WHY DID WE INVADE AGAIN?

More disturbing than Iraq being under martial law is that they think that Saddam Hussein will have a fair trial. Even an MSNBC poll showed that 46% believe he does not deserve a fair trial. But Robert Sheers’s “Born Under a Cloud of Irony” spells out the problems for the Bush administration if he were to get a fair trial.

The irony is that we invaded Iraq for regime change, because he was unjust, undemocratic and immensely cruel, not to mention violating international laws. Oh, the last item was not really played up or the irony that we don’t recognize it would come into play.

A fair trial might question the relationship with the past U.S. administrations, namely Reagan and Bush 41. So we install a CIA sponsored car bomber to give him justice under Iraqi law rather than international law. SEE Link.

BEFORE THE INK DRIES

Before I have fully read the previous day's link, which I just corrected, a new development bears ominously on my projections. I did think that if I now have yesterday's link correct there would be information that would provide the details and legitimacy for justice so soon. That appears to be out the window anyway, and if there is anything we can learn from their process, let us hope it is not the resorting to martial law.

OBTUSELY INSTRUMENTAL

See the Link below for MSNBC Question of the Day

Does legally turning Saddam over to the new Iraqi government change anything?

My comment on the question:
Its obtuseness was instrumental. It is ironic that Bush says freedom is an ingredient in the making of a democracy, yet somehow sovereignty can be given at the point of a gun. I find it typical that this democracy somehow has judges, not to mention laws that can try anyone so soon. While the administration is busy rewriting legal memos, somehow justice will begin in Iraq with the hand-over of documents and a prisoner it seems before there is democratic input in the creation of the branches of government.

FURTHER: Maybe we can learn something from this or maybe they have. But will the end justify the means?

SPIRIT OF THE LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

QCON that [Anonymous Interview]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THEN AGAIN...

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

Bush Is No Reagan.

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

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

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

ROGER THAT ! ! !

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

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

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


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

ROGER THAT ! !

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

Do I hear an echo?

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

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

Hope or Heap Upon Bluster

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

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

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

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

JUST CAUSE OR JUST BECAUSE?

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

Thousand Points of Light or Triple Damages

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

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

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

ROGER THAT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEN DOES THE JOKER CROSS THE LINE?

WHAT LINE?

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

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

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

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

For reference to previous post.

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

Seattle Times, April 27th, 2004

HISTORY A GUIDE TO LOOKING AHEAD, NOT A DISTRACTION

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

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

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

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

GRID IRONY

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

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