Regime Rhetoric Reply

[Sept. 17th, 2002 to someone with appropriate concerns.]
[UPDATE: March 6th, 2009] Three Cups of Tea
The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?

There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).

Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.

There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?

If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.

Running with the rhetoric: When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.

I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our" actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[Sent to same Sept. 19th, 2002]
NO FAST TRACK FOR WAR-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. [Unable to locate]

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face:

Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep. (pg. 82) (italics mine)

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the driver's seat.

The Tetra Heed Run

Of Iron Knee and flip-flop**.
I'd rather pin the tale on the Dawn Key,
than pull the knows off an elephant.
[Oops.]

Con Text : Fields Apart.
Joan asked "why is the the main qualification"
Hitchens: "I don't know."
That is just one loose brick in the difference between polemics and debate, which are not the only foundations of progress.  There are limits to logic*, and Hitchens certainly pushes even those of reason.

It seems like the old saw on common sense.
NOT[!]  I mean that in a mathematical sense.

* See "saw"
**   Footnotes  W, X, Y, Z [!]
*** I will let you jig for the Lakoff
[No pun intended on Admiral Perry. See Trip/Lex of Middle]

[All Labels Added 12-20-11]

Flash Back

[Previous and old post is being updated and inserted* here on 11-8-10]

*insert here requires anachronism[See first link for original, second & bottom for contemporaneous frame of job.
[Prologue is past: edited (under construction) below]
* * * * *

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. [...because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so"** from Sept. 9th.

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, (Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard), who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine, but uncertain of original location.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]
** temp link

Being a Blank "is Hard Work".

Meaning found in file folder:
Being a Heretic is Hard Work.
Or maybe it is the difference between being and getting 'er done.

[OWS verse the 1%?]
[Getting 'er* done?]


*apologies to*** whom[!]?

[Speaking** of Labels...U.N? Not to mention fair and balanced.]

** a, b, c, d (thin blue line ?) Or Re:U.N.

*** LOL: Laughter Occupy Lawyers (not to make light, but...)

[Note Labels U.N.(Unhate, Nuance), G'Ribble(or D'Ribble?)]
[Bottom line? See commenT and lede, and found'ers: Being a Blank "is Hard Work".]
[Super Stick: Debt Deal or Leverage: One thing about the Debt Ceiling deal and the Super Committee is that its failure is a not really that crucial. If it gets something done, the next congress can undo it. If it doesn't get anything done, the next congress will handle the cuts. Heck, I am not even certain it would be binding. Either way the next election will be telling. But anything balanced from the committee will not only be unlikely, but will not balance the history of Republican obstructionism since Obama game into office, nor balance the Republican debt.(See saw)]

Inconvenient

or ignoble* hope.

* original word more bombastic but escapes me
[I will get straight to the point, the bold link is the point, and it will be thrilling if Republicans think they can sustain their gameplan. It is clear that this is an overreach** of analysis and polling to think that Republicans will have a veto-proof House and is admitted in their very next step, a "piecemeal approach".]

** this link is self-reflective not on Krugman's (Voodoo to Dance Video)
No pun intended.

[vis a vis "on the other hand", the fulcrum of the see saw?]
seesaw = pun on perspectivism (Right-Left, Tea Party-No Label, Republican-Obama)Progressive is the fulcrum not the lever, people are the load and counterbalance. In the last contrast; a party with a leader, we may have something. I can't really see No Labels as a movement, let alone a party, but it could have a dialogue at a coffee party.

Fast Forward

[Violating my own scheme of things[11-8-10* under review and update] on this web log, it is necessary to jump to current issues. This was addressed to a particular individual, but is now addressed to those who can do something about it.]

No Fast Track for War-

News flash or Administration Rhetoric? Material Support for Terrorism must be considered as serious as Terrorism itself [?]. From terrorism to regime change, where are we going?

Sometimes statements are rhetorical when they can simply be ended with a question mark or are answers of the following nature. […because we say it is.] See Mike Moran’s piece on MSNBC, "Say it ain’t so" from Sept. 9th. http://www.msnbc.com/news/781783.asp

Please investigate the actions of the administration and all those of which previously contributed to the Taliban, Iraq and Iran’s power, or any other dictatorial regimes.

Why did we not invest more in the intelligence chatter that could have prevented September 11th?

More investigations and questions are needed. See Maureen Dowd’s "Cowboy in the Oval Office must be contained." in Sept 19th, Eastside Journal or elsewhere, NY Times.

If congress does not have the guts to stand up to the president and spell out conditions for any action, few people will have the stomach for politics. Without voices of reason to choose from, where will they turn? They will either resign themselves to having no voice or to taking actions themselves. The former will be the greater crowd but as we saw, from the Seattle WTO anarchists and the NY WTC terrorists, the latter can do more damage.

If most of the need for action is based on the intent of the other regime, we must clarify our own intent.

If George F. Will can impugn the intent of Democrats and the UN as "wishful thinking’, we must ask where their thinking and actions will end? [See his Seattle PI, Sept. 19th, "A for prestige, F for performance".]http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/87582_will19.shtml

Fast Track will be disastrous, if it is the wrong track. No action is better and further questions and answers are definitely needed if the action is to open a Pandora’s box. And that is what it will be if you follow the rhetoric and even if you have real questions and answers.

For Wonk reading: See "Looking the World in the Eye" by Robert D. Kaplan in the Atlantic Monthly, December 2001. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/12/kaplan.htm He reviews the work of Samuel Huntington, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard, who spelled out the situation we face.

"Real conservatism cannot aspire to lofty principles, because its task is to defend what already exists. The conservative dilemma is that conservatism's legitimacy can come only from being proved right by events, whereas liberals, whenever they are proved wrong, have universal principles to fall back on. Samuel Huntington has always held liberal ideals. But he knows that such ideals cannot survive without power, and that power requires careful upkeep." pg. 82 [Italics mine.]

That's our job in a democracy. The administration may know where they are going with this, but it is important they know they are not the only ones in the drivers seat.

[* 11-8-10 update bottom link added and edited revision posting here]

Obama's Iraq

Obama's Way (OW)

MC CM
mission creep
congressional mess
George Santayana & the see saw.

6-20-14 "Hard Work".

Turning the page (On Humor)?

[For orginal post go here]
- - - - - - - - - - - -
(Seriously)

Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battlefield), (1)
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front, (2)
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes. (3)

But communications * - is a tricky field. (4)
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry. (5)

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue (6)
and used it as a weapon himself?
Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?
OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[left behind: reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)

[this is the clutter I noted being added]
(1)footnote to other fields
(2)and this and more
(3) see middle link in particular
(4) trickle on
(5) or not (speaking of spelling) intended?
(6) this may be the final embedded version, I must now better filter the McCain speech that triggered this (these)Turning the Page(s); the humor and potential for change.

Still buried in the previous post.

I want to pull out some important pieces from the previous post.

"Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death" Consortium News
by Brent Budowsky
[ NOTE: the bold italics are sources for and serve to note the important items I pulled up]

One of the points also buried is that several talk shows are not broadcast live and hence the effect ("While I was lost...) that simultaneous work is corresponding even if I am not following them at the time. Hence the airing of Brent Budowsky as a guest on The Ed Shultz Show guest hosted by Tony Trupiano. The connection is in earlier writing of both of us, as well as the effort to get Democrats and Independents on the same page, in the most Unrovian way.

The War As We Saw It. NYT

I will tie in a few more buried pieces here as well as a new link to old matters.

"The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" versus "The Liberal Media" could be another major thread. But I did stumble on a meme that may go down in history to describe our times and the Republican follies, if I may write it. The Bush Bubble.
(was that a segue?)

[paused to post and now insert links]

When the Issue Is War, Take Nothing for Granted. NYT
(see Unrovian - link above).

Under "Hardwork" I must google "Truth boating" with caution. (see versus link above.)
[result Billionaire Speculator... found ] in The Raw Story

But now the new links:FEC Complaint filed against Fred Thompson
The old matter?
Rove -> Hillary -> Media Job -> Political violations -> Justice -> Fred Thompson ->
Comment? The timing is interesting and Rovian.
The "hard work" is to follow this at all.
The job is to:
Help provide oversight
Is there any hope?
Cheney has wiretap documents.
Special thanks to News For The Left

October Surpise? "Power Broker Mountain"

It would be nice if the surprise were "no suprise".
It could be that it is National Character Counts Week,
but it is not the first.
Could it be that Humor Counts? Check first link.
Or could it be that there will be a National Straight Face Week.
See link again, imagining Bush reading it.
Maybe it should be National Tow The Line Week.

Just what is the connection?
When the Foley scandal first broke, I thought that
there may be one "heckuva" closet caucus.
Now it is more about what is being purged and why.

Here is the less than tenuous(That would be nine-you-us) connection to the nine little words that scared Reagan.
"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help". He also had 3 little words that he liked but was quoting Lenin:
"Trust but verify."
The new nine:
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell".

They may purge voter roles and the closet caucus but with one party control our government is in the closet.
Actually with 12 words, it is more than tenuous.
"Just trust me, but don't ask, and don't tell, that's my job."
The Unitary Executive is a theory that seems more than controversial, but which is put to rest in the Military Commisions Act.
The irony is that while Wikipedia has an article which has it's neutrality in dispute; with the Institute for Public Accuracy has two views presented; and Findlaw has quite an extensive article, if it was more than just a theory, why the new law?

And why the closet image? It is really about "Power Broker Mountain".
If this is too much to read,
(and I never saw the movie, not that there was anything wrong with that)
the shortest read is Article II, section 2, PARAGRAPH TWO
of the constitution and see how much congress is responsible for the law and presidential powers, which now must come out of the closet.
Sections 3 and 4 are even shorter and thanks to fear and smear even deeper in the closet.

Relative Exceptionalism

American Exceptionalism, was coined by a Frenchman.

American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States is qualitatively different from other countries. In this view, America's exceptionalism stems from its emergence from a revolution, becoming "the first new nation,"[1] and developing a uniquely American ideology, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. This observation can be traced to Alexis de Tocqueville, the first writer to describe the United States as "exceptional" in 1831 and 1840.[2] Historian Gordon Wood has argued, "Our beliefs in liberty, equality, constitutionalism, and the well-being of ordinary people came out of the Revolutionary era. So too did our idea that we Americans are a special people with a special destiny to lead the world toward liberty and democracy."[3]

Well, not literally. It was actually first used by Joseph Stalin.

The specific term "American exceptionalism" was first used in 1929 by Soviet leader Joseph Stalin chastising members of the American Communist Party for believing that America was independent of the Marxist laws of history "thanks to its natural resources, industrial capacity, and absence of rigid class distinctions."[4]

Speaking of original intent*:

Although the term does not necessarily imply superiority, many neoconservative and American conservative writers have promoted its use in that sense.[1][5] To them, the United States is like the biblical "shining city on a hill," and exempt from historical forces that have affected other countries.[6]

Since the 1960s "postnationalist" scholars on the left have rejected American exceptionalism, arguing that the United States had not broken from European history, and has retained class inequities, imperialism and war. Furthermore, they saw every nation as subscribing to some form of exceptionalism.[7]

But here is the trigger** for my lede. See *** there:

Which communities use lethal force for crowd control? Anyone with health concerns should be careful where they press their 1st amendment rights.

*mine was in the lede(pre-wiki)
[But here are more links]
** not to suggest more than civil disobedience(but Relative in the lede)

[Meanwhile, there also may be room for a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. But that is problematic, in that I suggest a choice. Or rather politics might make it. The idea is not that dangerous, but putting any parameters on it, is what would make it a deal breaker. If it could be the GOTV for 2012, it might make for good dialogue for the Republic.

Follow-up: Tragedy or not[! Still Life with Romney.]

No Resemblance?

The resemblance I saw was to Keith Olbermann, in the fire that Barack Obama had in his speech. Ironically, Olbermann used those words to refer to an AP report on the speech.

In my opinion: The only thing missing was a "Bring him on!" to McCain, but he did challenge McCain to debate who has the temperment to be commander-in-chief.

I could not find the AP source, nor my own reference to temperment; no matter, but I will try to narrow the focus later.

Originally speechless or at least searching for words, "Fantastic speech" is what I should say. No resemblance to McCain, great resemlance to greatness.

[and in searching found Andrew Sullivan on Obama's Acceptance Speech.

Enough?
There is a hint here and something that might not work. But we will see if anyone bites.]

Now this is the ticket.

Or rather perspective on having a perspective.

1. Professor Ponzi, or thinking about the methodology, the sociology and the economics of economics

2. Sylvia Nasar on The Story of Economic Genius: Great Thinkers in History

New Page: Institute for New Economic Thinking

Also: Progressive Media

Also Updates: Gingrich/Romney on Pop e Culture.*

Such** a deal?

*the links are still evolving, I saw an impressive Romney speech***, but only in the light of Gingrich and Santorum.

** Thom Hartmann roots out biology and an abstraction as corner stone to society, before guestflees. (and that is a note on the light R side)

[BTW: these are living asterisks in their anachronism C*** BTW2.0 He opens with a spin on the joke on Bush. GW gave us progressives. To paraphrase: Obama community organized CPAC.]

*** also C***under-BTW: Pop Culture & yogurt or Yo!Gurt

under **see-not necessarily a huff

[On the Economy, and mythbusters?]

[2-23-12 The Dickens, you say? Label and Image added.]

Silent Majority

Now that takes us back.
Speaking of the future.
(4 more)
Now this is what I am talking about.
Not to mention, No More Fall...Well.
[Breaking balance also NFRY, Bold "that" indicates full read above, and reminder that I spun this off (and update/see "Well") before I saw the points Kornacki made regarding the presidential history.]

Turning the Page (2.0)

Turning the page (On Humor)?
[The following is the clean version(original)[*] : meaning I intend to clutter the above link]
(Seriously)
Not being a black man,
not being a white woman,
not being THAT old,
not being a vet
(of the battle field),
I must look back.

Well I may not really
have that much time.
But on the humor front,
has a page been turned?
Have I spoken for others?
Sometimes I have borrowed perspectives,
and tried to put myself in other's shoes.

But communications* is a tricky field.
And just as the above categories
represent perspectives on power,
if this has seemed like a dance,
(or flip-flop if you will)
it could be said, it is hard not to step on toes.
And maybe the best way of not tripping ***
is to bring a little lightness,
to what some see a burden
and others try to proudly carry.

So I tread carefully now to note,
that the campaigns have represented
issues that involve race, gender, age and militancy
and there is hope that they have
vetted the world for the battles to come.

And speaking of vets, McCain** is an example of
blurring these lines, possibly to cross them.
No intended pun on the cross, but on humor
has he vetted himself of the age issue and
used it as a weapon himself? Weapon or tool,
are humor and associations,
instruments that we wish to have left behind?- [*]OK, maybe I saw that coming,
but that is what too many say.

*originally: "humor", changed to "politics", then landed on "communications"
** I wrote this based on hearing portions of the speeches of Obama, Clinton and McCain. I would like to provide the links, but should note that McCain triggered the categorical humor-ism. Will that take me back to Kant?
*** "balancing" changed to "not tripping" to carry a metaphor on more levels
[note that as guideposts to editing, asterisks represent the sequence of changes]
[*] -left behind - reading is much of what gets left behind, and I must confess not being a reader of that much of the material that I might touch on, but a hint or association may be worthy here --or not worthy-- profitable prophets.]
[Inspired Voter has two of the speeches, and is McCain in the foxhole?or dug in?]
[And finally (from where this started) I must excuse myself for my not being able to follow live the night's events and full context of the speeches, but I was myself in the trenches dealing with grass tips politics, and those that are experiencing what others just analyze.)
[*] except for speech links

DOEE (Dept. of Everything Else)

Thomas Barnett [***] YouTube presentation
The Pentagon's new map for war and peace

A friend sent me this, very optimistic, and saw it as so non-political. Fine. How does this come about? How do we create a "New Leviathan" albeit, calling it "New Everything Else"? This is fine as long as we realize it is political or it is the same old thing, otherwise know as the battle between realism and idealism.

Transparency and secrecy do have their distinct applications,(especially in war and diplomacy) but accountability and rules are in the getting there. (Power is not good or evil only results are and even they are seen from more than one perspective.)

A-to-Z rules focused on dealing with everything? How does one get them? Of course that is not the idea. Excusing based on result, is that the excuse? Hmmm. He has some good metaphors. Networking force? Where does it start? Where does it end? Security? Funny?

I think that he has some good points, but it all could be hinged on a point the world would love to get to, and they would all love to be there, to be the decider. I do not minimize the need for something, and he points to many good ideas to separate expertise and responsibilities, but I would emphasize that there is much more to talk about that may need the same (or better) analysis. There is a "heckuva" lot of work getting the world to see that there is somehow going to be a "new world order", no matter who brings it about and what it is brought about for. And there is no denying the current balance of powers and just wishing or demanding or excusing them away.

This is a good approach for the military, the rest may be everything else. Including looking at how we came to learn this lesson and whether it was already plain to too few.

Having viewed the video several times, I am rather encouraged about his approach, as long as it is taken as broadly and evolving as he intends it. In that regard there are some weaknesses in his rhetoric when it comes to the U.N., the World Bank, the G20 and what he calls the Kantian[*] world. In what I call the outcome and the input or more broadly the rules and the process, we probably need more than bifurcation. He has separated force from administration, and it is in the latter that more work and input may be needed. In that regard I will hold up for now and provide a template that has been suggested more immediately and specifically for the mess we are in, due to some of this thinking not being applied in the first place. A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. **

[*] uncertain what his Kantian world is,
here are a few of my Kantian references:
Fearnauts
The Council of Nice
** Thanks to the "hard work" of Darcy Burner and what I call her Pentagon of Principles.

[***] earlier link to Barnett

A CONUNDRUM INSIDE A PREEMPTIVE COMMISSION.

This began as a contribution to MoveOn.org’s The O'Franken Factor Misleading Quote Contest. But it may be a most revealing quote.

Scott McClellan: King County Journal
“We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job.”
Heading: Bush keeps Clinton files from 9/11 commission.

Not an audio, but from the NY Times in my local paper. There is a third feature of this besides, both stupid and false, it is also a truth about what exemplifies a truth as preemptively determined.
Since rules are usually thrown out the window by the administration, I hope this makes it under the wire. See, I saw this in my April 2nd, King County Journal (Bellevue, Wa) which makes the quote if found in audio outside the rules of this contest.

I guess it is a stretch also that this "stand on it's own". Is there a contest for irony?

Beating around the Bush:

My view of the recent claim that Richard Clarke is lying is that the administration would not know the truth if they saw it.

But this is not another charge that the administration themselves are lying, but that they truly do not know the truth. Exhibit A: Rumsfeld says "facts change". That means that he can rely on what he wants, not on facts. Exhibit B: Intelligence is an opinion. That means that they can pick and choose the facts that they will rely on. To top it off they can even rely on facts not being reliable to safely cover their bets or rather conclusions, actions or the lack there of.

My conclusion, not having seen the previous 2002 testimony, is that they still cannot tell the truth when they see it. Further investigation and testimony may not clear up the truth, but further point to the problem that they cannot work with the cards they are dealt. After the fact, Monday morning quarterbacking is easier than 20/20 foresight. But so is Monday morning scape-goating.

Here we have an administration that wants to be able to act on a threat based on their own picking and choosing of intelligence but could not clearly conclude from the intelligence that is being presented; prior to 9-11, during current testimony, and likely during the 2002 testimony
[update 6-8-09 link label only]