Two-wrongs don't mean a Left[!]

Too reads do not mean a dialogue. 

Mid-read(NFRY): (i.e. live footnoting)
Survival of the fittest verses(~) corporate species and arms races[!]
Battle of the Narratives? (Corporate offspring, peacocks and elk.)
(head or tails not treated equally, but...)[somewhat akin to gander or goose?]
[fundamental try-vergence]...(grain v ladder)[LOL read v regulations]
Survival of the Narratives?

4-3-16 to read:
The Atlantic: Obama Doctrine
4-4-16
Hedges/Hudson on Neo-Liberal Economics.

[related (b.s.): Spencer... demo/mice...DecomPart * Meantalizing]
*Moline's Platonics  / Darwinian Physics

For Careful Processing:

Iran Progress?
Israelis' Onion?
GOP Treason?

The Middle East label has been underused in this blog.  Foreign Policy a more frequent label.  Not sure if the Obama Doctrine has superseded it.  The piece by Juan Cole may seem in jest, but may be the actual reason Israel is so belligerent.  Not to mention the GOP. 

4-7-15 link @ mention added

Daryl Cagle ?

not too mention ? Irony Table?
???   Daryl  Cagle !!!

4-8-15
Foreign and Domestic?

PC of Mini-Me

Press conference, that is!(*)
Presidential press conference on Syria Us and Con Gress.
Not to Maddow(2) or that's the ticket, but a diplomacy of preemption and word wars, not a red line of nuance.

* * * Labels PC(pre-conference) * * *
Foreign Policy
Diplomacy
Globalization
Obama Doctrine

(*) heading triggered by Hardball's Chris Matthews
No Grand Bargain nor Mini-Morph but Share 'n Angle

      ( *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *)      
First Question: Syria / Game Changer
2nd?Q: Bengazi B.S. Headline Generator
Self-Radicalizing?  Old Hats Diehard?
Mark (twain) Paul Jones?
           *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Guantanamo Dilemma and the Taliban Party.
Domestic Justice Exceptionalism and Community Divergence.
Chicken Little   State Rights
               *        *        *
(asterisk bracketed to sequester other asterisks as genre shifts)
(9*'s): press conference begins
(7*'s): genre or nuance shift [?] ! [(**)]

                  *          *(1)
[Self Radicalization and Boot Straps(3)]
(1) label added inserted "and" 
(2) Maddow
(1): anachronistically (2 too)
(2): a, B(b),C(c)
(b.s.): A, B(b), C(c)
(3) A, B(b), C(c), D!
[In time for Now!(Ann-Marie Slaughter/Tango) THE THIN RED LINE! Self Radicalization links inserted]
[PCR? Published Chemical Reaction? See Now with Alex Wagner.]
[(B S) Boot Straps (FP1) ]

[(**) all links this line inserted post-4Fp's]
[Update: Top-line links inserted and font change 5-3-13]

Turning Tables

The 1% Doctrine flip-flopped. Obama follows through on Bush Cheney SOFA agreement? Seemingly proof that winning was not the goal.

And I wondered about anachronisms*. It is deeply rooted in the Republican race in terms of when it is flip-flop and when it is true change.

* Two pulled from draft, As (almost)Is, in context.

Para-model

I will begin at the end, or rather the present.
Less than two paragraphs in:
What's Left of the Left. Why do I begin at that moment? Allow me to begin again at this moment.
What is Left of the Left?
(the lede of the link)(4)***
Is this a geometric or quantitative heading?
What is not right about the left?
Or how much of the left is still there?

Now if I may do a Hansel and Gretel impersonation...my point is that I have worked out my path off-blog. i.e. left some pebbles to attempt to trace my path.
The reality is that I got the article from** MSNBC*, (current lede) Actually I got the link not the article. So I am still working it out, but will now save my Para-model.doc with this.

* actual clip here later
**anachronistic conundrum(or appropriate con un drum)[Cain beating the media.(1)]
*** post save doc: golf term "four"/Mulligan?

[Now I must note that I will square [bracket(#)] and or continue after reading more.]
[I should now note that I have left open a blog I was editing, which has now been inserted in my Para-model.doc ala my Hansel and Gretal MO. Apparently the pebbles were bread crumbs, but in reading What is Left of the Left, noticing that I have read only one of seven pages, I must MoveOn for the time being.]
[Now... actually just moments after the last bracket I will make a point.(see **(1) On what the heck is Cain doing? He is working the model of the media, in a fourth branch sort of way. He is getting attention, and I will sort out that fourth dimension. And I must note I am impressed with Joe the Plumber and Rupert the Survivor as candidates of a third kind. Not to call them, "Out There". But I think there is something to the polarity and needing more perspectives than our parties and branches provide. And this is reflected in a mechanics and dynamics, that is not just two dimensional. But Steven Jobs did point out to Rupert Murdoch that it can be either constructive or destructive. It is not about left or right, up or down, or forward or back again. It is about making progress or not. Everything else is how, and by and for whom? Does any of this embedded here or in my saved doc, explain: that the more radical a comment the more coverage it gets? It might depend on if one is Leaning Forward or Fair and Balanced. Now, I know that there is some perspectivism here, but Fair and Balanced does not mean two dimensional. Now it just depends on if I am talking about the Media or Faux News.]
[My apologies for my Quantum Leap over the Big Cheese, I feel my bread crumbs may be safe in draft see image.]


[Andrea Mitchell: Why has the president waited? Because he wanted congress to do their job! That was my preemptive answer to the preemptive question. Meaning, I was expecting the question and anticipated the answer, which just may be in the unfinished heading: What is Left of the Left.(No question mark or exclaimation mark?)]
[Speaking of Hands or Thumbs: L-curve anyone?]


[My para-model.doc is a bibliograpy of sorts(pun intended). Some Late Entries.: not to mention blog searches for con+scious, con+science, anarchy, tyranny, and thumb and buffet.]
[For the record Searches @thumb= Star Chamber/Big Cheese/Para-Model/Obama Doctrine/Who are they calling?. @buffet= Para-model/Big Cheese/From GOP to NOP/Brackets and Debt Clock/N-oddly Enough/All Politics is Local/Commander in Chief/Off the Cliff/Irony versus Hypocrisy. By this I am recording what the Al Gore Rythms find, just in case something changes.]
[This is bleapin' freaky considering my heading and intention here: The last of my late entries, and the last thing(or link) in my para-model.doc is this and (THIS)is the first thing Ed Schultz is talking about when I turn on his show. QED? Not to mention the rest of his show, which is yet to run(he is going on about Romney in Ohio? and a clear plan, and Democrats losing the message war, then Bernie Sanders and the NYtimes poll?), but is actually digitally delayed for local radio.]

Still going? QED?]

LIB...YA!

to the shores of Tripoli.
Gadhafi pulled from drain pipe...
Libya can now MoveOn.

[10-21-11 segue-tangent i.e preface post]

I have never been in the military but I have boxed at Sand Point. Not to continue a biopun, but...my point is that politics is the point and needs a point and takes time. What doesn't?

Note original address*(Obama Doctrine) not to mention follow up**.

* scroll over
** pause for research
Note: labels to evolve***, Obama Doctrine/Obamanomics/G'ribble mix.
*** up date: "the universality of freedom" not exactly.

[biopun? Obama March '09 Oh Nien? Oh Eight! OW.]
[Navigation Tips: sometimes scroll over, sometimes click, sometimes Ctrl F, note upper left search box often embedded, if not fully employed.]

SHOCK and AWE(UPDATE)

Martin Bashir on Aid to Pakistan [To the President:]

So before he is tempted to cut all forms of funding, I would like to remind him of the wise words that he wrote back in 2006 in his book "The Audacity of Hope." Speaking about the circumstances in which terrorism can flourish, he highlighted failed states and poverty as the two most important factors.

Not to raise any suspicions** but the mission has not been so clearly defined in original reports.

CIA Chief Leon Panetta, later Tuesday told NBC News, "The authorities(sic*) we have on Bin Laden are to kill him. And that was made clear. But it was also, as part of their rules of engagement, if he suddenly put up his hands and offered to be captured, then they would have the opportunity, obviously, to capture him. But that opportunity never developed."

But back to the issue of aid. See raise link.

Using stringent language, a statement by the Pakistani Foreign Office said, "Such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the United States."

This is clearly a nuanced not "stringent language". But if,(and I mean A BIG IF) Osama bin Laden has been hiding in this compound for six years, it is difficult for the Bush administration to take much credit for the success of this mission, (let alone waterboarding). And while President Obama has been clear on the issues of failed states and poverty being part of the security equation, it is hard to expect Pakistan to be totally free of corruption or political and intelligence intrigue, let alone competence***. It is much easier to speculate and develop tin foil conspiracies that may actually be based on some evidence, and to use them to destabilize, than it is to change things at home let alone for another country. As the right seems to paint themselves into the corner of hypocrisy, the President has the responsibility of being the cherry picker and decider-in-chief. And in connecting the dots of the likes of the latest Right, (remember A BIG IF) then there must be some logic that the Bush administration must be further scrutinized for their part in a $1.4 trillion escapade of terror. How can we hold other countries responsible for competentencies when ours (and often rightly so) are so political?

* my (sic)inserted maybe "authorizations"?
** it is not the "fog of war" it is the fog of understanding and journalism
*** there is some irony in this linkage given prior asterisks
[Apologies for the nuance and dynamics of this threading, it is tricky to deal with the likes of some thinking, let alone journalism. And it was not my intent to necessarily minimize incitefulness or skirt a tin-foil issue or weave Teflon administrations.]

[While I may have great peripheral vision, I link the link weave last, but it was embedded in any above(3rd link).]
[Breaking news (which might be broken), apparently they will not release the photo of bin Laden, the argument is that there may be no pleasing some.]

[Further Embed Meant: Pakistan and speaking of timing. The death of A BIG IF?]
[Back to My TetraHeDron? Not Exactly!]
[Post Post In-put]
[Pre-Post er us in - put?]

Thursday, May 05, 2011
No Photos
"cathartic moment"
Now* to America's Future

*actually see not so Pre-Post er us reference to in-put(above). Also on Rumsfeld. On Stiglitz. Doing Justice?
[Important flip-flop or fair and balanced rearrangement regards the perspectives of Samuel P. Huntington and Francis Fukuyama. From Clash of Civilizations I may have cherry picked or perspectivized my analysis via tangential influences. While Francis Fukuyama has corrected his alignment from The New American Century, from renouncing the Bush administration to supporting and influencing the Obama Doctrine, it is not just ironic that the tag line for the issue of release of the bin Laden photos is, "It is not who we are" nor that the likes of the right see almost everything as a culture war. Or that both Bush and I were opti-mystic,(yeah right, he was) and why we now have hope.

Obama Doctrine?

Allow me to remind you of ledership and the rhetorical. In my format I use it to refer to the heading of a piece as well as a peril to progress. Not that I have embedded the definition here, I have just googled these(2 links) now. But previously touched on it here. And no pun here. But here? I will parse these later, but for now I will claim that it is a position not just a doctrine. Hmmm, maybe doctrine is the word that sticks for some, and it is not partisan or bi-partisan. One important feature is that a policy is not an action, nor a result.

[My last two links which I inserted are on the"peril" of "progress" and refer to the nature of power and intelligence, in the area of freedom and the hard work involved. Just as previous wars were fought under an information embargo of sorts, I do not know if that is really part of the picture now, but whether it is or not, the information is part of the format that goes beyond just the military aspect, to the diplomatic and beyond and back again. Meaning who knows what information will be used to what end or who will use it, get it or misuse it.]

Caution: Expletive...

Journalism: Doesn't add up.

Maybe the Exit Strategy does not add up, but I mean that it may have been McChrystal's and Obama's as far as an Afghan Exit Strategy.

UPDATE TO THE SIDEBAR:
Obama = Getter R Done
Understanding the Obama Doctrine*
Counter Evolutionary (R,R,R)
Open Source Intelligence
Navigation: Ctrl F[**]
[Bold links are the side bar links, the unbold are unembedded links, comments or labels. These include: Rachel Maddow on Obama's Successes, Brzezinski on Morning Joe, Social Security Works on the Deficit Commission, Stockman on Taxing, and Navigation* Search.]
* yet to label and add MSNBC: The Ed Show, Olbermann and Ratigan/Matthews
[**] Huzzah!

Betrays Management Style

and that there were not two Petraeus's.

Or Peres's?
[I have read the former and only scanned the latter but the topic is tangential* to understanding the Obama Doctrine.]
(Source: Just Foreign Policy/ embedded Jon Stewart)

* link contains typo or unintended pun which works I wager if not waged.
[I must also note no earlier disprespect for Petraeus, only those that linked criticism with not supporting our troops.]

Noble, No Bell, Nobel

It was no dynomite for some, nor Hopenhagen.

[Comment above posting on 12-14-09..Originally held in draft 12-11-09 continue as AMENDED here:
Obama's Nobel Lecture; MSNBC, Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Jon Stewart , If Only[**]. ]

[Rounding it out: Obama Doctrine*, If Only, Great Debates, Values: to boldly go wagering "hard work" ]
[EarlierWest PointSpeech: just in case]

* "If Only" this link were followed by...(ribble?)following the Obama Doctrine and wagering Peace. "If Only" duplicity hints at Asterisk Trek, or the star power of words. Do not confuse the just with the jest.

[For future and path, consideration.]

[See 1st comment: PEACE! Get 'er done! Not pieces, get err done. On the other hand...]

[** 12-15-09 UPDATE: Arianna Huffington aggrees with Sarah Palin? Only in Con Text which is out of context, meaning what opinion makers so easily do by selecting their snippets. Neither Palin nor Bush would have been able give this speech and put war in context, but taking it out of context, there could be no difference.]

Reading (listening) between the lines.

For Howard Dean there is not much between the lines:
Getting something done "from the outside".

For President Obama there is much between the lines:
Getting attacks from "the Beltway press".
"a lot of criticism of it" (Stimulus Package)
"that could have been because of the name, because an effort, it's two thirds of it was actually spending."

Obama: What do you think a stimulus is?
"by necessity we are moving quickly"

Who owns the economy? It depends on if you are looking for responsibility or blame. Obama is looking at the responsibility of going forward without mistakes of the past, and "the Beltway press" is eager to pass the buck. Especially The Beltway Boys who are shooting clay pidgeons or is it cr...?(that game with dice)
[Hint "red herrings": Burris, Holder and the Fairness Doctrine. For me; no thumbs up or down, just side ways.]