The Guardian pointed out on November 26th, 2007: US pledges long-term presence in Iraq
MSNBC announces the same day: Bush signs 'principles' for long-term Iraq role
Deal sets foundation for negotiations on troop size, U.S. investments which is a little clearer.
On one hand, it seems it is only a, "declaration of principles, which is not binding," according to General Douglas Luke, in The Guardian. On the other hand, "He noted that the agreement, because it was not a treaty, would not be subject to oversight by Congress."
This is not the only moot part, where there is some worry that Bush will tie the hands of future administrations.
Here is the mooter part.
Hillary does deserves points for bringing it up. But it has been out there for some time.
But more to the point is why are Bush's hands not tied already. But not to worry, nothing that Bush does should tie any one's hands in the future. But Republicans will still try to tie things up, until they can be back in the untied crowd.
Seriously, just because there is no clear line, and precedence and laws are quaint and old fashioned, does not mean that the vicious cycle will stop, but freedom from such is a double-edged sword which the people need to wield.
This was my flash analysis before finding the above two links, the first of which I had probably run by and filed before. Here are two more detailed links I will review later, for possible update.
US, Iraq set stage for long US presence Brisbane Times
Bush, Maliki pave way for permanent U.S. presence www.back-to-iraq.com *
* a sharp comment
[post dated: see update
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bush us. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Bush us. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Monday, June 18, 2007
Notes from Al-Qaeda
"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007
The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons
Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.
Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base
NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter
A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]
These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.
Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.
Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.
Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.
And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).
Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters
At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.
I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.
So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.
Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.
OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
...what about the damage to your Presidency?
Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq
Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".
Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.
Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.
On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:
Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.
I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq
Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".
Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.
Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.
On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:
Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.
I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Vietnam Flip-Flop
It is bad enough that Bush has not used the original lessons he learned about Vietnam, but now has rewritten them.
Bush's selective lessons of Vietnam. Guardian Unlimited
Even worse is any comparison to Korea. Has anyone heard of "Exit Strategy"?
There is so much to google on this, but I will risk it and list the commonly heard three lessons. 1. a defined mission 2. overwhelming force 3. having an exit strategy. So now Bush not only wants to teach US how to win Vietnam, but apparently will fix [or work on] Korea? What next, China or Saudi Arabia? [politically]
(Having consulted an expert, some doubt is cast on these lessons and any parallel, but then to him, having an exit strategy was to win the war, and in Korea [it still is to] sign a peace treaty. So I guess Bush may be working on Korea and China. [economically] I don't know if that is good news or bad news, but there may be no parallel to either or Saudi Arabia. [Note: italics bracketed provide clarity from this consultation.])
Later Reading: (no comments)
Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal
Bush told he has drawn wrong lesson
Lesson of the Vietnam War
Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam
Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq
"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
[8:46 AM Out of all these links, I have read only a few pages into the last one*. In it, Kissinger himself gives a nuanced lesson which flip flops a bit in passing credit and blame. A few comments came to mind which I hope to revisit, but one note that it "prevented Indonesia from falling to the Communism and probably preserved American presence in Asia." Oh the irony, that Indonesia is now a leading Muslim nation and there is possibly more to parallel or learn.]
* [ 9:06 Further note that the piece was only a few pages.]
Bush's selective lessons of Vietnam. Guardian Unlimited
Even worse is any comparison to Korea. Has anyone heard of "Exit Strategy"?
There is so much to google on this, but I will risk it and list the commonly heard three lessons. 1. a defined mission 2. overwhelming force 3. having an exit strategy. So now Bush not only wants to teach US how to win Vietnam, but apparently will fix [or work on] Korea? What next, China or Saudi Arabia? [politically]
(Having consulted an expert, some doubt is cast on these lessons and any parallel, but then to him, having an exit strategy was to win the war, and in Korea [it still is to] sign a peace treaty. So I guess Bush may be working on Korea and China. [economically] I don't know if that is good news or bad news, but there may be no parallel to either or Saudi Arabia. [Note: italics bracketed provide clarity from this consultation.])
Later Reading: (no comments)
Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal
Bush told he has drawn wrong lesson
Lesson of the Vietnam War
Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam
Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq
"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
[8:46 AM Out of all these links, I have read only a few pages into the last one*. In it, Kissinger himself gives a nuanced lesson which flip flops a bit in passing credit and blame. A few comments came to mind which I hope to revisit, but one note that it "prevented Indonesia from falling to the Communism and probably preserved American presence in Asia." Oh the irony, that Indonesia is now a leading Muslim nation and there is possibly more to parallel or learn.]
* [ 9:06 Further note that the piece was only a few pages.]
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Bush Retreat / Fox Attack
Gonzales Departure Won't End Probes
Huffington Post
Fox News: "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda" Media Matters
WRONG! What is this a competition, between Bush and Gibbons for the most ridiculous statements. Bush on "the mud" Gonzalez suffered, and Gibbons the "deal" he sees with Al Qaeda. For Gonzales there will be more mud, for Gibbons: hopefully not more signals. Let's hope he is not signalling that Hillary is not a threat to Al Queda and therefore should not deter Al Qaeda from attacking the U.S. sooner rather than later. This is the flip-flop of his flip-flop which makes more sense. But his take is a take that shifts the blame from the current administration's responsibility for failure, as usual.
[9:28 AM Thanks to Thom Hartmann for guest Marjorie Cohn: Bush's Killing Fields Counterpunch
and The Gonzales Indictment truthout.org
for even scarier discussions.
If pursuit of war crimes is not threatening enough to the administration, what about pursuit of Liebermann for Attorney General for the country? This may highlite the caution that has haunted the Democrats.]
[Former H.W. Bush justice appointee ‘looking very good.’
Think Progress Terwilliger makes Bush sense, in that he was a leader in the Florida election recount, and only cronies need apply. ]
Huffington Post
Fox News: "Hillary makes a deal with Al Qaeda" Media Matters
WRONG! What is this a competition, between Bush and Gibbons for the most ridiculous statements. Bush on "the mud" Gonzalez suffered, and Gibbons the "deal" he sees with Al Qaeda. For Gonzales there will be more mud, for Gibbons: hopefully not more signals. Let's hope he is not signalling that Hillary is not a threat to Al Queda and therefore should not deter Al Qaeda from attacking the U.S. sooner rather than later. This is the flip-flop of his flip-flop which makes more sense. But his take is a take that shifts the blame from the current administration's responsibility for failure, as usual.
[9:28 AM Thanks to Thom Hartmann for guest Marjorie Cohn: Bush's Killing Fields Counterpunch
and The Gonzales Indictment truthout.org
for even scarier discussions.
If pursuit of war crimes is not threatening enough to the administration, what about pursuit of Liebermann for Attorney General for the country? This may highlite the caution that has haunted the Democrats.]
[Former H.W. Bush justice appointee ‘looking very good.’
Think Progress Terwilliger makes Bush sense, in that he was a leader in the Florida election recount, and only cronies need apply. ]
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Use Dispersants On BP!
Not the chemical kind, the market kind.
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
The Answer to BP is Dispersants
Chapter 11 or Receivership? NO! Let the market work. As their stock goes down, someone will by it. Let them be taken over, but don't let them escape their responsibility. This idea started as a joke, what is the solution? Dispersants. Use them on BP, on the executives as well, might not be bad. As they are dispersed hold their new affiliations accountable.
Do you know who else started as a joke? Ayn Rand, at least as a fiction. But her ideas were soon dispersed, from Objectivism, to Libertarianism, Reaganomics. She was anti-collectivism, so she would rolling in her grave over the corporate personhood, but it is hard to tell, given how her ideas were dispersed, and never dispersed the foundational errors of government expansion. Or she could be just a misunderstood tea partier. But back to our problem, the BIG PROBLEM OF BIG PROFITS AND BIG POLLUTION. Too big to fail? Too big to bail... out that is.
If Obama does not quite meet the level of FDR, I might just say...GO BUSH! That is right GO BUSH ON US,GO BUSH ON BP, GO BUSH on the Bush Problems.**
Of course I am being facitious in part. But if he would at least GO TRUMAN on us, or even Milton Friedman. Few probably know (if wiki is right*) that Milton Friedman, proposed a negative income tax. And he was a Reagan economic advisor. Take what you will from this, but it better be a lesson that the government is not the problem, but it is part of it, and so are corporations.
* others call it left
** how about those quaint laws like commerce: Article One of the constitution, and congress
[Big Patriot Act: if I may disperse or chemically adjust a Thom Hartmann/ Ellen Ratner exchange. (Can we see their papers?)]
[Sub-section II,(Heck I dunno what #/article or Hyperlink), but BP should evolve from Bad Practices to Better Purposes, not Beck-headed Prophets. BTW: the BP on this my(Bulk Perspective) is the comment in the first link at OpEdNews.]
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Political Strings Pulled
Bush upcoming big speech.
McCain wants debate delay.
Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.
If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.
On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?
Maybe we are finally there.
White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.
Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."
How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.
Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.
McCain wants debate delay.
Ed Schultz plays a good question McCain faced but refused to answer while spinning it back on the Dems. The administration has known this was coming for some time while McCain's advisor has been on the payroll of Freddie Mac.
If the debate is cancelled the meeting with Bush should take them to task or at least be framed as who you bring to the table. Who will Obama and McCain be bringing and who will Bush have there? What will the purpose be? It would really be fun if it were only Bush, McCain, and Obama and us. What would the Independents, the Greens, or the Libertarians bring to the table? I think it would be a smart move if the purpose is unclear to skip the meeting and let McCain and Bush play politics, and let congress give them the business. Or rather take them over.
On the other hand, could it be that McCain has finally changed?
Maybe we are finally there.
White House welcomes plans. Just as I suspected. Another Straw Elephant.
Meanwhile just as I post this and search for links, this breaks:
"We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved," McCain said. "I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so."
How this is enacted could be a clean break for us. But I think the real "panic" is political. And McCain ad proves it. Or at least not a clean break for McCain.
Now Ed's got it. The networks should give both candidates a rebuttal. Especially if one is going to run for the other rather than debate.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Give 'em a break!
New Arkansas GOP (Republican) State Chairman Milligan
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
He said he’s "150 percent" behind Bush on the war in Iraq.
"At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country," Milligan said.
This is a legitimate rhetorical technique. HOWEVER, It does not work the way it was even intended.
Obviously the intention was not that "we need" another attack but that if there was, "the naysayers will come around". HOW? Not unless the thinking was as twisted as those that miss the rhetorical intention in the first place. If there were another attack, why would anyone say, "See, it's working", when the point they are trying to make is that if it were not for everything they are doing, there would be another attack.
Now this leaves alot of the argument off the table, but here is a point that has been left off the table. I hope it is in this hour of The Ed Schultz Show, (it has his take on the debate anyway) but the point was from a caller. How is it that Bush gets credit for protecting our country after the biggest failure since Pearl Harbor? (that is not how the caller put it, but I usually improve or extend points) SEE LINK and Control Find Pearl and check the names there. But his point was that given the warning the new Bush administration had from the Clinton administration about terrorist attacks, they still occurred.
A recent quote from Nietszche I heard- - "If the end doesn't justifies the means, what does?"- - is another rhetorical mind field (mine?) Bush actually said "the end doesn't justify the means", but left off "what does". Power or winning, may be the end but the former is the means to anything, so if power is end and the means, it may only be the end. OK, that is a trickier mine field. Not that it is not how it works, whether you can follow it or not. But back to Nietszche or rather the mind field that got us here. Francis Fukuyama was in the crowd that plowed the field and half regrets it. Now these are even deeper minds, and yes I flip flop from mine to mind, and have not read these last three yet, but I had already tiptoed through others. Or rather I have actually read Fukuyama's apology as well as Huntington's work that addressed even more, and both .* were simply taken as CON text, meaning wrong
Not to be sorted out here, but maybe later.
* Their work, not these pieces.
Their work:
Clash of Civilizations Read
The End of History Did not read.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
It's the Economy Stupid!
It's Stupid's Economy!
And stupid is as stupid does.
And in most cases it is stall.
Life is like a box of cherries.
And Bush is the pit picker.
OK! Now that that rant has rambled.
Democratic Leaders Delay Contempt Again
By Matt Renner t r u t h o u t | Report
So as long as there is room for failure there is room for delay, as a bargaining chip for unaccountability. Democrats and the people will have a long haul. I hope that it works out for us. The administration and its supporters, meaning those that will not be bipartisan to help the economy without giving Bush a free pass have the constitution and the economy over a barrel. And the people are taking it in the shorts which is a barrel and keep getting kicked and rolled.
No wonder they can't see the spin.
Speaking of spin, here is an interesting turn:
Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war
And stupid is as stupid does.
And in most cases it is stall.
Life is like a box of cherries.
And Bush is the pit picker.
OK! Now that that rant has rambled.
Democratic Leaders Delay Contempt Again
By Matt Renner t r u t h o u t | Report
So as long as there is room for failure there is room for delay, as a bargaining chip for unaccountability. Democrats and the people will have a long haul. I hope that it works out for us. The administration and its supporters, meaning those that will not be bipartisan to help the economy without giving Bush a free pass have the constitution and the economy over a barrel. And the people are taking it in the shorts which is a barrel and keep getting kicked and rolled.
No wonder they can't see the spin.
Speaking of spin, here is an interesting turn:
Bush budget won't fully fund Iraq war
Looking back, the great irony of this administration will be that the only time Bush asked for a full year’s funding for Iraq was in his 2008 request -- in the first months of a new Democratic Congress. He succeeded in getting what he needed but also used the war expenditures as a hammer of sorts to squelch other spending demands. Yet again Wednesday, the House failed to override Bush’s veto of a bill adding $35 billion over five years to expand health insurance for children of low-income families.Speaking of interesting and speaking of irony.
Friday, April 07, 2006
More Heroes Needed.
Words I saved in file yesterday:
From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.
WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.
This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?
How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?
It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.
While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.
From George Washington who could not lie about cutting down the cherry tree to George Bush the cherry picking intelligence leak that is above the law. From Nixon’s "I am not a crook" to Bush’s "nerve". From checks and balances to "outing" the intelligence and killing the debate, and blaming the messenger.
Apparently not only when war comes truth is the first casualty, but a preemptive war must apparently preempt truth.
WHILE I ALREADY POSTED A RELATED COMMENT, THE FOLLOWING NEEDS NOTING:
Dear Senator Harkin:
[Italics are from link]
We, the undersigned, support your principled stand with Senators Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer in favor of holding President Bush accountable, and we urge you to bring the Resolution of Censure to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The President has brazenly, arrogantly and unapologetically broken the law - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which prohibits warrantless wiretaps of American citizens. Despite getting caught red-handed, he refuses to stop.
Government must protect Americans' security, and that's why the FISA law allows intelligence services to listen to terrorists' conversations legally - by going to the secret espionage and terrorism court to get a warrant AFTER listening.
We are a nation of laws, not of men. No American is above the law. That most certainly includes the President. If Congress fails to hold him to account through censure, then he will believe that he can continue breaking laws with impunity. This is profoundly dangerous to our democracy.
We admire your courage in standing up to President Bush and saying enough! Now, we urge you to take the next step. We - ordinary Americans deeply concerned for the country we love - ask you to work with your colleagues to support and pass the Resolution of Censure in the Senate.
This is barely a start [AS I FURTHER NOTED]. Investigation into pre-war use of intelligence as demonstrated by the cherry-picking and leaking of intelligence must be debated as well. It is not a matter of what did the president know and when did he know it, but when did he know what he didn't want us to know, or not want to know himself?
How far back does it go that intelligence sources have been treatened with exposure for the type of intelligence they provide? How much intelligence has been lost by the declassification of intelligence for political gain? When the president and his supporters blame the media for the success of terrorism, how much does his own misuse of intelligence increase their strength?
It is one thing to be calling someone's bluff, but another to think that they don't know their own cards. Congress must recall the deck and reshuffle their oversight of the whole Bush administration.
While I thank Ed Schultz for supporting this issue, and I had already been contacting my Senators, I would also like to note three issues Thom Hartmann has listed as important to our economy: Labor Law, Trade Policy and Immigration. I would add that overarching or underlying these are the issues of social security and health coverage that government and corporations need to fit into the picture.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Cherry paraphrasing.
The Seattle Times editorial today titled: Kerry's right to slam the president on Iraq.(see link) I agree when they say his Iraq vote and recent claim was "... not a 'flip-flop.' It is sensible and consistent."
However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."
Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."
The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.
We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?
It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.
* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)
Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.
However I might feel like a flip-flopper if I disagree with a Kerry statement. It takes too much nuance to separate from Bush.
Kerry: "The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies."
Then Domke and Coe had their column, Bush's fundamentalism: the president as prophet.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2002043481_domke23.html
They conclude "To the great detriment of American democracy and the global public, the president's view looks remarkably similar to that of the terrorist we are fighting."
The "beyond reason" part of Kerry now clicks. It does not mean that reason will be part of the nothing* that Bush claims to be above. Terrorists or anyone beyond reason cannot negate the consideration of what got them there. The words chosen are important to some. For some there is cause and effect, for some it seems out of the blue. Being above or beyond reason does not mean it does not still work in some reality. To some there may be no space between the two candidates, but for one thing Kerry will be no Bush.
We have come a long way from the George who chopped down the cherry tree to George the cherry picker of realities. From the one that turned down a crown, to the one that joked that things would be easier if he were dictator, we now have the comment by the Iraqi leader we should not be having a debate at this time. It does not say much for our recent exporting of democracy. The earlier dismissal of old Europe as our allies says more about our listening to others and now we have new friends telling us about democracy. Who elected them by George?
It seems that there is a Catch 22 here. Times two equals Catch 44. It seems inside out of sorts but the President put it best roughly on intelligence. You got this over here and that over there and more and then you got reality. It should be easy to see why being in charge he must just say, make it so.
* see previous "nothing" post (also I acknowledge this difficult sentence but what about Bush's here. http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/betweenthelines/archives/2004_09_23.html#005342
(A rare case of him meaning what he said, but he did miss the question. Ironically also the topic inserted with in this piece, and he never checks polls, what about votes?)
Then we have an acknowledgement by Rumsfeld that some areas may not vote in Iraq. Sounds familiar. The media is not presenting the good news, because it is unsafe for them to be there, but imagine not being able to hold elections in the capital. Oh. Good model. Times two. It's just getting too much.
Friday, July 30, 2004
IRONY PRESIDENT
Just to repeat, if I said it already. Bush is no Reagan. Reagan was the Teflon President and Bush is the Irony President. Meaning his own words are the best rhetoric against him. What did not stick to Reagan could splash back at Bush.
The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking. See Link for original letter.
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government
I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?
The following letter from October 2000 should have been indicative of future actions and raised concerns about what the media was not asking. See Link for original letter.
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government
I should have thanked you earlier (Seattle Post Intelligencer) for your intelligent endorsement of Al Gore for president. I already pointed out to the other major Seattle paper the difficulties in making sense when an endorsement decision is made by the publisher and explained by the editorial page editor. My first instinct was to drop the other subscription, but I will watch both for other editorial differences first. One of the best reasons for voting against George W. is found in his own campaign rhetoric: "I am a uniter not a divider" followed by "I trust people, not government." This is supposed to be a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."
George W. has just become the ultimate divider. He wants to divide the people from their government. What makes even less sense is why he even wants to join the government. But we know the answer to that. Something about people being better off with less government. Maybe the richest 1 percent do believe that, but baseball team owner Bush and former Cabinet member Cheney?
Monday, April 05, 2004
Posts from Wednesday, September 25, 2002:
Distributed by email Sept. 17th 2002
REGIME RHETORIC REPLY
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric:
When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our " actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What happens after a regime change and when there are other regime changes within the various players? It should be easy to see a pandora's box, but some have the curiosity to open it, without the curiosity or even patience to ask the questions let alone expect any answers.
To those who would go to war: If you have the stomach for blood, do you have the guts for democracy?
REGIME RHETORIC REPLY
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric:
When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our " actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What happens after a regime change and when there are other regime changes within the various players? It should be easy to see a pandora's box, but some have the curiosity to open it, without the curiosity or even patience to ask the questions let alone expect any answers.
To those who would go to war: If you have the stomach for blood, do you have the guts for democracy?
Wednesday, September 25, 2002
Regime Rhetoric Reply
[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.
On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?
There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).
Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.
There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?
If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.
Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.
I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-
News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?
Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]
Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.
Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?
More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.
If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.
If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.
If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]
Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.
For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:
Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)
That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Chicken Hawk Down? 2008 Frist-Bush?
They certainly aren't counting the Chicken Hawk down.
Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.
They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."
They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."
Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?
Move America Forward still has hope for Bolton and apparently getting the U.N out of the U.S.
They claim: "Senator Voinovich is taking a 'new' and 'fair' look at John Bolton - the man President Bush has nominated to serve as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations."
They are "confident Senator Voinovich will vote 'YES' to allow Mr. Bolton's nomination to proceed from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee....that John Bolton's nomination will make it to the floor for a vote by the full U.S. Senate."
Not that there is any link to the Republicans or Frist, but they do have banner of a boot on Florida kicking the U.N symbol across the Atlantic. Does this mean Jeb Bush is the other candidate for the Fristian Soldiers?
Thursday, September 05, 2002
OPEN LETTER: Chatter
[SO MUCH FOR MY PLANS: This piece is sort of an anthology. It does include a letter from the day after the President was selected. So I am posting these in order of importance or as I can access or find them and grow in this process. ]
An open letter to President Bush: August 20, 2002
Whether this will get through the "noise" that you call your consulting advisors or the "chatter" that you call your intelligence information, I would like to let you know that America agrees with you on two things. As you so eloquently said in your September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." And more recently you said, "the end does not justify the means".
To help you sort through the dots here, this means that patriotic people of principle will never be swayed by the results, if improper means are used. We know there are more dots to connect and so many lines to read between, that it is often beyond our means to know what means you mean.
Beyond the ends and the means there are reasons, but like you I am optimistic. I am optimistic that your reasons will not be left in the shadows, despite your apparent attempts to leave them there. These are just two or three points that you must connect before we have many more dots to connect.
Sincerely and respectfully, Roger Larson
Previously sent:
Dear President-elect Bush and Vice-President Gore: December 14th, 2000
Congratulations. As a faithful Democrat I heard two wonderful speeches last night. I wish the best for both sides in working together. I must be an optimist too, since I have hope that good things can be accomplished for America. I will try to put the past behind us, but will watch for actions beyond the words. While it is wrong to disavow the more partisan of each side, it would be helpful to keep their rhetoric from spokesperson roles. But we must be both open and critical of all sides. As president-elect you have started out on the right foot. It is now time for you to move the left, both figuratively and politically and we may move forward as a body.
Roger Larson.
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST
September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While
the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack
on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find
and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if
retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake
up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the
world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since
collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation
that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.
[9-13-01 REFLECTING ON A CHOICE OF WORDS]
I have read and re-read my words and have read or heard those of others and
have come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of
words. A response to this horrific act is of course needed, but
encouragement comes from the first steps taken to get the support of others
in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this
process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is
needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of
sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are
not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the
spiral of hate.
An open letter to President Bush: August 20, 2002
Whether this will get through the "noise" that you call your consulting advisors or the "chatter" that you call your intelligence information, I would like to let you know that America agrees with you on two things. As you so eloquently said in your September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." And more recently you said, "the end does not justify the means".
To help you sort through the dots here, this means that patriotic people of principle will never be swayed by the results, if improper means are used. We know there are more dots to connect and so many lines to read between, that it is often beyond our means to know what means you mean.
Beyond the ends and the means there are reasons, but like you I am optimistic. I am optimistic that your reasons will not be left in the shadows, despite your apparent attempts to leave them there. These are just two or three points that you must connect before we have many more dots to connect.
Sincerely and respectfully, Roger Larson
Previously sent:
Dear President-elect Bush and Vice-President Gore: December 14th, 2000
Congratulations. As a faithful Democrat I heard two wonderful speeches last night. I wish the best for both sides in working together. I must be an optimist too, since I have hope that good things can be accomplished for America. I will try to put the past behind us, but will watch for actions beyond the words. While it is wrong to disavow the more partisan of each side, it would be helpful to keep their rhetoric from spokesperson roles. But we must be both open and critical of all sides. As president-elect you have started out on the right foot. It is now time for you to move the left, both figuratively and politically and we may move forward as a body.
Roger Larson.
Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST
September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]
AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.
The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While
the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would be a form of attack
on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our government. To find
and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if
retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake
up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost daily around the
world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since
collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation
that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the
same terrible deeds.
[9-13-01 REFLECTING ON A CHOICE OF WORDS]
I have read and re-read my words and have read or heard those of others and
have come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of
words. A response to this horrific act is of course needed, but
encouragement comes from the first steps taken to get the support of others
in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this
process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is
needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of
sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are
not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the
spiral of hate.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Decider Stays Course.
But I fail to see how The Decider's veto is not THE ACTION that WOULD HAVE denied funding while Democrats did send the president more than he requested. It is hard to see that this is not a win for the president and a loss for the country, but the funding is only through September and domestic aid was reinserted.
SPEAKING OF REINSERTED:
I will pull up this...
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
BACK TO THE PRESENT:
Bush was warned that war in Iraq would boost terrorism.
Bush twice admonished reporters that al-Qaida is "a threat to your children
Lastly I will reference a gut check.
Just before that one.
Between those.
SPEAKING OF REINSERTED:
I will pull up this...
War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)
I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:
The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.
Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.
While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.
Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.
On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?
BACK TO THE PRESENT:
Bush was warned that war in Iraq would boost terrorism.
Bush twice admonished reporters that al-Qaida is "a threat to your children
Lastly I will reference a gut check.
Just before that one.
Between those.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
What's going on?
Recent events are hard to stay on top of,
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.
But enough of the usual stuff.
Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:
Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal
Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]
Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!
Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.
One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001
Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.
And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]
I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.
[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?
Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]
These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.
So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?
Two more sources - in their defense?
but it may be time to "run the table".
My reference earlier to "hit and run"
is the crowd that will stay the course.
But enough of the usual stuff.
Here are my recent post along with some links with more comments to be added later:
Election Fixes -- SJM 8016 / U.S. Attorney Scandal
Blatherwatch
CREW [Center for Ethics and Responsibility in Government]
Leahy on Wegoted.com
UNDER OATH! THREE CHEERS! Leahy! Senate Judiciary! Hearings!
Northwest Progressive Institute McKay v. McCabe
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Digging deeper: McKay "stunned" This one I endorse as a long article.
Earlier.
___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
DIGGING EVEN DEEPER.
One Nail in the Coffin of Republican Slander: [1.]McKay nominated Sept. 19th, 2001
Carol Lam / [2.]Cunningham Corruption Case?
David Iglesias Three for Three[3.] Not prosecuting Dems fast enough?
OK THIS IS A CONSPIRACY It must be Wikipedia's fault. Blame Billy, Blame Wiki.
And Long Story Short: Congresspedia [First two sentences: Unbelievable!]
In late 2006, the Justice Department fired (or asked for the resignation of) eight U.S. attorneys all previously appointed by President Bush. Earlier in 2006, a provision included in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act allowed these positions to be filled by the administration without Senate approval.
[OK TWO MORE]In early 2007, hearings were held on the matter in both the House and Senate Judiciary Committee on the firings. Several of the fired attorneys testified that they had been contacted by members of Congress or executive officials about pending cases shortly before their termination. Such contact by members of Congress is a violation of both House and Senate rules.
I don't usually do so much homework, but then more than the media apparently. Unless it's the vast left wing conspiracy.
[4.]Paul K. Carlton in mid investigation of Republicans?
Not one the Eight: [5.] Kevin V. Ryan Resigns on principle
[6.,7. & 8. - H.E. Cummins III, - - Daniel Bogden - - Margaret Chiara ]
These are listed on the Wikipedia as 7 attorneys, plus an unlisted prosecutor who was replaced by a Rove aide. The math may not add up, but the 8 listed here include one, Kevin V. Ryan who resigned and all I could find were appointed by Bush. Which conflicts with the idea that Bush had not replace any attorneys, but fits in with that they were not serving at his pleasure.
So having done more homework than I have in quite some time; for not having done what Bill Clinton did, how were all eight of these appointed by Bush?
Two more sources - in their defense?
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE)
Martin Bashir on Aid to Pakistan [To the President:]
But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.
* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]
[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]
[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]
Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future
*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.
So before he is tempted to cut all forms of funding, I would like to remind him of the wise words that he wrote back in 2006 in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Speaking about the circumstances in which terrorism can flourish, he highlighted failed states and poverty as the two most important factors.Not to raise any suspicions** but the mission has not been so clearly defined in original reports.
CIA Chief Leon Panetta, later Tuesday told NBC News, "The authorities(sic*) we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed."
But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.
Using stringent language, a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States."This is clearly a nuanced not "stringent language". But if,(and I mean A BIG IF) Osama bin Laden has been hiding in this compound for six years, it is difficult for the Bush administration to take much credit for the success of this mission, (let alone waterboarding). And while President Obama has been clear on the issues of failed states and poverty being part of the security equation, it is hard to expect Pakistan to be totally free of corruption or political and intelligence intrigue, let alone competence***. It is much easier to speculate and develop tin foil conspiracies that may actually be based on some evidence, and to use them to destabilize, than it is to change things at home let alone for another country. As the right seems to paint themselves into the corner of hypocrisy, the President has the responsibility of being the cherry picker and decider-in-chief. And in connecting the dots of the likes of the latest Right, (remember A BIG IF) then there must be some logic that the Bush administration must be further scrutinized for their part in a $1.4 trillion escapade of terror. How can we hold other countries responsible for competentencies when ours (and often rightly so) are so political?
* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]
[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]
[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]
Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future
*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.
Monday, August 20, 2007
dem Brains
Bush's Brain has left the building...
Well not yet, but make sure he does not leave the country.
Think Progress
U.S. Attorney Iglesias filed complaint in April. TP
Political briefings disclosed the same month. WaPo
Mother Jones / Waxman follow up. MJ
Associated Content reports AC
THIS MONTH
McClatchy/Truth to Power Bush V. Hatch ACT!
Thanks to clipmarks CM
Rove departure GovExec
Thanks ToDay White Collar Crime Prof WCCPB
WaPo Follow Up
OTHER FRONTS
Iraq - Iran Not Pressed "informed speculation - useful for readers to know." (control F, pg.2 pressed ) NYT
More Informed Sources from the front NYT
CONNECTING THE DOTS
"who sent you there..." ?
"the George Bush empire". DigitalJournal DJ
Who got us here? (I ask)
"you forget", so says Former Republican Chair Ken Mehlman DJ
[Note the taken liberty with words.]
[Post continues, wanted to post it before I lost it.]
connecting the dots . . .
Speaking of New Fronts: all from DJ
Rove's (Evil) Twin.
(Note: Evil and Twin are redundant.)
"Rove's Good Twin" would be oxymoronic or is it Bush?
Old Front
New Front
Good News/Bad News - No Front WaPo
More links:
href="http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=%22open+source%22">Open Source
Earliest Dots
ReP Brains
Bi-Cameral Brain
[Now who's gone too far? 10:18 closing post]
[10:27 AM- Just a hint... of remorse at a poor pun imbedded above.]
{11:30 This pause was to dig deeper and update some archives: In all this cutting and posting, my search was for a meme or talking point or some counter to Rove, the irony is that I may have found it in my own search under "ironic". Something to get the choir on the same page. Note the tent shape and who may not be in it, but the people are the base not just dots.]
Well not yet, but make sure he does not leave the country.
Think Progress
U.S. Attorney Iglesias filed complaint in April. TP
Political briefings disclosed the same month. WaPo
Mother Jones / Waxman follow up. MJ
Associated Content reports AC
THIS MONTH
McClatchy/Truth to Power Bush V. Hatch ACT!
Thanks to clipmarks CM
Rove departure GovExec
Thanks ToDay White Collar Crime Prof WCCPB
WaPo Follow Up
OTHER FRONTS
Iraq - Iran Not Pressed "informed speculation - useful for readers to know." (control F, pg.2 pressed ) NYT
More Informed Sources from the front NYT
CONNECTING THE DOTS
"who sent you there..." ?
"the George Bush empire". DigitalJournal DJ
Who got us here? (I ask)
"you forget", so says Former Republican Chair Ken Mehlman DJ
[Note the taken liberty with words.]
[Post continues, wanted to post it before I lost it.]
connecting the dots . . .
Speaking of New Fronts: all from DJ
Rove's (Evil) Twin.
(Note: Evil and Twin are redundant.)
"Rove's Good Twin" would be oxymoronic or is it Bush?
Old Front
New Front
Good News/Bad News - No Front WaPo
More links:
href="http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=%22open+source%22">Open Source
Earliest Dots
ReP Brains
Bi-Cameral Brain
[Now who's gone too far? 10:18 closing post]
[10:27 AM- Just a hint... of remorse at a poor pun imbedded above.]
{11:30 This pause was to dig deeper and update some archives: In all this cutting and posting, my search was for a meme or talking point or some counter to Rove, the irony is that I may have found it in my own search under "ironic". Something to get the choir on the same page. Note the tent shape and who may not be in it, but the people are the base not just dots.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)