Parting Words

Meaning and, not versus.

Bush:

The key to success in Iraq is to have a government that’s willing to deal with the elements that are trying to prevent this young democracy from succeeding.

That’s the whole meal deal, not the beef.

Belated words and belated farewell.

Above, Below and Betwix the Filter

Good News!
Warning: slightly tongue-in-cheek.

Iraq and Iran
Rice on Iraq:

"worth the investment"

Rice on N. Korea:

"They’re signed on to denuclearization," in an agreement last year that was never implemented. "We’ll see whether or not they follow through," Rice said.

Rice on Iran:

She said she is confident all U.N. members will enforce the sanctions once passed, no matter how they voted.

I filtered the grains of Rice that reflected some hope or catch. On Iraq it is just the choice of the word "investment", not what they actually invest. On North Korea it is "whether or not they follow through", and on Iran it hinges on "sanctions once passed".

North Korea

Here the grain is at the bottom of the filter:

American and North Korean experts had separate talks on the financial issue this week in Beijing, but made no breakthroughs and were tentatively set to meet in the United States next month.

Here is the best news for Bush yet.

Seriously.

Preempting Irony or Rerunning Cycle

Support for WMD
Historic Hoax
A link worth consideration and a rerun worth seeing.
The irony that keeps the vicious cycle not winning, not losing.
Going after the WMD.
The smoking gun in the name of prevention now in corporate hands.

No Comment.

The End of Pax Americana.

Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm

This could be referring to the trilogy of wars, but it is more about the times needed to read the article about the Google of Intelligence.[not a number]

To be more direct, the three wars I don’t mean are; Terrorism, Iraq and Iran; the final yet to be. I would have said Afghanistan, but it was more legit. Not that the war on terror is not legit, just that the definitions and terminology still need to be fought. But I did read the link three times, with some distractions, but it really does smell like a rerun.

My point is that the purpose for which the State Department sought intelligence was to prepare a list of individuals and organizations for sanctions, without providing any real link to intelligence.

Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

The bonus feature may be that if they provided the link, it may show that there is not enough to go on. So to avoid the previous problem of "flawed intelligence", the solution is to not provide any, but approve other’s intelligence which do not have a direct link.

None of the 12 Iranians that the State Department eventually singled out for potential bans on international travel and business dealings is believed by the CIA to be directly connected to Iran's most suspicious nuclear activities.

"There is nothing that proves involvement in a clandestine weapons program, and there is very little out there at all that even connects people to a clandestine weapons program," said one official familiar with the intelligence on Iran. Like others interviewed for this story, the official insisted on anonymity when discussing the use of intelligence.

The irony is that there was plenty of "open source" intelligence available before this disasterous course unfolded, much of it filtered here.

One connected dot further: intentions, preemption and their denial are the greatest hazzards to navigate, but one thing is certain, they may be connected, but they can change, and one side always knows the truth, whether it is your's or not.

Now I know it is not just me that can't be direct, but that has no bearing on the reality.

Iraq Study Group:

Bush has read?
My pre-emptive read is Bush was right.

"it will be up to future presidents"... or some sort, don't hold me to the exact words, but Bush must be held accountable.

We must not cherry pick from the recommendations but let Bush do his job, and each branch do their jobs: the legislative and the judicial.

If he cherry picks then each recommendation must be fought over, otherwise known as dialogue, or debate, and investigations must move forward as well as back.

Quick Comment On News (QCON)

Parliamentary considerations of Blair/Bush consult.

Iraq Study Group: Long Story Short

Much ado about change.

"...diplomatic offensive..."

(link corrected:12/7)
[See Comment for continuation]
(link added: 12/8)Executive Summary

Tear for Fears!

His
Mine...
Bush in 'O8?

After a quick glance at the article I was going to call this "a quick shot in the dark" but I sensibly self edited. It is not really a long shot, and the tears were probably compounded by the contrast to the Bush of '06.

It is none the less in their hearts and minds and should be in the picture of what to fear and prepare for. The Bush Legacy.

Blame to go around?

Taking off from a Stephanie Miller topic in the background as I check the news on the internet, the topic of always having someone to blame was noted. From a Larry King show, Dennis Prager jumped on a question about the difference between Republicans and Democrats. His answer resulted in laughter, and so near the end of the show. Republicans he said are the party of "American Exceptionalism", and Democrats are the party of (blah, blah, blah...) something about "old Europe" or the French. What I am saying is that his definition of Democrats was not too clear or important, unless you take it to mean OUR ROOTS, OUR PRINCIPLES!

Now "American Exeptionalism" is not a bad thing, unless you forget that just what he forgot is important. We do have an exceptional history, and we do have exceptional potential, but we also have an exceptionally hard job, not to forget where we came from. But unfortunately by forgetting that, only the idea that we have some exceptional authority remains. That is probably where the laughter resulted. We know that for the administration and it’s defenders, they are the exception to every rule but theirs. [see footnote later]*

Whatever Stephanie Miller was talking about, sent me on the tangent and I will try to revisit the show, but it seems that the above can be tied in somehow. Always having someone to blame when things just do not go the way they are decreed. I had more to go on this, but maybe already got there. Something about the "hard work" that remains. We know that war is "hard work" and they said, "War is a last resort", but the hardest work is not getting there.

That is the irony, that there is always a last resort to resort to, if things don‘t go your way. But for us there will always we hard work, because that is what makes us exceptional.

And if I may depart on the note of an ancient comedian, "take my wife"...She might say: "Right, there is always hard work Left."

[ I was actually going to go into a more logical tit for tat on the difference between who had what to blame, but maybe I present a better demonstration of someone getting where they don’t know their going. Some just don’t want to say. Then they can declare victory when they finally define the mission.]

* [I know this seems loopy, but "I am the uniter, not the divider" said Bush. Now we know what is unified and he is the decider.]

NOTE: It is the opinion of many that Wikipedia is not necessarily the authoritative source, and I agree, but that does mean it is without a value that may just be academic. NOT!** Another little loop here that is closed by their own admission. Which is what is in dispute: authoritarianism.
LSS:[Long Story Short] We are the decider as in a government of by and for the people, with three equal branches, each having their own hard work, separate and related to others.

** Another little demostrative irony here is that "academic" has it's own loopy history, in that one can almost see, how others may be getting it. It is the process not the end all. [Epitomized by the dispute between practical and authoritative not to mention reality.]

Running List '08

[2-16-07: links added Richardson,]

[2-11-07: Coarse Filtering]- Richardson
Kucinich
ObamaClark
Edwards
Clinton
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden
(note: I will let the above typos speak for themselves as a filtering of sorts)
- - -
[original listing]Edwards
Clark **
Kucinich
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden {2-1-07}

[2-1-07]
This is only an order based on my obtuse criteria:
Kucinich
Richardson
Obama
Clark
Clinton
Edwards
Vilsack
Dodd
Biden




[added 1-18-07] I will footnote at the bottom but re-arrange the above evolving list, comment will appear in dated order below. Not that my feelings count and I have not investigated all these candidate yet but they are my current priority.

The "running list" will reflect consideration sometime of only one issue in prioritizing them, but they are probably all good. One issue alone could also put things in reverse order, for all I know Vilsack could be best. This is only an explanatory preface, hopefully not an attempt to cover myself. ***

[Original entry]
Vilsack

[added: 1-16-07 ]
Kucinich
Exploratory Committee:
Obama

[added: 1-17-07 ]
Edwards
These are in no particular order, I will comment on that later, but at this time Obama is in his exploratory phase. In the previous election I sent my first email with comments to the Kucinich camp, and continued to forward and Cc: each candidate till I arrived at my choice. Then I reviewed the candidates at Backbone Campaign * to rethink things . My choice was Howard Dean. Well it makes me want to scream as we know how that ended, but now we can scream because we know where we are, and Dean is the head of the DNC. I did not really plan to post this much now, but we have much more of a road to hoe, and I really don't want to jump on a bandwagon, and would really like a 20-mule team of great candidates so that we can sort things out even more, so that we don't have more wars and a president who is finally ready to feign dialogue while demanding a plan from the opposition. This is not a call for a plan or opposition, but to look at what each says and does. I did not really plan to go on this riff either, but just tossing things in the air, Edwards is a candidate I had enthusiasm for based on past considerations. But I look forward to processing all of these great candidates who are so good, I almost refrained from comment so far...

[added 1-18-07] Dodd a candidate long overdue, but too long?
Republicans ? **** and wannabes?

* [added 1-18-07] I will keep this * at the bottom as it will footnote here that this link does not have the presidential candidates yet, or needs to be changed.

** Obama will be left off until he declares, here Clark is inserted for Hope sake. For history sake I note the original five candidates in this order: Edwards, Clark, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd

*** I will not alter footnotes, comments will be inserted just above these footnotes, link below and others will be improved with time.

**** MoveOn.Org in this link is labeled a liberal group. I do not consider that it's draw, but was the forefront of pragmatism and progress that heralded the likes of Howard Dean.

Bolton Resigns as UN Embassador!

A Suprise?
"...at a time when the White House was making dramatic moves with respect to it's Iraq policy, this is a significant development."
Oh, the irony in parsing this. The emphasis on "significant" or the term "dramatic", are a close call.

This is not only a quick filter, but saves me the filtering of several links on the Rumsfeld memo. That ties this up, while we see what develops.

[See comments] for timing on added links:

Rumsfeld memo.
Murtha on memo.
Both videos.

Finally: Long story short: How we got here. The point: Not seeing the big picture, let alone connecting dots.
[Note: This last link not fully read, but a glance makes it my point of departure for my tangent or with my comment attached maybe truly a triagulation.]