1. That's not a real dictionary. 2. It wasn't "honed" as in "he honed his argument", it was "honed in". He meant "homed in on."
-Miss Grundy M&K DuPree wrote: > Well...whether he homed or honed it, according to this article Cheney > has been focusing on a message that betrays the historical work of his > party, or at least certain members of his party. Thanks Keith. > Now, according to my _Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, > Eleventh Edition_: > "honed": to make more acute, intense, or effective; and > "homed": to proceed or direct attention toward an objective. > Given the context in which the word in the article is used, I > vote for "honed." However, from the article it appears the present > administration has honed its' public policy abilities and homed in > hard on my country's pocketbook for spending on stuff that benefits a > few at the expense of many...as usual. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > To: <biofuel@sustainablelists.org <mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Biofuel] The Blame Game > > > "has honed in on" > > > > HOMED!!! > > > > > > Can't anyone write anymore??? > > > > -Miss Grundy > > > > Keith Addison wrote: > > > >>http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3588 > >>Right Web | Analysis | > >> > >>The Blame Game > >> > >>Tom Barry, IRC | October 11, 2006 > >> > >>IRC Right Web > >>rightweb.irc-online.org > >> > >>Stumping for Republican candidates across the country in recent > >>weeks, Vice President Dick Cheney has honed in on a particular > >>message: Terrorists are "still lethal, still desperately trying to > >>hit us again," and Democrats are no good at security (Washington > >>Post, October 8, 2006). The administration and the Republican Party > >>are again hawking the security issue prior to elections. Not only are > >>they saying that they are the only ones who can be trusted to protect > >>the nation's security, but they are also trying to burnish their own > >>security credentials by tarnishing those of the Clinton > >>administration. > >> > >>As part of this campaign, conservative pundits have attacked the > >>record of former President Bill Clinton, arguing that he missed > >>chances to destroy terrorist networks. During a highly publicized > >>September 24 interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Clinton accused > >>Wallace and Fox of undertaking a "conservative hit job" on his > >>administration's national security record and of neglecting to > >>adequately question President George W. Bush's antiterrorism efforts. > >> > >>Just as the former president thought it necessary to establish the > >>political context for the debate over who bears responsibility for > >>not preventing 9/11, it is also helpful to put the current > >>fear-mongering campaign into recent historical context-especially > >>since none of the pre-9/11 efforts had anything to do with terrorism. > >> > >>Early in his first term, Clinton faced a concerted attack on his > >>administration for being supposedly weak on defense when several > >>hawkish congressional figures and outside pressure groups tried to > >>revive Reagan-era missile defense programs. In May 1993, Clinton's > >>Secretary of Defense Les Aspin produced the administration's first > >>Quadrennial Defense Review, a periodic Pentagon study assessing the > >>country's national defense posture. Hailed by the administration as a > >>"bottom-up review" of defense needs and priorities, the assessment > >>concluded that plans for a full-blown missile defense system were > >>neither technically feasible, nor financially possible. Aspin ordered > >>the closure of the Pentagon's Strategic Defense Initiative Office, > >>downgrading the plans by assigning them to a new Ballistic Missile > >>Defense Organization. > >> > >>This outraged several hardline defense outfits like the Center for > >>Security Policy (CSP) and High Frontier, as well as the defense lobby > >>led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW. With their > >>Republican allies a minority in Congress, the missile defense lobby > >>mobilized a coordinated grassroots congressional and media campaign > >>to boost support for a combination of national and regional missile > >>defense systems. Joining CSP in orchestrating the campaign were a > >>number of other rightist policy outfits, including the American > >>Conservative Union, the S.A.F.E. Foundation, the Coalition to Protect > >>Americans Now, and Americans for Missile Defense, which together > >>represented a formidable coalition of social conservatives, > >>neoconservatives, unionists, and hardline Republican nationalists. > >> > >>The Coalition to Protect Americans Now revived Reagan's > >>window-of-vulnerability claim in its demand to abolish arms control > >>treaties and construct a defense system to "protect our families from > >>ballistic missile attack." It sponsored a website featuring a map of > >>the United States where, by selecting a town's location, a reader > >>could receive often misleading information about which countries had > >>or soon supposedly would have the capability to strike it with an > >>intercontinental missile. > >> > >>Further enflaming the hardliners was a 1995 CIA National Intelligence > >>Estimate (NIE) that asserted that apart from Russia or China, no > >>rogue state could possibly pose a long-range missile threat to the > >>United States before 2010. In response, congressional hawks, who > >>after the 1996 elections controlled both houses of Congress, promoted > >>a Team B-type evaluation of the NIE, resulting in the creation of a > >>blue-ribbon panel known as the Gates Commission (after its chairman, > >>former CIA Director Robert Gates). In its 1996 report, the commission > >>concluded that the technical obstacles facing rogue states in > >>developing intercontinental missile capability were even greater than > >>those described by the CIA. > >> > >>Unsatisfied with this outcome, the "peace-through-strength" lobby > >>pushed their congressional allies to establish various "independent" > >>commissions. Congressional figures affiliated with CSP successfully > >>lobbied for the creation of two commissions, both to be headed by > >>Donald Rumsfeld, to examine the ballistic missile threat and > >>space-based defense capabilities. The unstated agenda of these > >>commissions was to increase pressure on the Clinton administration to > >>support new weapons programs and substantially increase major > >>military spending. Both of the so-called "Rumsfeld Commissions," > >>which undertook their work in the second half of the 1990s, assumed > >>that the country faced near-term threats from a "strategic > >>competitor" such as China, or a "rogue" like North Korea. > >> > >>Both commissions received funding from defense spending bills, using > >>taxpayer revenues to subsidize them. Although billed as independent > >>and nonpartisan, the two commissions-guided by Rumsfeld and his top > >>deputy Stephen Cambone-served to reinforce the positions of > >>administration critics and military boosters. > >> > >>The Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United > >>States issued its report on July 15, 1998. The report contended that > >>"rogue states" such as Iraq, North Korea, or Iran could deploy > >>ballistic missiles within "five years of a decision to do so," > >>contrary to the CIA's estimate that it would take at least 10-15 > >>years. > >> > >>Although initially challenged by the director of central > >>intelligence, a little more than a year later, in September 1999 the > >>CIA released a new NIE that was substantially more alarmist than its > >>previous one. It predicted that North Korea could test a ballistic > >>missile capable of hitting the United States "at any time" and that > >>Iran could test such a weapon "in the next few years." Commenting on > >>the new threat assessment, Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA), a main sponsor of > >>the Rumsfeld Commission, congratulated himself: "It was the largest > >>turnaround ever in the history of the [intelligence] agency." House > >>Majority Leader Newt Gingrich (R-GA) was similarly ecstatic, saying > >>the commission's conclusion was the "most important warning about our > >>national security system since the end of the Cold War." > >> > >>Although CIA officials argued that the new estimate was the result of > >>"improved trade-craft," many experts attributed the revision to > >>pressure from hardline Republicans, the considerable influence of > >>Rumsfeld, and a campaign by Israel to focus attention on what the > >>Likud government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saw as a rising > >>missile threat from Iran. A few years later, Joseph Cirincione, > >>then-director of the nonproliferation program at the Carnegie > >>Endowment for International Peace, argued that the CIA's 1995 NIE > >>"holds up pretty well in hindsight." He accused Weldon and other > >>Republican hawks of developing "a conscious political strategy" to > >>attack the CIA's estimate because "it stood in the way of a > >>passionate belief in missile defense." > >> > >>The second Rumsfeld Commission, the Commission to Assess United > >>States National Security Space Management and Organization, was not > >>so much a critique of the government's NIEs as an all-out exhortation > >>to militarize space. The commission found in its January 2001 report > >>that it is "possible to project power through and from space in > >>response to events anywhere in the world Š Having this capability > >>would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a > >>conflict, an extraordinary military advantage." > >> > >>Paralleling a similar assessment prepared by the Project for the New > >>American Century (PNAC) in its Rebuilding America's Defenses report > >>(2000), the Rumsfeld space commission argued that because the United > >>States is without peer among "space-faring" nations, the country is > >>all the more vulnerable to "state and non-state actors hostile to the > >>United States and its interests." In other words, U.S. enemies would > >>seek to destroy the U.S. economy together with its ability to fight > >>high-tech wars by attacking global positioning satellites and other > >>"space assets." > >> > >>Another commission, chaired by the controversial former director of > >>central intelligence, John Deutch, was established in 1998 to assess > >>whether the Clinton administration was failing to adequately monitor > >>and counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, > >>particularly in China. The Deutch Commission questioned the > >>administration's ability to assure China's compliance with nuclear > >>export controls and expressed alarm that U.S. bond traders might be > >>helping to finance China's weapons industry. > >> > >>Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA) led another commission on China. A > >>recipient of CSP's annual "Keeper of the Flame" award, Cox identified > >>Chinese-Americans as suspects in leaking nuclear weapons data to the > >>Chinese military. His commission, called the House Select Committee > >>on U.S. National Security and Military/National Concerns with the > >>People's Republic of China, issued a report in January 1999 accusing > >>China of large-scale nuclear espionage. The report successfully > >>sparked widespread fear among the public and policymakers that China > >>was stealing U.S. nuclear secrets through payments to highly placed > >>nuclear weapons scientists such as Wen Ho Lee, who worked at the Los > >>Angeles Nuclear Laboratory-and was later cleared of espionage charges. > >> > >>Paralleling the congressional efforts were campaigns by various > >>hardline and neoconservative pressure groups. PNAC and the Heritage > >>Foundation issued a joint statement in August 1999 strongly > >>criticizing what they perceived as the lack of a firm U.S. commitment > >>to Taiwan. "Efforts by the Clinton administration to pressure Taipei > >>to cede its sovereignty and to adopt Beijing's understanding of 'One > >>China' are dangerous and directly at odds with American strategic > >>interests, past U.S. policy, and American democratic ideals," argued > >>the statement. > >> > >>Concerned that the Clinton administration was doing nothing to > >>address the viability of an aging nuclear weapons stockpile, Sen. Jon > >>Kyl (R-AZ) insisted in 1998 that the Department of Defense create yet > >>another independent evaluation commission-the Panel to Assess the > >>Reliability, Safety, and Security of the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile, or > >>the "Foster Panel" after its chair John Foster. Kyl, a proponent of > >>flexible uses of nuclear weapons, was among the leading opponents of > >>the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which had Clinton's full support. > >> > >>In the early 1970s, Foster had been a key instigator within the Ford > >>administration's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board for establishing > >>the Team B exercise. Foster directed the Lawrence Livermore National > >>Laboratory in the early 1960s and was also a member of the Committee > >>on the Present Danger (CPD) in the 1970s. Foster also had strong > >>connections with defense industries. Predictably, his panel > >>recommended that the U.S. government authorize the speedy production > >>of new nukes, smaller nukes, and high-tech nuclear weapons that could > >>reach precise targets. > >> > >>The Middle East also occupied center stage for the threat escalators > >>during this time-but not because of the threat of non-state Islamist > >>terrorists. Through PNAC, CSP, and the Committee for Peace and > >>Security in the Gulf (CPSG), the neoconservatives pressured Clinton > >>to authorize support for the Iraqi expatriates of the Iraqi National > >>Congress (INC) under the leadership of Ahmed Chalabi and to plan > >>military operations that would overthrow Saddam Hussein. > >>Congressional Republicans also mounted anti-Hussein initiatives in > >>1998. Randy Scheunemann, later a PNAC board member, served at the > >>time as the national security aide to House Majority Leader Trent > >>Lott (R-MS), drafting the Iraq Liberation Act, a bill cosponsored by > >>Lott and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), which allocated $98 million to > >>the INC and made the overthrow of Hussein official government policy. > >> > >>While they succeeded in pressuring Clinton on many fronts, > >>neoconservatives and allied hardliners failed to push his > >>administration to fully adopt many issues on their agenda. They saw > >>Clinton as soft on Israeli security and despised his sponsorship of > >>the Oslo Accords and his criticism of the rightist Likud policies. > >> > >>The irony is that despite all the current rhetoric about how > >>Democrats have failed to take terrorism seriously-a failure that > >>purportedly goes back to the early days of the Clinton > >>presidency-hawkish Republicans and their neoconservative allies spent > >>the better part of the 1990s advocating policies that doubtless > >>distracted key policymakers from paying adequate attention to real > >>security issues. Conservatives were raising the alarm over space > >>weapons, China, Iraq, North Korea-not terrorism, a threat they chose > >>to ignore. When George W. Bush arrived in office, his administration > >>focused on all the issues that his party had put in the pipeline, > >>instead of on more pressing concerns. > >> > >>Tom Barry is policy director of the International Relations Center > >>(www.irc-online.org <http://www.irc-online.org>) and a contributing > writer to Right Web > >>(rightweb.irc-online.org). > >> > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>Biofuel mailing list > >>Biofuel@sustainablelists.org > >>http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >> > >>Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > >>http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >> > >>Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > messages): > >>http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Biofuel mailing list > > Biofuel@sustainablelists.org <mailto:Biofuel@sustainablelists.org> > > > http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > > > Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 > messages): > > http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Biofuel mailing list >Biofuel@sustainablelists.org >http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): >http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/ > > > _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
