Heroes of History

Bloggermann

Thank you, Keith Olbermann

There is Fascism, Indeed.

THANK YOU, MSNBC

Also for:
Dean Replies to Rumsfeld

P.S. I attach the link below, to maybe return to later.

Denial of Tyranny

Bush Team Casts Foes as Defeatist
Blunt Rhetoric Signals a New Thrust

Bush: "They're not political speeches," he said. "They're speeches about the future of this country, and they're speeches to make it clear that if we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy. These are important times, and I seriously hope people wouldn't politicize these issues that I'm going to talk about."

Cut and run?
Having your cake and eating it too?
As I said before if this is not political, what are we killing and dying for?
Politics is the only choice between tyranny and anarchy.
The result may be denial and tryanny, their only friends are fear and anarchy if politics is not the path.

...what about the damage to your Presidency?

Bush: Anger over war won’t change U.S. policy
President, conceding unpopularity, vows to stay the course in Iraq

Brian Williams meets with Bush for "a wide ranging and exclusive conversation".

Brian Williams made a quick transition from New Orleans to the above question heading the "hard work" of transcribing two section of the video.

Brian Williams: Do you have any moments of doubt, that we fought the wrong war. That there’s something wrong with the perception of America overseas.
George Bush: Well those are two different questions. Did we fight the wrong war and absolutely, I have no doubt. The war came to our shores, remember that. We were ah, we had a foreign policy that basically said, "let's hope calm works" and we were attacked.
Williams: But those weren’t Iraqis.
Bush: Nap,nop, they were, they, they worked ah, no, I agree, they weren‘t Iraqis. Nor did I ever say that Iraq ordered that attack. But they are a part of, Iraq is part of the struggle against the terrorist.
[...]
Williams: (...)Is there a palpable tension when you get together with the former president who happens to be your father? A lot of the guys that worked for him are not happy with the direction...
Bush: Oh now listen, this a, th, my relationship is adoring son.
Williams: Do you talk shop?
Bush: Sometimes, yeah. Of course we do. But ah, ah, but hhahhe. That’s a really interesting question. I mean it's a kind of a conspiracy theory at it’s most, uh, rampant.

On his "eculectic"(misspelled as pronounced) reading list or is it his understanding of what he understands:

Bush: "Lemme, lemme, look, the key for me is to keep expectations low."
Williams: Is that what everyone doesn't get?
Bush: I don't know Brian, what they get or don't get. Le, lu, my-
Williams: You see all the talk.
Bush: -my life- Here's the thing. I don't. Here's the thing, ee ee. The great thing about the presidency is you're totally exposed. And people spend a lot of t(...)time...analyzing decisions(...) And I understand that.
[...]
Williams: How have you been read wrong?
Bush: (...)I frankly I don't pay that much attention.

I must admit that I took very few liberties in skipping a few questions and parts of replies, but still did justice to the conversation. [All transitions or leaps reflected by ellipses or brackets for more than one party] Especially in contrast to the liberties and justice taken by the administration.

War on Democracy

Media Impeached

Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent "interview" accusing Democrats who support candidates like Lamont and oppose the war in Iraq of supporting ‘al Qaeda-types' should be the last of the free ride that the administration and the Republican National Committee get from the "free press". Any opportunity that they wish to spread their lies must come at the cost of actually facing questions.

If journalists cannot do their jobs in that regard, maybe they could at least pass on the opportunity to politicians who will ask them and answer questions as well. If they fail to do the job at least there may be the opportunity to know they aren’t up to their jobs.

The continual linkage of September 11th and Iraq, and the trashing of acts of democracy should be categorized as un-American and many of the details investigated as un-constitutional, and impeachable. In many minds the media is already impeached.

Democrats who question must be supported over Republicans who can’t face the press, but are fine with using it for their own ends. The media should be pressed to question both sides, not just spew their answers.

[Letter to USA Today of August 17th, 2006]

"Slam dunk" of "pre-emptive strike"

Just When You Thought You'd Seen Everything: Hoekstra's Hoax
By Ray McGovern t r u t h o u t | Perspective
"The paper amounts to a pre-emptive strike on what's left of the Intelligence Community, usurping its prerogative to provide policymakers with estimates on front-burner issues - in this case, Iran's weapons of mass destruction and other threats."

I think this rejuvinates my enthusiasm for my earlier post, [see comment]

The links that connect

The Mythical End to the Politics of Fear
By Norman Solomon t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Six Questions for Michael Scheuer on National Security
By Ken Silverstein Harper's Magazine

...the logic to the lack of intelligence or is it intention? * It could be diplomacy, but one reason I have less and less to say is that I have said it all before. Usually as to the point as the last post, but others covering the points that are just being hit.

Maybe I heard something like this:

In late November 2002, appearing on the "Washington Journal" program, retired US Army general William Odom told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war." [See Solomon]

Or maybe I concluded that earlier. [See War On(or) Terrorism ]

Or maybe what I failed to say:

This may be a country bumpkin approach, but the truth is the best place to start. We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies. People are willing to die for that, and we're not going to win by killing them off one by one. [See question 7 of 6 above]

* It being the adminsitration's intentions in all this, but as intelligence goes (or diplomacy for that matter), our so-called enemies can at least know what they know and know that we aren't saying it. Not to mention possibly what our so-called allies may know or not be saying.

Slam Dunk to the Circular File!

U.S. Spy Agencies Criticized On Iran
GOP-Led Panel Faults Intelligence
Based on the above sub-title of the article alone a conclusion that it should be filed under another slam dunk of something was merited. A slam dunk of intelligence period and in all forms.

But a key paragraph proves that:

The report relies exclusively on publicly available documents. Its authors did not interview intelligence officials. Still, it warns the intelligence community to avoid the mistakes made regarding weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war, noting that Iran could easily be engaged in "a denial and deception campaign to exaggerate progress on its nuclear program as Saddam Hussein apparently did concerning his WMD programs."

How could any fair and balanced person analyse let alone criticize or come to a conclusion "exclusively on publicly available documents" and "not interview intelligence officials"? Only by having a conclusion that you do not want any facts to get in the way of or for intelligence not to be in the picture.

This is not to say that there are many who do not know, but if one knew, then what? That is farther out of the frame. Just because they fear not to act, because they don't know, does not mean, to act, will not be harder work.

Bush shifts blaim to opponents.

Bush shows pessimism on Iraq
President shifts tone as he makes case for U.S. policy

This is more a start to the war against Democrats and if that fails like most he tries, he has already set it up to blaim the Iraqis when he really needs to get the troops out to save his party.

These comments are made with only a quick glance at the article and the press conference still playing.

Right and Wrong Preemptive Pardon.

The heading above reflects a very large field for this administration but my point refers to my post Impeachable and Imprisonable.

I was correctly preemptive in my claim that "the administration could not follow old ones" a day before the court ruling. It is fully represented in my letter to a local paper. Politics of Terror: Democrats, don't fear national security issue

I was erroneous in reflecting the idea of "impeachment being the limits of what a president may suffer." Removal from office is the most one can suffer from impeachment. But other legal ramifications and remedies may be possible. Another concern mixed into this confusion is that impeachment is unpardonable, and that convictions are needed before pardons are obtained.

In much earlier conversations(not necessarily blogged) I also claimed that Bush is lucky that impeachment is the worst he could get, but of course that is another one of my rare errors. I have also made reference more than once, maybe not in blog, that I would welcome being wrong, and we would be lucky if I were more wrong.

Reality Comedy vs. Faux news.

Maybe MSNBC is checking my blog:
Joe Scarborough covers the controversy between Comedy Central and Fox News.

My opinion is that there is more news in the entertainment of Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert than either in whatever it is that Geraldo Rivera and Bill O'Reilly are going for. As for Joe Scarborough, he at least may have more balance of news and comedy even if his views are not balanced. Here he at least has two guests that are not "yes men" or women, even if he does not exactly get it.

[Reviewing my posts, the closest I came to what I recalled as a comment comparing the news of Comedy Central to the comedy of Fox news was a suggestion for a real news network with Jon Stewart as number one anchor. My campaign to tranfer duties of Comedy Central to news and Fox News to comedy, may have went out in an actual email to interested parties.]

President Bush

Forcefullness: Bush is speaking slow again.
Not portrayed in the above clip
is the claim that the course of his critics
would be "a d i s a s t e r ".

Then he repeats and speaks fastly, but goes on and on, in the August 21st press conference. [Link attached 8-24, one hand arguing the other, see webcast]

CUT THAT

BU** SH** OUT! [see note]

Munch Munch. At the G-8 a few weeks ago, Bush had some ideas for Putin between chomps, that the U.N. should tell Syria, to tell Hezbollah to cut that S*** out. If that is the "nature" of how the world works, then please try it in his own back yard. The two above expletives represents links to the RNC.

Dems Rejoice: Ruling Weakens Terrorist Surveillance Program

Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security

The linkage of Democrats and liberal judges to a weakening of anything are a cut and run from their sworn duty to uphold the constitution and fight for democracy. The only enemy the Republicans can defeat are the phantom "do nothings". No body wants to stop law enforcement or the military from any efforts to protect America, they only expect that we do so under the constitution or they have literally ripped the heart out of the foundation of this nation and the hope of the world.

Picture this:
An elephant with King George the 43rd, stomping on the constitution and strangling the founding fathers in their graves.

Note: The links actually represent a lot of "hard work" meaning a filtering of opinions that may have individual merit as opinions or snippets of facts, but the image of Democrats as terrorist reflect the intention that must be shoveled back with the image above.

Understanding the nature?

Bush defends surveillance program
President says Hezbollah lost, American economic foundation strong

"President Bush on Friday criticized a federal court ruling that said his warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional, declaring that opponents 'do not understand the nature of the world in which we live.'"


"'The first reaction, of course, of Hezbollah and its supporters is, declare victory,' Bush said. 'I guess I would have done the same thing if I were them, but sometimes it takes people a while to come to the sober realization of what forces create stability and which don't. Hezbollah is a force of instability.'"

Of course, force?
Understanding the nature of how force creates stability. There are no forces that create stability. Only forces that move one way or another against unequal or forces in other directions. Only equal forces directly opposed to each other create stability unless balanced by other vectors. How long will it take to see that the real losers were the Lebanese?

If they can't understand the three branches of government under one constitution which results in laws that are meant to be followed, there is not much reason to expect that they understand the physics of the laws of force in foreign policy.

Freedom doesn't have a vector but democracy is only a force if it is recognized as having many. It combines for a force that must be opposed with reason*, another force they fear to understand, let alone use.

I won't even start this analogy on economics except the subject of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid was touched on in the article:
"We think it is quite possible to come up with a fix that is quite doable," Paulson said of reforming the government programs. "The question is whether we can get the support of Congress to get something done."

There was an attempt to "reform" one these programs which was met with the force of democracy earlier. The question alluded to on the "support of Congress" implies that they were part of that force. But this is likely a "cut and run" vector from the failures of law and order, and national security, as well as economics. Reform is the wrong force to apply to these programs that work unless it is to help them work rather than replace them with "privatization" that is really "corporatization".

* The Constituion: Checking a Would-Be King
[This link by Ray McGovern from truthout/Perspective was read and added after the complete composition of this piece.]

Impeachable and Imprisonable?

[There is no support for the idea that law enforcement would be unable to prevent terror attacks without new and unconstitutional laws, but there is that the administration could not follow old ones, let alone even now keep democracy, Iraq and terrorism straight.]

The above line was my conclusion to a letter submitted to a local paper yesterday.
Today a court backs me up. However the constitution prevails, the fact that the law which the president violated provides for imprisonment for it's violation is probably superceded by that articles of impeachment being the limits of what a president may suffer.

Federal judge orders end to wiretap program
Says warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional

Someone should be going to jail or be impeached.
The only question, is how many of each?

LIBERAL MEDIA: A BOGEYMAN

Do the media have a liberal bias?

My contribution: [Sent to the Seattle Times, not printed, 08-02-06]

LIBERAL MEDIA A BOGEYMAN

Is there a liberal media bias? That depends on what your definition of bias is. Ring any bells? Maybe enough said. My view is that there is an anti-reality bias and maybe even conservatives could agree. We just don’t agree on presenting reality. Defined in Encarta as: an unfair preference or dislike for something. That leaves us with the disagreement over what is fair. I guess it is fair that both syndicated columnists blamed the people.

The odd thing is that the conservative believes for all people that "newsworthy events" are seen through their own belief systems but that she does not shape the news. By expecting that news reporters must balance the news; that reality is balanced, is itself a bias. Her belief and that of other conservatives creates a bias that the media is supposed to be balanced, when reality is not. Not any more than that two columnists from Harvard represents balance or Harvard, would more good news represent reality.

With just a little less bias from conservatives and less fear of bias from the media, we probably "couldn’t handle the truth." Just because there is so much bad news, does not mean it is liberal bias. The unfairness in that Clinton was impeached and that headlines don’t hold congress and the administration more accountable, may be my bias. But that does not mean that the media facing more reality and doing their jobs would not feed the myth that they are too liberal. A myth that keeps reality from changing our course. A culture of fear needs a bogeyman.

Independence Fence?

From the Washington Post Clinton Gives Lieberman A Lesson in Independence seems to be of more portent than the pre-primary prediction that the Lieberman Lamont race would be a watershed for Democrats or knocking them off the fence on the Iraq war. I had been reticent about jumping on that bandwagon with enthusiasm, and it was probably due to the double standard or rather nuance that others had in their positions.

President Clinton points out "...there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.' "
That is the fence that is hard to ride.

But the more important point that should be made is that Republicans are cutting and running. If only the Republicans would back off every state like it has Connecticut:
"We are not making any endorsement in Connecticut," said White House press secretary Tony Snow. "The Republican Party of Connecticut has suggested that we not make an endorsement in that race and so we're not."
Give all Americans a choice between a Democrat and a Non-Republican, and make law and order and national security the issues while they are at it.

Pitbully Soapbox

Why They Hate Us
by Julia E. SweigThe Los Angeles Times
senior fellow Council on Foreign Relations
www.truthout.org

Panic as Policy
by Erik Leaver
research fellow Institute for Policy Studies
www.ThomPaine.com

Hoping for Fear
by Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Democrats must stand for law and order, peace and security, not war and terror.
We really are for "war as a last resort", after exhaustive diplomacy.
War is hard work. Peace should be worked for just as hard.

Given the huge costs and the disasterous results, we have a heckuva budget, not to mention wiggle room to work with.

[This was just going to be the links to the two(then three) sites, but could not just leave them without comment.]

34-Day War

Just before I left for a 4 day boat trip, a friend expressed concern about a term that he had heard. The Status Quo Ante had been used in reference to a resolution to the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. There must be something to it, since Al Franken was also concerned about it's new usage. The meaning that things go back to as things were before the war seems a huge flip-flop from no cease fire until there is lasting resolution of the causes of the Middle East conflict. Whether this is lasting is still to be seen, but after 2 to 3 billion in damages to Lebanon and nearly 1000 lives lost.

On the war on terror front, the facts about the major plans for blowing up airlines are still coming out, or rather could have been timed differently. Britain and U.S. disagree on when was the right timing for breaking that investigation while Lieberman accuses Lamont of being a threat to the war on terror.

This is just a quick note as I may catch up on the last four days but things will move on.

Advice to State

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, on This Week , suggests a major diplomatic effort in the Middle East. I would agree, but the administration knows too little about the meaning of the word "diplomacy". As I alluded to earlier, a major effort to get through to Bush would likely be needed before there could be any results.

Advice to Democrats

Cokie Roberts' view of the Connecticut race, on This Week, that it will be a mistake to take the Democrats to the left, is the wrong advice. Her intentions are hard to question, but seem to be less than sincere. She is either of the best intentions, trying to be unbiased, or is trying to to seem unbiased, but maybe less than enthusiastic would be closer.

Cost of Course

From no less than David S. Broder, no lefty
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic."

As Reagan would say: "There you go again." Well I use this to refer to my post which I just lost as time expired.
[NOTE: After doing all this work, a second time, I then notice that the lost post is up. LESSONS OF WAR. Sorry for the redundancy, and it is unedited, but I will leave it up as I must go off in another reality or discipline.] [a navigation aid: use CTRL F in these links to save "hard work".]

My point: Reality is about many disciplines, not just discipline. Hmmm, I've never been to the point before, maybe there is something to beginning from scratch.

In this case economics over just the economy. Work not just hard work.

Well this does not mean that I won't have tangents, in fact that is what linking the fields implies.

My second or original point, is that economics has more to do with history than winning. Actually I may be getting farther from the course I took in the lost post. But two examples are Vietnam and Afghanistan. We lost one and are losing the other. We are doing business with one and the other beat the Soviet Union, and we are still losing.

Then there is the "pottery store" or simple minded advice that still is in play and not fully understood.

This is where I have more experience that I even knew, forgetting that my first job was printing store signs. I also have wandered a few shops or two and feel that it was "You break it, you bought it." Doesn't that flow better both literally and economically. Despite the fact that it is not the Pottery Barn policy, it is ironic or not that Thomas Friedman is involved in this. Only a sloppy or slanted writer would confuse the credit to his words. As far as I can tell, the course often depends on reading signs. and getting their meaning straight. Owning something is a whole lot better sounding than whatever work it takes to get it.

I don't know if you get this sign but the post was a whole lot shorter and straighter than the one lost.

Maybe Woodward and Russert got it, but Powell probably used too many words for Bush. See Wikipedia
[8-19-10: labels and link added]

Lessons of War

From a less than left writer David S. Broder no less:
The costs of carrying on in Iraq and Lebanon
"The point is that history and economics have their own logic".

As noted before(I will have to find where)economics may be more a factor in history and war than winning. (Well, I never put it that way exactly.) There are those that ignore the importance of economics in reality(as in all the various fields or disciplines of study), but do tend to focus on just a winning economy. That may be a little closer to the point, and if not even less understood.

Here are two examples: a.) We are now doing business with Vietnam. Versus not with North Korea. b.) Reagan's words tore down the Berlin Wall, or Afghanistan broke the Soviet Union.

Again it may not be clear to those that see winning a military war as the only way to win. Money is power, but not everybody wins.

War is hard work. Peace is hard work. Facing realities is hard work.
Enough from me, before I give you more hard work.

By the way. "You break it, you bought it." comes to mind. Besides that fact that pottery bard[*] does not have that policy, I don't know if a point has been made that it is misquoted as "You break it, you own it".
{Use Ctrl f to find each quote in each article) Many do not want to face who pays.

[* 8-19-10] Noting typo

Executing (the) Constitution

Investigations foiled may be just a matter of "plausible incompetence".

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General


Law change a matter or "plausible denial" OF DUTY to uphold the constitution and RIGHT to delay justice.

White House Proposal Would Expand Authority of Military Courts

Terrorism: The bogeyman that is needed for a culture of fear.

Hatred Hits Home:

6 Shot at Jewish office is the Seattle Times headline on Saturday morning.

Gumman "said he hates Israel" : was a subheading.

Sunday: Community responds with sorrow, unity
Subheading: Rabbi Mirel: Hatred will not be our legacy

Sometimes people are skeptical of the metaphor that "Every cloud has a silver lining", but sometimes it is just a must that we take good from evil.