~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jay Rockefeller is a wimp...and other assorted stories....
"On Friday, senators on the intelligence committee cut a deal that lets "a thorough review" — i.e. a Republican whitewash — go forward into whether the spy community ginned up prewar intelligence. The Democrats, already Fausted by their prewar fear of being pantywaists, naturally caved on open hearings.
Open, closed, who cares? Congress is looking in the wrong place. They're scrutinizing those who gathered the intelligence, rather than those who pushed to distort it."
Maureen Dowd
Where Are WMDs? Where's Congress?
*Apparently, Congress is far, far more worried about polls and re-election than they are about
the American people's damaged trust in the administration's decision to send of nearly 200 American troops to their death in Iraq.*
Is anyone out there losing faith in Congress to represent the best interest of
democracy and the interest of the American people.....or is it just me?!
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Sunday, June 22, 2003
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My letter to General Wesley Clark:
Dear General Clark,
I am very impressed with your recent comments about your own view of leadership in America. I have the utmost respect for you and I wish you success in any decision you choose to make regarding a run for the Presidency. I believe you would make a fine President.
The world has drastically changed since the 9-11 attack.
In my opinion, President Bush had a SOLID golden opportunity to bring the entire world to a better understanding of America and the average American's courage and determination to be united resolutely after the once-unimagineable terrorist attack on our own soil.
We realize there has long been anti-American sentiment overseas...especially in the Middle East.
Today, that anti-American sentiment has increased a thousandfold.
I often wonder... how could this have happened?
The answer leads me to understand the principles of what America leadership should NOT be.
An American leader should not drive the good will of the world away from his already gravely-misunderstood people, especially in times of the greatest sorrow-- in an aftermath of a senseless suicide attack which takes the lives of 3000 of his people.
An American leader would take pains to maintain the semblance of open government after such a heinous attack. An American leader would not create an impression that he had something to hide by shutting out victims' families when they ask myriad reasonable questions and plead for an independent investigation.
An American leader would not use questionable/dubious intelligence information to convince the American public that an
elective war was necessary. An American leader would not use that same dubious intelligence information as part of his State of the Union address. An American leader would not give a different reason almost every day in his lead-up to a preemptive attack on another nation; instead he would give clear, passionate, concise reasons...otherwise, he might expect the American public to wonder why he changed his mind so often.
An American leader would foster the spirit of freedom in every way..especially free speech. Dissent should not be something about which citizens are made to be fearful as they are told they'd best be "careful of what they say..."
An American leader would use the Miltary with the greatest of care, consideration, and discernment.
An American leader might realize that a "war on terror" is potentially an eternal war. Hatred has not been eradicated since the dawn of mankind. An American leader might be viewed as a war-opportunist if he uses the "war on terror" as a reason for any war toward which he elects to adventure.
An American leader would understand that the trust of his people means EVERYTHING. That American leader might have been expected to have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now..especially if we look back upon all that immediacy and certainty in which citizen-trust was fiercely engendered by the current administration before the Iraq war began.
We were "led" to believe. Now we are not quite so sure.
We won't be so trusting in the future.
We need a leader we can trust.
We need a leader who is not afraid to open his door and show us that he means what he says...and that he does what he does because he has sound reason for it!
We need a leader who has a political agenda which fosters freedom of speech amongst all citizens and sends a far more solid democratic message.
We need a leader who does not obviously want to systematically starve the economic life out of Social Security.
We need a leader that will not fraudulently attempt to connect AlQaeda with a foreign government any and every time he wishes to change that government's regime.
Honesty means everything.
The current American leader has failed to promote basic respect and diplomacy in the world. I realize the task was monumental after 9-11, but an American leader should not have alienated the good will of so much of the world after such an attack. It seems that most of the world should have been directly by our side..a truly good leader would not have rested until it was so.
General Clark, I truly believe you are an honest man.
I hope you enter the political arena.
You would be a fine American leader.
Jude
http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/board/viewtopic.asp?forumid=6&id=7&page=3
_________________________
My letter to General Wesley Clark:
Dear General Clark,
I am very impressed with your recent comments about your own view of leadership in America. I have the utmost respect for you and I wish you success in any decision you choose to make regarding a run for the Presidency. I believe you would make a fine President.
The world has drastically changed since the 9-11 attack.
In my opinion, President Bush had a SOLID golden opportunity to bring the entire world to a better understanding of America and the average American's courage and determination to be united resolutely after the once-unimagineable terrorist attack on our own soil.
We realize there has long been anti-American sentiment overseas...especially in the Middle East.
Today, that anti-American sentiment has increased a thousandfold.
I often wonder... how could this have happened?
The answer leads me to understand the principles of what America leadership should NOT be.
An American leader should not drive the good will of the world away from his already gravely-misunderstood people, especially in times of the greatest sorrow-- in an aftermath of a senseless suicide attack which takes the lives of 3000 of his people.
An American leader would take pains to maintain the semblance of open government after such a heinous attack. An American leader would not create an impression that he had something to hide by shutting out victims' families when they ask myriad reasonable questions and plead for an independent investigation.
An American leader would not use questionable/dubious intelligence information to convince the American public that an
elective war was necessary. An American leader would not use that same dubious intelligence information as part of his State of the Union address. An American leader would not give a different reason almost every day in his lead-up to a preemptive attack on another nation; instead he would give clear, passionate, concise reasons...otherwise, he might expect the American public to wonder why he changed his mind so often.
An American leader would foster the spirit of freedom in every way..especially free speech. Dissent should not be something about which citizens are made to be fearful as they are told they'd best be "careful of what they say..."
An American leader would use the Miltary with the greatest of care, consideration, and discernment.
An American leader might realize that a "war on terror" is potentially an eternal war. Hatred has not been eradicated since the dawn of mankind. An American leader might be viewed as a war-opportunist if he uses the "war on terror" as a reason for any war toward which he elects to adventure.
An American leader would understand that the trust of his people means EVERYTHING. That American leader might have been expected to have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by now..especially if we look back upon all that immediacy and certainty in which citizen-trust was fiercely engendered by the current administration before the Iraq war began.
We were "led" to believe. Now we are not quite so sure.
We won't be so trusting in the future.
We need a leader we can trust.
We need a leader who is not afraid to open his door and show us that he means what he says...and that he does what he does because he has sound reason for it!
We need a leader who has a political agenda which fosters freedom of speech amongst all citizens and sends a far more solid democratic message.
We need a leader who does not obviously want to systematically starve the economic life out of Social Security.
We need a leader that will not fraudulently attempt to connect AlQaeda with a foreign government any and every time he wishes to change that government's regime.
Honesty means everything.
The current American leader has failed to promote basic respect and diplomacy in the world. I realize the task was monumental after 9-11, but an American leader should not have alienated the good will of so much of the world after such an attack. It seems that most of the world should have been directly by our side..a truly good leader would not have rested until it was so.
General Clark, I truly believe you are an honest man.
I hope you enter the political arena.
You would be a fine American leader.
Jude
http://www.leadershipforamerica.org/board/viewtopic.asp?forumid=6&id=7&page=3
_________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From the conservative handbook of how to respond to a post from a moderate,
liberal or anyone with whom you disagree.
1. Don't do any research yourself. Demand the poster provide verifiable
proof.
2. If proof is provided attack the source or author of the "proof." The
source or author can be dismissed by referring to their sexual orientation
or calling their patriotism into question. Name calling is allowed as long
as it invokes an emotional response from the poster causing them to divert
from the facts.
If this does not work:
3. Attack the umbrella organization where the "proof" was located. Refer to
the newspaper or organization (ACLU, ADL, NOW, etc.) as not being
communists, homosexual or traitorous. Make baseless accusations the poster
will have to defend. Remember: don't do ANY research. It takes no time to
make a baseless accusation. If the poster is able to defend the source and
umbrella organization, ignore the proof and go to the next step or go to
step 6 depending on the amount of time you want to waste.
4. Counter the facts with your opinions. NEVER EVER provide any
contradictory sources of argument since the poster can easily turn the
tables at this point and you will have to defend your sources. Remember
don't get caught up in the facts.
If this does not work:
5. Attack the poster. The purpose of this action is get the poster off the
subject and forget about the facts of the original post. Name calling is in
order. Remember sexual innuendo is the best weapon.
If this does not work:
6. State flatly you don't believe anything they have written. Demand more
proof and keep demanding more proof. When the poster no longer responds you
have WON the argument!!!! Don't worry if they add you to their kill file.
Wear it like a badge of HONOR.
From the conservative handbook of how to respond to a post from a moderate,
liberal or anyone with whom you disagree.
1. Don't do any research yourself. Demand the poster provide verifiable
proof.
2. If proof is provided attack the source or author of the "proof." The
source or author can be dismissed by referring to their sexual orientation
or calling their patriotism into question. Name calling is allowed as long
as it invokes an emotional response from the poster causing them to divert
from the facts.
If this does not work:
3. Attack the umbrella organization where the "proof" was located. Refer to
the newspaper or organization (ACLU, ADL, NOW, etc.) as not being
communists, homosexual or traitorous. Make baseless accusations the poster
will have to defend. Remember: don't do ANY research. It takes no time to
make a baseless accusation. If the poster is able to defend the source and
umbrella organization, ignore the proof and go to the next step or go to
step 6 depending on the amount of time you want to waste.
4. Counter the facts with your opinions. NEVER EVER provide any
contradictory sources of argument since the poster can easily turn the
tables at this point and you will have to defend your sources. Remember
don't get caught up in the facts.
If this does not work:
5. Attack the poster. The purpose of this action is get the poster off the
subject and forget about the facts of the original post. Name calling is in
order. Remember sexual innuendo is the best weapon.
If this does not work:
6. State flatly you don't believe anything they have written. Demand more
proof and keep demanding more proof. When the poster no longer responds you
have WON the argument!!!! Don't worry if they add you to their kill file.
Wear it like a badge of HONOR.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FYI: A link to retired General Wesley Clark's website
WES CLARK
"Leadership for America is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America’s future. Through a wide range of activities, the organization aims to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today..."
FYI: A link to retired General Wesley Clark's website
WES CLARK
"Leadership for America is a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to fostering the national dialogue about America’s future. Through a wide range of activities, the organization aims to stimulate discussion about America and offer solutions to the challenges our country faces today..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Weblogs At Harvard Law
Hosted by: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
What makes a weblog a weblog?
Fri, May 23, 2003; by Dave Winer.
From: Weblogs At Harvard Law
Hosted by: the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
What makes a weblog a weblog?
Fri, May 23, 2003; by Dave Winer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Democrats.com
The proposition (posted on the "2004 President forum") was this:
"Lets join together and urge Hillary Clinton to run for the Democratic nod. You can help in this effort by signing the following petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hillary/petition.html"
********** ********** ********* ************
Here is my contribution to the discussion..which can be found at:
http://community.democrats.com/forums/topics.cfm?forumid=48
"I think Esther had a very good point. We shouldn't have to be prodding our candidates to run.
If they are truly passionate about 2004...the most important election in history for the LIFEBLOOD of democracy...
then they should be QUITE clear and committed by now.
I admire Hillary Clinton; I think she could make a good President. I have to say, with all honesty, that I don't understand her support of the Iraq resolution. Also, her coy allusion to potentially running in 2008 only leads me to believe she doesn't CARE what happens this next election....and that greatly disturbs me.
I ask myself..would Hillary rather wait until a politically convenient time for herself....and secretly hope the
2004 Democrat fails to win? Perhaps that is not true, but I cannot stop myself from constantly asking
myself the very question.
After close consideration, I have decided to back Howard Dean.
He is a man of great passion, compatible ideology, and in the most reasonably pragmatic sense...electable.
*Unless you let the media tell you he's not.*
After watching a CSPAN poll yesterday where a question was asked: "Who do you THINK will win in 2004?"..I heard one too many Democrats stating that they HOPED a Dem would win (many mentioned Howard Dean), but that they THOUGHT it would be Bush.
This showed me that there is a lack of faith amongst Democrats.
Where are the true believers?
When you have entertainment cable news telling you what a groovy guy Bush is and how the Dems don't have a prayer in 2004...and when you start believing that...then I think you've lost faith in that for which the Democratic party stands.
It's time to get a shot of the "religion" back into the Democratic party. (Ideologically speaking).
I think Howard Dean is passionate and might just make believers of us once again.
There's no harm in pleading for Hillary to run....just understand that she seems to want to wait to see what happens in 2004...and that should dismay you if you really want to see Bush ousted.
Jude"
__________
Howard Dean did a great job on Meet the Press this morning.
He didn't let Tim Russert get him flustered or make him appear ineligible to be a potential military
Commander-in-Chief for not being able to recite military statistics..nice try, Tim/NBC!
Howard Dean also didn't let the partisan lying Treasury Department statistics stand in his way of explaining exactly how and why Bush's tax cuts
will need to be repealed. Nice try, Bush administration!
From Democrats.com
The proposition (posted on the "2004 President forum") was this:
"Lets join together and urge Hillary Clinton to run for the Democratic nod. You can help in this effort by signing the following petition:
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/hillary/petition.html"
********** ********** ********* ************
Here is my contribution to the discussion..which can be found at:
http://community.democrats.com/forums/topics.cfm?forumid=48
"I think Esther had a very good point. We shouldn't have to be prodding our candidates to run.
If they are truly passionate about 2004...the most important election in history for the LIFEBLOOD of democracy...
then they should be QUITE clear and committed by now.
I admire Hillary Clinton; I think she could make a good President. I have to say, with all honesty, that I don't understand her support of the Iraq resolution. Also, her coy allusion to potentially running in 2008 only leads me to believe she doesn't CARE what happens this next election....and that greatly disturbs me.
I ask myself..would Hillary rather wait until a politically convenient time for herself....and secretly hope the
2004 Democrat fails to win? Perhaps that is not true, but I cannot stop myself from constantly asking
myself the very question.
After close consideration, I have decided to back Howard Dean.
He is a man of great passion, compatible ideology, and in the most reasonably pragmatic sense...electable.
*Unless you let the media tell you he's not.*
After watching a CSPAN poll yesterday where a question was asked: "Who do you THINK will win in 2004?"..I heard one too many Democrats stating that they HOPED a Dem would win (many mentioned Howard Dean), but that they THOUGHT it would be Bush.
This showed me that there is a lack of faith amongst Democrats.
Where are the true believers?
When you have entertainment cable news telling you what a groovy guy Bush is and how the Dems don't have a prayer in 2004...and when you start believing that...then I think you've lost faith in that for which the Democratic party stands.
It's time to get a shot of the "religion" back into the Democratic party. (Ideologically speaking).
I think Howard Dean is passionate and might just make believers of us once again.
There's no harm in pleading for Hillary to run....just understand that she seems to want to wait to see what happens in 2004...and that should dismay you if you really want to see Bush ousted.
Jude"
__________
Howard Dean did a great job on Meet the Press this morning.
He didn't let Tim Russert get him flustered or make him appear ineligible to be a potential military
Commander-in-Chief for not being able to recite military statistics..nice try, Tim/NBC!
Howard Dean also didn't let the partisan lying Treasury Department statistics stand in his way of explaining exactly how and why Bush's tax cuts
will need to be repealed. Nice try, Bush administration!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not alone!
People are searching for Anonymoses!
*see Anonymoses' blog--find out why!
I'm not alone!
People are searching for Anonymoses!
*see Anonymoses' blog--find out why!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)