~

Another post is up. Thankfully, I'll not be disrupting dialogue.

Cole D' Biers. I love that word to the Core. In Greek, Hamartia.

It's the fatal flaw that can lead to the downfall. It's the Tragic.

In Greek, 'fault, failure, guilt' and it's the True moral guilt.

Hamartia was used in Aristotle's 'Poetics' in ancient references.

Not in vogue. Oh, out of style ? 'Sophisticated' society.

Not in vogue.

Woe Repent.

Thanks Cole D' Biers.

Thanks R.M.P., W.T.

Why you always make me wish to sip a Belgium Leffe Bier. Why?

Oh, it's too way too early. Interesting, but my computer was Off.

During the "Kerfluffle yesterday? What wild mind days.

I took a moment to comment on Joan Walsh to imbibe mint tea.

So, it sure confused. It's the way it is. it don't mean nothin'.

Cole D'Biers. I miss William Timberman especially. Yea @ old UT.

I'd have not hung around to try and learn the libertine language.

The Mind can amaze. I thought your I-P, note meant:`I promise.

Israel-Palestine. The mind can be sullied. Dirt, grime, crime, sad.

A well-intended word gets lost in Time. War abounds. Oh, tragic.

~

No-wish for my name to be debated.`Far From Madding Crowds.

Silence.

I read this. Perhaps it can be placed in worthless archive. Justice.

Justice is the set and consistent purpose which gives to every man his do. Jurisprudence is the knowledge of things divine and human, the science of the just and the unjust...

The precepts of the law are these: to live honestly, to injure no one, and to give to every man his due. The study of law consist if two branches, law public, and law private. The former relates to the welfare of the Roman State; the latter to the advantage of the individual citizen. Of private laws we then we may say that it is of threefold origin, being collected from the precepts of nature, from those of the laws of nations, or from those of the civil law of Rome.

The law of nature is that which She has taught all animals; a law not peculiar to the human race, but shared by all living creatures, whether denizens of the air, the dry land, or the sea.

Hence comes the union of male and female, which we call marriage; hence the procreation and rearing of children, for this is a law by the knowledge of what we see even the lower animals are distinguished. The civil laws of Rome, and the laws of nature, differ from each other thus.

The laws of every people governed by statutes and customs are partly peculiar to itself, partly common to all man/women kind. Those rules which a state enacts for its own members are peculiar itself, and are called civil laws; those rules prescribed by natural reason for all men are observed by all people alike,

and they are called the law of nations.

from: EMPEROR JUSTINIAN THE GREAT.

from: THE INSTITUTES OF JUSTINIAN (1896).

The thing about David Gregory that seems hard to side-step at first is that he's homely, charming, and does a killer immitation/parody of Tom Brokaw. He can be funny and entertaining and personable, so viewers naturally want to like him. And networks and cable news outfits seem to think that is more important than actual research and factual reporting.

Like just about every politician in our country (as Glenn has correctly pointed out in his fine article about Israel's latest version of overkill) our "newspeople" take a standard line: Israel has the right to protect itself, and we support it in this latest conflict -- and in all others -- without question.

Wouldn't it be interesting for a man in Gregory's new position to ask: Why were the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto heroes when they fought back and killed the Germans who were starving them to death, yet why do we now automatically see the suffering, ghetto-bound Palestinians who fight back against Israel as terrorists? Hhhmmmmmmm?

Television journalism is an oxymoron, and, fool that I am, I keep watching at my appointed hour, hoping for an actual (if accidental) news story to appear. The same goes for the "Meet the Press" Sunday talk shows, where conformity to the standard party line is the norm and where real news and unvarnished points-of-view seem more like afterthoughts or accidents.

Good for you Glenn in dealing with these recent subjects as you have. It takes courage, I know. But some of us out here know and appreciate it when we see it. You bet we do.

From the link to a White House press conference transcript you posted I found the following. The first point I want to make is tangential to anything you were writing about in your article. However as it is an important point I'll make it any way before moving on to the point that does directly pertain to what you wrote. This is Bush on March 6 03:

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

March 6, 2003 8:02 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world. This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers.

The man Khalid had only been arrested 5 days before and all ready G. Bloody. Bush thought it appropriate to gainsay, undermine, presume the innocence or guilt and quite irregularly supply a steer to those people properly authorized to carry out interviews and gather such evidence that might arise and format it in the manner necessary for a proper trial.

We do many things wrongly here in Britain. But had a Prime Minister been so loose tongued and as presumptuous as to pronounce on a man's guilt before even the police had had chance to interview him there would have been an uproar. News paper editors, Law Lords and Police Chiefs would all have made public statements telling the said Prime Minister in no uncertain terms to wind his neck in, get back in his box and wait for the trial and its outcome like any other citizen would have been obliged to do.

Was there a similar out cry in America? Don't bother answering. Still stumbling around in a state of self indulgent group post traumatic stress disorder two years after the fact this extremely suspect irregularity probably went unrecognised and buried under an avalanche of other execrable irregularities that were happening daily.

Now here is my main point. First a short description of what happened to Khalid after he was apprehended:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time. In September 2006, the U.S. government announced it had moved Mohammed from a secret prison to the facility at Guantánamo Bay.[5] Human Rights Watch and he himself have claimed that the American authorities have tortured him, a claim that was admitted to be accurate on February 4, 2008, when it was revealed that he was subjected to the controversial technique of "simulated drowning," also called "waterboarding."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed

Bearing in mind that directly above Glen, when you said the following was it based on what Khalid might have told his captors? This is what you said in your article:

"If you ask Al Qaeda why they fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled buildings in response to American hegemony (and endless military actions) in their region of the world, they'll explain that jihad is hell and anything done to advance it is justified."

You see Glen, if you are basing that statement on what Khalid said several problems arise.

First, you would be basing your view on what was said or what had been extracted from an individual who had been subject to torture. If you have instead come to the conclusion that al Qaeda have admitted to flying planes into skyscrapers from other sourses could you provide us with the links that so persuaded you of this. I'm sure a lot of us will be all ears as no doubt will be the FBI who at least have no evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement. Confirming link:

Ed Haas: “FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

A second point I would like to make is this one. In my first letter to Salon I suggested to you that you might want to take a look at the NIST Final Report into WTC7 released this year. You saw fit not to comment on my suggestion. Fair enough. But if like so many journos and commentators you are going to "plead the fifth" about 9/11 could I humbly request you make it total. You see there might be others out there who have not thought fit to make their own enquiries into 9/11 and when reading statements like the one above might think, like so many others did regards WMD after Powell's UN speech that the matter was all well and truly done and dusted.

This is NOT the case at all!

In fact not only are an increasing amount of highly credible people including increasingly concerned members of the American Society for Civil Engineers going over NIST with a fine tooth comb but suggestions are now being made that certain members of NIST's investigating team had better look closely at what they have written because legal people are beginning to move in and compile dossiers that could lead to criminal charges of creating a false alibi.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY

So I would be grateful if you can clear this point up. What has convinced you Glen Greenwald that al Qeada has admitted to your satifaction that they flew jets into the towers?

(P.S. It would be a shame if you of all people had to wait until the fucking elephant in the room that everyone insists on ignoring had to go a die and stink the place out with its rotting carcass before you woke up and started paying attention.)