SPIRIT OF THE LAW

The president has spoken recently again, about the spirit of the law. This has been his out in all of this dissembling. Good intentions somehow figure into interpretations of the law more than the actual words in the law. To cover the other end of the deal, write memos that no one reads but hope they will follow until they need to be rewritten. Who needs lawyers when you have judges? Who needs to rewrite history, when you can rewrite memos?

The above words are an echo of the link BELOW I later read. My words throughout this blog and since before the 2000 vote have often been preemptive questions on the rhetorical attack on America.

I have had a strange connection with the media. I have a habit of downloading or filing references for later reading, often not getting to them till much later. But some how the spirit of the articles must reach me. I would credit this to my reading of works by those who have read them or have been read by the contributors I have yet to read. But as long as I am on the subject of spirit, I think it would be a good place to insert the law in the pledge of allegiance.

…one nation under LAW, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Now see the LINK BELOW that best echoes my past adumbrations. Our Founders and the Unbalance of Power
By Al Gore t r u t h o u t | Feature Thursday 24 June 2004

It is also why I seem to be beating around the Bush, when running with their rhetoric. Others may hold no punches.

QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

Thanks to Anonymous we have some truth.
CIA insider says U.S. fighting wrong war
Anonymous career officer makes bold claims in book about U.S. war on terror By Andrea Mitchell, NBC NEWS 6-24-04

QCON: I would half agree with his conclusion, "It's not a good option; it's the only option." The first half not the second. On his way he makes many assumptions and caveats to his conclusion that must be explored.

Some excerpts: SEE LINK BELOW >>>>
My bold added.

Mitchell: "You call for some very tough actions here. You talk about escalating our war against them, and you say in your book that killing in large numbers is not enough to defeat our Muslim foes. This killing must be a Sherman-like razing of infrastructure. You talk about civilian deaths. You talk about landmines. Is that really what we have come to in this war on terror?"

Anonymous:
…“I think we've come to the place where the military is about our only option. We have not really discussed the idea of why we're at war with what I think is an increasing number of Muslims. Which — it's very hard in this country to debate policy regarding Israel or to debate actions or policies that might result in more expensive energy. I don't think it's something that we wanted to do, but I think it's where we've arrived.”

Mitchell: "Where is the falling down? Where is our effort falling down?"

Anonymous: "Part of it, I think, is again, as I wrote in the book, is the unwillingness of senior bureaucrats in the intelligence community to take the full truth, an unvarnished truth to the president, whether it's Mr. Bush or Mr. Clinton. I'm not sure that it's proper to blame al-Qaida's existence, continued existence or attacks on any elected official. I think the, the bureaucracy at the senior levels in the intelligence community is selective in what they take to the president. I think they are loath to describe the dire problem posed by bin Laden for a number of reasons. One of them is basically political correctness. It's not career-enhancing to try to engage in a, in a debate about religion and the role it plays in international affairs. And so we, we, we address bin Laden from the perspective of law enforcement, picking them off one at a time, arresting them, killing them. And I think that's a, the, the, the result of no one frankly discussing the size of the problem or the motivation behind the problem."

Mitchell: "And what are you going to say to those who say that this is anti-American and that this is a really prejudiced approach? What do you say to those who say that your call for a war against Muslim people, is really only going to make the situation worse?"

Anonymous: "I wonder how much worse the situation can be, in the first instance. We continue to believe that somehow public diplomacy or words will affect the anger and hatred of Muslims. And I'm not advocating war as my choice. What I'm advocating is, in order to protect the United States, it is our only option. As long as we pursue the current policies we have, until we have a debate about those policies, there's not a lot we can do. We won't talk them out of their anger, we won't convince them we're an honest broker between the Israel and the Palestinians. We won't convince that we're not supporting tyrannies in the Arab world from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
"It's the only option. It's not a good option; it's the only option. And I'm not saying we attack people who aren't attacking us. But in areas where we realize our enemies are, perhaps we have to be more aggressive."

QCON: I think reading this interview and maybe the book would be helpful with an open mind, and I wonder what his next book would be. Remember what he was not an expert in, and question where he and we may also be "myopic".

The truth is out there and maybe in there too. It may even be in the title of his book: "Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror."

NOTE: [QCON = Quick Comment On News or
Question Connections and several other con words]

(QCON) Cheney v. U.S. District Court

The Supreme Court sent back to lower court the request to get documents from the Cheney Energy Panel. [SEE LINK >> QCON-Cheney Energy Panel]
"Shortly after taking office, President Bush put Cheney, a former energy industry executive, in charge of the task force which, after a series of private meetings in 2001, produced recommendations generally friendly to industry."

The lower court must consider this:
"The open government law requires advisory committees with non-government members to conduct their business in public, and allow the public to inspect their records."

The groups seeking the documents asked Justice Scalia to recuse himself due to a duck-hunting trip with Cheney after agreeing to hear the case. His reply: "If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined," he wrote in an unusual 21-page memo.

[QCON](Quick Comment on News) :-) That seems to mean that having imagined that the nation is in deep trouble, it would be unreasonable to be in trouble so cheap. While making no charge, it seems inescapable to conclude that being bought for the right price is less troubling. I think the logic is weak somewhere here or there. Of course I did not review the 21-page memo, and probably should not rely on an article to interpret it for me. But his is QCON.

Further QCON: It seems that the open government law is what the lower court should have reviewed.

An underlying principle here is to avoid a paper trail. Much as blame for rewriting history is tossed about, now they rewrite memos that were never clearly related to a chain of command.

Maybe this is why my formerly QCN (quick comment on news) did not appear again. Few comments can be quick and clear.

THEN AGAIN...

HERE WE GO AGAIN. Time to close the book on Bush.

Bush Is No Reagan.

The Club For Growth will be showing Reagan at the Berlin Wall and Bush at Ground Zero. Though I would not give too much credit for the Berlin Wall falling to Reagan, some do. But comparing the two should imply that Bush gets some credit for the World Trade Center twin towers falling. Whatever credit is deserved, one represents the end of the cold war, the other the beginning of the terror war. Just how can there be a good comparison? One is the end of something that was already in trouble. The other is the beginning of trouble that sees no end. They are similar in that they selectively choose a perspective. One could see the coming fall of the Soviet Empire, the other could not see that failures or successes are not options but results.

RONALD REAGAN: (R.I.P) RESPECTIVE IN PEACE

Much must and will be said about the passing of a great leader, President Ronald Reagan. His tragic illness in his last years is especially unfitting for a man loved by many. History will be written and rewritten. Now is not the time for trying to counter balance all the hope and inspiration he gave to many but to keep an open mind about bringing them to reality. His friends and critics alike should appreciate his skills and character, which were a most powerful weapon. [SEE LINK-- AMERICAN DREAMER: NEWSWEEK]

ROGER THAT ! ! !

The Center for American Progress quoted leading conservative Sen. Rick Santorum "Making people struggle a little bit is not the worst thing." http://snowe.senate.gov/articles/art901703_3.htm

My thought is: Well shouldn't the wealthiest deserve the best?

Next in line, I ran into www.tompaine.com/opinion and a piece by Jonathan Rowe they summarized as "The Social Roots of Partisanship". That gets a big ROGER THAT !!! [SEE LINK !!!]


I think it is also our story and message in progress!

ROGER THAT ! !

[SEE LINK !!]
Thanks to THE AMERICAN PROSPECT History 101

Do I hear an echo?

We may not be all singin' in the same choir, but some try to get it together. Having too many voices is better than only having one note, and being tone deaf.

The echo? See previous post below May 10th, Bush has done more for credibility... i.e. Helping us hit bottom.

Hope or Heap Upon Bluster

The president had a very important speech before the War College last night. On top of the resolution proposal to the U. N. Security Council this leaves quite a bit of material to analyze. But this was the basic scope of the material: a five-point plan, the U.N. resolution and oh… the replacement of Abu Ghraib with a new high security prison presumably that will detect digital cameras.

The primary purpose was to put it all together for the American people and the world to have the persistence and patience to continue on the basic path that has been their plan for some time.

1. June 30th Iraqi sovereignty
2. Provide security for Iraqi democracy
3. Continue rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure
4. Build international support
5. 1st elections no later than Jan. 2005

Other than the destruction of Abu Ghraib, it sounds like we’ve heard it all before. His presentation had a clear forceful nature that could give hope to the American people. But the only thing clear is that he hoped for more meaning by saying each word so clearly as to have more force.

JUST CAUSE OR JUST BECAUSE?

A PARALLEL CAUSE FROM ANOTHER ANGLE.
My sympathies, NOT EXACTLY. But it is not beating around the Bush. (SEE NEW LINK: Campaign to De-Elect the President )

Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages

THANKS TO COMMONDREAMS.ORG (SEE NEW LINK for report on administration propaganda)

Given the propensity for the administration to blame the media while manipulating it, I would suggest a campaign for truth. The fair and balanced media outlets must join together to hold those who advertise accountable. Any campaigns that distribute false information without sources should be penalized with higher costs the next time around. This would cover either the time involved correcting the erroneous information or presenting the rest of the story. In a particular candidates case triple damages would be appropriate that could cover the airtime that will be given to each opponent in a race.

Of course this would be very odious to manage and indefensible on free speech grounds but after all they are paying for it. The side that declares there are absolutes or that things are black and white should especially appreciate this campaign. The irony here is that, sure it would be difficult to asses the use of partial information. But all media should strive to uphold the Fox motto, of fair and balanced reporting. That means that every point of view is balanced by each and every aspect that can be an argument against it. It is not a simple point counter-point, for each point of darkness could need or spark a thousand points of light.

ROGER THAT!

Thomas L. Friedman in the New York Times presents a mea culpa of sorts in Dancing Alone.

ROGER THAT! Will be a new alert feature.
[SEE LINKS]
Not necessarily completely endorsing all his points, I mean it to be strongly worth reading and generally in line with my thinking. One caveat is that any change in direction by the administration should be welcomed but should not give them a second chance to learn more from failures.

If that is having your cake and eating it too, well, I don’t want to unilaterally disarm of rhetoric.

Bush has done more for credibility and privatization than any president has ever… with irony.

For some reason the abuse that is so “abhorrent” to Bush and the administration is not a shock to me. I was wondering why, though I like many have not seen it all yet. For the reason one may see Molly Ivins, “Putting the ‘con’ in neo-Con” which I have not read more than a few paragraph of, but it hit a spot that had crossed my mind and the title may be sufficient. Though not in my immediate experience, there have been reports of abuses and tragedies that have occurred on or just off college campuses as well as similar abuse that occurs in the military and for some reason have even been institutionalized and rationalized to some degree. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2001924049&zsection_id=268883724&slug=ivins10&date=20040510

More important though is that someone take responsibility and I think Rumsfeld is on the right track and does not know it. In Senate questioning the subject of chain of command came up while he was before them. He also practically spelled out that even a hint or suggestion that such treatment was permitted by anyone in authority should be punished. Of course this may seem a rather liberal summary but it was surprisingly clear.

It bought me back to a quick glance at www.claimvfact.org. I had thought of this a few days before. Where in this chain of command did someone say? "If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably aren't doing your job."

Item 4.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/apps/custom/cap/findorg.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=45294

The person quoted above was responsible for turning over detainees to other authorities. It is the fact that shows up the claim by George that "No President has ever done more for human rights than I have.” It occurred to me that he did not say whether positive or negative.
Somewhere that individual must be at least under the commander of chief. Sounds like a good place to start our privatization of the military, as in court-martial, read regime change. Impeachment would take too long and based on the rest of the story not likely.

Now having read the rest of her column I am not surprised either, though more than (and that) I needed to know was provided.

Now "shock and awe" seem like more than a hint.

WHEN DOES THE JOKER CROSS THE LINE?

WHAT LINE?

In the Nation section of the King County Journal, 5-5-04 (AP, by Ron Fournier). “Bush uses humor to soften Kerry criticism.”

“The President must speak clearly and mean what he says.” Bush said.

But speaking clearly does not clearly mean anything if it is not clear you know what you mean. It is not even clear if this was supposed to be humor. I have heard him answer questions very clearly and in fact repeat answers even more clearly thinking it had even more meaning that way. See why he had to appear with Cheney before the 9-11 commission.

Even in cases he knows what he means the clear words have alternate interpretations. He was a uniter not a divider, so he united the Democrats and the Arab world. Separately of course, I must be clear there is no linkage. Though there is more linkage between the U.S. and Saudi leaders. He trusts the people not the government. He did not say whom he would trust when he is in the government and not the people. Let us hope he will get clearer. I at least know I may come across obtuse, ironic and/or nuanced, which he is none of.

For reference to previous post.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2001913288_chapman27.html

Seattle Times, April 27th, 2004

HISTORY A GUIDE TO LOOKING AHEAD, NOT A DISTRACTION

Bruce Chapman’s "Let's not be distracted from the dangers ahead" reminds me fighting terrorism is a priority and not booting Bush the biggest danger ahead. Chapman though distracts by laying blame that "much of the left and the media are trying to focus the public's attention…through a rear-view mirror."

Far from looking ahead, Chapman notes that chemical weapons have been found in Jordan, forgetting that was not before the fall of Baghdad. Chapman blames Iran's financial sponsorship and U. N. corruption as if the U.S. had no part in investigating or preventing them. On homeland security he is right. Yet the violin teacher’s admonition to "Play better" may be the best advice, not blaming others or existing laws and processes.

Instead Attorney General Ashcroft blamed the famous wall of the Gorelick memo, as if to say, "the dog ate my homework" while his evidence was a chewed up sports page. The memo "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations" was misread, not to mention an interpretation of Reagan and Bush I mandates. It concluded "That AUSA (Assistant US Attorney) will continue to be ‘walled off’…and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines". The bold emphasis and Italics should have been added earlier.

They fail even Monday morning quarterbacking. Showing that if the administration could read better not to mention "play better" there may never have been a 9-11 commission of the terrorist act to need a commission.

GRID IRONY

It is ironic that the death of a football and military hero brings such glory and tribute while the photos of flag draped coffins create such controversy. Pat Tillman Jr. is remarkable for what he sacrificed just to share in the risk and responsibilities he felt he should. The many others who died may not have sacrificed as much just to go, but the truth of their ultimate sacrifice deserves no less respect or honor.

Further fuel to the irony are the depictions of flag draped coffins, if seen as political footballs, were kicked off by the fumbling or punting of the truth both preemptively and post mortem. More offensive are the claims, that those who oppose war feel any less respect or responsibility for our troops.

DEFEAT BY GEORGE

Defeat By Daniel N. Nelson
Common Dreams Friday 2 April 2004

A piece I found difficult, but an echo it seems of my thoughts.

A DEMOCRATIC WORLD?

Question mark added above.
The following article is more than some will wish to read and not what many would want to think. However, it is as I see the solution, rather than the excuse that has been used ironically and retroactively for preemption.

A DEMOCRATIC WORLD by George Packer
Can liberals take foreign policy back from the Republicans?
It gives me a cleaner perspective on my intended perspective. If my pieces have been difficult, try this. But I do not promise it will be easier.

RUNNING WITH RHETORIC

James Baker III who fixed the vote for Bush in Florida as he himself described it speaking to Russian oil oligarchs, represents the Republican party, Exxon, the Saudi government, the governing council in Iraq and does all of this out of an office in the White House? And a caller on the Dave Ross show asks Greg Palast if they (Cheney et al cabal) are taking anything under the table? Oh and this is not about oil or having your cake and eating it too? Or do as I say not as I do?

And Bush joked in his first media appearance things would be easier if he were dictator? Question mark belongs after both the resident and his joke. All other question marks replace quotes ironically.

(Upside down) Ed. Note: I have yet to figure out how to print stuff upside down, but ala Q&A or fun-books I should give footnotes or clues upside down for those having trouble with my writing style or MO. In this case an explanation: I escape responsibilities for direct quotes by using questions instead of quotations. Much as a rhetorical reply to the rhetorical administration. (Right side up: Sometimes my clues need footnotes.) I may have crossed the mobius loop of hypocrisy or irony. A visual I will refrain from footnoting.

United Nations- Repeat of my April 5th Post.

United Nations
Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.
// posted by Roger @ 10:38 PM


SEE: "Bush Backs Proposal to Dissolve Governing Council"
King County Journal 4-16-04 by Steven R. Wiesman and David E. Sanger The New York Times

My UPDATE:
Now we have some progress. The UN is involved. I am sure that a more searching attempt would have found something at the time but I do not often try to dig deep nor rely just on updates and news services but have an overall ear for what reaches them.

Half of what I suggested has come to pass. The further involvement of the UN can still be hoped for. But as administration officials "asserted that, even with the United Nations overseeing the selection of a caretaker government, and then holding an election and writing a constitution, American influence on the process would be considerable."

This should be seen in the light of todays other posts which may have been influenced by reading this in the local paper this morning.
Much later seeing this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4756790/
Bush, Blair embrace U.N. proposal on Iraq
Leaders hope plan paves way
for more countries to send troops

Let us hope that processes are appreciated this time.

URLs not appearing.

{Disregard this post as on 12-17-07, I am updating the links to the adjoining posts: Memo
Set up? Walled Excuse. ]



[ORIGINAL POST: links added]
Here are the URLs for the previous two posts.

Thanks to Democrats.com Daily News update, including their headline teasers for them. The beginings of my threads.

__Ashcroft Blames Commission Member Gorelick
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document_1995_gorelick_memo.pdf

__Was Gorelick's Appointment a Set Up to Derail the Inquiry and Smear Clinton?
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=123-04142004

Thank you.

MEMO

Why was Gorelick appointed with this conflict of interest? It need not be a conflict of interest if it had been interpreted correctly as not a wall, but an opportunity to be organized and legal. Processes the administration has not shown too much concern for unless it is in a preemptive vein.
[12-19-07 link update]

SET UP? WALLED EXCUSE.

"Sensenbrenner Urges Commissioner Gorelick to Resign from the 9/11 Commission Because of Her Conflict of Interest"
It may be valid that there is a conflict of interest bearing on the 1995 memo. But the excuse that it is a defense may be misplaced. The "wall" so much referred to, may be the connection instead. Again the process is blamed where those responsible may be the key.

Please read URL posted next "MEMO" [Links updated 12-19-07 comment still a link]

"That AUSA will continue to be "walled off" from participation in the ongoing criminal investigations and cases and will continue to abide by all FISA dissemination provisions and guidelines."

This seems to indicate that one office is walled off. The memo includes an alphabet of departments that have responsibilities for following "dissemination provisions and guidelines".

This seems to indicate a selection of facts to suit the purpose of avoiding the responsibilities of management, or following the process of law.

Again the title is important. "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations". (Emphasis added)

It is ironic that they can find precedence in words that are in quotation marks, yet miss or choose to ignore the title and meaning of the memo. Where they saw a wall they should have seen a process.

Another chicken and the egg controversy?

The end does not justify the means. Bush said something similar.
The end justifies the means. If the latter were followed, the former would be claimed.

If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end?
If the end does not justify the means, we still need to ask what justifies the end.

If the end justifies the means, asking questions threatens the truth.
If asking questions is threatened, how will we begin, let alone end?

Where does the buck start, let alone stop?

FINDING A SILVER BULLET IN A MUSHROOM CLOUD?

Having only seen a small portion and the conclusion of the Rice testimony it strikes me that they are still on thin ice. They look back at the need for a war footing. They achieved the need for a war footing.

There was a failure of intelligence and the structure of communications. The story begins there.

Taking responsibility would reduce the finger pointing. Finger pointing avoids responsibility. Denying either does both. They seem to only focus on avoiding while laying it, another chicken or the egg controversy.

Denying that a silver bullet could have prevented 9-11 avoids the fact that any actions taken on some information could have caused more than they could know to flip. Jumping to the assumption that there will be a mushroom cloud unless actions are taken, is a flop.

Something must change but without full debate it will not be for the better. That something must change does not mean that a better job could not have been done.

Maybe someone's thinking must change. Maybe it was already wrong.

To make substantial changes based on failure cannot guarantee seeing a silver bullet when you are lost in a mushroom cloud.

United Nations

Not much is in the news about the possibility of the United Nations or the Security Council getting involved in Iraq. It would be a masterstroke if Bush could succeed in getting them to even consider it. The way things are going it would be an even longer shot if they went any farther than that.

Posts from Wednesday, September 25, 2002:

Distributed by email Sept. 17th 2002

REGIME RHETORIC REPLY

The congressman’s work is much appreciated. The questions are good ones. While I have actively pressed others on the general issues involved, since you brought up rhetoric, here are some questions that came to mind. If we don’t get answers let’s hope it’s just rhetoric.

On the issue of regime change there arise three important questions:
1. What makes regime change legitimate?
2. Who determines it?
3. What methods are legitimate?

There are three important players in these questions:
a. The people under the regime,
b. The unilateral player (US) and
c. Multilateral players (UN).

Then if this is not complicated enough, there are three likely combinations, aside from uniting all three:
x. The people of the regime in question and the US.
y. Those people and the UN, or
z. The US and the UN.

There are three questions/variations that further complicate things:
i. Who represents the people?
ii. Who would be the next unilateral player?
iii. Who would be the next multilateral player combination?

If we cannot manage to tone down rhetoric we must try to run with it. If we do not get answers to the above we cannot act on it.

Running with the rhetoric:
When Governor Bush was campaigning he said that he wanted to "trust the people not the government", and maybe the "people" were the ones in the Supreme Court but it is hard to see how he was a "uniter not a divider". Then in his first press opportunity he said something like: "Things would be a lot easier if I were dictator". Lately he has suggested an "Axis of evil" and "if you are not with us you are against us" and the latter could mean anyone who chooses the multilateral route.

I have not taken liberty with these words but worry about the liberty that is taken with some of "our " actions. If we act without answering these questions we may at least validate those that don’t even ask the questions. While many more questions would result from this effort maybe we can see why it seems easier to act rather than answer these questions.

Sincerely, Roger Larson

ADDITIONAL QUESTION: What happens after a regime change and when there are other regime changes within the various players? It should be easy to see a pandora's box, but some have the curiosity to open it, without the curiosity or even patience to ask the questions let alone expect any answers.
To those who would go to war: If you have the stomach for blood, do you have the guts for democracy?

* RERUN *[Compiled and distributed 8-19-02 ]<

Subject: CONNECTING DOTS AND LIVING BY PRINCIPLES-
Re: Move-On meeting with Senators.

[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 Category: Peace, Foreign Policy,
Justice, War and Terrorism]

To the Seattle Post Intelligencer: April 25th, 2002 [Not printed, but submitted intact with post-script]

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?

Sincerely, Roger Larson

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?

Roger Larson

A CONUNDRUM INSIDE A PREEMPTIVE COMMISSION.

This began as a contribution to MoveOn.org’s The O'Franken Factor Misleading Quote Contest. But it may be a most revealing quote.

Scott McClellan: King County Journal
“We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job.”
Heading: Bush keeps Clinton files from 9/11 commission.

Not an audio, but from the NY Times in my local paper. There is a third feature of this besides, both stupid and false, it is also a truth about what exemplifies a truth as preemptively determined.
Since rules are usually thrown out the window by the administration, I hope this makes it under the wire. See, I saw this in my April 2nd, King County Journal (Bellevue, Wa) which makes the quote if found in audio outside the rules of this contest.

I guess it is a stretch also that this "stand on it's own". Is there a contest for irony?

THE TRUTH APPARENT: A MOBIUS LAP

More about testimony: It would seem unprecedented that the selection of the Vice president was also un-presidential, in that the head of the search committee for Vice president selected himself.

This brings to mind as they testify in tandem, somewhat of a Charlie McCarthyism.

A mobius loop is another image that earlier came to mind and was triggered as Cheney declared Clarke out of the loop.

[No links were originally provided at the date of this post, but on 3-24-08 I now update starting with the Huffington link below at CommonDreams.org regarding updated democracy and pertains to testimony before congress and the 9-11 committee both of which are after my post. And to blow the Punch and Judy line above, there is the puppet and there are the investigations, and there is self defeating. (But the last bit just fell into place]

[6-8-09: I am uncertain as to my Punch and Judy reference, unless it is to the unPC of it or the self-defeating nature of it all.]

[not to mention 8-13-09]

An Unprecedented Commission on 9-11

The Unprecedented President selected by the Supreme Court which intentionally exempted that selection from setting a precedent, has refused to set a precedent by exempting his testimony from setting a precedent by testifying before his own 9-11 Commission. He will also declare himself exempt from testifying alone and will exempt himself and his Vice president from taking the oath. Further caution apparently needed to prevent precedent from presiding by the prevention of any dictation of a transcript or notes being allowed.

Apparently you can’t write this stuff.

All this was contingent upon being behind closed doors, with National Security Advisor Rice having the last word in public.

(Some material from Clarke on "Hardball": )
[Updated: 6-8-09 Hardball was the only original link inserted. Previous post updated as well as link to Charley McCarthyism.

RERUN:
Post from Wednesday, April 16, 2003:

ACCOUNTABILITY AN ONGOING BATTLE
Is truth the collateral damage that is acceptable?

A frequent topic for discussion is, will the administration be held accountable for the lack of evidence for weapons of mass destruction. But there are two more important questions that they are accountable for. 1. Could inspections have found them? and 2. Would they have ever been used?

They can be held accountable for the failure of diplomatic measures and other cooperative efforts. Their strongest argument was that it was a choice between war and doing nothing. Did you see any banners for doing nothing? Is there a "do nothing" crowd out there?

They framed the argument and their opponent was "doing nothing". So much for war being the final option, if the only other option they proposed or could recognize was "doing nothing".

It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth. Since this war was contemplated well before the last election, it is clear that that casualty occurred during the campaign. And now as he returns to the campaign money trail, it is referred to as the next war. It is now clear that truth was a much earlier casualty.

Beating around the Bush:

My view of the recent claim that Richard Clarke is lying is that the administration would not know the truth if they saw it.

But this is not another charge that the administration themselves are lying, but that they truly do not know the truth. Exhibit A: Rumsfeld says "facts change". That means that he can rely on what he wants, not on facts. Exhibit B: Intelligence is an opinion. That means that they can pick and choose the facts that they will rely on. To top it off they can even rely on facts not being reliable to safely cover their bets or rather conclusions, actions or the lack there of.

My conclusion, not having seen the previous 2002 testimony, is that they still cannot tell the truth when they see it. Further investigation and testimony may not clear up the truth, but further point to the problem that they cannot work with the cards they are dealt. After the fact, Monday morning quarterbacking is easier than 20/20 foresight. But so is Monday morning scape-goating.

Here we have an administration that wants to be able to act on a threat based on their own picking and choosing of intelligence but could not clearly conclude from the intelligence that is being presented; prior to 9-11, during current testimony, and likely during the 2002 testimony
[update 6-8-09 link label only]

A QUOTE FOR THE DAY:

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time." Attributed to Lincoln.

MY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:

The problem is we all forget we are either some of the people or all the people, and think we have a new equation.

BUSH AD
Demos can make a gain
[Printed 3-10-04, King County Journal]
My title:
Freedom, Faith, Family and Sacrifice Reminds Us.

From what I have seen of the first Bush ad, it is surprisingly honest. The words freedom, faith, family and sacrifice are prominent principles on parade. The images of victims and heroes bring feelings that are shared by all of us.

The Democrats could be tempted to hope it is continually run until the Freudian nature of it sinks in.

Why was a fourth ``F'' word not worked in for literary sake? Would it be too much reminder of the four freedoms of FDR? Would it be their avoidance of words like fear and failure, which would fit this administration and its lost faith in processes?

Sacrifice is appropriately chosen instead and we should be reminded who and what is being sacrificed. Since Sept. 11, 2001, there may be a new equation.

But we must do better than the fuzzy math and facts that change for this administration or it is only a dangerous formula. These images and feelings are real and valid but they make little difference, until they are followed up by words and actions that mean something

SHARED SACRIFICE [NOT 4F]

I have not seen the first Bush ad, but NPR reviewed it and from what they said it was surprisingly honest. I did not get the full wording but the words FREEDOM, FAITH, FAMILY and SACRIFICE were the prominent values that were on parade. The images of mangled victims and brave firefighters were connected with this message. While tempting to point out that the fourth F of FAILURE would be more appropriate, the word sacrifice is something that we should all share.

The Democrats are a party of unity not division. We share the values of freedom, faith, family and more importantly sharing sacrifices.

DEMOCRACY IN A REPUBLIC IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

Americans for Democratic Action: A group that I will refrain from labeling but hint at it’s irony. (It may just be too democratic in that it is for the tyranny of the majority as the powers that be can manipulate.) Whoops, too much of a hint. Maybe I have cured my obtuseness but I hope not to be too obvious, or at least not exactly using a label.

Principles and debate are two words that Bush just throws out there occasionally, which I will return to later, but on to my comments.

A spokesperson for the above ADA, claimed Kerry to be (and we can maybe even accept as accurate) the most liberal Senator, then goes on to claim that he is on both sides of issues. Bush defenders cannot have it both ways, though they want to have their cake and eat it too. Kerry in my mind may have won the mantle of nuance.

But continuing in my need to adumbrate, I will try not to distance myself from previous comments. Will Kerry be able to ride this nuance or will the press now start complicating things by doing their job more seriously, but no less * independently? Will we be able to see these principles and their connection or disconnection through words to actions and debate them?

If things are black and white, things should be clear. If our principles are clear a debate should be easy. Yet solutions are harder than conclusions. If the end justifies the means, what justifies the end? If the end is clear, how do we get there?
[5-10-07: Upon review of this it, it may have sounded good but the reverse was my intention. "Nonetheless still not independently" may be more correct but more awkward.]

MEDIA MASSAGERS

Nader and Bush: What a contrast. Nader packed with issues. Bush packed with clarity. Both can serve a beneficial purpose. Clarity in a debate. Nader has too many to be clear. But I concur with three. The parties, the media and the money are too big a factor in our democracy.

Bush? Well, clarity. The one pol who hated polls as well as government starts his campaign by using both to wedge his way into the topic of marriage or gays. The one who talks about others rewriting history, now wages a battle for clarity or the dictionary. What about giving some clarity on states rights and/or religious freedom. The New York Times has to clarify. “Putting Bias in the Constitution.” http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/022604C.shtml

The benefit of both these controversial figures is to bring issues to the forefront for debate. Now who will have the guts to face the issues with clarity in debates? That aside who needs the media?

BAD WITH NUMBERS[Written around Feb. 18th, 2004]

So now I am a Dean delegate with no candidate. I missed my chance early on, to follow through on a thought to open a domain name: Uncommitted.com or dot-org.

NPR or another outlet reports that Kerry needs to lose 60% of the remaining delegates to lose the nomination. My first thought is why don’t they say that he needs 40% of the remaining delegates to keep the nomination?

As I write this it becomes clearer even now, that the trend is set for him to be the next fall guy. Will that leave Edwards the next and final shoe-in or result in a contentious National Convention. As the trend has gone so far the media ball is already rolling if you will note that Kerry only got 39% in Wisconsin. I thought the administration was bad with numbers, now we know how they can get away with it.

Elephant Expectations?

Thomas Friedman’s “The global debate returns to Earth” ends in a great joke that I had already jumped to, in a way. First I had the final two paragraphs to absorb as I was made aware of “teeth-gnashing” at the thought that of course what goes up, must come down, so to speak. He had talked about elephants flying at the Davos World Economic Forum last year and landing with a thud this year. It made me think of the high-wire balancing act he was doing just to walk the line with the 3 issues: the US thinking it could go it alone in Iraq, the opponents to that strategy trying to dominate in their own way, and globalization.

I will leave their analysis to those who want to follow up on the original, but just because they have landed with a thud does not mean they will rise before they sink further. It may seem that someone is not fence sitting, but the elephants may have only hit the wire. A very similar punch line. And if the image of balancing the concept of support is not clear, maybe just this sound-bite will do: It’s the world economy stupid.

To go further, just because what goes up, may come down, does not mean we may not still have to go to hell and back first.

Funneling Crisis?

William Safire’s “political analysis” or channeling of Richard Nixon from purgatory is scary. It is refreshing he (Nixon) refers to “electablity” as an issue emanating from the “jackasses yakkin’ it up on cable”. Electability is no more a real issue than the “gravitas” he supplants it with.

Given the influence of the media and polls, the impact of Dean’s scream was more a funnel on these secondary issues than an issue or filtered perspective. The record low number of Bush press conferences should be more an issue. It may be an accurate charge that the media is a subjective filter but that is as elusive as intelligence analysis or polling.

Hopefully the electorate, the people, can be their own filter and resist the final charge, when Safire again draws his channeled Nixon back to the question of issues in the campaign and we get the disturbing Quemoy-Matsu syndrome or “October surprise”. The conclusion that “most crises help incumbents” must be turned around given the track record of this administration. From their ample experience at failures they should be making some progress in avoiding them in the first place.

The ability to handle surprises may be a valid tool for analysis of an administration or candidate. But the incumbent should get no more credit for the opportunity to face a crisis than blame for having it to face. The occurrence or lack of a late crisis should not be another filter clouding issues or the clogging the filter of the electorate.

Incompetent Boobs Exposed (02-02-04)

Is it any wonder the media focused on the Dean scream more than answers to real questions? And what about the claim the market place should operate as Adam Smith said in Wealth of Nations, an "invisible hand"?

Free speech is out the window if not only buying airtime is required, but now even prohibited as CBS refused moveon.org’s "Child’s Pay" Super Bowl ad, exposing the national debt being passed on to our children. It would be one thing if consistently done, but this calls into question CBS’s professional credibility, not to mention right to airwaves.

Now with the investigation by the FCC into the Janet Jackson/Justin Timberlake promotional stunt, what does this say, about the market place being the place to determine what is free not to mention visible?

On the other slightly more visible hand, maybe CBS deserves kudos for one, getting more free coverage for the ad on other networks with their rejection of the ad based on their refusal to do advocacy ads. And for two, being so incompetent in their screening of their entertainment and more than suggestive ad campaigns which exposed the hypocrisy of trying to filter or not advocate for causes.

With the uncertainty of what was intended and what was presented the viewers, the voter should keep in mind that they are the important filter that sorts the questions of elect-ability. Is it too much to ask that "wardrobe malfunction" be connected with the "emperor’s new clothes" or budget and intelligence failures?

A Uniter in Illusion.
(Just my perspective on the Speech.)

The President’s State of the Union speech was obviously much more than a report on the country or even an outline of goals, it was a stand-up sit-down fight, fight, fight, song and dance. Of course expecting partisanship to be missing is not realistic, nor ever really lacking in the past, no matter what party was in charge. However for a uniter not a divider?

Some candidates have been accused of being lackluster in the past and now some are revealing too much emotion, but does it really compare to the smirks, and half-winks as the president presents the state of the union. Of course this is just my characterization of it.

But was there not a record amount of standing ovations? Some were certainly over the obvious and non-partisan, like a tribute and thanks to our fighting and dying men and women in arms. There were more occasions where the Republicans would rise as if on cue, and they probably did have some sort of cheerleader or choreographer. Or at least they should have as some in the crowd could have used some directions, as they even seemed perturbed or curious about their reason or whether it was their move.

The positive reaction to the president’s statement that the "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year" was expected by the Democrats. But his emphasis almost with glee that "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule" brought unusually rousing applause and glee from the other side. Were they really listening or just unthinking?

Late in the speech another rousing ovation also followed his statement that "Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage." He went on to explain: "The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight." But this last bit must have been confusing for some or they were morally tired, as they seemed to almost forget to clap or see that that was a very good line. It is interesting that he even mentioned a debate.

Is my characterization of smirks and winks unfair? What about the choice the president brings up barely into his speech:

"We can go forward with confidence and resolve, or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare, or we can turn back to old policies and old divisions. "

Who casts illusions, let alone divisions? The emphasis, partisanship and divisiveness are sickening.

DEAN EMOTIONS IN CONTROL:
( To Seatlle Times Editor about a piece by Tom Brown-see quotations in first paragraph).

Tom Brown is right. The results in Iowa can be good for the Democrats by having a more "vigorous primary season" rather than an "early runaway by Howard Dean". Also "Americans want someone in the White House who is in control, not someone who may go out of control". However, the horse is already out of the barn there.

Dean’s emotions are very appropriate and up front which is better than hidden agendas and wondering who is in control in the White House. The President’s handlers or "objective staff" who tell him the media is too filtered, should explain that if he had more press conferences that the press would at least have more to go on. Instead they control his exposure and his intelligence. Meanwhile the use of intelligence and leaks are out of control unless they want to control them.

It is hard to control your emotions when the President doesn’t know the difference between WMD and intentions, and has control of both but is not up front about either. As an "unnamed Democrat" now leads Bush, just wait till Dean or any Democrat faces Bush to see who has and will control.

Dean:

A perspective on the request to the Democratic Party that others take it easy on him. (I paraphrase based on a CNN segment that got me started again.)

CNN question: A mistake or diversion.

CNN host: A diversion is always a mistake. ( I paraphrase almost exactly, but never the less will not attribute more specifically)

My perspective on the possible mistake that Dean asks for help on the playing field. Not.

Maybe only an intentional irony in that it is a diversion. For is not the main goal to beat Bush and is not the playing field whatever it takes. For in Bush, is not diversion a close partner to “Staying on message”?

Now I do not espouse “whatever it takes”, but communications is a tricky thing. War may be also “what ever it takes” but as to the principles in getting there, there should be a difference.

Ephedra Ban Instituted

It takes 60 days for the announcement to take effect.
That is the process that is in place and is heavy in nuance.
Will we see "what’s the difference"?

[Reference "the difference" between actual WMD and the intent to get them, an aside to the intent to actually use them, which oh well, I have probably tainted my point. Source of reference is the Bush interview by Diane Sawyer.]

The "hope" is that suppliers will remove the product, an ingredient in countless dietary or body enhancing supplements, from shelves. I add, for I am skeptical that it is theirs, the hope is that people will not take them anymore, as they not only may not be effective but harmful. Science has apparently proven this, or rather producers have not proven it, but again: "What’s the difference"?

The 60 days is a matter of law. It is also matter of convenience. Laws (of this sort) cannot reasonably expect to be instantly in force.

But will we see how nuance is a benefit to the "invisible hand" of the market place? For those who wonder what the "invisible hand" is, it is a metaphor for how the "free market" works attributed to Adam Smith (1723-1790) probably the founder of modern economics, and especially unfamiliar to those who espouse the idea that the market will take care of anything.

Cutting through the nuance:
Have we begun a 60 day run on ephedra that will make record drug/supplement profits for some? Maybe it will take time for some to think of this, but many may immediately wonder "what’s the difference"?

This of course in no way endorses use of a drug/supplement that will be illegal in 60 days, and in some states is already illegal. In addition, I make no legal claims as I not only am not a lawyer, but I am uncertain as to whether the laws only apply to sales. Or how laws may apply to stocks on hand and I imagine that there may be other laws that may infringe on the free market in this case as applies to delivery or advertising and the use of the postal service, the Internet or interstate commerce.

Remember: Let your conscience be your legal guide, trust the people not the government, and live by your principles. There is irony or satire here but I am uncertain what’s the difference. I prefer to call it running with rhetoric. By the way, I did not fully read any articles to produce this. Another irony but also a consistency: I think I got it covered. One more thing: Is everything black and white and what will this market be?

TAKE NOTHING AWAY FROM THIS SUCCESS
Let's punctuate it.

Congratulations are in order to our forces and the administration in Iraq and here on the capture of Saddam Hussein. It is truly a great plus that he is not now free to do whatever he has been. One down and one to go and terrorism will be ended forever. Need I say not likely?

Take nothing away from this success. The anti-dichotomous nature of this statement should be obvious. We really must make the most of his capture. Where we go now is the next question. Any reduction in terrorism and tensions will be most welcome. But will we make the most of it?

For those concerned about rewriting history, that is a fallacy. We have yet to investigate it. With one down, can we now look at how we got here and where we are going? The excuse has always been something left to do that prevents the full investigation of prior events or intelligence.

With one in hand at least we no longer have two in the bush and we should begin shaking at least that tree. Find out and double check the thinking that got us here and if we will ever have reason to trust any administration again. For altering the future by one success does not change the questions about how we succeeded or failed in getting here.

Winning peace will continue to be a problem that some will see as “doing nothing” and others not even one of the only two choices. Will we get anything from success? Will we at least see the power of nuance or continue to prey on the dichotomies?

Or maybe we just have a crying need for a leader with a better combination of grammar, punctuation and anger to fuel the process.

NO DOOM AND GLOOM

Several writers have gushed about the way the president has gone to Iraq to raise the morale of the troops. It is hard to be critical of that, as they do deserve the best. It will be a welcome change if that is the true moral of his trip.

But skepticism should not be abandoned till he takes responsibility for his own campaign. Its first barrage was a step in the wrong direction if he is going to use the war on terrorism to maintain his regime. The claim that he has been a sterling example since September 11th is questionable as long as we are fighting for “liberty, democracy and tolerance” (the president’s words). The next step will be telling. Will he be using this trip in his campaign and will those troops who dissent be given such leeway? I should think not. The former would be disgusting, the latter treason.

Democrats had been criticized in the past for not having exit strategies for their adventures or for nation building, but at least they were to some extent up front about it and their critics’ patriotism not questioned. They were even challenged for trying to be policeman to the world.

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans, who labeled them “gloom and doom” Democrats in previous campaigns, will continue their campaign of “fear and smear”.

It is hard not to fall for what raises our hopes and we do want leadership. But let’s be honest about it.

Progress versus Process? Not.
sent to King County Journal today re: 11-11-03 edition

It is very interesting the gubernatorial campaign's "Rossi says he needs $5 million" is the lead story and the Second Opinion page lead is Thomas Friedman's "Iraq's No. 1 priority: a leader". Finding a leader should be our No. 1 priority.

However there is one other thing I find interesting: The process.

Rossi blames the process for our problems in Washington, while Friedman sees it as the solution to ours in Iraq. It seems that if we were fighting for democracy we would not blame it for our difficulties and short-change it for our progress.

We have even let terrorists get credit for using it (democracy and our own freedoms that come with it) to our own loss while we stab it in the back.

It would be nice to make progress without a process, but as Bush joked in his first press appearance "things would be easier if I were dictator." We might all wish that we could dictate to some degree, but it is what we should be fighting. Here before we go there.

If we put progress before all else, will we focus on the process of democracy itself? How will we help others if we ignore our own process of profit motive not to mention voting methods? I hope the media will do its share in focusing on the process that others would try to recreate in our own image, but it will take our focus as well. Progress takes process and change together.

My Context

[The Journal word count was 250 words and the New York Times wants no more than 150, limiting me to the style I chose rather than to actually try to put in context what Safire failed to do.]

For the Safire piece go to:
Dean's Urban Legend

For the context straightened out go to:
Safire-Works

[update 1-29-09 links and heading]
New York Times
King County Journal

New York Times

Safire Search Context,
Editor or New Job Opening For Balance.
[Sent to New York Times 10-17-03.]

In "Dean’s ‘Urban Legend’", there he goes again. Letters to the Editor are allowed 150 words, but William Safire cannot make his case in his allotted space. Safire is proved the "urban legend" monger. No Will Rogers or Shakespeare, he is much ado about nothing but hypocrisy.

It takes more to put in context what lacks it. He has misread Dean’s argument and dismissed those who put it in context as partisan and "blow(ing) smoke" of a philosophical nature. I don’t know which he disrespects more, context, partisanship or philosophy but he certainly must have inhaled to mistake his hypocrisy for context.

After addressing this in a longer piece I did an MSN search [William Safire, Dean] to find in 3rd click a substantive rebuttal of Safire’s misconstruction and refabrication for those who want facts. In 4th is his philosophical partisan absurdity I will have to put in context later.

[update: 1-29-09 editing and click or more this post found itself on page two of search]
[1-30-09 "substantial rebuttal" and "partisan absurdity" may have changed their clicks, but context was incremental here.]
[Finally clearing up a bit of past posts, I poked the lily pad of the lying pond and find #6 to disagree with. To be honest, I don't always completely read the footnotes or links I attach.]

Safire Proved Urban Legend Monger

and Scandalous Hypocrite
[Sent to King County Journal 10-16-03.]

There he goes again. I would probably cancel my subscription if not for the need for something to raise my low blood pressure and an occasional laugh. I’m talking about William Safire and his misconstruction and re-fabrication of the truth in "Dean claims ‘urban legend,’ but he really said it". One could accuse him of out right lying if not it being much-ado about nothing, much as the Dean / McCain dispute which he attempts to straighten out.

He reasonably if not confusingly (and in this case it is another matter if accurately) explains the issue but then goes on to blame an understanding of it on partisanship and then participates in the same hogwash. There is probably not enough room in a letter to the editor to rehash the issue, but a reread of the Safire piece does nothing to substantiate his charge (if there is one) and proves there is more journalism in many cartoons.

After writing this I did an MSN Search [William Safire, Dean] and found a substantive rebuttal running in third for those who want facts*, which leads me to conclude Will Safire is no Shakespeare though he may feel like one. For he is much ado about nothing but scandalous hypocrisy. Further evidenced by what runs fourth in this search: "lying in ponds", by William Safire, a study of partisanship I will spare for later. But look to the section he titled Philosophy, a word he equated with "blow(ing) smoke"** when referring to Dean.

* fact is these updates [1-29-09] to links and heading places search findings in different orders, and I can only imagine that this is the link.

** or as close enough for government(or pundit) work: "They will blow smoke about Dean offering a philosophical observation entirely detached from the rapists who were the subject of the question. Some partisans would buy that." And some apparently sell it.

Deserting our troops, evading our principles.(10-3-03)

"Deserting Our Troops" by Steven Rosenfeld(tompaine.com) raises a very interesting question.

Would the hesitance to keep baseline medical records for our troops have anything to do with the possibility that DU (depleted uranium) if shown to cause cancer would then be considered a WMD of similar nature to a dirty bomb? Would not a cancer causing agent be a chemical or biological weapon (if not even nuclear), hence prohibited if not at least hypocritical? (Sweeping aside the vast difference between DU and actual fissionable material, the administration at least sweeps the slate of information or any basis for knowledge, discussion or debate.)

This, combined with the treatment of terrorist suspects, would make a mockery of why we went to war. If any weapons we can conceive of are OK for our own use and violating any rights crucial to a war on terrorism are justified, then what baseline do we even have to bring freedom and democracy to the rest of the world?

A hypocritical if not cynical attitude is their weapon of first report, going back to the candidate Bush saying he "trusted the people not the government" and was a "uniter not a divider", then blaming critics for not supporting our troops while not even protecting them.

Recent retreat to programs, potential and intent to acquire as an excuse for preemption rather than "eminent threat" are not new excuses but missed by the media or buried by the outright incompetence or intention of the original run-up to war.

Still today Cheney is defending preemption as a choice between the threat of dictators and terrorist or doing nothing. No wonder they see no choice when they can't see the alternatives nor the similarities.

Europe and U.N. and many of U.S. see...

Foundations for Hope
(Unprinted Letter to Editor King County Journal:9-29-03)

A September 29th letter , "U.N. not best choice" asks why the anti-Americanism in Europe? The question itself is only one interpretation. He goes on to blame the U. N. for the choice between doing nothing and using force, while minimizing political matters.

The writer may find it easy to see why al-Qaida and the Taliban hate us, but he cannot see where Europeans and the U. N. value "political matters" like "honest debate". I can certainly see why he would see these as having no connection, when it was the administration that framed it as a choice between using force and doing nothing. And then expects to find hope?

The only hope is that we can improve our practice of democracy before we force it on others. Our founding documents have many words of hope but I don’t recall much about forcing it on others. There are many words we need to practice more or we have little hope of even working with others.

It should not be odd that when "political matters" are minimized or made a mockery of that the result is having little choice but force. The choice between "political matters" and mockery should be made in every election and should have been clear in 2000.

How ironic there seems an undebated not to mention unfunded and unfounded mandate for "democracy". For those I waste irony on, I am sure I must probably make clear: yes we should hope and do more for democracy.

[updated editing 1-29-09]

(from an email of 9-25-03)

Move On and Look Back.

Dear Honorable Leaders:

Put simply, we need a nexus of words and actions. Before we declare what the world needs and give it to them, we should look at how we make our own nexus and that of those we employ and whom they employ.

My last post was immediately after hearing the speech the President gave at the U.N. and further thought does not change things, but only cries for further clarity.

After reading the President's speech more closely, I find it a beautiful and compelling argument for our goals and for cooperation in the world. For anybody but Bush.

Setting aside what could have been said, let us run with what we did get. The question is how to move-on. It does not involve looking only forward. The nexus of words and actions is crucial. On this we agree!

I almost overlooked the (his) most beautiful line: "Both (founding documents of the U.N. and America) assert that human beings should never be reduced to objects of power or commerce, because their dignity is inherent."

If only one could live on dignity alone. Nor would the absence of power and commerce be a suggested route.

The line is most interesting and a dilemma that goes beyond simple declarations. The world could likely unite under a cause but not necessarily the cure. That certainly requires more retrospection and discussion before more action is taken.

On more mundane yet crucial matters, THAT DEMONSTRATE the fallacy of acting preemptively, it was not only the existence of WMD but that they would be used. The charge that New York is the symbol of an "unfinished war" begs the question: when did it start? Do we now have any less to fear in that WMD have yet to be used or that we don’t even know whose hands they are in? What is the difference between preemptive plans and a preemptive strategy and how does that influence not only what we need to do but what others will do or even have already done?

Looking at causes and cures is a tricky business. If leaps can be taken, they should have been of faith in the process. If action before discussion is selected by the most civilized, how can we hope for different in those we chastise or fear and yet hope to civilize?

The cost of what we must now do is said to be worth it compared to failure. Failure to discuss the past and move-on is what it needs to be compared to. Comparisons are easy for those who won’t foot the bill or field questions.

A"neo" Con: More Contra"Dictions".

The President confidently and impressively painted a black and white picture of the war on terrorism before the United Nation. He hinted at having more to talk about in this fight and for progress in other areas, but sovereignty in Iraq would be “neither hurried nor delayed” by “other” countries.

It would have been an unquestionably convincing presentation if not for the lack of clarity on either "black" or "white". Terrorism, WMD and human rights are very important issues, but much more discussion about what constitutes these areas is not likely to follow from the intransigence indicated by such unfounded and contradictory inflexibility.

“Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.
You may recall that congress changed the name of French fries to "freedom fries" in their cafeteria over their lack of agreement in the United Nations. Now Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee is trying to change them back, while some Republicans are more likely to add France to the “Axis of Evil” for their continued insistence on bringing Democracy to Iraq sooner rather than later, if ever. So the rally cry should be. “Stop the Lies, Change the Fries”.

As for the $87 Billion for post-war(?) Iraq...
there are questions from TrueMajority,

but how we got there and where we go now are not closed questions.

Regarding Misleading Intelligence... [culled from Inslee Iraq Forum]

*Whereas there has been Intelligence failure or a failure of intelligence.
*Whereas both big "I" and small "i" intelligence are important in declaring war and maintaining or discussing our position in the world.
*Whereas both are important in being successful on many issues as well as maintaining our nations position and credibility in the world.
*Whereas both Congress and the Intelligence community both depend on the credibility of information or it's providers to do their jobs.
*Whereas the public was asked to trust these representatives and agencies by the President himself.

Therefore be it resolved: that congress pass both House Resolutions as co-sponsored by Congressman Jay Inslee.

H.R. 2625 to establish an Independent Commission on Intelligence about Iraq.

H. Res. 307 to establish a select committee on Iraq intelligence.

(One HR involves the executive branch's collection, interpretation and presentation of intelligence as opposed to the latter's focus on the intelligence structure.)

FURTHER... important questions should be asked and answered.

*1. When did a policy of preemption take over?
*2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?
*3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?
*4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?
*5. Was congress following at least this closely?

Regarding Billions for Iraq...
TrueMajority has a petition drive.

Let us remember September 11th, 2001.
Words will not suffice to list the reasons or explain, but as one network frames it, it is A Brave New World. Therefore let us make sure it is not a fear based New World.

Actions may speak louder than words, but let us also remember that dying for a cause is not the same as killing for a cause. If that is not clear enough, or even too obvious, that is our dilemma.

We must focus on our words before our actions, or our actions will always be followed.

[Belated post of material submitted to the panel on 8-21-03.]


INSLEE IRAQ FORUM

Dear Congressman Inslee (and panel):

Thank you for holding the forum on Iraq. A forum on intelligence may be more accurate. The goal should be to prevent failures in both. It should be clear that the failure is all in one’s head: that head being the head of our great country.

Punditry aside, though not necessarily accuracy, important questions should be asked and answered.

1. When did a policy of preemption take over?

2. Were WMD a primary factor in congress’s abrogation of their "war powers"?

3. Would not intelligence need to know the answer to question one or all
intelligence would be interpreted in an ineffective light?

4. Were actions taken, under the new policy, that would spur preemptive action by others?

5. Was congress following at least this closely?

While many more questions could follow from this line, of seemingly unanswered questions, I feel they do have answers. I feel that if not answered, at least, not answering them could have had predicted results. These are not simple questions, and answers and events are even more complicated. But I posed, if not answered, many of them before.

In almost anticipatory caution I recorded these, by following (with wonder) our leaders own words (or those of his supposed employees), from just before the 2000 campaign’s conclusion.

In the patriotic spirit of contribution,
always,
Roger Larson

POLITICS: QCON It is what is Left, not just All Right.

“Pols" Over Polls Or No More WMD!

One of the most important things President Bush said in this war on terrorism, is that we must continue to stand up for our principles. Democrats must remember this too. If they don’t stand up for our principles, they may as well stand up for Bush’s. If they are not with us, they are not for us.

Granted others may view things as black and white and they are really more gray or oatmeal, grains and all, but when one insists on black and white, it must be worth debating, not just fighting for. In a debate every argument one presents must stand up to the questioning of opposition. One must be able to rely on only the arguments one presents and if one is not honest enough to present it, it won’t count. In politics like debate, one does not have the luxury of changing the game to boxing to settle the score. Though it appears they do.

“You can’t have your cake and eat it too." If things are black and white, why is evidence not?

The saying "All is fair in love and war" comes to mind. A google search brought up reference to Ty Cobb’s ability to stretch the rules and was used in reference to modern business tactics. Business aside, though that is the world he came from, it is interesting that some would make more rules (whether for couples or nations) when they in particular have trouble with following those that exist.

In his previous campaign the candidate Bush blamed his opponents for being too "elitist", behaving as if they knew better than the general public. Now he makes decisions solely on that basis, holding both evidence and reasons close to his puffed-up chest. That may be too much mush for polls to sort out, but it is the job of our leaders or "pols" to search out WMD: Waving Mis-Definitions.

[3-28-08: Updated Title (inserted) and minor editing, and all labeling inserted]

FADS away?

"Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away...otherwise known as privatization and globalization."

The previous post was sent to the local paper as well as the Senators Dorgan and Wyden and by late afternoon the project was killed. (Or at least some aspects of it.) Admiral Pointexter took credit that day for the controversy and reportedly offered to leave the administration, so they let him. Just as four other high figures in the administration took responsibility for erroneous WMD in the state of the union, they and the WMD (Weapon of Mass Distortion) Bush is still around.

Today Lou Dobbs in a column on the Economy in that same local paper writes a titled piece: "Left and right joined in attack on progressive thought" leads me to a mutation[*] of MacArthur’s going away. "Bad intelligence doesn’t die, it just fads away, otherwise known as privatization and globalization." But Dobbs is right, and correct too in that progressive thought is needed, but also thinkers that know the difference and don’t use the label liberal as their only argument. If someone believes in principles, they would discuss openly and have the courage to debate them rather that wander around between them and keep the dead wood that fuels his fire.

On a related matter, maybe. Secretary of State Powell is reported to be leaving at the start of the next administration. NOT? Do we have more strategy from the Office of Strategic Information (Slash) Influence? Here are some choices. Either he did or he didn’t let someone know that piece of information. Either it was clear or it was vague or something close to that or different. More choices are that the source made it up, or concluded from other information or was wrong.

Here is my choice. Powell is not being listened to, he wants to be listened to, the president can now claim to be listening. Powell will make his decision later, if he lasts that long.

[*] [3-28-08: Update- quotation mark is facetious as I am mangling MacArthur, but also meant fade not fad, but was it? I left it. The (Slash) was the link to the futures.(minor editing and link insertion)]

Market of Strategic Information Slash Influence Is Too Right!

A small news item July 29th, pg. A12 deserved more attention. "Pentagon betting plan attacked" was a fair title for the disturbing program aimed at intelligence gathering but too little useful information was provided. In such a system, traders would and apparently (in some cases) already do, bet on outcomes of foreign policy, elections and military actions. Other sources (MSNBC) indicate it would start with 100 experts and expand, then the sponsors DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) claim that they would not be able to identify traders who sign up.

It sounds similar to the former fiasco Office of Strategic Information/Influence, now titled a Futures Market. Reports on 9-11 have indicated the poor handling of the volume of Intelligence that was already there and now they expect to have help from the economic forecasting arena? Not to mention the idea that misinformation that was hypothetically strategically planted somehow missed processing by any Office in the Administration that would keep things straight.

Markets may be efficient indicators of the futures, but they may be too efficient for interpretations that would be meaningful in time. Setting aside the aspect that DARPA would be sponsoring or turning a blind eye to insider trading, which would admittedly be a required component, how would they separate trading by terrorists from ideologues and analysts from capitalists? Not that there is anything wrong with some of that.

Efficiency would have been if voters had taken warning from the markets (in 2000) at the risk of a Bush election.

Fact:
I hope people are looking up the word in a dictionary, but for Encarta the first three definitions have something to do with truth, the fourth is a term of law, so he certainly would not use that one. Anyway, this must mean truth can change or maybe we will wait for the dictionary to change.

What can change is that a fact can be trustworthy or not. That is apparently what has changed. Then not, again.

I do believe that the president claimed that critics were wrong and that he should be trusted with the decision. That seems not to have changed, while the facts have. Not. That seems to have changed or it never mattered.

You can have your cake and eat it too, but crow...

FACTS CHANGE?
It is now more important to ask, did the President know he lied and when did he know it? On the issue of WMD, we must realize we have a weapon of mass distortion in office.

Two points make this clear. One is the claim by Secretary Rumsfeld that facts change. The second the claim by Joe Scarborough on MSNBC that congress had been completely briefed so the question is, did congress know the information was false and when did they know it? I am sorry if I do not have the exact comments here but my version would be did congress know that facts change and when did they know it?

Another incident from TruthOut.org is related to this Watergate type investigation where we have a potential reverse Deep Throat, apparently from the Reagan or Casey branch/roots of the recently revealed and dispersed Office of Strategic Information, which has apparently operated for over 20 years. It involves the claims of a Capital Hill Blue writer that he has been conned by a source that claimed to have been present at presidential briefings and did not him self exist.

With facts that change and sources that are misleading, it should be obvious that the bottom of this need be reached before even congress is dragged into this mess. Apparently the misuse of intelligence and whether it is malleable must go back much further than even September 11th. The last two elections in light of these shenanigans, and previous administrations should be called into question. Of course partisan politics would be in the way, but that may be mild compared to the problem of government with one party rule or not knowing even which branch or department rules.

Now much of my writing is not documented but has been the result of my filtering of many sources, early on mostly mainstream media, and in fact the words of the administration. But apparently it is as reliable as any other source that is of questionable origin but more importantly assumes that the reader is well informed if not completely briefed.

The Secretary of Defense claims that "facts change" ???

Did congress know that and when did they know it?

Given the grave concerns many had about a previous president being truthful, we now have an administration where it does not even matter what is is.

Not a lack of intelligence, just the use of intelligence.

In the last day or so, Resident Bush has emphasized the intelligence that we are sure about. He stated, (approximately)that anyone who knows the history of the Saddam regime knows that he possessed biological and chemical weapons. Further that he had used them. There is no lie or contradiction in this belief. It is just that we are uncertain Bush knows the meaning of "history" or intelligence, or indeed "possessed" or "used". For these are all past tense.

Now we have a Resident who may not know what "was" is.

If intelligence has some evidence, we must find out who provided it to him and how it was filtered for him. It is more than knowing where the buck stops, but where did it start?

NOTE TO READERS:

There is nothing new to report, just a more artistic or poetic version of an earlier situation. How true? Check for double meanings. How subtle? Others may be more intentional. Vague? A strategy, not necessarily mine.

Just a little ramble here, to point out that nothing has changed only versions are being spun. Some versions were already apparent to many of us. Hype? I try to avoid. But that is what the administration used, and even got caught up in. They fell for their own hype, got carried away, and still don't know why they can't handle it. The truth, they thought we could not handle. The hype it turns out may be their downfall.

Caution! Blurred metaphors, both ahead and before.

SELF EN-TITLED...RULES

[11-10-11 title upgraded and link added.]
(Defining our way to wars), Or beating around the Encarta* Bush.
Fighting terrorism, the cause,
finding Patriotism, the effect.

We fight the terrorists: defined

Somebody using violence for political purposes:
somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping,
and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: defined

Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports
or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

In need of an un-redefined way out,
Still in need of defining a way in.
Still having a ways to go.

Still going… I intentionally borrowed, no Bush or Blair intended.

Uncertain the rules allowed, the matter is now embedded.

Uncertain an asterisk did it, I did not wish to take too much credit[**].

The following: Take it or leave it.

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] ©
& (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

You thought it was all over, so if you’re not with it, you’re again it.
[11-10-11 links not provided to Encarta, since it requires registration. See upgrade of title above and additional link.]

DEFINING OUR WAR TO WARS.

Fighting terrorism, supposedly the cause,
with patriotism the resulting claim.

We fight the terrorists: Somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence or the threat of violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate, often for political purposes. *

We become the patriots: Supporter of own country: somebody who proudly supports or defends his or her country and its way of life. *

Have we considered the definitions before our actions or is it just rhetoric? Do we know the way we will choose before we act or are they empty words or just talk?

Some see a way out that depends on the definitions, others see war as better than more defining of our ways or doing nothing. Which way will we go after the war? Will we have it defined? Will there be an after? Will we still be in need of defining or ever stop the redefining?

Thanks to:

* Encarta® World English Dictionary [North American Edition] © & (P)2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.

Also Russ Baker, Howard Zinn, and www.tompaine.com

PASSIVE AND MUTE?
by Russ Baker
Iraq is out from under Hussein, but that shouldn't leave liberals at a loss for words.
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7682

MY COUNTRY: THE WORLD
by Howard Zinn
Tom Paine enlarged the idea of patriotism when he said: "My country is the world. My countrymen are mankind."
http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7726

NOTE: Originally I titled this "Defining our way to wars", but in capitalizing it, an interesting typo crept in and I could not resist leaving it.