FIRE KARL ROVE!*
He is a threat not only to Democracy but possibly our liberty and our lives.
Rove's words reflect the biggest difference between the administration, not conservatives, and Americans, all of them including liberals. That is, that for the administration's political purposes, war is not the last option. And if you want to unite us, knowing what you mean, and meaning what you say, should be your top priority for the sake of America and the world.
The whole policy of preempting fear by fear itself, must be ended!
If this is not the policy, you better check in on what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice are saying as well.
PEOPLE MUST SPEAK NOW! OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR WAR!
* correction Carl read Karl 6-12-14
Friday, June 24, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
From Pillar to Post?
Is truth really relative?
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.
The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.
Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.
Is evil black and white or so obvious even, purely black?
Just a few questions to ponder
and wonder who would answer and/or who would even question.
The Frame?
Let's nail it down.
Does the end justify the means? Bush says no, but does otherwise.
The actual post here is possibly just as obtuse, before I nailed it.
Having not seen the new legislation calling for timetable for the removal of our troops from Iraq, it is important to note that it is only a bipartisan message from Congress. A timetable is a signal to the administration and the world the intentions of some in congress. It is the beginning of a true conversation that will require looking at our goals and methods including those past or we will continue to use them. Much could be said by running with this rhetoric but we must not run from getting more definition of our dilemma. But it may not mean much if war or having it his way is the way that Bush uses to let the world know he means what he says. And where knowing what he means is the most important area where preemption would have been wise and where knowing what other actions were preemptive.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
BIG TENT v. MESS TENT
Do I need to explain the frame?
BUSH'S WAR
THE FRAME
REGIME CHANGE
I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.
To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)
The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.
The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.
If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.
(Below Sent to Local Papers)
It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.
Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.
Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA
BUSH'S WAR
THE FRAME
REGIME CHANGE
I have not read all the above links although my word play may foreshadow.
The following was more timely.
To Trent Lott:(5-18-02: Though parts may have been posted later)
The President said today: "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning, I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people." It must be noted that he was very careful in saying it. I think that few would claim that he knew anything, but rather demonstrated a great lack of intelligence.
The following applies to what is despicable about this matter. It is represented in your May 17th posting: "Senate Republican Leader Urges a Quieting of the 9/11 Terrorism Rhetoric". I agree with your statement, "We should knock down the rhetoric." Unfortunately, much of your portions in bold contained too much rhetoric and the rest was sometimes reasonable yet too often defensive and blaming if not unimpressive rambling.
If you'd stop wasting time blaming the "blame America first" crowd, you could concentrate on your intelligence briefings and your job instead of being depressed and nervous about too much information in the press.
(Below Sent to Local Papers)
It is the height of hypocrisy and ironic that Vice President Cheney should warn the Democrats about taking partisan advantage of the attack on the World Trade Center or using incendiary language, after their use of the September 11th photo-op and the words they have so often chosen. Granted that there may not have been enough information to rise above the background and know exactly what to expect, only enough apparently to plan for a war.
Given that the administration turns its back on world justice and the International Criminal Court and has justified any means to fight terrorism, or defend our sovereignty, it is no wonder that violence has been established as a solution. If civilian collateral damage is accepted routinely, and lack of a declaration of war and consulting with congress are accepted without passionate argument, then it is no wonder that someone could attack us.
Apparently it was the case that a war was about to be declared by the administration and that one was already declared against the U.S. by terrorists. It may even be that threats were made by the administration that included threats of war (direct and indirect) and given the administrations record there is much to support that if they were up front about anything it was that a declaration of war was not necessary. In fact the language the president often used was tantamount to declaring war all the while acknowledging that we would not telegraph our blows.
Again, is it any surprise that an enemy would use the same tactics? Apparently surprise is the most the administration will admit. Instead of investing more power in our intelligence operations, we should more intelligently use the powers we have. Oh, and it would help if we use the laws we have too.
Roger Larson
Bellevue, WA
Monday, June 13, 2005
DEAN MESS IS THE MESSAGE!
It is hard to react to the reactions but it all seems a lot of overreaction.
The Dean mess is the message.
A "Big Tent" versus "THE MESS" Tent.
The Bush mess is the "Mess Age".
If generalizing were a crime, there would be a lot of pundits and pols in lock-up.
If the particular truth were told, the media is much of the mess.
If context is ignored, you only have "the con" text.
If Dean is not dividing, then what would be the need for a "BIG TENT"?
If Dean is the focus, then what about the mess we are in?
If the media overreacts to Dean, at least the multiple reactions include issues that the troops are working on.
That is the dilemma of staying on message.
You may get a "Mess Age".
The Dean mess is the message.
A "Big Tent" versus "THE MESS" Tent.
The Bush mess is the "Mess Age".
If generalizing were a crime, there would be a lot of pundits and pols in lock-up.
If the particular truth were told, the media is much of the mess.
If context is ignored, you only have "the con" text.
If Dean is not dividing, then what would be the need for a "BIG TENT"?
If Dean is the focus, then what about the mess we are in?
If the media overreacts to Dean, at least the multiple reactions include issues that the troops are working on.
That is the dilemma of staying on message.
You may get a "Mess Age".
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Liberals Rethinking? Not in their hands.
In regard to the "Gang of 14" compromise, I would like to point out the seemingly binding nature of it and the "extraordinary circumstances" pertaining to the President not seeking "advice and consent". It seems that it is in the hands or principles of the Republican 7 that they abide by Part II, B for any other nominations, given the refusal by the President and others in congress to recognize the constitutional principle of equal branches of government. Any indication to the contrary by these seven would void the agreement!
Risking fulfillment of the agreement would only be worth it if we can politically win the understanding of moderates while keeping the hearts of progressives.
Any comparison of future or pending nominations to the conceded nominees would be invalid, as that is what they were negotiated for.
Risking fulfillment of the agreement would only be worth it if we can politically win the understanding of moderates while keeping the hearts of progressives.
Any comparison of future or pending nominations to the conceded nominees would be invalid, as that is what they were negotiated for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)