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

Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.

[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.

Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.

Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.

Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.

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?

Live From New York: Saturday Night Live

[Vice President Cheney is speaking now so I must post this from this morning, before I go apoplectic over the Zell Miller speech. I am sure it will connect to future comments.] [[NOTE: See link added at 11:11 PM. More connection may follow]].
It is appropriate the Republican National Convention apparently started out with the Saturday Night Live theme. I have caught bits of it and will review more of it maybe, but it has been uplifting and very entertaining. Former Mayor Rudolf Juliani and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger were especially good. Much of what they say is very hopeful and it is difficult not to forget the fear that had been prominent in their reminding us that terrorism is a war that must be won and Bush says may never be finished. It is hard to resist the optimism and arrogance that we must take charge in this world because our values are right. But to me it seems that it connects to reality very loosely.

Arnold said it best, in a crack about the Democratic Conventions which should have had the title of one of his movies True Lies. The oxymorons abound. Mayor Juliani pointed out that Kerry said one thing to one group and a different thing to another group and that it was exactly the same thing. Maybe I heard it wrong, it has disappeared into this mist of their logic. Mayor Koch, a democrat who supports Bush solely on the war in Iraq, is another great leader that demonstrates the "nuance and sophistication" of New Yorkers as General McPeak put it in an interview. The general supports Kerry for the opposite reasons or is it the same. That the foreign policy and handling of the war has been a disaster, not a "catastrophic success" as the president described it.

Mayor Juliani spoke of the presiden’s visit to ground zero and his comments that I needed to hear. The president’s compassion was admirable until it transitioned into what? The political ploy that launched not only the Iraq plans but the Swift Boats. Mayor Koch reminded us in an interview that only two nations stood up against terrorism since September 11th , 2001. America and Britain, seemingly ignoring or forgetting Israel who has not only done such a good job in their own neighborhood but may be our best teacher.

The amazing thing about the people of New York is that they cannot be blamed for having the convention there, in fact deserve it to bring back their economy. Which should have fit well enough into a moderate and fair political reason to have the convention there. The other amazing thing is that they pick the best mayors and senators for seemingly different reasons which wise. The senators make fine representatives that would do well as president and are closer to the world stage and the mayors are great as mayors and on the Saturday Night Live stage.

Actually many of the speakers at the Republican convention may make better presidents that what we have though they fall for the same error. That being that it is fun to be a bully though it is disguised in hope and opportunity. Kerry is for a stronger American not a bullier America. And the president should know that if there were a bully in the area that the world would turn to either teachers or gangs. Being the wife of one, and having beaten Gore who may have resembled one, (teachers not gangs) can America or the world take another four years of the learning curve? With the skill of wordsmithing going on here is it any wonder that violence seems the only solution?

Decider Stays Course.

But I fail to see how The Decider's veto is not THE ACTION that WOULD HAVE denied funding while Democrats did send the president more than he requested. It is hard to see that this is not a win for the president and a loss for the country, but the funding is only through September and domestic aid was reinserted.

SPEAKING OF REINSERTED:
I will pull up this...

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?

BACK TO THE PRESENT:

Bush was warned that war in Iraq would boost terrorism.

Bush twice admonished reporters that al-Qaida is "a threat to your children

Lastly I will reference a gut check.
Just before that one.
Between those.

* RERUN *[Compiled and distributed 8-19-02 ]<

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 Category: Peace, Foreign Policy,
Justice, War and Terrorism]

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

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

Filibuster Final Draft

FILIBUSTER MORE IMPORTANT THAN BOLTON.

What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

They claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates.
We have heard, "Life is not fair", on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address. Many in fact are fond of saying this yet feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the sectarian war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

If may seem that compromise seems reasonable and often it takes extremes to enforce it. But in the case of the filibuster consider another power the president has to assure protection of another minority or abusive legislation--the veto. A supermajority is required to overturn it, but the veto balances abuse by a simple majority in congress. Should we consider taking the President's veto away? No!
Compromise on Bolton? Maybe. As long as the public understands that it means reform of the United Nations, like they meant to reform Social Security, and they won‘t need to go on a road show.

Filibuster more important FOR JUSTICE and against judges than Bolton.

[The previous post may be a footnote to the following, which had been in rough draft, but now serves as a preface, with footnote below and final link.]
What do some Republicans keep in the closet? Reality and rational thinking. What can’t they keep in the closet and is naturally out-ed? Hypocrisy. What does this have to do with the state of the nation? It is about Bush getting his way. His judges, his appointments and his way or the highway. Failing that, it is the fault of those who are against him.

He or his attorney general claim it is about “fairness“. But it is about doing your job with the evidence at hand, not filtering the evidence to fit your plan. It is about judges doing their job, congress doing their job and the president doing his job. They are all there to uphold the constitution. It is about the congress itself being divided for a reason: the House to represent the majority and the Senate to balance and restrain it. The legislature legislates, the executive executes the law, the judiciary adjudicates. Life is not fair, on that we agree and in fact probably designed our government to address this. Many in fact are fond of saying “life is not fair”, and feel compelled to institutionalize it. Progress means dealing with what may not always be fair but putting work into changing it.

Jumping to the issue of Bolton for the moment, he is a perfect example of the cultural war that is being waged. The only justifiable reason for his approval is that he perfectly represents the attitude of the administration. If each branch of government were as radical as him, we would be fine. Except for the fact that life is not fair, and everyone would love to operate under the principle that evidence does not matter in the grand scheme of things. So approve Bolton, only with the understanding that others will follow the leader. Not to mention that there is a cause and effect relationship that is a two way street.

The Republicans called elimination of the filibuster, the nuclear option. Because they know it is MAD for the nation to consider the mutual assured destruction of the constitution. And because they know that both Democrats and Republicans with principles, should HALT everything if it comes down. The branches of government balance each other for reasons that would be void if the executive can pick the judges that interpret the laws which congress makes, even with the cooperation of the majority. Maintain the filibuster or hope that reality stays in the closet. Compromise only with the understanding that the principle of the job is not to rubber stamp any other branch.

Approve Bolton only with the knowledge that the world has it’s own reality that life is not fair. There may be black and white but it is better to act like it, than expect to eliminate one. Escaping cause and effect may be desirable, but it is not rational. Just because we have one goal doe not mean there is one way to get there. Taking only one path assures that others will be coming head-on from the same goal. Whether it is a nuclear option or a biblical option, the Senate must JUST SAY NO to ending the filibuster! Rational thinking and cause and effect are not just minority opinions. Whatever happens the world will either follow or react.

FOOTNOTES:
Incompetence may be another reason Bolton perfectly represents the administration, not only in methods but results. Sorting out the issue a bit more, on Committee issues related to the whole Senate, getting things out of committee is one thing that may be a compromise, but use of the filibuster must always be held as a last resort. Getting something to the floor is a great way to see where Senators line up, and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to line up to be held accountable. This seems to indicate that votes or reasons may not be black or white, BUT RESULTS OFTEN ARE!
SEE Link below:

"if I were dictator"

Blair loses job. But as far as President of Europe, Blair
"...is increasingly willing to put himself forward for the job if it comes with real powers to intervene in defence and trade affairs."

As far as U.S. and a third party?
"The lesser of two evils...is still evil."

Yeah but, if the lesser is the loser, the greater evil wins. Therefore does it make sense that with Edwards out, and Nader supported Edwards, and with McCain in(?) and Ron Paul is against the war, that there be a Paul/Nader ticket?

Is there another kind of politics or reality?

I'll have to check and get back to you.

[Let me just say that having read 3 of the links here and part of the fourth, I am back to you. My reliance was mostly on the gist I presumed from a quick glance at the articles and maybe where I already wanted to go. I'm not disappointed in where it took me but the pieces are a bit heavy for my fare. In fact the last is a little bit romantic in a horror sort of way, which draws me back to another intersecting thought. The roots of Romanticism in literature being the French Revolution and its libertarianism and egalitarianism. I must also note the hope for goodness in humanity and the scepticism of rationality. Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, The Modern Prometheus, comes to mind. A more balanced approach is what I would suggest. Meanwhile I finished another loose end or article not even in this loop. "We are the World" in The Nation takes a look at two books on our place in the world. How ironic that realism was offered as an opposite to the Zeitgist of ideas.]
[2-4-08: undated brackets are same day updates, here I footnote the two books that "We are the World" reviews. A Case for Goliath and A New Deal for the World. What a deal! And harkening back to Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. A word comes to mind: academic. Some are less than academic, but all can become academic, if we don't make the connections of the varied fields.]

"I'm king of the world!"

Speaking of being in the same boat * and cheesiest lines.

Gordon Brown floats a line: The G20 conference is no Bretton Woods but the kind of inflation we need is from the G2 to the G20 and the kind of deflation is from our leaders to chairs at the tables.

And the only thing more important than the four pillars of Obamanomics ** is holding the world together before it sinks together.

[The world is not the Titanic nor just a movie, but that does not mean there is not a tip of an iceberg.]
[More heads up at another table.]
[Just in case you wonder about the top line, the bottomline is "we the people"]

* "We the People" to "King of the World": "YOU'RE FIRED!" ...a letter from Michael Moore

** A Plea to Congress
Obamanomics:
We are all in this together.
Focus on the comprehensive if hard to comprehend interrelatedness of Education, Energy, Healthcare and World Finance.
Not to mention the cost of peace.

[4-14-09: The Boat added here and there]

Notes from Al-Qaeda

"The Base" a translation: "Al-Qaeda"
Actually these are just notes from June 1, 2007

The Base: Al-Qaeda
The Bottom Line: The people.
Fundamentalists: Neo-Cons

Connections? People need to be the bottom line not money. The point needs to be progress not money. Money is a tool that is needed for survival. It is not the point of it all. The same goes for power. The point of the base which Bush brought together is their view from the top, to heck with the people getting there. The same goes for their thinking, starting at the end and expecting to get somewhere else.

Note: that now I have just found a post from someone with the same title. The Base

NOTES FROM TODAY:
People Matter

A paradigm is a worldview. This is a base world view that covers everything. First there is Physics which covers the reality as we know it, and don’t know it. Then there is Psychology which is the reality as we don’t know it, unless we think about it and then we still don’t know but feel something. Then there is Philosophy which covers the reality as we know it and would be nothing without us. [8-6-07: The Physics, Psychology, and Philosophy seem to be in evolutionary order, and in existence, feeling and thinking seemed to be the order of interactions. Society or Reality as these three interact seem to be embodied in the culture that is created, which can be for or against... Justice.]

These are the primary fields which form the fourth field which depends on time and the dynamics of the other three which each depend on the other three. The only other dimension in my mind is the direction these vectors can take which are either progress or back again which is a quality of the forces on each vector. But we cannot go home again. Even the second two vectors require our presence, so the direction seems to be aimed by and for us. Which puts people and progress as the primary matters of concern, or the alternative is only the return.

Now if this is a little over your head or seems loopy, you get a little more than you know. If this seems obvious you know a little more than you think. But if you could care less, that matters too.

Now for the less obvious. Just because I read, The Base , does not mean I read all of Asimov's The Foundation Series but there are connections: numbers and Psycho-History. Numbers matter and he's got them wrong; the writer of The Base, not The Foundation Series.

Condescending note: the difference between the president and congress and their polling numbers is that congress has more than one view point, and the president has only one. He may have it on many matters, but if things are black and white, all you have to do is flip flop and choose, between the the 32% (now 29%) who support Bush and the many Candidates who will run from him but not his policies are the balance of power the 68% who if they were united would probably go down in history. The miserable ratings of congress are because there are so many alternatives to Bush's stay the course, and that numbers are divided and low because they are not resisting him enough let alone sort out their options. alternatives.

And another earlier note revisited.
David Horsey wrote a piece in May of 2002, on Red and Blue America: my reply was apparently over someones head as a main point was blurred. The green was removed for color in the bottom line. In other words, the editor replaced one word (green) with another (color).

Horsey's cartoon goes overboard on voters

At the risk of being obvious, I would like to comment on David Horsey's "Red & Blue America" (May 19). For the sake of humor, it went overboard in its characterizations of those who voted for George W. Bush or Al Gore. I hope it is a good thing if people realize, like I did, how we can see one side funnier or less overboard than the other.

I hope the humor can be less dividing than the colors pinned on Gore and Bush. It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without color being a factor in making us see red.

So at the risk of being obvious again, I will give you my original bottom line.
"It also made me realize that there may be value in using more colors, but somehow without green being a factor in making us see red.

Bold added, and at the risk of further condescension, green means money and third parties in general, not that they should not unite rather than divide. OK, I could not even keep the condescension up.

OK, I am not sure about that last double negative or even if it is, but...
The point is the difficulty in uniting, when we insist on black and white, or even red, white and blue, not to mention what we neglect, but the consequences are the result.

We have met the enemy and he is us. Well we should check the roots of this, but it seems we are the solution as well.

OPEN LETTER: Chatter

[SO MUCH FOR MY PLANS: This piece is sort of an anthology. It does include a letter from the day after the President was selected. So I am posting these in order of importance or as I can access or find them and grow in this process. ]

An open letter to President Bush: August 20, 2002
Whether this will get through the "noise" that you call your consulting advisors or the "chatter" that you call your intelligence information, I would like to let you know that America agrees with you on two things. As you so eloquently said in your September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." And more recently you said, "the end does not justify the means".

To help you sort through the dots here, this means that patriotic people of principle will never be swayed by the results, if improper means are used. We know there are more dots to connect and so many lines to read between, that it is often beyond our means to know what means you mean.

Beyond the ends and the means there are reasons, but like you I am optimistic. I am optimistic that your reasons will not be left in the shadows, despite your apparent attempts to leave them there. These are just two or three points that you must connect before we have many more dots to connect.

Sincerely and respectfully, Roger Larson

Previously sent:

Dear President-elect Bush and Vice-President Gore: December 14th, 2000

Congratulations. As a faithful Democrat I heard two wonderful speeches last night. I wish the best for both sides in working together. I must be an optimist too, since I have hope that good things can be accomplished for America. I will try to put the past behind us, but will watch for actions beyond the words. While it is wrong to disavow the more partisan of each side, it would be helpful to keep their rhetoric from spokesperson roles. But we must be both open and critical of all sides. As president-elect you have started out on the right foot. It is now time for you to move the left, both figuratively and politically and we may move forward as a body.

Roger Larson.

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.

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.

Bottom Line Update

[Caution: There are a few tangents here
but the shorter course is in
Rising above the Math below]

On GoLeft.TV the crawler below RFK Jr. on The Morning Joecried for the impeachment of Gov. Spitzer, just after the line that he would resign. [Broken News! S...F]

On Democracy Now the resignation of Admiral Fallon is noted in context. Could it be that distraction is the case for both? * [Ferraro Flap]

The governor resigns so that there hopefully will be less distraction from the job of governing, while the admiral resigns so there will be less distraction from the game of war. Unfortunately investigations are needed into the procedures of both, the selective prosecutions and use of intelligence. Could it be that Fallon wanted to play the hand that is dealt instead of the game of bluff with the wrong cards? My point to the last two posts [Oh what a weave...*** ]are that there be more focus on the differences between Democrats and Republicans in governing and war.

* [Ferraro Flap: in response to question: "why do you think Barack Obama is where he is today" she replied "in large measure because he is black". It could just as well be because there was a large field of too much of the same old politics. But then should we be careful of ageism here?

[Speaking of bottom lines: I don't know why I wanted to embed the link below and say "from here to" infinity,(or "to infinity and beyond") but the cost of war is a big bottom line, and the courage to do something is fraught with calculations. (and fright)** While the administration is light on the math (search fuzzy)and deeply in fear: how much more fear can one have than the fear of nothing. Maybe because reality is somewhere between nothing and the ridiculous.

[ ** The Real Bottom Line? [Source: ThinkProgress Rising above the math:

The White House doesn't care for the estimates by Stiglitz, a former chief economist of the World Bank who's now a professor at Columbia University.

"People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can't even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto, conceding that the costs of the war on terrorism are high while questioning the premise of Stiglitz's research.

Fratto Fraught with Naught and Fear of Failure. Here's to the sinking of the makers of the boogeyman.
final note: there may be a lot to quibble with in the math but the logic is infallonable. hmmm? and based on the premise of uncertainty, can we fathom the course? aka Going deep but not even scratching the surface. ]

[***] I had to unweave the points, posts or links here.

(from an email of 9-25-03)

Move On and Look Back.

Dear Honorable Leaders:

Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.

My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.

After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.

Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!

I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."

If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.

The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.

On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?

Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?

The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.

BIG TENT v. MESS TENT

Do I need to explain the frame?

BUSH'S WAR

THE FRAME

REGIME CHANGE

I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.

To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)

The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.

The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.

If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.

(Below Sent to Local Papers)

It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic 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 September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.

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.

Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact 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.

Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA

QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]

Make it so.

No Captain Picard.

Some think President Obama has done too much already. Others think he has not done enough. The problem, is they are on both sides of the partisan divide. Some don't even understand the divide. Tea Party goers are a good example. Spurred by Libertarians and encouraged by the further right (or wrong) "just say no" crowd. Another good example is the stimulus package. "It was too much." [* update correction] Yet only a portion has gotten out yet. Which some confuse with the bailout, and others the budget or fiscal responsibility. Even bankruptcy is not recognized as a process rather than an end.

But I think that one of the main ideas in the slow rate of change for some social and legal issues is the balance of powers. Congress makes laws and the executive should follow them. Sometimes by not following them, the laws are changed, and sometimes by following them. It would not really be non-partisan or even good for a party, if the Justice Department did not do its job with the laws it has or the executive get too involved in changing them beyond his actual power to execute them.

The other is that the president has an agenda. To fix the economy, by focusing on education, energy and health care reform, and to be a leader in the world that the world can follow. He is not the bringer or breaker of laws, but he is burdened with alot on the table including a congress that is not of one mind, even if it has a partisan majority.

[The above commentary was completed before I found this on top of my inbox. Along with the complications of checks and balances designed into our constitution and the partisan and corporate aspects not so specially mentioned, it is ironic that a free press is mentioned. Yet such must be especially carefully balanced in times of crisis and change, in particular when it comes to national security, diplomacy and markets. Congress shall make no laws, in regards to certain freedoms, yet the executive is not free to give rights or free all information.]

[6-19-09: No Buddha either.]

[* 6-14-11: update correction: quotation marks added, not that it is a quote.]

A Plan to B-Team

[A Plan to B-Team]
Mike Webb and Bryan Suits on KIRO710 radio last night discussed the comments by Walter Cronkite, that war with Iraq without U.N. approval will be the start of World War III. Bryan made the analogy that if Mr. Cronkite said the sky were green some people would believe him. I may have slightly rearranged the premise but the screener for the phone calls to the show tried to distance the analogy from his point anyway so there is no point in explaining what his point is now.

While waiting to make my comment, that if Walter Cronkite said the sky were green some should give him more credence than the person who puts those words into his mouth presuming to know that the truth is contrary. I guess that is his point, which is a point that can’t be argued. That is easy when one knows the truth. The sky is blue----- or black or gray or white or pink or orange, well that is one way to lose the analogy. My original point being that if Walter Cronkite said something people would give him more credence than to others and at least want to hear more details. While complete credence is something that should maybe never be given to anyone let alone media or politicians.

As the show moved on to other topics I missed the opportunity to use a better analogy I developed while on hold. That is, that if experts said the sky were whatever color several experts could agree, it would not get the attention it deserved until someone of prominence deserved or not (in this case deserved but it works for not) brings it to the attention of the public. Then there would still be skeptics.

There is an interesting parallel here to a story on Slate titled "The Rumsfeld Intelligence Agency" by Fred Kaplan. Apparently the CIA is not deserving of credence, since the Secretary of Defense has a B-Team (article says Team B) sifting through the raw intelligence data on Iraq. So "as his top team member, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, put it to the Tim...see certain facts that others won't, and not see other facts that others will." This is a quote I segmented for simplicity, where the challenge may be to see whether it is out of context, but it maybe demonstrates the hazards of looking at "facts" through a prism. My premise is that this quote sums up the administration’s intentions or intelligence as in mentality from leaders of the B-Team. But to put it more plainly (well just another way) it is hard for the administration to assign intentions to others when hiding their own. Now to put it more plainly they are looking for the "facts" that will show Iraq is linked to al-Qaida terrorists while ignoring both contrary "facts" as well as our own history of cooperating with, or aiding and abetting dangerous people or regimes. The questions for the media as well as the rest of us leaves a lot of digging, through the who, what, when, where and how, to get to what anyone can figure are the intentions and those are far from facts.

[4-13-09 UPDATE: heading adjusted, format reparagraphed and link edits] It should also be noted that someone listened to Cronkite, as apparently WWIII was avoided (if not exactly) by the acquiescence of the U.N, if not approval.]