Dean:

A perspective on the request to the Democratic Party that others take it easy on him. (I paraphrase based on a CNN segment that got me started again.)

CNN question: A mistake or diversion.

CNN host: A diversion is always a mistake. ( I paraphrase almost exactly, but never the less will not attribute more specifically)

My perspective on the possible mistake that Dean asks for help on the playing field. Not.

Maybe only an intentional irony in that it is a diversion. For is not the main goal to beat Bush and is not the playing field whatever it takes. For in Bush, is not diversion a close partner to “Staying on message”?

Now I do not espouse “whatever it takes”, but communications is a tricky thing. War may be also “what ever it takes” but as to the principles in getting there, there should be a difference.

Ephedra Ban Instituted

It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?

[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]

The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?

The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.

But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.

Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?

This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.

Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?

TAKE NOTHING AWAY FROM THIS SUCCESS
Let's punctuate it.

Congratulations are in order to our forces and the administration in Iraq and here on the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is truly a great plus that he is not now free to do whatever he has been. One down and one to go and terrorism will be ended forever. Need I say not likely?

Take nothing away from this success. The anti-dichotomous nature of this statement should be obvious. We really must make the most of his capture. Where we go now is the next question. Any reduction in terrorism and tensions will be most welcome. But will we make the most of it?

For those concerned about rewriting history, that is a fallacy. We have yet to investigate it. With one down, can we now look at how we got here and where we are going? The excuse has always been something left to do that prevents the full investigation of prior events or intelligence.

With one in hand at least we no longer have two in the bush and we should begin shaking at least that tree. Find out and double check the thinking that got us here and if we will ever have reason to trust any administration again. For altering the future by one success does not change the questions about how we succeeded or failed in getting here.

Winning peace will continue to be a problem that some will see as “doing nothing” and others not even one of the only two choices. Will we get anything from success? Will we at least see the power of nuance or continue to prey on the dichotomies?

Or maybe we just have a crying need for a leader with a better combination of grammar, punctuation and anger to fuel the process.

NO DOOM AND GLOOM

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

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

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

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

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

Progress versus Process? Not.
sent to King County Journal today re: 11-11-03 edition

It is very interesting the gubernatorial campaign's "Rossi says he needs $5 million" is the lead story and the Second Opinion page lead is Thomas Friedman's "Iraq's No. 1 priority: a leader". Finding a leader should be our No. 1 priority.

However there is one other thing I find interesting: The process.

Rossi blames the process for our problems in Washington, while Friedman sees it as the solution to ours in Iraq. It seems that if we were fighting for democracy we would not blame it for our difficulties and short-change it for our progress.

We have even let terrorists get credit for using it (democracy and our own freedoms that come with it) to our own loss while we stab it in the back.

It would be nice to make progress without a process, but as Bush joked in his first press appearance "things would be easier if I were dictator." We might all wish that we could dictate to some degree, but it is what we should be fighting. Here before we go there.

If we put progress before all else, will we focus on the process of democracy itself? How will we help others if we ignore our own process of profit motive not to mention voting methods? I hope the media will do its share in focusing on the process that others would try to recreate in our own image, but it will take our focus as well. Progress takes process and change together.

My Context

[The Journal word count was 250 words and the New York Times wants no more than 150, limiting me to the style I chose rather than to actually try to put in context what Safire failed to do.]

For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend

For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works

[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal

New York Times

Safire Search Context,
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]

In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.

It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.

After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.

[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]

Safire Proved Urban Legend Monger

and Scandalous Hypocrite
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]

There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.

He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.

After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.

* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.

** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.

Deserting our troops, evading our principles.(10-3-03)

"Deserting Our Troops" by Steven Rosenfeld(tompaine.com) raises a very interesting question.

Would the hesitance to keep baseline medical records for our troops have anything to do with the possibility that DU (depleted uranium) if shown to cause cancer would then be considered a WMD of similar nature to a dirty bomb? Would not a cancer causing agent be a chemical or biological weapon (if not even nuclear), hence prohibited if not at least hypocritical? (Sweeping aside the vast difference between DU and actual fissionable material, the administration at least sweeps the slate of information or any basis for knowledge, discussion or debate.)

This, combined with the treatment of terrorist suspects, would make a mockery of why we went to war. If any weapons we can conceive of are OK for our own use and violating any rights crucial to a war on terrorism are justified, then what baseline do we even have to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

A hypocritical if not cynical attitude is their weapon of first report, going back to the candidate Bush saying he "trusted the people not the government" and was a "uniter not a divider", then blaming critics for not supporting our troops while not even protecting them.

Recent retreat to programs, potential and intent to acquire as an excuse for preemption rather than "eminent threat" are not new excuses but missed by the media or buried by the outright incompetence or intention of the original run-up to war.

Still today Cheney is defending preemption as a choice between the threat of dictators and terrorist or doing nothing. No wonder they see no choice when they can't see the alternatives nor the similarities.

Europe and U.N. and many of U.S. see...

Foundations for Hope
(Unprinted Letter to Editor King County Journal:9-29-03)

A September 29th letter , "U.N. not best choice" asks why the anti-Americanism in Europe? The question itself is only one interpretation. He goes on to blame the U. N. for the choice between doing nothing and using force, while minimizing political matters.

The writer may find it easy to see why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us, but he cannot see where Europeans and the U. N. value "political matters" like "honest debate". I can certainly see why he would see these as having no connection, when it was the administration that framed it as a choice between using force and doing nothing. And then expects to find hope?

The only hope is that we can improve our practice of democracy before we force it on others. Our founding documents have many words of hope but I don’t recall much about forcing it on others. There are many words we need to practice more or we have little hope of even working with others.

It should not be odd that when "political matters" are minimized or made a mockery of that the result is having little choice but force. The choice between "political matters" and mockery should be made in every election and should have been clear in 2000.

How ironic there seems an undebated not to mention unfunded and unfounded mandate for "democracy". For those I waste irony on, I am sure I must probably make clear: yes we should hope and do more for democracy.

[updated editing 1-29-09]

(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.

A"neo" Con: More Contra"Dictions".

The President confidently and impressively painted a black and white picture of the war on terrorism before the United Nation. He hinted at having more to talk about in this fight and for progress in other areas, but sovereignty in Iraq would be “neither hurried nor delayed” by “other” countries.

It would have been an unquestionably convincing presentation if not for the lack of clarity on either "black" or "white". Terrorism, WMD and human rights are very important issues, but much more discussion about what constitutes these areas is not likely to follow from the intransigence indicated by such unfounded and contradictory inflexibility.

“Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.
You may recall that congress changed the name of French fries to "freedom fries" in their cafeteria over their lack of agreement in the United Nations. Now Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee is trying to change them back, while some Republicans are more likely to add France to the “Axis of Evil” for their continued insistence on bringing Democracy to Iraq sooner rather than later, if ever. So the rally cry should be. “Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.

As for the $87 Billion for post-war(?) Iraq...
there are questions from TrueMajority,

but how we got there and where we go now are not closed questions.

Regarding Misleading Intelligence... [culled from Inslee Iraq Forum]

*Whereas there has been Intelligence failure or a failure of intelligence.
*Whereas both big "I" and small "i" intelligence are important in declaring war and maintaining or discussing our position in the world.
*Whereas both are important in being successful on many issues as well as maintaining our nations position and credibility in the world.
*Whereas both Congress and the Intelligence community both depend on the credibility of information or it's providers to do their jobs.
*Whereas the public was asked to trust these representatives and agencies by the President himself.

Therefore be it resolved: that congress pass both House Resolutions as co-sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee.

H.R. 2625 to establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq.

H. Res. 307 to establish a select committee on Iraq intelligence.

(One HR involves the executive branch's collection, interpretation and presentation of intelligence as opposed to the latter's focus on the intelligence structure.)

FURTHER... important questions should be asked and answered.

*1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
*2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
*3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
*4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
*5. Was congress following at least this closely?

Regarding Billions for Iraq...
TrueMajority has a petition drive.

Let us remember September 11th, 2001.
Words will not suffice to list the reasons or explain, but as one network frames it, it is A Brave New World. Therefore let us make sure it is not a fear based New World.

Actions may speak louder than words, but let us also remember that dying for a cause is not the same as killing for a cause. If that is not clear enough, or even too obvious, that is our dilemma.

We must focus on our words before our actions, or our actions will always be followed.

[Belated post of material submitted to the panel on 8-21-03.]


INSLEE IRAQ FORUM

Dear Congressman Inslee (and panel):

Thank you for holding the forum on Iraq. A forum on intelligence may be more accurate. The goal should be to prevent failures in both. It should be clear that the failure is all in one’s head: that head being the head of our great country.

Punditry aside, though not necessarily accuracy, important questions should be asked and answered.

1. When did a policy of preemption take over?

2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?

3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all
intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?

4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?

5. Was congress following at least this closely?

While many more questions could follow from this line, of seemingly unanswered questions, I feel they do have answers. I feel that if not answered, at least, not answering them could have had predicted results. These are not simple questions, and answers and events are even more complicated. But I posed, if not answered, many of them before.

In almost anticipatory caution I recorded these, by following (with wonder) our leaders own words (or those of his supposed employees), from just before the 2000 campaign’s conclusion.

In the patriotic spirit of contribution,
always,
Roger Larson

POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.

“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!

One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.

Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?

The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.

In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.

[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]

FADS away?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Market of Strategic Information Slash Influence Is Too Right!

A small news item July 29th, pg. A12 deserved more attention. "Pentagon betting plan attacked" was a fair title for the disturbing program aimed at intelligence gathering but too little useful information was provided. In such a system, traders would and apparently (in some cases) already do, bet on outcomes of foreign policy, elections and military actions. Other sources (MSNBC) indicate it would start with 100 experts and expand, then the sponsors DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) claim that they would not be able to identify traders who sign up.

It sounds similar to the former fiasco Office of Strategic Information/Influence, now titled a Futures Market. Reports on 9-11 have indicated the poor handling of the volume of Intelligence that was already there and now they expect to have help from the economic forecasting arena? Not to mention the idea that misinformation that was hypothetically strategically planted somehow missed processing by any Office in the Administration that would keep things straight.

Markets may be efficient indicators of the futures, but they may be too efficient for interpretations that would be meaningful in time. Setting aside the aspect that DARPA would be sponsoring or turning a blind eye to insider trading, which would admittedly be a required component, how would they separate trading by terrorists from ideologues and analysts from capitalists? Not that there is anything wrong with some of that.

Efficiency would have been if voters had taken warning from the markets (in 2000) at the risk of a Bush election.

Fact:
I hope people are looking up the word in a dictionary, but for Encarta the first three definitions have something to do with truth, the fourth is a term of law, so he certainly would not use that one. Anyway, this must mean truth can change or maybe we will wait for the dictionary to change.

What can change is that a fact can be trustworthy or not. That is apparently what has changed. Then not, again.

I do believe that the president claimed that critics were wrong and that he should be trusted with the decision. That seems not to have changed, while the facts have. Not. That seems to have changed or it never mattered.

You can have your cake and eat it too, but crow...

FACTS CHANGE?
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.

Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?

Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.

With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.

Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.

The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???

Did congress know that and when did they know it?

Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.

Not a lack of intelligence, just the use of intelligence.

In the last day or so, Resident Bush has emphasized the intelligence that we are sure about. He stated, (approximately)that anyone who knows the history of the Saddam regime knows that he possessed biological and chemical weapons. Further that he had used them. There is no lie or contradiction in this belief. It is just that we are uncertain Bush knows the meaning of "history" or intelligence, or indeed "possessed" or "used". For these are all past tense.

Now we have a Resident who may not know what "was" is.

If intelligence has some evidence, we must find out who provided it to him and how it was filtered for him. It is more than knowing where the buck stops, but where did it start?

NOTE TO READERS:

There is nothing new to report, just a more artistic or poetic version of an earlier situation. How true? Check for double meanings. How subtle? Others may be more intentional. Vague? A strategy, not necessarily mine.

Just a little ramble here, to point out that nothing has changed only versions are being spun. Some versions were already apparent to many of us. Hype? I try to avoid. But that is what the administration used, and even got caught up in. They fell for their own hype, got carried away, and still don't know why they can't handle it. The truth, they thought we could not handle. The hype it turns out may be their downfall.

Caution! Blurred metaphors, both ahead and before.

SELF EN-TITLED...RULES

[11-10-11 title upgraded and link added.]
(Defining our way to wars), Or beating around the Encarta* Bush.
Fighting terrorism, the cause,
finding Patriotism, the effect.

We fight the terrorists: defined

Somebody using violence for political purposes:
somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping,
and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: defined

Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports
or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

In need of an un-redefined way out,
Still in need of defining a way in.
Still having a ways to go.

Still going… I intentionally borrowed, no Bush or Blair intended.

Uncertain the rules allowed, the matter is now embedded.

Uncertain an asterisk did it, I did not wish to take too much credit[**].

The following: Take it or leave it.

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©
& (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

You thought it was all over, so if you’re not with it, you’re again it.
[11-10-11 links not provided to Encarta, since it requires registration. See upgrade of title above and additional link.]

DEFINING OUR WAR TO WARS.

Fighting terrorism, supposedly the cause,
with patriotism the resulting claim.

We fight the terrorists: Somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

Have we considered the definitions before our actions or is it just rhetoric? Do we know the way we will choose before we act or are they empty words or just talk?

Some see a way out that depends on the definitions, others see war as better than more defining of our ways or doing nothing. Which way will we go after the war? Will we have it defined? Will there be an after? Will we still be in need of defining or ever stop the redefining?

Thanks to:

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Also Russ Baker, Howard Zinn, and www.tompaine.com

PASSIVE AND MUTE?
by Russ Baker
Iraq is out from under Hussein, but that shouldn't leave liberals at a loss for words.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7682

MY COUNTRY: THE WORLD
by Howard Zinn
Tom Paine enlarged the idea of patriotism when he said: "My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind."
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7726

NOTE: Originally I titled this "Defining our way to wars", but in capitalizing it, an interesting typo crept in and I could not resist leaving it.

Childish Diplomacy: Who started it?

Bill O’Reilly’s "Enough is Enough of Canadian Belligerence" hardly deserves more than the childish reply; "You started it." I don’t really know where it started. But to declare that Canada’s plan to send Iraq’s leader and other potential war criminals found in their country to the World Court in The Hague, is belligerence, certainly demonstrates the weak link to the many phantom reasons given for starting the war against Iraq. I won’t go into all of them either but did they not involve enforcing the resolutions of an international body while ignoring other resolutions of international bodies?

The villains have turned out to be those who threatened vetoes, like France and Germany. If vetoes are a guide to villainy then the U. S. and our former Soviet nemesis have combined for their fair share of more than ten times the vetoes France has ever used. Freedom is another phantom reason that was linked to the war in Iraq while those opposed are vilified for using it at home or abroad.

War was claimed as a last resort chosen over doing nothing. Now we hear how childish both sides can get when those are the only two choices. Arguments against phantom opposition are as easy to win as wars against formerly propped up regimes. The U. S. should be grateful that some were diplomatic enough not to force another U. N. Security Council vote on a resolution we could diplomatically veto. But then we would be clear on what started it.

Shame on those who disparage the U. N. as only a debating mechanism.

Two points are needed mentioning. First, if members would give up their veto powers, it would be more. Second, if they are suppose to restart a program of oil for food or any take any other action like lifting sanctions it would be important to know who is responsible in Iraq for security and running the programs.

If vetoes are the measure of failure at the U. N. then the U.S. and its major rivals have contributed to its failure by many factors over that of France.

If you devalue debate you devalue information which is ironic for this arena. If force is more valuable then you have endorsed violence as the mechanism, leaving tyranny and anarchy as the result, and excusing preemption on both sides.

If we don’t care about who gets the money, or the benefits then we may as well not be responsible or compassionate.

ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?

A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?

They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?

They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".

It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.

SUPPORT OUR TROOPS email March 20th, 2003
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)

While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.

The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.

At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.

No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]

King County Journal 2003-03-19 Federal judge
His views are important

The characterizations by Armstrong Williams of the Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came to the wrong conclusion.

That they are ``sandbagging Estrada's career because he doesn't mesh with what a good Hispanic should be'' may be racist, but it is Williams' conclusion, not the opposition's. They are withholding approval because they cannot be convinced, due to evasive tactics, that he is what a good judge should be.

If the nominee would express his views or knowledge of judicial precedence and talk about his judicial experience, then there would be more to discuss than whose party or race he represents.

Roger Larson

Bellevue

TO US ALL:

A subtle responsibility needs more active duty.

A few days ago, the French foreign minister said, "one does not have the right to be discouraged", but there is hope only in action. Yesterday President Bush called an end to diplomacy. He laid his cards on the table and other’s hands do not matter.

He was given a free hand by congress to behave in such a manner. Absent a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council, they are unanimously behind this move as well. The fact that any new vote would not be heeded does not seem very diplomatic in nature. But only a new resolution and vote would change the approvals that were previously given.

So, in silence the president is proceeding with the support of these bodies. The purpose of such efforts was to disarm Iraq for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. For this the United States congress and the United Nations is responsible. The threat of war was to bring this about. It was being successful.

The fact that it has failed is also the responsibility of these bodies, not the protesters. The inability to succeed in the face of opposition is not diplomacy. It is making excuses. The inability to get a resolution passed is not the fault of those that might veto but also those who would write it. The fact that a new resolution is not being pushed that the United States could veto and be outnumbered anywhere from 11-4 to 14-1 may be diplomacy. But it does not avoid responsibility and hence cannot be said to be irrelevant.

[Heading and link updated 3-21-10]

To Congress:
Thank President Bush and declare that inspections are working and support further U.N. actions.
Please support HJR 20 and SR 32 in light of above and below.

In different words, consider declaring a win for the purposes of strengthening the U.N. and demand Saddam Hussein surrender to the U.N.

The Moment of Truth! How ironic, that it is time to lay the cards on the table.
HAVE COURAGE, RESPECT AND RESOLUTION FOR INSPECTIONS WORKING!

French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin said: "It is difficult to imagine what could stop this machine" and adding "one does not have the right to be discouraged." (AP, King County Journal, 3-16-03, p. A9)
That is the major reason the Bush administration has for stopping the inspections, that the U. S. is discouraged. Dis-COURAGED and disrespecting the United Nations.

Please have courage and pass a resolution. Please declare the inspections are working and that the inspections will continue. Please agree on a strict timetable, that can be monitored and maintain control of the inspection process. If the U.S. is going to disrespect the U.N. by not having a resolution, someone must call them on it other than Saddam Hussein. If the U.S. is going to have war crimes trials, make sure they are signatures to the World Court or negotiate with Saddam Hussein directly rather that let the U.S. take the lead.

Today the Vice President was on Meet The Press
Old or New Regimes
(Note edited in bold on 3-17-03)

Vice President Cheney has never made Republicans look so reasonable(delete "good"). The recent Old Diplomacy Republicans that is, like George Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, not the New Regime Change Republicans like George W. and Rumsfeld who unlike Cheney do not speak softly and carry a big stick but clumsily with a big stick. When Cheney spoke softly it was on the core reasons for the war on Iraq where he could not really get excited when so lightly tying together their seemingly sound excuses.

Though the New Regime Change Republicans claim to act for progress and freedom they bring back ancient tactics reminiscent of the fall of Rome and the origins of terrorism.

Though not well footnoted here, I lack the ability to claim as classified my evidence. It is found in the mounting and diverse writings of others, both old and new, as well as my own writings (old and new) that attempt to read between the lines and connect the dots.

Bully Pulpit Not for Pitbulls

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

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

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

NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.

The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.

[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.

Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.

Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.

Earlier material from "This Is About Progress(ives)"
02-06-01 08:29am [To Sen. Feingold: 01-31-01]
http://www.geocities.com/roger_2l/Politics_is_OK.html


I believe it was Senator Grassley who said regarding the sharing of power in an evenly divided senate; someone must be in charge. There was no need to share power since Democrats have the power of the filibuster. If this is not the time to use it, when will? This may be as Sen. Feingold says an "olive branch" to the new administration. But what are the previous confirmations of nominees? Too many alive branches may create a Bush too hard to get through to, or you are creating a pile that may be too hard to climb. It is already getting too thick with his actions.

ANTI-EYMAN INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL?

[Reply to King County Journal Editorial, 2-11-03]

It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result, your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.

There is also the problem of fuzzy math and English. Beyond the inability to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining the validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for this state and maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially (revenue cuts must equal spending cuts), not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements(also cost related). Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.

Yes-Butt Head in the Wrong Direction?

[Sent to KC Journal, 2-21-03 in reply to upcoming column that had been in the NY Times.] [Link and bold added 8-2-10]

The Yes-But Parade, by William Safire was very good. He made the administration’s case as best it can be made. However if turned inside out, the argument is useful in demonstrating the reverse. It is better to be in the "Yes-but parade" than be following the Butt Head in the wrong direction leader who sees the choice as acting now or doing nothing. Sorry, it was just too tempting to put it in Bush diplomatic terms. It is easier to focus on what we label people than what they may mean. Safire takes the "yes but fellows" label that Franklin Roosevelt used for those who agreed with his goals but had reservations about moving forward in the manner he prescribed. Somehow this is equated with the multitude of questions that arise about the war with Iraq. One could easily turn his argument inside out if not for the need to answer these questions and more.

True, making up words does not deserve the ill repute Bushisms have attracted. However "yes-but fellow" does not really contain anything new. It is tempting, not to mention childish to resort to name calling. It is not a question of acting now or doing nothing, as possibly the strongest argument the administration has, suggests. It does alleviate me of the need to address the serious if not slightly distorted questions that Safire relies on heavily in his case since he simultaneously minimizes the need to answer them. He even simultaneously concludes that the same "yes but fellows" who supposedly share these common goals of the administration would be better off challenging those same goals.

The most important question is why can’t we do something, without ignoring all the questions? Just to point out the emptiness of such labeling for purposes of thinking, is there really any constituency, or consensus, or poll numbers for doing nothing? Is there really a do nothing group we can label? Only in the minds of the schizophrenic Butt Heads, (childish, patriarchal if not abusive parents) who maintain it is my way or the highway, or I want things my way or I’m taking my toys and going home. If only it were so simple.

I am no psychiatrist but this may be an analogy that can be followed, that is more similar than divergent. Both parent and child have their way. They want to get it. They may not be going in the same directions. Being on the path may be better than not going somewhere, but you better know where you are going and how you are going to get there. And making a move is not in and of itself better than not. One fault in the analogy, is that Nations and their leaders or diplomats are neither parent nor child. However it is further useful that they may want to be, and often behave like both.

It may be reasonable to see how carrying a big stick and being on a bully pulpit can be confusing, not to mention from a different Roosevelt. For the plain spoken, it is easy to see the case they make for violence as a means, if they don’t have to answer the questions on the end or the means.

The cost, not to mention the courage, it takes to answer these questions may indeed be high, but we can’t even begin to compare it to not answering them, let alone acting before we do. Safire may be right that there are "yes but fellows", but it can go both ways. He just sides with the yes but head in the wrong direction (away from questions) crowd. Sure "acting now" has not exactly been rushing it, but where has the delay come from in answering more of the questions?

Maybe alternate analogies are more useful. Progress may be in their mind too. But are we really moving in a new direction? Are we really using any new means? Only more questions are arising to confront, confound or run with.

Exercise Lie or Confusion [Original of letter edited and printed in KC Journal. 2-11-03]
Bush Tax Plan
Fuzzy Math and English

Paul Krugman had an exercise for readers I will take up. "Explain how the administration can claim that the average family receives a $1,083 tax cut when 80% will receive less than $1000 and most less than $300." The claim, if it is what the administration claimed, is either a lie or at it’s kindest, fuzzy math and fuzzy English. Fuzzy is just plain too kind, bad math and not thinking may be better. It is correct to say that the average of all tax returns is $1,083. But that is different than what an average family receives. Which is why politics is in such disfavor when we devalue not only math and English, but confuse family with money.

Editorial and Joke had more than meets the Eyman. [From Bush to Eyman, Fuzzy Thinking Clarified]

It is very tempting to want to sign the Eyman is a "horse’s ass" initiative if not for the result your editorial mentioned, of keeping his name before the public. However, more was revealed in your editorial, on the success of that initiative, than plainly stated. For in the state's brief it is charged that the initiative "power" does not extend to "messages" to be delivered. Was that not all that he claimed his initiatives to be? The point is simply that the "horse’s ass" initiative is only as constitutional as any of Eyman’s own, not to mention actually utilizing "name- calling", the strongest the element in any of his arguments.

It was also tempting to link this to my Fuzzy math and English letter… But it does come into play that not only is the state unable to pass constitutional determination prior to going to ballot, we also have difficulty just in determining validity in the math and English components of them. A balanced budget is a law for the state. Maybe all initiatives need to be balanced financially, not to mention having legal briefs and environmental impact statements. Maybe there is somewhere to go with this, maybe the law already provides for it. But if one agrees as my last letter said, politics is in disfavor, it goes double for the legal field.

Uniting?
A reply to John Carlson's yet to be published or read column. Sent 2-22-03
His column was printed 2-23-03.

John Carlson asks; "What are the anti-war marchers actually for?" Maybe one who marched could answer better, but they marched with my heartfelt support. That question may have been one reason for any hesitancy if that. However it should be simple. They are for peace, and not war. They are for the multitude of methods of working for peace and for preventing war. Are they united under one method of getting there? I think not.

To say they are only against something (as I assume a day before reading his piece) is as wrong as saying hawks are only for war. To say protesters must unite in favor of one idea is as wrong as saying that the war has only one goal. To disarm Iraq is it? Fine, the message is getting clearer. Thanks to whom? Regime change? That too has had its evolution in terminology. Thanks to whom?

Tough talk may have pushed the world to where it is, but it may not get it out of it’s spot so easy. Maybe George Bush has been a uniter not a divider. Did he foresee whom he would unite? It will depend on if he can get out of the corner, he seems to have painted himself into, and upon what he has united the world. It is finishing the job and how we, if united, will be moving on to the next job that will be tricky. Let us hope we are not all in the same corner.

Backlog of Writing to Others.

[Replying to a Radio Host who had Joan Smith on-air for KIRO710 radio in Seattle, Washington.]
Here! Here! For Joan Smith's "It is about time the US got over 9-11" and her appearance on Seattle radio. The host could not get over his own hyperbole to see his error. It goes over my head how he can get from "get over" to "forget it". Getting over it, is not to forget it. And as he reads my e-mail, he [probably]goes "Huh?"

[His] hyperbole in reaction is getting in the way of thinking. It is a matter of moving on and how we determine how. Not only determining how we react, but determining and being honest about, and even knowing how and if we can pre-empt.

September 11th made me sick! Does that mean we have to behave as sick people? Her defense of her logic was even better than her writing. None of us will forget, and yes it is healthy to get over.

Some callers called into question her writing, when they could not even see literally. If we cannot even agree on language, we will never even know the meaning of Sept. 11th. While some may say there is no meaning, others will certainly run with it. Then the radio had the message from President Bush to the U.N. "When you say something, does it mean anything?" Well put. Do we know what he means?

Who is doing the posturing and could it be that some have principles.
(from Feb. 6th, 2003)

William Safire had a seemingly brilliant piece, "It’s better to err on the side of Iraq hawks" covering the "I told you so" posturing that will occur "post-war". His conclusion is indeed very serious, reflecting the benefits or casualties that will occur, if either side is wrong.

However his analysis reflects a bias in two ways. His assumption that this occurs post-war, and his characterizations and breaking down. He assumes that "Iraq hawks" will prevail and that those who "express reservations about removing him from power at this particular moment, or without U.N. approval" will fail. Hence allowing him to put the ifs on the side of the opposition and more certainty if not flexibility on the side of his argument. It could not help but have a justified point, the way he has postured.

The characterizations are further misconstrued. Given the assumptions it is fine to leave "hawks" as is, but those who have "reservations"? The many views that are held in opposition to the war are reflected throughout his argument. The concern that war be "at this particular moment" and "without U.N. approval" does not seem to be addressed. If this were not confusing enough, his thinking hints at the argument that one would be better off without the other. Post-war it would only make sense that some will hold on to their principles and appear as posturing. But pre-war where would the "hawks" be without the "opposition"? Will those willing to work for peace get anywhere with "hawks" that won’t address notions of patience or approval?

NEXUS REVIEW

It seems on reading the Bin Laden communiqué, that it is a not so funny parody of a typical Madison Avenue ad campaign or Bush speech. Regardless of it being faked or supporting anyone in particular (the people or their government) it’s utility is proven as a nexus for the Bush administration. It is too bad that we don’t have a nexus of words and actions rather than people.

The flip-flop that Secretary of State Powell has done (Saddam /Bin Laden nexus) is demonstrative of the lack of nexus in the administration between principles and words, words and actions, and principles and actions. It is easy to see how America is not gaining friends or influencing people. Where is the nexus uniting not dividing, trusting the nexus of the people and the government, and being the nexus of the legal and ones conscience? This is a track record in Bush statements that lacks nexus, so why should any nexus they see matter? And how could we expect them to see the nexus between preemptive actions and offensive actions, being less of a nexus than offensive and defensive? Nor how could we not expect our adversaries to see a nexus between their preemptive alternatives and defense? It seems that we are on the road from MAD to MAO (Mutually Assured Offenses).

OH REALLY FOG

OH REALLY FOG. "Labeling U.S. as terrorist is anti-American."
Does Bill O’Reilly take credit for that as the title of his piece?

Labeling is where we have a problem. It is a shortcut that is very American. Unfortunately, both terrorist and anti-American are labels. Some definition someone sticks on others so they don’t have to use definitions or worry about their instability or inconsistencies. Terrorist is a word that has several definitions and American even more. Anti-American can probably have no less. Propaganda has a few definitions of its own. And when words are tossed about, things can get pretty sloppy and cruel. Given the flexibility in these definitions one could almost say anything, and not know what it really means. But I am pretty sure your attack itself is just as un-American, if being American means being concerned about defining our words and actions.

But signing on to a group need not be as much as you think, when you think most people know what you state is only implied.

Now that I have read more about Not in our Name and the transcript from your show, let me know if they have misquoted you, but it makes me even more furious. In fact I may be as furious as you are. Not only are you the propaganda, but what you are so upset about is your own doing. Not only do you misconstrue their ad, you can’t even comprehend what people like them are talking about. In particular, when you confuse/compare the sympathy NION has for the deaths of anyone, with your comparing of the actions of the suicidal bombers with the reasonable goals in Kuwait and Panama. If you are the NO SPIN ZONE, not only can’t handle spin, you don’t know the meaning of spin. I really liked your take on the FOG of history. That is really where you are coming from and where you are going. At least the people you disparage have names whether they have control of the complete message or not, unlike the ones too afraid to be labeled as consultants in the Cheney Energy panel, that is O’Reilly American.

By the way, I never found the mentioned ad on your site, nor on their site. But hopefully I have fairly dealt with what you did say. Any attempt to link people with groups that they are not necessarily aware of is much less significant than Cheney not wanting to be linked to those who he would consult with, not to mention your fog.

Why can you not see the insanity in your thinking? Now it is clear, Oh really. It is the fog of history you are in and out of. That and the theory: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It also saves one from needing to have principles. The enemy of my enemy is my friend applies very strangely. If one is not the enemy of your enemy they must also be your enemy. No wonder it’s hard for us to have friends. With people working for peace and progress it poses a catch-22. With others it is safer to just have enemies. It is also no wonder some would rather arm themselves then trust the government. Why can’t you see that opposing violence is different than choosing sides, and dissension and or protest not in the same league as war or un-principled violence?

[Update: 2-13-12 labels and links]

A MOMENT OF SILENCE For Challenger Crew.

Words were inadequate to express the feelings of Saturday morning February 1st, 2003. The president’s words were just right. Not only for what he said, but for what he did not. He avoided taking too much meaning from a tragedy. Things will go on. It is not that any tragedy is less than another, but that we may gain experience in handling them or not. While some may seem jaded or inured, it may be that they feel as much or more for others. What was needed was a moment of silence before we turn back to reading the signs.

FORWARD

My post “The French. Why do they hate us?” was a commentary I wrote replying to the Slate writer, Christopher Suellentrop. I had intentions of endorsing Thomas Friedman’s ideas in “ Thinking about Iraq (3)” in the NY Times or as the King County Journal titled it: "Mr. President, here is a deal on Iraq". It suggests that the Arab world negotiate Saddam Hussein’s exile.

It was unintentional that this reply to Francophobes, was so appropriate in addressing a few comments Friedman made, but was also useful as a forward to supporting his plan. I guess with the crack he made about France and Germany wanting us to step into a mess in Iraq, the plan none-the-less, could be something that they could consider supporting. In finding a contact for the Embassy of France website, there was an interesting post there (“Situation in Iraq”) by the Minister of Foreign Affairs explaining the role of France, the European Council, the United Nation, the UN Security Council in the international arena.
Suffice to say that it gave me hope that not only was Suellentrop’s conclusion soon to be shown wrong, but that they had much more on the ball that may or may not mean they could support the Friedman plan.

The French. (Why do they hate us?)

Because we are dumb and they don’t. First I must qualify that "we" here means some of us(are dumb), and "they" means most of them(the French, don’t hate us). Second, most of us need to use dictionaries more frequently than emotions.

Just because we want to find out why someone hates us, does not mean it can be attributed to a whole region or nation, or any individual. A poll, or book, does not an argument or emotion-make. It is especially ironic when the search becomes instead, for a caricature of foreigners, for use as propaganda in the war on terrorism.

The bee in my beret comes from the lack of citing any polling indicating that "they" "hate" us. It is only slightly less ironic that a poll is cited where "the percentage of French who viewed the United States 'with sympathy' dropped from 54 to 35 percent between 1988 and 1996". I would wonder whether we ask for any sympathy or need it. But aside from the several interpretations of sympathy, I would say it should be a two way street.

But in the end I guess that Chris Suellentrop makes a good point. That one must sacrifice principles for power. With a "hyperpower", is there any other choice? There should be, other than hate and terrorism. Is it ironic or apropos that we find supporters of the administration irritated about making up words, compounded by the fact that when one checks a dictionary so many words came from "fureners * "?

Touché or "nuke em" that is the question. Which for some reason brings to mind a whole other analogy when I think about why we can’t work together for our principles. Where would any of us be without opposition or dissension? Is this not a good cop-bad cop routine that we all hope will work?

[(My view of what seemed a parody)Same title** by Chris Suellentrop posted Wednesday, January 29, 2003 ]
[* upgraded 6-11-08 caricature of speech ]
** 4-4-14 update link

Some may find my sports analogy of too light a matter. But sports analogies should be of great concern if soccer (being the original football) is any indication of future world affairs. It is at least worth keeping mind, given the behavior of fans, both inside and outside stadiums. And certainly lends nothing to the theory that at least team (or national) sports are a worthwhile activity.

Defense is Not Offensive A short analogy.

A sports analogy or Bushism: “The best defense is a good offense”, was just disproved. In the Superbowl yesterday the #1 defense whipped the #1 offense. While war may not be like sports, maybe sports is more like life. It should be played by the rules. In war the refs are generally composed of the winners so that seems to work against the sports analogy for war. Of course no body is perfect, even the refs make mistakes, but that does not mean we should throw them out or limit challenges or replays.

Life and peace are another matter. They may need power and enforcement, but without the rule book they would mean nothing. Without the rule book, refs, challenges and replays, offense would just be offensive.

It is also interesting that the winners with their defensive philosophy were from Florida and the losers with their offensive philosophy, were from what some call the Left Coast. It seems that this time the results for Florida were much clearer. While in Oakland the disturbing behavior that filled the streets may have occurred whether their team or the analogy had been successful in this case.

Bush Boxed in Cover Up

BUSH BOXED IN COVER-UP or Democratic Ad Boxed To Go or IRONY "STILL GOING"

Within days of opening an Office of Global Communications * to declare the Iraq regime an "apparatus of lies" it looks like the president needs to focus on his local apparatus of "communications". In a blatant cover-up, right under his own nose, the president makes a mockery of his own words. Touting his economic package at a trucking warehouse in St. Louis, he wanted a stage depicting small business in America. His platform was in front of a printed backdrop of boxes stamped with "Made in USA" surrounding the words "Strengthening America’s Economy". But below the podium decorating the platform were boxes with conspicuous tape over some of the words. When reporters investigated they found the words "Made in China". A spokesperson credited the tape to White House volunteers. There may be economic lessons here too, but that is another box too full of irony.

The reporter’s quick claim of Boxgate was never so appropriate. For if his staff had destroyed the tape, they would have had to destroy the boxes which were the cover for his platform.

* [links and labels added 12-6-07]

Do as I say, not as I do.

It is more than ironic that the Bush administration opens an Office of Global Communications on the same day it declares the Iraq regime an apparatus of lies. Let’s look at some of the communications that have come from George W. Bush. “I trust the people not the government.” “I am a uniter not a divider.” His claim that he was president well before he was selected. Anyway then things get really fuzzy, running up to the “axis of evil”.

Let us be clear. There are some evil people in the world and something must be done about them. But calling them an axis gives them more credit than they deserve, not to mention leaving others out, both other evil and our allies. The most interesting thing he said lately about his problems developing a coalition to move on Iraq is that “It is like a rerun of a bad movie. I don’t want to watch anymore.” That is the problem with this administration. Not only is this worse than a rerun of any previous behavior in foreign policy it is likely to create spin-off behavior that we don’t want to watch either.

Sent to King County Journal 1-17-03.

Can we be any more clear?

Protests or pot-lucks will they do any good? What is the good they seek? These questions are irrelevant in a free society. They seek a good in their own view and that is what counts. Even if they sought ill they would have that freedom--- for now, but that is another question.

Will they have an effect? A no less difficult, but more relevant question. Have I found a way to address the administration without clarity? I prefer to view it as the best way to address a lack of clarity, by demonstrating complexity without complexity. To address the administrations thinking or lack of thinking, one can get no clearer.

In either case it is the right and duty of citizens to express their opinions, and hopefully have an effect. The administration has simultaneously represented that they have not presented an argument for war, yet recognize they already have the authority to go to war. It all hinges on what they mean to intend, but it seems to be ironic if we go to war based on someone else’s intentions when we cannot know our own. Congress has apparently given the go on war, but it will be no less ironic that we pursue violators of international law by saying we are above explaining to either the United Nations or our own people.

Any credit for having an effect will depend on the outcome, but that will take clarity that may never come, when lack of clarity played a part.

Previous mention of duplication may be solved by the fact that I may have reached a capacity in my archives that makes them unavailable. [It may have been a temporary situation.]

The filibuster is now in the news as a method to counter judicial nominees that have previously been rejected. My view is that it is warranted on a case by case basis now if ever.

I would recommend an interesting book that I will likely comment further on later. “Democracy’s Discontent” by Michael J. Sandel. Subtitled. “America in Search of a Public Philosophy”. The back has flattering comments from George F. Will, which is at least interesting since Mr. Sandel is a Professor of Government at Harvard University. I will summarize the topic of the book at this time as a view of constitutional evolution that he would role back.

At this time I note my posting on Sept 6th. .....
[02-02-01 {Responding to "Abolish the Filibuster!" by Timothy Noah in Slate, Chatterbox.} The filibuster does seem like a useless tool. .....]

and [ASHCROFT CONFIRMED (On bi-partisanship) 02-02-01 The confirmation of Sen. Ashcroft for Attorney General is not an example of a failure but of proper politics. There were not enough votes ....so we may be hopeful, but we must be wary. However, such risks must not be taken on lifetime appointment to any judiciary positions. The Ashcroft opposition was certainly not as vicious as those that supported him. That, I am afraid, is not behind us.]

NOTE: [I apologize for some duplication in earlier posts that my editing did not remove. They were originally included since they were part of a particular effort, a letter or fax to someone in particular.]

[Instamessage to talk-show host (TSH) sounds like an analysis.]

Dear TSH- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently said that Iraq was not being cooperative enough since the inspections had not found anything not on the list they provided. So therefore it must be reasonable that Saddam may have saved some of these items to address that nonsense, to prove they are being cooperative. It seems that the administration is proposing bomb if you do, bomb if you don’t arguments, so it doesn’t really matter how Saddam behaves. Now the administration says they have yet to present an argument?

(Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Credit if you do, credit if you don’t. )

Dear TSH- The President does deserve some credit if he has changed his positions, but so can his critics take credit for his changes. Unfortunately we will not be certain until after and if this is resolved, and even then the argument will not necessarily be clear, since we are having an argument and they claim not to be presenting an argument now. If we cannot be clear on what he is saying, how can we be clear on what he is doing, to give anyone credit?

Dear TSH- I like and have even proposed quite some time ago the "Wacko Theory" you have arrived at and it is similar to the poker game theory of bluffing. Indeed it may be our only hope if it works. Unfortunately this seems to scare our own citizens and our friends and allies more than other it does other wackos. In fact it would possible lead wackos to be more wacko and indeed see the value in not following agreements that we in fact have dropped.

Another thing is that this depends on the idea that these opponents are not as wacko as one might think.

It also poses risk since we do not know if this type of thinking will be applied in other issues. The signs are that similar tactics (vilifying while obfuscating) are being used on domestic as well as other foreign policy issues. These tactics if unclear have frightening consequences not only for world peace but even our own freedoms. If having a wacko president is justified, then there could be no argument against having a different (or our) wacko for president. We would equally be able to blame critics and opponents for getting in the way of our type of wacko.

Update: Hullabaloo!

[Sent to Seattle PI, 12-23-02]
CLASSROOM PERFECT FORUM

The outcry arising from Patty Murray’s words could be very helpful if it actually gets people thinking. Unbeknownst to many of her opponents is their own point, that it is actually wrong to think or ask questions. They give no credit to the students who were able to follow[*] her words in a context without belaboring the obvious evils of Bin Laden. They charge falsehood where they can’t tell the difference between our gross contributions and the greater contributions of others by percent of GNP.

If we are somehow right and don’t need to consider other views, how can we not expect others to think the same? If the evil that Bin Laden has done should somehow erase any good, and prevent us from mentioning it, why are we not allowed to consider any bad that is done in our name to prevent it from damaging the great good that we do? If we can choose not to look at our own wrongs, how can we hope that others will consider theirs?

If we can do no wrong, then this thinking is not necessary. If we don’t have the guts or mind to face good questions, it is easy to give up on thinking, for violence. Our government has endorsed violence as a threat in hopes of prevention, as a response to provocation, as retaliation for evil, and now as preemption for presumed evil. Now we are somehow expected not to consider what others are thinking, let alone what we mean by our actions? It should be easy to see how many people can fall into such behavior, but not without thinking. Men and women are still fighting and dying and I don’t think it’s for the right to shut up, curb our questions or ignore wrongs wherever they exist.

[Update: 5-2-11Bin Laden Dead! Bold links(and Lede) and Link (at bottom)added here.]

Ideology and Process

[Printed in the Eastside Journal 12-16-02] Edited version of 12-6 post: IDEOLOGY AND PROCESS
POLITICS
Voters too impatient

A Dec. 3 letter writer misinterpreted Donald Kaul's Nov. 24 piece, ``Anti-war rallies don't have the power to change politicians' hearts.'' Beyond the system, Kaul also focused on the difficulties caused by being too tied to ideology.

These difficulties arise from those too extreme or dissatisfied leaving the confines of a party, and how this works in our political system which gives us the House, Senate and electoral process. This system and its winner-take-all nature allows spoilers to mute voices rather than give them representation.

The Kaul piece did not so much indict the electoral process, but the voters who were too impatient with more moderate voices that tend to legislate or campaign, for whatever reasons, less ideologically. There is frequent disdain for politicians who may use their judgment or simply compromise for the sake of progress over partisan agendas.

There are those across the spectrum who would rather see the process not work than to work it. That leaves us all between a rock and a hard place or, rather, between partisanship and politics squashing the voice of reason.

Roger Larson

Bellevue
[Note: 5-2-11 Lede and bottom (previous post)link (and Label)added]