Newt and Old.

Gingrich on "This Week":
Politics for the Republicans is "like skiing", it's all down hill.
Their slogan? No New Taxes! No New Government!

Clinton on NAFTA:
Would support it again. NAFTA didn't go so wrong, but everything else went too Right. OK... The only possible quote here is the "like skiing" the rest is my spin. And like skiing, it is not the course that is difficult but the stopping and maybe what is on the bottom line.

Note: The Hit and Run label refers to the brevity of the comment from any parts. And the bold italics are my suggested bumber stickers. One Republican, One Democrat, and here's the one for the nation. Old taxes! Old government!

[Update: I only caught part of the interview, but his big news was that he was not going to run.]

[10-10-07: Update: Newt and Olb... on restricting free speech.]

General Political Dialogue on Betrayal

Keith Olbermann lets Bush have it.
Hypocrisy so vast.

Attention Fine Print Readers!

I don't want to throw anyone under the bus...
except maybe my keyboard.

[UPDATE 9-28-07: As Passed some improvements have been made. But the tactic of terminology on "terrorist organizations" (see Webb) in the context of continued stonewalling of investigations into the administrations tactics: "use of intelligence", "use of funds", "use of politics", not to mention any one's sovereignty.]

But I have read this on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and only found this on the evidence against.

Earlier I read this on Pelosi/centrist/Iraq
and only glanced at this on congress, foreign policy and our allies.

This about "feed and forage" and the war powers represents and requires a little more "hard work" and I don't know if it matters. I agree with the bottom line:

What is clear is that all this legal tap dancing gets us nowhere. To end the war, the Congress can do one of two things, or preferably both: it can repeal the Iraq AUMF, and/or it can refuse to fund the war. This sophistry from Democrats, politicians and legal scholars, does neither us nor our principles credit.

But to the Progressive Majority, or what ever number there are, it should be put in black and white:

THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT AUTHORIZATION FOR WAR PERIOD,
Let alone AS A FOREIGN POLICY

Unless there is something that makes this perfectly clear, this is a political football with a hair trigger, playing out on the world field, while making it clear would likely make it pointless. I hope that someone can sort out these play signals, but Do not punt congressional responsibility, and hopefully there will be 41 votes to take this ball away.

[TALKING POINTS MEMO Takes a little steam out of this but not necessarily my concern that there is something that can be read between the lines without having real dots to connect.]

[NEXT DAY UPDATE: The best spin on this? It was not a vote for war. but further reading is needed. ]

[10-9-07: "Kyle-Lieberman amendment passed" these words have now been spell checked and corrected]

Surge Report.

Can anyone believe this?
Re: THIS:
Would you believe...
Not to mention.

MoveOn!

There is hope that things are about to turn. They could not get worse than the week that was. Well really they always can, but we can hope. There are hints that there will be some feet put down. It only takes 41 Senators to hold up a "heckuva" lot. And now that it has been acceptable to admonish a group for what they say, a real hard look should be taken at Bush.

Search Leahy and Pelosi as I will add links here.[The next day;]
[ Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos] ]
[ On the Table! See A. & B.]
[ What's going on? ]
[The point is that the Democrats are getting the message and contrary to the do-nothing plan that the Republicans have, Democrats should be moving on with subpoenas and may switch to "do-nothing" without a timetable for withdrawal. It only takes 41 votes to not vote on a bill. It only takes 41 votes to hold things up until something gets done, even if it is only a sense of the Senate.]

MoveOn sense of senate.

MoveOn.org was noted in a "sense of Senate" resolution passed today.
(if this is the current version)

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

The "troops" were noted four times in that ad

"...last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."

"We may hear a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops."

"But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops."

"General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years."

Plus noted "...more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we've been there."

I don't know if this was removed from final passage. But if MoveOn was not mentioned...

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

My point is, it is nonsense if not disgusting to connect criticism of a politicized General with any disrespect for the troops. Or is that too personal? It does more harm to the troops to categorize MoveOn.org as liberal for wanting congress to do their jobs. Misleading some to think that they are not the majority and others to miss that only 2 out of 10 (00337 to 00346)legislative actions in the Senate passed all week! Rejected were the Levin, Feingold, Boxer, McCain, and Webb amendments INCLUDING two cloture votes on habeus corpus and D.C. voting rights.

Five troop related actions were rejected this week, two of which were only "sense of the Senate". How does that compare to the MoveOn.org ad?

[The above was an analysis of the Senate MoveOn.org stunt week, but for a coulda shoulda strategic preemption that could still have some merit.]

To Democrats in the Senate:

CAP THE FILIBUSTER!

First I would like to support the filibuster as one of the best protections for the rights of the minority. But here are a few questions I pose:

Why are Republicans not required to hold the floor if they are filibustering?

I would suggest that a cap be put first on cloture votes and keep them talking to show who is stalling.

What is the number of cloture votes taken versus successful legislation passed? (1 in 6 as of July.)
It would seem that things are already mucked up quite a bit, with cloture vote on top of cloture vote, just how would they carry on all this filibustering at the same time?

It seems difficult to right this course, and the Democrats are at the helm.

The Democrats had a period of success and "hard work" at the start of the session, I think it is time they put their foot down, and start forcing filibusters. There are only so many hours to congress. Is there not a time limit for each and are there enough hours left?

The only thing that seems to come from this is the understanding that progress is so hard to make. "Compromise" was a key word in the defense of the Republican's expecting some from the Democrats, but if voters will look at the bills presented, they must ask who and what is already compromised.

The answer to the first question may be: Because the Democrats want to get things done.

If there is any validity to the claim that Democrats are "do nothing"(which is a strategy the Republicans promote), how can that hold water, when the minority Republicans won't allow votes to be held, even when they would be vetoed. Not to mention the power a minority of Progressive Democrats are not using, to make sure nothing gets done when it is warranted.

May the Republicans long hold the Right of the minority. It should be clear the the Democrats are making compromises, not necessarily good or bad or getting anywhere. But sometimes they are holding together. That is another number to watch.

"Another good speech."

The quotation marks above are facitious, as one would gester with one's fingers in an expression of skepticism, but it regards my comment.

THE SPEECH I refer to, has also been referenced here is from September 20th, 2001.

At the time I had "cherry-picked" what I chose to run on:

We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them.

But recently, portions of his speech have been rerun:

Freedom and fear are at war.

But this is more than just conflicting apples and oranges. Pitting freedom and fear against each other is like comparing elephants and peanuts.

The President's speech. In regards...

to the extent I had read it at the time of the last post, I must make a correction. I had the link to the prepared text, and had read the 1st three paragraphs rather than just what I thought was one as I claimed. That would be the equivalent of two paragraphs in the White House text.

Having now read the complete text I must comment more fully. It was actually a very good speech, that makes a lot of sense. That is also the opinion of a friend of mine whose experiences and credentials in intelligence are well beyond mine. But that was just the first part of a sentence, which I finished for him in my mind as he was making this comment. Paraphrased: His speech made a lot of sense... except for the facts.

Back to my first read, the paragraph in question has questionable references to "Iraq, an ally" and "terrorists and extremists who are...seeking to topple Iraq's government". These are at odds with the wishes reported that Iraq would like us to leave and some of the administrations allies wishes for a new government in Iraq.

In a related matter, Bush has said he prefers to listen to the generals on the ground rather than Washington politicians. Well how does that play when Petraeus wrote [*] in support of the administration before the last election and has plans for politics already?

[*] [Battling for Iraq September 26th 2004 Washington Post added here 9-21-07: also His Political Hopes and more and Krugman calls him out. and Political Animal Drum(s) him out. ]

Can anyone believe this?

The President's speech.
There are questions?
Either/or...
I have read one paragraph each
and wonder and then remember
and pre-emptively review.

Links from the above posts.
Sharpening Questions? MSNBC
Time for Us to Go Washington Monthly

Now I will read "the rest of the story", as Paul Harvey would say.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
[Miscellaneous to read even later.]
Sept. 6th 2006 The White House -- speech.
A day in the life Free Republic
Speeches? Huffington Post
Comments? (AP) KLS
LINK ONE ABOVE
LINK TWO (The Caucus) NYT
As Long as He Links It. September11news.com
Sept. 20th, 2001 The White House -- speech. [ [Ctrl f] => PRINCIPLES]

[NOTE: LABELS,
Hit and Run refers to "them" and this post.]

McCain is Right, But Wrong!

Everything is political!

"If you can't stand the heat..." don't cook the books.
The MoveOn.org ad.
The back-up.

Common sense has Left the Right.

9/11 Shade of the Bush

General Douglas MacArthur quoted an old military ballad:
"Old soldiers never die, they just fade away."

Now it seems that:
Good Generals never lie * , they just shade away.

My point is clear. Generals have a job to do. They take orders. Congress has a job to do. They declare war and fund government. If the General gives testimony, is he not sworn in? Apparently not. (This expert was ejected for suggesting it yesterday.) This does not mean that General Petreus lies or betrays us, he is only apparently doing his job. Will congress? **

And on my earlier point: The surge has worked. That is easy for them to say, when they have not said what working means, and only count "hard work". It was supposed to be political and the report was to measure it's success. There has been little political success ***, unless you count changing the subject from exit to drawdown. So it has been so successful, will we stay the course **** till next summer?

And we are quibbling over words and the honor of a general? Tough! If he can't stand the heat... Not to mention, the attention that MoveOn must generate, if people will read the lines, that the general has generated, one need not even read between the lines.

* & ** embedded recommended reads
*** this link notes 2006 as "Year of Transition".
**** speaking of time

War On/Or Terrorism ?

[Anachronic Memorial to the victims of September 11th, 2001]


* * * * * *
CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.
[Petitions were presented to each U.S. Senator on August 28th, 2002 against the Iraq War Resolution.]
* * * * * *

[Note: This contains many important points where the linkage may be subtle, but I tried to avoid being too condescending and its original format lends to brevity as well as the above title.]

[Subject: Peace, Foreign Policy, Justice, War and Terrorism.] 8-19-02
To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002

With the passage of time and the contributions that I have seen published since September 11th, I feel compelled to resubmit the following, with some additional comments. The April 23rd 2002, Op Ed pages contained two distinct
views of our situation. In one rests the solution, that of former President Jimmy Carter, "We can persuade Israel to make peace", and in the other the problem, that of Attorney Steven T. O'Ban, "Israel's war is America's war". How can we fight a war on terrorism with terrorism?

War On(or) Terrorism [November 27, 2001 ]
While already proud to be an American, I was glad to see the fire in William Safire's, "With Bush's tribunals, we cede moral and legal high ground." The trashing of human rights in the name of safety will provide neither. (Apologies to Ben Franklin)

I chose the following words to express my thoughts sometime before noon PST September 11, 2001:

The tragedy that has come to this nation today is unspeakable. It is an attack on our country but not on our democracy. It would seem to be a form of attack on our democracy to feel the hesitancy to criticize our
government. To find and prosecute the people who are responsible would be justice. But if retaliation is justified in the name of a war on terrorism then we must wake up. War is already ongoing (freedom and lives are lost
daily around the world) and we must be wary of visiting the same atrocities on others. Since collateral damage has been justified in war (wrongly or not), retaliation that includes hasty justice may be guilty of, if not also
justifying the same terrible deeds.

Two days later I had read and re-read my words and had read or heard those of others and had come to find the importance in having a perspective on the choice of words. A response to this horrific act was of course needed, but
encouragement came from the first steps taken to get the support of others in the world. To act alone would cause consequences that would prolong this process. There is hope for us if this unity that results truly allows good
to prevail. But voices must not hesitate to point out where goodness is needed in the world and it must begin at home. Expressing our feeling of sadness and fear at these outrageous acts must be encouraged and not
translated into anger toward any groups in this or other countries that are not the perpetrators or actual supporters of terrorism or we will feed the spiral of hate.

While these words may seem prophetic if not somewhat heeded in the last two and a half months, we must still try to understand this "War on Terrorism". It must begin with the words used. The word WAR ranges from 1. armed fighting between groups, through 5. a serious effort to end something, from the Brittanica Concise Dictionary. The same source has a longer definition of TERRORISM, but begins with one sentence. TERRORISM as a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective. If the President wants to feel "absolutely" right about his actions, we have to be absolutely certain of his definitions and if he knows them and their consequences. We can as Americans and with a very great part of the world, be engaged in this war as a serious effort to end terrorism. But, a systematic threat or use of unpredicted violence by organized groups to achieve a political objective is not only Terrorism, it makes our foreign policy and war synonymous with it.

Aside from tossing human rights and the constitution aside, the current policy is not even consistent with past Republican insistence upon clear goals and exit strategies being required before troop engagement. Do not get
me wrong. War as violence, does have a place in self-defense. However, by not using the term for war as a serious effort to end something, we have not only lost our moral and legal high ground, but have also raised terrorism to
the level of war where there are no rules except to the victor.

On patriotism, we must have follow through. Do not ban flag burning or require the pledge of allegiance, but expect respect for and stand up for the principles "for which it stands". Without "liberty and justice for all" we can hardly be "indivisible". As Bush so eloquently said in his September 20th address to congress: "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them." Is it any indication to the contrary that on the very day Bush declared this a "war" the Secretary of Defense confessed that he had yet to consult a dictionary to define war?

Post script. (4-25-02)

If the above is not explanatory enough, maybe additional considerations are important. If terrorism is more narrowly defined to be attacks on civilians, we obviously still have room to argue with the recent Israelis attack on
Palestinian camps and our use of the term "collateral damage".

However, looking at the administration's approach in linking financial and humanitarian aid to countries that make progress toward democracy, why start with that approach? This would by itself be an attack on civilians, when at
the same time, we are not talking about removing the military or defense support and/or cooperation we give to totalitarian and repressive regimes. In particular the comparison O'Ban made between Israel now and England
during WWII is erroneous in this manner. While England and the rest of Europe were under attack by a totalitarian regime, most of the attackers of Israel either have no nation/state or must live "under" repressive regimes
that we at best are simply using, but more seriously contributing to heavily.

I hope that strong support for the peace plans of Jimmy Carter and/or in some combination with the Saudi proposals will be forthcoming, or we should not be surprised to be met with our own tactics: violence as a means to achieve a political purpose. Recently I believe President Bush said, "the end does not justify the means". When is he going to start understanding and standing up for that principle?

Betray US Report

I know it is a little hard to put the CON TEXT in context, let alone my own writing. The surge has worked.

No quotations on that, but my summary was that it would be maybe nuanced. I apparently write so nuanced that I find it hard to search my point that a troop surge would be political. The point I may have missed but had in mind, is that while I called it an escalation, it now is a surge. Petraeus hopes to be back down to pre-surge numbers by summer. The irony is that the solution in Iraq must be political while the surge over here was just political as well. Well maybe that sorts it out, or maybe I wanted to have my cake and eat it too, but the timing is all to drag things out for political gain, or minimizing political loss, and it is impossible to detach the politics.
MoveOn.org draws the line, the troops should not be in the crossfire and the General should not just tow the line.

[1:35 PM If he is really presenting "his" testimony, it does not mean he is not still straddling a very careful line. 1:55 PM a few bold/links added]

A New Democratic Agenda

Norman Goldman has a list of issues he presented on The Ed Shultz Show on Friday, and today I posted a reply (#8) in Norm's Nook.

Attention to the Right!

Note recent rearrangement of the
"not beating around he Bush? see these links"
and maybe a move to the left for it.

From The Daily Grist Consider...

And earlier associations: People for the American Way
ACLU Patriot Act

New association here: Grist

Will the Press fail again?

On Iraq? Editor and Publisher
On Iran?
On Impeachment?

Well this is a train that may have left the station.
Will they ever learn?

See "Straw Elephant"
Top link, thanks to Rachel Maddow.

Bush comes to shove?

Big Eddie wants to know how to handle an unruly Republican. I would suggest letting management deal with it. Is that the kind of establishment they want to run?
And now there is another matter that he can deal with. The journalist who had no witnesses? The newspaper with no journalist. The paper with no advertisers?

Oddly, in a google of Fargo Forum, the Mondo Times had a poll and drew some conclusions from some reporting.(OK, the links could be misplaced)

Here's to holding them accountable, even if I am hard to.

[Further accountability: Fred Thompson wants to discuss the decisions needed to preserve America's strength, prosperity and unity.]

Voting Counts...

and must be accountable and recountable.

Please see my comments at my blog at 11TH HOUR ACTION or just follow up below.

I urge support for the following True Majority Action.

Take the first step to fixing our voting system.

Voting machine maker warned of 'issue'

Election Problem Log - 2006 and 2007

Opening, Closing, Bookending: "The Family Jewels"

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on Hardball regarding "release of secret documents" sparked the following google, which I have not read, but will not refrain from commenting on. [Not exactly Breaking.]

The CIA's Family Jewels National Security Archives
CIA to Air Decades of Its Dirty Laundry Washington Post
A glimpse into the CIA's 'family jewels' International Herald Times
Some Fear CIA 'Family Jewels' Could Hurt Agency NPR

New Intelligence?

Which commission? "Skeletons file" thirty-two years in the making? [Likely still broken?]
[Actially that is the link: "What's going on?" Dirty tricks and passing the buck.]

Yeah Leahy! [More Democratic Kudos]

Sorry for the disrepect but Senator Leahy, Chair of the Judiciary Committee plans to withhold confirmation of replacement Attorney General until questions are answered about the last AG. He will know when he has enough answers when he knows what questions to ask the nominee about "what's going on". (5:48 into clip) This merits respect for the Senator for his mission to stop the disrespect to the constitution and congress. As I put it just after the '06 election pull up the chairs. For shadowing "What's Going On?" In my post May 9th '07, If you investigate... I found a major typo/misstatement in not using the word "suing", I was so much supporting, of Speaker Pelosi.

[9:40 AM More signs of a steady course or KUDOS TO CONGRESS. Bush Success Rating at Historic Low House Democrats "stongest opposition from either party" in 54 year Congressional Quarterly record.]

Happy Labor Day!

Not wanting to dwell on the topic of labor, I still have some ahead of me, but a major project of mine has turned a corner and the day off is needed. But I could not go jump in the lake yet. The previous link has a Labor Day message and news on American "productivity".

My recent blogging has been at 11thHourAction.
The link there is Thom Hartmann interviewed on Ring of Fire . Radio
[Thanks to them for GoLeft.TV]
Also "dis" Context versus Con Text... piece.
And on the Point of Power and Laws
and the base of what we need.