Echoes of Past Presidents and Wars.

As congress has made Bush the decider with the Military Commission Act, now he has a plan to get out of Iraq, so says a Senator, he just cannot tell anyone.

Any similarity to Vietnam is just a coincidence and in the wrong order. Coverup led to war, leads to new laws, leads to plan to get out, to win an election.

October surprise? Not this time.

But the sharpest tool in the shed?
Trying to compare it to the Korean War which defined the Cold War which we won.
Let's see the Korean war was a win because we won the Cold War but now North Korea has nuclear capabilities, and so does Pakistan and how many other's during the Cold War? Just what will be the questions when we win "in a new and 'different kind of war, an insurgent war' against Islamic fascists."?

The question now should be an echo of an earlier Bush on security and the economy.
"Are we better off now than we were 6 years ago"? OK, I tweaked it a bit.

Philosophical Spin

And the Prospects* for Metaphor?
I am a bit ahead of the curve here, but regarding the discovery of a new planet that does not spin, and therefor has a hot side and a cold side, i.e. a black and white world. But I wish to note the third party implications and the double Goldilocks effect. It is not only where the planet is located but where on the planet life could originate, without the effects of change[**] that is global.
*Originally intended link not available yet.
[**]after all could life really happen in a no spin zone?

By Polar

wise crackers re:cycled?

Re:dimentionalism and polls*, beyond them and us. 
I will take the brunt of the crackers crack, and crumble the pun on the wise words of Simon or who says... what?

Post Bracket Eds(below): Somewhere there has been a leak of a congressional sense that more needs to done in Syria.  Are the wrest** leaning back as the west stands ground?  

*Not to trans\pose Ed and Aye. Formerly(ed. note) =columns.
(FP2)[on the tick tock ? (kn-0t)]
[Closing Bracket Eds?]
** con-volution of lean and means: Re. cheer leaders (stand up/stair down)

9-11-13 Pre-Post Or Us. (I/eye) The Byrd is the Word ! (the tick tock) or teddy?
Harmony and Irony? Duh Bares ? [!]
[The Last Word yesterday in regards to Polar Culture. My original intent was in regards to columns of cracks; mine and others, but also the polarities of the process that brings progress.  Not to mention a crack @ the cold war. Related anachronistic theory: Good Cop/Bad Cop?(Congress/Obama), (Russian Foreign Minister/Putin) or by/bye? Let alone Re:Cycle(today). (The Fog of War and Tactical Voices.) ]

"Timing is everything."

[Rough draft: ]
A phrase I recently Googled.
And today noted.

1. a. Curve Balls?, e. Connecting the Dots, l. PC [^]
2., 3.,
4. (b.s.) "perpendicular": a. Anachronism, b. Heuristic Concurrence and ...

[continued 9-22-14: To whom it may regard...]
Hot, cold, wet, dry.  Father Quido Nye[!]
Up s. c.[!] d'acronible candle schtick.

Nye: A. B.
Quido: A.  Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?) , B.
Facebook Town Hall (amended) , C., D., E.  2 Reid's later? , F. Missing M-bed , G. Wise Crack , H.  REFRAIN is a Heckuva Paradocs[!] , I.  A Funny Thing Happened... , J. Dog Days, Raven Nights?, K. Darned if you do, darned if you don't..., L. Frank Knight , M. The Challenge? , N. Off Track Betting , O. "Can't Get There From Here" , P. McCain camp sexist. , Q. Stranger than Science (Fiction) [?]
Father: A., B. Rat Races Van Mices?, C. Pink Floyd,

The Ge Oh Metrics? 

The thing about timing(TIME) is that there is more than one perspective on its definition. Not to be ironically reflective by taking time from timing, but that may cover an aspect of it.  Maybe scratch or reboot this.  The forth(`) dimention(^) is the stick.  Not to men shun the Three Amigoes.

Re: 4th Dimention

(^) Arthur Young(sic)
(`) my psych [?]

[This has become a rather hard draft but(~) speaking of timing (dot,dot,dot)?]
(~) A., B., C. D., E., F. (buh dump ump  : d. Para-model) Now that is Gravy~ Toss~ [!] ~OW[!]
~  \\  BLANK NETWORK, ~ [<\\>]  a.,b., c.Wittgenstein
Gray V~: a., b. Re-Mix, c.Anachronism, d.Loose Threads, e., f. Divide to conquer?, g. 13 and a half men?  h. A Plea to Congress
[!] OW almost litter ally! Actually I just flipped open the hard copy and landed on the strip.

Nobel Prize for Al Gore and UN Panel

Speaking of Global Warming:
Those on the right must be pretty hot.
Alternating with frequent cold receptions.

[10-14-07: Do we need a boogey man?
aka the Fear of Science * ...
or each other...
to unite us?
]

* (mp3 discussion on KUOW Weekday)

"mathematically ridiculous"

Reagan advisor Bruce Bartlett, has some economic advice for the country and should sink** the Tea-tanic* Republicans.

* first heard by Jim Hightower, but may have been borrowed from Michael Moore.

** [9-17-11] no pun pre-empted

[9-17-11 Support for the Jobs Plan ]
[9-17-11 "cold blooded" update: it was about the mechanical faith that Rick Perry upholds a flawed death penalty that triggered the adjective, but then there is his fudging of science and big gov'ment for big business in the prisons for profit (Ice Tea) industry.]

A Cold Culture War!

In a major shift of my swiftsuring*, or diploma sea,

I second guess my tact in regards to the Ukraine.  

4CrimeanY**outloud, we are all John Galt, but when are we John Donne?


1. A. Two issues:, B. PC / Hypocrisy Round Table
2.  A. Recent Letters., B. Red Labeling!, C. Swift Reading!, D. No Drama, E.
3. A. National Tea Party , B. Obama, a liberal cause?
4. Obama to Russia: 'There Will Be Costs' for Ukraine Intervention
5. A. Where in the world is Carmen...
6. No man is an island.

Related Wa Po
Note: italics reflect an edit. (How many are not a poem?)

3-2-14
* a particular hull
** 4CrimeanKnee Out Loud?

3-3-14
Rough
analogy .  (update:First Thoughts /NBC)
The Guardian / CNN : Tanking them for their word (!)  Check Todd(Or the last two speakers.)
On the other hand.  I don't want to characterize actions as more than just security*** in the face of diplomacy.
*** rhetorical transitions ? !  (?)

Cold Blooded

Big Gov'ment Guy or Perry Tale 2 point - Oh.

[Segue: Ice Tea or the Tea-tanic?]

Neo-Context

SUGGESTED READING:

The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, by Samuel P. Huntington. The most important foreign policy paradigm since the cold war model. In a few words, To be or not to be the west versus the rest.

Democracy's Discontent: America In Search Of A Public Philosophy, by Michael J. Sandel. A look at the flaw in liberal traditions, or on being "a uniter not a divider". A discussion of the history of our "rights" while noting an obligation of solidarity. i.e. Some of "us" must be united against "them".

These are two books which I read several months ago and likely noted in earlier posts. My comments here may be seen as the shortest of summaries as well as a helpful reference to the theme of most of this blog. If we have a clash of civilizations, it should not mean war but a competition of civilizations, and if we have an obligation of solidarity, should it not be to the planet and humanity?

The link below which I only scanned seems to come to the same conclusion as I, that the latter book, is based on a "fallacy of the false dilemma". It nonetheless provides “an extremely valuable history of the political thought of America’s intellectual elites from the Founding to the present“. And I might needlessly add, both sides have them.

Bush Is No Reagan.

The Club For Growth will be showing Reagan at the Berlin Wall and Bush at Ground Zero. Though I would not give too much credit for the Berlin Wall falling to Reagan, some do. But comparing the two should imply that Bush gets some credit for the World Trade Center twin towers falling. Whatever credit is deserved, one represents the end of the cold war, the other the beginning of the terror war. Just how can there be a good comparison? One is the end of something that was already in trouble. The other is the beginning of trouble that sees no end. They are similar in that they selectively choose a perspective. One could see the coming fall of the Soviet Empire, the other could not see that failures or successes are not options but results.

[NOTE: TWO PIECES IN THIS POST]

Revised Sent to Eastside Journal Dec. 7th.
IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS

A letter to the editor by Wilbur Mann, Dec. 3rd, "Electoral System Works" typically misinterpreted Donald Kaul's (EJ Nov. 24th) piece, "Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts". Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology, resulting in those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this impacts our governmental process. Third party spoilers end up muting voices rather than give them representation.

While Kaul lamented the failures of both the voices and the system in its last two cycles, the letter actually supported the piece by Kaul. It suggested "The electors themselves can be eliminated: they don't even appear on the ballot anymore, and there is nothing to stop them from changing their votes once elected. But let's keep the process." Contradictions aside, this seems to support a system without a voice.

Oddly I concur that we keep the process, but giving the electors a voice is one of the points in its favor. Mann would seem to concur with the Supreme Court, where it similarly had so many contradictions it could not set precedence, yet managed to eliminate some voices (Florida’s voters, legislature, judiciary, and electors).

The frequent disdain for moderate "politicians" who might be using their own judgment or will compromise for the sake of progress over ideology, leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or rather between partisanship and politics (neither of which need vilification) squashing the voices of reason.


Sent to Dori Monson and Dave Ross on KIRO 710 radio.
[December 6th, 2002]

Dear Dori: (Copy to Dave)
To be honest, I must say that I am coming to deeply despise your inflammatory choice of words. In particular your reference to the "no Iraq war" crowd as the "hate America crowd" with "their heads in the sand". First I feel that if one hates America one could simply leave as they used to say and not take the risks of speaking out, but in reality it is those that would shut them up that have other options than to remain in America. Since there is the element of choice here don’t accuse me of actually suggesting this. I simply mean that if one hated America they have the choice of leaving, but those who love their country still have the choice of both speaking out as well as breaking laws and going to jail as a point of principle. What a great country!

As far as having heads in the sand, no matter how many terrible points that you feel are being ignored, they do not make up for others like you having their head in the sand in other directions. Some tout responsibility, but want to forget the past. Indeed I agree with a kernel of what you say, where any regime that chooses to ignore international law should be changed. Did you know that the Bush administration has made that choice a policy? Well I won’t provide the details since if your head is not in the sand you should know them, nor do I want to play a lawyer since they get no more respect than laws or legislators.

It’s hard to rap this up with something more inflammatory when I’ve already made my points. However, since you said conditionally that relief from such evil was not necessarily the goal of the administration. But would just be somewhat of an "accidental" outcome of war with Iraq. I must say that it may be a long time before your head will be safe in the sand again. Bush said recently, "You cannot wage war defensively." I say, you cannot wage peace offensively. Nor, as a guest on Dave Ross’ show before yours said, by demonizing others. That would sure leave some talk shows cold. In fact the guest would gladly go to jail to get the "principles" of the administration out of the sand and into a court of law.