Huckabee [update]

I have yet to see someone[*] make a point about the American Exceptionalism issue in regards to the Mau Mau history of Mike Huckabee, Birther Debate aside.

Well actually I found at least one...embedded in bold above, the rest I have yet to read.

[* 3-4-11 Not originally intended as a variant of "some people" which some media(FOX) are want to use as sources. It was more conversational in indicating that I had not heard anyone make the point that Mike Huckabee is implying that there was no British Empire, by defininition imperial. I may or may not get back to reading any of the rest.][Wonkette under Mike notes the "imperial" problem, as well as the Washington Post under Huckabee in 2nd update. Here is a Salon piece on Hucakbee and his Story-telling-in-Chief beliefs.]

The Under-Stans

We have not yet begun to read.

Not necessarily yet even need to?

The under lying principle* is what and who are you fighting for? Background: JPJ foreign born "America's first well-known naval hero during its Revolutionary War, and later served in the Imperial Russian Navy."
Foreground: see above to read and note the geography and political and historical nature of the support for regime change. More specifically so far, our administrations support in the past for the political situations in other countries and other countries changes in political situations. Not to imply the forceful or violent nature of certain parties, but the over standing of rhetoric in too many situations.

No Pundit Stand, or Cause Ick Stand, But Cure G stand? If we work on where we stand.

* or is it rhetorical or a question?
[No offense to Stans or any other entities or groups.]

To Filter

No Comment or Preemptive Filtering:
(Akin 2 to read)[**]
OK, I will have something.
What did we know and when didn't they know it?

Punchline: You have to break* eggs to fix with sausage.

*not a metaphor for violence or anti-vegan

Note: 3 thru 7 links embedded after-lede threaded.
Frederick Douglass: New Tea Party hero?!                           
America’s imperial decline: Must Dick Cheney always be president?
If They Can Lie About NSA/Snowden, They Can Lie About Syria and Iran
Can the G-20 Rebalance the Global Economy?
A Popular Movement For Higher Taxes? Now That Would Be a Story.

[** 7-8-13 Update: Lede font and bold added with line rearrangement.  Having now read links 3 thru 5 no further comment at this time.  Related To Filter(s), Econ 101 is killing America .]

The One Thing

Maybe I am on to something.
Ed Schutz and fine tuning the message.

Tax cuts increase the deficit, redistribute wealth and only make the country look broke. Well...this is a bit better than my potential rant on nuance.(See Artful Dodgers)

[Looking back at the Billy Club thing: George F. Will weighs in on the Huckabee deal. Three things: George F. Will writes for a living, he hopes to influence the presidential race, and the Republican race in particular, not that I link him with the Koch brothers or question his patriotism*. Apparently George F. Will has a concern about the Imperial or Pro-Colonial (Huckabee/Gingrich/Palin) wing of the Republican party.]

*just a short hand for intent in general

Two Birds

Under No Illusions...
or dot com or one stone.
There is no rejoicing in the FOX and the Badger** events, or Beck's* and Walker's travails.

* see FOX under "up"
**recall/recounts
[nor one flock]

[PAST THREE POSTS: Postal and back again.]

[UPDATES]
Friday April 08, 2011
[The Test of Post Links or Leaps.(See under stone above)]
[To parse later: "the world's best hope"..."idealists and pragmatists"..."that the world would improve"..."dissipated in the Romantic"..."secular missionaries"..."the imperial age"..."continued to enlarge". "These then are the antecedents." "Does the U.S. indeed occupy..." "Is it merely our superior military..."

It is unfortunate that the political discourse these days dictates that you can't love your country if you don't believe in its exceptionalism. Such oversimplification is one of the reasons why national campaigns focus on symbolic language instead of substantive problems and the alternative plans candidates propose to resolve them sensibly.

Exceptionalism seems to mean, "We lead, others follow." Instead, let's try: In spite of our commanding power, we lead judiciously by consulting with allies and seeking widely agreed-upon solutions to international crises. Can't America be unique among nations without dictating? That seems to be the true articulation of President Obama’s view of the contested term

speaking of one beak]
[Drawing the line.]

What's good for the goose? Goose the gander!

American Perspectives?

It was interesting juxtaposition which I caught Saturday on C-span.

Ward Churchill “Univ. of Colorado Professor of Ethnic Studies, spoke about his book "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance & Criminality.",

followed by:

“David Horowitz speaks about academic freedom and urges students to demand more ideological diversity on college campuses, and the inclusion of conservative ideas in college curricula.”.

This after my commenting on local radio with Churchill's attorney(guest) that: we should be careful distinguishing between name calling and calling for actions, and that the remedies that critics wish to impose on the professor may come back to bite those that would impose them. [in so many or slightly more words].

The gist of the controversy is that the professor is suffering from the reactions to his writing where he used the term “little Eichmanns” referring to some of the victims of 9-11 and their support for U.S. imperialism. Never mind the First Amendment, tenure, and state law protecting speech, especially of government workers of the government. The irony is that David Horowitz wants academic freedom too, to balance the “storm troopers”* that teach in most universities.

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we don’t uphold it for what we disagree with, will it even be needed for what we do? However, that does not mean that everything one says or feels is academic. Even being in a book does not just “make it so”. Without opposition there is no way to know what will hold up. Without freedom there is no way to reach the light of truth.

For readers convenience(sixth paragraph, Meet the Terrorists, last sentence)"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it." This should be enough context and includes considerable mitigation.

* from the same historical reference as "little Eichmanns"?

QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]