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.