OH, THE IRONY!!!

Is it just me
or is it just ice.

It certainly seems ironic that terrorists are confessing while politicians are pleading their case on the tortured field of justice. Irony may be in the eye of the beholder, yet the competition for finding the logic in both cases is staggering, and maybe stronger in the case of martyrdom. Maybe after mentioning the irony, I have ironed this out, for was not Nixon a martyr of sorts? To what I don't know. But justice is the irony, in that both cases short circuit it. One from the top, the other from the bottom, the irony may be cut by the idea that they are getting their orders top down, while justice it seems is bottoms up and down the drain.
[Speaking of hot air and bubbles: OK it was hydrogen.]

ACTION ITEM !!! [
There is enough irony in the pardon situation, the confession situation may be more clear, as making martyrs will continue the war on terror. The irony is not in the terrorists, it is in the war, where justice would at least take away one recruitment tool. Not to mention if you are not with us, you are against us. If terrorists are for the death penalty, where are we? It is not irony that terrorist don't want justice, because in this case the process has been violated, which gets in the way of their martyrdom. By forgoing any change in the process, they risk progress being made, and one more recruitment tool lost. That may be the exception that proves the irony, in that the administration used exceptional logic.

Meanwhile: It might be wise to keep or promote Patrick Fitzgerald. Speaking of Nixon, there is irony in the Nixon to China concept. And hope in the Obama from Chicago process. And justice may be around the corner, but economics is the bigger picture.

Nixon to China?*

*see blogsearch box

It was a foreign policy trope.  Hmm.  I guess I was right...at least in the word "trope".   In double checking my use of the word, I addressed my project* in one way.  I have yet tor read the link under the "word", but it was found within a google of "Nixon to China" and suggests "Trump to North Korea" which is one answer to my slightly facetious** search.

Now that I have expanded the geometry or loopiness of the subject, another one just may be "Trump to tropes."  In an earlier pondering of this project, I thought of "Trump to the red line."  Today I really was recognizing the difficulty in this effort, as in the Trump will set you free.

Here is another project.

*Note the 3(now4) locations of my asterisks

** This word is attempting to take the edge off a very serious matter; finding a parallel trope for Trump.  (Ironically it just might be "Trump to Trump.")

List of Trump to tropes[!]
Trump to Nixon?


[!]= sic punctuation

Funneling Crisis?

William Safire’s “political analysis” or channeling of Richard Nixon from purgatory is scary. It is refreshing he (Nixon) refers to “electablity” as an issue emanating from the “jackasses yakkin’ it up on cable”. Electability is no more a real issue than the “gravitas” he supplants it with.

Given the influence of the media and polls, the impact of Dean’s scream was more a funnel on these secondary issues than an issue or filtered perspective. The record low number of Bush press conferences should be more an issue. It may be an accurate charge that the media is a subjective filter but that is as elusive as intelligence analysis or polling.

Hopefully the electorate, the people, can be their own filter and resist the final charge, when Safire again draws his channeled Nixon back to the question of issues in the campaign and we get the disturbing Quemoy-Matsu syndrome or “October surprise”. The conclusion that “most crises help incumbents” must be turned around given the track record of this administration. From their ample experience at failures they should be making some progress in avoiding them in the first place.

The ability to handle surprises may be a valid tool for analysis of an administration or candidate. But the incumbent should get no more credit for the opportunity to face a crisis than blame for having it to face. The occurrence or lack of a late crisis should not be another filter clouding issues or the clogging the filter of the electorate.

Pap Attack on Thompson

"He really should be the GOP's pick for president..."
"almost a true reflection of Cheney, Bush and Rove and all the other thugs..."

See my earlier link, below.
[8-12-07: OK... too embedded in that last link, "Tangents from Angler" somewhere is the implication
that the 2008 race WILL BE, Clinton versus Thompson.
Even more buried is any link to information in that regard.
Here they are.
Not all would put a heroic sheen on Thompson's Watergate role
from The Boson Globe
Fred Thompson, Nixon's Mole
from The Stump AOL News Elections Blog
The 2008 Race could not only rehash accountability but the media's role:
Also found at - (Nixon's mole)
Media Matters
No Quarter
Raw Story
Related USA Today ]
-
Labels? NOT!

[The Colbert Report: The Word
The Daily Show: The president in his own words.
ifilm from SPIKE TV]

POLITICS

NOT A DIRTY WORD!
But it is in the eye or ear of the beholder.
Embedded in the previous postings are two points about accountability.
Politics and timing.
They seem to play a big part in the planning of any endeavor.
These too, are not dirty words.
Except possibly in the grip of the wielders of power.

But I digress, the particulars are that accountability is part of the process and success of our process. There must be investigations because they are political and because of the timing. The arguments must be held and there is never a better time, especially for politics. But the actual particulars of accountability are what role politics has played and will play and whether they preempted accountability. It is not just a coincidence[*] that Watergate involved the Nixon/Ford administration and their respective views on what is legal and what is political. It is the same characters and the polarity between the president being unitary (Nixon) and accountability (the process) being political (Ford), not to mention subsequent success and failures of economics, war and foreign policy. I won't get into the respective overlap and/or disconnect between committees and their intelligence sharing and responsibilities, but I will note the relation to issues in the current political campaigns and the press for or on the bottom line, the people.
[As usual I have embedded too much in rhetoric, another word that is not dirty, except in how it is used, and in which the administration and probably McCain places its only hope. But the point of politics and timing being important hinges on the process and the administration has been preemptive with too much. Now rhetoric is lost in anachronism, while accountability was lost before September 11th, 2001.]

[*]footnote: "positive polarization" and somewhere there was a political calculus of the Bush impeachment, but this is only the rhetoric and all that is needed in this rhetorical war on aftermath and preempting of hope.

The Undisclosed Bunker Branch of the Government.

Cheney's place as "Angler" has now been disclosed in a four-part series in the Washington Post, where "understanding" is the key word.
[note that there is a lot of hard work here, by others *]

What does the Vice-President's claim that he is not part of the Executive Branch do to earlier claims of executive privilege? I think it would fall under Unitary theory that Cheney and Bush have whatever powers Cheney has decided for them and Bush understands only that, not that it puts Cheney in charge of the whole ball of wax.

A few earlier post of mine on the loop as long as we are into geometry.
The Truth Apparent: A Mobius Lap
Running with Rhetoric
Unreasonable Proof of/or Reality
Original Intent

Sorry for my own little four-part review(much shorter than the WaPo though, of which only three are out yet, and I've only read a few paragraphs), but as opposed to the "Angler" who approaches "the levers of power obliquely, skirting orderly lines of debate he once enforced as chief of staff to President Gerald R. Ford.", I must brink up my ealier tangents that have already visited the subjects but only touch a point on a curve.


From Randi's cite:*
House Democrats to cut funds for VP from Executive Branch. Raw Story
Senate challenge understanding as well. NY Times
Bush thinking (see above) "the law"
Press conference on "non issue" of oversight
On wire-taps by Judge
CIA of the going back to Nixon Era released.
Condemned or chosen to repeat.
GITMO A & B
HALLIBURTON A & B
Prosecutor Purge
Vote Caging: speaking of returns and locked up.

And off of AM1090 Seattle cite:
Democracy Now has Rocky Anderson as guest on the impeachment process.

Thanks to Randi Rhodes for the real "hard work", which I have not done yet by reading these, but getting them together is a start, and for you to continue the "hard work" as well. Of which, the first post indicates that Bush does not read much of what he signs from Cheney.

* This stems from a few days ago when this broke(the first link) and I was probably listening to Randi Rhodes and I thought, that if there is an EO (executive order)that Bush has signed and given their pattern of behavior, it does probably not apply to the President or whomever he choose not to appy it to, and probably didn't need to include a signing statement on his own EO as his privileges include that only he knows what he means. If that. And that is another imagined out or bunker of their mind. (I believe David Bender or Ring of Fire or a guest deserves note for the last reference.)

"Secret Plans" sounds too much like Nixon.

Hit and Run Republicans are not exactly being cut and run from the process as they know it is difficult to avoid a vote.

But since we know that Bush's plan is not the Iraq Study Group's, if he has one, and the Democrats have a few plans, it is too late to say, let's just get along. The concept of a secret plan is most ridiculous for two reasons. 1. We got into this war not only based on secret plans but 2. leaked plans for political purposes. If we cannot get out for political purposes, it is too much to expect that anything change. Believe me, I could have been more strident in this terminology, but it should be pretty clear. (Except that the secret and the leaked plans are still not clear.)

The "too late" is also from the perspective of the calculations of whatever is read into it by the insurgents, but removing political pressure now will only make it more a political calculation later, besides removing the power to hold accountable not only from congress but from the people.

I don't know if this is almost as bad or much worse than the "cards dealt" to the president before the war, but it seems the same game.

McCain camp sexist.

Sarcasm? (see video)
No- perfect rhetoric.
[If you can't stand the heat...]
I don't know about Sam Stein's comment, but Ed Schultz's callers thought Campbell Brown was being sarcastic? Could be, but that only misses who it is aimed at. Ed and I take it serious. Maybe I missed where Ed is lost, but the Palin selection is no Joke. The point is that sexism is their defense for their offense. It is great that she is a woman. But if she were a man, her policies would be the point where we would have issues. Meanwhile she (the Maverick) is being trained in the same old politics. Oops, now I have trampled into agism. But referenced back to training and issues should bring to mind Reagan not to mention Nixon handlers, by way of Bush and Rove.

Forget about Truman and his "get out of the kitchen" metaphor: they can't even stand the sarcasm, let alone the media.
[get out of the sarcasm...]
[But it remains to be seen when she does face the media, will she be prepared or just polished and the media still the battered significant other.]

On the Other Plan(s)

[Originally I was amending or running on the last link.]
...on the other hand: while I am not advocating Independents or Single Payer, they just might be the way things need to go. As the Reverend Al Sharpton said this morning, it would be unseemly for the President to be an advocate for any separate interests, as I paraphrase him, and as others would call it leadership in reference to the parade. This was linked anachronistically. Note the tetra of DRIP, (now that was manipulated: Democratic Republican Independent Progress), not to mention the Bloomin' ** Fringe. And an earlier thought about this field, Creationist Recreation Applied Properly, no CRAP. Speaking of anachronism, if someone turned water into wine, who turned whine*** into trickle down? Answer? Just a Laffer. No disrespect to the good nature and good deeds of Reagan and Nixon or vice verse us, but they have certainly been proved to be relative.]

** EPA = Expletive Properly Applied.
*** Needlessly(sic)

Underlying this thinking is a reaction to those that think we think we know better, and those that think they are we. I directly refer to the rhetoric of the Right and the fact that they are the minority for a reason, continually evidenced by their behavior as well as the fact that polls change and they had better.* Wow, I think that was anti-sic or at least freely punctuated, but who the Fringe knows or is it the Shadow or Charlie McCarthy(**)ism?
* Bold summary and link(correction: reference) to other asterisk not to mention runonwordplay.
[belated ** talk about prophetic gathering of moss I am not sure I know yet.]
[Well...not exactly, but close enough for Hurts work or Wads-worth.]

Food for Thought...

Or Fodder for Field Blossoms ?

F1*, f2,   

* links unembedded further "fodder for" ? !

5-20-13: Krugman perspectivism.
I'm not saying...
Is it a win for transparency or more of the same GOP trickle-down?
James Rosen Treason?
Robert Kennedy Jr. Plumbers?

FB
Recently Pulled Submission(Not by me)  Re: Watergate/ Democrats ~ holding to their own standards ~ their own~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr/obama-nixon-watergate_b_3305611.html

C: Green walled [!]

5-22-13*** 
IRS testimony**, the other Rand, McCain/Graham Rice, "fool's errand" [?]
**Issa touts the 5th (C-NOW w/ Alex Wagner) "Republicrats" "Democans" "barking up the wrong tree" Charlie Cook.
(*** b.s.): Knot So Well ?  Sheep in FOX clothing? 

5-23-13: Boardman, Reich, Wired, Cole ? Not to coat tails.
Millennial Miss fits?

Blankely Point Blank Blames

40 years of Democratic governing for/or some such
Let's see... 2008 - 40 = 1968
The year that gave us Nixon, Humphrey, McGovern, and Wallace, not to mention Muskie and the loss of another Kennedy and King.
Now that is a sad but sorry loop.

This is a spin off from a commment by Tony Blankley today on Race for the White House, a show on MSNBC, which except for one Rachel Maddow and other occasional guests, should be called the Race to the Bottom...
line.
Speaking of dreams.

Third Times a Charm?

Nixon
Clinton
Bush?

November 20thth Blame Bush and Cheney
Noveber 21stBlame Bush and Cheney
November 22ndBlame Media

I was hoping by the third day, we would have a headline.
I am not the Leaker-In-Chief.

Why the Democrats can't impeach.
Who would follow? Who would be the incumbent?
This is the political calculus that people may not do the math on, but who realize that if Democrats and Republicans can't stand up for the constitution and what is right, then how can they stand up against each other. And it is my opinion that they do need to stand up against each other or they will fall over alone. It is called competition. If the people don't see it, it does not mean they do not realize it is not there.

It is called politics and if politicians can not do the job in the kitchen they should not be cooks let alone serve the nation.

Happy Holidays.

It is hard to say Herman means anything literally.

Or actually?

He did not say "I'm a leader not a reader",
nor did the Schwarzenegger.
It is about lede'er ship[!]

[11-21-11: As "A Wonder..." is held in draft, I am processing a Revolution. Speaking of Calm Cast, I didn't mean to forcast.]
[As for weather[!], recent Republican interference in presidential foreign policy* is dangerous** stuff, and further muddles the mess age and message. I don't know if anyone can ever be a Nixon to China after this administration, or a Cain to business.]

* recent event references not noted in link
** a,b
[note: [!] = (sic)or sarcasm/irony Also "A Wonder..." under construction.]
[Segue: good for?(sic?) NOT!]
[Just to be clear*** I am not opposed to six sigma or cuts, but there is a food chain, or some hierarchy which is bubble up. Incidentally, it is a lot like the cycle of life and climate change. The segue or root here is the cost effectiveness, not trickle down. Money is not the root of all evil, nor is any tool or process, necessarily.]

*** the NOT! is not fully read yet(NFRY)
[Speaking of not read yet, the point is in the lede, or prelede. It is easier to debunk, than bunker up. MORNING MESSAGE: America's Affluent and the New Bunker Down, literally(!?)]

MSNBC

The Cycle
Nixon and the Liberal
Eric Garner Choke hold.


The Reid Report: Torture Report(~)
NOW with Alex Wagner: FYI



Hardball with Chris Mathews
Rachell Maddow
The Ed Show
All In
Politics Nation
Andrea Mitchell
NewsNation


(Posted 12-9-14)

No Bearing?

Good! The president's words have no bearing on the 2008 race.

[In a statement, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., shot across the bow: "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 6Oth anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the President's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel."]

Last read? (nfry)

[Embarassing is a reference or interesting usage in the top link here: "ABC News' White House troops point out..."]

[Embedded and unembedded, but pulled up? See inserted block quote above.]

...Looking and Hearing [HEAR HERE]

JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Hearing on Executive Power and its Limitations
afterdowningstreet.org
tangibleinfo

Impeachment is not on the table.
Information is being brought to the table.
Alternatives and other measures are also on the table.
Justice is finally appearing before the people.
As well as injustices. Not to mention "representations".

It is not too fine a point to put this, as a
very important if not entertaining event in history,
which the media is not likely to cover as it did during the Watergate era.
But the fine point is that the internet coverage is where the media and the people may be buried. The "media" it must be realized is a word here that has been manipulated in this paragraph, but justice is what you will find manipulated by the media and the people at any table.

And the above tables must not result in information being tabled,
without at least enumeration and verification.

One may wonder where justice comes in. It is found in the constitutional process being used fully to uphold the law and sworn duties of every office. This could therefore be considered a criminal investigation, but primarily an investigation represented by what I believe is the contrast between what Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon claimed. The latter being the law if he says it is, and the former that all impeachments are political. The latter fell and the former excused, but justice should still be pursued. The process must be used even if politics is part of the investigations, for politics to recover esteem and its place for the people.

[The record will be held open for 5 days, according to Conyers, and there seems a lot of room for cross reference and verification, but there is probably no limit to what could appear.]

FOOTNOTES PAGE ONE- MAY 2014

5-4-14  In Spiration: Salon-W.R. Klemm / Sch~hhh[!] ... Who started it, I finished it, it still needs sense. (Ctrl F: sense ) Everything Model? A. Para-model, B. Almost makes me want to tweet. , C. Wittgenstein, D. The Politics of the Table. , E. What the Beck? (Witt Gen Stein's Buffet)   Milo Wolfowitz (FP2)

5-5-14:  fath:   ...:   gr :  your : [nexus, cats, herstory, herding] 1.A. NEXUS REVIEW (Re-posted) , B., C., D., E., F., G., H., I.  2. A., B. C. D. Reigning wags and tales ...  M. 3. EH? The History of B.S. 4[$]. A. B., C.Congress is Like Herding Death Panels!, D. What's good for the goose... [?] ow!  

5-7-14: SkyNet published from 5-6-14. Yes link inserted, but italics added. 

5-29-14 this:  Nixon- Plausible Deniability / Bush 43- Plausible Incompetence / Snowden- Plausible What?  Hence the word.  Posting based solely on NBC link.  4Later digging/yet/to read.  ...& further D'Ribble rather than G'Ribble;  Plausible Disciplination asks about his education and training in law or civics or what else he was educated in that might inform his understanding of this exchange with authorities, not that we should expect constitutional scholars not to have varied opinions.  Italics: not a foundation for my ainfount[><].  i.e. bu'dump ump[~]

Iron Knee?

Or I Ron Knee?
My first instinct was based on, this can't be right, could it? I guess it can. But the Immelt to Jobs is like a Nixon to China ploy. Unfortunately, that foreign policy reference may have backfired a bit, military friction has become economic friction. But a better word would be competition. Or would it?
But really, I am conflating two fields into one, or is it a third? The Tax Code. While it is not all about who's at fault, tax cuts or spending, or economic or foreign policy, having the biggest con(I mean beneficiary of tax policy and foreign policy) pushing for an overhaul, we just may eliminate many loopholes and level the playing field a bit. And as for contrast, Obama to Libya is NOT the Bush to Iraq or Cheesehead to Wisconsin moment.
[On another line: Democrats can hold the line and compromise, as long as there is a line that some Republicans will greet.

Pre-empting Crimes

Remember: Humor is a tool and so is the dictionary.
While Bill Clinton hinged his excuses on "what the definition of 'is' is". The current administration has pre-empted excuses by hinging humor and the dictionary on "what the definition of everything is".

Abuse of power is the issue. While Clinton was investigated and found to have hinged his evasion of his abuse of an intern, Nixon was investigated and found to have covered up his abuses on the national level, and Bush pre-empted abuses on the international level. But now what Bush has done to get us "over there" will congress investigate too much "over here"?

If the above is too hard to follow, then try this:
Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act: S. 1959 Here is the TEXT

While the above is the senate bill by the same name here is the House version which passed: H.R. 1955

While I did read the latter, the former will be discussed on The Thom Hartmann Show. [See Update]
AM1090 Seattle 9 AM to noon

`SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
`In this subtitle:

`(1) COMMISSION- The term `Commission' means the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism established under section 899C.

`(2) VIOLENT RADICALIZATION- The term `violent radicalization' means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.

`(3) HOMEGROWN TERRORISM- The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

`(4) IDEOLOGICALLY BASED VIOLENCE- The term `ideologically based violence' means the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

I hate to alert any potential terrorists but do not these definitions pertain to The Project for the New American Century ? It may be a section that united the vote for this bill, while an understanding of it, would certainly mean to change it.

[Earlier Posted Comment here:
Earlier radicals there:
Jefferson-

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.Goldwater-

[Same Day Update: After posting the above I found this on Slate Bad Ideas]

[Update The Thom Hartmann Show: 11/29/07 ]
[11-29-07: TruthOut]

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

Featured DO NOT SEE!
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. *

Idol Chatter: Pre-Screaming.
Reuters: No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary Post comment.
Angry Astronomer reports.

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

* OK, see the trailer, which is admittedly more a mocumentary.

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

Speaking of Labeling, I did not know I would go here. It is not a matter of Faith. It is a matter of evidence. Not that faith is wrong to have. But it must be based on evidence. Of course there is evidence for faith. But can you question faith? You can question evidence. But would you have faith in unquestioned evidence? Evidence can give you an answer, if you have a question. If you have faith in unquestioned evidence, can you question faith? If it is a matter of freedom, would anyone choose freedom from evidence? Would anyone choose freedom from faith?

Of course this is just a ramble. Unless one chooses to answer, whether you have faith in evidence or no evidence. Would anyone base their answers on a writer, actor, economist, lawyer? Just because a dog does not all of a sudden become a cat, does not mean that things don’t change, and not always for the better. But apparently with intelligent design, anyone can be anything, no matter their department or intelligence. There is now evidence for that.]

[[If the above ramble is hard to follow, maybe reading the following will help.
The Information Challenge by Richard Dawkins -- Maybe not, but it may make it seem easier. (It may also be helpful to point out that this is only an example used by unwilling participant above.) ]]

[04-22-08: more links on Expelled - -
PZ Meyers Expelled, Gains Sainthood -
Lying for Jesus - (nfry)

It is one of the classic philosophical fallacies to derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. Stein (or whoever wrote his script for him) is implying that Hitler committed that fallacy with respect to Darwinism. If we look at more recent history, the closest representatives you'll find to Darwinian politics are uncompassionate conservatives like Margaret Thatcher, George W Bush, or Ben Stein's own hero, Richard Nixon. Maybe all these people, along with the Social Darwinists from Herbert Spencer to John D Rockefeller, committed the is/ought fallacy and justified their unpleasant social views by invoking garbled Darwinism. Anyone who thinks that has any bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of Darwin's theory of evolution is either an unreasoning fool or a cynical manipulator of unreasoning fools. I will not speculate as to which category includes Ben Stein and Mark Mathis.

Faith in doubt and inquiry -
Related video link:
'New' American Theology of Civil Submission - ]