On the President Bush Oval Office Speech

"Deer Bush - We're listening,
our ears are poised for your
insightful new revelations,
but you just aren't speaking to us."

On the President Bush
Oval Office Speech

I appreciated the tone of the President's speech tonight, and I am one of those non-defeatist, sincere critics of whom he spoke. I think I'm one of few bloggers who have actually put forward a moral vision to counter my criticisms.

The speech sounded like a constant plea for us to believe we're not losing in Iraq. Which means we are losing in Iraq. What did the president offer to convince us we're winners in Iraq today? An admission that he has made life-taking errors and his word that he has learned from those dreadful mistakes. Soon, the Pentagon will ask for another hundred billion dollars from Congress. Was this speech worth another one hundred billion of our tax dollars? Not if you ask me. The Oval Office has proven itself to be incompetent.

President Bush needs to internationalize this effort - making his plan for the defeat of terror in this world a multilateral goal - a unified front with alternatives to military occupation rather than a unilateral war-only goal. This Middle East intervention was never meant for America to handle alone. We're currently looking at a small, well-paid coalition of limited nations that has grown smaller and will likely disappear in 2006. With that coalition dissipated, we are looking at a future of severely impractical goals for our troops to handle alone. If we love those troops and if we want their morale to soar, let's tell them they're coming home. Let's create a vision to end terrorism that the world will rally around. Let's talk about a success we can all get behind.

Until I hear a hint of that, President Bush's fine talk is vain - "like sounding brass and hopeless gain."

The use of Longfellow's "....the right prevail with peace on earth good will to men.." was insulting to my Christian sensibility. The sadness of this song reflected HW Longfellow's bitter feelings about the Civil war because it divided the nation (I wonder how he'd feel about our divided nation and the lack of peace on earth today because of America's elective war?) I don't think any of us should be using Longfellow's heartfelt words for politics- that's a cheap Christmas stunt. The song calls only for peace. Our nation is not at peace this year - not even close. We're being told to expect more death and violence.

_______________

+ Most blatant false choice:

From the Bush speech:

"My conviction is this: We do not create terrorists by fighting them. We invite terrorism by ignoring them.."

There's more way than one to reduce terrorism.


+ I thought terrorists hated a free society!?

From the Bush speech:

"Behind the images of chaos that the terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains..."

Judging from public poll results revealing a lack confidence in the leadership of the Iraq war, "steady gains" must not be camera-friendly or ratings-worthy. Say! What was all that embedded journalism about - if not a creation for cameras? Whatever happened to the embedded stories?


+ Most false political labeling:

From the Bush speech:

"Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts..."

Most dissent about this war has been intelligent, concerned, and constructive. For example, there is nothing partisan about a Roman Catholic who trusts the Pope's leadership in saying this war was immoral and unjust. There is nothing defeatist about understanding the cause in which the nation is engaged, but expecting a moral and civil approach to that engagement. There is nothing defeatist about searching for alternatives to "the course." On Monday, Dec. 19, the president said to a member of the press corps who asked about the government spying on its citizens (FISA):

"If I were you I'd be asking these questions, too."

If that's true, why does he turn around and call those who ask similar questions "defeatists?" It's nothing but politically disingenuous.

+ President Bush: It's not "what you'll allow"..it's HOW you'll do it!

From the Bush speech:

"To retreat before victory would be an act of recklesseness and dishonor, and I will not allow it...."

I'm certain that Republican Senator John Warner would disagree with this statement. The word "victory" may come back to bite the President in the butt.

From a great PBS discussion on November 30th:

JIM LEHRER: Do you believe then, Senator, if I hear you correctly, that forget this word "victory" and substitute "successful mission"?

SEN. JOHN WARNER: Well, that's just one senator's view. I guess I've been around too long and been in too many experiences over the past half century...The last real victory was World War II. I was a young sailor then in the training phases of that war. And I remember the outpouring after VE Day and VJ Day into the streets of America and the parades. But then I also served in Korea with the Marines. And I remember coming home and people really didn't want to know where we were.

There's an honest debate in this country about how we got into this war and how we have failed to achieve success in many missions. Bush says he's changing his strategy and tactics as he learns from mistakes on the ground. It's not "what he'll allow" that's important, but HOW he'll achieve success in various missions.


+ Victory is a word that no two people can define in the same way when they speak about our engagement in Iraq.

From the Bush speech:

"Our forces in Iraq are on the road to victory, and that is the road that will lead them home..."

Senator Jack Reed commented on November 30:

"...this notion of a complete victory is too amorphous. I think it's too amorphous for the military commanders. They want an objective that is clear-cut, that is in some respects measurable. And the president alluded to that in some respects when he talked about a stable country, one that's not going to collapse because of internal division, and one also that's not going to offer a haven to terrorists.

Those are I think more achievable objectives but once again it undercuts the president's more grandiose theme of this democratic transformation of the Middle East. But I think that's a more clear-cut objective. I think you can plan for that. I think also you can dedicate resources. And I also agree with the chairman in that this is not just a military strategy. It has to have an economic component and it has to have a political component. We've made progress, but I don't think we've made the kind of progress in the political field and the economic field that is going to complement our military efforts...

...there's still a huge challenge. And that challenge is not so much technical training. It's building a reliable, professional corps of leaders that will support the government of Iraq and not be swayed by sectarian or community issues because of the nature of Iraq.

Rep John Murtha in an interview with Laura Rozen on "victory":

There are only two positions—the president’s position and my position. Whatever else is in-between. We have 96 congressmen on the resolution [calling for redeployment]. I sent a nine-page letter talking about why I decided to do this, and how strongly I feel about it. They had no hearings. They keep trying to undermine what I’m doing with rhetoric and false resolutions—the resolution on floor today [Friday]—I want them to address this from a standpoint of substance, of experience. I believe that the policy of the president—total victory—is not a policy. I believe that is a flawed policy wrapped in an illusion. And I believe that there’s no end to it, that we will be there 10 to 15 years.

Look at this question from a Bush press conference on December 18th, the day after his Oval Office speech. Look at how the word "victory" is used, and look at Bush's reasoning for staying.:

Q: Mr. President, you said last night that there were only two options in Iraq -- withdraw or victory. And you asked Americans, especially opponents of the war, to reject partisan politics. Do you really expect congressional Democrats to end their partisan warfare and embrace your war strategy? And what can you do about that to make that happen?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I said that victory in Iraq is much larger than a person, a President, or a political party. And I've had some good visits with Senate and House Democrats about the way forward. They share the same concerns I share. You know, they want our troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible, but they don't want to do so without achieving a victory....there are some in this country that believe, strongly believe that we ought to get out now...It's a wrong strategy, and I'd like to tell you again why...democracy is hopeful and optimistic...I can't think of anything more dispiriting to a kid [American troop] risking his or her life than to see decisions made based upon politics...it sends the wrong signal to the enemy. It just says, wait them out; they're soft, they don't have the courage to complete the mission -- all we've got to do is continue to kill and get these images on the TV screens, and the Americans will leave...

Soldiers do not concern themselves with politics. They fight for their friends, they concentrate on their mission. If we told them they were coming home today, they'd rejoice. Democracy is hopeful and optimistic, but Bush's strategy in Iraq has not inspired hope or optimism in America, more importantly, he has failed to engender his citizens' trust, and the last time I checked, he was the leader of a nation called America. The false choice surrounding the macho fear-mongering "we're soft - they'll wait us out.." and "this is bigger than politics.." will be laughable when we start drawing down our troops in another year, anyhow..leaving Iraq in chaos. Even Donald Rumsfeld was man enough to admit that the insurgency will last at least another twelve years.


+ Hope vs. truth in the face of civil war in Iraq

From the Bush speech:

"...this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror."

The recent elections represented hope. Hope is a powerful thing. Can hope overcome a bitter reality that looms heavy over a population? Imagine a national referendum on slavery in 1857 America. Imagine the numbers of Americans coming out to vote their passions (one way or the other - for or against slavery). Would this have stopped secession? Would it have 'headed off' the Civil War in America? I doubt it seriously. As sure as you're born, there is a great civil struggle coming in Iraq. This will mean Middle East instability. This will mean an extended U.S. presence - perhaps a permanent presence. We have a new embassy in Iraq, and we have suspicions that Bush and company has no plan to end a military presence in that nation.

General George Casey recently said:

There is much work to be done in 2006 as the new Iraqi political leaders settle in, Casey said. The government has to form, he said, and “take the reins and get on with governing.” The Iraqi government will face difficult political and economic challenges not only in 2006 but also for several years thereafter, he added. [my emphasis]

On the political side, Casey said Iraq’s increasingly confident and competent leaders still must debate whether to amend the country’s new constitution and foster a discussion about the future of federalism. He said he expects such debates “to be heated and probably divisive.” .. The end of the string of elections in 2005 does not mean the insurgency has gone dormant, said the commanding general of Multi-National Force-Iraq. But continued political successes gradually will erode the potency of the insurgency, he said....U.S. and coalition forces will continue to carry out a dialogue with all the political and ethnic groups in Iraq in an effort “to continue to bring people away from the insurgency and into the political process,” Casey said.

We shouldn't doubt the good General's words. If we believe him, and there's no reason not to believe him, we are going to be in Iraq for quite some time - permanently, perhaps.

Why isn't George W. Bush telling us the truth?

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell understands that it is Bush's intention to have a military presence in Iraq for many years to come. According to the WaPo,

"Powell said the United States was widely unpopular around the world, saying "we have created an impression that we are unilateralist, we don't care what the rest of the world thinks. I don't think it's a fair impression."

I would sit General Powell down and grill him on this point. Given real facts from current history, how can he possibly believe the world could see the Bush administration's position on Iraq as anything but unilateralist?


+ Another blatant false choice:

From the Bush speech:

"If you think the terrorists would become peaceful if only America would stop provoking them, then it might make sense to leave them alone."

A false choice: Initiate an unjust war upon a nation having no links to 9/11 - or do nothing. Was this the only choice? If so, we have certainly come to the end of American ingenuity, creativity, and morality. The solution to alleviating terror is and always has been about winning hearts and minds. If Bush can't win ours with honesty and sound moral leadership, how can he ever expect to win theirs?

__________

Out there in the Blogosphere:

+ Blony makes some salient points, such as:

The single most important fact the President fails to comprehend is that there is no possibility of U.S. victory in Iraq because there was never any meaningful threat to the U.S. from Iraq. You cannot fashion 'Victory' out of arrogant, ignorant, unnecessary aggression. What's left is, how do we best clean up after the long series of stupid mistakes and let Iraqis get on their way to being however they are going to be?

They'll start by asking middle class Americans to foot a $100 billion bill while the richest Americans are asked to make no sacrifices - and are actually enriched. The only sacrifices in America today are coming from the blood of military families and the treasure from middle class pockets. This is not my vision of America - this is not the dream of our forefathers nor is it the promise of great men such as FDR.



+ My fellow writer at Syracuse Progressive, Fred Bieling, is a National Guardsman and a veteran of the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He says:

Did any of you caught the special on NBC about the troops from the 2-108th INF from Glen Falls? I'll be thinking of them as I make my rounds through the halls of Headquarters today. And President Bush, you have 6-8 months to get results. It's your last chance to get it right.

6-8 months.

What will we accomplish in that time? I predict that we'll see little reduction in violence in six months and we will leave Iraqis in chaos, regardless of time or what the President says now about leaving politics out of the equation. Who does he think he's fooling? He's the leader -and he's had one eye on the political calendar from the lead-up to the war until now.

By the way, I saw Tom Brokaw's special 'To War And Back' last night - and I think it was one of the best productions I've seen about the "connect" we need to make between the Iraq war and the real lives of the men and women who serve. Nate Brown's story was especially moving - and the thought of any of these men being forgotten for their sacrifices, in any way, would be a national sin.

I saved the best for last.

- "..we found some capacity to restart weapons programs."

- George W. Bush, 12-18-05

_ _ _



- "....I suspect that they have a pretty good idea if they had some weapons or not. This unearthing that this guy had something buried in his back yard for 12 years, I swear, it looked like a carburetor some redneck would have in his garage, and they put this thing up and we’re going to get blown up by this? It was buried for 12 years. I mean, they may have — as Vice President Cheney said right here in this chair, they may have a reconstituted nuclear program, but we sure haven’t found anything close to it yet or a nuclear bomb..."

- James Carville, Meet the Press, June 29, 2003

On A December Day, Union Station D.C.

The Sharing Session
By Marion Brenish
[from Chicken Soup For the Soul/Christmas Treasury]

"My parents, like yours, taught me to share, but it wasn't until that day in Union Station that I truly learned the meaning of that word..."

Read the story here.

From President Nixon to Iddybud

I've cared about environmental issues for quite some time. Going through an old family album, I came across this document from when I was about 15 years old (my son's age now).

Right Bloggers Cry: Freedom!(for G-Men Spying on Quakers)

Right Bloggers Cry: Freedom!
(for G-Men Spying on Quakers)

Atrios has tongue-in-cheek commentary about the right bloggers' odd defense of the startling revelation that the government is spying on good Americans:

Shorter Conservatarian Blogosphere
We are very concerned by the fact that people are exposing illegal acts by the government to the press.

Larry Johnson on Spying on Americans (and John Bolton)

Martin Garbus: Would Bush's signing the order to allow this kind of domestic spying without legal warrant an impeachable offense?

A citizen at DU recommends an investigation into the NYT for their part in covering up an impeachable offense, "willfully suppressing reporting on an outrageous, repetitive violation of the Constitutional rights of our citizens."

Karen Kwiatkowski:

Apparently, the White House over a year ago asked the New York Times not to publish the facts of NSA eavesdropping on American citizens. True to character, the Times complied and cooperated. But now that we know about it, the media, every member of Congress and every concerned American, should be asking "Is this Constitutional?" and "Is this legal?" The executive branch itself should be asking these questions as well. Further, the executive branch would do well to ask, in a business sense, "Is this worthwhile?" and "Is it cost effective?" and "Does it work to improve national security?" I'd like to think that, in addition to these questions, my old boss Michael Hayden is asking the very simple, straightforward, and ultimately the most courageous question. "Is it right?"

Katrina Vanden Heuvel: Spying and lying

Mark Schmitt (the Decembrist) on Alito and the Wiretaps

David Sirota: Bush's "Need for Speed" Lie Runs Into the Truth

A hilarious quote from Mark Adams [Dispassionate Liberalism]

And to the officials who keep rummaging through all the packages arriving at my doorstep, be aware that I haven't ordered any bomb making supplies recently, just a talking Scooby Doo and Barbie's Fairy Tale Palace. So keep your damn mits off my kids' Christmas presents, dammit!

Tar Heel Tavern

Tar Heel Tavern

This week's Tar Heel Tavern is up at Ogre's Politics and Views. I want to thank Ogre for hosting during such a busy time.

I don't know why it slipped through the cracks, but I did not link the Tavern from two weeks ago at Colonel (Kenneth) Corn, and this was his first time hosting.

Jane has graciously offered to host at Pratie Place on Christmas Day and she currently offers free daily holiday music downloads until then.

O Come, O Come Emmanuel

"O Come, O Come Emmanuel"

O come, Desire of nations, bind
In one the hearts of all mankind;
Bid Thou our sad divisions cease,
And be Thyself our King of Peace

Portsmouth, NH: The Rev. Linn Opderbecke speaks of a spiritual 'disconnect' in his own community, and we see it happening everywhere. It is a call for spiritual renewal in this Holiday season.

"...We live in relative luxury. The sounds of war, if we hear them at all, are a very distant rumble. Hunger, malnutrition, disease, injustice, drought are all very well hidden from our daily routines. We disperse the darkness by turning on a switch.

When we sing "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" we do not sing these words out of desperation and hopelessness. In fact if we are honest with ourselves, we have to probably admit that usually we don’t want Emmanuel to come at all. We are not anxious to have a fulfillment of all the prophesies just yet.

Instead we look forward to the coming of Santa Claus with his presents and gifts. We look forward to year end bonuses and increases in our income. We look forward to parties and festivities, to big meals with family and friends. Most of us live a very privileged life.

Yet in spite of our relative prosperity; in spite of our peaceful, secure lives; in spite of all that we have; we recognize an emptiness deep within. We are fearful of losing what we have, we covet and desire more. Still we are haunted by a sense that more and newer does not necessarily mean better. Intuitively we know that emptiness deep within us can never be filled with whatever is under our Christmas tree.

I lost my beloved mother just before this year's Holiday rush began. If anyone can fully understand the lesson about the emptiness that bares itself when something - somone irreplaceable is lost, I'm afraid that I am this season's poster-child.

Have you ever wished you could give away every material possession just to have one more moment with a loved one that you cherished? Are you fully appreciating the family and friends who have cared for you?

Can you look, with pride, into the eyes of a homeless man on your city's busy street corner who is holding a sign asking for work - knowing you've done everything you could do to guide him from his poverty?

Do you feel comforted, seeing your own children attending a private school, Ivy-league college, or homeschooling session - saying "Thank God they're safe and well taken care of.." - while you guide your government to take more money and more resources away from the public schools, where many children who do not have the same opportunities are left behind?

Do you care about the future society in which your children will live and work when you are gone from this world? Do you believe things will magically take care of themselves - or do you think you should play an active part?

Have you snagged a new XBox 360? Is it sitting under your Christmas tree while you pass by the Salvation Army bell-ringers without so much as a glance? Have you noticed the poorer neighborhoods in your community, or do you take pains to steer clear of that side of town in your travels?

What will your New Years Resolution be? To lose a few pounds? To be nicer to your mother-in-law? What about the lonely elderly widower who sits in the house two doors down from you? Have you reached out to anyone lately?

Possessions have their proper place in our earthly enjoyment, but do not forget what truly matters when all material possessions are swept away. There's an emptiness not only in our own souls, but in our society today. Our political leaders seem to have emptied all of our commonly-held values out of their agenda, leaving the poorest to fend for themselves and setting a poor moral example for the people of this nation. Rhetorical appeals are made to the lowest common-denominators of fear, blame, and stereotyping in order to promote a political agenda that is not of a positive or moral change, but of a self-interested enrichment.

It will have to be up to the spiritual (interfaith) community to work, as one, to turn things around. When we sing "O Come O Come Emmanuel," let's sing it like we mean it. Sing it with the human desperation that we feel, through empathy and compassion for our fellow brothers and sisters. Acting for social justice may be the only way that hope will be returned to the hopeless. I recently wrote that...

It is only by embracing
our own state of brokenness
that we are able reach out with compassion in faith and hope to others..

When we placate and sedate our brokenness with material possessions and riches, it's not much different than being attracted to all those prescription drug ads displaying pretty fields of flowers and smiling, satisfied, successful people - or self-medicating with alcohol or drugs. What we bury and forget is lost. The fruit of the love that God intended for us to keep in our hearts never ripens when we forget the lessons of the prophets.

Don't be afraid, in your inner meditation, to go naked. You will not be able to see your brother or sister's human pain, nor will you be capable of compassion, until you consciously admit your own human pain.

I wish you love, and I wish you joy this Holiday season. Most of all, I wish you peace. May you find the true calling of your hearts. In the words of rock singer Jackson Browne:

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgement
For I`ve no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

What's on Your Fridge?

What's on your fridge?

Some of the things I've got:



- A Christmas shopping list
- A profound quote ;)
- A magnet
- My favorite American patriots


-

People Magazine: Elizabeth Edwards Named Newsmaker 2005

People Magazine: Elizabeth Edwards Named Newsmaker/2005

According to the One America Committee blog, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Senator John Edwards, will be featured in a People Magazine feature titled Newsmakers of the Year. Congratulations, Mrs. Edwards.

Bemoaning a Free Society

Bemoaning a Free Society

"The only thing that the enemy has got going for them is the capacity to take innocent life and to get on our TV screens with this devastation that they cause. These people cannot stand free societies."

- President Bush, answering a member of the Press on December 6, 2005
[WaPo]

I wish the President would be more honest in his statements. Obviously, the insurgents in Iraq "can stand" a free society - at least to the extent that Americans can see the results of the insurgents' devastating attacks on our television screens, in our newspapers, and on our internet screens. They use our freedom to the fullest of their abilities. It's also obvious that the President regrets that we are seeing these awful things. I regret they are happening, but I would have deeper regret if these things were hidden from the public in a world where freedom is paramount and prerequisite to justice.

Who is the one bemoaning a "free society" here, in this context?

Iraq Catch and Release

Iraq Catch and Release
The Quintessential Fish Story -
The One That Got Away

____________ _______________

Found!

A top-secret document has been found stuffed in the front pocket of a pair of soiled pants belonging to an Iraqi security troop named al-AhSheet Iletimgo.

It is the Iraq Security Forces' (Really) Rough Guide to "Catch and Release" techniques for Zarqawi






Satire

Edwards is Right About A Longing in America

John Edwards is Right About
A Longing in America

I read this statement while searching Google News. It's from a website called the Conservative Voice - an opinion piece by a Lisa Fabrizio. Why it rates "Google News" is puzzling, because it's no more substantial than anything you'd read on a blog. Since it's 'out there,' I have some things to say about it. Quote from op-ed:

Former VP candidate, John Edwards told delegates at a weekend convention of the Florida faithful that Americans would come together behind a leader who asks people to sacrifice for the common good: "There is a hunger in America, a hunger for a sense of national community, a hunger for something big and important and inspirational that they all can be involved in." This statement illustrates a classic Democratic disconnect. In case Edwards hasn’t noticed, there’s already “something big and important and inspirational” going on; it’s called the War on Terror and it’s not only protecting Americans at home.

The only disconnect I see is the writer's own. It is Ms. Fabrizio's major 'disconnect' with the reality that exists today at the very center of American hearts and minds. Any recent poll will tell us that Americans are not inspired and are extremely skeptical, at best, about this war in Iraq. I believe that Senator Edwards is correct - Americans come together when they are inspired by an issue that they care about as a common people. Controversial, unjust and morally questionable wars are not something we have been spiritually enthusing over.

Our spirits govern our inner lives - and our values direct us to our respective political positions. My own spiritual leader at the time of the lead-up to the Iraq war, Pope John Paul II, spoke firmly against the pre-emptive action. If anyone thinks that my spiritual values did not play a part in my overall opinion and dissent about the war, I'll tell them they're dead wrong.

Ms. Fabrizio insinuates that we "pander to the enemy" if we express dissent about this war. That is pure tripe, and I wonder what she would have said at the time President Clinton was leading the humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and he received nothing but opposition from Republicans.

Our soldiers have fought and died from the time of the American Revolution for the right (and civic duty) of each citizen to participate in American democracy; our government is of the people (ask Abe Lincoln if you don't believe me); so I'll take this opportunity to tell Ms. Fabrizio she's full of hot air. *I'd use juicier words, but I'm a nice Christian girl.*

Ms. Fabrizio also insinuates that dissent is more about "disdain" for a President. I believe this overly simplistic type of thinking is either willingly blind or journalistically ignorant - maybe both. Dissent is actually about the very real and admitted failures - and some still unadmitted but obvious mistakes - of the President. Disdain for the results of President Bush's mistakes is a reasonable option, but is not required to prove the real failures of leadership.



If this President was right on Iraq - and if he was an inspiring leader on Iraq, you would never be seeing stories like this.

Senator Edwards is right about a longing in America. Divisive op-eds might make a writer popular with a certain partisan crowd, but its appeal won't reach over party lines and convince any moderate American who can see the forest for the trees on the misleading way the Iraq war was begun - and the failure of strategy that followed - and the very real lives that were taken in between. If anyone thinks that is inspiring, they need to call a therapist - and fast.

Headlines

Headlines

- Quote of the Week from the Crisis Papers, by Steven Laffoley:

"While the Self-Righteous-Right wonders where the King's mojo may have gone, the sane center of America - the vast majority of folks now - all know the truth: the administration's endless, blundering incompetence intertwining seamlessly with the administration's contagious, contemptible corruption has sealed the King's doom."

Gary Hart in a brand new Buzzflash interview:

"I’m not "uncomfortable" with the way Jesus is being tossed around – I’m angry about it. I’d go well beyond discomfort. I think the religious right is making Jesus into some kind of Old Testament wrathful prophet who is judgmental, divisive, and opposed to any notion of liberalism, whereas the teachings of Jesus tell quite a different story. He was tolerant. He was forgiving. He preached love, not hate. In many ways, the literal reading of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, particularly not filtered through the later apostles in the New Testament, but the literal teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels, are almost totally at odds with the teachings of the present-day religious right."

ON YESTERDAY'S ELECTIONS IN IRAQ

While I understand and appreciate Andrew Sullivan's optimism, it seems unbridled - a bit too sunny on the side of a hoped-for victory in Iraq for which no two people seem to have the same definition.

Juan Cole comments:

It is not actually a positive sign for the Americans that Sunni Arabs came out to vote in order to get rid of them, to see if they couldn't get rid of the current pro-American government, to underline that the armed struggle will continue, and to prove that Sunni Arabs (20% of so of the population) are a majority of the country! The American faith that if people go to the polls it means they won't also be blowing things up is badly misplaced.

William Rivers Pitt looks at facts existing on the ground:

This election will be no panacea, despite what the hopefuls think. Every electoral model has the Shia and Kurds assuming dominant positions in the Iraqi government. Even if every Sunni in Iraq goes to the polls, they make up only 20% of the overall population. Electoral formulas meant to enhance Sunni power within an Iraqi government will still leave them deeply in the minority. A collection of leading Sunni parties called the Iraqi Consensus Front has been pushing a straightforward slogan: "Our goal is to get the invaders out and rebuild the country." If their minority status prevents the Sunnis from achieving their first goal according to their wishes, they may well return to violence to achieve their second goal. A leaflet was broadly distributed in the Azamiyah neighborhood of Baghdad last Monday. Sunni Arabs may have a chance to advance their cause politically in the upcoming elections, read the leaflet, but "the fighting will continue with the infidels and their followers."

Julian Hall [Independent UK] reviews comedian Jon Stewart at the Prince Edward Theatre in London.

To a remark about Americans being stupid for letting Bush back in, he put Blair in the frame: "It's a pleasure to come to a country where they never made the wrong choice!"

Concern About the Integrity of Our Voting System:

"The evidence of voting fraud and election theft is no secret – it is out in the open for all to see who are willing to see....The response of the mainstream media in the face of all this? Total silence....The response of the Democratic Party? Total silence...The response of the media and the Party to the GAO report report validating the concerns of the critics? More silence.Why!? [Ernest Partridge Essay]

Former President Jimmy Carter has said that he doubts that the U.S. military will ever completely pull out of Iraq.

"There has never been a single declaration among the higher levels of government now that we ever intend to withdraw completely our military forces from Iraq," Carter told reporters, according to The Times Herald-Record. "My belief, and it may be erroneous ... is that the top leadership in this country intends 20 years from now, 50 years from now, we'll still have a major military presence in Iraq." - [AP]

I don't doubt that this is true. What are we supposed to think about that?


The Latest Gallup Poll Results:

- Do you think the United States will -- or will not -- be able to establish a stable democratic government in Iraq? - 55% say No.

- Candidates who would be most likely to be supported by registered Democrats for the Democratic nomination for President in the year 2008:

Clinton: 43%
Edwards: 15%
Kerry: 15%
Biden: 8%

- Same question for registered Republican voters:

Rudy Giuliani: 30%
John McCain: 22%
Rice: 18%
Allen: 7%

Bush and the Irrelevance of WMD

Bush and the Irrelevance of WMD

At Think Progress, Judd points out a Bush flip-flop on the relevance of WMD, which is really not much different than The New Republic's June, 2004 flip-flop on the relevance of WMD.

Bush knows he'll have Democrat Joe Lieberman behind him on this. (Roll your eyes if you must - but you know it's true.)

Don't get me wrong - I know how disgusted you feel when you see this man, Mr. Bush, telling you that he thinks that WMD is irrelevant because his final rationale, the only one left that he could peddle to the public, is a suitable moral replacement.

Americans will either buy his final rationale for war after all the hype and misleadings about WMD - or they won't. I believe that only luck will save Bush on Iraq now, and let's face it - luck hasn't been with him so far. The more casulaties we'll see, the less support and benefit of doubt Bush will be given by the American public for "staying the course."

Progressive Christians in the News

from sojo.net

“The monologue of the religious right is finally over and a new dialogue has begun.”

- the Rev. Jim Wallis, author of 'God's Politics - Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It'

Progressive Christians in the News
Their Voices Grow Stronger by the Day


Jim Wallis, leader of the Christian social justice group Sojourners, has said that "some of the best conversations occur behind bars." He may have had some interesting conversations yesterday. He was arrested in Washington DC, along with 115 religious activists "who were protesting a House Republican budget plan's cuts in social programs when they refused to clear the entrance to a congressional office building Wednesday." [WaPo]

Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a Christian group active in politics, said Monday that protesters will pray for “a change of heart” by Republicans, citing Old Testament prophet Isaiah, “Woe to you legislators of infamous laws … who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.” - SFGate

See video of the event in the following formats [Sojourners]:
+ WindowsMedia
+ RealPlayer
+ QuickTime
+ iTunes download

See photos and reflections of vigil participants


Special feature at Sojo.net:

Why I Got Arrested this Advent Season
by Christa Mazzone

"More than anything, I'm risking arrest this Advent season because I have hope. And hope is what Advent is all about."

In the Chicago Tribune's political-minded report, Frank James says there was a`Christmas scandal' outcry when hundreds of Christian activists gathered in D.C. to protest bills granting tax cuts for the wealthy while slashing programs for low-income people:

Wallis and other progressive religious leaders who believe the poor have received short shrift hope that, by emphasizing the religious obligation to help the poor, they can reframe the debate....At the same time, that might help lift the fortunes of Democrats who voters say are more concerned with poverty than Republicans are, but who have suffered political defeats because their party is perceived as being less hospitable to people of faith. In the last two presidential elections, Democrats lost - by significant margins - voters who considered themselves deeply religious, and this has been an issue many in the party said must be addressed if Democrats are to return to power in Congress or the White House.

More on the Washington protest from Townhall.com:

"...when asked by Cybercast News Service whether he was urging the government to promote Judeo-Christian values, [Rev. Raymond]Rivera said he was not. "What we're saying is that ... whether you have a religious tradition like many people here do, or just come out of a human tradition, we don't think the country should balance its budget on the back of its most vulnerable citizens."

Related Blogpost with many links - Where in the World is . . . James Dobson?

John Longhurst at the Winnepeg Free Press talks about Faith and Personal Cost:

"....getting arrested for an act of civil disobedience in North America isn't remotely similar to what has happened to the four Christian Peacemakers Teams members in Iraq. But it reminds us all that following conscience and acting on conviction sometimes has a cost. For a few, it could mean putting life on the line."

CantonRep.com - Liberals of faith speak up

P.E.A.C.E. - Plant churches, Equip servant leaders, Assist the poor, Care for the sick, and Educate the next generation – is a global church-to-church plan to mobilize Christians to fight against the five “Global Goliaths.”



Replies From Rightwing Christian Organizations, Who Were Noticeably Absent

The GOP News reports:

Carrie Gordon Earll, spokesperson for Focus on the Family, told Cybercast News Service that her organization did not take part in Wednesday's rally because it holds a different view of the relationship between the government and the poor. [my emphasis]

We can only assume that they think the budget is moral enough to suit their Christian fancy - and they must believe that the government has no responsibility or accountability for lifting the poorest in our society. In any moral sense, that statement is a no-winner. James Dobson and those in his his organization have shrunk back in the face of a value-challenge from Wallis and the other activists who protested in DC yesterday.

From the WaPo:

Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives 'know that the government is not really capable of love. You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy.'" Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says putting the biblical mandate to help the poor into the federal budget is a "shifting" of responsibility.

What a cop-out!

A state may not be capable of "love", but as a body, it surely is capable of legislating acts that will reasonably alleviate poverty. Our democracy provides for the debate of all citizens. Every individual citizen is capable of debating their common spiritual values in the public square and each citizen has the right (and civic duty) to call upon the state to govern based upon those values.

This is certainly not "shifting responsibility!" It is enacting responsibility! At the same time, it is acting out our deepest faith to call upon our government for social justice. The Christian Right are speaking as if Christian-citizens are helpless losers who should stay silent on matters of politics - and we knowfor a fact that they do not keep their narrow set of values at the government's arms-length!

A fine example of the Christian Right's hypocrisy is from Wonkette, who quotes a 'Focus on the Family' spokesman in a blogpost deliciously titled 'Left Behind: The Right Loves the Poor Until They're Born':

Focus on the Family: It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.

Wonkette: "In other words, poor people, if you're cold and hungry this Christmas, the right would love to help you. You'll just need to find a womb to crawl into first."

Will The Christian Right Splinter?

from New West Network:

[Pastor Ted] Haggard’s relatively open-minded stance [on gay civil unions] could signal a shift away from the radical homophobia of evangelical hate-mongers like Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, writes Dicker in a Toilet Paper blog item: “[Haggard] could have even greater influence over Evangelical Christian public opinion than Dobson has ever had, particularly if they start moving toward the middle where many who now despise them as fundamentalists might be willing to take a softer view if they'd adopt a message of compassion toward gays.”

The Rev. W. Robert DeFoor, a Kentucky Baptist leader, is calling for "more moderate, middle-of-the-road leadership" in the Southern Baptist Convention.

"I knew that but I used my candidacy as an opportunity to talk about fundamentalism and issues that were dividing us. Too many Baptists have been too silent and cozy when it comes to the rise of fundamentalism. I decided a while ago I was no longer going to be silent and would never be cozy."

________________

A Worthy Cause

Some of my own family members will soon travel to the heart of the Appalachia to serve their fellow brothers and sisters. The Redbird Mission could use your help.

_____________

All I Want For Christmas

What I want for Christmas *hint hint* - SERMONS FROM DUKE CHAPEL: Voices From "A Great Towering Church. Edited by William H. Willimon. Duke University Press. 384 pages.

"It's Gonna Take Awhile"

"It's Gonna Take Awhile"

In today's speech, as always, President Bush will not commit to any benchmark or timetable in Iraq.
Bad news.
Bush has either misled us or he has screwed up royally on Iraq - maybe both - and I don't trust him to carry on without a crystal clear and decisive plan. I know am not alone. (59% agree). I view him as having one eye on the calendar for the American political season - and the other on getting out of the mess he created with some kind of honor.
I want a leader with both eyes on one America. We want someone we know we can trust. Trust is a major problem for Bush.

A lack of a focus on an endgame - the absence of a clear identification of the remaining political, economic, and military benchmarks that must be met and a reasonable schedule to achieve them could mean a dangerous and unexpected end to a disastrous Utopian attempt to change the Middle East.

Bush saying he will mimic Truman's "persistence" to see Japan become a democracy gives me the shivers when I think about Japan's "path to freedom."

The Nagasaki-Hiroshima story reminds us that government deceit (even by good men) is hardly a recent invention. None of the officials involved in this tale had evil intentions. What can be said of them is that some became so taken by the power the atomic bomb seemed to give them to do good (as they defined it), that they seem to have become carried away...
The manipulation of the public by elites, the seductive belief that overwhelming force confers unlimited power to determine good and evil, and the fragile nature of the limits we seem willing to accept on our own prerogatives are all ongoing issues--as, finally, is the terrible question of what it means for a democracy to delegate to one person such extraordinary discretionary power in an era when the next Hiroshima could be the globe.

- Excerpted from: The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
by Gar Alperovitz

Louisiana - Public Sentiment After Katrina

Louisiana - Public Sentiment After Katrina

A new study reveals Louisianians' post-hurricane attitudes.

LSU's Reilly Center for Media and Public Affairs shows that Louisiana residents are most concerned about the displacement of the state's residents, closely followed by their concern for rebuilding New Orleans. [LSU]

Document here (pdf)


Public confidence in religious organizations and nonprofits is highest, while confidence in federal government is lowest.

Louisiana residents rated the response of religious organizations as highly effective, giving them an 8.1 on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being highly ineffective and 10 being very effective. Nonprofit organizations received a 7.5. However, respondents evaluated the effectiveness of government response – at all lev-els – much more negatively. Respondents rated New Orleans city government and state government at 4.6, local governments – other than New Orleans – at 6.5, and the federal government at 5.1. The Greater New Orleans region – areas identified by the 504 area code – consistently rated all levels of government more negatively than other area of the state.

We are a divided society - two Americas - and it shows in this recent poll. Results show a clearly partisan response to the ratings given to the state vs. the federal government response to the hurricane. Unless you were comatose last Labor Day, you know how bad the federal response was to Katrina. Yet, look at the non-realistic response from Louisiana Republicans on the federal response vs. the local/state response. It's as if they were coached by Fox News:

Breaking the results out by political perspective, Republicans gave the federal government significantly higher ratings, 6.0, than state or local governments, 4.3 and 3.8 respectively; while Democrats gave low marks to government across the board, 4.7 to the federal government and 5.0 to both the state and local governments.

I am tired of having to report that many of our citizens are refusing to look at reality and are neglecting to commit to working together, as Americans from one America, to guide our Representatives toward meaningful solutions to so many of our nation's troubles. The longer we stubbornly commit to being divided, the worse things will get. The worst leadership lessons about commitment to national division have been taught by our President, who has given blubbery lip service to bipartisanship, but has never backed it up with meaningful action. Our Representatives are equally guilty. From the president, we have seen perpetual Republican campaign speeches, set perfectly for the media in front of adoring invitation-only throngs, with a convenient legislative companion to help him to cash in on what Bush unduly considers to be his "political capital" - the compliant "rubber-stamp" House of Representatives.

Louisiana citizens are looking to the federal government for the help that was promised to them by the president in his speech with the beauty-shot of New Orleans' Jackson Square in the background. It's been almost four months since the president promised "one of the largest reconstruction efforts the world has ever seen.” Yet, to date less than $20 million in emergency aid has reached the region, and there has been little indication of any plan for rebuilding New Orleans and the surrounding areas. According to a New York Times op-ed by Bruce Katz and Matt Fellowes of the Brookings Institution, 50 percent of the city still has no gas; only 10 percent of bus lines are running; and only one public school has re-opened. According to other sources, 40 percent of the city remains in the dark. [source: The Century Foundation]

A majority of Louisiana residents, 54 percent, said that the federal government should pick up the tab for the costs of rebuilding, while 20 percent said insurance companies should pay the costs and 13 percent said state government should pay.

Citizens are very concerned about the future of education and, to a lesser extent, health care. Some would actually agree to cutting health care to save education. What a sad choice - don't you agree?

Louisiana residents expressed a preference for raising taxes over cutting either education or health care, and a preference for borrowing money over raising taxes. Nearly 70 percent of respondents opted for raising taxes rather than cutting education and 65 percent opted for raising taxes over cutting health care. Even larger majorities preferred borrowing money to cutting education – 79 percent – or cutting health care – 74 percent.

______________


In more New Orleans news, FEMA so far has quietly backed off of any parish government that has raised questions about their trailer parks, according to Jeff M. David, publisher of the Livingston Parish News. I can't imagine that any Lousiana parish would appreciate these trailer parks, and cultural integration by issuing housing vouchers would be a far better idea.

From the New York Times:

This beleaguered city has struggled for months to maintain a "we're all in this together" civility, to keep the high-ground haves from turning their backs on the lowland have-nots. But the issue of where to place trailer parks in New Orleans seems to have stirred tensions and rubbed people like little else.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency wants to set up more than 22,000 trailers in the city in an effort to house returning residents while they rebuild their homes. Many will go in private yards, but plans also call for 22 trailer parks, said Rachel C. Rodi, a FEMA spokeswoman.

The agency has also been encountering resistance to parks in the rest of the state, even as it fields complaints that there is not enough housing for evacuees. Only a handful of parishes are allowing them. Some, like Orleans Parish, are restricting them, while many are barring them altogether.

And then there's NIMBY problem:

Much about Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath has been unprecedented, yet this outcry is all too typical in cities throughout the nation. Everyone wants to help the less fortunate, but can't the city find another place for them?

It looks like most citizens believe the trailer park idea is bad - all around. The poorest will be stuck living in tin cans all together - isolated literally and figuratively from those lovely housing divisions across the street where the rich folk like to meet.

Sanctity of Life Ignored by California

Sanctity of Life Ignored by California
Jesus Wouldn't. We Shouldn't.

"Despite the claims from Williams and his supporters that he had been redeemed while in prison — writing anti-gang children's books and being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize — Schwarzenegger wrote, "Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?"

- The Terminator speaks


Tookie is killed


"Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

- GOD Arnold Schwarzenegger

At Captain's Quarters, there is what I believe to be a sincere display of Ed's feelings on the State of California taking the life of Tookie Williams this morning. While I appreciated it, I don't agree that the celebrities and political leaders who have pleaded for mercy on Tookie's behalf have been wrong, nor "circus-like" in doing so. If no one speaks against the death penalty in the circumstances where the toughest moral examples are used, then we will continue to see the death penalty used in the public's name.

If we call ourselves Christians and we applaud the execution of Tookie Williams this day, we should hang our heads and ask for forgiveness, for we have surely spoken against our own professed belief. This is an issue that encompasses the "Sanctity of Life" - just as sure as abortion is a part of that seamless garment of life. A life was taken by the State today. We can go home and tell our children that murder soothes the pain and brings feelings of justice of those whose loved ones are murdered - and they will be confused, after just hearing in Sunday school "Thou shalt not"....."Turn the other cheek..."

I work with kids from some of the most challenging neighborhoods - kids who have the tough choice of joining a gang or to stick with the courage to be themselves in the face of the peer pressure. I picture myself reading a book by Tookie to those kids, encouraging them to take the good road. Then I think of those kids when they learn of Tookie's eventual fate.

"As a Christian, I have no doubt in my heart, my mind, and my soul that what the State of California did this morning was morally wrong."

As a Christian, I have no doubt in my heart, my mind, and my soul that what the State of California did this morning was morally wrong. I think less of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for it, and I think less of our society for it.

As a Christian, I believe in mercy and forgiveness. Faith means sticking with your beliefs in the face of the most difficult moral struggles. This is surely one of them. With the victims of Tookie Williams never leaving my mind, I know that our Lord would not have recommended or approved of Tookie's death by the State, and that is why you'll never see me defending his execution. How soon we forget that we bear the symbol of Jesus Christ's own unjust execution on the ends of our golden necklaces. Our society would have deserved to have paid for Tookie's life in prison, because our society has not paid enough attention to the problems on the streets of Compton, Harlem, and most inner cities of the Unites States. By our actions today, I believe we've just created a thousand more mean-street Tookies. We should be ashamed as a society this morning, looking at the big picture.

"How soon we forget that we bear the symbol of Jesus Christ's own unjust execution on the ends of our golden necklaces."

Bishop T.D. Jakes reminded us recently of the biblical parable of the Good Samaritan. When we think of our moral responsibilities to our society, it is a fitting story. He raised the vision of our wounded neighbors lying by the side of the road - and he said that the fact that some people choose to pass them by is a powerful and humbling reminder that you can't help others if you exalt yourself above them. In the parable, the Samaritan came off his beast to help the bleeding man. "Come down where the pain and poverty is," recommended the Bishop. Bishop Jakes pressed the fact that "Resources, not rhetoric, are what bring about meaningful changes in our lives." It's not what we say that is important. It's what we do that is important. Real leadership is defined by what we do. The Bishop suggests that we need to love our neighbors enough to "pay the bill..

"As a society, we have to "pay our bills" somewhere along the line. I'd rather pay the bill by making things better on the streets than to abide silently while the State performs executions in my name. 'Paying the bills' will require saving that drowning baby from Grover Norquist's proverbial bathtub."

As a society, we have to "pay our bills" somewhere along the line. I'd rather pay the bill by making things better on the streets than to abide silently while the State performs executions in my name.

"Paying the bills" will require saving that drowning baby from Grover Norquist's proverbial bathtub. America can do so much better than the Republican agenda of the past. We can all do so much better, Democrats and Republicans alike.

I send prayers to all who have been injured or forever left alone by Tookie's crimes, if he indeed was the one responsible. I send prayers to Tookie's family. I pray for Tookie's soul. He acted as a man who was regretful that gang violence was ever glorified. He asked for forgiveness and mercy - and we turned him away.

If we believe this merits God's love, I think we'd better think all of this out again.

____________

In Tookie's own words: [Democracy Now]:

We hear Stanley Tookie Williams in his own words, speaking in one his last interviews, recorded just hours before his death. He appeared on Pacifica Radio station WBAI's Wake Up Call. In the interview, Williams says he would like to be remembered for his redemptive transition: "Redemption. I can say it no better than that. That's how I would like the world to remember me. That's what I would like my legacy to be remembered as."

Doc Searls explains why he thinks this is a strike against Gov. Schwarzenegger.


Norman Solomon at the Gates of San Quentin.


Kevin Hayden moves around the usual rationales for being anti-death penalty and cuts straight to the political chase:

Willie Horton. Tookie Williams. 1300 missing children due to Katrina, with bloated black bodies floating past our eyes. Republicans really do like to Stay the Corpse, don’t they? Especially the non-Aryan kind.

Note: To defend the state's taking of a life, I saw someone invoking the Old Testament readings of Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, Numbers 35:33 - totally neglecting the New Testament and forgetting that these are words of God, and they work both ways. We could apply those readings to a soulless state taking a life in the name of its citizens - and the judgement against the people of the democratic state would be equal to the judgement against Williams.

Huh?

Huh?

The president, in his speech today in Philadelphia, bragged up "the American image" overseas, touting the federal government's response to the deadly 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.


missingkitten

I wonder if he thinks that people overseas didn't notice the federal government's horrifically mismanaged response to Hurricane Katrina?

And it makes me wonder...

And it makes me wonder....

At Upyernoz, there's some vedddy interesting commentary about an 'assasination' that took place in Beirut today.

It came hours before UN Security Council members got the latest report on the death of a former Lebanese PM, in which Syria has been implicated....the attack raises the political temperature in Lebanon at a highly sensitive moment.

Digby on Freedom Fries and Niger Lies

Of Freedom Fries and Niger Lies

Listen to Digby.

Tar Heel Tavern: Peace Futures

Tar Heel Tavern: Peace Futures



The latest Tar Heel Tavern is up at Anonymoses. Many thanks for the special dedication. The photos by Colonel Corn and the artwork by James Woodard Williams are a feast for the eyes.

Iraq Ain't Our Fathers' Revolution

"The soldiers who would have to defend......."

"While the Declaration of Independence was enacted in Philadelphia, the soldiers who would have to defend the brave statement were in New York. George Washington received word on July 9 that the document had been signed. He gathered his men on the Common (City Hall Park) and had the document read to them. Afterward, Washington exhorted his men to be worthy of the newly independent nation whose uniform they now wore. The troops and townspeople then went to Bowling Green at the south end of Broadway to pull down the statue of George III."

-Fraunces Tavern Museum website

------------

As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, U.S. Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army PSYOP team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.

- Seattle Times

Iraq Ain't Our Fathers' Revolution

The president wishes for us to think of Iraq as we would think of the newly united and independent 18th century American colonies after a long battle and discussion of the values we wished to set down as our rule of law. In Philadelphia today, he invoked the memory of the colonists, the founding fathers and their Revolution. I don't know about you, but I'm amazed at Bush's gall, with his Iraqo-morphing of the American Revolution, trying to squeeze as much propaganda as he can possibly squeeze into a frame of the Spirit of 1776. I just don't see it.

- Though many of the founding fathers' ideas were sprung from European philosophers, Europe did not come in to occupy the colonies in order to make us "free." Au contraire - we fought against England's occupation with a verve and passion that caused us to be driven to bloody revolution. Our forefathers did not run in fear from British soldiers. They were determined - and brave - brave as hell. Bush can't even tell us that the 200,000 Iraqi troops we've trained are battle-ready. When asked for an exact count of the number of Iraqis who stand at the ready today, Bush gave a mealy-mouthed answer of "more and more." More and more? BAH! We're stuck in the middle of what is now a civil war (not a "revolution") - and the Iraqi troops are afraid to fight it on their own. U.S. trained Iraqi security troops have been known to take cover and leave the dying to U.S. soldiers when a dangerous situation arises!

- Our Constitution was not mediated by outside forces - we forged and blended our best common ideas - hard-won, independent, distinctly American hard-gut and fiercely-held ideas - and set them down - on our own terms and no other outside parties' interests.

- We knew what we wanted - there was no murderous civil war between us once we decided to fight as a united front to oust England - and we worked tirelessly, together, to achieve our goals. We didn't blow each other up in our churches or on the common.

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

For every grandiose idea laid out by the president today in his speech, eight words kept going through my mind:

Don't We Have Any Friends Around the World?

If the president's ideas were as great and true as he lays them out to be, why has the world isolated us? Why has Bush failed to directly call upon or appeal to the kind of human spirit and economic cooperation that would entice world leaders to join this nation in our efforts in Iraq? Is it because he doesn't want to share the unique spoils of this war?

Do you know what the extent of the president's multinational attitude was in his speech today? He hopes that the international community will "buck up" on their 13 billion dollar commitments. Period.

That is soulless and it drives the nails into a coffin of a new brand of isolationist thinking, which works in reverse of the old ideas about isolationism. As we poke our swords over the borders of our nation, crossing oceans and overthrowing regimes; carelessly creating anarchy in the name of "freedom" and hoped-for "democracy," the world isolates us. Our allies fall away.

Bush has isolated his people because he has alienated the world. He may have the greatest ideas, but if he cannot lead or inspire the world, we will all suffer for his failure of leadership.

Bush: 9/11 'accentuated' Saddam Hussein's Threat to U.S.

Bush: 9/11 'Accentuated' Saddam Hussein's Threat to U.S.

In Philadelphia today, when asked to clarify the link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein's government, the president weakly said that 9/11 changed his "look of foreign policy" and that oceans no longer protect us. (We depended solely upon Oceans to protect us? Since when?) He said that 9/11 "accentuated" Saddam's threat to America.

Accentuate: To bring out distinctly; to make prominent; to emphasize.
[1913 Webster]

To emphasize is not to link. To bring out is not a reason to bring war.

Le Gouvernement français arrêts le Régime de Gore

Le Gouvernement Français Arrêts le Régime de Gore

La mariée mystérieuse d'Archeron fait une plaisanterie

Upon My Returning to The Blog

Upon My Returning to The Blog

The truths we have come to understand need to find their visible expression in our lives. Our every thought, word, or action holds the possibility of being a living expression of clarity and love...Wisdom is alive only as long as it is lived, understanding is liberating only as long as it is applied. A bulging portfolio of spiritual experiences matters little if it does not have the power to sustain us through the inevitable moments of grief, loss, and change. Knowledge and achievements matter little if we do not yet know how to touch the heart of another and be touched.

--Christina Feldman and Jack Kornfield, Stories of the Spirit, Stories of the Heart

The capacity for compassion is our greatest human gift. We're all brothers and sisters under the skin - and we're only here for a short time. In the end, only our conscious acts of kindness matter. It could be something as simple as a note of support you've sent to a friend - or as far-reaching as an action you've taken toward social justice when you've seen that a brother has clearly been forgotten in an all-too unforgiving world.

Thanks again to every one of you for each expression of condolence you offered to me upon the loss of my mother. I wanted to share one particular message that brought me great comfort in quiet moments of sadness:

It is said in the Islamic tradition that the love of a Mother is the closest love you can imagine to God's love. The Prophet Muhammad said that God loves us 70 times more than our mother. So imagine the grace of God! Remembering the love of the mother has great merit - and God loves it.

Thank you, Sadiq, for the words and the rose - and many thanks to all who cared enough to send a note or comment.

Thank You

Thank You

Many thanks to my dearest friend, and to all who have sent their good wishes and prayers in these difficult days. I lost my mother today to a valiant three-year-long struggle with cancer.

Why John Walsh is Wrong About John Edwards

Why John Walsh is Wrong About John Edwards

Imagine Democratic Senators on the Senate Intelligence Committee moving to VETO authorization for the President of the United States to do what he needed to do to keep the nation safe in 2002.

Consider the fact that all through the airwaves, we heard Bush, Blair (UK) and Howard (AU) claiming to know for certain that Saddam Hussein had amassed a vast arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that were ready for use; that the production of such weapons was increasing in tempo; and that it was almost certain that within a short few years Saddam Hussein would be in possession of nuclear weapons as well. Well after the 2002 IWR, a report came out from the Institute for Policy Studies, which was critical of Bush's decision to rush to war, but was still showing an uncertainty on WMD.

Question: Does Iraq have weapons of mass destruction?

Answer: We don't know for sure - that's why the UN inspectors are in Iraq. As of the end of 2002, the inspectors have not indicated they have found evidence of any viable weapons programs.

A Senate Intelligence Committee veto in October, 2002?

I DON'T THINK SO.

The nation was one year removed from the 911 attacks. The nation was still reeling - and misled by the President and his administration. The scenario of a veto is preposterous, and yet John Walsh is forwarding it in a Counterpunch article.

He makes an accusation against certain Democratic Senators, a case for which has not proven out in any realistic or hypothetical sense in his opinion piece,

"Democrats had enough knowledge to know that we were being lied into war in October, 2002. And except for a courageous 21 Senators, along with 2 Republicans, they went along for the ride - with their careers in mind."

Enough knowledge? I'm not so crystal clear on that. It was easy for us bloggers to bounce around our thoughts, but we weren't sitting in a Senator's seat. One uncovering of a cache of chemical weapons or nuclear material in Iraq would have sent those 21 "courageous" Senators' careers straight down the crapper.

In a nutshell, Graham tells us that everyone on that committee knew that Bush was lying about weapons of mass destruction.

In a nutshell, I'll bet that most of those Senators felt that way in their gut, even though their final votes to give the President authorization to proceed may have been different.

Mr. Walsh expresses deep concern that there is no "opposition party" today.

Right now it is crystal clear that there is no true opposition party, although there are minor elements (very minor ones) among the Left in the Democratic party and the Libertarians in the Republican party. These could constitute a genuine antiwar opposition. Until that happens, the war will go one, the neocons may drive us into further wars and our democracy will be further imperiled.

I find that to be a shaky conclusion from my own experience - the Bush agenda is not in line with that of the majority of our Democratic representatives, and I don't believe it is "opposition" that we need. What we need is cooperation from all of our Representatives, Republican and Democrat for a sane and moral agenda in both foreign and domestic policies. We are all faced with instability in the Middle East, and a good part of it is because of the way in which our Commander in Chief approached and executed this war. I believe that giving the President of the United States the authorization to proceed was done in good faith by the Democrats. If there was a shadow of doubt about the WMD question (and there were many shadows - I had blogged about the small chance that chemical weapons might be used against the troops we were sending headlong into Iraq), then those Representatives held a great responsibility for that smallest doubt in their hands in October 2002. It's too easy to sit back now, with all we have uncovered since 2002, and point our fingers at cherry-picked Senators who did what they felt they had to do. In 2002, I was fairly sure that Bush was lying about the level of truth in the confidence we should have had in the available intelligence information he was presenting to our representatives. Many of our representatives probably felt that same uneasiness.

William Rivers Pitt wrote this in March, 2003 - speaking to all American citizens about the mistake he believed had been made:

"I understand why you support this engagement. At bottom, you do so because you are loyal. The President has said it must be so, and so it must be so. The loyalty of this nation's citizenry is now and has always been our greatest strength. Many of you who support the war are veterans of other conflicts, and so your support is based upon a desire to stand with the troops now in harm's way. This is more than honorable. Many of you believe this must happen because you have been told, time and again, that Saddam Hussein possesses an awesome arsenal of mass destruction weapons that he will gladly give to terrorists for use against us. Your belief that this is so stems from your loyalty - - the President has told you it is true, and so it must be true...........At the end of the day, though, I think I know the true reason why you support this war. You still see September 11th when you close your eyes.

I'm sensing that people like Mr. Walsh are angry with the whole of our society, and I understand perfectly well why he would feel that way. No one stopped a radical leader with no plan to complete the task he set out to accomplish - and that task - a war - was based on false information. We are angry. We're all looking for someone or something to blame.

The targets of our anger are many. I would think, if we really wanted to make a difference with promoting alternatrives to unjust pre-emptive wars, we might learn to trust some of our experienced Democratic leaders rather than throwing them over for candidates who don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election. When you see a leader like Senator John Edwards reaching a hand out and telling you why he believes he's made a mistake and offering ways to turn this mess around, instead of slapping him in the face, why not listen and think about the realities of our world and what we face, as one nation today? It's useless to try to adjudicate this long-standing distrust for our Democratic Senators by asking who was the most wrong at the time of the IWR. If any anti-war movement will ever have a valid voice, it will have to be a voice that gives up the animosity toward some of the leaders who have learned important lessons - and try forgiveness, and to appeal to them to implement their hard-learned experience to put our nation on a moral path. If you're like me, you might pray for their strength to lead us on.

I don't believe any movement that calls itself "anti-war" with leaders who profess to be "anti-war" without presenting solid alternatives to war will ever have a chance for practical success here in this nation. I am "anti-war" - and I know that we face a dangerous world with more tensions today, thanks to the worst President in history, than we have ever faced.

In the words of Wendell Berry:

"We can no longer afford to confuse peaceability with passivity. Authentic peace is no more passive than war. Like war, it calls for discipline and intelligence and strength of character, though it calls also for higher principles and aims. If we are serious about peace, then we must work for it as ardently, seriously, continuously, carefully, and bravely as we now prepare for war."

Now is not the time to parse the words of Bob Graham to accuse any other Senator of being a "liar" - which is an unfair and unacceptable accusation. I'm quite sick of reading this kind of journalism, but I understand why it's out there. Democrats have missed the boat on creating a better vision. The ones who admit they've learned the hardest lessons and that they care to change the status quo are the ones we might hold out the best hope for leading us to a better day -with war as a last resort rather than the first.

Scott Ritter on Politicization of Intelligence

Scott Ritter on Politicization of Intelligence

Scott Ritter makes a very important statement, and I agree with his opinion because I know a person who had direct experience with intelligence in the 90s in the Middle East and Africa - and in past conversations, he has told me much the same:

The crux of the problem of this Iraqi WMD intelligence "failure" lies in the fact that the U.S. intelligence community and the products it produces are increasingly influenced by the corrupting influences of politics. The politicization of the intelligence community allows the process of fixing intelligence around policy to become pervasive, and the increasingly polarized political climate in America prevents any real checks and balances through effective oversight, leaving Americans at the mercy of politicians who have placed partisan politics above the common good. The recent overhaul of the U.S. intelligence community, which resulted in the creation of the national intelligence chief, only reinforces this politicization, because the new director reports directly to the president and is beyond the reach of congressional oversight.

Not only is intelligence, once pinned down, used for partisan politics, but I have been told that the process by which intelligence gathering itself takes place has unmistakable political influence. The way we do business to justify war has to change or, God forbid, we'll have more Iraqs.

Ritter suggests this solution:

The only true fix to the problems of intelligence that manifested themselves in the Iraqi WMD debacle is to depoliticize the process. The position of national intelligence chief should be a 10-year appointment, like that of the director of the FBI, and subject to the consent of Congress. Likewise, all intelligence made available to the president to make national security policy should be shared with select members of Congress, from both parties, so that America will never again find itself at war based upon politically driven intelligence. Finally, and perhaps most important, the American people should start exercising effective accountability regarding their elected officials, so that those who voted yes for a war based on false and misleading information never again have the honor and privilege of serving in high office.

In the real world, voters are probably not going to overturn their incumbent representatives for their vote on the Iraq War Resolution. It may seem distasteful to think it's true, but the final vote - for or against giving a President authorization to make war, if necessary, will always be political, even if the intelligence is not fixed around the policy. It's my opinion that no matter how hard we try to provide oversight and balance, our intelligence agents and officials will be perpetually led by the political nose. Let's not be naive. Maybe the best suggestion is not to rush to war resolutions in the first place - to find alternatives to war. This is where I disagree with Scott Ritter. Rather than lashing out from anger and frustration at the way things are - and probably will not drastically change, let's act positively, as a large activist voting bloc, toward the change we want to see. The American people should start worrying and concentrating a lot more about exercising effective pressure on their representatives to make war obsolete - to impress upon their government the belief that war should the very last choice in an array of viable alternatives. The work of peacemaking and following the rule of law is not a walk in the park, and it takes great minds to carve out the new paths we will need to take if we're going to survive as a civil nation among a league of civil nations in the 21st century. We should accept no less. We have to ask ourselves who is up to the task. Our representatives should exercise accountability for their IWR votes in an open and frank manner - and we should be allowed to decide for ourselves whether or not their reasoning makes sense to us.

Overall, I have a healthy respect for Scott Ritter's suggestion for better checks and balances on intelligence operations that will forever be subject to political abuse.

What Would JFK Have Done?

What Would JFK Have Done?

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

"I think religious people are strengthened in their beneficent influence by being separated from government and not dominated from government."
- Former President Jimmy Carter

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

Don't miss this interview with former President Jimmy Carter at Busted Halo. The webmag discusses "America's Moral Crisis" with the former President.

"I believe that the recent public opinion polls that I’ve read, just like you, show an increasing disillusionment with this administration, a very rapid decrease in trust that the administration is telling the truth and exemplifies the moral values that I describe in the book, those things are showing up in the present disapproving polls. And I think that may very well be a predictor of what will happen in future."

_ __ _ ____ ____ ____ _ __ _

*While you're visiting Busted Halo, Jason Rowe, a Catholic Worker at Casa Juan Diego in Houston, Texas, has written a piece about the life and legacy of Dorothy Day, one of my personal heroines for having been selflessly devoted to ministering to the ever-present needs of the poor and the homeless.

"Day should serve as a model for believers seeking to radically live out their baptismal calling within the concrete context of the world they inhabit."
- Jason Rowe

It is only by embracing
our own state of brokenness
that we are able reach out with compassion
in faith and hope to others
and as we have offered
our love and understanding
we find by some miracle
that we are loved and understood

- Jude

*Visit Oxfam to see how you can help others today.