Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

White House Can't Secure Victory -- Settles For Statesman's Apology

Statesmen and diplomats apologize when someone else is confused; failure is when the confused lead a nation on an illegal war based on frauds.

What did Hitler demand of the Allies before committing suicide in his Berlin bunker?

An apology. He got, "Nuts" in response.

I made that up, the point is: Bullies, criminals, and the insecure, when backed into a corner, often attempt shift the attention from this egregious misconduct or weakness to those who are stating the truth or outshining them through their excellence or novel attempt to do something new; and change the subject from their incompetence, insecurity, and failing, to the standing of those who dare to do what must be done: Lawfully end illegal abuse of power, and publicly rebuke the President for his incompetence.

It's interesting how quickly people react to things that are not about them; then demand others apologize for saying things which have nothing to do with what they are reacting. Those who react, get upset, or lash out at others are admitting that they have a vulnerability, and have permitted someone else's words to control them.

Reacting to someone's words is a choice. It is not something the author or speaker makes the listener-reader do. People choose to be manipulated, through choice, ignorance, or other factors. Hitler did not alone wage war; he manipulated people, like the Republicans, to believe that illegal conduct was preferable over lawful conduct.

Indeed, words are powerful, especially when they are artfully twisted; or they are presented as a promise or request, only retracted, denied or changed. Contract theory might impose a legal duty on the original offeror; but the lesson might be to simply chalk the abuse as a lesson: What this person is a capable of doing, and forever giving them wide berth, they being an insecure, wretched, manipulative, hypocritical lout.

Contrast the Charts

Look at these two contrasting sets of words. The President chooses to ignore one set of words; while another group chooses to react to a misconstruction of another set of words.

(1) The Conditions In Iraq: Ref

(2) How The Troops Spend Their Time Ref

The two charts are about the same combat theater. If we were to believe the first chart, how do we explain the time the troops have to review the open media, incorrectly review the material, create a sign, and then pose for a picture. If the troops understood the comment, they would not need to spend time reacting to something that is out of their control: Words. Rather, they would spend time on defending their positions, and improving the conditions in the chart.

The inconsistency tells us something about the morale of the troops in Iraq: It is not based on reality, but an assertion of supremacy, wholly at odds with their ongoing defeat, setbacks, and losses. America's idea of itself is not compatible with the reality on the ground.

Competence is, according to Gen. Shinseki:

What makes Army leaders of competence are skills with people, ideas, things, and warfighting. We refer to those four sets of skills as interpersonal, conceptual, technical, and tactical.

This means being able to understand, work with others, and interact effectively. When someone apologizes for what they have done, it is time to move on.

* * *

Lately, it has come into fashion for Americans to embrace twisted constructions of reality. This is an excuse to react not to things that are meaningful, but distractions from what they have no ability to control: Their destiny in an unwinnable fiasco this President remains stuck.

The troops can only adjust their focus; they have little power to avoid their continued defeats, continued losses, and inability to prevail over what cannot be defeated: The human desire to defeat abuse, tyranny; and compel prudence, accountability, and respect.

American civilians, like the troops, have been manipulated to believe in a false reality; and have been inspired to give up their rights, their mind, and rally to the cause of those who will send them on more illegal missions. We knew this before the first shots were fired: [ Ref ]

Recall the lesson of Durbin: He was right in comparing US abuse to others who had committed Geneva violations. Rather than prosecute the President, the American pubilc targeted the messenger. Despite Abu Ghraib, the abuse of prisoners continues. Quite amazing, America. Where were the outspoken defenses? Again, where the RNC has lied despite the prospect of losing, the weak, feeble DNC backed down, hoped to play nice, and move the discussion onto "other things."

An election isn't a foregone conclusion. It is an opportunity to demonstrate what you are willing to fight for, willing to accept, and willing to lose. Perhaps the DNC, despite winning, would prefer more time before it is willing to stand up and fight on the political battlefield for what is believes must be done. The answer is not to default choose what has failed; but to remind the DNC leadership that they have six years of very bad habits to overcome.

Kerry was different: He adjusted, but reasserted his principled opposition to the President's quagmire in Iraq. That is the solution. Because the DNC leadership will stand up now, and assert the truth, and compel the President to defend himself when it is easy, we can expect them to do the same when it is hard, and the challenge difficult.

Regardless what the DNC does or does not do, there are other options besides the political process to lawfully end this abuse of power. Americans must decide, regardless the election results, whether you are going to wait for the politicians to do something; or whether you are going to work with the war crimes prosecutors to lawfully prosecute the President and his alleged war criminals. It is not either or, but it can be a dual, parallel track. There is no reason to wait. And the States have the power to prosecute the President.

* * *

Hitler was guilty of genocide. Applying the Republican’s lesson, he might as well demand of those he abused, an apology.

Clearly, the Republicans are rightfully offended, as they should be, for similarly permitting war crimes against prisoners of war. Indeed, if we were to follow the Republican denials to their logical conclusion, we may begin to comprehend the Iranian leadership disgust with the Israelis, forever invoking the holocaust as a pretext for Palestinians to endure home invasions.

Just as some call for Bush and Kerry to end their bickering, it's time for the Israelis to stop leaning on their WWII history as an excuse to continue illegal abuse of the Palestinians.

* * *

Side Show: Using A Sham Accusation in Blogosphere As A Smokescreen

Short version: Kerry's incident reminded me of how some bloggers will accuse others of doing something, yet dismiss reasonable explanations. Upon close examination, the accusor has engaged in the similar conduct, but demanded others accept their explanations. I have first hand experience with being targeted for not recognizing someone else was not serious withtheir words or invitation. Indeed, despite my written apology for my confusion, and causing unintended offense, my attempt to diplomatically resolve an issue was again rebuffed. Even when explicitly state what I meant, some imputed a contradicatory conclusion and motivation wholly at odds with my express intention and words.

Long Version: Summarized above; Skip this if you do not want to read about blogs.

The Republicans hope to turn the burden of proof and accountability from them to something else. The ploy works if the target is not anticipating the outrageous maneuver; or fails to comprehend how close they are to undermining the credibility of the one making the absurd accusations.

It's not unusual for people in the blogosphere to make the same accusations. What's absurd is when those who accuse others of doing things are implying motives to others; but failing to hold themselves accountable for the words they've similarly used. For example, the fear isn't credibly that someone else is or isn't linking; the issue is that someone else dares to provide another view outside the blog-host's control.

Consider links and blogs. If someone were to have an independent view, and that comment took more than a few lines to communicate, one might think that it was reasonable to provide a summary comment, then include a link to the expanded comment. Readers would have the choice whether to go to the expanded comments; or skip the link and summary altogether.

The irony is when blog hosts complain that others are using their blog as a site to promote other blogs. Upon closer examination, it is not unusual for those making the charge to have similarly posted other helpful information, and defended their actions by saying they were hoping to provide useful comments.

Thus, when a blog host, with a demonstrated track record for providing additional clarifying comments in other forums, rebukes visitors to their site for doing the same, the issue is hypocrisy.

___ Why is a blog host up in arms about others doing exactly what they have done?

___ If the blog hosts current comments -- that someone is using a link to promote a site -- are true, how do they reconcile previous comments they've made explaining their similar comments?

___ Was the blog host misleading the public before; or were their remarks correct, in their effort to disclose the purpose of their posting?

___ However, if their original aim of posting information in another forum was not to provide additional information, would this not lead others to conclude that their accusations in another incident really aid more about their original defenses which were cursory?

___ If someone has a problem with others linking to expanded comments, why do they bother to permit any comments or links at all?

___ Is there any merit to someone saying that, because someone has provided a link, that the person providing the HTML-link is necessarily engaged in promotion?

___ Suppose the allegation were true -- that someone was providing a comment using a link -- what does this say about the blog hosts original defense of their commenting on another forum: Are we to believe them; or should we accept their defense of similar assistance in one situation; but accept their accusations about others in another?

____ What does it mean when a blog host has previously engaged in linking, providing additional information, or responding; yet, they subsequently prohibit others from doing the same. Is this person a hypocrite; or have they forgotten what they have done many years ago?

___ What kind of evidence is required to show that someone who has a track record of doing what they currently decry, is a hypocrite?

____ How many quotes would you want to see to show that someone who (a) publicly rebukes others for making comments; has (b) similarly provided additional comments in another forum?

___ What does it say about a person who manages a blog when they become unglued, upset, or frazzled by someone who dares to challenge their inconsistency, abuse, or ease to which they are upset? The lesson applies to Republicans, especially given the speed to which Allen’s handlers attacked on camera someone simply asking a question. Americans are absurdly perplexed why insurgents have lost confidence in the American model.

___ If the comments posted truly had no effect, were convoluted, or inept, how does the blog host explain the relative ease to which national campaigns, relying on that poster's efforts, were put into effect?

___ If the content of blog visitors comments were truly inept, convoluted, and disjoined, does the blog host have any explanation why the words may or may not have been publicly cited in the literature around the globe?

___ What is to be said of someone who, claiming in one forum they are providing information; yet in another forum they rebuke those who do the same; does their original explanation fall apart, or is their subsequent attack unfounded?

___ How far back in history is the public allowed to dig into someone's comments to find their inconsistency; is there a barrier, statute of limitations, or time limit to how far we should go back in time to contrast their current conduct with what they may have said or done elsehwere?

___ If someone were truly interested in promotion, as accused, why would they remain anonymous; conversely, if someone wanted to remain anonymous, but was publicly identified, to what extent are the effect of their words defeated?

___ Do the words the person offers anonymously stand on their own; or do we change our view of their words simply because we have an image, history, or a label to apply to their persona?

___ If one's words stood on their own, would it not be reasonable to assume that their words would rise to the occasion, achieve a national platform, and this would occur without any promotion, no linking, and that they could conceivably live in a hermitically isolated shell, yet the world would suddenly come across their words, and realize what they are saying is credible?

___ What is to be said of someone who, despite promotion, publicity, and media attempts to get attention to a cause, their public standing falls; or their readership declines; or the truth of their manipulation is known; or they are seen to offer no solutions to what they claim is a problem?

___ What happens if someone has used deception to induce others to believe their ability to do something; but when push comes to shove; they have no results to point to; nor a credible solution to offer; nor a viable plan to guide others to address the fundamental issues.

* * *

Errors, Accusations, Smokescreens

It's one thing for the Republicans to accuse someone of saying something; quite another to discover the Republicans have said the same things in the past; or they have engaged in egregious abuses of war crimes, only to destroy evidence and stop investigations.

These Republicans have waged illegal warfare, but want the person who points at their quagmire as the one who owes an apology. Indeed, the Republicans are incapable of apologizing. They have no defense. Because the Republicans refuse to adjust, are stuck, have engaged in illegal warfare, and show no remorse, that's sufficient evidence to argue that they should be lawfully executed upon conviction of war crimes.

* * *

The point of Kerry's comments had nothing to do with military personnel, but with the President, as the failed Commander in Chief. However, even if the remarks were about the troops, Kerry has the right and responsibility to speak about defective Joint Staff leadership. It remains to be understood what this nation received for the millions of dollars spent providing higher education to defense leaders, only to get silent assent to illegal war crimes.

Hitler would be proud of this Joint Staff for their poodle, lap-dog acquiescence to war crimes, not to mention the DoD civilian corps and contractors who fabricated the war for profit motives.

* * *

DNC Leadership

The trap the Democrats are falling into is that they want to win the election more than they want to assert principles or stand up for themselves. By refusing to challenge the GOP, they may undermine the momentum, as Pelosi did with the call to keep impeachment off the table.

Even if the DNC were to take control of both Houses, it's not clear that they're willing to rally behind their own as the Republicans have. The speedy DNC defections raise doubts about the claimed benefits of controlling either chamber of Congress. Indeed, the DNC may control the agenda and the committees, but if the rank and file are willing to break ranks to play nice, a DNC victory will be meaningless.

At best, the defections show that the RNC, if they are the minority party, could manipulate the DNC to respond to the minority agenda. This doesn't say much for the DNC's claim that the RNC has absolute power; the lessons for the DNC is to learn how to prevail over the RNC despite the DNC having been a minority party.

* * *

Kerry's success is the reaction, desperation, and focus. The White House, Joint Staff, and apologists for those who engaged in war crimes, have unsuccessfully changed the subject from illegal, reckless war management to something else.

The flaw with the White House and Republican strategy, in going after Kerry, is that like a cartoon, their response says more than the original message. The White House once claimed a war time President could not afford the distraction of accountability or oversight; yet they find the time to demand others apologize for the President's war crimes, recklessness and buffoonery.

Kerry is not a candidate; there's no credible reason, other than desperation, the White House would take two contradictory positions:

A. Claiming Kerry is meaningless, and in error; yet

B. Giving him Presidential attention.

If Kerry had no influence or power, regardless his election status, the White House would not give him any attention. Kerry's power is his ability to state in any forum, from a position of credibility and principled opposition to illegal warfare in Vietnam, that this Administration's failures are linked with failed education, and a lack of deference to the informed intelligence community. Leaders who fail to study the lessons of history become history.

Like the Joint Staff sham-demand for an apology for a cartoon, and the White House arm twisting of the JAGs prior to passing the illegal Military Commissions Bill, the White House incorrectly believes that by compelling Kerry to apologize, they will have triumphed.

Even if Kerry's words were twisted to implicate the American military personnel, alleging their stupidity, the American joint staff has a problem: Despite funding expensive Doctoral dissertations, the result belies informed planning. America's fiasco in Iraq is the fruit of a failed American education system: Leaders failed to credibly translate lessons into results. There's no reason other nations should seriously embrace any educational goals of this Administration, especially when the Americans refuse to learn, much less teach.

It doesn't matter what Kerry does or doesn't do; or how he does or doesn't respond. The weakness of the White House and Republican-apologists is their waiting for, and celebrating after receiving, an apology while more serious issues remain unaddressed: War crimes accountability, illegal warfare, and a breakdown of American government legitimacy.

Whether the outburst is from the Vice President, a group of Allen Thugs, or a Congressional committee hoping to impose payback for discussing crimes within the ranks of the Republicans, Americans can confidently know prosecutors have ample evidence to lawfully convict and prosecute the alleged war criminals in the Executive Branch: The President, Vice President, Addington, Gonzalez, Keisler, and the DoJ Staff which remains complicit with war crimes planning.

* * *

Dissecting the Comments

Original text in Kerry's written, prepared remarks, according to Amy Brundage, Kerry's spokesman:

"Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush."

What Kerry said was something else:

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Some focused on the words as they were transcribed from audio to text, without the original emphasis. However, if you listen to the remarks, you'll hear emphasis on the " stuck" in Iraq, as if to say that you're stuck in a quagmire -- only applicable to the White House. Kerry didn't equally emphasize, "stuck in Iraq"; nor did he emphasize only, "Iraq."

* * *

If Kerry wanted to label Americans uneducated for failing to stand up to the President for his war crimes, he would have said just that: Americans can be lazy and stupid. The President, despite the legal vulnerability he has in facing a state-level prosecution outside Congress, has not been subjected to any war crimes indictment by any of the fifty states.

Some Americans incorrectly believe only Congress can save them. Meanwhile, the German war crimes prosecutors have expanded the investigation into Rendition, and are working to indict American civilians and contractors for war crimes. There's nothing for Congress to point to say, "Yes, we're actively doing this"; nor can the American public point to an effort to say, "We have criminal charges in this court." Because Americans refuse to work within an Article III forum, insurgents continue taking the dispute to the battlefield.

* * *

Consider the larger issue of whether there is any merit to the DoD-Republican claim that Kerry's attack was on the military. If Kerry was making a comment about the military's education, he shouldn’t have necessarily isolated the consequences to being assigned to Iraq.

DoD personnel can be stationed anywhere. If Kerry wanted to insult the Military, he could have directly stated, "If you're a stupid American, you might get stuck in DoD." He didn't say that. Kerry didn't confine his remark to a unit, but to a location; this analogy is only applicable to the President. US military forces are stationed around the globe; the only place the President is stuck is Iraq.

Again, Kerry's comment, when examined in terms of what he didn't say -- not mentioning a unit, branch, or Executive department -- sheds light on his motivation: To comment on the President's quagmire in Iraq. There is no credible case to be made Kerry intended something else; nor can anyone argue that because the public is confused, that Kerry meant what the Public has been led to believe. Kerry correctly emphasized the needed words to make his effect understood. It's a separate issue why the American public, despite the Kerry clarification, refuse to accept what Kerry intended, as opposed to what others are imputing, or his subsequent apology.

* * *

American Education: Why Did Geneva Training Not Sink In?

However, even if Kerry's statements were construed to be an attack on the troops -- which they weren't, but let's play along -- there's no explanation why, despite the American troop’s capability and education, they have refused to obey illegal orders.

The 5100.77 Laws of War program, outlining US troop requirements of Geneva, explicitly impose on the Secretary of Defense a requirement to train troops on the laws of war. There's no reason to be impressed with American military personnel who, despite the legal requirement to comply with Geneva and disobey illegal orders, have volunteered to participate in an illegal war of aggression.

Geneva also imposes a legal obligation on the US as an occupying power to preserve stability in Iraq It's not credible to assert, based on the combat losses and quagmire this Joint Staff has created through reckless management of an insurgency, how the American public can credibly believe claims that the American military personnel are fine, well educated. They may have education, but that doesn’t mean they're competent, leaders, or effective; if they were, they would be winning, not losing.

Whether the American public wants to blame the President, the Joint Staff, or the troops makes little difference: They've jointly agreed, volunteered, and have freely embarked on this continuing illegal war of choice. Again, we're getting into the territory of Vietnam: "We didn't lose a single battle, it was the politiicans fault." That may be true, but the Armed forces were supposed to have applied that lesson and structured military training, doctrine, and politicking to ensure this would not happen again. It doesn't matter how well the troops are trained, educated, or equipped when they are directed to engage in illegal warfare and occupation; and the troops follow those illegal orders.

Alleged war criminals, who continue to volunteer to participate in an illegal occupation can hardly be called intelligent. Call them what they are: Alleged war criminals. Hats off to those who assert the orders are illegal, resign, or refuse to participate in what remains an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. There was no imminent threat. The war was based on fiction. It makes no difference that Congress authorized force; the President knew, or should have known, the state of the non-existent WMD; the lack of connection to 9-11; and the progress of negotiations with Saddam, securing his surrender.

Nobody has anything to "apologize" for. The only relevant issue is whether the President and Vice President will ultimately be held to account for war crimes. Whether the DNC does or does not control Congress is meaningless; a war crimes prosecution doesn't occur in the legislature, but the Judicial Branch.

Pelosi's claim that impeachment off the table doesn't mean that there will be no investigation, or prosecutions. Pelosi may or may not be speaker; and she may or may not get re-elected. War crimes prosecutors are not legislators, they have the power to indict. Whether the Article III court does or does not choose to lawfully execute the President is a different matter.

* * *

The DNC may have been rolled over to the sham RNC outrage [Shocked! Shocked!], but what's a solution to this leadership problem; what institutional reforms are needed if one party abuses power, manipulates the public, and the citizenry supports/or fails to prosecute illegal war crimes; is there a way to compel leaders to stand up to tyrannical abuse of power?



Other views: DNC standing up to bullies.

Steve's Comments.