The Unprecedented President selected by the Supreme Court which intentionally exempted that selection from setting a precedent, has refused to set a precedent by exempting his testimony from setting a precedent by testifying before his own 9-11 Commission. He will also declare himself exempt from testifying alone and will exempt himself and his Vice president from taking the oath. Further caution apparently needed to prevent precedent from presiding by the prevention of any dictation of a transcript or notes being allowed.
Apparently you can’t write this stuff.
All this was contingent upon being behind closed doors, with National Security Advisor Rice having the last word in public.
(Some material from Clarke on "Hardball": )
[Updated: 6-8-09 Hardball was the only original link inserted. Previous post updated as well as link to Charley McCarthyism.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
RERUN:
Post from Wednesday, April 16, 2003:
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.
Post from Wednesday, April 16, 2003:
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.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Beating around the Bush:
My view of the recent claim that Richard Clarke is lying is that the administration would not know the truth if they saw it.
But this is not another charge that the administration themselves are lying, but that they truly do not know the truth. Exhibit A: Rumsfeld says "facts change". That means that he can rely on what he wants, not on facts. Exhibit B: Intelligence is an opinion. That means that they can pick and choose the facts that they will rely on. To top it off they can even rely on facts not being reliable to safely cover their bets or rather conclusions, actions or the lack there of.
My conclusion, not having seen the previous 2002 testimony, is that they still cannot tell the truth when they see it. Further investigation and testimony may not clear up the truth, but further point to the problem that they cannot work with the cards they are dealt. After the fact, Monday morning quarterbacking is easier than 20/20 foresight. But so is Monday morning scape-goating.
Here we have an administration that wants to be able to act on a threat based on their own picking and choosing of intelligence but could not clearly conclude from the intelligence that is being presented; prior to 9-11, during current testimony, and likely during the 2002 testimony
[update 6-8-09 link label only]
But this is not another charge that the administration themselves are lying, but that they truly do not know the truth. Exhibit A: Rumsfeld says "facts change". That means that he can rely on what he wants, not on facts. Exhibit B: Intelligence is an opinion. That means that they can pick and choose the facts that they will rely on. To top it off they can even rely on facts not being reliable to safely cover their bets or rather conclusions, actions or the lack there of.
My conclusion, not having seen the previous 2002 testimony, is that they still cannot tell the truth when they see it. Further investigation and testimony may not clear up the truth, but further point to the problem that they cannot work with the cards they are dealt. After the fact, Monday morning quarterbacking is easier than 20/20 foresight. But so is Monday morning scape-goating.
Here we have an administration that wants to be able to act on a threat based on their own picking and choosing of intelligence but could not clearly conclude from the intelligence that is being presented; prior to 9-11, during current testimony, and likely during the 2002 testimony
[update 6-8-09 link label only]
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
A QUOTE FOR THE DAY:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Attributed to Lincoln.
MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
The problem is we all forget we are either some of the people or all the people, and think we have a new equation.
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Attributed to Lincoln.
MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:
The problem is we all forget we are either some of the people or all the people, and think we have a new equation.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
BUSH AD
Demos can make a gain
[Printed 3-10-04, King County Journal]
My title:
Freedom, Faith, Family and Sacrifice Reminds Us.
From what I have seen of the first Bush ad, it is surprisingly honest. The words freedom, faith, family and sacrifice are prominent principles on parade. The images of victims and heroes bring feelings that are shared by all of us.
The Democrats could be tempted to hope it is continually run until the Freudian nature of it sinks in.
Why was a fourth ``F'' word not worked in for literary sake? Would it be too much reminder of the four freedoms of FDR? Would it be their avoidance of words like fear and failure, which would fit this administration and its lost faith in processes?
Sacrifice is appropriately chosen instead and we should be reminded who and what is being sacrificed. Since Sept. 11, 2001, there may be a new equation.
But we must do better than the fuzzy math and facts that change for this administration or it is only a dangerous formula. These images and feelings are real and valid but they make little difference, until they are followed up by words and actions that mean something
Demos can make a gain
[Printed 3-10-04, King County Journal]
My title:
Freedom, Faith, Family and Sacrifice Reminds Us.
From what I have seen of the first Bush ad, it is surprisingly honest. The words freedom, faith, family and sacrifice are prominent principles on parade. The images of victims and heroes bring feelings that are shared by all of us.
The Democrats could be tempted to hope it is continually run until the Freudian nature of it sinks in.
Why was a fourth ``F'' word not worked in for literary sake? Would it be too much reminder of the four freedoms of FDR? Would it be their avoidance of words like fear and failure, which would fit this administration and its lost faith in processes?
Sacrifice is appropriately chosen instead and we should be reminded who and what is being sacrificed. Since Sept. 11, 2001, there may be a new equation.
But we must do better than the fuzzy math and facts that change for this administration or it is only a dangerous formula. These images and feelings are real and valid but they make little difference, until they are followed up by words and actions that mean something
Thursday, March 04, 2004
SHARED SACRIFICE [NOT 4F]
I have not seen the first Bush ad, but NPR reviewed it and from what they said it was surprisingly honest. I did not get the full wording but the words FREEDOM, FAITH, FAMILY and SACRIFICE were the prominent values that were on parade. The images of mangled victims and brave firefighters were connected with this message. While tempting to point out that the fourth F of FAILURE would be more appropriate, the word sacrifice is something that we should all share.
The Democrats are a party of unity not division. We share the values of freedom, faith, family and more importantly sharing sacrifices.
I have not seen the first Bush ad, but NPR reviewed it and from what they said it was surprisingly honest. I did not get the full wording but the words FREEDOM, FAITH, FAMILY and SACRIFICE were the prominent values that were on parade. The images of mangled victims and brave firefighters were connected with this message. While tempting to point out that the fourth F of FAILURE would be more appropriate, the word sacrifice is something that we should all share.
The Democrats are a party of unity not division. We share the values of freedom, faith, family and more importantly sharing sacrifices.
DEMOCRACY IN A REPUBLIC IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.
Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.
Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.
A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.
But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?
If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]
Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.
Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.
A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.
But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?
If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)