Can you feel this working?

Or even follow this thinking?* Is George Lakoff practicing the same reinforcment and fine print? On the feeling front ? **

Does the market Lord over Republicans?
Does logic Lord over facts?
Is it really the slippery slope Lakoff sees?

The bold indicates the suggested read. Links are often footnotes or tangents(see [**] ), not primary sources that need a full read. I am commenting here on different results that reading this article may have on those from different parts of the political spectrum, and the impact of having read it on their perspective of their perspective.[*]
(You will have to read the Lakoff article, and then will you be prepared to answer the questions?) The focus on the metaphorical may have an underlying greater impact. The President is pounding on the pragmatics of values and that may be an over arching message.

*The Santorum Strategy by George Lakoff
** unembedded mixed front and other
*** (temp tech difficulties w/links: see footnotes)

Footnotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ant_and_the_Grasshopper
Point: Metaphors evolve or are hijacked. (flip-flop over the centuries)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=snob
Point: Pop Culture? Pontifical Santorum?
Concepts:
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Republican+table
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=divide+to+table
too http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=conquer

These last links found on Footnotes PAGE. (A, B, C)
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/p/footnotes.html

[*] last asterisk to note that these two "perspective" links are tangential[**] perspectives on perspectives.
[**] speaking of dump ties? (see *** ttdl See placement of link/asterisk inconvenience. )
[Related Breaking Toure on KONY 2012 (3-18-12 update)]
[Related Background: http://fora.tv/2007/06/28/Francis_Fukuyama_End_Of_History_Revisited ]
[And Martin Bashir: "but what am I?" Romney childishness.]
[Citizens United: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Citizens+United,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Strategy+of+right,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Brothers,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Roger+Ailes, purpose of these inconvenient (see *** & ttld) links, is to archive and find later reference to the divide further the table for their conversation. http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Koch+Table,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/karl-rove-vs-wa-hyperbole.html,
http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2011/10/politics-of-table.html, More Bashir: http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Pee+Wee , http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/search?q=Herman ,
Happy Birthday Romney http://political_progress_for_people.blogspot.com/2010/03/snooki.html, Infinity http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOGWbzUM-y8 ]

Enough Smirking!

The Sport of Stairs!
Well
 ... a bit of a Tan gent. 
Not [!]

[This is a bit of a Mitt-Flop from a long story short.  But you learn something everyday.  In my case it is very embarassing, having constucted a home, that yes it is proper to use a stair for a step, as long as you don't trip.  Not to mention where I may have gone if I had had more sports.  But if it is not too late, don't miss the Stairs link.  It covers one of several topics covered at a weekend get together with friends.  Taxes that is.  Not to mention dressage*.  Little did I know that I actually know someone who participates in that sport.]  

* well not in the same link, don't forget the sport.

6-25-12 ["a" / "gent" brackets the meta 4, not to mention hard ware or punchline.]


Not my original intent [!][?][?]

[But certainly part of the puzzle, is immigration and citizens united and who cares!  Nail?  Emigration is as important as immigration, no new taxes does not mean old taxes aren't fine and public option is not a man date or woe man.]
[RM Nix On MR /on M B]
[I of Needle ? ...  One legged** coffee table! "Papers Please Ruling." Take 3/4?]

** This originated in a pun on Brewer and the SCOTUS in their two rulings today. Three of the four key ingredients of 1070 were over-turned and the only one standing duplicates federal law.  So basically it was overturned and leaves the state with existing law.  In the Citizens United/Montana ruling federal law was upheld as well, or rather state law was over-turned as well.  To keep this from getting messy, I will simply insert a few Ed Schultz links.

6-26-12 Robert Reich on the same page. 
LA Times "reality check".
G P S Cross Rhodes ?
Nav Grid ? / Ambiguous De- sign. (ouch ?)
[Ambiguous Muddle: Andrea Mitchell*** NoPR]

*** Ctrl F "inconvenient" "follow-up" of No Labels BS
Hell***N?

AM AG Definition Gap! Atlantic Pacific / Oceans Don't Protect Us.
[Issa attacks Obama Weakness: C-NewsNation (not looking back @ B*S*)
Hunch Left on the Table. "Court of Public Opinion" Bin/go!
Cause Ma*l Oh Ge!]
[Note: last four uses of asterisks are simply place holders, as in the last case for "u" or "l" or even no place holder. Not to mention !  Spin Cycle ?
Alternate Legs ?]
[Newt Romney Business Man (Green Economy)(Read Levi a thon)?]
[Victory VictiMothy: '68 yada yada]

A generous dia-Gnosis.

Not to mention Chaos Theory:

Or parallel evolution:

and other yikes*.

*from link "evolution":[Clash of the Titans(and other narratives) Yikes! ]

Note: Under Clash "or Mutation" and "Yatze" and other Transformers Megan of Fox. Not that I have that high hopes for Current TV. But seriously: The Genre Clash or Mutation does refer to my expectations that something would evolve out of the blue.
[rather than pop culture and love it or leave it**]

** not to have too embedded cultural points, but the Citizens United and Papers Please(or Re:birthers) is lost somewhere.(under "morphology")Have!

Note: compare and contrast comment and Beck is not in the Billy Club(see end of ** here) is not the half of it.

In the Beginning

is Rhetoric*.
Paraphrased:  Everything begins with rhetoric.
i.e. there were many nice Iowa speeches
It seems very parallel to "all religions begin as cults."
Also very Platonic in relation to form.
In terms of the idea and the ideal,
not necessarily in kind.

Not to run with caricatures, but what is that look on Romney's face?
A hard to be humble when I'm lying look?  Or a devil may care but I don't look?  Or is that his do, or due?***


* I wish I could remember who said something close yesterday. Either a candidate or a commentator.**
BTW:  ledeRship is often provocative [sic/pun]
Bring it On! The Table[!]  
Footnote: [!] / Irony.

[** who else is there?]
[Related later comments Thom Hartmann Show.
Rough notes on Romney/Bachmann: He fears us being European.  She touts China as example.
Sanders on Colbert, Citizens United.]
*** NPR & NYTimes ( retrack, field narrowed, what it means, Republican Strategist, Foreign Affairs, Romney, Obama v. Congress. Bachmann out, Dionne/Continetti, End Run Recess Appt., good riddance)

< previous post >

For Processing: Undo CU

Recalibrating Personhood over Citizens United!
Constitutional Amendment
Fact Sheet
More from Bernie Sanders.
Will any party jump on this? 

Citizens United

What with*** the I Ron Knee of globalization** and the evolution of the* Eisenhower crack ...



[Spoiler alert: read all before linking 'n asteris king or scrolling over.]
*find photo
** embedded "factor" not Ctrl F "4moolah"
*** unMess I uh
(fn / FP1 )

[6-27-13(edit):/FP1 added to correct "fn" link ]

Starting from Scratch

Well, not exactly...the Lame Swan.*
[New Label,(Navigation II] may be redundant or too all inclusive as it is all about course change. and vector dynamics of tact and tack. Original Navigation label was a pun on getting around this site as well as an overarching purpose. But I will further aid navigation, noting the bold links here, as well as pulling out an embedded link from the last one, and hope I remember to include enough labels below.]
* lameduck

[Just in Dream Act, yes, but Nightmare Act: not using Lameduck Congress and Reconciliation to pass as much as possible*. Priority: Disclose Act and Net Neutrality and anything that effects the Citizens United irony. I would add that there be something that prevents House investigations from being a rerun of the previous congress.]
* November Surge to be updated.

Tin Foil Herman

[11-30-11]It's official, unless it's not.

I guess I am not "some people". I wanted a business man to run, for the sake of the nation, for the sake of the debate. For the sake of settling* what the heck market forces have to do with running a government.

* Cain references** in order:
Temporal
No Teddy
Nailed it! T-point Oh!
Never the Twain
From GOP to NOP
Bite of the Big Apple?
Courting Jesters
Apples and Oranges?
Para-Model
Cain Un-Able
Two Points
Sat Ire[!]

** Not the same Cain, or "machine"
[I might not have all the facts, but that doesn't leave Cain*** out.]

[More to sort. Witch Cain first and why did he cross the road?]
*** The "Cain" and "facts" links apparently are interchangable.(that is Jon Stewart and a YouTube)

[Sort: Search Cain is good. NOT!]
[Sorting Cheese Heads]
[Look up
attack strength.]
[Original Break on Halloween?]
Cain is an art project?
Buffet v. Trump
Cain un-Able
Ron Paul Scariest
[Meanwhile: Papa mmmm MOW OW! Michigan is still coming along, but the Bill is the Word in Ohio and Wisconsin.
Takin' out the Trash Men.]
[Rachel Maddow: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I]
[Geez Heads Unite!Ed(!)]

Citizens United?

Frackin' Trickle Down

Conservative Union V. Citizens United
Frackin' *Relativism, Dimentionalism and Slippery Slopes.

* I somehow stumbled upon this (Frackin')link and believe it was holding in draft, but could have just been a fortuitous slip of the fingers useful here

Underwhelmed?

[Updated 6-23-11 on two fronts: below and here.]
Fairly Helmed(text)

Underwhelmed* is the lede some might choose for their take on
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)

Yet tonight, we take comfort in knowing that the tide of war is receding. Fewer of our sons and daughters are serving in harm’s way. We’ve ended our combat mission in Iraq, with 100,000 American troops already out of that country. And even as there will be dark days ahead in Afghanistan, the light of a secure peace can be seen in the distance. These long wars will come to a responsible end.

As they do, we must learn their lessons. Already this decade of war has caused many to question the nature of America’s engagement around the world. Some would have America retreat from our responsibility as an anchor of global security, and embrace an isolation that ignores the very real threats that we face. Others would have America over-extended, confronting every evil that can be found abroad.

We must chart a more centered course. Like generations before, we must embrace America’s singular role in the course of human events. But we must be as pragmatic as we are passionate; as strategic as we are resolute. When threatened, we must respond with force -- but when that force can be targeted, we need not deploy large armies overseas. When innocents are being slaughtered and global security endangered, we don’t have to choose between standing idly by or acting on our own. Instead, we must rally international action, which we’re doing in Libya, where we do not have a single soldier on the ground, but are supporting allies in protecting the Libyan people and giving them the chance to determine their own destiny.

In all that we do, we must remember that what sets America apart is not solely our power -- it is the principles upon which our union was founded.

* Norman Goldman and Mike Malloy

[6-23-11 Selected quotes from remarks extended.]

America, it is time to focus on nation building here at home.

(...)

That’s a lesson worth remembering -- that we are all a part of one American family. Though we have known disagreement and division, we are bound together by the creed that is written into our founding documents, and a conviction that the United States of America is a country that can achieve whatever it sets out to accomplish. Now, let us finish the work at hand. Let us responsibly end these wars, and reclaim the American Dream that is at the center of our story. With confidence in our cause, with faith in our fellow citizens, and with hope in our hearts, let us go about the work of extending the promise of America -- for this generation, and the next.

May God bless our troops. And may God bless the United States of America.

Bully for Obama, no Bully, no Teddy,more pulpit.

Sent to King County Journal 1-17-03.

Can we be any more clear?

Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.

Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.

In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.

Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.

FAST REVERSE or BACKTRACK BEFORE FAST TRACK

=======================================================
Important Question for experts: (A Catch-22?)

Do you know if the following section from the Persian Gulf Resolution has been followed? If not, it would appear to void the administrations authority. If it was followed, it would appear that they have validated and must continue to follow both congressional and UN rules and restrictions.

"Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution" January 12, 1991

Section 3. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

At least once every 60 days, the President shall submit to the Congress a summary on the status of efforts to obtain compliance by Iraq with the resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council in response to Iraq's aggression.

=========================================================================================
For links, sorry you need to cut and paste the addresses.
=========================================================================================

*

This (below) is my first substantial edit that has been done purely for visual sake, or not much more than minor house keeping or progress on my part. 11-17-04

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES- Re: Move-On meeting with
Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

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?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson
* End of edit 11-17-04 but a good proof read may still be needed.

===============================================================================

On Democracy and media coverage:

THIS IS WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE?

It may look like making sausage, but we don’t want America ground meat.

What’s the story on the press releases for the Rolling Thunder (rollingthundertour.org) event on August 24th, as well as the Moveon.org event on August 28th? When did they go out and where were they sent?

Moveon.org members delivered letters of support and courage to our senators to ask the questions of the administration that would put the brakes on its rush to war. While nearly 150 concerned citizens circled the Federal Building in Seattle while 40 representatives took the message and questions inside to both of our Senators’ policy advisors and staff members. A larger group later filled the Plymouth Congregational Church in Seattle with further discourse with them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but like Rolling Thunder on August 24th, billed as "This is what Democracy looks like!" which was a related but different issue, there was close to no major news coverage. There, over 7000 people gathered in the name of Democracy. The major reason for lack of coverage may be their successes. They were peaceful, non-violent and in fact caused little disturbance other than the parking violators for the latter.

UW researchers provide reason for a more skeptical or sinister view of this lack of coverage, "Newsmagazines downplayed opposition voices after Sept. 11, researchers find." http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/08-02archive/k081902a.html

This is an important finding but three points were not raised. First, how difficult the message of peace is compared to the simplistic answer of war. Simple but wrong reasons for war are hard to fight with the myriad of reasons and needs for peace. Second, the methods of peace and progress do not provide the money generating headlines or focus on crisis and tragedy. Lastly, if the voices of democracy are not carried by the mainstream media, it would appear to reward those more disturbing and disruptive.

Contrary to the goal of journalism promoting the free exchange of ideas and thereby a free people, they would, in attempting to unite, instead polarize the country. The media is more, as H.L. Mencken said of the newspaper…"a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier." It should not be hard to see that a likely result would be greater support for the extremes of totalitarianism and anarchy. I’m sure the conflict would then get great revenue generating coverage, but moderate reasoned voices would be the losers.

Roger Larson Bellevue, WA

===============================================================================
Open letter to President previously posted and removed as Duplicated.
===============================================================================

Unprinted letter to the Seattle Times.
"If we must fight Iraq, let’s get it right" by Zbigniew Brzezinski was a wonderful piece in its simple telling of the cautions on waging war. Those who would remind us he was Carter’s national security advisor, probably forget their warning that we should not become the "policeman" to the world.

Yes, war may be justified at times, but non-violence and politics work too, if we have the patience to stand by your principles. If we don’t, we will violate our principles. If we violate our principles, we will have nothing to stand for. In the case of violating our principles and having nothing to stand for, non-violence and politics would be wasteful pursuits, but waging war would just be wrong (though some would argue profitable.)

While non-violence and politics have been low in the polls of public esteem lately, history seems to take even more harassment. Brzezinski’s needs to shine more light on why Iraq is singled out not only from "the axis of evil", but from other nations that we call allies, and in the case of Saudi Arabia possibly being considered the next confrontation. The reason history gets such short shrift is that it will show our contributions to Iraq’s power and access to weapons of mass destruction. Another problem is the administrations optional use of "international law". It would be difficult to have justified reasons in this light, without manipulating or ignoring history.

When candidate Bush said he trusts the people, not government, and polls were something he ridiculed, it was probably because he felt he could trust being able to manipulate them. I failed to find a quote on those who don’t learn from history, but found more on the subject of manipulating it. Given this dilemma, are some resolved to repeat it?

Roger Larson
========================================================================================= Unprinted letter to the Seattle PI.
The George F. Will piece, "What we’ve learned from 9/11 and from 12/7" [*] is a waste of words and a waste of lives, if that is all we’ve learned. I make light of neither, but what I have learned from both is to speak up in the face of these wastes. This will honor the lives both military and civilian that were lost on these tragic historical occasions.

If his point is that we have a destiny and that we are in an ever-present danger for it, then we have not learned enough. He surmises that "For all Americans, being a focus of furies - which a muscular nation, extending almost 5,000 miles from the cavity in Southern Manhattan to the Arizona’s hull, will be - is a dangerous destiny." He concludes simply: "A powerful nation embodying a powerful idea spanning six time zones is permanently exposed to dangers from all the other 18." Aside from being obvious, he fails to clarify that powerful idea, unless it is his immediate reference to the USS Baltimore as "the course of empire takes its way".

It is not the 5,000 miles or the six time zones that presumes this destiny, if that is the "idea". It is the, "how we got there" and "where are we going" that pose the risk to our history. It is the how and why of that idea that needs clarity if we want to distinguish ourselves with a destiny different from others. If we fail to learn much more from these events, we will fail to even clarify our destiny let alone honor our dead. If we investigate further we may not only change our history but the world’s future.

Roger Larson




ABOUT ME:
I have been asking the hard questions or rather, I have been connecting the dots since about 2 weeks before the election. I have sent letters to local papers, elected officials and discussed issues on local radio and in MSN's The Fray. Some of which are compiled at http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html but have not updated there since September 11th when I really got going as you can see above. [Slowly transfering material to this site]

To newspapers:
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Bush the 'uniter' would separate us from government. October 31st, 2000

COMPLICATIONS Process may be slow but must be allowed to play itself out. November 20th, 2000

RED & BLUE AMERICA Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters.

This last one, was poorly edited:
Here is the original letter to the Seattle PI

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on "David Horsey's
guide to Red & Blue America". For the sake of humor it went overboard in
it's characterizations of those who voted for Bush or Gore. Hopefully that
is a good thing, if people realize like I did, how we can see one side a
little funnier or less overboard than the other. Hopefully the humor can be
less dividing than the colors pinned on these candidates. It also made me
realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without
Green or any other color, being a factor in making us see Red.

[8-20-07: Headline and links above edited only.
===

TERRORISM Cheney Comments Ironic
http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/93786
[This paper did not survive my departure or my writing, but here is my piece as it appeared.

TERRORISM
Cheney comments ironic

It is the height of hypocrisy and irony that vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the Sept. 11 photo-op and the words they have so often chosen.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with Congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
The language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows. Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.]

Also a version here.

[*] Update link 1-18-10