IMAGINE - A Real Solution in Iraq

credit: mathsong.com

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

- Martin Luther King

IMAGINE
President Bush Stuns the World - Announces An End to the Occupation of Iraq and a New World Organization for the Benefit of Civility in Iraq and Beyond…

The public trust is all but gone and our military is stretched and broken and cannot take anymore without having to resort to a draft, because on the U.S. present course, over the next five years it will take to see Iraq through its bitter civil war, there will be a need for at least 400,000 U.S. soldiers and marines in theatre. President Bush decides to make a serious move to change the course of future events in Iraq – for the sake of morality, for the sake of a strong military, for stability of the Middle East, for U.S. national security. He finally understands that the U.S. needs to regain international respect and to sincerely seek the cooperation of all nations to end terror and to do the work of solving the complicated root causes of terrorism. (The kind of cooperation where you don’t have to pay off the participants). Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing in principle, and Bush knows he'll always have that piece of history to his benefit – but in Iraq today, as things stand, Bush has come to understand that he needs an immediate strategic change of direction. Things are going terribly sour. Until he makes that basic change, Bush knows that the nation will pay a higher and higher price over a long time - until the ultimate train wreck occurs...when we are eventually forced to withdraw troops, anyhow, but without a plan for stability in civil-war-torn Iraq.

Bush will get the world's attention by proclaiming that Iraq will be demilitarized. This will require great humility on Bush's part, a virtual turning of the other cheek. Bush will re-direct the correct level of American devotion and commitment to Iraq and he will call upon world leaders to join him in a unified international front against anyone who would employ terrorism against innocent civilians for political reasons.

Bush realizes that he has been seen, by many in the world and in his own nation, as a leader who has sent his troops to Iraq for divisive political reasons, and that many innocent Iraqi civilians have unjustly suffered because of the many strategic errors on the part of the U.S. with Bush as Commander in Chief.

He begins to convince the public that he "means business" by firing Donald Rumsfeld and replacing him with _______ (imagine). Bush publically rebukes and fires anyone in his office and in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office who smeared Joseph Wilson and outed his CIA-agent wife Valerie Wilson Plame. Bush convinces the public that he believes that playing dirty politics by playing fast and loose with the identity of a CIA official is as close to being a traitor as you can get. The Pentagon’s Office of Special Planning would be cleaned out – any of the the neoconservative wonks still on the Washington payroll (the ones who haven't been indicted or promoted to UN or World Bank positions) are tossed out on their ears. Scott McClellan is either given leeway to actually talk to reporters instead of being a clammed-up automaton that no one trusts – or he is simply replaced because it’s too late for anyone to believe him (thanks to the administration who sent him out to cover up their rot for too long).


The End of a Too-Long-Wrong Occupation

A new day begins. After putting diplomacy to work in a sincere and convincing manner, Bush, with humility, announces that, while al Qaeda is dangerous and while he still believes that they must be met by force, a war on a technique called “terror” – fought the one-party way we’ve been fighting it in Iraq – has backfired. Not only is the U.S. left with a new Iraq where an ever-increasing league of terrorists are emboldened by their occupation, but a dangerous low-grade civil war is taking place while our troops are left to protect Sunnis from massacre by Shiites – while the U.S. is also protecting Shiites from Sunnis; while the U.S. is also supporting the Western ideas of the Kurds (who will likely soon completely lose interest – and faith - in a unified Iraq with a strong central government). The U.S. simply cannot appear consistent in their defense of the Iraqi people because the “Iraqi people” have not decided who they are or what they want – and they will probably will have to fight it out between them. There has been a common demand by the Shia leaders and the Kurds - as well as Sunnis - for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces, which has discredited the Bush administration's argument that setting such timetables would be a disastrous mistake. There is simply no “there” there. Iraq's guerilla insurgency says far more (and says it far more forcefully) than any Iraqi election could say. The U.S. is defending everyone - and fighting some of the same people they purport to defend - for no clear goal while theocrats set a new Constitution to water down and dismantle women’s rights and militias roam a land of unbridled anarchy.

President Bush tells us that he realizes that the U.S. occupation must end now, and he insists that Iraq must be policed by their own citizens here and now, but the Iraqis will not be able to do it alone – not today – not six months from now – probably not even six years from now.

Iraqis will still need help, but the U.S. can’t do it alone – and the strategic course must drastically change without doing further harm to the security of Iraq’s civilian population and infrastructure. We look back on what we’ve done and see the immoral ramifications. It's heartbreaking - and it's been ineffective. Too many dead civilians, too many orphans, too many towns destroyed, too many lives ruined and disrupted, no possibility (because of the lack of security) for NGOs to do the real work of rebuilding lives or supporting the building of new democracy.

A New World Organization and A New Global Institute For Anti-Terrorism
Policing vs. Militarization

This must be an international policing effort with multilateral authorization - based on international law. Terrorist movements and finances must be monitored and their ranks must be infiltrated. These thugs must never be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons. The governments of Middle Eastern countries must become convinced that it is in their best interests to eliminate the threat of terror in their own countries and to join the international effort. Bush admits that the U.S. can't police Iraq on a unilateral basis and that the military occupation is no longer effective. Rather than pulling out U.S. troops and continuing a U.S. air war with errant bombings that kill thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians, he announces a new global alliance against terrorist groups. This new organization will be led by the U.S. and it will be called the World Anti-Terrorism Organization (WATO).

A new think-tank for the global effort to end terror will also be established, with the best diplomatic and academic minds working on real solutions, in conjunction with the UN, to support democracy while attacking the complicated root causes of terror - such as human rights, world hunger, the lack of education, and disease. It will be called GIFT - Global Institute for the Freedom from Terrorism.


Islamic Fundamentalists Join the Debate

The regimes of Syria and Iran, who have caused many problems for citizens within their respective nations who desire a more free and democratic society, would be far more intimidated by a Middle East that was prepared to act, with allied affirmation against those who employ the tactics of terror, in a multilateral effort to protect innocent civilians in Iraq as they work toward building a society they have not yet had a chance to experience. There are many Islamic fundamentalists who do not share the terrorists' commitment to violence. They could be the most important and instrumental group in putting down terrorism and dissuading those who would join the ranks of the terrorists. Iranian and Syrian citizens do not like the tactics of al Qaeda anymore than any civil human being likes them. The world, acting as one, could be a light to these citizens and much more of a threat to totalitarian theocratic regimes. Bush will decide to pull back American-led forces in the areas close to the Syrian border, because it is doing nothing but fueling the insurgency in Iraq. Iraq will be unable to function normally until the insurgency is brought under control and history has shown that a conventional military power will never defeat a guerrilla force without the support of its indigenous people. That is where the international focus must be.

Having made an unfortunate mess of the training (and the speed of training) of the Iraqi security forces up to this juncture, priority could be put on training more and more Iraqi forces – and many WATO nations could host and participate in this effort, with the U.S. in the lead. An immediate and clear plan for training Iraq's troops, along with definite timetables for certain benchmarks to be met will be required.

When President Bush contemplates the difference between what the US troops leaving “precipitously” vs. what leaving “responsibly” means, he sees that every moral person understands that you don’t just pick up stakes and leave the country, but the time has come to plan a withdrawal with a responsible plan for the international police effort. If a battle was ever worth fighting, or if a a war was ever worth winning, the American people have always known what they have to do, and they've done it boldly, decisively, with courage and ferocity. We would do it in Iraq, if it was truly an American war, an American value, or an American interest. The battle is not - and has never been for America alone, and Bush finally realizes that we never should have taken it on as such - especially when bad intelligence was politically manipulated to fit the policy in order to gain the American public's trust - and fear was used to mold public opinion. Bush finally sees that it is in the world's best interest that terrorism is put down and its root causes are addressed - and most importantly, this big idea transcends all partisan politics.


Europe Throws Schadenfreude Aside

Europeans will come the conclusion that they can no longer sit on the sidelines – regardless of how much they might wish to tell President Bush "We told you so, you impulsive imperialist bastard." The security failure in Iraq has created the immediate danger of destabilization which is affecting the European street and the European economy. Seeing the pain and struggle for the peace in Iraq and the hard work of establishing a new government, Europeans will find compassion and purpose (both economic and moral) in joining WATO.

After the terror attacks on the tube and buses in London on 7-7-05, Tony Blair has changed his mind about his steadfast political support of Bush's unilateral cause. Jacques Chirac was reawakened last month to the inequities in France's own egalitarian society when Muslims staged violent and widespread local uprisings. Spain recalls the terror of 3-13-04, and the Spanish people have since elected new leadership who has been waiting for Bush to reach out to them with a multilateral plan that the people of their nation would accept - perhaps even embrace. Innocent people are tired of being used as the pawns in the power struggle.


WATO Forces

To this day, Iraq, a nation of 26 million people, still have no functioning judicial system or effective police force. European countries will make a commitment by establishing new WATO forces (taken from their respective militaries or civil police forces on a volunteer basis) and having them ready for international policing/security missions in about 10 weeks, with the assistance and training of knowledgeable and experienced U.S. military generals, MP trainers, and civil police trainers. They will then train as units, which could take at least another four to six months. Together, WATO forces will conduct a coordinated counter-insurgency effort alongside the Iraqi military police, who also need more training.

The United Nations will eventually find a reasonable assurance that there will be security so they can move in, once again, and began to do the good works of humanity for the war orphans and displaced families in Iraq. The UN will also provide additional support for the burgeoning democracy and new government in Iraq, making efforts to ensure the rights of women and protect other human rights, even under a government that embraces some unavoidable theocratic elements based upon the unique culture and society of Iraq.

The American Public Begins to See Some Light

The public will begin to forgive President Bush for his many mistakes in Iraq, knowing that he made up for those errors by turning the effort around to find success by what was the simplest thing he ever could have done - finding humility within his soul. The kind of humility that caused him to think about his people - even though he does not govern by the polls. His people are the ones who have depended upon him to be trustworthy and honest with them. The people are the ones who gave birth to the young men and women who fight and die for President Bush's vision of national security. The fight in Iraq is being done in the people's name, with President Bush as their leader. To know that the people are starting to believe - genuinely believe - that he sent the troops to Iraq based upon falsehoods and errors has made Mr. Bush heartsick. Humility was all it had ever taken to change many hearts - the hearts of his own people and the hearts of the most powerful leaders around the world who have understood, for a long time, that the tactics of terror that have been used for many decades in Europe and the Middle East have been increasing on their own respective countries' streets - and since 9/11 and the pre-emptive war in Iraq (mistake or not), terror-recruitment and copy-cat acts of terror have reached unacceptable levels.


Humility Has Great Power

Humility will call all world leaders to have a change of heart. Terror has not occurred and grown in a vacuum. The powerful must understand that you don't put down terror on the one end, with super-power and forceful might, while letting social tensions build on the other end - ignoring poverty, human rights issues, and the valid civil arguments that the powerless bring to the powerful leaders. The work of real peace, prosperity, and security will be harder than any war could ever be. Diplomacy is conducted by the wisest people who understand that the cycle of war between groups of people who are different from one another will divide them for all time, ensuring endless wars to come.

Once this plan is accomplished successfully, the Republican party might be assured electoral victories for many Novembers yet to come. The world would be a better and safer place - and the people of the United States, seeing their common values represented at last, could feel they were united on the issue. They would respect that President Bush remembered the importance of humility and love for our brothers and sisters, even in the face of hate, terror, and contempt. Christian Americans, especially those Christians who believe that devoted public service to the state is not the same as one's quiet individual service to God, think about Jesus' radical command to turn the other cheek, his rejection of the old law of "an eye for an eye." By the Devil's own misleading, Jesus was told up on that wilderness mountaintop about promises of peace and of wealth, and of visions of control of earthly matters. He rejected that message. America was never meant to do this thing by ourselves, and it shouldn't have ever been any wonder that somewhere along the way, the people lost faith in President Bush's promises that he would be able to erase their vulnerability to danger by removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq unilaterally. Bush needs to prove that we are not continuing to try to transition from a 229-year-old Republic to a new American Empire, or we will ultimately fail - and destabilize the Middle East in the process.

_______________________


This was a fantasy, of course. A workable fantasy. If President Bush cannot do this now, because time is wasting, he should get our troops the hell out of Iraq
- pronto. For my mil-blogging friends, cut me some slack on the miltary lingo, wouldja? - I'm a novice. Perhaps you could add some ideas and correct me where you think I'm off-base. I'm a big girl - I can take it.


___________________



Update: Senator Joe Biden's (D-Delaware) WaPo op-ed moves lightly toward a different kind of resolution, saying this about seeking multilateral cooperation:

Iraq's neighbors and the international community have a huge stake in the country's future. The president should initiate a regional strategy -- as he did in Afghanistan -- to leverage the influence of neighboring countries. And he should establish a Contact Group of the world's major powers -- as we did in the Balkans -- to become the Iraqi government's primary international interlocutor.

Like Sen. John McCain calling for ground troops during the Kosovo crisis (which would have been a disaster), Sen. Biden has continously harped for many more boots on the ground in Iraq when we should have been pulling them out instead, seeking a more effective and much wider international cooperative force. Now he says no one listened to him when he suggested that more troops were needed, and I thank God no one did at the time. When he says "A liberation has become an occupation" in Iraq, I wonder why it's taken him until now to bring that up - and why he put it that way. This has been an occupation since we arrived in Iraq in 2003. I don't feel comfortable with his ideas. We'll require something bigger if we're going to turn this thing around.I wonder why no Democrat is bold enough to suggest a solution that would be best for Iraq, the U.S., and the world. Perhaps it's because Bush has taken us so far down the wrong path in Iraq that no political leader will risk any big ideas because those ideas would depend upon allies, old and new, and Bush has alienated them nearly every step of the way.

Who Cares About The Least of Our Brethren?

Who Cares About The Least of Our Brethren?


An American (Anony)Moses in Sykesville, MD

An image of a modern-day "American Moses" is raised:

"We are but a year from a first great step in this freedom, and on this day next year, we may see that the darkest moments of our struggle behind, not before us. But that turning is merely a beginning. If God were to take an American Moses to the mountain top this day, and show him the whole world in a single sweeping vision, he would, yes, see around him gleaming spires, and golden domes. But he would look back and see what a great wilderness had been crossed to reach them. And he would look forward, to see out over a world, one quarter of whom are ill fed, ill clothed and ill housed. Ill schooled, ill treated and ill cared for, who scream as their children die in hunger and their families die in thirst and sickness.

And what would God say to that American Moses. I believe he would say this: "As you have come out of the wilderness, as this was your past, so it is their present. You cannot rest in your prosperity, but must lead my people into the promised land. And not by sticking with a gun, or jerking on a chain. As you have been transfigured, so must they transfigure themselves. As they are imperfect, you must see how you are imperfect. For you have been given much, and they have been given less."

He would say to this American Moses "Be thankful for what you have, and keep this day, but admit that it will not be fully holy, until there is one vast banquet of humanity, where every place is filled, and none are turned away from the table."

- from "Let Us Pray", a Thanksgiving feature by Stirling Newberry, BOP

______________


Going backward in time, flash back to a sermon that was preached in Miller Chapel, Princeton Theological Seminary, March 6, 1968 by Calvin B.Marshall:

I think it is more realistic and far more fitting for us to concern ourselves with the judgments of God that confront this society and the Christian church at this present moment. Indeed, all over the world, the church stands in judgment. She has failed to do the things she should have done, and she has done those things that she should not have done. The church in America has been a stilled voice as racism has ravaged the society, entrenched poverty has become the plight of a major segment of the population, and injustices seem to be the rule of the day.......In this period of self-examination, we also found that our major urban churches and most of our suburban churches and even a few of our rural churches no longer want to minister to the needs of the poor and the impoverished, but that we have become very middleclass oriented. This was seen across a wide spectrum: from the kinds of people that we drew as members to the restructuring of our worship and liturgy to make it correspond more closely to white churches. We became ashamed of our music; we became ashamed of our spirited expressionism.... We were caught in this trap because everything in our society that was supposed to be good, noble, lofty, and right was white.

________________

Flashback to the beginnings of Christianity:

Matthew 25:34-45


34
Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
35
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,
36
naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.'
37
Then the righteous 16 will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
38
When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?
39
When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?'
40
And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42
For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
43
a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.'
44
Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?'
45
He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.'

____________

We will not overcome poverty with economic solutions alone. It's clear that society must change if the way our democracy deals with poverty is going to change. Our political and civic leaders talk a good talk about allevating the conditions that lead to poverty, but after election day, we see little action. Poverty increases in our communities by the year. There is virtually no discussion or debate in the public square about the faith that would lead Americans to guiding their Representatives to reconciling policy with social justice. Pro-rich policies are passed by the Republican party, who have been elected by a majority of Americans who attend church services on a regular basis. How does that make sense? Was Jesus pro-rich?

- In the middle class churches today, what is being touted as good, noble, and lofty? Why are the poor so often blamed for their own poverty?

- Is the middle class so removed, both literally and figuratively, from the urban and rural poor that they have forgotten the importance of God's calling to serve the poor?

- We may never realize the full alleviation of poverty, but does that spiritually excuse us from trying to address such problems?

- Why are there literally thousands of references to poverty and/or serving the poor throughout the Bible?

- What about man's propensity for social injustice, selfishness, greed, and prejudice? Why isn't the Church talking about committing to racial justice and reconciliation in our congregations and communities?

- Why isn't the Church drawing connections between terrorism and poverty, no matter how complex the issue?

- Why aren't the middle class churches talking about the wars to which our nation has committed our soldiers? Do they believe that Jesus was pro-war?

The Church needs prophetic voices, like the many who have spoken through Scripture. Those who subscribe to a Conservative Christian theology and those who are more liberal in their religious theology can agree on Matthew 25, and together, Christians can all stand strong and united in serving the Kingdom of God, which they well know does not always fall in line with serving a government. But they can remember that it is their moral responsibility to call upon that government to legislate with the poorest Americans in mind - along with the poor of this world. With the exception of a few spiritual activist movements, the calling to serve the least of our brethren, as prescribed in Matthew, has been ignored.

The American middle class church seems to have lost its soul on the issue of poverty - and they seem to have lost their way on how a spiritual engine can be used to make political changes in our nation that reflect the democratic values of its citizens.

C.S. Lewis said, in "Mere Christianity," that:

"Hope is one of the theological virtues. This means that a continual looking forward to the eternal world is not (as some modern people think) a form of escapism or wishful thinking, but one of the things a Christian is meant to do.

It does not mean that we are to leave the present world as it is. If you read history, you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next. The Apostles themselves who set on foot the conversion of the Roman Empire, the great men who built up the Middle Ages, the English Evangelicals who abolished the slave trade all left their mark on earth, precisely because their minds were occupied with Heaven."

Just think of what Christians could do today's "present world"- how they could lead a movement to fulfill God's calling. What are today's American Christians occupied with when they speak of their "values?" Abortion? Gay issues? Why those narrow priorities -and not the poor? What has blinded so many Christians in our nation to the poor among us?

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

Jimmy Carter Interviewed by Busted Halo

Coming Soon - an interview with former President Jimmy Carter.


photo credit: BustedHalo.com - a ministry of the Paulist Fathers

In the meantime, read about the folks who meet at a hip Armory Square bar called the Blue Tusk here in Syracuse each week to talk about Jesus in the Postmodern Matrix.

One last note - don't miss Bill McGarvey's interview with Jim Wallis, author of "God's Politics."

Thanksgiving with the Murtha's

Thanksgiving with the Murtha's




Tip of the hat to Fred Bieling.

A THANKSGIVING PRAYER FROM THE IROQUOIS (SENECA) PEOPLE

A Thanksgiving prayer from my neighbors and friends, the Iroquois people of Upstate New York. All photos are mine - and they are taken of land that was once belonged solely to the nations of the Iroquois. When I walk the trails and forest paths, I can feel their spirits all around me. They were caretakers of the land, and we need to honor the ancient spirits by doing the same.



A THANKSGIVING PRAYER FROM THE IROQUOIS (SENECA) PEOPLE



Gwa! Gwa! Gwa!
Now the time has come!
Hear us, Lord of the Sky!
We are here to speak the truth,
for you do not hear lies,
We are your children, Lord of the Sky.

Now begins the Gayant' gogwus
This sacred fire and sacred tobacco
And through this smoke
We offer our prayers
We are your children, Lord of the Sky.



Now in the beginning of all things
You provided that we inherit your creation
You said: I shall make the earth
on which people shall live
And they shall look to the earth as their mother
And they shall say, "It is she who supports us."
You said that we should always be thankful
For our earth and for each other
So it is that we are gathered here
We are your children, Lord of the Sky.



Now again the smoke rises
And again we offer prayers
You said that food should be placed beside us
And it should be ours in exchange for our labor.
You thought that ours should be a world
where green grass of many kinds should grow
You said that some should be medicines
And that one should be Ona'o
the sacred food, our sister corn
You gave to her two clinging sisters
beautiful Oa'geta, our sister beans
and bountiful Nyo'sowane, our sister squash
The three sacred sisters; they who sustain us.



This is what you thought, Lord of the Sky.
Thus did you think to provide for us
And you ordered that when the warm season comes,
That we should see the return of life
And remember you, and be thankful,
and gather here by the sacred fire.
So now again the smoke arises
We the people offer our prayers
We speak to you through the rising smoke
We are thankful, Lord of the Sky.



(Liberally translated)
Chuck Larsen, Seneca

Bubp Backs Away From Schmidt

Bubp Backs Away From Schmidt


see ThinkProgress.com

According to Josh Marshall (via the NYT), the Marine colonel Danny Bubp who was "quoted" by Ohio Representative Jean Schmidt, bedecked in 'patriotic' red and blue with white stars on the floor of the House (while disparaging John Murtha) "feels as though the words that Congresswoman Schmidt chose did not represent their conversation."

In other words, he's backing away from what he'd said to his old friend "mean-Jean" because she's become a bitter partisan poison that the Republicans can no longer afford.

Of Straw Men and Dishonest Men

Of Straw Men and Dishonest Men

Vice President Dick Cheney claims that some Iraq war critics are 'dishonest,' not anything like good old honest Dick Cheney, whose chief of staff "Scooter" Libby allegedly lied through his teeth to Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury to secure a roadblock to a complete investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson and the smearing of her husband Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Former CIA official Ray McGovern has had Cheney's number for quite a while now. In the Downing Street Memo hearing on Capitol Hill last summer, Mr. McGovern testified that on August 26, 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney gave a major speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and he told them:

"...we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors -- including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon."

Mr. McGovern made a very strong accusation, saying that Dick Cheney lied about Saddam's son-in-law in that VFW speech. McGovern quoted page 13 of his own debriefing report which said that Saddam's son-in-law confirmed that all WMD were destroyed in July of 1991, at his order, to prevent the UN inspectors from finding them after the first Gulf war. A whistleblower had leaked this debriefing to Newsweek magazine as the Bush administration's drumbeat for war got louder. The article about it appeared in Newsweek on February 24, 2003, weeks before the war began. The story never got much play because the timid media supressed the story. McGovern said that a "supine press" eager to accept official explanations contributed to the facilitation of this war.

In the DSM hearing, McGovern talked about VP Cheney's personal visits to CIA. He said not only were they "unusual", they were unprecedented. McGovern said that he believed 'the best of the CIA' is gone from the department now. In the old days, you never would have seen CIA acquiesce to fixing the facts around the Executive's policy whims. Yet, when Cheney went to CIA and told them he wanted certain intelligence to take priority to fit the case for war, too many CIA officials became yes-men. In McGovern's time, he said most of the CIA would have walked out if they'd been presented with such a request.

VP Cheney needs some serious reflecting in his own mirror before he sets out to accuse others of dishonesty.

__________________

Cheney couldn't call Salon.com's Peter Daou dishonest in laying out ten pro-Iraq-war fallacies. See: STRAW MEN OF IRAQ

At TPM Cafe, Ivo Daalder asks a question upon learning that then-Senator Bob Graham (D-Florida) had confirmed that there had been "troubling aspects" to the NIE presented to the Senate just before the Senators were expected to cast their 'Yes or No' vote on the Iraq Resolution.

Graham..confirms the point that the unclassified NIE released by the CIA only days before the Iraq vote bore little resemblance to the fully caveated classified version. But we, the public, of course did not know that....So why didn't those could have known call the administration on it? Is it because no more than six senators and a handful of House members bothered reading past the 5-page executive summary of the NIE before casting what may have been the most important vote of their congressional careers?

Todd Gitlin comments further.

Today too, the LA Times reveals in thousands of words that the Bush gang inflated ("bungled" is the authors' word) what they gleaned second-hand from "Curveball," the screwball informant who claimed Saddam had biowar establishments humming. Frankly, I can't keep up.
Ivo asks why senators who knew that the CIA pre-war public release version of the NIE was expurgated beyond recognition haven't said so. Good question. But it's not too late to yell bloody murder.

Related story:
CSM - Germany - CIA knew 'Curveball' was not trustworthy: German intelligence alleges Bush administration repeatedly 'exaggerated' informant's claims in run-up to war.

Misno's Story - Poverty Breeds Terrorism

Misno's Story - Poverty Breeds Terrorism

In the Jakarta Post, there is a thoughtful editorial on poverty - and how it breeds terrorism.

WaPo Editor Discusses Woodward's Holding Back on Plame Leak

WaPo Editor Discusses Woodward's Holding Back on Plame Leak
"..there is much about Mr. Woodward's conduct that is disturbing,".. but....

WaPo executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. discussed Bob Woodward's recent revelation that he'd had a role in the Valerie Plame Wilson leak over two years ago (a secret for which Woodward has apologized). Mr. Downie carefully criticizes Woodward, articulating Woodward's reason for holding the secret as wanting to "avoid being subpoenaed in the Fitzgerald investigation and being forced to reveal his source." Here are excerpts from Mr. Downie's chat:

I understand that, but he nevertheless should have come to me and we would have decided together how to proceed. It is quite possible that if he had come to me, as he should have, we still would not have been able to publish anything if his source had refused to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement, as indeed the source has so far..
.. reporters should share with their editors significant information of his kind, even in a confidential source relationship, so that the editors can help the reporter decide what to do with it in the best interests of our readers, as well as making certain we do not violate a confidential source agreement.
..Bob should have told me about his conversation, even if we would have been unable to publish anything about it because of his confidentiality agreement with his source..
..Bob Woodward never lied. He failed to come to me sooner and tell me something he should have told me..
..In the future, I expect him to work within our newsroom's standards, as he always has except for these two mistakes.

Mr. Downie claims that Mr. Woodward has asked his source to release him from his confidentiality agreement. Downie says that he believes that Walter Pincus and Bob Woodward have "honestly different recollections of conversations two years ago." Downie asks that readers measure Woodward's exceptional record against his current error in professional judgement.

My favorite question came from Omaha, Nebraska:

Does Woodward always decide for us which information he feels we need to know? Does The Post approve of his filtering of information to your readers?

Leonard Downie Jr: No. His editors ultimately decide. That is why he should have told me sooner about this piece of information, whether or not we would have been able to report it because of the confidential source agreement.

The WaPo's ombudsman is less forgiving, rebuking Woodward for his professional reticence, saying that Mr. Woodward committed a "deeply serious sin" by keeping Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie in the dark about his source for more than two years.

"He also committed another journalistic sin -- commenting on National Public Radio and (CNN's) "Larry King Live" about the Plame investigation without disclosing his early knowledge. [CNN/Reuters]

John Edwards visits India

John Edwards visits India


photo: OneAmerica.com

The Business Process Outsourcing Services sector is thriving. Senator John Edwards recently traveled to India, and quite honestly, he told an audience of Young Parliamentarians under the auspices of The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India that increased unemployment in the U.S. creates complications and that many U.S. citizens are opposing the free-wheeling, job-crushing methods of business process outsourcing. Outsourcing companies in the U.S. are becoming more competitive and are earning 8 dollars by their outsourcing of work of 1 dollar to other countries - including India. (BPO IT laborers in India are considering unionizing.)

For Americans living abroad, asserting that the Democratic Party would win the next U.S. presidential elections, Senator Edwards opened a Democrats Abroad chapter in India.

He stressed that India and the US must cooperate closely to fight nuclear proliferation.

Senator Edwards intended to use his recent trip to India to underscore the need for correcting the poverty problem that exists, both in this country and globally.

“It was an eye-opening experience for me,” he said of his trip. Senator Edwards said stopping poverty at global and local levels can be accomplished with uniform political movements to capture the attention of politicians.

More can be read about the India trip from Josh at the One America blog.

Welcome, Paul "the soaring" Siegel

Welcome, Paul "the soaring" Siegel

The latest addition to my blogroll is Paul "the soaring" Siegel and his blog, which is called "We Don't Agree, But.."

Mr. Siegel has had a longtime internet presence as founder and administrator of the Learning Fountain. He gives inspirational speeches about vision; has given practical seminars on Internet marketing; and has taught computer subjects at universities, corporations and associations. He is currently speaking on "How to Live in a World of Terrorism." He is also an author and publisher. His latest book is titled "WE DON'T AGREE, BUT-How to Live in an Age of Terrorism" (See review here) Mr. Siegel expresses that, by being more cooperative, you, as an individual, can help reduce terrorism and at the same time achieve self-actualization. Whe are Americans afraid of terrorism? Mr. Speigel gives his thoughts.

Welcome, Paul!

Obama: Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

Obama: Teaching Our Kids in a 21st Century Economy

Senator Barak Obama gave a speech on Education on October 25, 2005 at the Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. It's been printed in its entirety at Mother Jones.

Video here.

Fact sheet here (pdf).

An excerpt:

Thirty or forty years ago, they [high school dropouts/non-college graduates] may have gone on to find a factory job that could pay the bills and support a family. But we no longer live in that world. Today, the average salary of a high school graduate is only $33,000 a year. For high school dropouts, it’s even closer to the poverty line – just $25,000.

If we do nothing about this, if we accept this kind of economy; this kind of society, we face a future where the ideal of American meritocracy could turn into an American myth. A future that’s not only morally unacceptable for our children; but economically untenable for a nation that finds itself in a globalized world, as countries who are out-educating us today out-compete our workers tomorrow.

Now, the American people understand that government alone can’t meet this challenge. They understand that we need to transform our educational culture, from one of complacency to one that constantly strives for excellence. And they understand that government cannot replace parents as the primary motivator for the hard work and commitment that excellence requires.

But they also know that government, through the public schools, plays a critical role. And what they’ve seen from government for close to two decades is not innovation or bold calls to action. Instead, what they’ve seen is inaction and tinkering around the edges of our education system – a paralysis that is fueled by ideological battles that are as outdated as they are predictable.

Kerry Admits He Thought Election Was Stolen

John Kerry Admits He Thought Election Was Stolen

If John Kerry is telling people that the election was stolen [see Democracy Now], why did he give up so easily and concede so quickly last year? Mark Crispin Miller says:

That was a real body blow to the democratic system, and it demoralized a lot of people when Kerry pulled out. It’s hard to forgive him for that. Why did he do it? Well, according to my evidence and I’ve got this in Fooled Again, Kerry was swayed by the brain trust around him. These are people like, you know, Bob Shrum, Mary Beth Cahill – they’re, you know, Democratic Party war horses. I don't think they have a stellar record of winning campaigns, and I don't really understand how it is that they were hired to do this, but they persuaded him up in Martha's Vineyard that he should pull out, otherwise, he told John Edwards in his call, Kerry said, “They say that if I don't pull out, they are going to call us sore losers.”

Times couldn't have been harder for Senator John Edwards in November of 2004. He was faced with a running mate who wanted to concede the presidential election without so much as a question about the legitimacy of what happened in Ohio; he was faced with his wife being seriously ill with breast cancer that required immediate treatment.

Did Senator Edwards want Kerry to concede as quickly as he did?

No.

Mark Crispin Miller on Senator John Edwards:

"I spoke to someone, a relative of his who was with him when the phone call came from Kerry. This is this in the book, "Fooled Again." Kerry called him on the cell phone, and don't forget that Edwards himself, four hours before, had just been on national TV promising righteously to count every vote, got a big hand. Now he felt he was being made to look like a fool, and he argued with Kerry vehemently. He said, “It’s too soon, you know. Wait.” Kerry, you know, said this thing about how they will call us sore losers, as if that’s worse than the country, you know, going fascist, whatever. And Edwards said quite understandably, “So what?” You know, “So what if they call us sore losers?” I mean, they are going to call them names in any case. But it’s true, Mark is right, Kerry's caving in like that gave an enormous gift to the right wing. They could now claim, "Well, even their candidate doesn't think it was stolen."

Some people think that this is big news - and I agree. Why has John Kerry taken so long to say this? Why did he leave it to us bloggers and outsiders to hang with the heavy questions that need to be asked - making us look like conspiracy theorists for so long?

If Kerry thinks that the election was stolen, that is big, big news. And I think that it is very unfortunate that it took him 12 months to come around to that conclusion, because, you know, I want to stress this....John Conyers..was stonewalled by Ken Blackwell, the Secretary of State of Ohio and other officials, including the Triad Computer Company, who basically refused to answer his questions. Had he or another agency with subpoena power should go back and get that.. Look, this is the essence of our democracy. We deserve to have a persuasive answer to what happened in 2004. We probably would have gotten it if Kerry had shown the courage to say, on Election Day – on the day after Election Day a year ago what he apparently told Mark Crispin Miller the other night. If he had said then that “I suspect this election was stolen,” believe me, even the corporate media would have investigated this. It’s too juicy a story, but because Kerry dropped the ball there, you know, it’s now a year later, and it’s only the outsiders who are talking about it."

- Mark Hertsgaard, who has done an article in the current Mother Jones magazine, “Recounting Ohio: Was Ohio Stolen? You Might Not Like the Answer”

GOP: Losers For False-Choice Vote on Iraq

GOP: Losers For False-Choice Vote on Iraq

An immediate withdrawl from Iraq has been soundly rejected by the House in a 403-3 vote, and with good reason. Who in their right mind thinks we can pull out immediately, still being a responsible people who realize that Bush leadership has the Iraq war so FUBAR? I don't think GOP leaders have even tried to responsibly reach a consensus on what we should do to change the course in Iraq.

"Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on our present course," [John] Murtha said. He said the GOP resolution was not the thoughtful approach he had suggested to bring the troops safely home in six months.

From the "no-shit Dick Tracy" department:

"Congress in strong, bipartisan fashion rejected the call to cut and run," White House spokesman Scott McClellan, traveling with Bush in Asia, said a statement. Earlier Friday, the president called an immediate troop withdrawal "a recipe for disaster"

Duh. Scott McClellan must think Americans are really stupid. We need to have a real vote on a responsible plan with a timetable and an end game. The longer the majority Congress avoids getting down to the real work of accountable people working as true bipartisans, the lower their poll ratings will sink. Soon, they'll get a 100% no-confidence vote from the American public. Will they still be snarling and pointing fingers at Democrats then?

Representative Jean Schmidt from Ohio was protested, booed and belittled for her reprehensible and meaningless political hyperbole on the House floor yesterday. She looked like a total horse's ass to most Americans when she pulled out the tired "only cowards cut and run" line. What made her look even more disgusting was the thought that Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett, who lost a special election to her this year, could have been the one up there speaking the informed truth in her place. Why do we keep electing these divisive idiots? What's worse is this - according to reports, GOPers now want — you guessed it — an ethics investigation of John Murtha.

...that, coupled with the GOP's manuever today in trying to pass off its own amendment as Murtha's (then backtracking), the campaign against Murtha, him being called a coward brings to mind the famous quote Special Counsel for the Army Joseph N. Welch made to Senator Joseph McCarthy:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

See: Moderate Voice

Let's look at the reality that the GOP leadership refuses to look at:

To defeat the insurgency we will need at least 400,000 troops on the ground. At the present time, the United States does not have sufficient troop strength to ramp up to that level. Our choice is simple - either we come up with the additional forces and commit ourselves to an effort that will stretch on for at least five years with 400,000 plus soldiers and marines in theatre or we withdraw.

How do we get 400,000 troops on the ground? That will require a draft or a commitment by NATO forces and other countries to provide forces. Even if we start a draft tomorrow, we will not be able to field combat capable divisions for at least two years. Basic training requires 10 weeks. Advance infantry training adds an additional six months. Once the troops are trained they need to train as units. The unit training, starting with companies and working up to division level exercises, will require at least 18 months (and that is an optimistic scenario).

In the interim we would need to call upon NATO forces to deploy to Iraq and conduct a coordinated counter insurgency effort. This effort, over the next two years, will likely produce at least 10,000 fatalities and 80,000 wounded. Are we willing as a country to pay that price? I don't think so.

- Larry Johnson

Being responsible adults (and leaders) means setting a timteable for moving our troops back home with a plan for international cooperation for the security of the Iraqi public, but this "immediate pullout or none at all" is a false choice and I'm sick of these bastards in the GOP hastily arranging false-choice votes that we all can see are politically motivated. It's a worn out tactic and they've beaten it to death. It doesn't work anymore. Partisanship must end here and now. The macho bullcrap about "cutting and running" gets us nowhere. When are we going to see our political leaders acting as if we are one America?

Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position - at their own political peril. They've come out looking worse than ever for f**king around with petty politics while our troops are risking everything in a disastrous war.

Fitzgerald Goes On - Woodward at Center

Fitzgerald Goes On - Woodward at Center

US Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will convene a new grand jury to hear testimony in the CIA leak case, which has already seen the indictment of L. Scooter Libby. See Jason Leopold's investigative report at Truthout. Sources say the evidence involved additional aides in the Vice President’s office as well as senior officials who were part of a clandestine faction known as the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a group set up by WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card in August 2002 to "market" the Iraq war to the public via selective leaks to major newspapers about Iraq’s alleged WMD program. Reporter Bob Woodward said he'd first learned about Valerie Plame Wilson’s identity in mid-June 2003, during a time when Dick Cheney and his senior aides had gone to great lengths to find out her identity in the hopes of silencing her husband Joseph Wilson.

Let's get into Bob Woodward's head. Has he ever revealed his opinion about the cherry-picking of intelligence by Cheney's office? Yes, he has. In his book "Plan Of Attack", Bob Woodward had described a relationship between Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that became so strained Cheney and Powell are barely on speaking terms. Cheney engaged in a bitter and eventually winning struggle over Iraq with Powell, an opponent of war who believed Cheney was obsessively trying to establish a connection between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and treated ambiguous intelligence as fact. Powell felt Cheney and his allies -- his chief aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz; and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and what Powell called Feith's "Gestapo" office -- had established what amounted to a separate government. That's a strong statement for Bob Woodward to have made.

Arianna Huffington makes an astute observation about Bob Woodward's questionable forthrightness:

In his spin, Woodward is trying to put a positive face on things by making it sound as if he decided to come forward and disclose his Plamegate involvement to Len Downie of his own free will (a claim Downie seemed to back up when he told the Post that Woodward told him about the contact to alert him to a possible story). But a tell-tale excerpt from Woodward's appearance on Larry King the night before the Libby indictment indicates that he had to be prodded into coming clean.

See Arianna's dynamite collection of Woodward-related blog commentary.

"I called Carl Bernstein to ask what he thought of his old partner's behavior. He was loyal as ever but he did say something very revealing -- and unintentionally damning. "This investigation," he told me, "has cast a constant searchlight that the White House can't turn off the way it has succeeded in turning off the press. So their methodology and their dishonesty and their disingenuousness -- particularly about how we went to war -- as well as their willingness to attack and rough up people who don't agree with them are now there for all to see. They can't turn off this searchlight, which is shining on a White House that runs a media apparatus so sophisticated in discrediting its critics it makes the Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Ziegler press shop look like a small-time operation." And these are the very thugs that Woodward was protecting while attacking the guy operating the searchlight. (my emphasis)

The question now is: how will the Post handle the story?"

Bora on Blog Books

Bora on Blog Books

Bora at Science and Politics has some suggestions about turning your blog archives into a book.

What About Bob?

What About Bob?

At the One America website, Joe Clarke has a round-up of links regarding the Bob Woodward testimony and respectful speculation about who the mysterious leaker might be. See Who Done It?

Michael J.W. Stickings has a round-up of his own. He asks a rather amusing question:

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. As a friend put it today, this Woodward is pretty much the exact opposite of the Woodward of Watergate. Redford played him then -- who would play him now? (I'll take your suggestions.)

I'm thinking Crispin Glover à la the
wimpy 50s Dad in "Back to the Future."

Homelessness in Charlotte

Homelessness in Charlotte

There was a great radio presentation, a look at the challenges of hunger and homelessness on Charlotte Talks at WFAE this morning.



At a time of year when a warm home and a hot meal bring families together, they looked at those who can't take food and shelter for granted. Guest host Chris Clackum and a panel of experts looked at the process of feeding the homeless and homebound in the Charlotte area. They explored how food is gathered, warehoused, and distributed and who receives it. The panel, including a former homeless man named James White (who has written of his transformation from a homeless person into an educator), looked at just how close any of us can be to homelessness.

Related sites:
Uptown Shelter
Urban Ministry Center
A Way Home

Here is the audio archive link at WFAE.org.

There will be a "Help The Homeless Awareness Walk" Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 7:30 AM. The walk will begin on Spratt Street in Charlotte.

It's part of a nationwide effort to increase awareness of the homeless on our American streets and in our shelters. See Help the Homeless

Ending homelessness is possible. One of the keys to ending homelessness is increasing the supply of permanent, affordable homes for people with low- to extremely low-income levels. In addition to stable housing, such prevention and supportive services as employment training, substance abuse recovery programs, and mental health assistance are often needed to help families get back on track.

______ ______ ______


Breaking News:
$275M project planned near Central Ave
Prices could range from about $150,000 to more than $1 million

In related news, a modest apartment complex in a lovely neighborhood in Charlotte for those with lower-incomes will likely soon disappear in favor of a new buyer with bigger plans for more expensive housing units. The Morningside Apartment complex will soon be no more. I wonder just how much assistance the people now living in this lovely neighborhood will receive from those who would buy their homes out from under them and replace those homes with million-dollar condos?

How many more homeless families will this create?

Americans are Angry with O'Reilly

Americans are Angry with O'Reilly

A lot of good Americans are extremely angry with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly right now.

Fred Bieling is my writing partner at Syracuse Progressive. He is a veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Fred has had it with O'Reilly's smears.
Here's what he had to say to Mr. O'Reilly this week:

_______________

Mr. O'Reilly,

I would be honored if you'd add me to your "enemies list." As a veteran of both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and a proud American whose patriotism WILL NOT be besmirched by the likes of you, let me say that you should be ashamed of yourself. If there is anyone in the media today that undermines America more than you, encouraging terrorists, smearing good citizens, ect, ect, I don't know who that would be.

http://www.fredbieling.blogspot.com/

__________________

I'm so proud of Fred. It's time to put an end to this new McCarthyism. Bill O'Reilly can add me to his "enemies list," too - and I would be just as glad to have the exposure so that all Americans could see for themselves that I love this nation and refuse to have some pompous ideologue intimidating me - or you - or any intelligent and concerned patriot of this country.

Reason and Faith: What Does Winning the Culture War Mean?

Reason and Faith:
What Does Winning the Culture War Mean?

Fred Hutchison lays out his case for why he believes that Christianity and reason will be essential to winning the "culture war." What "winning" is supposed to mean here is unclear to me - Mr. Hutchinson has the right to his political views and so do you and I. This posting of mine is to point out the fact that we do have politically different perspectives, and the personal values to which our faith brings us as individuals should be discussed openly - and often. The freedom of exercising individual conscience was the focus of the Declaration of Independence, which was the only founding document that mentioned the Creator. I do not appreciate the way Mr. Hutchinson portrays Deism in the article. In my opinion, he waters it down to a belief that is under-developed - - a faith that a high-schooler would possess today. In truth, many of the founding fathers were committed and serious Deists.

The fact that Mr. Hutchinson is calling upon Christianity as a major power in "fighting for reason" will confuse some people, I'm certain. To clarify the path on which Mr. Hutchinson is taking us, he explains that it's his belief that Jonathan Edwards embodied "all the best traits of a great culture" and that we can "learn about the culture by observing" him. Mr. Hutchinson says that some Christians have forsaken the cause of reason, thinking that it is a realm of futility and a distraction from the cause of Christ.

I've formed many scars from the constant knife-in-the-heart betrayal of my religious values by the extremist leaders of the far religious right, who are more interested in taking over the Republican party in God's name than in actually being on God's side. Those scars have sometimes hardened my longing to speak of my personal faith in the public square.

I think it's high time for us to take back our faith in public debate about American and have open discussion about the politics that shape our society; our morals, ethics, and common faith-based values; and how we treat the least among us. To me, that is precisely what "winning the culture war" is about - social justice, peace/war issues, empathy, compassion, honesty, truth, and a full scope of life issues - not just the narrow one that seeks to criminalize an already-agonizing and desperate choice.

[Jonathan] Edwards, a man of extraordinary rational intelligence, found his mind utterly baffled with the idea of an empty void. It is an idea contrary to reason. In contrast, the idea that an eternal being has always existed is a necessity for the highest flights of reason. Like aircraft, which cannot fly in a vacuum, the flight of reason requires the atmosphere of an eternal omnipresent deity.



In contrast, an atheist must believe in a cosmic void prior to the mysterious appearance of the universe and an empty vacuum beyond the galaxies. Furthermore, the human mind must reason in a dark, empty, inner room unsupported and uncomforted by a divine presence. Edwards said that such an idea produces "convulsions and confusion" in the mind and a "contradiction" of the soul. Indeed, when one debates with an atheist, one finds a mind entangled in convulsions of thought, confusion of concepts, and contradictions of what it means to be human. In accordance with Romans 1:28, the atheist has a debased mind. Such ruined minds are quite common among postmodern liberals who are fighting against reason in the culture war.

Mr. Hutchinson says that he believes that atheists have thrown up the most intense defenses against reason and that some of the liberals he has debated are not far behind in their defenses "against reason." (Reason - meaning Mr Hutchinson's philosophical views on Reason, naturally). When he says that the absence of transcendent spirituality in the modern churches breeds cynicism which drains the intellectual energies in fending off irrationality in our culture, I admit that I pause and recall times when I've seen opportunity for meaningful debate that was dulled by a watered-down (and narrowed) understanding of Christian theology within the modern churches and shut off by a divisive mistrust of anyone in politics who might be wearing their faith on their sleeve.

Reason, of course, cannot rise to its highest potential without faith, and without the metaphysical anchors supplied by the existence of God. Why cannot the Christian philosophers of the modern era rise up to match the rational philosophers of prior centuries? It is possible, but very difficult. The ubiquitous presence of cynicism drains the intellectual energies in fending off irrationality in the culture. The mind is distracted from the mountaintop of reason by constantly having to quibble over first principles with skeptics. The strange absence of transcendent spirituality in the modern churches leaves the individual believer to a private quest to find God in the fullness of his majesty and glory, as Jonathan Edwards did.

The task of this generation of Christians is to restore transcendent spirituality to the churches, to win the culture war, and reclaim and reestablish reason throughout the land. This will make it possible for philosophers of a future generation to again produce works of world-class rational philosophy, which is part of the heritage of the West.

I hope there will be a lot more public discussion of faith in the public square. This nation has been damaged in ways we don't yet understand. Our sense of invulnerability was shattered on 9/11. Our President and his administration lied to us about the reasons he was sending our troops to war while his administration plotted out some evil political manipulations. If the war had been a success, the public trust may never have been damaged, but Bush's Iraq war was poorly planned, strategically wrong, morally wrong, socially unjust - in short - it is a disaster despite the best efforts of our loyal Military. On the homefront, the rich are getting richer by the day while poverty increases among the poorest. The middle class is shrinking - and most are going the route of the "working poor." This nation is divided; non-trusting; bruised; spiritually impoverished.

Our faith and our common values may be the only rational thing we have to hold on to at a time when all other institutions fail us. I believe that an honest and respectful debate about reason and faith is the only thing that is going to save this nation. While atheists are just as American as any other citizen, there is no moral superiority in their claiming that Religion is "magical thinking" - especially when you consider that the notion that God will cease to exist through an willful act of denial is also 'magical thinking.' Atheists and extremist secularists cannot blink and hope that Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and Wiccans will disappear from the public square. Respect is key to public debate about where we draw the line between our common (often faith-based) values and the rule of law.

Orchestration of Conventional Wisdom Gave US an Unjust War

Orchestration of Conventional Wisdom Gave US an Unjust War

At LewRockwell.com, Michael S. Rozeff wants to know how Saddam Hussein became such a "grave threat." He believes that our understanding of the history of how this all came to be conventional wisdom so quickly is important. We do not want our nation - our troops- our treasure - to go into avoidable wars. He says, "We have yet to see the full consequences of this war, in terms of shifting resources away from going after terrorists, in fostering new terrorists, in strengthening Iran’s hand in Iraq, in encouraging Islamic fundamentalism, in weakening the U.S., and in other as yet unrevealed ways."

"If Saddam Hussein was not a grave threat, how did so many people come to view him as one? When did common perception transform him into a mortal threat to America? Who stimulated this transformation and why? What accidental factors contributed to this error? .. If we can answer these questions in depth, perhaps we can learn more about the fundamental failings of our system of state and government. Perhaps we can change our system. Perhaps we can avoid similar errors in the future. This article merely begins to raise pertinent questions. It does not answer them. Perhaps it points in fruitful directions; perhaps not. It only begins to sort out the strange case of Saddam Hussein’s transformation from two-bit dictator and strong man into an evil the size of Hitler, capable of producing mushroom clouds over America, possessor of unmanned vehicles filled with biological diseases lying off the Atlantic shores.

We're in this strange place in time - where we must look back in order to avoid disastrous mistakes in the future. We're also in the middle of a war about which we cannot allow to bring our nation to be brought its knees - mired in failure and strung out alone playing unilateral savior to every nation whose geopolitical interests happen to coincide with ours. Bush's use of an alleged divinely-guided "national theology" as a reason for war is a perverted, partisan, and hollow abberation of religion and has not provided a sound moral basis to initiate war with another nation. Accusing Democrats of providing comfort to an enemy is the only defense of Bush's Iraq war policy that he can muster, and it also rings hollow and defies common sense. A patriot cares enough about his country and his people that he will gladly risk imprisonment, as H.D. Thoreau did in the nineteeth Century. (see Civil Disobedience)

Michael Rozeff's article is important. You were sold a war that your nation never needed to enter into. That much is true. It should be alarming that so many believed that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.

Now that we are there - what will we do, as moral citizens with our careful eyes fixed upon America's best interests? How will we reconcile those interests with the due responsibility for what we have wrought in Iraq?

Why do we fail to trust political leaders who send out ideas to set things right? Is it because we see how one administration failed us so miserably (and betrayed our trust)? Is it because we hate war and know that there are better solutions to dealing with our international tensions?

Talk.

*tip of the hat to Charlene B - the Duchess.

American Soldier Talks About Katrina Aftermath

American Soldier Talks About Katrina Aftermath

"It really bothered me when I would see innocent people being terrorized or harmed by thugs that tried to take advantage of the helpless in the aftermath of this disaster."

- American Soldier

We ask a lot of our soldiers - and we often fail to think about the dire circumstances under which they are discharging their duty. Life isn't pretty and crime happens. In places as diverse as Iraq and New Orleans, they see it all. From the best of what we can be as human beings - to the worst.

"So there I was in the middle of water. Stepping out of a police car, M16 in hand and ready to lay down the law. Some areas were a haven for very bad people. They would slap their own mothers if they were still around. In a land where people are pissed already because all that they had got washed away."

I was particularly moved by the story told about a frail elderly woman that the American Soldier assisted in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I am reprinting his post with permission from the American Soldier
(Thanks, AS.):

American Soldier says,

I was asked if I really made a difference in the two weeks that I was in New Orleans. I sat back and I pondered the question for a moment. The faces still fresh in my head of the people I either helped or arrested. I took a deep breath of the country air that I now appreciate so much more. I responded with a solid yes.

I was busy from the moment I left. Not knowing what would come about in this mission. I was prepared for the worst. We arrived at a busy airstrip called Belle Chase. There were thousands of people there. This place normally only held about 500 or so people. Not now. It was the main hub for air support in the greater New Orleans area. Aircraft was coming in or out nearly every 2-3 minutes. One would take off and another would land. A very chaotic but amazing scene.



It wasn’t any more than a day or so and we were moved into the city area. On the way in under the cover of darkness the destruction could be seen. Poles ripped from the ground and thrown across the streets. Tree’s toppled and buildings pushed over like Lego’s.



Missions got under way quick and I found my nitch. I was tasked to work with the local police. Since LA was under martial law, the need for military assistance was obvious. These cops I must say are heroes. Despite losing all that they had, they still worked around the clock in order to preserve the city. My partner was normally a quiet and subdued guy. I think I brought out a side of him that he will appreciate moving forward. I was quickly known for the no bullshit approach that I have for stupid people but yet keeping that professional side of me.



We’d roll up on a call and normally people would just gracefully walk away but when some Army guys gets out of the vehicle with an M16 fully loaded people stop and just don’t know what to do. Some people tried to test the limits of the law but my partner and I were having nothing to do with that. You drop an attitude and you were finding yourself chin to hood and that distinct sound of handcuffs closing around your wrists. I can’t tell you how many times that scenario played out.



Not all calls were in response to bad guys. We did a lot of status checks on people. At first I was like whatever, lets go check this person out. Then the trend hit me. These people were elderly and their young and able family members were calling the police to check on them. Most of these older citizens were left behind. I began to get pissed when we would go to these calls. I wanted to call the son or daughter and ask them why in the hell they left their father or mother behind! There was a call that I will not soon forget. I touched on it slightly in my 9/11 post. There was a lady who was 90 years old. Some workers flagged us down and advised us of an older lady in her apartment. They felt she should be taken to safety.



As we approached the apartment, the side of it was completely blown off. The roof was also in bad shape. We went up the stairs walking around fallen dry wall and glass. We got to the door and knocked. At first there was no answer. We opened it up and there sat a very delicate lady. We walked in and she gave us a smile. I put my weapon behind my back. And I took a look at the condition of her home. Mangled was my first thought. Her apartment was complete exposed to the elements. Mold had already formed all over the ceiling. We asked her if she had enough water and food. She said that she was fine and comfortable. I was confused because all I saw was about 15 bottles of water and some MRE’s unopened. I asked her if we could bring her to a shelter or a place that she could be more comfortable. She looked at me and told me “Child, I’m going to be ok and I’m comfortable now.” As much of a man and tough soldier that I am, for that moment I felt vulnerable. I felt helpless. This woman, who has probably lived a full life, was choosing to stay. I took a look at the walls and I could see years of happiness. Pictures of family were all around her.



As I write this right now, I have tears in my eyes. The reason is because at the time I couldn’t help her and a few days later we responded back to her apartment where she had passed. She knew her fate and for whatever reasons she decided to live her final days in such chaos surrounded by remnants of happiness that once filled her life.

We got so many calls for looting. We’d either find people fresh out of a store with cartons of smokes or alcohol. Mind you, there were no stores open. We’d see these people just casually walking about like we weren’t going to stop them. We had a standing rule while on patrol. Arrest only felony subjects. So if a person had some items, it was at best a misdemeanor charge. So we’d stop them, search them for drugs and question them. Some people cooperated with us. Some decided to act like asshats and try to resist or run. I always enjoyed when they ran. Gave me a chance to flex my running skills and quick hog-tying skills of mine.

I will expand more on the run and snatch calls in another post. I’m still decompressing from this experience.

Note:
"American Soldier" is writing a book titled Soldier Life: A Day in the Life of an American Soldier.
I look forward to reading the book. It's a special kind of person who can write about his or her often-difficult experiences in a way such that we are made to better understand - to be shocked sometimes - to be inspired to make change where it's necessary. Many thanks to AS and all the soldiers who are out there doing their job in the service of their nation.

Who Voted For This Knife in the Constitution's Gut?

Who Voted For This Knife in the Constitution's Gut?
Most Republicans; A Few Democrats

Senator Lindsey Graham's Constitution-killing amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act was proposed and passed with no real debate about its far-ranging implications - and it was passed without any hearings. Our troops are fighting for Iraq's freedom while Constitutional freedoms become more and more limited - with fear used as a political tool to convince citizens that it's necessary. The lack of discussion calls to mind the Iraq Resolution of 2002 when, absent of meaningful debate, an all too trusting Congress hurriedly provided Bush and Rumsfeld the authorization to "do the right thing." That was a big mistake. Will we keep letting Congress make these big mistakes until our freedom has vanished altogether?

The Democrats who voted for this Amendment should be scrutinized. Who are they?

-Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut
-Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana
-Ben Nelson of Nebraska
-Kent Conrad of North Dakota
-Ron Wyden of Oregon


Republicans who deserve credit for voting against the bill were:

-Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania
-John E. Sununu of New Hampshire
-Gordon H. Smith of Oregon
-Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island

In blatant defiance of the Constitution's guarantees of Habeas Corpus and separation of powers, the Senate on Thursday approved the Graham Amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 49 to 42. Five Democrats joined all but 4 Republican Senators in giving the President unfettered power to hold prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for the rest of their lives, with no criminal charges, and no right to challenge their confinement by Habeas Corpus [...]

Only a handful of prisoners at Guantánamo have been charged with crimes. Their cases will be heard in military commissions that George W. Bush established to impose long sentences and even execute detainees with virtually no judicial oversight. Without habeas access to federal courts, Bush and Donald Rumsfeld will ostensibly serve as prosecutor, judge and executioner in the military commissions. This flies in the face of the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. - Marjorie Cohn, Truthout

Edwards on Iraq - Leave Behind Success, Not Failure

Edwards on Iraq - Leave Behind Success, Not Failure

In today's Washington Post, Senator John Edwards is telling you that if he knew then what we all know now about the deeply flawed and politically manipulated intelligence, he never would have voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002.

It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.

The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.

This could never have been easy for Senator Edwards to admit. Most political leaders in Washington still won't admit what we all can see - that they were mistaken. I admire Senator Edwards' honesty and humility. He's a man of outstanding moral character. It isn't the first time he's publically communicated his regret, and it may not be the last. It isn't so much the regret that we should focus upon - instead it is the ideas for bringing our troops home with full honor intact and with something we can all identify as "success" brought to Iraq that should be in focus.

I'd like all of my readers to put themselves in the position of being a responsible leader. All of you who've been calling for the troops to be sent home - what would you honestly do if you suddenly came to power? I've heard a lot of cocky answers on both sides of the political fence, but when I look reality straight in its face, the political leader who is speaking directly to my heart and mind is Senator Edwards.

The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.

Senator Edwards gives us a plan for success in Iraq, focusing on three interlocking objectives:

1. Reducing the American presence. (We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals.)

2. Building Iraq's capacity. (A more effective training program for Iraqi forces, implementing a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met.)

3. Getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. (To create a unified international front.)

He honors the families who have lost their loved ones in this war by promising to implement clear plans for a definitive success, while removing the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq - even if that means asking American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave the country and hand the work over to Iraqi businesses.

More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.

I'm proud of Senator Edwards for sending this message to the people of America - to Washington D.C. - and to the world. Integrity, honesty, courage, humility, and truth are values that are largely missing in Washington D.C. today. Clear ideas born of ethics are even more of a rarity. Is it any wonder that our vision has been lost? The vision has been emptied of all the values that give meaning and moral force to it. I believe that Senator Edwards can bring the vision back and make it work.

Related:

Think Progress
One America
Oliver Willis
Atrios
David Sirota
AmericaBlog
Editor and Publisher
Blogcritics