A subtle responsibility needs more active duty.
A few days ago, the French foreign minister said, "one does not have the right to be discouraged", but there is hope only in action. Yesterday President Bush called an end to diplomacy. He laid his cards on the table and other’s hands do not matter.
He was given a free hand by congress to behave in such a manner. Absent a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council, they are unanimously behind this move as well. The fact that any new vote would not be heeded does not seem very diplomatic in nature. But only a new resolution and vote would change the approvals that were previously given.
So, in silence the president is proceeding with the support of these bodies. The purpose of such efforts was to disarm Iraq for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. For this the United States congress and the United Nations is responsible. The threat of war was to bring this about. It was being successful.
The fact that it has failed is also the responsibility of these bodies, not the protesters. The inability to succeed in the face of opposition is not diplomacy. It is making excuses. The inability to get a resolution passed is not the fault of those that might veto but also those who would write it. The fact that a new resolution is not being pushed that the United States could veto and be outnumbered anywhere from 11-4 to 14-1 may be diplomacy. But it does not avoid responsibility and hence cannot be said to be irrelevant.
[Heading and link updated 3-21-10]
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
Monday, March 17, 2003
To Congress:
Thank President Bush and declare that inspections are working and support further U.N. actions.
Please support HJR 20 and SR 32 in light of above and below.
In different words, consider declaring a win for the purposes of strengthening the U.N. and demand Saddam Hussein surrender to the U.N.
Thank President Bush and declare that inspections are working and support further U.N. actions.
Please support HJR 20 and SR 32 in light of above and below.
In different words, consider declaring a win for the purposes of strengthening the U.N. and demand Saddam Hussein surrender to the U.N.
The Moment of Truth! How ironic, that it is time to lay the cards on the table.
HAVE COURAGE, RESPECT AND RESOLUTION FOR INSPECTIONS WORKING!
French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin said: "It is difficult to imagine what could stop this machine" and adding "one does not have the right to be discouraged." (AP, King County Journal, 3-16-03, p. A9)
That is the major reason the Bush administration has for stopping the inspections, that the U. S. is discouraged. Dis-COURAGED and disrespecting the United Nations.
Please have courage and pass a resolution. Please declare the inspections are working and that the inspections will continue. Please agree on a strict timetable, that can be monitored and maintain control of the inspection process. If the U.S. is going to disrespect the U.N. by not having a resolution, someone must call them on it other than Saddam Hussein. If the U.S. is going to have war crimes trials, make sure they are signatures to the World Court or negotiate with Saddam Hussein directly rather that let the U.S. take the lead.
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Today the Vice President was on Meet The Press
Old or New Regimes
(Note edited in bold on 3-17-03)
Vice President Cheney has never made Republicans look so reasonable(delete "good"). The recent Old Diplomacy Republicans that is, like George Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, not the New Regime Change Republicans like George W. and Rumsfeld who unlike Cheney do not speak softly and carry a big stick but clumsily with a big stick. When Cheney spoke softly it was on the core reasons for the war on Iraq where he could not really get excited when so lightly tying together their seemingly sound excuses.
Though the New Regime Change Republicans claim to act for progress and freedom they bring back ancient tactics reminiscent of the fall of Rome and the origins of terrorism.
Though not well footnoted here, I lack the ability to claim as classified my evidence. It is found in the mounting and diverse writings of others, both old and new, as well as my own writings (old and new) that attempt to read between the lines and connect the dots.
Old or New Regimes
(Note edited in bold on 3-17-03)
Vice President Cheney has never made Republicans look so reasonable(delete "good"). The recent Old Diplomacy Republicans that is, like George Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, not the New Regime Change Republicans like George W. and Rumsfeld who unlike Cheney do not speak softly and carry a big stick but clumsily with a big stick. When Cheney spoke softly it was on the core reasons for the war on Iraq where he could not really get excited when so lightly tying together their seemingly sound excuses.
Though the New Regime Change Republicans claim to act for progress and freedom they bring back ancient tactics reminiscent of the fall of Rome and the origins of terrorism.
Though not well footnoted here, I lack the ability to claim as classified my evidence. It is found in the mounting and diverse writings of others, both old and new, as well as my own writings (old and new) that attempt to read between the lines and connect the dots.
Friday, March 14, 2003
Bully Pulpit Not for Pitbulls
Teddy's Ghost: T.D.R's "Big Stick Diplomacy" Resurrected By Bush
My Reply: [Did it not start out "Speak Softly..."?]
Being the world’s policeman is not in and of itself bad. As Bill O’Reilly says of history fogging in and out, it apparently depends on the administration in power. An earlier administration was ridiculed and impeded for attempting to be the world’s policeman. And if the goal of the war were to spread our democracy then being the policeman would mean others would be the legislative and judicial branches.
They risk opening a Pandora’s box we have already looked into, and their reasons appear hidden in a shell game from enforcing U.N. resolutions, to disarmament, to regime change, to democracy, to going it alone. If we start as judge and jury as well, we may not only unite the world and not necessarily with us, but encourage other unions or worse. We are a long way from probation officers and social workers if we can’t grasp what we are working for or the concept of the separation of powers that we should be working under.
[And was not the "big stick" asked for (from Congress) under the premise that hopefully it would not be needed? We are still becoming clear on what it will be used for.]
My Reply: [Did it not start out "Speak Softly..."?]
Being the world’s policeman is not in and of itself bad. As Bill O’Reilly says of history fogging in and out, it apparently depends on the administration in power. An earlier administration was ridiculed and impeded for attempting to be the world’s policeman. And if the goal of the war were to spread our democracy then being the policeman would mean others would be the legislative and judicial branches.
They risk opening a Pandora’s box we have already looked into, and their reasons appear hidden in a shell game from enforcing U.N. resolutions, to disarmament, to regime change, to democracy, to going it alone. If we start as judge and jury as well, we may not only unite the world and not necessarily with us, but encourage other unions or worse. We are a long way from probation officers and social workers if we can’t grasp what we are working for or the concept of the separation of powers that we should be working under.
[And was not the "big stick" asked for (from Congress) under the premise that hopefully it would not be needed? We are still becoming clear on what it will be used for.]
Friday, March 07, 2003
NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.
The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.
[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.
Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.
Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.
The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.
[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.
Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.
Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.
Thursday, March 06, 2003
Earlier material from "This Is About Progress(ives)"
02-06-01 08:29am [To Sen. Feingold: 01-31-01]
http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html
I believe it was Senator Grassley who said regarding the sharing of power in an evenly divided senate; someone must be in charge. There was no need to share power since Democrats have the power of the filibuster. If this is not the time to use it, when will? This may be as Sen. Feingold says an "olive branch" to the new administration. But what are the previous confirmations of nominees? Too many alive branches may create a Bush too hard to get through to, or you are creating a pile that may be too hard to climb. It is already getting too thick with his actions.
02-06-01 08:29am [To Sen. Feingold: 01-31-01]
http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html
I believe it was Senator Grassley who said regarding the sharing of power in an evenly divided senate; someone must be in charge. There was no need to share power since Democrats have the power of the filibuster. If this is not the time to use it, when will? This may be as Sen. Feingold says an "olive branch" to the new administration. But what are the previous confirmations of nominees? Too many alive branches may create a Bush too hard to get through to, or you are creating a pile that may be too hard to climb. It is already getting too thick with his actions.
ANTI-EYMAN INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL?
[Reply to King County Journal Editorial, 2-11-03]
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result, your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
There is also the problem of fuzzy math and English. Beyond the inability to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining the validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for this state and maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially (revenue cuts must equal spending cuts), not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements(also cost related). Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result, your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.
There is also the problem of fuzzy math and English. Beyond the inability to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining the validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for this state and maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially (revenue cuts must equal spending cuts), not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements(also cost related). Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)