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

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

Truth Tellers

Thom Hartmann notes that the truth teller of the Democrats is Kucinich and for the Republicans it is Ron Paul, who notes the history of the Republican party as against wars. And thanks to a quick google, the first few paragraphs hits it out of the park **. "Way out", as it is put there. Or a slam dunk if you will.

That was still the situation when Clinton was president and even when the current Bush was campaigning against being nation builders and policeman to the world. Another point in this regard is that old Bush in a China Shop metaphor where:
when we broke it, we don't own it, but we might pay for it.

Final note: On Unity08 plans for a bipartisan ticket, I think it is crazy or at minimum won't work. Now, not that it won't succeed. But not necessarily for the country. It really is hard to take a negative attitude with something that seems so middle of the road, but then if we put the people in the middle of the road, they may just get run down. OK! So metaphors may not work, but the may make a point, and getting somewhere that has a point is the "hard work". There! Does that make any progress on the point. Well it may just be going round and round, but that may be another result, not that I am trying to get the geometry covered. But now that I have run that into the ground, I will take a tangent and note that there may be room for dialogue on the third party or third or fourth way. Dialogue and debate is happening within each party. If there are any outliers. Those hanging back; LaRouche (may get the point); Nader (I am not so sure); Bloomberg or Hagel; or not lastly Wesley Clark. But above we have noted, and I believe I recall now that my comparison (if not noted earlier) was between Ron Paul and LaRouche rather than Kucinich, that there are certain mavericks but at least they are participating now. I would harken back to my point about Red and Blue America and the threat to the green. It must be noted that "at the risk of being obvious" must have been too deep and the PI editors* changed my word "green" to "color" which put a completely different tint on my letter. My point is that Unity08 may be more about the green and may not get us out of seeing red.

*(In the last line of "the threat to the green" link, which may have been a threat to someone's green, if not not black and white enough to fit their grey matter.)

**11:35 AM amended [six paragraphs to be precise, I had not read much beyond "To many people, however..." and that is where we must remember the words of Rudy Guliani, on or shortly after September 11th, something like: Aren't you glad George Bush is president? Case closed. These guys cannot fight or debate without misconstruing the point or the enemy, period. Black and white enough?]

Fear And Smear

Printed 12-05-03 (see link)
BUSH
Watch what happens next

Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.
But skepticism should not be abandoned until he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since Sept. 11 is questionable as long as we are fighting for ``liberty, democracy and tolerance'' (the president's words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.

Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent upfront about it and their critics' patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them ``gloom and doom'' Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of ``fear and smear.''
It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership, but let's be honest about it.

NO DOOM AND GLOOM

Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.

But skepticism should not be abandoned till he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since September 11th is questionable as long as we are fighting for “liberty, democracy and tolerance” (the president’s words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.

Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent up front about it and their critics’ patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them “gloom and doom” Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of “fear and smear”.

It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership. But let’s be honest about it.

Bully Pulpit Not for Pitbulls

Teddy's Ghost: T.D.R's "Big Stick Diplomacy" Resurrected By Bush
My Reply: [Did it not start out "Speak Softly..."?]
Being the world’s policeman is not in and of itself bad. As Bill O’Reilly says of history fogging in and out, it apparently depends on the administration in power. An earlier administration was ridiculed and impeded for attempting to be the world’s policeman. And if the goal of the war were to spread our democracy then being the policeman would mean others would be the legislative and judicial branches.

They risk opening a Pandora’s box we have already looked into, and their reasons appear hidden in a shell game from enforcing U.N. resolutions, to disarmament, to regime change, to democracy, to going it alone. If we start as judge and jury as well, we may not only unite the world and not necessarily with us, but encourage other unions or worse. We are a long way from probation officers and social workers if we can’t grasp what we are working for or the concept of the separation of powers that we should be working under.

[And was not the "big stick" asked for (from Congress) under the premise that hopefully it would not be needed? We are still becoming clear on what it will be used for.]

FORGOTTEN HUMANITY!

9-11
WMD
Regime Change
Democracy
Policeman to the world
Nation Building
Humanity

By adding humanity to the list, it places democracy at the center. If truth was not there, the choices are still here.

The above list may seem like a progression of reasons for us being in Iraq. Note that somewhere in there is the truth, unless it is yet to be included. Please note that if we had worked on our own democracy many of the reasons may not have been there, while others were in the first place. Note that these are all important reasons for work, but without truth, will be hard to come by. Note that they have only become more important to work on. The truth in these should be looked at before more reasons face us.

Kobayashi Maru

The Thick Blue Line.*

USS Enterprise [!]

[This is about the complexities of progress, metaphor not parody{*}, and boldly going where it is needed to make it so. The "Thick Blue" reference is not to admire the latter's insert but contrast the Thin Red Line with the admonitions of irony in being policeman to the world, not to mention "no win" or re-boots of history.]

* N O W (FP1)
[FP Re-boot and more.]
[Syria Resolution]**
{*} The Final Insert
** update [It is my view that measured actions are within the President's post-9-11 powers.  Not that I agree with their evolution, but imagine the difficulty in devolving them.[**]  Also Maru translates as "circle", as well as being indicative of a "ship".  It is not so much about the no-win, but more about the course.]
[** 8-30-13 re:bolds and italics here.[?]] [SOS]

Bermuda

Try Angle ? 

Before I tan gent:  It is a clear choice. 
It might B 2 late, butt...  'twain GWB and DC*, pre and post selection. 
Not to jump in the Lakoff, but it about Clause Wits** and spectral orders.

[Translation / D'Ribble?: 'tween Bush and world order, or between what Bush ran on(not being policeman to the world), and what America runs on(speaking of spectral orders), the three branches of government and who the heck they work for.  Do we want a second shot at getting democracy right or just war left?  OW!]

* (sc) later: Bush(43)/vP-resident Cheney
**to parse Clausewitz later(or higher archy)

FP(k)not: A. / B. c. D. E. F. trope? ***

*** not to Footnote but NFRY. (Not to bury Neo-Cons, but to place in the mix, nor Peter, Paul or Merry.

Nation building and policeman to the world?

See previous post for background. See Link for the Secretary-General'spreemptive talk on law and order.

President Bush’s speech to the UN included admirable goals but the path is gilded with words that make it slippery.
"The proper response to difficulties is not to retreat. It is to prevail."

No one is retreating. It is how we will prevail that matters.
It is only a slight change from the only choice is between war and doing nothing, but still only words.
There was no camp or crowd for doing nothing either.

Short Cuts

Maybe the previous post could use a hint. Democracy is a choice that relies on truth. Bush’s reasons for attacking Iraq have changed, though being policeman to the world and nation building are admittedly given short shrift or are trying to be skipped, they are where we are bogged down and where we should turn it over and where if Republicans had not been chosen may have resulted from a Democrat without the long bad trip we have taken. But given that truth is for sale, we must pay* the price. It’s not been a bad ride for some.

Some will argue that the administration could not have prevented 9-11. That is easy to assume, given that many would still do nothing different. It is assuming that nothing would have been done different by Democrats, which they certainly would not claim.

*The links are interesting tangents. "Republican"-[Bubble Boy], "they"- [News Weak] and this "we must pay"-[Pentagon roles out stealth PR] revolve around the press. We would not be on this trip if the press were truly independent, not independent of truth and dependent on buyers.

Evolution or Devolution?

Having read a bit of the pamplet, National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, it is more an argument than a plan. It has good intentions and seems like a plan, but may be flimsy in reality and based on an erroneous foundation, mainly that many of the good intentions are not demonstrated at home or in his administration's or party's behavior.

The Devolution of Iraq

9-11
WMD
Regime Change
Democracy
Policeman to the world
Nation Building

Heckuva Job,
FOR A DEMOCRAT!
The Evolution Of US.

Executive Summary: Politics is a two way street, but you gotta choose one.

NOT REALLY FLIP-FLOPPABLE, but the solution may be smack dab in the middle and then having a choice and making it.

This ties together better than I expected.

NOTE: Things came untied, just about the middle too.