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]

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 ]

Bolton Resigns as UN Embassador!

A Suprise?
"...at a time when the White House was making dramatic moves with respect to it's Iraq policy, this is a significant development."
Oh, the irony in parsing this. The emphasis on "significant" or the term "dramatic", are a close call.

This is not only a quick filter, but saves me the filtering of several links on the Rumsfeld memo. That ties this up, while we see what develops.

[See comments] for timing on added links:

Rumsfeld memo.
Murtha on memo.
Both videos.

Finally: Long story short: How we got here. The point: Not seeing the big picture, let alone connecting dots.
[Note: This last link not fully read, but a glance makes it my point of departure for my tangent or with my comment attached maybe truly a triagulation.]

Bureaucracy did it.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld recently claimed that he never told the president to attack Iraq, but that the president knew his feelings on the matter or some such. Just what is the difference, if I have that clear? Whatever the president knew or understood, is the matter. And the chain of command is still in question for the Commander-in-Chief. The president who ran as a Commander-in-Chief now leaves it in the hands of the military to decide on the strategy in Iraq? It is bad enough that handling hurricane Katrina was complicated by a new layer of bureaucracy, FEMA under Homeland Security, but Rumsfeld had his own additional Office of Special Plans, which was another layer of the object filter which Bush prefers over the so-called filter of the media, not to mention intelligence.

If this is viewed as only the game of politics and that the timing is questionable, this piece shows who as fought and who has delayed, and that there should be no shame in taking advantage of the timing, as earlier would have been better. Like before the 2004 elections. The time is now and until the 2006 election when the only solution is replacement of the whole "bigger government" that has distanced our leader from realities on several levels.

Often it is hard not to stoop to childish refrains that siblings banter such as "you started it", but heck if that is not their policy of pre-emption that they be the ones to actually start things, if anybody is, not to mention will. Timing is also a thing they ignore not just preemptively but when they quote Democrats who said things, the difference is that they were in the past and then actually did thing or didn't and things changed, usually for the better, despite the resistance from the those who then resisted involvement in the world or being a force for good or democracy.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Exporting Democracy

The ink is barely dry on my last post and Rumsfeld provides more clarity. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6077104/
"Nothing’s perfect in life," Rumsfeld told a Senate committee on Thursday. "You have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet."

I contradicted history and vice versa when I said maybe elsewhere, the only thing black and white is a vote. Our 2000 election brings that and Rumsfelds claim into question.

Science Fiction Writers

Enrolled in the War on Terror and blamed for the War on Terror. The usefullness of these writers presumably is their value in being imaginative and having some ability to influence the future. But to me the value is in their words and ones ability to interpret them, much as this blog. And here. And here. Just a few on intelligence.

But here I reference the "scale of justice" and now find in my mailbox The Scales of Justice. Coincidence? There are connections that make such more likely, like following what is going on and seeing similar consequences. Here was the ealiest reference to consequences. Here is the Search Blog for "consequences".

Speaking of "the latter" and looking back to the choice of words I realize my last post was a run on.

Earlier,[*] on the difference in liberal and conservative views. the good versus the evil nature of man and the purpose of government, that of protecting from the latter, the latter[**] has evolved to the point of doing no good.

[*] new link inserted here
[**] the latter evolved: and the second latter was the "purpose of government", the immediately prior latter was "conservative views".

OK, this "Speaking of" was out of the blue or a tangent but back to the choice of words and the latter (Oh that is where it was from) the latter link in my first sentence above on who is "blamed for" consequences. Asimov was a favorite writer of mine at an early age, but his science fact was as valuable as his fiction, but "The Foundation" series was not on my reading list, but the word "Foundation" is in the dictionary (Search Blog) and obviously in those of other languages and there is a connection when you go there and consequences when you don't as Rumsfeld confessed if you will do your own Contol F when you get there.

If you don't go there here is the segment.

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?

Meanwhile: the word foundation is in the dictionary too, and it is not just the blame but a needed part to any stucture.

[10:05 AM The Foundation Series(Control Find "History") by Isaac Asimov may be more valuable in predicting our future than it's contribution to terror. However it is plane that Bush has made great contributions to Al-Qaeda: The Base ]

[I must note 10:26 AM that I had not read till just moments ago, the second link above> While I cannot now find a link that dismissed it, I find it touched on more relevant matters than the first link, many of which I have touched on above and before. From it:

One can't blame Asimov for fuelling the swollen fantasies of the murderous. It is the last thing this committed pacifist ("violence is the last refuge of the incompetent") would have wanted. He may not be the only famous sci-fi author to have been taken up by lunatics, anyway. Killer cultist Charles Manson's favourite book is said to have been Stranger in a Strange Land, written by Asimov's rival for the imaginative future Robert Heinlein.

if that is not a prediction that came true, I don't know what is. But there is a the law of cause and effect, which is may connect to the sentence which followed:

More generally, the space opera sub-genre of science fiction offers the possibility of a massive expansion of self-mythologising will-to-power.

... and so now we have the request for help from writers? By whom and for whom?]

Green Walled Parallel

Not exactly the lesson. 

The LA Times piece was much more fair and balanced* than The Intercept "editorial".  Snowden was not the author of the legislation, congress was.  Glenn Greenwald's journalism(or logic) on this matter might lead me to give the Republican Party credit for the recovery**. 

*I've decapitalized and un-quotation marked for sake of irony
[Rumsfeld/Korb All In for American Progress]
** if it wasn't the LA Times that made the claim on authorship

Proof of Life...

is a term that is used in hostage taking.  Hostage taking is a tool of terrorists.  Torture has been a tool against terrorists.  Noting these as such is not an endorsement or argument.  But...
what is the word and when does it change? 

CIA Director Brennan:  word[!]
/ Pelosi: will of words (?)
(/)will of the people: Rumsfeld/Cheney
(fn)viscous cycle

[!] I think Brennan made a very nuanced and carefully parsed review of the so-called Torture Report.
There is a sense of E.B. White and M.C. Escher in this 4mat.  Let alone Cromnibus.

 

Hint(/)Rib [!].


[Note: E.B. > Elements of Charlotte.
M.C. > not exactly !]



12-16-14 Torture may be watching Meet the Press, I may waterboard myself later.

No Drama

Obama...

better than all Bama OdeRama[!]
or the Rumsfeld School of Infotainment(2) or Mad Ave.
That sure spins the tale(1) on the dawn key (3) !

(1) (b.s.) "English+only"
(2)  Flap a Chino Rino?   Or Up Swift Creak?
(3) not to be facetious but it seemed a battle of the "Fair and Balanced"('n aside of Cheney) with Scarborough burnishing his Rx and not liking his own medicine.
(verse us?)  Re:Creaking?

SPEAKing of Re: I have a missing link to dig up. But MEANwhile... more on spare the Rod ne Danger Fields and Share N Angles..Or Fries with that.  

Contempt for Courage

President Obama is taking Congress(**B) and* Romney on head-on. 

Republicans are all about the politics of opposition.  Democrats are all about the politics of getting things done.(*B)  But there are limits, and they are in the constitution and the three branches of government.  Now that is not a very satisfying thing.  Congress makes the laws, and the president must follow them, and they will not change until they are broken.  Republicans will take the country down while the president has all the tools at his disposal to make sure they don't succeed.  Of course it is under the guise of a disagreement, but is a disguise that the people must see through. 

A look back** is called for because that is where not keeping the change will take us.  Has there not been enough change?  Well just asking the question reminds me of the last administrations Secretary of Defense and his questioning and answering*** himself.   I really don't want to go there.

But the recent Fed mention of the loss of wealth in the last 20 years, parallels the dine and dash that has been a Republican solution that has not been removed from the table.  Democrats have fought wars and built the middle-class, while Republicans have cut checks and unbalanced the nation.

Is the President doing as much as some would like?  As it becomes more clear that Republicans will not, now is the time that he must.

[Hardball "Two Americas" Walsh / Feerey - Romney is not on the ballot?  The Act Act.]

* 6-16-12  link moved back one word(bold added)(Also [Hardball] links)
("Romney" to "and")
** Ctrl F "bite"
*** Ctrl F "Rumsfeld"
(*B) Go jump in the Lakoff(i.e. Ctrl F Lakoff)(oops)
(**B) two links added @"taking Congress"& @Romney reinsert new link
(***B) NFRY & vice verse us (or chicken or egg*c)

[UP w/ Chris Hayes(***B) Stand Your Ground and De-Policing.]
Hint: v.c.(not very crispy)
*c literally

The Great Wall Recycled.

My teaser hints at a tangent
of Nietzschean proportions.
Bush Army in Brzezinski's Afghan Trap

Or Rumsfeld's ReDucks
or Donald's Duck and Cover Up History
I will not dig into the depths of it,
or what fell into my inbox from TruthOut.
But to feel we have been there before.

My threads:
Berlin + Wall
Vietnam + Economy
Not a wall

Out of the Blue Summary:The irony of intelligence I have recently heard is the contrast between Truman and Eisenhower over the long and the short of it as far as agency and militancy, not to mention in-corporations of it.
A set-up or by intelligent design?

[6-22-08 Bicameral NOT.]
[Prior Restraint: Post Information ]

SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE)

Martin Bashir on Aid to Pakistan [To the President:]

So before he is tempted to cut all forms of funding, I would like to remind him of the wise words that he wrote back in 2006 in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Speaking about the circumstances in which terrorism can flourish, he highlighted failed states and poverty as the two most important factors.

Not to raise any suspicions** but the mission has not been so clearly defined in original reports.

CIA Chief Leon Panetta, later Tuesday told NBC News, "The authorities(sic*) we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed."

But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.

Using stringent language, a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States."

This is clearly a nuanced not "stringent language". But if,(and I mean A BIG IF) Osama bin Laden has been hiding in this compound for six years, it is difficult for the Bush administration to take much credit for the success of this mission, (let alone waterboarding). And while President Obama has been clear on the issues of failed states and poverty being part of the security equation, it is hard to expect Pakistan to be totally free of corruption or political and intelligence intrigue, let alone competence***. It is much easier to speculate and develop tin foil conspiracies that may actually be based on some evidence, and to use them to destabilize, than it is to change things at home let alone for another country. As the right seems to paint themselves into the corner of hypocrisy, the President has the responsibility of being the cherry picker and decider-in-chief. And in connecting the dots of the likes of the latest Right, (remember A BIG IF) then there must be some logic that the Bush administration must be further scrutinized for their part in a $1.4 trillion escapade of terror. How can we hold other countries responsible for competentencies when ours (and often rightly so) are so political?

* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]

[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]

[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]

Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future

*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.

Not to be full of it...

or demonstrate I Ron Knee...
but everything must be taken in context. 
In fact, WMD is an example and Weapon of Mass Distraction, Akin to E.D (entitlement distraction).
Hume or ... is an example of empiricism, and empire is not so in context. 
Pardon my tan gent, but not my French* or Cheney, let alone Rumsfeld. 

*link inserted 3-28-14 and is technically an anti-thesis. 

Weak End Update: Fun'n Edifying

(No, I actually intended to spell it that way.)
A post or so ago, my flip-flop ofor satire to sarcasm, merited a correction or at least clarification.
(Again spelling checked and intended)
Mis-Infotainment Tonight segued into...

Actual Fun'n Edifying (as corrected)

*** A TRIBUTE TO ***
Miller, Rhodes, Stewart and Colbert
*** FOR ACTUAL
Fun'n Edifying: ***
The Stephanie Miller Show
The Randi Rhodes Show
LOCAL RADIO
and Real Infotainment *.
(And National Fun'n Edifying:
The Daily Show
The Colbert Report

As opposed to Enternewsmeant

* forgive the self-reference and tribute to Secretary Rumsfled
(again spelling...check!) And ofor Miller time?
Not to mention Miss-"Frame of Reference" Goldwater/Buzz Killer
[Actual *footnote: Secretary of Infotainment was my pet name for Rumsfeld.(no pun on departure)]

Buy In or Sell Out

Red Lines and Towing the Line(on Syria). 
The President is not putting America's credibility at stake, he is staking out the credibility of International Law and Globalization. This is a far cry from the Bush Era "war" president and unifier.** 
Pre-title or heading: Rogers' Soap Box, might read "Pit Lip Schtick ".

Related: The Vatican, Steve Clemons, Steve Benen, Maddow Blog, [Boehner let her.]

8-30-13
From Thomas* Roberts, on Crisis in Syria: Re-Bolt On / Bring Em On [!]
(scroll click) Bay of Pit Bulls or Bay of Lip Schtick?
Wiping the Floors @ the UN[!]
* Italics reminder re:(un-bolds too)
** ibid[!]

(FP!)
(b.s.) read Make it so.

Bolt On: A. Toning Down the Lines. , B. Waiting for [Calm Cast] , C., D. Trick Question of the Day? , E.
Bring
Em On: a., b., c., {}D. Congress- - to boldly go... , E. Everything is on the Table! {Why not Hagel?}
{Will Obama declare the end of a war?/ Fix of war powers?}

*** (b.s.) 
[(NOW) SOS Kerry]{..."standing on ceremony"}, }by Ghosh{, ^ un-telegraph/playbook

Clear segue: Secretary of State Kerry begins w/ my running notation
["read", un-Rumsfeld "know", smoking "social media", ^ }pinnacle of our perdicament{, "risk"/"do nothing","matters"..."know what we know", "respect" ...  }general body/China-Russia-Arab signators/jury{ "ultimately".] close. [SOS]

Note: Quotation "marks" =Kerry comments, ^ marks= tangent to NOW,  }{ = marks/highlites my comment/{urgency of now} AM "telegraphing"

[Juxta Position? ... AM numbers?/Clemons/Congressional Bane or?(letter) }I cannot say there should not be a debate, or a vote, or that it won't matter, but it is very important how the resolution is worded and if we can imagine congress krafting it?]

Who is running from the Bush administration?

The question was recently asked. Not Cheney, not Gonzalez, not Ashcroft, certainly not Rumsfeld.

But the serious answer is everyone. Everyone is running from the Bush administration, and now one is even running from the Republican party, if I did say so myself.

OK, he has not made it official, but a former Democrat, now former Republican, certainly fits the bill as bipartisan and his money makes him independent, but none of these alone is necessarily good.

Bane(Or) Change

[11-17-11 Update Labels]
I guess my chant was heard. But it is not substantial.

There are still three ways of looking at it.
Boehner Change(noun) = debt up, government down
Boehner Change(verb) = nuanced no
Bane or Change(choice) = Reverse or Drive
Might he be bending to the mighty Dem mo'.

Then there is the False flag of divisiveness or moderation?
A pre-curse-or-Y look at narrative? Gingrich supports colonialism**, and in conjunction with Blair, confirms the narrative, the U.S. is more than* patronizing or condescending to the world. I prefer the practical, incremental and political nuances. I feel that there is a major difference in the diplomacy and strategy in the Middle East, compared to the Bush Rumsfeld Cheney unified blame 1% solution.

*[bold irony] It is difficult to balance our national security with national politics in the aim of international justice, let alone diplomacy. Congress in the name of the people must play an important part in the checks and balances as well as the separation of powers. It is a lot easier to say make it so, or make it no, than to make progress. [Segue in time.]

** emphasis "precursory" yet that is the Blair which
projection in the academic twilight*** zone.
*** Gingrich and D'Souza are scary academics
[Speaking of academic lore and narrative not to mention bait and switch.]

Not Nostradamus?

I cannot say I am Nostradamus, but I did say I was nostraBUSHus or some such words. At this time my search evades me.

Here though: I cannot say that I definitely did not hear any reference to Paul Krugman's suggestions,(I am pretty sure I didn't) but I take it a bit further. However, I do know it did not reach my inbox till yesterday*.

* truthout.org link a redundancy of Rollingstone's Paul Krugman's above(Reference being to Truth and Reconciliation. Not to mention cycle

[Update: a different moment and an alternative to forget: not*** (back to frame of reference or satire?) The point is the table. And bring it on the...]
[Translation to update and my way: I strongly suggest reading the Krugman Letter to Obama embedded in the above redundancy and no dis to these last two links, but they do reflect alternative theories to the economy and justice. But rather than "harbor a suspicion" I'll suspect not.]
[Put another way? I rather endorse a Rumsfeld** attitude of healthy debate, but with an open mind and eyes and ears, there is no point in a table if the heat of light is not brought there. Where there is smoke, there is fire, but that does not mean visibility will improve or that some of the information is not going up in smoke.]

** I won't footnote this but just explain it as his heated attitude he thought was healthy, yet predetermined.

*** seemingly the only alternative to Truth and Reconciliation or to Forgive and Forget and a very good bibliography

HINT: for those unfamiliar with my style I wish everyone to read Paul Krugman's Letter to Obama found twice at the first asterisk above , however the bottom "Link" below, takes us back to the epitome of chastened as well as my style of unweaving our Hamlet and sometimes maybe just scrolling over or CUTTING through THIS.

An Outer Truman

His Inner FDR.

The Real Deal?

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

Re: con text
[5-25-10 Say it is so, Joe!]
[And the tale of two leaks? President Obama, Please. Step on some throats! I think the administration should have some "anglers" and "philosphers". This is an obtuse reference to Cheney and Rumsfeld*, but what with the blame that the likes of Palin and Paul place on them, since we don't have "the one" in the White House, we may need a czar of rolling some heads. i.e. "get her done" or out the door types.]
* not in paticular a defense matter, but more on the Secretary of Infotainment front.

Impeach!

Karl Rove was forced to resign.*
Alberto Gonzales was forced to move on.
But force is still in the Cbeney/Bush playbook.
[I forgot one: Rumsfeld]
More important than forcing Cheney or Bush out,
is that the policies be forced to change.
Which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Can more failures be prevented without the removal of their contributors.
Can congress change the policies? Can congress prevent more mistakes?
Accountability could come later, but will the road be longer then?

Impeachment starts as an investigation. Is there not enough?
Have we had enough? Will congress allow more?
Will a movement be enough? Could any change be trusted?

* edit 6-12-14 Carl Read Karl