The irony?

Bu-- sh--: "See the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over."

The reality is that Bush needs to get the Fox News Gang and the Swiftboaters to stop doing this s--- and the course will change.

If our so-called MBA President cannot be held accountable period, how can he expect results from others that may or not have control.

The parental metaphor that Lakoff notes and John Dean has lately come to appreciate was mentioned by this blogger as more simply: Do as I say, not as I do.

The childish metaphor works too: You started it. No, you started it.
But before we get to the did nots, we get to the: I don't care who started it, but darned if each has the same answer for finishing it.

Bush Signs

Voting Rights Act Extension

Signing statements aside, a Robert F. Kennedy Jr. piece means what difference does it make. Link to be provided later, but there was a notorius Rolling Stone article about stolen elections.

Shock and Awe

or
Proportion or share: the how & why of where statistics lies.[People count, the math kills.]

In Lebanon the death count (400) is proportional to 32 THOUSAND Americans dying. The share of "displaced and destitute" (750,000) would be 60 MILLION.

This is not to endorse with "shock and awe" one heckuva formula for peace, but that words matter in any equation, preemptive or not.
And that there must always be room for give and take.

This was my take

even before finding that others seemed to be filtering the news in a similar way.
A Letter From Chomsky and Others on the Recent Events in the Middle East

While it seems that any attempt to not pick sides, seems to be countered with the charge that one has, it is tough to be neutral, and both sides can be wrong, but someone has to be the bigger person or nation. Instead, we all tend to think we are "the man".

One counter point may be, that there are influential partners that could be contributing more to the Palestinians, but that too is divided between the military and the humanitarian and we know which one gets the focus. Even the humanitarian can have ideological if not military strings attached and that too is not dependent on side.

There does seem to be one commonality to the traits of both sides, fundamentalism and economics, divorced from values.

Some even take economics as so much a given that it is taken out of the equation, much as greed is a trait that seems to be an integral ingredient to success. Neither is the case, and that applies to not just to man, woman and child, but nation as well.

Whether one side is truly trying to wipe out another, any reaction in like manner is not excusable, without being also the cause of the problem. Another line that is blurred is the value of people in comparison to the value of a nation. Finally a line that I don't feel I need to clarify. [UPDATE 11:01 AM](...because the world is so blurred and it is all about the "hard work" of politics that will always be needed to be sustainable.) [OK I did, or did I blurr?]

[UPDATE 11:19 AM Unread link added:, thanks to The Thom Harmann Program: Uncommon Sense from the Radical Middle and his guest Jeffrey Feldman.] FRAMESHOP: 3 Ways to Talk About Peace

Contrary to the idea that anything changed on 9-11, we still may not know which came first the chicken or the egg, or may just not want to know. There are many that think the chicken, while they can't escape the egg on their face.

And while I have my avian metaphors flying, why did the chicken cross the roads that all lead to Rome?

HISTORY IN AN EGG SHELL

Bush never says he will not follow unconstitutional laws.

[THIS POST WAS LOST OR RATHER SAVED IN A DRAFT FILE FROM July 25th, 2006 and Published October 11th, 2007: COMMENTS MAY FOLLOW BELOW]


So says Tony Snow.:in Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush

"A great many of those signing statements may have little statements about questions about constitutionality," said White House spokesman Tony Snow. "It never says, ’We’re not going to enact the law."’

Well not exactly, but close enough for government work. But not close enough for constitutional work.

Besides it is not the enacting of a law but the following of it. Congress has enacted the law. But the devil is in the details of any bill that requires congress in it's current make up to do it's job.

New laws are quite worthless if the current laws are not enforced. If the Republican congress cannot even start an investigation it promised then how can they be counted on to sue the president. Many Republicans rally around the fear that the president could be impeached if the Democrats gain power. This is just the politics of stall tactics.

"Bush is not without congressional allies on the matter. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a former judge, has said that signing statements are nothing more than expressions of presidential opinion that carry no legal weight because federal courts are unlikely to consider them when deciding cases that challenge the same laws."

If we cannot be clear that the president intends to follow unconstitutional laws as Tony Snow's words imply, it will be hard know if he means to follow any at all, let alone challenge them.

It sure seems that for someone who seems to see things in black and white, there is a lot of gray area in the gray matter. Are terrorists combatants or criminals? He wanted a new category. Are laws constitutional or unconstitutional? He prefers to leave a third option.[paragraph]

Well,[uh...]there I go again. The rest... I've been there before.

[Comment 10-11-07 As I have now reviewed this post, which somehow slipped into draft form and was never posted till this date, I only add bold to the 2nd to last, now 3rd to last paragraph,(see Reagan touch). But I will try to explain that by implication in their choice of words in the second paragraph the signing statements are statements about questions about constitutionality and that he was not saying he won't enact them, but apparently won't even let us know who decides or when and if they are enacted. This bold italics portion adds to what I started to imply, which I think is more than an implication.]

More Breaking Filters

The WTO may be a good failure.
US Accused of "Stone-Walling" as World Trade Talks Collapse

The ABA may force change.
American Bar Association Objects to Bush's "Signing Statements"

But the old guard will try to stay the course, speaking of Nixon.
Aziz Huq | Wiretapping Unbound

These are what I have referred to as QCON, Quick Comment On News.
There I go again.

What politics is about.

Progress for People

Hands Off Connecticut
By Scott Galindez
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

My Tangent or Triangulation:

Much of what I may leave unsaid may be because if tables were turned I would not say them, but I do not think this is the case. While outside influence on a state's political race interferes with the local voter's intentions, it also flies back out of the state to others who feel that they understand what the party does not.

Until there is a viable third party and a change in primary and general election processes that can eliminate the hazzard that a third party will win it for the wrong side, outside help should focus on the general elections rather than in primaries. And for the dissappointed, there is value in voting for the lesser of two evils, provided that your vote does not put in office the greater.

For the voter in the primary, vote your conscience, it is not throwing a vote away or voting for the other guy. But come the general, things are black and white and you must vote for a viable winner or be satisfied that you will possibly be putting in a loser.

[Update: two evils (cartoon and labels added)]

What I was alluding to:

Nuclear escalation as Pakistan builds plutonium reactor

In my post July 20th, 2006 "Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan."]

How I felt about it is put well by William Rivers Pitt in:
The Pin in the Grenade

The long and the short of it.

Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**

Conservatives without Conscience on authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do" (1.5 pages)

And The Hidden Power
or con-science. [From The New Yorker: by JANE MAYER
The legal mind behind the White House’s war on terror. 13 pages]

** This was worth a repeat. [see bottom of 7-20-06: Phase II? post]

Stupid Intelligence.

Actually this is a smart link titled Israel's Stupid-Smart Moves which is not too long, but a tricky read. Tricky maybe only in that I want to add my two cents worth. It is written by Michael Shtender-Auerbach who "writes on foreign policy for The Century Foundation and is press director for the Security and Peace Initiative, Century's joint venture with the Center for American Progress."
[I am not familiar with him, but have good feelings about his affiliations.]

It is about the negotiations or movement that must take place and the players that it may take, and well worth the "hard work" of a page and a half read.

The following section from it needs more attention:
"This past weekend, the participants at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, rushed out a statement calling on the parties to agree to the following immediate steps to bring an end to the violence: The return of the Israeli soldiers in Gaza and Lebanon unharmed; an end to the shelling of Israeli territory; an end to Israeli military operations and the early withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and the release of the arrested Palestinian ministers and parliamentarians. While this is certainly a sign of international consensus, thus far, little has been done to bring the concerned parties together in agreement." [My italics and bold: These steps reflects a balance but the release of the arrested Palestinian portion is not getting much press.]

My two sense is that what must be avoided is what maybe some wish for, lack of movement or rather staying the course "...which could trigger an Israeli assault on Syria and Iran - a scenario that would change the face of the Middle East and eliminate any hope for regional stability."

Where we go from there would likely be more fundamentalizing and authoritarianism, while other major players may reap the field. [For better or worse, those other major players are the U.N, the Arab League, China and Russia, not to mention India and Pakistan.]

This may be my shortest two cents yet.

Follow-up: 11:28 AM US at Odds With Allies on Mideast Conflict
Credit: TruthOut.org
Unread: Bush's vision, and the region, appear to be near collapse

There I go again, but the title gets right to the point, and I will. How can you negotiate with terrorists? How can you negotiate with authoritarians? Actually I am answering the questions with the problem. If rubber stamp is the answer, does one stamp fit all?

Phase II?

Just what is Phase II? I'm not sure what I meant at the time. It was an allusion* to the investigation that never was done on the use of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq resolution. "We need some movement" was a reference to what Bush wanted on the Middle East Crisis or the U.N. in general.

My "bullet" points were on target to hint at the concept that the movement needed to come in his own administration. No triumvirate[E.D.] of past presidents will have any more success in diplomacy than the call for ceasefire or possibly the lack of demand for one.

The interesting tangent(s) noted in the footnote below were more accurately a triagulation. My implication was to save you the time by indication it was only a link to a dictionary. But the triumvirate link was more than tangent in the word "allusion"s relationship to illusion and delusion. All useful terms in foreign policy or diplomacy, but the magic may be in their administration. The fact is that we have a triumvirate designed into the constitution. Three branches of power, that serve to "check and balance". September 11th may have changed all that, but my opinion that it was preemptive in nature, merits serious consideration of and by the media and the people.

Any involvment by intermediaries to the administration should adress them first. The only hope is that it is Nixonian in nature, but like Nixon to China, where can Bush go? [Now that is a tangent and an allusion, and a dilemma.] Bush could go to the Saudis or the Corporations or just Oil and demand that they stand for freedom and democracy. Or the people could just change congress and work to bring back the triumvirate.

Phase II also pertained to the advances that have been made to my blog in the area of providing video links and the ability to comment. Both relate to the pacing and content that needs further review or work, the former looking back and the latter moving forward.

Here are two pieces that could be used as a table of contents for my points made over the years and summarized above.**

On authoritarianism or "Do as I say, not as I do"

And The Hidden Power or con-science.

I guess maybe Phase II means that I will do more "hard work" so that the read will be easier for my audience.

*[E.D.- Encarta Dictionary- for an interesting tangent]
** Bold added 7-21-06

WW III or 2006 election?

Reports have it that Newt Gingrich, on the day before his Meet the Press comments on WW III, spoke before for a partisan political crowd explaining that for the 2006 election they needed to be talking about war. [I got this through a radio source and would look forward to finding a link]

I feel that that is what I read between the lines of the links we do have, and a host of other deja vu build-up to previous elections and wars.

Meanwhile, the reasons they need this distraction? Could it be?
The word "Distraction" unfairly minimizes their failures in foreign policy and diplomacy.

Here is a flash on Impeachment

Articles of Impeachment

These may be what they really need distraction from. While a quick check with FOX News for the latest... Hezbollah sleeper cells in America.

The numbers are staggering or is the fact that they are not picking them up staggering.

WW III ?

It began with Bush at the G-8. While he was being caught at the G-8 with an awkward microphone(see comment 7-18-06), Newt Gingrich was describing WW III on Meet the Press. That being the recent (58 year) conflict between Isreal and the Hezbollah or rather Isreal and Lebanon.

These comments are just to bring into context the last few posts.

Now for some worthy reads.

"Open War" in the Middle East [difficulties at TruthOut.org prevent me from providing the link]

Bush faces backlash on the right

My basic view is that some see value in this conflict, while too few in power see value in work toward a ceasefire, or even in talking about it.

PHASE II: We need some movement!

Here is a look at the Middle East conflict through the filter of Bush,
using my own bullet points rather than artillery. Bush being the straight shooter, err talker.

--- Ceasefire? Or stay the course?
The latter is preferred or the former later.

---A Bi-partisan Delegation to resolve the conflict? Or change the course?
The former would need the latter, so much later.

Actually the above were more fleshed out than mere bullet points.

---Isreal v. Hezbollah
---Democracy v. Disarmament
---Hostages v. Prisoners

Movement is needed, but not forward ho! Nor bring 'em on.
It is more than about who started it, or who will finish it.*
Only the Shadow knows, but Bush thinks...

THE ABOVE preceded Bush's comments in regard to this issue.

His approach is that the root cause of the current conflict is terrorism. That seems to be as valid as that the root cause of terrorism is the current conflict.
That does seem to make sense now. But is it not as valid to say that terrorism is the result of conflict or war is the result of conflict?

Not if you don't care who started it, but intend to finish it. Or may not intend to finish it. Syria and Iran and supporters of terrorism must be dealt with. Terrorism must be dealt with {in Bush's view), but issues are what must be dealt with or in my view the course is set. [7-19-06: Italics added to my take on Bush's take, and senentences flip-flopped here for better flow.] As difficult as it is to see the difference between cause and effect and what starts anything, a change is required to be made.

Maybe later I will fill in a few more details without tampering too much with the format above, but part of the Phase II concept is to move forward in that regard as well as look back.

* Reference a comment by Congressman John Dingell on The Ed Shultz Show. I have previously noted the childish nature of such tit for tat arguments as who started it, or what justifies what or what is the means of ending anything.

Welcome to TheLiaisonReport Upgrade

Comments now welcome.

Please pardon the additional advance to the use of videos.

Hint: I make the first comment and add these links on the weekend events that have transpired. [Note: actual first comment ended up pre-emptively on the previous post.]

Bleaping Leaking mic?

Politics by other means
Bureaucracy to blame?

Diplomacy by other means
Summary: WW III or the means of Trickle Down.

Summary II: Thanks to Gingrich and Biden and Meet the Press
"When in doubt..." (sending sigals)

Bonus leak: Novak

THE COUNCIL OF NICE

versus THE COURSE OF TRICKLE DOWN:

What we need is a Council of Nice, and anyone who does not want to be, can go to a place of their own choosing or can choose who will tell them where to go, and see if that gets them there.

But seriously, it would be nice if we had a benevolent dictator, but would that really stop the blaming?

Talk about having a polarized choice...this should at least argue for more choice, but others think that even the argument is not needed. Where will that get us?

Apparently they think the ultimate place, and that is hard to argue.

[This was composed following the June 30th 20/20 and saved in draft after a few posts on their message board into July 1st and first emailed in present form on July 8th.]

THE LIAISON REPORT:
Between Common Sense and Kant
[Just a quick tangent on the topic of where this is coming from:]

My thinking is somewhere between what Bush thinks is common sense and just thinking that one is thinking. It may be all about me: a wannabe pundit, benevolent dictator and general do-gooder. But seriously, somewhere between what the press should have been wondering and where Bush wonders not.

But back from that tangent, a new book apparently has done much of the research on what I merely quipped about.[Hint: Not so far fetched, as the principle is that we would all love to be dictators.] But of course most people do not want to filter through what academics have worked on, but that is the point of his book, there are those that think they are free and those that don't know they are not. It may not be that simple, but it's title is: Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean.

See Democracy in a Republic is not Black and White

Running on What? Rhetorical Slipperiness. for my comments about the problem of following no matter what.

For those who hate "hard work":
Some people will tell you where to go. Others will take you there.

Reality Based Reality Thanks to Keith Olberman

It took a little digging into my recent postings to find this. [And this about "war on the press"added here 7-6-06]

The Leaker in Chief, or Commander in Trickle Down.

Kudos to Keith Olberman for if not reading between my lines(see above), reading between some lines. Attack on the New York Times is a culture war and partly a code. [Terrorism and politics]

The Biased Media:
Thank Gore for the Internet

Thank the internet for Media Matters

Thank O'Reilly for Olbermann

[Note 7-6-06: link in [] above added, but there is still a loop in the bottom three see "frendly advice". Thank Gore for Olbermann]