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.
Tuesday, September 23, 2003
Friday, September 19, 2003
“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”.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 11, 2003
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.
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.
Monday, September 08, 2003
[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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)