DEFEAT BY GEORGE

Defeat By Daniel N. Nelson
Common Dreams Friday 2 April 2004

A piece I found difficult, but an echo it seems of my thoughts.

A DEMOCRATIC WORLD?

Question mark added above.
The following article is more than some will wish to read and not what many would want to think. However, it is as I see the solution, rather than the excuse that has been used ironically and retroactively for preemption.

A DEMOCRATIC WORLD by George Packer
Can liberals take foreign policy back from the Republicans?
It gives me a cleaner perspective on my intended perspective. If my pieces have been difficult, try this. But I do not promise it will be easier.

RUNNING WITH RHETORIC

James Baker III who fixed the vote for Bush in Florida as he himself described it speaking to Russian oil oligarchs, represents the Republican party, Exxon, the Saudi government, the governing council in Iraq and does all of this out of an office in the White House? And a caller on the Dave Ross show asks Greg Palast if they (Cheney et al cabal) are taking anything under the table? Oh and this is not about oil or having your cake and eating it too? Or do as I say not as I do?

And Bush joked in his first media appearance things would be easier if he were dictator? Question mark belongs after both the resident and his joke. All other question marks replace quotes ironically.

(Upside down) Ed. Note: I have yet to figure out how to print stuff upside down, but ala Q&A or fun-books I should give footnotes or clues upside down for those having trouble with my writing style or MO. In this case an explanation: I escape responsibilities for direct quotes by using questions instead of quotations. Much as a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical administration. (Right side up: Sometimes my clues need footnotes.) I may have crossed the mobius loop of hypocrisy or irony. A visual I will refrain from footnoting.

United Nations- Repeat of my April 5th Post.

United Nations
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM


SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times

My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.

Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."

This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops

Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.

URLs not appearing.

{Disregard this post as on 12-17-07, I am updating the links to the adjoining posts: Memo
Set up? Walled Excuse. ]



[ORIGINAL POST: links added]
Here are the URLs for the previous two posts.

Thanks to Democrats.com Daily News update, including their headline teasers for them. The beginings of my threads.

__Ashcroft Blames Commission Member Gorelick
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

__Was Gorelick's Appointment a Set Up to Derail the Inquiry and Smear Clinton?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004

Thank you.

MEMO

Why was Gorelick appointed with this conflict of interest? It need not be a conflict of interest if it had been interpreted correctly as not a wall, but an opportunity to be organized and legal. Processes the administration has not shown too much concern for unless it is in a preemptive vein.
[12-19-07 link update]

SET UP? WALLED EXCUSE.

"Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest"
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.

Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]

"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."

This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".

This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.

Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)

It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.

Another chicken and the egg controversy?

The end does not justify the means. Bush said something similar.
The end justifies the means. If the latter were followed, the former would be claimed.

If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end?
If the end does not justify the means, we still need to ask what justifies the end.

If the end justifies the means, asking questions threatens the truth.
If asking questions is threatened, how will we begin, let alone end?

Where does the buck start, let alone stop?

FINDING A SILVER BULLET IN A MUSHROOM CLOUD?

Having only seen a small portion and the conclusion of the Rice testimony it strikes me that they are still on thin ice. They look back at the need for a war footing. They achieved the need for a war footing.

There was a failure of intelligence and the structure of communications. The story begins there.

Taking responsibility would reduce the finger pointing. Finger pointing avoids responsibility. Denying either does both. They seem to only focus on avoiding while laying it, another chicken or the egg controversy.

Denying that a silver bullet could have prevented 9-11 avoids the fact that any actions taken on some information could have caused more than they could know to flip. Jumping to the assumption that there will be a mushroom cloud unless actions are taken, is a flop.

Something must change but without full debate it will not be for the better. That something must change does not mean that a better job could not have been done.

Maybe someone's thinking must change. Maybe it was already wrong.

To make substantial changes based on failure cannot guarantee seeing a silver bullet when you are lost in a mushroom cloud.

United Nations

Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.

Posts from Wednesday, September 25, 2002:

Distributed by email Sept. 17th 2002

REGIME RHETORIC REPLY

The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely, Roger Larson

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What happens after a regime change and when there are other regime changes within the various players? It should be easy to see a pandora's box, but some have the curiosity to open it, without the curiosity or even patience to ask the questions let alone expect any answers.
To those who would go to war: If you have the stomach for blood, do you have the guts for democracy?

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

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]
[ Subject Category: Peace, Foreign Policy,
Justice, War and Terrorism]

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published
since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war".

How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism November 27, 2001

While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William
Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The
trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither.
(Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an
attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism
then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism".

It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed
fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism.

But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current
policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear
goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or
require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for
the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all"
we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September
20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our
first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the
contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of
Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and
humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes.

In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of
Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of
Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to
heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in
some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Roger Larson

A CONUNDRUM INSIDE A PREEMPTIVE COMMISSION.

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

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

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

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

THE TRUTH APPARENT: A MOBIUS LAP

More about testimony: It would seem unprecedented that the selection of the Vice president was also un-presidential, in that the head of the search committee for Vice president selected himself.

This brings to mind as they testify in tandem, somewhat of a Charlie McCarthyism.

A mobius loop is another image that earlier came to mind and was triggered as Cheney declared Clarke out of the loop.

[No links were originally provided at the date of this post, but on 3-24-08 I now update starting with the Huffington link below at CommonDreams.org regarding updated democracy and pertains to testimony before congress and the 9-11 committee both of which are after my post. And to blow the Punch and Judy line above, there is the puppet and there are the investigations, and there is self defeating. (But the last bit just fell into place]

[6-8-09: I am uncertain as to my Punch and Judy reference, unless it is to the unPC of it or the self-defeating nature of it all.]

[not to mention 8-13-09]