“Very interesting" Oops, wrong accent or show.
“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.
My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .
My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."
NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?
I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.
But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...
NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.
1 comment:
HINT: My hesitancy was adjusted with the insertion of the NOT EXACTLY BUT... [link] and eerily points to another tricky leap from Sammy Davis Jr. reprising the line and the "not exactly Junior" George's course of being the unifier/decider.
Post a Comment