Issue:The Editors on Women in Combat & Iran on National Review Online:

Specific:"Although the Army bureaucracy is waging a public-relations war to defeat it, it deserves the support of anyone who cares about the safety and success of our troops � and, most especially, President Bush, who has said recently that he opposes assigning women to ground combat."

Comment:I'm trying to learn. I want to understand. This is a nation that voted Ronald Reagan as the Greatest American- from a list of 100 - beyond any writer, teacher, Founding fathers like: B Franklin, G. Washington...

But I remember my College Professor mother, my wife with a Masters, and my Daughters.

Issue:NR Editors on Iraq on National Review Online:

Specific: "The war on terror began in earnest on 9/11.
Supporters of a radical Islamic ideology struck American on 9/11. The war on terror is not a fight against a tactic (as the name falsely suggests), but against that ideology. The appeal of an ideology ebbs and flows with perceptions of its success. Communism advanced in the third world after its victory in Vietnam. The Islamists would get a similar boost if they were to prevail in Iraq. "

Comment:The following I sent to the author of the editorial -

I sincerely wish to understand. But I'm confused.
Please do not assume my confusion with the rhetoric to be liberal.

Can you accept that your rhetoric might need some clarification?

Are you saying that the name of the war should be a "War on a Bin Laden Islamism"?

I can accept that the war began on 9/11.
I find a few things in conflict and appear paradoxical - can you untangle for me?

If the war is against the Bin Laden style Ideology of Islam
can you direct me to something that describes how this existed in Saddam's Iraq?
I can accept that there were some terrorists in Iraq before the war:
but then why didn't they hold a greater political stake in Iraq before the war?
Are the Sunni's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
Are the Shiite's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
Are the Kurd's the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist?
If the Ideological Bin Laden Islamist were not these groups,
then does this not make them a low rate political power in Saddam Iraq?

I'm all in favor rooting out the bad guys no matter how long it takes.
I'm all in favor of take the battle to them before the battle is on American soil.
This suggest a perpetual state of war - which may be a good thing if it get the job done.
This suggest a War footing for at least several generations of Americans.
The American character will be changed forever.
Is this a good thing?

In the next generation or perhaps the generation after that,
will Americans in general be as tolerant of good flavors of Islam?
Is this a good thing to be intolerant?

And finally, you indicate that Communism advanced in the time after Vietnam.
Am I mistaken, but isn't Communism dead?
Did it not die within 15 years of the end of Vietnam?
Didn't Ronald Reagan win the Cold War?
If not then are we not still in the Cold War?

Perhaps I should be intolerant of editors that don't have the mental discipline and guts to reason.
Prove me wrong.

--------------------------------------------

Let's see if he/she replies...

Issue: Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses - New York Times:

Specific: "''When the government acts with the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion, it violates that central Establishment clause value of official religious neutrality,'' he said"

Comment:As Mr. Spock would say - Fascinating.

Issue:Court: No Ten Commandments in Courthouses - New York Times:

Specific:"''The touchstone for our analysis is the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion,'' Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority"


Comment:Praise the lord - Logic and Reason prevail over the Passion.

Issue:ABC News: Rumsfeld: Iraq Insurgency Could Last Years:

Specific:"That insurgency could go on for any number of years. Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years,' Rumsfeld said. 'Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency"


Comment:OK Americans are going to be at risk for 10 more years, and then it will NOT be the Americans declaring victory.

It will be the Iraqi Security Forces that will declare "Mission Accomplished" Am I missing something?

Issue:CNN.com - Gov. Bush:�Prosecutor taking up Schiavo inquiry - Jun 17, 2005

Specific:"he found his wife collapsed at 5 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1990, and he said in a 2003 television interview that he found her about 4:30 a.m. He called 911 at 5:40 a.m."

Comment:It empties one's spirit to think that this Republican mind-set is pursuing this. It is wrong. No good comes from this. There is no great injustice.

A couple of things to note. I am making a reasonable assumption. I will stand for correction should this assumption be inaccurate. If the AM is accurate, that indicates they were just waking up for the day - at best. At that hour of the day, who actually tells time accurately.

Then there is the notion that if my wife of 24 years was lying still and quiet at that hour, I would be inclined to believe that she was asleep and would not disturb her. If She got up to go to the bathroom, closed the door and I heard something - I might drift off asleep for a bit, thinking my wife simply dropped something.

Then there is the notion that a 2003 interview is some 13 years after the fact. Memories of traumatic events blur with time.

The final observation is that the implausibility that no one before the Governor thought to ask the question!

Issue:The Real News in the Downing Street Memos:

Specific: "virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial 'spikes of activity' didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed."

Comment:This goes to the notion that the Bush administration are not concerned about governance, but about power. "Power" is about getting your way.

Issue:In Reversal After Bush Meeting, Frist Will Seek New Bolton Vote - New York Times:

Specific:"WASHINGTON, June 21 - Senator Bill Frist, the leader of the Senate's Republican majority, abruptly reversed himself after a meeting with President Bush today and said he would schedule another vote on the nomination of John R. Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations. "

Comment:An example of a man that does not take no for an answer. If he doesn't get the vote he wants, he will surely use a recess appointment. Someone over the weekend made the point that the rights of the minority are feature designed into the system. Minority preferences were not to be ignored or dismissed.

For why else would the does the smallest state have as many senators as the largest states. Balance was desired and respect for the minority was a key, check.

This President does not understand the difference between governance and power. This President is simply a bully.

Issue:Reuters AlertNet - CIA's Goss has 'excellent' idea where bin Laden is-Time

Specific: "dealing with sanctuaries in sovereign states, you're dealing with a problem of our sense of international obligation, fair play."

Comment:My father passed away recently. I miss him dearly. We didn’t talk about politics. Yet it was his and my mother’s activism in the Republican party in the 70’s that eventually drew me into Political Science a college major and my form of activism. His Republican party in the 1960’s and 70’s were outnumbered – so as my mother tells it. That’s why they joined the party. They were into good governance – not about power.

Governance versus power, that is a key item we now have to debate. Respect for the man or the Office is part of this debate. Democrats/Liberals can be wrong. They can be clueless. But they are open to discussion. It is this characteristic that is one distinction between good governance and bad. Good governance is a non-partisan concept. For the issues I’m about to raise, I may indeed be wrong and clueless. You the reader should judge. Ask yourself if the issues add up to Good Governance.

H. J. RES. 24 - Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee in April. This is the amendment that prevents Bill Clinton and now George Bush from running for President every 4 years for the rest of their lives.

President Bush does not want to set a pull out date in Iraq. He has set up terrorism as permanent fear, much like communism was positioned during the cold war. Al-Quaida is set up as a perpetually imminent threat. Al-Quaida is a threat – no doubt. One issue of the Vietnam War was that the Vets did not have a parade to honor their sacrifices. Does not a perpetual state of war, against an enemy that is a tactic(not a political philosophy), prevent the parade of honor for Vets of the Iraq war?

Then there is the United Airline pension plan default. This President wants to “fix” social security by adding the burdens of being concerned about the future. In a previous century, when industry broke the promises to the elderly employees, and American government said – we will take care of you. An American government relieved its population of a burden in a time of life that is transitional for family and difficult for the individual.

When the scope of an issue grows because smaller concerns gravitate a problem, a need to categorize, prioritize and define the limits of the smaller issues develops. Limits must be defined. It is good governance to define reporter questions. Such is the Iraq war and the war on Terrorism. Questions like who, what, where, when and why have never been adequately defined by this administration.
Personally, I feel comfortable and more willing to support dramatic policy shifts when I can watch several different media outlets ask variations of the questions. In the periods between shows and questions about the issues, time is spent on bubbling up the next set of questions I need to be answered.
The Bush Administrations secretiveness, lack of open press conferences have not enabled me to get behind a perpetual war on terrorism. There always have been and always will be individuals and groups who want to do harm to Americans. There will be great catastrophes in which large numbers of Americans will get harmed. Al-Quaida is as much a threat as a the idea permanent President.

Is it good governance to be perpetually protecting America from short term threats? In some neighborhoods, it is wise to keep a gun handy while one sleeps. The principle of freedom dictates that those that live in those neighborhoods choose to do so. No one makes them live there, rhetorically speaking. But logic dictates that if they made efforts to protect the neighborhood, they may not need a gun in the bedroom. The risk of accidental shootings in the home are reduced. Children are better protected, when short term threats are addressed by long term thinking.

Terrorism is a tactic, not a philosophy. Yet the administration is treating terrorism as if it is the new communism. It seems reasonable that they do this to enhance their domestic political control.

And then there is the recent comments by Porter Goss concerning sovereignty and Osama Bin-Laden. In case you had not heard, the US govt knows where the number one 9/11 bad guy is located. Yet we are NOT going after him in deference to a respect for the sovereignty of a nation. Personally, I favor respecting a nation’s sovereignty, as sort of a “prime directive”. It is makes sense to me.

But is this good governance to change policy like this in the middle of a war? We occupied 2 nations. Clearly these were acts that did not respect the sovereignty of the particular countries. Yes, indeed we gave them back their countries. So what is the principle? What are we teaching our young?

Mr. President please lead me. When it is ok to occupy/invade a country? What is the principle I can tell my children? Pre-9/11 it was enough to think that if America was attacked – like Pearl Harbor – we are morally justified to stomp on any entity that hit us first. Ok post 9/11 things are different – so what is the rule now?
Is it good governance that such a question can be asked?

Thousands cross the borders from Mexico into the US on a daily basis. Container ships dock in America ports daily with the potentially deadly cargo. Chemical plants with inadequate security. According to news media, these loopholes are as big as pre-9/11. Before you discount some news media, some have gone the extra lengths of actually shipping radioactive material from Asia to Washington DC. Are the fair and balanced media outlets testing our governments security ascertions?

Is it good governance that such security holes exist – 3 years after 9/11?
And yet this party in complete control, wants to eliminate Presidential term limits, before fixing these holes. Is this good governance? Is it fair and balanced governance? Is it good governance? Mr President – what is good governance?

Issue:Bush Is Expected to Address Specifics on Iraq:


Specific:"Bush's new approach will be mostly rhetorical, however, as the White House does not plan any changes to the policy "


Comment: This is consistent with the notion that Bush does not retreat, does not "cut and run", does not make mistakes. We are to have complete confidence in him simply because he tells us to believe. It is matter of Faith.

Issue:The Interactive Truth - New York Times:

Specific:"What if we all vote on the truth? We don't need to, because we will be overruled by what becomes a legend most: entertainment."

Comment:History is not set in concrete. History is as the scientific method. Everything is a theory. When one drops a hammer, they are testing gravity. The existance of gravity is confirmed only when the hammer hits the floor, not the moment before. As new evidence becomes known, the old theories are tested. If history appears static and cast in concrete, it is only because the length of time since the last piece of new evidence relevant to a question of history is soo long.

There is a mechanism in the systems of society that process this confluence of time and fact.
Myths, legends and folklore are part of that mechanism.

The value of truth is in its static appearance.
The value of truth is that it is not dynamic.
The value of truth is that it is a baseline - a starting point
The value of truth is that anyone can test it,
and get the same answer as the last time.
Therefore the value of history is anyone can test it
and come to their own decision.

Society cannot endure long if the individual is told what is the truth.
It is human nature, the mechanical/analog nature of the brain to make decisions.
It is human nature to be able to separate an internally decision about a truth,
and the outward presentation of that decision.
History is the aggregation of these internal decisions about a truth from each member of a society.

To have a mechanism that enables the testing of truth is good.
To have a mechanism that enables the testing of truth faster is good.
Therefore a wikitorial (a wikipedia style editorial), while uncomfortable, has value.
The discomfort come from fear of change.

To which 2 things come to mind:
After 45 years - Change is a constant.
There truly is nothing to fear but fear itself.

Issue:Lexington Herald-Leader | 06/14/2005 | Mother of dead soldier vilifies Bush over war:

Specific:"Hard work is seeing your son's murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you're enjoying the last supper you'll ever truly enjoy again. Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son, your first-born, your kind and gentle sweet baby. Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big (brother) into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both,' she said.

Since her son's death, Sheehan has made opposition to the Bush administration a full-time job.

'We're watching you very carefully and we're going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people,' she said, quoting a letter she sent to the White House. 'Beating a political stake in your black heart will be the fulfillment of my life ... ,' she said, as the audience of 200 people cheered."

Comment:I found this story via Drudge. The nature of the selection of stories by Drudge is to belittle those in opposition to the political "right" by framing them in a kind "these are the loons" kind of context. Drudge does not select stories to inform. He goes for the headline - the outrageous - what the political right would find outrageous.

So by this selection criteria, this woman's demonstration of pain is outrageous according to Matt Drudge.

Issue:Don't Follow the Money - New York Times:

Specific:"Carl Bernstein calls 'the best obtainable version of the truth.'"

Comment:This is reality from any media. The phrase "Best obtainable version of the truth", allows a story to be told and not dismissed because there may be technical gaps. This allows logic and reason to bolster "truth", and to dismiss excessive passion and the tunnel visioned.

"The best obtainable version of the truth" - this is the objective and function of history.

Issue:CNN.com - Military academies attract fewer applicants - Jun 14, 2005

Comment:While the President is looking to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, he is losing with Americans. This is a stage setting for things to come. Specifically a new kind of vulnerability. How it will take shape is not clear. This is a relevant poll that the Administration should note.

Issue:An Important Election Safeguard - New York Times:

Specific:"The solution is to require that each machine produce a paper record that can be inspected and verified by the voter. The paper records are then stored, and can be counted after the polls close. If the results on the machine do not match the tally of the paper records, it will be clear that there is a problem"


Comment:This is a gist of the idea that was/is Voter Decision Project since back in the late 80's. Back then the idea of voting using computers was ridiculous. But the core need for accountability to the voter by the "system" was/is key. I speculated that ATM machines might be utilized because they already provided the technical facility of software and a receipt. I was working at a company call SEI on a product called TRUST-AID. The design of that system, combined with my education at Temple University, allowed to explore these issues from a political rhetoric basis and a technical basis.

I encoutered confusion and concern from people. It was too foreign an idea. Computers and politics? It was too sci-fi. It was/is too democratic.
I never had the courage to ask for real money to develop the idea.

Issue:CNN.com - Time�report fuels Guantanamo criticism - Jun 13, 2005:

Specific:"'If in fact we are treating prisoners this way, it's not only wrong, it's dangerous and very dumb and very shortsighted,' Hagel said."

Comment:Far-sighted or visionary and smart are not high on possible lists of characterisitics to describe the Bush administration. Some other blog or article asked the question - is this what President Bush means by "values"?

Issue:The Downing Street Memo Story Won't Die: "The story attracted some news coverage in the United States, but not much. Last month, the Chicago Tribune concluded that 'the Downing Street memo story has proven to be something of a dud in the United States."


Comment: Why has it not gotten more traction? The Bush administration simply dismisses it as not being real. And since the Republicans control the investigations - the are dealing with it much the way they are dealing with Tom Delay.

Republicans are not about accuracy in historical terms. They are not into truth. They are into power only. This again furthers the notion that truth and reality at the national level, is merely a means to an end. The end is power.

Issue:The secret Downing Street memo - Sunday Times - Times Online

Comment: This should be a bigger issue for the Bush administration.

Issue:CNN.com - Bush: Syria must not interfere in Lebanon - Jun 10, 2005: "Bush: Syria must not interfere in Lebanon"

Specific:A senior State Department official told CNN that the United States has received what it believes are credible reports that Syria has drawn up a "hit list" of Lebanese political figures targeted for assassination in an effort to regain control of the country.

Comment:What flashes in my mind is reaction of a mindset that doesn't make mistakes. This smacks of picking a fight. A line in the sand - again.

Given the offensive that took heavy losses on the Iraq/Syrian border last month, combined with rumors that any WMD were moved to Syria before the war, how much more of a reason would the administration need?

I'm all in favor of homeland security and fighting terrorism.
With our relations with Iraq, Iran and Korea in militarily sensitive states, what is the President to do if the Syrians tell him to go blow it out his ass?

How is he to follow through?
How "credible" is "credible reports" from the same administration that sold us a war on WMD as an imminent threat?

With a genocide taking place in Africa, which is allegedly an important piece in the President's foreign policy - how could he justify another war that would not benefit Africa or stop the genocide?

Isn't one of the charges against Saddam, that he killed thousands?
Isn't a genocide more serious than the tragic and unecessary deaths of those thousands of Iraqi's?

Not in the President book apparently.

Issue: Me thinkst thou protest too much?TV show depicts 9/11 as Bush plot - The Washington Times: World - June 09, 2005: "TV show depicts 9/11 as Bush plot"

Specific #1:"According to the plot, which was seen by approximately 7 million Germans, the dead man had been trained to be one of the September 11 pilots but was left behind, only to be tracked down and killed by CIA or FBI assassins.
The woman, who says in the program that the September 11 attacks were instigated by the Bush family for oil and power, then is targeted, presumably to silence her"

Specific #2: "Any claim or suggestion that the United States government was behind the 9/11 disaster is absolutely absurd and not worthy of further comment," said Robert A. Wood, spokesman for the embassy.

Observation: This TV show was not presented as reality

Comment:Okaaay. Why is this being reported here in the states? Why is it worthy of a diplomatic exchange? A possible pattern begins to emerge. Republicans wishing to be upset at fictional content. Or are they actually open to discussing different points of view? Recently it was Tom Delay commenting on Law and Order. Before that there was Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.

What's curious to me about all three events is an apparent rhetorical diversion of sorts. The focus of the episode aka the directors artistic commentary is ignored. The focus of the episode aka the directors artistic commentary is not addressed head-on.

The Republican pattern still remains clear - do not engage.
Pursuit of the development of a shared or centrist governance is not done by Republicans.
Is there not a responsibility of those with power, to manage it for the benefit of all?
Republicans of this generation do not seem to acknowledge this responsibility.

It will be quite a day, when a Republican of this stripe, seeks to build on from ideas presented as fiction. Democrats do it and they are denegrated.

Issue:Deep Throat Speaks

Specific:"While publicly ordering the FBI to investigate, he secretly directed a coverup intended to prevent the agency from confirming the connections between his campaign and the Watergate burglars"

Comment:The he is "President Nixon". He operated a "bait and switch" on the FBI.

This is a tactic of politicians, even honorable ones. It is a tool of in the science of politics and rhetorical debate. Say one thing and mean another.

In terms of the current administration - WMD and Iraq come to mind. CNN had a story were a military official was saying that the Iraqi's "invited" us.

What is President Bush's impression of Mr. Felt?

Given the administrations bent on secrecy and its inability to indentify Valerie Plame's leaker - is it stretch to think that the President will not comment or honor Mr. Felt.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.