Are Americans being violated in the name of "Patriotism?"
Now that the courts have caught up with judging the Patriot Act, parts of it have been ruled unconstitutional. Meanwhile, one wonders how many people's Constitutional rights were and are being violated.
See the story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_re_us/patriot_act_lawsuit
Read it, tell me what you think! Are parts of the Patriot Act, indeed, anti-American?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Patraeus report: Who trumps, pretty lady or the ugly witch?
By F. Ellsworth Lockwood
The children sat on the storyteller’s lap, poised in suspense. Then the President closed the book and said, “Lights out. The next chapter will be read by General Patreaus in September.” We sat, breathlessly awaiting the report. The cliff hanger, however, led to a disappointing ending. Or rather, to no ending at all. Perhaps the general’s report was dud, a Rorschach test, or even a stalling act by the President. At any rate. Patraeus’ testimony told us almost nothing we had not already heard.
Frothing and foaming, numerous Blogs now attack “liberals” for not believing the general’s report. Trouble is, many liberals do believe Patreaus. Does the Patreaus report show a beautiful woman, or an ugly witch? A Reuters’ report quoted Gen. David Petraeus testimony as saying, “that President George W. Bush's troop build-up in Iraq had led to progress in reducing violence but that political reconciliation among warring factions remained elusive.” This sounds like a map that actually fit’s the territory. But it does not resolve the big question: Should we stay the course?
What course? There is no apparent vision for Iraq, and no map to accomplish that vision. There never was! There are only short term objectives. Turn on the electricity over here, but terrorists/insurgents destroy that target over there. The general claims “progress” in a number of areas such as security. On the other hand, without the political and social victories that are necessary for a sustained peace, those successes may mean nothing. Build hospitals. Why? So that terrorists, religious sects and political saboteurs can fill them with the wounded and the dead? And so-on.
Perhaps violence has slowed, as the Army measures violence. But it certainly has not ended. Any peace is very tentative, and as the general reportedly testified, political reconciliation among warring factions remain elusive. Indeed. According to an ABC report, six in 10 Iraqis “say security … has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.” So the general has his report, and then the Iraqi people have theirs.
Why such a difference? Well, one reason seems obvious to me: The general being called before Congress is somewhat like, and this is an analogy only, but it is somewhat like the CEO of a branch office being called in to talk to the corporation board members, to give an accounting for his branch office. The branch President may not lie, but he is going to present his “front” in the most favorable light possible.
With that in mind, General Patreaus’ testimony is disturbing, because he is very careful, or so it seems to me, not to give a rosy forecast. Wisely, the general reported both: the pretty lady and the ugly witch.
The children sat on the storyteller’s lap, poised in suspense. Then the President closed the book and said, “Lights out. The next chapter will be read by General Patreaus in September.” We sat, breathlessly awaiting the report. The cliff hanger, however, led to a disappointing ending. Or rather, to no ending at all. Perhaps the general’s report was dud, a Rorschach test, or even a stalling act by the President. At any rate. Patraeus’ testimony told us almost nothing we had not already heard.
Frothing and foaming, numerous Blogs now attack “liberals” for not believing the general’s report. Trouble is, many liberals do believe Patreaus. Does the Patreaus report show a beautiful woman, or an ugly witch? A Reuters’ report quoted Gen. David Petraeus testimony as saying, “that President George W. Bush's troop build-up in Iraq had led to progress in reducing violence but that political reconciliation among warring factions remained elusive.” This sounds like a map that actually fit’s the territory. But it does not resolve the big question: Should we stay the course?
What course? There is no apparent vision for Iraq, and no map to accomplish that vision. There never was! There are only short term objectives. Turn on the electricity over here, but terrorists/insurgents destroy that target over there. The general claims “progress” in a number of areas such as security. On the other hand, without the political and social victories that are necessary for a sustained peace, those successes may mean nothing. Build hospitals. Why? So that terrorists, religious sects and political saboteurs can fill them with the wounded and the dead? And so-on.
Perhaps violence has slowed, as the Army measures violence. But it certainly has not ended. Any peace is very tentative, and as the general reportedly testified, political reconciliation among warring factions remain elusive. Indeed. According to an ABC report, six in 10 Iraqis “say security … has worsened since the surge began, while just one in 10 sees improvement.” So the general has his report, and then the Iraqi people have theirs.
Why such a difference? Well, one reason seems obvious to me: The general being called before Congress is somewhat like, and this is an analogy only, but it is somewhat like the CEO of a branch office being called in to talk to the corporation board members, to give an accounting for his branch office. The branch President may not lie, but he is going to present his “front” in the most favorable light possible.
With that in mind, General Patreaus’ testimony is disturbing, because he is very careful, or so it seems to me, not to give a rosy forecast. Wisely, the general reported both: the pretty lady and the ugly witch.
Sunday, July 8, 2007
Belatedly, Democrats want to reject the Iraq war!
I just noted the following on an NPR Radio web page:
My reaction to the paragraph:
What upsets me the most is that we are only seeing this discussion now, so many years after the invasion.
I never understood why Congress failed to debate this prior to our attack upon Iraq (and prior to the subsequent invasion/occupation).
Democrat Senators and Representatives, where were you when we needed someone with his head screwed on straight? Someone to ask hard questions and demand straight answers. The truth is, almost our entire Senate deserves to be dumped! We need a new start. Our nation requires a new, intelligent, leadership, and not just a new President.
We need a new, legitimately elected, goverment with a new mentality! And we need an informed President with a liberal education, an grasp of foreign affairs, and a vision of economics that honors the common wager earner.
Senate to Debate Iraq War Policy
All Things Considered, July 8, 2007 · Iraq will likely dominate debate Monday as the Senate takes up the defense authorization bill. Host Debbie Elliott speaks with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), one of a growing number of Republicans opposing the Bush plan, and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN).
--------------------------
My reaction to the paragraph:
What upsets me the most is that we are only seeing this discussion now, so many years after the invasion.
I never understood why Congress failed to debate this prior to our attack upon Iraq (and prior to the subsequent invasion/occupation).
Democrat Senators and Representatives, where were you when we needed someone with his head screwed on straight? Someone to ask hard questions and demand straight answers. The truth is, almost our entire Senate deserves to be dumped! We need a new start. Our nation requires a new, intelligent, leadership, and not just a new President.
We need a new, legitimately elected, goverment with a new mentality! And we need an informed President with a liberal education, an grasp of foreign affairs, and a vision of economics that honors the common wager earner.
Friday, December 15, 2006
The British did not fear Iraq
By F. Ellsworth Lockwood
Friday, December 15, 2006
The British did not fear Iraq prior to the U.S. invation of March 20, 2003, according to sources cited in a story by Associated Press writer D'ARCY DORAN. According to Doran's article, Iraq's military capability was at an all time low at the time of the invasion. The report was seen at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq
Assuming Darcy's sources are accurate, it would appear that President George W. Bush used fear of WMDs or other weapons as a pretext in order to justifty an attack. The implication, of course, is that Sadaam Hussein's web page may have told the truth when the dictator claimed that there were no WMDs and that Bush was only using fear of WMDs as an "excuse" to justify attacking him. At the very least, Bush must have been padding the truth.
Friday, December 15, 2006
The British did not fear Iraq prior to the U.S. invation of March 20, 2003, according to sources cited in a story by Associated Press writer D'ARCY DORAN. According to Doran's article, Iraq's military capability was at an all time low at the time of the invasion. The report was seen at:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061215/ap_on_re_eu/britain_iraq
Assuming Darcy's sources are accurate, it would appear that President George W. Bush used fear of WMDs or other weapons as a pretext in order to justifty an attack. The implication, of course, is that Sadaam Hussein's web page may have told the truth when the dictator claimed that there were no WMDs and that Bush was only using fear of WMDs as an "excuse" to justify attacking him. At the very least, Bush must have been padding the truth.
Monday, November 13, 2006
U.S. "feeds the insurgency" in Iraq (former defense chief)
An October 2005 article reported that Former Defense Chief Melvin R. Laird had called for exit strategy from Iraq, and that he had claimed the U.S. presence in Iraq "feeds the insurgency." Laird was also quoted as making comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq and suggesting a plan for withdrawal.
[Source, newsmax.com archives, with reference to Foreign Affairs magazine]
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/19/155802.shtml
[Source, newsmax.com archives, with reference to Foreign Affairs magazine]
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/10/19/155802.shtml
German gov warned U.S., intelligence bad: Bush did not heed
On November 21, 2005, The Christian Science Monitor reported that the CIA "knew" that intelligence sources on WMD were not reliable, but as if that were not enough, that the Bush administration repeatedly exaggerated the informant's claims in the run-up to the war.
Source: The Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1121/dailyUpdate.html)
Posted
Nov. 21, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.
Germany: CIA knew "Curveball" was not trustworthy
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Former head, CIA Osama bin Laden Unit: Iraq War motive, greed -- Nov. 2004
As reported by Christian Science Monitor in November, 2004:
"Mike Scheuer, a 22-year veteran who works in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and is a former head of its Osama bin Laden unit ... wrote that the war in Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages."
See the article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p02s02-usfp.html
from the November 12, 2004 edition
CIA agent publicly chides White House for terror war
"Mike Scheuer, a 22-year veteran who works in the CIA's Counterterrorist Center and is a former head of its Osama bin Laden unit ... wrote that the war in Iraq was "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages."
See the article at:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1112/p02s02-usfp.html
from the November 12, 2004 edition
CIA agent publicly chides White House for terror war
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
