The 1st thing that went wrong.

LOYALTY

Ties to GOP trumped skill on Iraq team
In rebuilding effort, loyalty to Bush administration was paramount

This is probably the most important piece of the failed course that will not change. It not only rules out opposing views but limits the number of available skilled staff for an administration with little faith in the government serving the people. Then it also penalizes even those in the same party with open minds that see things differently. It should be no wonder that failure is so frequent and change is so difficult. Even those with merit that chose to keep giving their input will have no effect without the administration being willing to change and risk further exposure of their failures.

As George Lakoff, points out in the book, Don't think of an Elephant Know your values, Frame the debate there are a pair of parental metaphors Strict Father vs. Nurturing Parent and I earlier joked it was about the "Golden Rule", or rather the rule vs. the joke,(Those with...etc.). However there is a much simpler and more familiar way of putting it that explains the philosophy which is behind this all. "Do as I say, not as I do." Sadly the reaction to the reality that is in the results is also familiar to the strict father metaphor. "I'll give you something to cry about."


A second point, (not necessarily in order in the article)and I have not read beyond a few words in a few paragraphs, is probably the goal of privatization of government. It sounds good, but in reality it is a double edged sword that is not even half good. The two sides are either, you are on your own, and corporations will take care of what matters. It should simply be remembered that "privatization" is really "corporatization". Not that corporations are a bad thing, only that too much freedom is as much a concern for corporations as to individuals, for none of us would fair well on our own, even the ones that are trickling down.

[I will try to add links to my earlier references.]

Bush has done more for credibility and privatization than any president has ever… with irony.

For some reason the abuse that is so “abhorrent” to Bush and the administration is not a shock to me. I was wondering why, though I like many have not seen it all yet. For the reason one may see Molly Ivins, “Putting the ‘con’ in neo-Con” which I have not read more than a few paragraph of, but it hit a spot that had crossed my mind and the title may be sufficient. Though not in my immediate experience, there have been reports of abuses and tragedies that have occurred on or just off college campuses as well as similar abuse that occurs in the military and for some reason have even been institutionalized and rationalized to some degree. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001924049&zsection_id=268883724&slug=ivins10&date=20040510

More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.

It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."

Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.

Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.

Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.

FADS away?

"Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away...otherwise known as privatization and globalization."

The previous post was sent to the local paper as well as the Senators Dorgan and Wyden and by late afternoon the project was killed. (Or at least some aspects of it.) Admiral Pointexter took credit that day for the controversy and reportedly offered to leave the administration, so they let him. Just as four other high figures in the administration took responsibility for erroneous WMD in the state of the union, they and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion) Bush is still around.

Today Lou Dobbs in a column on the Economy in that same local paper writes a titled piece: "Left and right joined in attack on progressive thought" leads me to a mutation[*] of MacArthur’s going away. "Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away, otherwise known as privatization and globalization." But Dobbs is right, and correct too in that progressive thought is needed, but also thinkers that know the difference and don’t use the label liberal as their only argument. If someone believes in principles, they would discuss openly and have the courage to debate them rather that wander around between them and keep the dead wood that fuels his fire.

On a related matter, maybe. Secretary of State Powell is reported to be leaving at the start of the next administration. NOT? Do we have more strategy from the Office of Strategic Information (Slash) Influence? Here are some choices. Either he did or he didn’t let someone know that piece of information. Either it was clear or it was vague or something close to that or different. More choices are that the source made it up, or concluded from other information or was wrong.

Here is my choice. Powell is not being listened to, he wants to be listened to, the president can now claim to be listening. Powell will make his decision later, if he lasts that long.

[*] [3-28-08: Update- quotation mark is facetious as I am mangling MacArthur, but also meant fade not fad, but was it? I left it. The (Slash) was the link to the futures.(minor editing and link insertion)]

Walking the Plank[!]

A caller to a talk show expressed well my sentiment on the death penalty.
Paraphrased: I will support the death penalty when the first corporation is executed in Texas. Well, being a Jolly Roger, (i.e. No Will Rogers) I might not go that far mattie.(ar R something privatization.)

[!]= sarcasm/irony punctuation (See lede 'r ship)

The real leadership is not in a party or a position but in ideas. My pun is purely about the platform over the process, not to mention parties. But in particular a few planks that Bernie Sanders has suggested in the form of: Six Demands to Make of Wall Street.
If Republicans want to walk the talk, of Where are the Jobs?* Then vote on every last one of these, as well as the American Jobs Act, and see who will be left on the ship of fools.

[Speaking of R's Bruce Bartlett anyone? (or A B Sea?)

* The American Jobs Act.

Speaking of three R's.
Four P's.
Five Minutes.
Six Demands.
Seven Lies.(2.5 minutes)
Too Cubed.
Three Three Squared.

2 Little 2L8

Tool*
8


*alter'n8; too much, too soon


Kindle Factor?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


JPJ  R, R, R, Plank: subsume, priv y
The ironic privatization of battle/ gov-mint, or piratization of theology.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OH WHAT A WEB

WE UNWEAVE

In following up on the matters in the last two posts, and hearing Thom Hartmann quote Dwight Eisenhower, in just looking for a phone contact I found it.

Dwight Eisenhower was a remarkable man, and should have been listened to and still should be heard.

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are...a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
- President Dwight D. Eisenhower,

While still just a man and words are just words, there are dreams and there are nightmares, which should we work for? Now that is not to say that some of these noted items he would not say went too far, there are those that say they need to be reformed when really they mean to replace with privatization which really means corporatization, which is not a far cry from the military-industrial complex he also warned of...

Republicans Cuts and Runs

"Distract and Conquer" (Maddow's links) but Ed's Heading!
Not to mention skirting issues.*

*scroll up
(i.e. links from bottom up)
9 The Ed Show: Dissecting the details of "Romney-care".
8 ibid.: Ann Romney talks tax returns.
7 TLR: b.s. (or more mention) skirts
6 TLR: b.s. WOE
5 The Ed Show: They're literally running to their mommies.
4 Lean Forward: Dean on Soviet Propaganda
(ibid.: Really / Running to Mommies )
3 The Ed Show: Distract and Conquer
3b ibid.: The Great Medicare LIE
2 Rachel Maddow: Romney takes on Ryan Social Security baggage
1 ibid.:  Americans not eager to gamble on Social Security, Medicare privatization   

[ Butt Heading Re: Fuse shUn ]

[8-17-12 Not to pun on Trilogies or Tetrahedronogies, but there is some ironic order ! ]
.

Obama talks about "my Muslim faith".

Wrong on two counts: I am not Muslim.
and he's talking about McCain not talking.

If you think this is serious, get a grip.

Actually it is.

In proper flip-flop(con text) everything is explained.

Freudian slips? Sometimes just errors. Sometimes one wonders. Obama at least was sitting before someone who could correct or side-track him, but was not diverted. Bush or McCain should have faced more such opportunities, let alone Palin.

I can provide that for the catapult situation: One does want to repeat the truth that can catapult over the propaganda. Ironically, propaganda is the act of repeating things as well. Hopefully seniors have nothing to worry about for social security, it may be true, but everyone else? That is the smokescreen of so-called reform or privatization.

Understanding the nature?

Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong

"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"


"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"

Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?

If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.

Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.

I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".

* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]