...what about the damage to your Presidency?

Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq

Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".

Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.

Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.

On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:

Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.

I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.

He said, She said?

Enhanced Interrorgations?
Goldberg and Hannity have some interesting points aside*.
Meaning they seem to have presented an argument for prosecutions for lying to the American People, not to mention looking back.
"...all of them were given very specific details that enhanced interrogation would be used..."
To be fair and balanced, I doubt he would apply the same standards to himself or the past. I do think prosecution is the thing, only the forum is the question.

* meaning the sorts the thing

[First let me say that my sorting above might hinge on the charge of "political expediency". That is what former CIA Director Porter Goss accused Speaker Pelosi of employing, if not amnesia. But really I think it could be more a matter of not being able to be direct about who was told what by whom when and when was it authorized** to implement or leak. OK, enough parsing or passing the buck game, but the new game in town is also "political expediency" with the move of Sen. Arlen Specter announcing his switch and plan to run in the Democratic primary to finish out his legecy.
** temp link here of my own expediency]

Major Deal of Minor Gotchas

A matter of direction and degree.[a matter of reading and trust]

Not to mention media. My QCON (Quick Comment On the News) relates to the matter of how campaigns can spin and while it seems tit-for-tat or pass the buck to staff, sometimes there are reasons that matter. It is clear that while Burner does not have the degree in Economics, it is not clear*that she did not say anything other than a "degree in it". (Note my QCON has no Capital T for "the", and she may never have used a capital E in Econ.) Now this may just seem like a funny aside but recall I have noted a bearing on the difference in humor for them and us**.

But just the facts ma'am, Reichert's bio has now been corrected to reflect the AA rather than the BA which nonetheless would have been acquired in two years from '68 to '70, while it has been clarified that Darcy Burner does have a four year degree (meaning a BA) described as "a computer science degree from Harvard with a "special field," or emphasis, in economics."

Now is this much ado about nothing? Well it is ironic that the Sheriff was exaggerating what would seemingly have distanced himself from Joe the Plumber, while Darcy Burner was trying not to emphasize the degree of complication in her background. In reality she is the one with the business experience while he the life in government.

A Democrat of similar mind to whomever comes up with this mud, could wonder if there is not some exaggeration of the Sheriff's honorable record. I however will be honest and say that I have not verified a lot of it. Like his 20 year quest for the Green River Killer, while only being sheriff 8 of his over 30 years in law enforcement. I won't cast doubt on that record, but really is it something to brag about, that it took 20 years that is? It is at least stick-to-it-iveness, but nevertheless, still not the mud that matters.

[Bottom line: like punchline? NOT! But to serve the people. They both have records that can be admired but is there any irony in this matter of degree? It is a matter for forensics that it has taken so long for one and the other so little to go so far. It would seem that it is not debatable that the devil is in the details and how they are handled matters. While these seem minor details, they should be a clue to success.***]

*a frequent refrain from the likes of McCain/Palin when their reading material is lagging or their sources are unfound(ed).
** not necessarily in those exact words
*** Instead of apologies forthcoming, the Republicans still lie, see bottom link.

Clause Wits (3.0)?

Politics is...
Economics is...
Hume or is...*

There should be no doubt that this is the most transparent administration...

Not that I enjoin...**
Nor dot dot dot  [!]. ^

*not to jest
^ow = mo ot (or 3rd ot [?])

g? Clause Wits (3.0)?
A. Neo-Romulan or Anti-Uncle?
B. Speculative Physics
C.
D?  Pre-Pan FRY.
E. Clause Wits
f. Battle of Amendments?

Hint: [ ? ] Caution: links R anachronistic of sorts. (c*^)
** 3-26-14 finally read: NOW NFRY, nfry 2.oh?
[RealPerspectivism / On the wall verses on the table.]

Hard to Believe

... Stephen Colbert will testify before congress "in character". But then politicians are always in character, whether they have any or not.** At first my doubt was cast on the source of the claim, but given the nature of events and recent dialogues, it just might work.[*]

[Speaking of working and character, not just being "in character"...this is the other hand. See update.]

[*] just to be clear for the "romantic"*** class(read idealist/radicals): I am saying that for some the Colbert character may get a message across, but for America it is results for which President Obama is working. The "Hard to believe"'s aside.
[**] lame yet balanced segue/pun
[***] or Pawns-or-Kings who think they know better/in disguise(mostly on the Right)

Two reed or not too read...

doubt is the question? [!]

Mocumentary: Expelled (Exposed?)

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

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

An unwilling participant!
And a Willing participant?

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

[Now I will add my only little discourse:

Fear Based Blame Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.]

StandUp

This is a wisecrack.
[Actually I did not have the link in mind when I started this post, but unlike many I insert, I have read it completely. I had also previously been wondering why Paul Krugman does not have more influence. I think it is because he does not talk down to his readers, and if he does, the rest of his message is not understood. Not to continue some word play on the letter T, but timing is sometimes everything. Well, nothing is ever everything, but it is always a part of change and existence. So in this case, I suggest that another Key is Obama. Just like the Laugher Curve and one could say that it is more about location, (No Real Estate Pun), please read the above Paul Krugman column with timing, and location in mind. So...sides aside(Keynesian** is not Kenyan) keep in mind that change depends on both timing and location, not to mention that* in other areas***.

* time, location and changes(and our global relationships)
** not to vouch for wisegeek(or ads by google: i.e. Mises, or the Austrian School) let alone wikipedia [And not to emphasize government involvement, but more than just monetary and fiscal involvement.]
*** Field Theory
[Not to be a non-profit prophet, but what about the lameduck congress? And not just to pun, but what is the political calculus of the many bills pending from the House and chance for reconciliation.]
[And speaking of timing, Ed Schultz is not live, but he began his show saying you cannot build a party from the middle. Now by dropping his name I hope you have not tuned out, but I don't mean to agree with everything he says. He was saying this to both parties, or at least to me he was. Maybe he was saying it more to the Democrats, but it should be clear that whatever the Tea Party is, I doubt it is the middle, but it does depend on if you(we) are governing or running, and we should do the former.]

PC / Hypocrisy Round Table

My main PC is down, but Politically Correct is the term I mean. Spending the last several days on a trip to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park there is a lot that has piled up or slipped off the table.* Edwards. Greens. Economics. Gregoire. FBI investigation

It is a shame that Edwards has been potentially removed from further service to the country while greater problems hamper so few Republicans. I don't doubt he will continue to work hard. As for the next four links the thread is economics which needs further hard work.

Not to mention Georgia.
e.g.? Hypocrisy runs round it.
Who is Bush to tell Russia what to expect now? I won't touch that for now.

e.g. (note the other link's letters.) Except for F for potential follow up of failures. Don't forget the AAA link above.

Economics seems to trump all sense sometimes.
By George or Georgia, I believe I did it. (see trumps)

But these links do take a careful read to catch the nuance of my thread. And money not being the only factor or party to our equations, I urge participation in the process, and if you can't pick one of the two major parties, make sure that your vote counts, and know that it will, even if you waste it. Of course that is another story and ironically links to how the buck is passed.

* now I have piled on more than enough and hope to follow-up with other matters, speaking of PC; my computer and Politically Correct. The latter always requires context and is not always a con text, let alone a pre-text. And given the runaround that words can provide it may be sensible that there is no use for protext.(without a capital P)

Welcome to TheLiaisonReport Upgrade

Comments now welcome.

Please pardon the additional advance to the use of videos.

Hint: I make the first comment and add these links on the weekend events that have transpired. [Note: actual first comment ended up pre-emptively on the previous post.]

Bleaping Leaking mic?

Politics by other means
Bureaucracy to blame?

Diplomacy by other means
Summary: WW III or the means of Trickle Down.

Summary II: Thanks to Gingrich and Biden and Meet the Press
"When in doubt..." (sending sigals)

Bonus leak: Novak

TMR-Day 54

So I got it backward. My 45-day review is 9 days overdue, as well as my last post. Well, just where is that Dubai port deal anyway or was there a review or just a fake. That I do not know, does not mean it does not exist, either the deal or the review. However that is different than knowing or in the case of the run-up to the war, just saying, that there is no doubt when there is documented.

Facts are not relevent to what you say when they are irrelevant to what you say first.(Hint: an attempt to sound Rummy)

Link to be provided later.

Going back to the last post and the con(text)nection to Rice and Rummy is the language and inconsistency of tactic or strategy of blaming others. Just whose job is strategy and whose is tactics and did they have it straight or even connected?