* * *
[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)]]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query comments. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query comments. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Monday, February 09, 2009
hmmm?
New Thinking on the Economy
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
also Beat the Press
[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)
The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.
How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.
It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]
* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.
** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)
[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]
[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]
[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]
by Dean Baker,
co-Director of the Center for Economic Policy Research (CEPR)
also Beat the Press
[This points to an interesting problem or ROR:
(see labels for explaination)
The government is not getting its money's worth when buying bad assets. Anyone who understands how the economy works and the market works should not wonder. That is how it works. That is the point of buying bad assets, whether one wonders whether it should be done or not. If someone else would buy them the same would apply. The housing bubble* is a similar mechanism within the greater mechanism that is the financial problem.
How the economy works is different than how economics works. The economy is the thing. Economics is an equation. They both need tweaking and can work the way they are designed, but will tweak someone. Unfortunately an equation in economics will work only to the extent that everything (that is needed or wanted) is included in it. The economy works regardless but almost everything is included, except they are tweaking when they do the economics. And speaking of bubbles, they leak.
It might be easier to agree what not to do, than what to do, as long as failure is an option. But failure is not an option; it is a choice. This may seem like lost words, but failure is a potential outcome. And it can no more be simply allowed**, than freedom. Maybe this is Philosophy 701, but the Washington Post is not up to Journalism 201, let alone the economy.]
* housing equals assets except for the financial blowing of the economics.
** meaning failure should be prevented, and freedom promoted(are these not good points to work on?)
[Speaking of link(and equations): the stimulating if not shaky journalism below.(nfry)]
[only glanced at but likely recommended read: and see comments and embedded Krugman. For now: They'll be back.]
[That was Shwartznegger but later Ron Reagan covers similar territory with a guest who earlier slammed the stimulus. That was in December, so it was not the current plan. Which should be called what is: ARARA for Jobs! or just the begining or what is a quick and practical start. But does have a good chart on "Bang for the Buck", which depending on the math(see comments), could make a 1 trillion dollar difference in effectiveness.] [Post comment comment: of course this is as ridiculous a hypothesis as Plato's Republic, but for the sake of dialogue, a totally bipartisan package, could be seen to have potential for zero stimulus, as dollar for dollar is not really a bang.]
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Progressive Break Fast
Campaign for America's Future.
The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):
** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.
[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs
And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?
The above link is a compendium of news, comments & hope for progress.
Meanwhile I have made a few comments w/minor corrections **,
but bring this up much as it is(was):
Does the Massachusetts vote mean that the House should pass the Senate Bill, or should they reject it?
My view is it should get a vote, up or down or side ways* meaning risking some changes, risking the filibuster. Then the Senate can up or down it, or break it up. Speaking of holding water or breaking a mirror.***
* just as Ed Shultz was unclear about the ping pong potential, this is as tricky a net in the parlaimentary procedures that would offer this option. (Reconciliation or Nuclear Option)[Adjusted snippets of original continued.] [Psst...(Rachell)Speaking of "mythical beasts"(...)at least Barney Frank got the mess-age(...){Ouch: Moment of Meek to Fine Man?} (and Governor Ed Rendell say and does go downe.)
BTW: It is Senator Reid, not House Speaker, Ed.(Take nothing from the order of these links than that I do not recall which has Ed confused on the Reid/Pelosi positions in the process but great coverage and dialogue.)
** see [*]& comment 2 there
*** the holding water bit is a play on the Hardball promo regarding Chris Matthews' style of argument, Waterloo, and his leaking all over the mirror Howard Dean holds up. But I really did not intend a restroom metaphor, and so it goes.
[Apologies for the anachronistic asterisks and shuffled links but Rachel Maddow's were not yet available and I wished to bring up a few points. Howard Fineman clarifies the fine men or Frank & Obamba not to mention the Governor in Rendell link. While the beast was the unicorn of 60 yet not meek Senator Stabinow, not to mention the Ouch of Geek Irony.]
[translation of apologies/index of links]
mirror: Matthews/Dean Hardball
beasts: Maddow/Stabinow unicorn filibuster
ouch moment: Maddow/parody of TeaDay
Fine Man: Maddow/Fineman Frank Obama
Governor: Maddow/Rendell
downe: Browne
Not to mention BTW: Ed Schultz/Huffington
Not: Schultz/Lanny Davis
Ed.:Schultz/Gibbs
And Countdown. Keith Olbermann/Gibbs et al.
Lawrence O'Donnell
Harpers/Gitmo
tasteless/Brown
Obama/promise?
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Progressive Caucus Semantics
The political calculus:
Dennis Kucinich or Obama
or
Ralph Nader or Edwards
Nader / Bloomberg?
[Update or more of a sort: see comments in bottom brackets 1-3-07]
I was originally going to spin off on the first three words, but breaking commentary and news tweaked these lines.
More later. Maybe.
But these tangents are not really so wild, they revolve around the council one takes and that [**] one gives. Kucinich "the principled" or "the calculator". Nader "the idealist" or "the realist".
Standing up or compromising.
All are more than semantics.
Thanks to Brie Walker* and Thom Hartmann.
*Sitting in for Stephanie Miller.
[**] or which
[1-3-07: a straw poll was just distributed by the Democratic Party of Washington State so I will now add LOCAL to the LABELS for this post. I was going to make a comment but unfortunately I am making progress and asked a few preemptive questions which fine-tuned my course. They will do that. Questions that is. My original thought had to do with who the poll was distributed to, but it was broadly distributed and the best comment is on that site. "Congratulations to Kucinich supporters on their great organizing efforts." Not to take anything away from this comment, but Kucinich's comments in Iowa were the kernel of my original post and its Ramble and subsequent flip-flop. But strategy aside(or maybe I just can't or will not articulate it) I may stick my neck out for Edwards. I have too many theories but I will refrain from rationalizing this as one. But my alternate perspective given the latest input, is that Senators Dodd and Biden are pretty good guys or as the latter would say, "I really like" them, but the political calculus is not just from the base.
[UPDATE: 1-7-08 "strategy aside" link added ]
Dennis Kucinich or Obama
or
Ralph Nader or Edwards
Nader / Bloomberg?
[Update or more of a sort: see comments in bottom brackets 1-3-07]
I was originally going to spin off on the first three words, but breaking commentary and news tweaked these lines.
More later. Maybe.
But these tangents are not really so wild, they revolve around the council one takes and that [**] one gives. Kucinich "the principled" or "the calculator". Nader "the idealist" or "the realist".
Standing up or compromising.
All are more than semantics.
Thanks to Brie Walker* and Thom Hartmann.
*Sitting in for Stephanie Miller.
[**] or which
[1-3-07: a straw poll was just distributed by the Democratic Party of Washington State so I will now add LOCAL to the LABELS for this post. I was going to make a comment but unfortunately I am making progress and asked a few preemptive questions which fine-tuned my course. They will do that. Questions that is. My original thought had to do with who the poll was distributed to, but it was broadly distributed and the best comment is on that site. "Congratulations to Kucinich supporters on their great organizing efforts." Not to take anything away from this comment, but Kucinich's comments in Iowa were the kernel of my original post and its Ramble and subsequent flip-flop. But strategy aside(or maybe I just can't or will not articulate it) I may stick my neck out for Edwards. I have too many theories but I will refrain from rationalizing this as one. But my alternate perspective given the latest input, is that Senators Dodd and Biden are pretty good guys or as the latter would say, "I really like" them, but the political calculus is not just from the base.
[UPDATE: 1-7-08 "strategy aside" link added ]
Friday, June 10, 2011
No Frackin' Way
Nuclear power is one thing*, but Frackin' with our water?
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
* not green(except for trickle up)
[What the frack is the connection to Newt Gingrich, well the paradox of green and being able to be a paradox period. His frackin' campaign seems to be burning the candle on both ends. But this is too complex for me to explain, except for the idea that he commits to Lean Six Sigma,*** but not to the concepts his staff thinks it will take to win. Is this a bringing it to the table moment ala the silver lining of the churned media cloud? It is bad enough that Republicans have enough money to run their lies in ads and Faux News, but they have enough to add cloud to the process.]
[Not to** mention lame stream media.]
** way
*** last frackin' link
[Post comments footnote(see my two comments): There is nothing wrong with Six Sigma as a tool, but it may be besides the point, but not aside from the point of whose hands it is in, and for what purpose it is wielded(people or profit). In fact, I believe that "Lean Six Sigma" violates "Six Sigma" principles by having a target of 25% spending reduction, which demonstrates my point on purposes and whose hands should wield it for what. Aside from the point: what the frack is the point of government?]
Friday, March 30, 2007
Social / Security / Justice
Miscellaneous Comments/Links:
Bush letting Gonzalez go, to the hill or hilt.
Ex-aide to Gonzalez speaks: motivation "mis-handled" Sampson and DeLay ya?
Brownback "Savings" Social Security and running on Bush or staying the course.
Romney Running Lists
Please note that my comments are based on incomplete reads of most of this material. The Brownback/Social Security piece I did completely read and it needs more research anyway. The Romney piece includes an MSNBC bipartisan list of candidates.
[Update- 8:45 AM: I was orginally heading for Sampson & Duh Lie Ya, but seriously...
The Romney piece includes potential for my being half "Right", but I don't know if Romney is Fristian.]
Bush letting Gonzalez go, to the hill or hilt.
Ex-aide to Gonzalez speaks: motivation "mis-handled" Sampson and DeLay ya?
Brownback "Savings" Social Security and running on Bush or staying the course.
Romney Running Lists
Please note that my comments are based on incomplete reads of most of this material. The Brownback/Social Security piece I did completely read and it needs more research anyway. The Romney piece includes an MSNBC bipartisan list of candidates.
[Update- 8:45 AM: I was orginally heading for Sampson & Duh Lie Ya, but seriously...
The Romney piece includes potential for my being half "Right", but I don't know if Romney is Fristian.]
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Legislative District Townhall Meeting
[A conversation of sorts in questions raised and answered by the participants.]
On the issue of horse trading*, I guess my point was the question: is the sacrifice worth it with a side that will not even stand behind their own word? [In particular the school funding majority issue]. It may be a pragmatic approach to differing views, but from the view of either side or the middle how should not standing behind ones principles let alone ones own horse trading get viewed? And if the public does not know what is being traded, let alone that they are not stood behind, then it may be just them that is sacrificed.
But this may be no better than the perspective of the guy who wanted to get hate and divisiveness out of politics ** but was not really clear what it had to do with the 2004 election, except that maybe he had the answer or yet at least did not say where he laid the blame.
But back to my question/comments and my segue to the guy who recommended that you as state representatives, tell the county and city level what his views are, (Sports Arenas) and while he was not connected to the facts on state dollars and getting returns on "our" money, (there will be no state money as far as you are concerned) I wished to endorse the reverse concept that you carry our concerns up the ladder rather than down, where I inquired on the SJM 8016 (impeachment) and 8003 (escalation) and as you informed us on the SJM 8012 regarding the National Guard. Thank you.
Lastly in comments on the side: the expression that the Building Industry provides 1/3 of the budget is awkward or seems to need a tweak of perspective or economics. I understand the comment but it seems divorced from the concept of who actually pays or what the budget is for. Like the transportation issue with 122 different plans or sports arenas and their several localities/municipalities and 3 levels of government funding or influence, with the BI there are a multitude of economic transactions filling needs and customers paying. They are no less interwoven, or in need to be penciled in, but bottom line, is not the cost and needs relationship revolving around the people? I think that your understanding of it and it’s complexities are much greater that you can express but I hope I have tweaked something.
* the act of trading votes or bargaining for bills
** he had his own perspective on the way it should work: somehow magical or without appreciating even his own part in the problem [my words not his]
On the issue of horse trading*, I guess my point was the question: is the sacrifice worth it with a side that will not even stand behind their own word? [In particular the school funding majority issue]. It may be a pragmatic approach to differing views, but from the view of either side or the middle how should not standing behind ones principles let alone ones own horse trading get viewed? And if the public does not know what is being traded, let alone that they are not stood behind, then it may be just them that is sacrificed.
But this may be no better than the perspective of the guy who wanted to get hate and divisiveness out of politics ** but was not really clear what it had to do with the 2004 election, except that maybe he had the answer or yet at least did not say where he laid the blame.
But back to my question/comments and my segue to the guy who recommended that you as state representatives, tell the county and city level what his views are, (Sports Arenas) and while he was not connected to the facts on state dollars and getting returns on "our" money, (there will be no state money as far as you are concerned) I wished to endorse the reverse concept that you carry our concerns up the ladder rather than down, where I inquired on the SJM 8016 (impeachment) and 8003 (escalation) and as you informed us on the SJM 8012 regarding the National Guard. Thank you.
Lastly in comments on the side: the expression that the Building Industry provides 1/3 of the budget is awkward or seems to need a tweak of perspective or economics. I understand the comment but it seems divorced from the concept of who actually pays or what the budget is for. Like the transportation issue with 122 different plans or sports arenas and their several localities/municipalities and 3 levels of government funding or influence, with the BI there are a multitude of economic transactions filling needs and customers paying. They are no less interwoven, or in need to be penciled in, but bottom line, is not the cost and needs relationship revolving around the people? I think that your understanding of it and it’s complexities are much greater that you can express but I hope I have tweaked something.
* the act of trading votes or bargaining for bills
** he had his own perspective on the way it should work: somehow magical or without appreciating even his own part in the problem [my words not his]
Friday, April 02, 2010
The Best of Intentions...
Are No Joke!
Not to pick on April Fools, but I had no intention of marking yesterday (the first.)
[Comments On Yesterday's Case Study.] [**]
[Please note that my third link (there) was inserted after the call for "All on deck"... And know(I mean, NO!) I did not start it. Maybe the Bee Gees started it... But I will reiterate a word of caution on the "punc" link, while endorsing the "irony" message. "He ain't heavy..." and in closing note that the "truthout" under "Headlines" questions the Newsweek cover claim which is worth a read, which I am still amidst.]
[I am trying to unribble[*] this. I am still amidst reading the Newsweek article embedded in the first link, and look forward to the Nation project, but reiterate caution on "Master of Puppets" head banging, but soundly endorse The Hollies, "He ain't heavy..." Also the Bee Gees was a last minute insert.]
[*] in this case unwind some meaning or links
** maybe the law of unintended consequences kept me from adding comments for the time being, on my previous post.
[On the other hand. Here is to popping*** culture.]
*** Jon Stewart takes a whack at CNN and other AprilFools, which I cannot be certain the date of and needs an "expletive deleted warning".
Not to pick on April Fools, but I had no intention of marking yesterday (the first.)
[Comments On Yesterday's Case Study.] [**]
[Please note that my third link (there) was inserted after the call for "All on deck"... And know(I mean, NO!) I did not start it. Maybe the Bee Gees started it... But I will reiterate a word of caution on the "punc" link, while endorsing the "irony" message. "He ain't heavy..." and in closing note that the "truthout" under "Headlines" questions the Newsweek cover claim which is worth a read, which I am still amidst.]
[I am trying to unribble[*] this. I am still amidst reading the Newsweek article embedded in the first link, and look forward to the Nation project, but reiterate caution on "Master of Puppets" head banging, but soundly endorse The Hollies, "He ain't heavy..." Also the Bee Gees was a last minute insert.]
[*] in this case unwind some meaning or links
** maybe the law of unintended consequences kept me from adding comments for the time being, on my previous post.
[On the other hand. Here is to popping*** culture.]
*** Jon Stewart takes a whack at CNN and other AprilFools, which I cannot be certain the date of and needs an "expletive deleted warning".
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Framing Narratives
Don't even Think of an Elephant!
The gist of this riff?
*** an example of spin: former quote actually in latter link.
(warning under "anything" (maybe)requires Facebook membership)
[Oops, see comments, and cartoon.]
Under "never mind" I have now read the latter and the former maybe later. The "mind" is a very academic place. The "never" a more pragmatic problem under the umbrella of our creators. Whether I ever get to read the "git mo" piece may be irrelevant. The point germinates from our "Try Angle" and the dilemma of transparency and the dangers of ab-solutions. (pun on absolutes) [I don't think absolute freedom of information is possible, let alone pragmatic. But the emphasis it on "absolute", as well as a careful reading of our architectural documents, which I believe lay the organic groundwork for progress, as opposed to Jeramiahs(^). Critics of the president must realize that he is responsible whether Congress frames the right tools or the Global Village (let alone Supreme Court) goes along. Yet I am still digesting James Fallows take here, where ultimately it is our choice to choose forward or Re-verse. C- Elephant (3)]
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Con Text
in Context of the last 4 posts.
You are not alone... *[1]
Pre-Press Conference Post[2]
Failure is always(mid press conference comment)[3]
Post Conference Press Comment.[4]
[5-28-10 i.e. We are not alone in thinking... Update.][5]
[It cracked my up that I missed this pun [** "weeded out"]but I must "tend to my garden" or at least my more immediate material world.]
[Update Under Construction]
Friday 10-28-10 links and edit freak out
Please note that I have tried to be consistent and not edited down the road without indicating such. So I should make this log for the record as I can recall it now.
[KEY] [#'s 1 thru 5 #'s added, missing asterisk possibly(yes) in the link, with Bold for emphasis or highlight]
1 two comments and **know better(I-1098) and two labels
2 Matthews untouched
3 referenced in 5 lame?
4 same same? (untuouched, lame)
5 [update, see 1 (two comments), reining (Wall Street), asterisk (*)Press Conference(bathyspheric), bold link of day "fixing the economic bubble", local context (information)I-1098]
I think that should suffice as a roadmap to my own legend. Except for labels and caricatures.
You are not alone... *[1]
Pre-Press Conference Post[2]
Failure is always(mid press conference comment)[3]
Post Conference Press Comment.[4]
[5-28-10 i.e. We are not alone in thinking... Update.][5]
[It cracked my up that I missed this pun [** "weeded out"]but I must "tend to my garden" or at least my more immediate material world.]
[Update Under Construction]
Friday 10-28-10 links and edit freak out
Please note that I have tried to be consistent and not edited down the road without indicating such. So I should make this log for the record as I can recall it now.
[KEY] [#'s 1 thru 5 #'s added, missing asterisk possibly(yes) in the link, with Bold for emphasis or highlight]
1 two comments and **know better(I-1098) and two labels
2 Matthews untouched
3 referenced in 5 lame?
4 same same? (untuouched, lame)
5 [update, see 1 (two comments), reining (Wall Street), asterisk (*)Press Conference(bathyspheric), bold link of day "fixing the economic bubble", local context (information)I-1098]
I think that should suffice as a roadmap to my own legend. Except for labels and caricatures.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Vietnam Flip-Flop
It is bad enough that Bush has not used the original lessons he learned about Vietnam, but now has rewritten them.
Bush's selective lessons of Vietnam. Guardian Unlimited
Even worse is any comparison to Korea. Has anyone heard of "Exit Strategy"?
There is so much to google on this, but I will risk it and list the commonly heard three lessons. 1. a defined mission 2. overwhelming force 3. having an exit strategy. So now Bush not only wants to teach US how to win Vietnam, but apparently will fix [or work on] Korea? What next, China or Saudi Arabia? [politically]
(Having consulted an expert, some doubt is cast on these lessons and any parallel, but then to him, having an exit strategy was to win the war, and in Korea [it still is to] sign a peace treaty. So I guess Bush may be working on Korea and China. [economically] I don't know if that is good news or bad news, but there may be no parallel to either or Saudi Arabia. [Note: italics bracketed provide clarity from this consultation.])
Later Reading: (no comments)
Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal
Bush told he has drawn wrong lesson
Lesson of the Vietnam War
Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam
Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq
"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
[8:46 AM Out of all these links, I have read only a few pages into the last one*. In it, Kissinger himself gives a nuanced lesson which flip flops a bit in passing credit and blame. A few comments came to mind which I hope to revisit, but one note that it "prevented Indonesia from falling to the Communism and probably preserved American presence in Asia." Oh the irony, that Indonesia is now a leading Muslim nation and there is possibly more to parallel or learn.]
* [ 9:06 Further note that the piece was only a few pages.]
Bush's selective lessons of Vietnam. Guardian Unlimited
Even worse is any comparison to Korea. Has anyone heard of "Exit Strategy"?
There is so much to google on this, but I will risk it and list the commonly heard three lessons. 1. a defined mission 2. overwhelming force 3. having an exit strategy. So now Bush not only wants to teach US how to win Vietnam, but apparently will fix [or work on] Korea? What next, China or Saudi Arabia? [politically]
(Having consulted an expert, some doubt is cast on these lessons and any parallel, but then to him, having an exit strategy was to win the war, and in Korea [it still is to] sign a peace treaty. So I guess Bush may be working on Korea and China. [economically] I don't know if that is good news or bad news, but there may be no parallel to either or Saudi Arabia. [Note: italics bracketed provide clarity from this consultation.])
Later Reading: (no comments)
Bush draws Vietnam parallel in warning over Iraq withdrawal
Bush told he has drawn wrong lesson
Lesson of the Vietnam War
Iraq: Learning the Lessons of Vietnam
Historians Question Bush's Reading of Lessons of Vietnam War for Iraq
"Lessons of Vietnam" by Secretary of State Henry Kissinger,
[8:46 AM Out of all these links, I have read only a few pages into the last one*. In it, Kissinger himself gives a nuanced lesson which flip flops a bit in passing credit and blame. A few comments came to mind which I hope to revisit, but one note that it "prevented Indonesia from falling to the Communism and probably preserved American presence in Asia." Oh the irony, that Indonesia is now a leading Muslim nation and there is possibly more to parallel or learn.]
* [ 9:06 Further note that the piece was only a few pages.]
Monday, December 12, 2011
Flow of Conscience
Not Exactly Either,
nor Out of the Box.
Speaking of Supply and Demand
or trickle down and bubble up.
No Dead C Scroll over, nor out.
Just a hint that things are not black and white,
nor up without down, let alone level or limited.
The original trigger was a conversation at a holiday party,
which I wished to amend here,
while John Dean and William James[***] were part of the head water or ledership.
[Speaking of flow, and roots or branches.]
[See Three Comments]
[Seg Way: E pit o'me[!]
/ I will now slightly edit a bit of above,
without adding any links as after thoughts unless noted.(see italics)]
[For the scroll-over challenged*, I will list the links in order...
(under construction I through XIX)
I Sciousness, wiki.
II Pandora, wiki.
III Theodicy, wiki.
IV Supply, blog search
V Demand, ibid.
VI slippery slope, ibid.
VII Power Broker, ibid.
VIII scroll, ibid.
IX ibid.,ibid[?]
X "Conservatives without Conscience"
XI "The Liberal Conscience"
XII Try-Unism
XIII google find "liberal conscience Dean"/Howard
XIV ibid. /Baker
XV "X & Y Chromo Somes", my blog
XVI "Image of Original In Tent", ibid.
XVII December 2011 archives, ibid.
XVIII "A PEAS Meant", ibid.
XIX "Post Script", ibid.
SEGUE:
Seg Elizabeth Warren replies to Karl Rove
Way Her way (video).
Epitome
[!] Sat Ire
A bit frayed at the edges.
*or to save you a trip
[See Comments up to the sixth, then I was Roving my web pages and found this. Speaking of Prophetic Tributes. Innocence bUy...to the good fight.]
[Speaking of frayed.**]
** see Seg Way source LA Times.
[***] 12-13-11 Correction to James(not Blake)
nor Out of the Box.
Speaking of Supply and Demand
or trickle down and bubble up.
No Dead C Scroll over, nor out.
Just a hint that things are not black and white,
nor up without down, let alone level or limited.
The original trigger was a conversation at a holiday party,
which I wished to amend here,
while John Dean and William James[***] were part of the head water or ledership.
[Speaking of flow, and roots or branches.]
[See Three Comments]
[Seg Way: E pit o'me[!]
/ I will now slightly edit a bit of above,
without adding any links as after thoughts unless noted.(see italics)]
[For the scroll-over challenged*, I will list the links in order...
(under construction I through XIX)
I Sciousness, wiki.
II Pandora, wiki.
III Theodicy, wiki.
IV Supply, blog search
V Demand, ibid.
VI slippery slope, ibid.
VII Power Broker, ibid.
VIII scroll, ibid.
IX ibid.,ibid[?]
X "Conservatives without Conscience"
XI "The Liberal Conscience"
XII Try-Unism
XIII google find "liberal conscience Dean"/Howard
XIV ibid. /Baker
XV "X & Y Chromo Somes", my blog
XVI "Image of Original In Tent", ibid.
XVII December 2011 archives, ibid.
XVIII "A PEAS Meant", ibid.
XIX "Post Script", ibid.
SEGUE:
Seg Elizabeth Warren replies to Karl Rove
Way Her way (video).
Epitome
[!] Sat Ire
A bit frayed at the edges.
*or to save you a trip
[See Comments up to the sixth, then I was Roving my web pages and found this. Speaking of Prophetic Tributes. Innocence bUy...to the good fight.]
[Speaking of frayed.**]
** see Seg Way source LA Times.
[***] 12-13-11 Correction to James(not Blake)
Monday, December 04, 2006
Running List '08
[2-16-07: links added Richardson,]
[2-11-07: Coarse Filtering]- Richardson
Kucinich
ObamaClark
Edwards
Clinton
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
(note: I will let the above typos speak for themselves as a filtering of sorts)
- - -
[original listing]Edwards
Clark **
Kucinich
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden {2-1-07}
[2-1-07]
This is only an order based on my obtuse criteria:
Kucinich
Richardson
Obama
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
[added 1-18-07] I will footnote at the bottom but re-arrange the above evolving list, comment will appear in dated order below. Not that my feelings count and I have not investigated all these candidate yet but they are my current priority.
The "running list" will reflect consideration sometime of only one issue in prioritizing them, but they are probably all good. One issue alone could also put things in reverse order, for all I know Vilsack could be best. This is only an explanatory preface, hopefully not an attempt to cover myself. ***
[Original entry]
Vilsack
[added: 1-16-07 ]
Kucinich
Exploratory Committee:
Obama
[added: 1-17-07 ]
Edwards
These are in no particular order, I will comment on that later, but at this time Obama is in his exploratory phase. In the previous election I sent my first email with comments to the Kucinich camp, and continued to forward and Cc: each candidate till I arrived at my choice. Then I reviewed the candidates at Backbone Campaign * to rethink things . My choice was Howard Dean. Well it makes me want to scream as we know how that ended, but now we can scream because we know where we are, and Dean is the head of the DNC. I did not really plan to post this much now, but we have much more of a road to hoe, and I really don't want to jump on a bandwagon, and would really like a 20-mule team of great candidates so that we can sort things out even more, so that we don't have more wars and a president who is finally ready to feign dialogue while demanding a plan from the opposition. This is not a call for a plan or opposition, but to look at what each says and does. I did not really plan to go on this riff either, but just tossing things in the air, Edwards is a candidate I had enthusiasm for based on past considerations. But I look forward to processing all of these great candidates who are so good, I almost refrained from comment so far...
[added 1-18-07] Dodd a candidate long overdue, but too long?
Republicans ? **** and wannabes?
* [added 1-18-07] I will keep this * at the bottom as it will footnote here that this link does not have the presidential candidates yet, or needs to be changed.
** Obama will be left off until he declares, here Clark is inserted for Hope sake. For history sake I note the original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd
*** I will not alter footnotes, comments will be inserted just above these footnotes, link below and others will be improved with time.
**** MoveOn.Org in this link is labeled a liberal group. I do not consider that it's draw, but was the forefront of pragmatism and progress that heralded the likes of Howard Dean.
[2-11-07: Coarse Filtering]- Richardson
Kucinich
ObamaClark
Edwards
Clinton
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
(note: I will let the above typos speak for themselves as a filtering of sorts)
- - -
[original listing]Edwards
Clark **
Kucinich
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden {2-1-07}
[2-1-07]
This is only an order based on my obtuse criteria:
Kucinich
Richardson
Obama
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
[added 1-18-07] I will footnote at the bottom but re-arrange the above evolving list, comment will appear in dated order below. Not that my feelings count and I have not investigated all these candidate yet but they are my current priority.
The "running list" will reflect consideration sometime of only one issue in prioritizing them, but they are probably all good. One issue alone could also put things in reverse order, for all I know Vilsack could be best. This is only an explanatory preface, hopefully not an attempt to cover myself. ***
[Original entry]
Vilsack
[added: 1-16-07 ]
Kucinich
Exploratory Committee:
Obama
[added: 1-17-07 ]
Edwards
These are in no particular order, I will comment on that later, but at this time Obama is in his exploratory phase. In the previous election I sent my first email with comments to the Kucinich camp, and continued to forward and Cc: each candidate till I arrived at my choice. Then I reviewed the candidates at Backbone Campaign * to rethink things . My choice was Howard Dean. Well it makes me want to scream as we know how that ended, but now we can scream because we know where we are, and Dean is the head of the DNC. I did not really plan to post this much now, but we have much more of a road to hoe, and I really don't want to jump on a bandwagon, and would really like a 20-mule team of great candidates so that we can sort things out even more, so that we don't have more wars and a president who is finally ready to feign dialogue while demanding a plan from the opposition. This is not a call for a plan or opposition, but to look at what each says and does. I did not really plan to go on this riff either, but just tossing things in the air, Edwards is a candidate I had enthusiasm for based on past considerations. But I look forward to processing all of these great candidates who are so good, I almost refrained from comment so far...
[added 1-18-07] Dodd a candidate long overdue, but too long?
Republicans ? **** and wannabes?
* [added 1-18-07] I will keep this * at the bottom as it will footnote here that this link does not have the presidential candidates yet, or needs to be changed.
** Obama will be left off until he declares, here Clark is inserted for Hope sake. For history sake I note the original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd
*** I will not alter footnotes, comments will be inserted just above these footnotes, link below and others will be improved with time.
**** MoveOn.Org in this link is labeled a liberal group. I do not consider that it's draw, but was the forefront of pragmatism and progress that heralded the likes of Howard Dean.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Recent Efforts.
FORCED STAND UP!
Strategy of MoveOn
[12-08-05]Eighty per cent of Iraqi's want us out, 45 % believe that harming troops is warranted. If the troops are not there to be targets, they (insurgents or what ever you call them) will only have Iraqis or others to kill, which will certainly undermine the strategy that we are only reacting to and only increase the responsibility of Iraqis to stand up and make their own choices.
NO DISCOURSE MEANS WRONG COURSE!
TELL JOE
[12-08-05] I can only imagine that you are actually calling for us to speak out and so you will see the light of true patriots and then have the courage to do your job. It is your right to support what you see fit, but to call for following blindly in any time is a great disservice to the country and it's people especially to those who are supposed to be fighting overseas for democracy.
[Headings were not included with in the above comments sent with the petitions.]
TODAY'S RHETORICAL QUESTION: Will Lieberman play the role of a third party spoiler or be a party splitter?
Of course that would be the Republicans that should be spoiled or split. Not that I am suggesting this, for we would still have to worry about being spoiled or split. But my point of discourse above would mean that it is preferrable to "staying the course"/the wrong course.
Is there anything worse than a rhetorical question?
Answering it?
[Please note: hopefully compared to my usual comments this is seen as derived from some current wild speculation and taken a little further, not in hopes that it will come to pass.]
Strategy of MoveOn
[12-08-05]Eighty per cent of Iraqi's want us out, 45 % believe that harming troops is warranted. If the troops are not there to be targets, they (insurgents or what ever you call them) will only have Iraqis or others to kill, which will certainly undermine the strategy that we are only reacting to and only increase the responsibility of Iraqis to stand up and make their own choices.
NO DISCOURSE MEANS WRONG COURSE!
TELL JOE
[12-08-05] I can only imagine that you are actually calling for us to speak out and so you will see the light of true patriots and then have the courage to do your job. It is your right to support what you see fit, but to call for following blindly in any time is a great disservice to the country and it's people especially to those who are supposed to be fighting overseas for democracy.
[Headings were not included with in the above comments sent with the petitions.]
TODAY'S RHETORICAL QUESTION: Will Lieberman play the role of a third party spoiler or be a party splitter?
Of course that would be the Republicans that should be spoiled or split. Not that I am suggesting this, for we would still have to worry about being spoiled or split. But my point of discourse above would mean that it is preferrable to "staying the course"/the wrong course.
Is there anything worse than a rhetorical question?
Answering it?
[Please note: hopefully compared to my usual comments this is seen as derived from some current wild speculation and taken a little further, not in hopes that it will come to pass.]
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Live From New York: Saturday Night Live
[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.
Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.
Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.
The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.
Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.
Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.
Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.
The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.
Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?
Thursday, March 04, 2004
DEMOCRACY IN A REPUBLIC IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.
Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.
A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.
But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?
If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]
Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.
Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.
A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.
But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?
If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]
Thursday, September 19, 2002
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
[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
Also a version here.
[*] Update link 1-18-10
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
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Clog Alert!
Not to Ribble, but regarding two points here:
The tenor of Bane Or.
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)
A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.
Further parse N later ... [^]
^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ? w h ?
[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat" RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn? i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*
^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *
The tenor of Bane Or.
Rather than footnote, I will say Ctrl F "anachronism..." and scroll over "speaking of speakers"
Note to Editor(i.e. me): review dating 4mat. Chuck Todd, Today Show (R)
A. Norman Goldman comments on Boner.(I say Bane Or...)
B. The political parsing of wills and divided government, not to joke about punchlines or politicians and lawyers or bitter pills.
Further parse N later ... [^]
^ not [exactly]
Review Saved in^^ Draft and Tangents.
^^ 12-31-12 [!] ? w h ?
[C-The Cyle: "Stuck on Repeat" RE/A+B "Amen Gov" (...) or E-Moat-Iconn? i.e. "Boehner in a Bind?" /// F B D (S.E. Drift)^^^ or working with hope? and case studies!(patton lee adsurd?)/(Re:N-dell) (M.C.Time**) Not my comity of journalism]*
^^^ live drafting
*[1-4-13 e-N-f / Re:Turn to C? i.e. inserting links now.(& later*)
** must review re:hope? & *
Friday, January 11, 2008
Not Running With It?
On two recent events, I did not bite, but I was going to take the bits in my mouth and run with them. The Iranian Swift Boat attack in the strait’s of Hormuz
and [Bush in the Middle East]
On the former I would have commented on the several statements of wonder from administration sort of "What the heck are they thinking or saying or meaning?" But in reality Defense Secretary Gates: "I can't imagine what was on their minds." There were other comments of wonder, but now we should wonder on whose minds the wonder lies.
On the latter it was hopes of success, but you know . . .
[Post-dated: 1-17-08 www.back-to-iraq.com 1-7-08
The Confrontation That Wasn't. 1-8-08]
and [Bush in the Middle East]
On the former I would have commented on the several statements of wonder from administration sort of "What the heck are they thinking or saying or meaning?" But in reality Defense Secretary Gates: "I can't imagine what was on their minds." There were other comments of wonder, but now we should wonder on whose minds the wonder lies.
On the latter it was hopes of success, but you know . . .
[Post-dated: 1-17-08 www.back-to-iraq.com 1-7-08
The Confrontation That Wasn't. 1-8-08]
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Caution: Expletive...
Journalism: Doesn't add up.
Maybe the Exit Strategy does not add up, but I mean that it may have been McChrystal's and Obama's as far as an Afghan Exit Strategy.
UPDATE TO THE SIDEBAR:
Obama = Getter R Done
Understanding the Obama Doctrine*
Counter Evolutionary (R,R,R)
Open Source Intelligence
Navigation: Ctrl F[**]
[Bold links are the side bar links, the unbold are unembedded links, comments or labels. These include: Rachel Maddow on Obama's Successes, Brzezinski on Morning Joe, Social Security Works on the Deficit Commission, Stockman on Taxing, and Navigation* Search.]
* yet to label and add MSNBC: The Ed Show, Olbermann and Ratigan/Matthews
[**] Huzzah!
Maybe the Exit Strategy does not add up, but I mean that it may have been McChrystal's and Obama's as far as an Afghan Exit Strategy.
UPDATE TO THE SIDEBAR:
Obama = Getter R Done
Understanding the Obama Doctrine*
Counter Evolutionary (R,R,R)
Open Source Intelligence
Navigation: Ctrl F[**]
[Bold links are the side bar links, the unbold are unembedded links, comments or labels. These include: Rachel Maddow on Obama's Successes, Brzezinski on Morning Joe, Social Security Works on the Deficit Commission, Stockman on Taxing, and Navigation* Search.]
* yet to label and add MSNBC: The Ed Show, Olbermann and Ratigan/Matthews
[**] Huzzah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)