Borrowed Comment!

* * *
[CAUTION NOTED 8-20-07: The first link below (Wake Up America) appears to cause my internet connection to experience difficulties when visiting it. So proceed to that link at your own risk! This is not a self-serving literary ploy. ]
* * * [The orginal post will not be touched,
See comments for anything more. 8-20-07]
* * *

* * * Wake Up America! CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK! * * *


Coming across this blogger, by doing a Google on Military Support Bush or Military Poll to find that Karl Rove is right, there are no links to (at least easily found) showing lack of military support for Bush. * But I did not find Rove's outlandish quote that "the troops get what they want and need". It seems that justifies what the administration says if they have the same sources and carefully navigate the intelligence.

On the other hand, I found some preemptive comments that may have played a role or seen the Rove role change coming or cause it. The latter first: Take it to Karl The former earlier: Karen Hughes: Karl Rove’s Kryptonite Oops, two years too early. Seen what coming or caused?

Bush should have been awoken much earlier, and we tried. Seriously, the guest comment, not that she is aware of my blog, hit a few points, Rove, the trooops/ Iraq, and Hillary with a few good links that I have yet to read, and will save comment for later. Suffice to say that it takes some filtering of the filter and there is more than fertilizer in them there hills, or links.

Oh heck I will touch on a few: Rove is a heck of a filter of fertilizer and the media as well. His comments on the troops, and his comment on Hillary, navigate though or pile on the fertilizer to some reality. And on "the surge", another cautious step through the piles of it.

* [posted and paused to continue: granted a little more search will find more, and in fact with my sources and rambling will probably stumble on me, but the point that I was going to make before I did undue diligence and tried to find some facts, is that polling the military may give a biased result based on two aspects, the filtering of their information and their freedom. Heck, I just threw in the Google as it was really a hit.

Pardon my vocabulary, but no more from the administration. Enough!

[11:19 AM my initial intrigue with the top link was due to my own spin on Rove, Hillary and Iraq/Troop intelligence, which I wove into my commentary but which may require more "hard work" either by the viewer or as my own reviewer. * * * CLICK AT YOUR OWN RISK ! hehe * * * (now that is a hint)]]

"One Can...

Reasonably Hope".
(Henceforth, bold links will be fully read.)
[update Point Counter-Point:

The White House vehemently denies that there is any change in policy. "The president has been crystal clear that we will begin drawing down troops in July of 2011. There is absolutely no change to that policy," said Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman.(This quote appears in both McClatchy sources

Parsing Focus or Focus Combat:
My point is that the two articles, before I read them, seemed to indicate a proper balance. Unbeknownst to me the McClatchy was even updated but I have now read the original McClatchy (Point-above) it was based on, as well as the other two (Counter-Point) and find my original embedded feeling that it was a good transition balance from military to political focus. This is a multidimensional* refocus, which even Rand Paul has played a reasonable part in. The focus is not so much on July 2011, but ultimate success**, and the aim to bring the discussion from military to political focus. Must we be reminded that while Congress does have the powers of the purse and war, the President is commander-in-chief and there is no real constitutional branch of diplomacy or foreign policy or Department of Peace.
* balance of powers within our nation and within other nations (from military to diplomacy)
** July 2011, Transition begins.
[Related Micro-Mess Aging. "the medium is the message" the Mess age is the medium?]

Dimentionalism(sic)

[sic] is another tangent or dimensionalism [!]
Dimentions?
Two* Points.

*fore, six, eight

[Charts and Images]
Uncoining (sp!), will utilized (sic) or [sic] or [!]
Speaking of blocks, inside or outside...


SEGUE, my points here for further consideration:
The future of Occupy: Four key questions
Super Committee/Progressive Breakfast
Leaning Forward?

Weak in Review[!](Morning Joe)

IN PROGRESS:
Star Chanber
Para-Model
Martin Bashir and GUESTS.

Jonathan Alter and David Corn share their perspectivism of the 2012 GOP crop. What caught me was the "process of elimination" crack by the former.

Yet to insert or finish.
SEGUE TWO: The Platonic Cultural Model of the Tetrahedron given quantum form. Politics is about power and culture, but the latter may be the point. Politics may be the 4th dimensions of the phsyical, mental and emotional realities. What is the point" Who decides? And back again. I am not yet ready to overlay a tetrahedron, but it seems that the military represents an element like math, or a structure like religion and economics. It is a tool, and a force, not that religion, economics and goverment aren't. It may be seen that government is a hinge point, where there may be more politics in anarchy than tyranny. Part of this new connection(military) is thanks to the service of a soldier to which I give thanks again. His service was also in the slippery slope of rhetoric where the issue was who guards the "gates of American Democracy", which ironically spun out of control over the Obama/Jobs issue. There seemed a lack of appreciation or understanding of the jobs of the three branches of goverment and the relationship to defending it. The military certainly defends our security, but as for our rights, if they(our rights) were not used, they would be lost, and then what would they be fighting for? And if they were not used freely, they might be fighting for nothing more than what other countries are fighting for. But who am I to say who might understand that?

Rehashing Avoidance Issues

Recently Senator Dole has pleaded for us to MOVE ON over the issue of Kerry's military record while not resisting throwing in a few more jabs pulling us back by suggesting that Kerry apologize for his words more than 30 years ago. He tries to step above the fray by kicking up more dirt. To top it off, the childishness is obvious in the final claim that Kerry started it.

Military records are valid topics but not the most crucial. However since the Bush administration has depended on the war on terror as an excuse to stay the course, Kerry was playing to the same minimalist thinking as counter balance.

Now that Bush has capitulated belatedly by denouncing ads by the Swift Board Veterans of a Different Opinion, we will have another chance to see if anything changes.[CORRECTION: He has apparently not disavowed them aside from smearing 527s in general] (For another ad commentary see link.) Another childish ploy is while not taking credit for the "fear and smear" campaign, he blames the process that allows money on the other side to be spent on issues that he could address by confronting.

But the final point that military honors are now deserved by only some of the veterans seems to do more injustice to veterans than Kerry’s freedom to speak his mind. The sacrifices that many veterans made for their country are very important but what they were fighting for is important to remember. Though the reasons seem disputed it must have had something to do with freedoms. If wounds can be a comparison that divides some veterans they should remember those that did not return. If opinions and words are what divide other veterans they should remember what others at least thought they died for.

Lt. Watada: "Unbecoming" Mistrial

“Very interesting" Oops, wrong accent or show.

“I see nothing" from Hogan’s Heroes may be the one I was stretching for.

My commentary has to do with whose perspective or spin is taken off from. As in “here comes the judge": "saying the soldier did not fully understand a document he signed admitting to elements of the charges." And this take from other participants .

My perspective? Should not intention count? And what was the intention of the war? And can this ever stop spinning if "intention" is not on the table, but the war was all about preemption of intentions. I am not sure just who understood what about the charge but the defense put it all on the table, and it was "not a matter that can be settled in military court."

NOT A MATTER THAT CAN BE SETTLED IN MILITARY COURT?

I believe that the 1st and 3rd bold are from "Laugh In" or similar times, but that is not to make light of the seriousness of our "defining" times, as in Bush's ideological run around the dictionary of about all that matters.

But as you can see from the vision thing, it may not work if you focus, and I could be wrong about the links. NOT EXACTLY BUT...

NOT A MATTER? THERE IS NO OFFENSE IF THERE CAN BE NO DEFENSE.
Ow! The irony of circular intention or "the yellow brick road". Or maybe it is that there are only three branches of government and conscience is where principles are found or lost or the battle ground we should be on.

Toning Down the Lines.

Just in case it was not clear, my Waiting for [Calm Cast] was not just a metaphor, and Comcast did arrive to increase my signal strength by toning down my lines. Hmmm. That works. But what I also wish to make clear is that while some may rightly argue the wisdom of another involvement in military action that the tone and approach are totally different than recent actions. If Congress wishes[*] to have a different view, they may need to take certain measures to make clear where military action is appropriate, until that time the Commander in Chief is responsible (for) foreign policy, upholding international treaties and the U.N. charter. Now I also need to sort out a few of these links, but my point is that this time our action is only as a leader of a united concern that is a bit clearer than recent actions, and those with veto power in the U.N. did not use their vetos. Of course actions may evolved based on certain reactions, but that is the nature of putting things clear or on the table.

[*] bolds and (for) added 3-22-11

Leaks Strike Again.

The latest in plumbers unit?

Or is it? Not!

[I am missing an interview from this hour, which put the bargaining perspective into play. My point hinges on the revised funding of the war. It is in the hands of congress and the military is not in a position to include an out. At at least as interpreted by the missing link**. It is not the duty of the military to suggest an alternative* to addressing the issues in Afganistan, it is that of congress to suggest an alternative if they do not come through with what leadership has mind.]

* ironically or gramatically: they are addressing the issues in Afganistan
** still uncertain about missing link; maybe it was earlier.

Hardball

Follow-up to the Tool Shed 10 AM (PST)today:

Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]

THIS AFTERNOON:
Maj. General Eaton: "healthy debate"[*]
White House Leaving Afghanistan not an option.

Not to mention:
the leak last month.
[*][6-24-10: McChrystal(Chain of Command) labels added]

I'm not a lawyer but...

my post on Lt. Watada's "Unbecoming" Mistrial seems to have gotten to a point that others seem to run around. [Breaking Related News * ]

Here is the crux of the matter:
"...the military judge, said the case could end in a mistrial if Watada’s lawyers refused to let the defendant answer the judge’s questions about potential inconsistencies with a "stipulation of fact" that Watada agreed to before the trial began. "

"The defense has consistently tried to call into question the legality of the war, because Watada said the war is illegal and a command to fight in Iraq is also illegal. But the judge has said the argument over the legality of the war is not a matter that can be settled in military court." *

Note that a crux must have two lines. It seems that the case cannot proceed under the "stipulation of fact" that the prosecution prepared and the defendant agreed to, yet the judge felt had inconsistencies that he expected the defendant to clear up and was not for the court to decide.

Later reports seem to confirm this thinking even without necessarily getting to that point so easily. That's what I am here for, even if an occasional misspelling or misthinking is occasionally caught. At least it is not as bad as the misjudgement that brought us here. Not that there will not be calls to stay the course.

By the way, is that not another error or actually what we should be doing? I may not be much for grammar and neither is "The Decider", but what we seem to have here is a missing preposition. We have never been on a course but it must be stayed. It may be a "Catch 22" or the "8th Wonder" but there is often a missing link and sometimes you have to follow them.

* [IMPEACHMENT EFFORT: see link go to February 1oth on calendar]
In my view, this is where the matter lies.

Tool Shed

[held in draft posted 10 AM: 10-5-09 ]
[Banana Republic] Open Salon
Me: If John Perry was a involved in the Carter administration, it is no wonder it suffered.

Military style: Rumsfeld v. Gates
I don't know if I will find the quote but Rumsfeld noted his style of management as heated or open to heated dialogue. I will only contrast this with what I feel is a more healthy debate. Of course there is no debate as to whom is in charge. (Yeah right!) But I feel that reading between the lines is not so much the problem as actually reading some lines. The short answer? Not. I feel that the actual strategy may be not as much a push back to the administration but a pulling forward (see "shared responsibility) in support of a more robust change. It should also be realized just who are rationals actor and who are less so. I won't characterize any groups by even saying "them" or "us" but I mean those that see violence as the primary tool. And what is military strategy is no longer just in the shadows.
[footnote: chain of command ]

Tangents from Angler

From the Now-disclosed Bunker Branch lead link.
Authorization For Use of Military Force
Military Commissions PO
Terrorists Not POW

"Pushing the Envelope" Chapter II
War Crimes Act
Memorandum on Standards... "prohibits only the worst".
Tortured Memo
Warner Administration Policies

Gonzalez Memorandum to the President

This was a little deeper and less sorted than I intended, but I must move on.

But Echoes of Watergate:
What did the president know and when did he know it?

But I would ask: What did the president not know and when did he let Cheney know he did not want to know it?
There is more embedded history or future here. [*] The fact that Hillary was a lawyer advising during Watergate as was Fred Thompson.

If the 2004 election was a rehashing of Vietnam, then the 2008 rehash may be about Watergate, if it is Clinton v. Thompson.

[8-11-07: link below added]

[*] [8-12-07: foward link below and more added there, I must note that what tipped me to this loop is lost or found by further review, but possible just luck or making sense or trying to dig into what someone said, quite likely on, given the time of the original post... The Stephanie Miller Show, but I further note that the recent additions of links were just found and dated in the days following my original post. ] Today 9:55 AM]
[Note: Throughout this blog any [] bracketed material is usually an indication and dated such of an amendment to a link, and no other temporal funny business or editing of posts occur, except minor grammar and spelling. 8-12-07]
[What I am saying above is that I would love to know where the Nixon mole story leaked into my filter. Now 10:03 AM]

On War / Politics [under con...]

[...struction]

Who are "the deciders"? see David Sirota here
Pre-emptive footnotes*...On War / On interpretation / On politics (policy)

[Short answer? It depends if we are a Democratic Republic, or under tyranny, anarchy or some meld or other mold. Also subject to whom is at the table of "we".]

* subject to cherry picking of course "...by other means"

[pre sent con text under the dialectical

[10-4-09 10:16 PM Note: Military label added post-"We are at the table"- post, constitutionally the military is not a branch of government, however the executive and the legislative have a shared responsibility.]

[11:44 PM If John Perry was involved in the Carter Administration it is no wonder it suffered. See Banana Republican.]

Does it matter?

Which report do you believe?
Seymour Hersch
Foreign Policy
Or which committee is informed?
Budget, Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, Intelligence.
Officially war powers and the purse are in the hands of congress.
But the military and intelligence are not just in the hands of the president.
How these committees are informed, is the key to progress or more run around.
Compartmentalized information is the key to our defense being so offensive.
Apparently congress has done as good a job of insulating themselves from responsibility and the adminstration has of blaming them, and excusing themselves. There is evidence that even military commanders to not know what the right hand is doing.* But it is a sure bet that our enemies know more than we can say.

[Preemptive point: Should one need to read the latest? * Given the record of congress and the administration?]

[To put this in semi-clear terms, the president's job is commander in chief and is sworn to defend the constitution. There is a clear record that he has poorly done his job and been given ever more powers by a congress who has not held him accountable and done their's. The sharper point is that of course the president has the power to defend the country as long as he has the ability to defend his actions and is responsible for them. It is necessary to "trust but verify" at home as well as abroad. It is also necessary to make sure that preemption is no longer the policy without such review. And to do so, we must see when it started and when it leaked and which committee knows.]

* Fallon

This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL

Bush has done more for credibility and privatization than any president has ever… with irony.

For some reason the abuse that is so “abhorrent” to Bush and the administration is not a shock to me. I was wondering why, though I like many have not seen it all yet. For the reason one may see Molly Ivins, “Putting the ‘con’ in neo-Con” which I have not read more than a few paragraph of, but it hit a spot that had crossed my mind and the title may be sufficient. Though not in my immediate experience, there have been reports of abuses and tragedies that have occurred on or just off college campuses as well as similar abuse that occurs in the military and for some reason have even been institutionalized and rationalized to some degree. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001924049&zsection_id=268883724&slug=ivins10&date=20040510

More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.

It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."

Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.

Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.

Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.

The presidents speech was nothing new EXCEPT the following: "I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military,
if it proves necessary, to enforce UN Security Council demands."

YOU MUST VOTE NO, if it is anything more than that. Also VOTE NO, if it is anything less than with U.N. Security Council approval.

The administration said the speech was: "Comprehensive proof that military action may be necessary." The words "comprehensive proof" and "may be" seem to be mutually exclusive. My representative, Congresswoman Dunn said that there are 40 countries behind us on this. It is not clear yet if this authorizes unilateral action or not and if they would be behind us then.

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

Bane and Company

"If we keep talking about the economy we will lose."
A more anachronistically correct quote was never said.
The sentence and yes I mean (bane and Company, Inc.)

It was actually said by Presidential candidate John McCain, about their campaign, and is exactly what will doom any Republican campaign. The Democrats will want to keep talking about the economy, as well as what the solutions are.

[My apologies*** for losing which major network noted* the Romney "quote"/ad. But later...]

* a search engine found these two links

[On another front: civil disobedience and** the blue line***.]

** (correction)/update
*** actually I have two...this is a tragedy that if true, begs the question. Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights. Will there be accountability? Is it a federal concern, or based on community standards, or walking like an Egyptian. I am not advising the same pathology, but there is breaking news on that front.
*** third dimes a charm Who walks the line?

[Note the timing & *** which are recyled, and problematic: The asterisks are separated by my tangents and breaking news. There are two uses of the triple asterisks within the text, as well in footnote. This is an unhint of sorts. I wish I could bold a path.]
[The tragedy of the third footnote*** allows segue "On another front...": the line the law and military walk,(see drafts) for the people, and what makes us exceptional.]
[Now three in draft, including True Footnote.]

Obama Doctrine?

Allow me to remind you of ledership and the rhetorical. In my format I use it to refer to the heading of a piece as well as a peril to progress. Not that I have embedded the definition here, I have just googled these(2 links) now. But previously touched on it here. And no pun here. But here? I will parse these later, but for now I will claim that it is a position not just a doctrine. Hmmm, maybe doctrine is the word that sticks for some, and it is not partisan or bi-partisan. One important feature is that a policy is not an action, nor a result.

[My last two links which I inserted are on the"peril" of "progress" and refer to the nature of power and intelligence, in the area of freedom and the hard work involved. Just as previous wars were fought under an information embargo of sorts, I do not know if that is really part of the picture now, but whether it is or not, the information is part of the format that goes beyond just the military aspect, to the diplomatic and beyond and back again. Meaning who knows what information will be used to what end or who will use it, get it or misuse it.]

Recent Letters.

To Local Papers Not Printed Yet:

What Democracy Looks Like? [9-10-08]

The Joel Connelly piece "Obama takes the 'low drama' approach" certainly contrasts his campaign with McCain's. It shows the value of community organizing while McCain/Palin seem to knock heads together and too few roll, unless you don‘t "contribute" to their cause. But I quibble with his claim, Obama has "left the right wing smear machine so bereft of material that Swift Boaters of 2008 have been forced to concoct stories." That is "not exactly"-"change you can believe in".

Real change would be if the Swift Boaters could be remembered for the courageous vets their name high-jacked and if they could ever tell the truth. My concocted label for the difference is "Flip-Flopper Crafters"- us and them. One might call this campaign, "Burger Wars": Wendy’s vs. Burger King or "Where’s the beef?" vs. "Home of the Whopper." No con-notation intended, but it has leaked that the Republican Convention was not about issues, but a "composite view". Irony of ironies, the Big Mac lacks the "special sauce" of nuance and straight forwardness, let alone any ingredients of the Bull-Moose Party or Teddy Roosevelt.


Who Gets It? Oh, Right. [9-13-08]

Let’s get this straight. Palin jokes in her acceptance speech: What is the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? Answer: lipstick Who got up in arms about that remark? I guess it is not a sexist joke if a woman (and hockey mom) says it. Am I applying too much meaning here, like lipstick. Oops, did that cross a line? I don’t worry about pit bulls, or at least their feelings. I wonder if hockey moms are proud of the comparison? Taking offense at Obama‘s use of "like putting lipstick on a pig" seems to be far fetched in comparison. Especially, when McCain has used it so many times, and seems to have a leash on it. You know? The phrase that is. I don’t know about pigs or pit bulls, but issues and attack dogs? (a leash that is) Do we really need a vet? Apparently the media needs one. A closer look that is.

Oh and what is the difference between Sarah Palin and a Neo Con? I don’t think it is lipstick. Apologies to Neo Cons, but they are proud of her. I wonder what the lipstick feels. Oh, and just what did the Palin nomination, do for the ticket? A new leash on life, or at least meanings. And let me vet myself here; McCain's excuse for all this? "...this is a tough campaign." I think he has smeared his own makeup, let alone "change". And speaking of taking offense, no use of the term "vet" here, disrespects anyone's service, I am sure both the military and the medical are tougher than that, while the media needs to get a grip.