Hope? Under Cover of Denial.

"they could try to stop me"
To Congress "Bring Em On!"
This is another one of my preemptive reads, [First Read] ...(not even clicked on) where I am giving my take based on a glance at the headlines and little more than what Air America Radio or the local paper provide. Which is probably a bit more than Bush reads, but he does say that they(the media) are a filter and I am sure he filters much of what he gets from his "objective staff". The second hope (the first being "they" do) is that there will be more diplomatic results:
Rice to attend Israeli, Palestinian summit
Secretary of state hears demand for stronger U.S. push on Mideast peace

But as I must go back, as I promised, to add links connecting previous takes, I will go straight to the point. Is the president attempting to implement all the suggestions of the IRSG under cover of denial for political gain? Or is he attempting to implement an Iran strategy under cover of politics for the security of the country? Denial of politics is not what I am talking about here in that politics must play a part, but the part that must be focused on is the goal and that and it's parts are still cloudy.

Diplomacy under the cloud of offensive measures, even under cover of defensive needs, is no excuse for not uncovering what our goal really is. Actions speak louder than words, but words must begin to be trusted, then verified by both sides, whether between nations or branches of government. The "unified executive" here and the "unity government" of Iraq, must be scrutinized, especially under the light of the cloud they like to place over the United Nations and international "law".

War Powers

Since there is debate as to whether the power of the purse is needed to force the president to the will of the people. There seems to be a more preemptive step. Since the Authorization was based on flawed intentions, and the president still confuses the war on terror with the reasons he went in to Iraq, the latter must be clarified by congress clarifying their constitutional power to declare war. They should also use extreme caution of the purse on intelligence, since the president's war strategy is preemptive, his power of intelligence is preemptive. Congress must use the power of their intelligence and the purse of intelligence to preempt what is the reason that others can only preempt by fighting, since diplomacy is only seen as a tool to rally others to our interests. That also must be in the equation as to whether our interests are any different than others. Congress must retrieve their power of war and the power of the purse, and cannot without the power of intelligence to work toward clarifying what our interests are and if the president has intentions to protect them or continue to just react to others who can only assume.

[added 11:52 PM] Thanks to Just Foreign Policy for filtering this Brzezinski piece Five Flaws in the President's Plan from the Washington Post and these two action items:
Ask Pelosi & Reid to block the escalation in Iraq Link for contacts.

Call the Senate: No to the Escalation Senator's Kennedy's legislation would block the President's plan to send more troops.
Congressional Switchboard: 202-225-3121.

The Pinnacle?

[The following is just a few short pieces that spin off from some other material.]
[From an email:]
From January 4th, 2007
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

[OR BACK FROM THE PRECIPICE:] (posted and re-titled 1-11-07)


BY THE WAY: (Not Buy the Way)

Politics, Physicalities, Philosophies and Psychologies seem to fit my tetrahedron of how things work, but being unbalanced or in denial of their part in the whole may be why we are where we are and keep getting where we've been. This is my just honed perspective of a model and I must remember that that is all it is, but that it needs work. (The following reflect parts of the puzzle, and spin off from my post today.)

Hiding Behind the Straw Argument

Resolved?

[Now another spin-off from: For America's Sake.]

A Platonic(Model) Narrative
Or Being the Narrative?
Politics, Physics, Philosophy and Psychology may be the four points but politics may be the pinnacle. The pinnacle could be considered by some to be a W as well, and certainly by the current president. But the reality is that We are all susceptible to behavior, thinking and feelings that We each are the pinnacle and the Power. But W can also stand for the Wonders, the Words and the Works, not to mention the We that is too often denied. For many W is only about the Win, but it can’t be without the We, or it is just about the One. It may just prove the legitimacy of this model, that one cannot be without the rest.

Apples and Oranges and Cherry Picking.

[UNITY MODEL? Or Filtering Will?]
One of the comments after the ISGR (Iraq Study Group Report) release was that it is not a fruit salad. Well, what could be said for the presidents speech? Going beyond the metaphor that he is still mixing apples and oranges when it comes to what got us into Iraq, congress must be the taster that stirs the juices from the bottom of the mix and even adds a fruit or more to the mix. I don’t know if this is just another way of straddling the fence of will and hope, but it means that while the president has a habit of cherry picking that has not changed, the fence may have tumbled under the weight of the fruit trees. Congress must call apples, apples, and oranges, oranges, and any other fruit, just what they are. The cherry here is that while it is not called a time table, there is a time frame that he is aware of. (November?) Congress much verify all the fruit in this salad, and add some that the ISGR have recommended.

Fruit salad metaphor aside, I have earlier made reference to the old adage "the proof is in the pudding", but that the hard work of the mix was not done before we got in this fix, we have seen something that is a just desert. While Bush’s admission that "Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me" is not an accounting of what his will has wrought, the following sentence "It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq" is a sign of hope. Congress must verify all the ingredients in any recipes, add their own and toss the nuts. They have complete control of the pantry.

Metaphor aside, and it was not easy to stay away from the salad for the pudding, I would like to clarify more hope than just the two lines. This may tread more into cynicism as I fight the urge to indulge in it, it should be noted that the president seemed more subdued, and paced and did not resort to the patronizing act of speaking slowly. It was a very well delivered speech, delivered in a more realistic tone. Now it is our job to check that reality and work on it together. It should not be too much to ask that after six years he has made some progress, but that must not be only in the ability to more humbly deliver a speech or to conceal his recognition that someone else is in charge and that his will has a part in who soon will be.

Falling fruit trees and fence crushing aside, I will address a more subtle irony and a more specific branch. It has been said that we will fight them over there so that we won’t have to fight them over here. Now it is being said that we must clear and hold, and today the president implied that the enemy is likely to move on. That contradiction should be a big concern in the world of rhetoric but in the world of reality, it is a very big world that already has battles unmentioned, or unrealistically referred to; Afghanistan and Somalia, just two. Diplomacy was only referenced in where "We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East." Diplomacy is not a pep rally held by cheerleaders. I think that as General Pace, (I believe) today called this a pivot point, a focal point must be considered. The irony is that it does not fit into a world of metaphors. It only fits in a world of balance that is much more hard work, rather than a world of spin and counter-balance. I really don’t know if it is too contradictory but just the idea that the Department of Defense such as it is, is rather ironically labeled, you can see where this takes us. Maybe a Department of Peace is little out of focus as a counter balance, but that is a matter that Politics should look at. Every time Politics is noted as a matter that must be avoided, it must be looked at as a form of denial of reality, as much as the denial of Physics, Philosophy and Psychology are. Now where does this fit into our picture of what a society or civilization should be? Politics is about the balance of power, and the balance of nature that Will is a part if we picture it.

Straw Elephant

Misery Loves Company
Or Day Late and a Dollar Short?

So much has been made of the pre-emptive leak that there will be a troop "surge" that it almost overshadows the rest of his potential plan. But the possibility that there are a "few good" ideas are overshadowed by the increase in "a few good men" and women. My pre-emptive take on the former is dampened by the pre-emptive reaction to the latter. My pre-emptive cynicism has taken the biggest hit, but here is my take nevertheless.

Whatever the reasoning behind the "escalation" there is always hope that it will work. However, there is more likelihood that it is just a form of "cut and run". It is more than the concept that we must "support our troops" which does not entail agreeing with the president, but that there is emotional strength in numbers in that they support each other. But it must be remembered that the president is the commander-in-chief in that he is responsible for the plan. The possibility that he will not be allowed to carry out his plan, lays the responsibility on congress where it also belongs, in their job of holding him accountable. That is the job that the voters have chosen the Democratic Congress to do, based on the president’s record and the rubber stamp his party has given him.

With all the hope for success and support for the troops always there, it is difficult to say that this is probably the ultimate cut-and-run. For if the president does not seem like he has a plan, there can be nothing for Republicans to cut-and-run from to cover their past, not to mention move forward on. The Democrats have the job to correct the past, and make sure it is not repeated, but Republicans will gladly settle for passing the buck, with an appearance that they are not as united as they were. This takes an old saying into a new camp, from "divide and conquer" to divide to run. There is something to be said here in that Democrats are divided to unite.

Where "fair and balanced" means putting up a straw dog, against a straw issue, there is a lot of "hard work" sorting the many positions and potential solutions to any problem. Is there irony or extreme congruity in the image of former Democrat Ronald Reagan and a 20-mule team not to mention the Borax needed to come clean?

Resolved?

"Sacrifice" A tribute to reality: my way of subtitling a segue to a fine piece of emotion, and sense of reality by Keith Olbermann. And now for a tangent into my reflection on reality.

Reality?

There is no reality.
Reality is what you make it. (Long Story Short: pop down to *)
Scratch that.
Reality is what we make it.
Scratch that.
Reality is what the "is" is.
Now that triggers a reaction.
Scratch that.

But beyond these perspectives
consider our actions.
The third time may be the charm.
The charm is not to ignore the you and I,
or the us and the them,
but the interaction, that we can cause.
and to consider where we can take reality,
if we can face reality
at all.

* Bush is the prime example, and a leader in this regard. The reality is that we can each feel we can make it alone, and disregard or force a perspective.

Justice may be the best example of why we must continue to look back as we move forward, as well as be held accountable for each, and may be why there is so much "hard work".

Maybe it is time to start from scratch
or at least put the "hard work" into a
model for progress.

Is there any irony in that that is too taxing?

Hiding Behind the Straw Argument.

The Republicans these days have rarely met a straw argument they could not hide behind and not incidentally which they have not created.

Actually these patriotic tough guys haven't the guts to face real issues head-on without hiding behind the way things don't work. This is an approach that should have been seen through since before the start of the war, but here is a point blank charge that must be on the books and runs through my blog.
Iraq War Lie Detector Test thanks to Dean Baker, truthout/columnist

TheLiaisonReport concept is that WE and our Representatives should see the real issues and what can really be done and not fall for pre-emptive and quite plausible incompetence.

[Links will be added to track back the points I have touched on earlier.*]

Post-post:
Before I worded the above post I has stumbled on a link on Nancy Pelosi's 100 Hours and afterwords(i.s)* I found The New Extremists, both for review later. These reflect two more aspects of this blog, looking back and looking forward, and reading memos before or after understanding their headlines. The administration walks this tight-rope for political gain, while disrespecting politics itself. There is nothing wrong with politics or partisanship, there is a lot wrong with denying them and claiming that there is simply a third option that we get to or from somehow by magic.

*
[However the latter section above was posted within the half-hour of the original and "i.s." means intentional spelling, another aspect of my work that is not always intentionally reflected in that my miscreation of words are not just a third perspective but a potential if not natural blend of what was also noted in earlier self-references to my work as Running With Rhetoric, along with an image of Bush running with scissors from the world post-9-11.]

One more on 100 hours: from TomPaine.com

"Truthiness" of Ranked Words.

Banned Words are listed by a Michigan university, and those words in the headline itself are tongue-in-cheek as in not really the truthiness. But "truthiness" did rank(def. 9) in their rank(def. 19 or 24 slang) of words. It was however honored as "the word that best summed up 2006 in an online survey by dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster."

Congratulations to my name sake, Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, or rather his choice of name as the inspiration for my choice of The Liaison Report.

Speaking of words (and I suppose purists would say writing of words), as the year closed I thought of the origins or my rank of a few words.

"Bush Basher" and "Context".

And since 2006 was about change of course, I will MoveOn for the moment and pick up this track in the next post.

A belated HAPPY NEW YEAR, but I feel we turned a few pages before the last closed.

Parting Words

Meaning and, not versus.

Bush:

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

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

Belated words and belated farewell.

Above, Below and Betwix the Filter

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

Iraq and Iran
Rice on Iraq:

"worth the investment"

Rice on N. Korea:

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

Rice on Iran:

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

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

North Korea

Here the grain is at the bottom of the filter:

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

Here is the best news for Bush yet.

Seriously.

Preempting Irony or Rerunning Cycle

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

No Comment.

The End of Pax Americana.

Once, Twice, Three Times A Charm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraq Study Group:

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

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

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

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

Quick Comment On News (QCON)

Parliamentary considerations of Blair/Bush consult.

Iraq Study Group: Long Story Short

Much ado about change.

"...diplomatic offensive..."

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

Tear for Fears!

His
Mine...
Bush in 'O8?

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

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

Blame to go around?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Running List '08

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

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

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




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

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

[Original entry]
Vilsack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bolton Resigns as UN Embassador!

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

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

[See comments] for timing on added links:

Rumsfeld memo.
Murtha on memo.
Both videos.

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