“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]
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Monday, August 04, 2003
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)]
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.
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.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
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...
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...
Thursday, July 10, 2003
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.
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.
Saturday, June 21, 2003
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?
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?
Sunday, June 01, 2003
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.
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 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.]
Monday, May 05, 2003
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.
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.
Monday, April 21, 2003
Childish Diplomacy: Who started it?
Bill O’Reilly’s "Enough is Enough of Canadian Belligerence" hardly deserves more than the childish reply; "You started it." I don’t really know where it started. But to declare that Canada’s plan to send Iraq’s leader and other potential war criminals found in their country to the World Court in The Hague, is belligerence, certainly demonstrates the weak link to the many phantom reasons given for starting the war against Iraq. I won’t go into all of them either but did they not involve enforcing the resolutions of an international body while ignoring other resolutions of international bodies?
The villains have turned out to be those who threatened vetoes, like France and Germany. If vetoes are a guide to villainy then the U. S. and our former Soviet nemesis have combined for their fair share of more than ten times the vetoes France has ever used. Freedom is another phantom reason that was linked to the war in Iraq while those opposed are vilified for using it at home or abroad.
War was claimed as a last resort chosen over doing nothing. Now we hear how childish both sides can get when those are the only two choices. Arguments against phantom opposition are as easy to win as wars against formerly propped up regimes. The U. S. should be grateful that some were diplomatic enough not to force another U. N. Security Council vote on a resolution we could diplomatically veto. But then we would be clear on what started it.
Bill O’Reilly’s "Enough is Enough of Canadian Belligerence" hardly deserves more than the childish reply; "You started it." I don’t really know where it started. But to declare that Canada’s plan to send Iraq’s leader and other potential war criminals found in their country to the World Court in The Hague, is belligerence, certainly demonstrates the weak link to the many phantom reasons given for starting the war against Iraq. I won’t go into all of them either but did they not involve enforcing the resolutions of an international body while ignoring other resolutions of international bodies?
The villains have turned out to be those who threatened vetoes, like France and Germany. If vetoes are a guide to villainy then the U. S. and our former Soviet nemesis have combined for their fair share of more than ten times the vetoes France has ever used. Freedom is another phantom reason that was linked to the war in Iraq while those opposed are vilified for using it at home or abroad.
War was claimed as a last resort chosen over doing nothing. Now we hear how childish both sides can get when those are the only two choices. Arguments against phantom opposition are as easy to win as wars against formerly propped up regimes. The U. S. should be grateful that some were diplomatic enough not to force another U. N. Security Council vote on a resolution we could diplomatically veto. But then we would be clear on what started it.
Thursday, April 17, 2003
Shame on those who disparage the U. N. as only a debating mechanism.
Two points are needed mentioning. First, if members would give up their veto powers, it would be more. Second, if they are suppose to restart a program of oil for food or any take any other action like lifting sanctions it would be important to know who is responsible in Iraq for security and running the programs.
If vetoes are the measure of failure at the U. N. then the U.S. and its major rivals have contributed to its failure by many factors over that of France.
If you devalue debate you devalue information which is ironic for this arena. If force is more valuable then you have endorsed violence as the mechanism, leaving tyranny and anarchy as the result, and excusing preemption on both sides.
If we don’t care about who gets the money, or the benefits then we may as well not be responsible or compassionate.
Two points are needed mentioning. First, if members would give up their veto powers, it would be more. Second, if they are suppose to restart a program of oil for food or any take any other action like lifting sanctions it would be important to know who is responsible in Iraq for security and running the programs.
If vetoes are the measure of failure at the U. N. then the U.S. and its major rivals have contributed to its failure by many factors over that of France.
If you devalue debate you devalue information which is ironic for this arena. If force is more valuable then you have endorsed violence as the mechanism, leaving tyranny and anarchy as the result, and excusing preemption on both sides.
If we don’t care about who gets the money, or the benefits then we may as well not be responsible or compassionate.
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS email March 20th, 2003
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)
While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.
The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.
At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.
No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]
(I wrote these words with C-span in the background only wishing to put some words down to clarify my thoughts.)
While troops are still entering Iraq and heading their way to Bagdad one hopes that the war will soon be over and maybe even that Saddam Hussein has been already eliminated. The troops deserve the support and appreciation of the American people for doing the jobs that they have been trained so well for, and their families deserve appreciation for their sacrifices. But quick success in this battle and even later accomplishment of all the goals will not change the reasons for opposing the war.
The disarmament of Iraq was the goal of Resolution 1441. Defense of our country was the goal of the congressional authorization for War. By going forward with the war and not letting inspections work one will never know the outcome of having pursued them further. No matter what is found or used or not found or not used, one will never know if inspection would have found them or if they would have been used without the threat of preemption.
At this point I hear Congressman McDermott rise in the House and point to the distinction between supporting our troops and supporting the policies of the President. And Representative Charles Rangle put it even better. One clear message is what Rep. John Kline asked for. Well it is not hard to clarify that we can support the troops and that the troops are doing what the President commands.
No matter how much support one gets from those who previously opposed a war, this tactic of unity only demonstrates the nature of coming together in times of war and peril. But also demonstrates that it is totally divorced from what was right to begin with. If one really must connect the support of the troops with something it should have been connected with actually providing support for the troops. And then Rep. John Conyers arose. Thank you.
Sincerely, Roger Larson
[It was pointed out the distinct wording about supporting the Commander in Chief, that would be fine if only his words and the words that got us where we are were so distinct.]
King County Journal 2003-03-19 Federal judge
His views are important
The characterizations by Armstrong Williams of the Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came to the wrong conclusion.
That they are ``sandbagging Estrada's career because he doesn't mesh with what a good Hispanic should be'' may be racist, but it is Williams' conclusion, not the opposition's. They are withholding approval because they cannot be convinced, due to evasive tactics, that he is what a good judge should be.
If the nominee would express his views or knowledge of judicial precedence and talk about his judicial experience, then there would be more to discuss than whose party or race he represents.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
His views are important
The characterizations by Armstrong Williams of the Democratic opposition to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit came to the wrong conclusion.
That they are ``sandbagging Estrada's career because he doesn't mesh with what a good Hispanic should be'' may be racist, but it is Williams' conclusion, not the opposition's. They are withholding approval because they cannot be convinced, due to evasive tactics, that he is what a good judge should be.
If the nominee would express his views or knowledge of judicial precedence and talk about his judicial experience, then there would be more to discuss than whose party or race he represents.
Roger Larson
Bellevue
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
TO US ALL:
A subtle responsibility needs more active duty.
A few days ago, the French foreign minister said, "one does not have the right to be discouraged", but there is hope only in action. Yesterday President Bush called an end to diplomacy. He laid his cards on the table and other’s hands do not matter.
He was given a free hand by congress to behave in such a manner. Absent a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council, they are unanimously behind this move as well. The fact that any new vote would not be heeded does not seem very diplomatic in nature. But only a new resolution and vote would change the approvals that were previously given.
So, in silence the president is proceeding with the support of these bodies. The purpose of such efforts was to disarm Iraq for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. For this the United States congress and the United Nations is responsible. The threat of war was to bring this about. It was being successful.
The fact that it has failed is also the responsibility of these bodies, not the protesters. The inability to succeed in the face of opposition is not diplomacy. It is making excuses. The inability to get a resolution passed is not the fault of those that might veto but also those who would write it. The fact that a new resolution is not being pushed that the United States could veto and be outnumbered anywhere from 11-4 to 14-1 may be diplomacy. But it does not avoid responsibility and hence cannot be said to be irrelevant.
[Heading and link updated 3-21-10]
A few days ago, the French foreign minister said, "one does not have the right to be discouraged", but there is hope only in action. Yesterday President Bush called an end to diplomacy. He laid his cards on the table and other’s hands do not matter.
He was given a free hand by congress to behave in such a manner. Absent a new resolution in the United Nations Security Council, they are unanimously behind this move as well. The fact that any new vote would not be heeded does not seem very diplomatic in nature. But only a new resolution and vote would change the approvals that were previously given.
So, in silence the president is proceeding with the support of these bodies. The purpose of such efforts was to disarm Iraq for the security of the United States and the rest of the world. For this the United States congress and the United Nations is responsible. The threat of war was to bring this about. It was being successful.
The fact that it has failed is also the responsibility of these bodies, not the protesters. The inability to succeed in the face of opposition is not diplomacy. It is making excuses. The inability to get a resolution passed is not the fault of those that might veto but also those who would write it. The fact that a new resolution is not being pushed that the United States could veto and be outnumbered anywhere from 11-4 to 14-1 may be diplomacy. But it does not avoid responsibility and hence cannot be said to be irrelevant.
[Heading and link updated 3-21-10]
Monday, March 17, 2003
To Congress:
Thank President Bush and declare that inspections are working and support further U.N. actions.
Please support HJR 20 and SR 32 in light of above and below.
In different words, consider declaring a win for the purposes of strengthening the U.N. and demand Saddam Hussein surrender to the U.N.
Thank President Bush and declare that inspections are working and support further U.N. actions.
Please support HJR 20 and SR 32 in light of above and below.
In different words, consider declaring a win for the purposes of strengthening the U.N. and demand Saddam Hussein surrender to the U.N.
The Moment of Truth! How ironic, that it is time to lay the cards on the table.
HAVE COURAGE, RESPECT AND RESOLUTION FOR INSPECTIONS WORKING!
French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin said: "It is difficult to imagine what could stop this machine" and adding "one does not have the right to be discouraged." (AP, King County Journal, 3-16-03, p. A9)
That is the major reason the Bush administration has for stopping the inspections, that the U. S. is discouraged. Dis-COURAGED and disrespecting the United Nations.
Please have courage and pass a resolution. Please declare the inspections are working and that the inspections will continue. Please agree on a strict timetable, that can be monitored and maintain control of the inspection process. If the U.S. is going to disrespect the U.N. by not having a resolution, someone must call them on it other than Saddam Hussein. If the U.S. is going to have war crimes trials, make sure they are signatures to the World Court or negotiate with Saddam Hussein directly rather that let the U.S. take the lead.
Sunday, March 16, 2003
Today the Vice President was on Meet The Press
Old or New Regimes
(Note edited in bold on 3-17-03)
Vice President Cheney has never made Republicans look so reasonable(delete "good"). The recent Old Diplomacy Republicans that is, like George Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, not the New Regime Change Republicans like George W. and Rumsfeld who unlike Cheney do not speak softly and carry a big stick but clumsily with a big stick. When Cheney spoke softly it was on the core reasons for the war on Iraq where he could not really get excited when so lightly tying together their seemingly sound excuses.
Though the New Regime Change Republicans claim to act for progress and freedom they bring back ancient tactics reminiscent of the fall of Rome and the origins of terrorism.
Though not well footnoted here, I lack the ability to claim as classified my evidence. It is found in the mounting and diverse writings of others, both old and new, as well as my own writings (old and new) that attempt to read between the lines and connect the dots.
Old or New Regimes
(Note edited in bold on 3-17-03)
Vice President Cheney has never made Republicans look so reasonable(delete "good"). The recent Old Diplomacy Republicans that is, like George Sr. and Brent Scowcroft, not the New Regime Change Republicans like George W. and Rumsfeld who unlike Cheney do not speak softly and carry a big stick but clumsily with a big stick. When Cheney spoke softly it was on the core reasons for the war on Iraq where he could not really get excited when so lightly tying together their seemingly sound excuses.
Though the New Regime Change Republicans claim to act for progress and freedom they bring back ancient tactics reminiscent of the fall of Rome and the origins of terrorism.
Though not well footnoted here, I lack the ability to claim as classified my evidence. It is found in the mounting and diverse writings of others, both old and new, as well as my own writings (old and new) that attempt to read between the lines and connect the dots.
Friday, March 14, 2003
Bully Pulpit Not for Pitbulls
Teddy's Ghost: T.D.R's "Big Stick Diplomacy" Resurrected By Bush
My Reply: [Did it not start out "Speak Softly..."?]
Being the world’s policeman is not in and of itself bad. As Bill O’Reilly says of history fogging in and out, it apparently depends on the administration in power. An earlier administration was ridiculed and impeded for attempting to be the world’s policeman. And if the goal of the war were to spread our democracy then being the policeman would mean others would be the legislative and judicial branches.
They risk opening a Pandora’s box we have already looked into, and their reasons appear hidden in a shell game from enforcing U.N. resolutions, to disarmament, to regime change, to democracy, to going it alone. If we start as judge and jury as well, we may not only unite the world and not necessarily with us, but encourage other unions or worse. We are a long way from probation officers and social workers if we can’t grasp what we are working for or the concept of the separation of powers that we should be working under.
[And was not the "big stick" asked for (from Congress) under the premise that hopefully it would not be needed? We are still becoming clear on what it will be used for.]
My Reply: [Did it not start out "Speak Softly..."?]
Being the world’s policeman is not in and of itself bad. As Bill O’Reilly says of history fogging in and out, it apparently depends on the administration in power. An earlier administration was ridiculed and impeded for attempting to be the world’s policeman. And if the goal of the war were to spread our democracy then being the policeman would mean others would be the legislative and judicial branches.
They risk opening a Pandora’s box we have already looked into, and their reasons appear hidden in a shell game from enforcing U.N. resolutions, to disarmament, to regime change, to democracy, to going it alone. If we start as judge and jury as well, we may not only unite the world and not necessarily with us, but encourage other unions or worse. We are a long way from probation officers and social workers if we can’t grasp what we are working for or the concept of the separation of powers that we should be working under.
[And was not the "big stick" asked for (from Congress) under the premise that hopefully it would not be needed? We are still becoming clear on what it will be used for.]
Friday, March 07, 2003
NEW RESOLUTIONS?
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.
The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.
[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.
Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.
Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.
On the constitutionality of the Iraq Resolution by congress, there has been a lawsuit brought by Congressman McDermott and others, which has been dismissed. Further action is seen in HJR 20 and SR 32. These seek to return war powers to congress. The ambiguity mentioned below can also be seen in UN Security Council Resolution 1441. Unanimity was admired in its passage. However, taking action apparently was not seen by many of those voting to be automatic. Therefore it is only more imperative that the congressional authority be reconsidered. In fact victory may be declared in retracting it, seeing that progress is being made and work being done to continue pressure and unanimity.
The Joker reference may be disrespectful but fits the analogy so well as to the power the president already has in terms of diplomacy and ambiguity, and in fact demonstrates similar tactics by the administration, which I do not admire. Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to dis-avail myself of literary means, when others disregard legal means.
[February 25, 2003] To those concerned.
Here is my take on it, and I wonder how it fits. The ambiguity of the congressional resolution seems to be the problem. Ambiguity has its place maybe in diplomacy, but not in dealings with our own processes. Well maybe in the dealings it has a place but finally the law needs to be clarified. This does not seem to get anywhere, I was trying to get there logically. And without clarity I may have demonstrated that logic will get nowhere.
Anyway, it seems that Congress dealt the President a wildcard when there is already a Joker there. I don’t think I could put it any better, but may need to explain. The President is responsible for diplomacy and the Congress for war and finance. The Congress gave the President a resolution for his game of brinkmanship, basically poker. Therefore it was intentionally ambiguous to play the game of bluff. Now Congress must remove the wildcard or Joker from the deck! A clear resolution or impeachment may be needed. [Reference here is to include all the legal means available to resolve issues between branches of the government, from judicial review to punitive measures.] Unfortunately, the latter faces those who want to play out the game. Unfortunately the game is nothing new but more of the same. The ambiguous resolution acquiesces to a policy of poker and preemption.
Maybe further explanation is needed. Preemption may already be in the hands of a President in terms of actual defense. All one needs, is the guts to act with reason. But to put in the hands as foreign policy, the tool of war, not to mention finance, is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)