Warnings On Al-Qaeda

Over There? and
Over Here?
Gut-coded.

I hope to review these later, but it does not seem to be a good sign for the "so-called" war on terror. If it is political hype it contributes to the fear, if it is a reliable fear, then...

After struggling for ways to express the concern in a proper non-partisan manner, it then struck me. Maybe there will be the terrorist attack that is all we need *for nay sayer to come around on Bush.

* see facetious, more important see irony of Link "all we need". More than the non-partisan attempt I was making was the untwisting of the irony in the coming around.

Breaking or Broken

just politics [*]

McCAIN: I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.

It seems that McCain's judgement is on display. Not to mention the courage of the Straight Talk Express.

Just politics or perverted Freudian Projection?

[Update: McCain,Obama and the Media ]
[UPDATE TWO: BREAKING/BROKEN]

[Finally if these do posts represent too much of a swing in some sort of representation I hope to smooth it out with this: It is too easy to declare a solution, but the problem is in the getting there and is too often preempted by the defining of it.]

[*] [politically calculated see {*}]

Economics you can believe in?

How much change does Robert Rubin believe in? Weissman Truthout

And a government you need to. Krugman New York Times

And a plan for New Energy for America.

------
Versus Over-the-Top Nuance?

Recent discussions with a Rovian drone centered around who gets the satire and where sarcasm fits and the intellectual aspects of each. He brought the "i" word in. In my view, good satire disguises the sarcasm. In his view,(I guess) missing the sarcasm made it the intellectual type of satire. It actually revolved around another piece of satire and who it was making fun of(The McCain believers, The Media, or The Obama Followers). I guess this is just cutting edge humor or is it more of the Straight Talk Express?

(OK, my tangents got a bit out of hand and loopy or criss-crossed but...)

Speaking of Makeup

Rachel Maddow has the right stuff*...
for MSNBC.

As Olbermann's audience grew to rival, though not quite equal, that of longtime ratings king Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC gained an unwanted reputation as an emergent liberal version of Fox News--a view that became more prevalent after Maddow's show was announced.

Not exactly "Fair and Balanced".

Meanwhile Republican and former Congressman Joe Scarborough has a three-hour program every morning--more airtime than Maddow and Olbermann have combined. While MSNBC is experimenting with a block of liberal programming, as a network that shares offices with NBC News, it can't afford to be seen as having an ideological bias. The network recently bowed to conservative critics by moving Matthews and Olbermann, both seen as sympathetic to Barack Obama, out of the anchor chairs for live political events.

The only reason MSNBC should have resisted "conservative critics" is if they wanted to be the perfect counter-balance to FOX NEWS. If only they could find anchors without opinions or curiosity or personality, it might be a reasonable excuse. But I find it part of the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" of "do as I say, not as I do". Or part of their whiner nature, could it be "The squeaky wheel gets the oil"? No wonder the Straight Talk Express seems to have a rattle and need a pacifier.**


*intelligence + temperment

** double what?

[Update: I want to caution against too much ridicule of the way Governor Palin relates to foreign policy and economic issues. She is does a pretty good job of spinning up the trickle down. Meaning she is describing them in ways that obscure under sensible principles policies that will not achieve them. In other words she does a brilliant job of defending policies which are indefensible, yet fits the old pattern of what they think will work. But then I could just be too easy on her, or sexist, in an affirmative action sort of way.]

Work in Progress

Pardon my Polish, let alone French.


The Thomas Gil affair.(Winkowski/Kerlikowske)
Noam Comski
Prior two ski(e)s.


(7-14-14) Original Heading "Poll R Express"(7-14-95 m-bed)


7-25-14  Revamp Devenn?
Under the Table?, Re/venn, irony, Tetra Heed Ron , heed / run, USC, legend,
Egg/Road/Sky* , Fight On


loss confirmed The Cycle/NOW
Confidence[?][!]... Ctrl F "if"@Go Jump in the Lakoff[!]

Noting in Silence

-
But, never forget!
POSTED 9-10-10
Ground Zero image from 8-29-10 from St. Paul's Chapel grounds.
Portions Written On 9-11-01:

Dear President Bush: (9-15-01)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST
September 11, 2001.[Tragedy brings us together but it is also a time to contemplate before action.]

AMERICA UNDER ATTACK. BUT DEMOCRACY MUST BE PROTECTED.

The tragedy that has come to this nation on Sept. 11th, 2001 is nearly
unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. While
the tone of previous pieces may seem flippant, it would 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.

[9-13-01 REFLECTING ON A CHOICE OF WORDS]

I have read and re-read my words and have read or heard those of others and
have come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of
words. A response to this horrific act is of course needed, but
encouragement comes 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.

Genre Clash

or Mutation?

FOK'rs (Friends of Keith'rs) were noted on the...STEPHANIE MILLER SHOW, along with a rumor from above. Un...like the fabled "unexpressed thought".*





* not to make fun of dog killers, only the forum of Tucker's in second video
[and I did not mean to rhyme]
[and for "some people", genre refers to the medium(& mutation) of the mess age.]
[for others...]
[ and back to the future...express]***

*** this is an overpass to the "turn" spike [With the parsing of the great genre in Keith, the rise of the Young Turks, Matthews is the Oddball in my book. Too cute by half, but not these haves.

[Afternoon update, from my Oddball book, aka Edutainment and speculation, from Ed Schultz the President Obama's 5 year "in non-security, discretionary spending" budget freeze: actually the speculation is mine that many things can be on the table as security and many others are not as discretionary. But it may be a Peter, Paul and Robin' hood scenario. AKA a spin on our past presidents. But seriously or rather flippantly, the book is also about false equivalents. Rachel is no Jon Stewart, Olbermann is no Glenn Beck, Matthews is no "fair and balanced", and Ed Schultz is no Rush, though he does get flush at times. It is about the dialogue, even if it is grand sitting at times.]
[And an earlier crack at the table...aka footnotes of pre-ignition.**]

** and this is an achronistic asterisk i.e. just have to make sure that there are three, and to note that the Mutation link and all that follows was based on only seeing the first few minutes of The Daily Show. [Achronistic is timely in a third way as the third asterisk is placed earlier and regards another post. Not this one though. (At least in toto and one sitting.)]
[Parting asterisks of "past presidents" I like Teddy. Oh Bear Man?]

[1-28-11 Update]

Geo Metrics

12-2-14: X. Y. Z. W? [weigh!]  Not to Farce it. A. "intolerable truths" , B. Presidential SOTU , C. Resolved?

12-4-14 : " /* : (2-4-14) [ / ]=subjective+objective:(b.s.) link inserted also two selected from(fp3)" (fp4)
12-8-14: no moss? (a) But for Obama., (b) Get Out!, (c) Red(Turn)coat Express, (d) On the Other Plan(s)

Not Exactly

Random (not so) links:
Beck Ed:
Bachman Palin Express How's that new normal working for ya?
the Apostle Paul in letters
Cognitive Policy Works?
Obsolescence?

Of hate or humor?
Media Matters?

As a personal recipient of the Palin humor or bumper sticker advice, I have a suggestion: advice does not fit on a bumper sticker and apparently not even in your rallies.

I was at a metered on ramp and a white SUV was aside me, with the character driving smiling and speaking through my slightly open window on a beautiful day. As I smiled and rolled down my window, he said: "How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?" (To be honest I am not sure that he or I now have it correctly spelled or quoted.) I flashed an even bigger smile and a vigorous thumbs up, and he continuted: "Are you a commmunist or do ya just vote for them?" To which I replied: "Are you kidding or(?)" ...we moved on. But that guy did not know who he was messing with (someone who knows better*)... someone with a sense of humor and a sense that righteousness is a lack of faith. (I just came up with that, as I really had some wise cracks, some even appropriately expletive(Tea "partier")adjusted. Speaking of what's in the bag. I have mysteriously completed a loop as to who or what is working? I will call that my Ribble of Intelligent Design at which I will give the links by number.

{It might take a while to sort out the serious, but I do emphasize the jest or just nature, rather than any unintended vitriol(wiki google branch: ethereal.) or Con Sequences. See Comment.]

Less than raw links:
catharsis
RE:Schadenfreude
Gloom at other's successes.

Raw links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Thessalonians+3&version=NIV
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_was_Paul_in_the_Bible
http://www.gotquestions.org/twelve-apostles-disciples-12.html
http://sunandshield.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/is-the-apostle-paul-one-of-the-12-disciples/

* in the particular case I am a minority (OK, I did not take the poll, but it is hard to believe it is representative of the truth. That would mean a thumbs up for the media, and I don't know what for congress.) But that is really cherry picking.

[Speaking of Bridge or post lonesome roads or sections of a train?.]

Straight Talk Express?

McCain touts his courage. Well does that translate to leadership? What about his campaign? Is he really leading it? Does he have the courage to stand up (side by side) or not on his own course? Can he face the facts?

Not to mention how can we expect him or whomever is directing the campaign to deal with our enemies, metaphorical button pushers or not, when they can't even tell the direction of an aphorism?

Pretty soon McCain is going to be comparing his scrutiny by the media on this issue to his interrogations as a POW. To put this issue to bed, heads should role. Fire the campaign manager who crafted his ad and his reply.

On Hardball a defender of McCain basically explained the afront. The best she could do was frame it as Obama stepping on Sarah Palin's punchline, when a McCain aide actually wrote a book on it. She even explained that Obama meant McCain was on old fish. Well if that is the case, it is really nice that McCain hid behind Palin in his defense, I mean attack ad. The only come back for this kid (McCain, is he has a wholesale housecleaning and finally changes his crew, not to mention course.)

Of course there may be no need to fire anyone, since he may have doubled down and be risking it all financially.

FOOTNOTES PAGE TWO JULY 2014

7-10-14:  Ctrl F(transcend)- Heuristic Concurrence and, Italics added:,The Randslide?, Health Care Summit, (b,c,d)  hobgoblin
FYI-Not Newfangled, Ctrl F Emerson{L}pax- Neo-Perspectivism { } by Stiob?!? ...  [!]*


* potential FP3 There in spirit.


7-14-14 "sarcasm aside"...  (sc...goo) Original Cross Country Pole R express.(ow) (FP!)

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]

Classification Warfare

i.e. Tax on Oh me?
A Tea Party Taxonomy. (Newsweek)
(Speaking of classifications, I have been lax on mine.)
[Found within the above article: The Myth of Objectivity
& The New New Newt and found elsewhere (MSNBC) and related leap(political calculus)]

[Further analysis/commentary: guidelines , Christine O'Donnell, cloning].
[Bottom line: Tea Party Express and Freedom Works are both Republican productions.]

[On the other hand...on pragmatic and incremental* ...]
Poor Segue: Bolds fully read con descending into the NFR.
[Team of Rivals: More Machinations.]
* original redundant link replaced with two possibilites(apologies for dupes)

To... be careful what you ask for...

McCain called upon Obama to go to Iraq and Afghanistan then whines about the press over covering the event. That after touting his own known qualities and questioning Obama as an unknown quantity. (I can't source these later two points, but maybe these are related.)

But be careful! What would better coverage look like? Should we ask Pastor Wright or Reverend Hagee[*]? Not to mention the run up to Iraq or his run up to Kennebunkport. (I note the previous two links as unfair and unbalanced, but the source is at least the questionable New York Times and that is the link.)

"It is what it is" ** is what McCain said of the press coverage of Obama. I guess that is the definition of Straight Talk Express or is it "Depends"? But on the flip-flop to the top of this piece maybe it is because news is about what is new and you have to make news to be covered, not just depend on the old.

In a final barrage, there was little complaint when the media was doing a "patriotic duty" not to question the war, or cover it under the circumstances. Maybe they have found a new patriotism or have awakened to a new calling to do their jobs? I would not count on it, but we can probably count on the whining.[to be a matter, of course]

[*] [Original elipsed material has not been changed but a few typos have been corrected and this link inserted as breaking "old", I mean news...as well as the last link(s), the bracketed and the bold.]

** update:7-24-08 links

Canard Lines

Special thanks to Rachel Maddow for her word of the day.
Canard.
I would like to reserve passage on that bumper sticker,
as Straight Talk Express takes to the seas with Flip-Flopper Crafters: apparently if it looks like a duck...

I think that vets should be up in arms over use of the term Swiftboating for any sort of political campaign. Not literally, but then we should be careful with language. My point is that I guess it is fair game if you want to be gung ho about your truth, but it would be better to know nuance and the difference between being defensive and taking offense, not to mention being being straight or able to lead.

[7-2-08: Over the years, terms have been highjacked or meanings adapted but this takes the cake and bites. Speaking of irony (clad) will wonders never cease? My real point is that Swiftboaters should be honored for their service not for the Flip-Flopper Crafting of the truth. You see I had to be straight about it because the mixed metaphors are probably lost or just pull the triggers or push the buttons of those that have experienced real anecdotes while now being used for weapons of rhetoric. In fact if one wants to circle ones wagons, leave the women and children in and let the truth out. Pardon the antiquated terminology(non-PC-ness)*, it is hard to keep ahead of the curve of progress, but is better than getting ahead of history.]

[MSM **is a big part of this problem in contrast and conflict to: Clark In Context : Slamming Wesley Clark

* another canard, not that it can't be talked about

** Main Stream Media (see comments embedded on MSM) and note that I did not see the original exchange on Face the Nation but here is the closest I found after posting above, while I did hear actual snippets and Clark defending himself and making a good case for why questioning the use of a record is not dishonoring the service, despite what writers put in their headlines or teasers for attention.***]

*** these asterisks(**) need their own asterisks for the sake of closing a loop or the long story short, the MSM is part of the tent, not just the mess, now that the people feel the need for more involvement and there is need for more attention to the process. One can respect the service of more than just the military, but should also have more than faith in the three branches of government and the distinguished press.

[Today's word of the day? Pandering. Or bringing issues to the front.]

Kyl-Lieberman

1st I would like to thank Senator Cantwell for voting against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and express my disappointment that Senator Murray supported it. While it is commendable that some things were removed...

2nd I would like to suggest the following interview (The president has accepted ethnic cleansing) be read in relation to this push on Iran.

But just as Hersh feels "that it has been underestimated how much the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) knows," I feel that Hersh has underestimated the intentions of the Administration, giving it a little too much altruism, when "return on success" explains it better. The problem is who is getting the return on this "heckuva success".

3rd: The urgency of this is easily dissipated by accepting that it is just politics and everyone doing as much as they can, but read the last paragraph from the interview and hope that we don't miss it again.

Meanwhile I had to get this out so that I could MoveOn.

[Update: 10-9-07 Wesley Clark supports vote for.
Hillary Exchange (similar to a recent Senator Murray exchange
Hillary statement
"Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" spell corrected for google sake.]

Straight Talk Express?

Or Real Clear Politics
(nfry)But do I have to? Or should I hit The Trail?
Which would be "politic"? The good thing is that at least the former is only his words, and the latter is not his fault for being more viscious but will there be more course talk? I mean will it still be there when I get around to reading it?

Flash analysis: Filibuster, Flip-flop and appeasement Fridays. OK. David Bender is discussing The New GI Bill on The Rachel Maddow Show, and his theory is that the president will veto the bill to give the Republicans cover to run from him. I don't believe I got that right. I may have switched course midstream, and need to check back later.

But a point not lost is that the Republicans have flip-flopped on the filibuster from trying to abolish it to using it without using it on every vote. Meaning that the Democrats have appeased the Republicans on the rules. It is political but it is about progress. It was also not necessarily the point Bender was making except for the potential flip-flop on a veto.

FOOTNOTES PAGE TWO OCTOBER 2013

Footnotes Page TWO

October 2013

Re: Toll Keen. (a. C3-PO?, b. 9-18-13 FP$ , c. December FOOTNOTES 2.0, d. The Other Debates, e. Karl Rove vs. WA Hyperbole, f. Toll Keen, the Try-Logy? , g. Toll Keen?)
Not to pun too fine a point on headings and lede or ships. But the die may be cast a ways.(1) 
(1) The Cycle [OW: Chrystal Ball on Krystal Ball: Faux Balance? Stop Gap. A SIM metric?]

[TS - D 10/1/13 12:18 PM]
10-15-13 (blog search) "moss" A. But for Obama., B. Get Out!, C. Red(Turn)coat Express, D. On the Other Plan(s)
10-16-13 [3 links] 1.  a., b. Jumping the Shark?, c. An Inconvenient Platonics?, d., 2. "pac e dems", 3. samy

10-18-13 Edit this heading formerly known as Die Mention/alism: knot 2 men shun :/:
who R we.

10-25-13 OW Talk about week editing[!] The layers build [!]?

"Are you who I think you are?"

That is the question I posed to Senator Ted Kennedy around twenty years ago. He had just walked into my lobby and asked to be called a cab. I called him a cab. I then had the chance to express the honor it was to meet him and/or thank him for his and/or his families service, as well as get his autograph.*

Nowadays the same question is apropos. Rachel Maddow discusses the Revisionist History that Republicans are creating and Keith Olbermann covered it just preceding the Senator's passing.

*links and italics clarification (here and there) provided 8-28-09

(8-28-09: See comment and latest McCain There is no compromise on an option. By definition. No option, is surrender not compromise. That is not what Senator Kennedy should be remembered for. Sorry, the link was worth repeating. That is not what should define a legacy. )
[Better Seque: A legacy mourned. Bernie Sanders on "the cause". His final speech. His domination. The torch.]

[8-29-09 other memorials: Northwest Progressive Institute, Media Matters ]

War On/Or Terrorism ?

[Anachronic Memorial to the victims of September 11th, 2001]


* * * * * *
CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.
[Petitions were presented to each U.S. Senator on August 28th, 2002 against the Iraq War Resolution.]
* * * * * *

[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

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?

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?