the "Nahr al-bared" camp at Tripoli, Lebanon continues.

Lebanon's political situation remains deadlocked between the US and French supported coalition headed by Siniora and the Iranian supported "opposition" coalition led by Hassan Nasrallah and Hizbullah.

This latter grouping is made up of Hizbullah and Amal Shia, more Sunnis and yet more Christians. The Syrian government tolerates this latter grouping's logistical efforts in and through Damascus from Iran on behalf of Hizbullah.

On the other hand, Prime Minister Siniora's grouping is made up of the allies of Saad Hariri (mostly Sunni Muslims), various hard-line Christian parties (Geagea, etc.)  a lot of the Druze and some odds and ends.

The essence of the Lebanese political stalemate has to do with the allocation of political power in Lebanon.  Of those elements in the population who have the vote (not Palestinians) the Shia are the most numerous and, in the aftermath of their victory over Israel last Summer, they are demanding a larger, perhaps decisive share in political power in the country.  There is also the issue of a UN run tribunal to rule as to who killed Rafik Hariri, but, anyone who thinks about it knows that this is really a "side" issue.  If the tribunal decided that Bashar Assad killed Hariri, what would they do, drive to Damascus and arrest him?

The United States and France do not want a larger role for Hizbullah.  The United States accepts Israel's definition of Hizbullah as a terrorist group in spite of their toe-to-toe fight against Israel last year and their legitimate status as a political party in Beirut's parliament.  France? Evidently, they are looking for love from the United States.  It has been lonely for the French lately.

Standing on the sidelines, there are the 350,000 odd permanent Palestinian refugees in Lebanon.  They are not Lebanese citizens.  They have no political vote, are overwhelmingly Sunni, are excluded from good jobs, and therefore good housing.  They are excluded from many Lebanese schools.  They and those who came before them have been living in those camps on a kind of "dole" from the UN for a long time, many of them for 50 years.  They have no prospects, zero.  People who have no prospects are dangerous.

So, they are susceptible to the takfiri jihadi message and influence drifting on the winds of the internets and in the minds of returned fighters from Iraq.  Not surprisingly some of them have accepted the call, the call to drive foreign, kaffir influence out of the Lebanon, the call to vent their rage against a political system that offers them nothing.

The "players" in the Siniora/Hariri coalition do not have clean hands in the matter of the creation and encouragement of Sunni zealotry in Lebanon.  Lebanese political leaders have "played" to the Sunni Lebanese of the north for many years, seeking their support in the maze of Lebanese politics.  Did they think that the Sunni Palestinians in the camps would not hear the same message?

So, now we have fighting between the Lebanese Army and Palestinian zealots.  What a surprise!  If it spreads to camps in the south of Lebanon, the Lebanese Army will be hard pressed.  Their commander said so yesterday, urging restraint.

The 24/7 news networks were hard at work today trying to make Syria responsible for the Sunni zealots in the camps.  The statement was being made today that these groups were connected to AQ.  No evidence was offered, but the assertion was repeatedly made based on the "possibility" that had supposedly been voiced by some nameless person in the Lebanese government.  Various Lebanese were asked that question - "Is this Al-Qa'ida?"  Nobody could be found who was willing to say that there was an organizational link to Al-Qa'ida, but the question was asked over and over again.  This question was paired with another - "Is Syria controlling and "behind" this group?"  Nobody could be found who would say that either, but the question was asked over and over again.

Now, think about it, folks  Al-Qa'ida is a virulently anti-Shia Sunni group.   Everyone "knows" that Syria supports Hizbullah, a main target of AQ displeasure.  So, which is it? Which side does the Syrian government support?  Does the Syrian government support both at the same time?  If you believe that, then you really are a sucker for propaganda.

It would be interesting to know who sets the agenda for the content of 24/7 news.  Very interesting.  pl

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_mi_ea/lebanon_violence