More disturbing than Iraq being under martial law is that they think that Saddam Hussein will have a fair trial. Even an MSNBC poll showed that 46% believe he does not deserve a fair trial. But Robert Sheers’s “Born Under a Cloud of Irony” spells out the problems for the Bush administration if he were to get a fair trial.
The irony is that we invaded Iraq for regime change, because he was unjust, undemocratic and immensely cruel, not to mention violating international laws. Oh, the last item was not really played up or the irony that we don’t recognize it would come into play.
A fair trial might question the relationship with the past U.S. administrations, namely Reagan and Bush 41. So we install a CIA sponsored car bomber to give him justice under Iraqi law rather than international law. SEE Link.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
BEFORE THE INK DRIES
Before I have fully read the previous day's link, which I just corrected, a new development bears ominously on my projections. I did think that if I now have yesterday's link correct there would be information that would provide the details and legitimacy for justice so soon. That appears to be out the window anyway, and if there is anything we can learn from their process, let us hope it is not the resorting to martial law.
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
OBTUSELY INSTRUMENTAL
See the Link below for MSNBC Question of the Day
Does legally turning Saddam over to the new Iraqi government change anything?
My comment on the question:
Its obtuseness was instrumental. It is ironic that Bush says freedom is an ingredient in the making of a democracy, yet somehow sovereignty can be given at the point of a gun. I find it typical that this democracy somehow has judges, not to mention laws that can try anyone so soon. While the administration is busy rewriting legal memos, somehow justice will begin in Iraq with the hand-over of documents and a prisoner it seems before there is democratic input in the creation of the branches of government.
FURTHER: Maybe we can learn something from this or maybe they have. But will the end justify the means?
Does legally turning Saddam over to the new Iraqi government change anything?
My comment on the question:
Its obtuseness was instrumental. It is ironic that Bush says freedom is an ingredient in the making of a democracy, yet somehow sovereignty can be given at the point of a gun. I find it typical that this democracy somehow has judges, not to mention laws that can try anyone so soon. While the administration is busy rewriting legal memos, somehow justice will begin in Iraq with the hand-over of documents and a prisoner it seems before there is democratic input in the creation of the branches of government.
FURTHER: Maybe we can learn something from this or maybe they have. But will the end justify the means?
Monday, June 28, 2004
SPIRIT OF THE LAW
The president has spoken recently again, about the spirit of the law. This has been his out in all of this dissembling. Good intentions somehow figure into interpretations of the law more than the actual words in the law. To cover the other end of the deal, write memos that no one reads but hope they will follow until they need to be rewritten. Who needs lawyers when you have judges? Who needs to rewrite history, when you can rewrite memos?
The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.
I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.
…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004
It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.
The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.
I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.
…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004
It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.
Friday, June 25, 2004
QCON that [Anonymous Interview]
Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04
QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.
Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".
The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."
NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04
QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.
Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.
Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"
Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”
Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"
Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."
Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"
Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."
QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".
The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."
NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]
Thursday, June 24, 2004
(QCON) Cheney v. U.S. District Court
The Supreme Court sent back to lower court the request to get documents from the Cheney Energy Panel. [SEE LINK >> QCON-Cheney Energy Panel]
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."
The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."
The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.
[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.
Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.
An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.
Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."
The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."
The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.
[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.
Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.
An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.
Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Monday, June 21, 2004
Bush Is No Reagan.
The Club For Growth will be showing Reagan at the Berlin Wall and Bush at Ground Zero. Though I would not give too much credit for the Berlin Wall falling to Reagan, some do. But comparing the two should imply that Bush gets some credit for the World Trade Center twin towers falling. Whatever credit is deserved, one represents the end of the cold war, the other the beginning of the terror war. Just how can there be a good comparison? One is the end of something that was already in trouble. The other is the beginning of trouble that sees no end. They are similar in that they selectively choose a perspective. One could see the coming fall of the Soviet Empire, the other could not see that failures or successes are not options but results.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
RONALD REAGAN: (R.I.P) RESPECTIVE IN PEACE
Much must and will be said about the passing of a great leader, President Ronald Reagan. His tragic illness in his last years is especially unfitting for a man loved by many. History will be written and rewritten. Now is not the time for trying to counter balance all the hope and inspiration he gave to many but to keep an open mind about bringing them to reality. His friends and critics alike should appreciate his skills and character, which were a most powerful weapon. [SEE LINK-- AMERICAN DREAMER: NEWSWEEK]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)