TM-R (day-5)

Trust Me?(review) Early Warning- anarchy [The Problem With Information Anarchy]-
My comment:
Regime Change based on WMD history and evasion of process, nexus intentions.
Trust but verify.

Congress- - to boldly go...

My intention is to keep things short and leave the reading to others. Sound familiar? The latter not the former.

Re: the poll
Darn, there may not be a "heckuva" difference, except for who does the "hard work".

RESULTS:
[I'm not sure] is a surprising third.(3%)
[As long as it gets the job done] is a distant second.(10%)

--I'm not sure if the administration or the designers of the polls are making more progress - - - in designing the polls or uniting "us".
--Even the 87% [be wary] is suspect, as we are hoist by our own Picard. For we so much want to just "make it so" [Q2].

"Under Review"? PLEASE! Start with the president's first announcement, and the review "this government" did and this "ally" in the war on terror and why it was worth a veto threat, and by the way what is up with the review (Phase II) on the use of intelligence running up to the war. Will it be that type of review? What about the presidents "intentions" before he went to war over Saddam's "intentions"?

Oh what irony one weaves [Q3,Q4,Q?] when first we practice... Hide and Q

Looking beyond

Conquest

This one I have fully digested, indeed spewed forth or back through my archives. Two concepts emblematic of The Liaison Report are contrasted in one sentence "People who believe in universal rules and people who see power behind the rules can scarcely talk to each other".

Another two words, "...politicians and their critics..." represent (in my view) the problem and solution: We must have both, not de-value both.

Now I will leave you to fully digest and get back to the "hard work" that should have been done before we spent our blood.

Full-Meal Deal

The least I can do in the next 45 days, until I get back to my previous post to review it(IF EVER), is fully digest those that I run into in the next 45 days like, FEARMONGER IN CHIEF William Greider agrees with David Brooks who has "...dismissed the Dubai ports controversy as an instance of political hysteria that will soon pass." But should "provoke a more rational discussion of the multiplying absurdities."

OK, I may have seasoned my take with a dash of the link below, and I will note in memo terms that The Washington Post titled: Port problems said to dwarf latest fears

TRUST ME?

This is a big deal. And before I read all the links which I will provide here I will make my own connections or speculation/questions. Speculation(Slash)questions may be the leap to point, and the connection to the president may be the longest path. That about sums it all up without much of the burden of facts, which is what appeals most to the public and the Bush administration. Another connection? That was it. But now to insert the links for later reading unless the burden of something else moves me on.

Darn. As usual I cut to a connection and missed a few simple points. Which I guess are actually difficult to make given the problems above.

So here are the random "whatever"s:
Security Not a Problem? Ally in war on terror? Follow the rules? Follow the money. Fight them over there? Overseas Corporation? State-Owned Corporation. Dictatorship. Family Business. Corporatizing, not globalizing-- Democracy/Freedom.

Again the "whatever"s are the catch. But this should merit review of more than this transaction as it is more than about who operates the ports, but the process of the administration and (not just) who is making the decisions and how they are being made, as much as why.

Now I will fill in the links, and trust you to review them, and I hope to get to them later.

But wait-- now I find two more than the three I hadn’t finished. But key words especially intrigue me and I will not jump to connections the way Secretary of State Rice might, but maybe I have a hunch. Early Warning- anarchy - - Debate / facts may be the clue. But these I have yet to open.

Later... Now the links to be inserted.

In fact, maybe I will institute my own 45-day period to get back to this or to read and review this- - IF EVER! Maybe the bubble the media/administrators are blowing will finally break through the filtering/job other branches of government are accountable for, not to mention "we the people" and the "Fourth Estate".

Hoof and Mouth.

I don’t know if it is just me, but I don’t blame people if they think it is. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I didn’t shoot the facts in the hoof. Back to the issue that seems to be me, but it may just be that you had to be there: The Cheney Fox interview and the Kenedy County Sheriff’s Incident Report seem to deviate on the matter of spin. Was the quail flushed to the right or was it flying counter clockwise? I guess I had to be there. Either way, the accident is not what is being beat but the hoofing that was done to get it out.

On that trail, my earlier commentary on the spin:[2-17-06]

David Brooks, in his column Cheney hunting accident enters the spin-everything zone, makes a few good points but mainly is just another player in the spin zone. He refers to stereotypes and roles that the media will use and play, but which are spinning for one reason alone, the preemptive deviations of Cheney, so common in the administration.

Deviation from the process, more than preempts, but cuts out the roles of questioners who resort to stereotypes when the questions are not answered until the facts stop changing. What does the Vice President not having his press people have to do with the investigation waiting till the next day? Too much may be made of the press being slighted, the better to overlook that even "Voldemort" can’t turn back time and undo the spin resulting from the fear or at least delay in facing the truth.

In Brooks criticizing his own field, "Ours is not to feel or think. Ours is but to spin or die.", that seems to be what the administration would like us to do, and many have. This time, hopefully not Cheney‘s "friend".

And on the horizon, still beating

The "Story"

Vice President Cheney made his first and final appearance on the issue of the shooting of his hunting buddy and takes full responsibility. FULL?

First I must make a rare, (maybe twice before) and I can't even recall the details, but in the form of an explaination that I alluded to a dispute on the time, it could be the time zone thing that explains the one hour.

Not that I could not use more vetting, but shouldn't the adminstration be under more scrutiny as well. It is our duty and one the press or media often forgets or even bashes it's self for. More on the Brit Hume job later, but apparently the president is satisfied. He took responsibility but his choice of words needs to be examined and counted upon. The word "you" appeared a few times, so "we" must take some of the blame?

Still Ticking

and still blowing "the bubble" or the press off. The story apparently is still in need of work.

Note that the timeline is disputed between a timeline where MSNBC has a 6:30 shooting versus the 5:30* in the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department report. And note that still hospital officials "were not concerned about the six to 200 other pieces of birdshot that might still be lodged in Whittington's body".

It just seems that more has been reported about what has been reported than what really is in any report yet. Maybe we will finally get a story, but not that the press (or Brit Hume) will yet do a job that is not just pressing.

* a rare mea culpa - - see next post

Shoot First

and not ask questions later. Should we really stay the course with the gang that couldn't shoot straight? My point is that the Vice-President shooting someone is a minor deal compared to the administration's normal pattern of behavior, not that it necessarily deviates from it. Also that the only harm in asking questions is that it takes time from other questions that aren't answered. Like, how long does it take to get their stories straight? Or, was this a preemptive deviation?

[2-14-06 08:43 Update:

Trickle on the Buck.

It should sound familiar to paraphrase former FEMA director Michael Brown: to go balls to the walls to cut red tape. Since their end game is to drown the government in a bath tub, it ironic to expect another layer of bureaucracy to make the process work better. It is not only another layer that communications needs to go through but responsibility to be passed on to.

What school of management says to simply cut the red tape and simply let another layer know that there is a problem? Just who has the responsibility after the red tape is cut and how is the job done and by whom? It should be obvious that by drowning a government of, by and for the people, only the people will suffer. Things don’t get done by faith or fiat, it takes a structure that these people have no faith in, let alone competence.

Check and stall.

on why they claim that the Oath is not necessary for administration officials, and possibly why Specter and others can "sound" like they are concerned about the constitution and call for a judicial review. A.) Could it be that if prosecutions for "lying" to congress are called for that they (Republicans) will be the ones that will need to initiate them. B.) Under "judicial" review of other violations by the administration, just who will form that panel? C.) This is all an effort to "DeLay" real progress and stay the course.

(i.e.: The only check to the president is congress (who are political and partisan*) and the only real investigation may require the process of impeachment to start.)

* not that either are bad, but are what it is all about. Or the congress will get away with what the people let them, and the president will get away with what congress lets him.

To Pump - - US UP!

Just as President Bush's past State of the Union addresses, this one was a wonderful speech that tended as Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "To pump--you up!" It really was a speech that was hopeful about the future yet short on the past.

A local paper suggested that the president clip a bit of it to his shaving mirror to read every day. I would suggest that they both review and work on the rest of their words further. I wonder how much would be left if the parts that were more faith-based than fact-based were removed. Then there are the portions that all Americans, especially Democrats could agree with.

It is wonderful to be hopeful, and looking only forward, that is all there is, when the facts are really just in the past. Of course I may be contradicting the facts, in that Bush did make reference to the past, while warning that that was turning back. While much of his speech was about concepts that should receive our support, what will matter most are the details and working together.

Unfortunately, his words do not bode well when he takes about one paragraph to do an about-face. From his claim that "...even tough debates can be conducted in a civil tone, and our differences cannot be allowed to harden into anger", he takes only a few sentences to fight the quasi-quixotic foes on "...the road of isolationism and protectionism..." I really can’t answer how this will work when he seems more about exporting our leadership than working on the democracy and law "in order to form a more perfect union" here.