I think Andrew Sullivan's Giving McCain Far Too Much Credit

"You have probably seen our European friends say: ‘Well, the Israelis have got to stop.’ What would we do if somebody came across our borders and killed our soldiers and captured our soldiers? Do you think we would be exercising total restraint?"

- Senator John McCain
A statement that most Americans would agree sounds a little too "green-light" on behalf of a state's unbridled violence, considering the fact that a civilian population is being terrorized by war and a humanitarian crisis of monumental proprtion has been created. It's time to keep it real or give up our nation's reputation as a fair broker. Our "European friends" happen to fall in the same category of moral and ethical opinion as the rest of the international community.

I think Andrew Sullivan's Giving McCain Far Too Much Credit

When it comes to why a Democrat like myself has stopped supporting Joe Lieberman, Andrew Sullivan writes in such a way - today - that shows me that he "gets it."

The notion, advanced by Lieberman, that criticism of the president's war leadership is somehow inappropriate when the country is in danger gets it exactly the wrong way round, I think. It is precisely because the danger is still so great that criticism is so necessary. That's democracy's strength. You could understand, if not forgive, this abdication of leadership if Lieberman were bound by partisan loyalty to Bush. But he isn't. And even those who are - like Chuck Hagel and Lindsey Graham and John McCain and John Warner - have had more astringent criticisms of the the conduct of the war than Lieberman.

I'll agree with Mr. Sullivan on Senators Graham and Hagel.

However, I have to say that, having paid very close attention to Senator McCain since I saw him give grossly overcompromising support of Bush's handling of the Iraq war at the September 2004 RNC convention; and knowing that he failed to convince me that he would have a coherent plan for a "victory" and "exit" in the many months since, that his public questioning has been far less astringent than I would have hoped.

A Scenario I'd Regret to See

Iraq's a failed mess of a mistake - the worst strategic mistake in America's history. I strongly suspect that no venture - whether it's in war or diplomacy - will politically go America's way in this world again until we end the occupation of that country. Here's what I foresee if a McCain presidency should come to pass: It's 2009. The hawkish President, who has a son serving in Iraq [and rumors are that it's likely his 18-yr-old son Jimmy could be serving in Iraq soon] tells America that at least 250,000-300,000 more troops will be needed to tackle the dangerous instability in the Middle East caused by President Bush's failed foreign policy. McCain could have spoken up in 2004, but he chose campaign politics over honest criticism of the President's obvious failings. At that time, he looked us in the eye and dared to say: "Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war." The military is exhausted. A draft will be required. President McCain will expect no dissent on the draft. After all, he always supported the war in Iraq. Americans voted for him because he believed that this war was always right [he said so without question in 2004 when we all knew the course was failing]. He will have a mandate. A President McCain would tell you that we should continue with even more firepower and boots on the ground and that your sons and daughters can expect their draft notice in the mail. All for American imperialism.


McCain Should Have Spoken Out Honestly in 2004

Hiding Behind Flowery Rhetoric in His RNC Speech Gave Bush Political Power to Perpetuate Failure

My disappointment in September 2004 upon hearing McCain speak at the RNC had much to do with the fact that McCain said:

[Democrats] emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy. [..] We agree. [..] That is what the president believes. [...]

The President never utilized the style or the standard of good-faith diplomacy employed by all other American Presidents. Instead, he carried on on his own revolution of thugs, where nations who had any ideas of their own to contribute were shunned and the America's trust meant nothing. For too long, each American citizen's intelligent dissent over the Iraq war was treated as near-treason by Republican leaders. They should be ashamed to call themselves defenders of freedom for having done that.

By the time Senator McCain spoke the following words, it was already clear that the war in Iraq was never necessary - especially the way Bush did it. Yet, McCain heaped undue praise upon Bush, giving him political support to keep failing. It's hard to forgive Senator McCain for that. He should be embarrassed to have ever said it:

We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times. By destroying his regime, we gave hope to people long oppressed, that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom. Most importantly -- most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region, that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability, that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble.

He said:

What our enemies have sought to destroy is beyond their reach. It cannot be taken from us. It can only be surrendered.

Yet, we've been losing more liberties with each passing year - surrendered - thanks to a rubber stamp Republican majority who would not assent to the fair oversight for which they owed responsibility to the American people. {McCain does get credit for pushing for the independent 9/11 commission, Then again, so did Joe Lieberman.

Senator McCain said,

Let us argue -- let us argue our differences, but remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy...

The only reference to "enemies" I ever heard during that time came from the mouths of Republicans toward anyone who would not accept the obvious political manipulation and daily trot-out, even in the mainstream press, of outright untruths from our government about their 21-plus rationales for going to war with Iraq.

We aren't stupid. Senator McCain's not stupid - but I believe he was condescending to the American people in that RNC speech. He blasted Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary [for cheap laughs and some applause] - having never actually seen the documentary for himself. I personally heard Michael Moore's retort when I [and 10,000 others] saw him speak in Syracuse later in September of that same year. From my own journal:

How many times did we hear Osama bin Laden’s name mentioned at the RNC? George Pataki mentioned it once. Michael Moore says his own name was mentioned more (and received more boos) than Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Moore said, sarcastically, that he was glad the Republicans have their priorities straight. Moore says he felt a bit embarrassed for John McCain, who didn’t know Moore was in Madison Square Garden when McCain spoke negatively about him at the RNC. After the speech, McCain spoke to Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball and admitted to him that he had not even seen ‘Fahrenheit 9/11” for himself.

To this day, Senator McCain still thinks that the war in Iraq is a necessary and noble venture. I disagree. Millions upon millions of Americans disagree. He has underestimated many intelligent Americans - and he's done so at his own political peril.


See my reasons for doubting his credibility as a capable handler of Iraq.
- November 2005
- December 2005
- March 2006

I think McCain's a personable fellow and I know what he went through as a POW beacuse my great Uncle was nearly tortured to his death as a prisoner of war in the Phillipines and Japan during WWII. I consider my uncle and the Senator as brave and tough men for having survived their similar experiences. With respect, it doesn't make either of them automatic candidates for commander in chief. In the end, character really does count. I've seen Senator McCain waver on too many of his so-called convictions. His suck-up at Bob Jones University was just one more example of the marshmallow-soft center of his alledged convictions. Bottom line, I think he isn't much different than Senator Joe Lieberman in the sense that both men have underestimated and miscalculated the feelings and opinions of the American people.

YouTube Station Devoted to John Edwards' Political Activity

YouTube Station Devoted to John Edwards' Political Activity

There's a new YouTube.com station for videos [47 to date] of the public speeches and other related political activities of Senator John Ewdwards that have been created, produced, and/or collected by the savvy members of the One America Committee blog.

Double Cross:Family Values Hypocrisy in Congress

Double Cross:
Family Values Hypocrisy in Congress

Yonce Shelton, who has testified in front the House Ways and Means Committee on behalf of Call to Renewal on the issue of minimum wage, says that there's a double cross going on this week in the House and Senate. You can see his full article at the current issue of SojoMail. [Sojourners]

Excerpts:

[..]Last Friday, the House passed legislation to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over three years. But there's a catch. The bill (Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act - aka "trifecta" bill) would also permanently reduce the estate tax - an important source of federal revenue impacting only the wealthiest half of one percent of our nation's taxpayers, which also encourages billions in charitable donations (according to the Congressional Budget Office, between $13-25 billion in 2000). The bill would also extend other expiring tax cuts. [..]

[..]The House leadership proudly touted its "American Values Agenda" week in July, which included votes on gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, abortion, and human cloning. Missing from that agenda was the value of promoting family economic security. Integrity of political procedure seems also to have been missing, which isn't new. Before last week's vote, a $7.25 minimum wage increase passed a House committee as part of an appropriations bill. Apparently that committee's values took House leaders by surprise. Stuck without an easy way to strip out the wage increase, House leadership has chosen not to move that appropriations bill forward until after the elections. By denying a straightforward vote and coupling the wage increase with other politically dicey provisions, House leaders are again choosing political charades over people and the common good.

If the "trifecta" bill becomes law (the Senate will vote on it this week), the trade-off for a minimum wage increase will be a sacrifice of other supports for working families playing by the rules but coming up short. Work must "work" - working families, individuals, and those unable to work deserve a living family income. They deserve to be treated with respect - especially by their elected representatives. They deserve an up or down vote on the wages for their labor. [..]

On the heels of this WaPo article, here was a discussion about the situation at the One America Committee blog yesterday, where many expressed their own opinions, including myself.

Bob Geiger rreports that the Republican bill to "increase" minimum wage will actually lower wages in seven states!

As it stands at 7 pm today, the success of Congress passing the bill in the Senate looks to be highly in doubt.

I personally question Senator James Inhofe's (R-Ok) priorities and values when he adnits that he “really hasn't decided” whether to swallow a minimum-wage increase in exchange for an estate-tax rollback. He can barely stand to see minimuim wage workers in his state making more than $5.15 per hour while he opens new avenues for millionaires to play welfare "Dynasty"-style and robbing Oklahoma of much-needed revenues that could benefit working families. Inhofe's statement makes me sick, especially since he claims he's such a devout Christian.

Act Now: Intl. Ceasefire Campaign

Act Now: International Ceasefire Campaign


Cease Fire Massacre
credit: Jude Rouslin/Galeropia


I received this e-mail from my Weekly Action Coalition partner, Thoughts of an Average Woman.

Dear friends,

Right now a tragedy is unfolding in the Middle East. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed or wounded in the bombings in Lebanon, Palestine and Israel and the death toll is rising every day. If the US, Syria or Iran get involved, there is a chance of a catastrophic larger war. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called for an immediate ceasefire and the deployment of international troops to the Israel-Lebanon border, and been strongly supported by almost every world leader. This is the best proposal yet to stop the violence, but the US, the UK, and Israel have refused to accept it. I have just signed a petition calling on US President Bush, UK Prime Minister Blair, and Israeli Prime Minister Olmert to support Kofi Annan's proposal. If millions of people join this call, and we advertise our views in newspapers in the US, UK, and Israel, we can help pressure these leaders to stop the fighting.

Go to the link here and sign up now!

With hope,
C.

I encourage you to go and sign this petition.
After you do, you may wish to read William Rivers Pitts' Cease-Fire Now.

Thanks,
Jude

Turkey's Relationship With U.S. in Focus

Turkey's Relationship With U.S. in Focus

See my post at THE AMERICAN STREET today.

Excerpts:

Academics from Turkish universities have urged their Israeli colleagues to “raise their voices” for peace in the Middle East as an Israeli offensive in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon rages on...Turkey has called for cease-fire in the Middle East and stepped up diplomacy for an end to the conflict. Thousands of Turks have also taken to streets to protest the Israeli offensive.

Turkey has strongly condemned the killing of innocent civilians, most of whom were children, by the Israeli army in the Southern Lebanese village of Qana.

In a New York Sun op-ed titled "Green Light," the ABC radio network's John Batchelor - who doesn't hide the fact that he wants the U.S. to crush Iran - sets up the scene for an Armageddon-like scenario in a world where Iran has already gotten the political upper hand. Personally, I think that this is a lot of speculation and fear, with Mr. Batchelor parroting Syrian and Iranian propaganda as if it's the gospel truth. There has been absolutely no sign of Iran provoking the U.S. or any other nation to take military action against them. Propaganda from both sides with no deterrent to war by nation states - no diplomacy - will likely give brutal war-mongers exactly what they desire. Bush has an opportunity now to talk to all concerned parties and his refusal to do so will only lead to a senseless war that, by his inaction, he seems to want. We can give thanks to the many foreign policy miscalculations, mistakes, and missteps by the Bush Administration for Batchelor's fear-laden scenario in which we'll either have to lose northern Iraq OR lose Turkey's alliance. As always, it's about the oil:

The supply routes from Iran to Syria are not only air lanes but also overland trucking on tribal routes through Turkey and Kurdistan. Turkey knows this and knows this is tacit support of the Hizbollah and Syria. More striking is that the Kurds in northern Iraq, ostensibly America's strongest ally in the liberation and democratization of Iraq, are openly cooperating with the Iranian military convoys. The Kurds have made a deal with Tehran that looks to the future and the establishment of an independent, oil-rich Kurdistan.[..] The Kurds aim to drive out or massacre the minority Turkmen in their territory, and they know this will be a casus belli for Turkey. The Kurds will need Iran for an ally and also for a transportation route to get their oil to market.

Here is where I think John Batchelor and others hungry for a U.S. attack on Iran are frustrated. The U.S. is not gearing up for war on Iran, judging their latest actions. Regardless of how frustrated so many Americans are with the images of dead women and children they see on their television screens at Israel's wanton hands, the U.S. doesn't appear to be hoping that the conflict will spread its instability over the borders of other nations. In his LA Times op-ed yesterday titled The Return of Turkey's Kurdish Problem, Henri J. Barkey leads us to believe that the U.S. may overlook a limited Turkish incursion into Iraq, likely led by the brand new head of their military, the "blunt-speaking hawk" General Yasar Buyukanit. The U.S. seems to want to keep their alliance with Turkey as strong as possible because of their needed participation in a peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon. The Lebanese people have expressed a desire and trust to have Turkey as the lead-nation in any peacekeeping force.

Related Articles:

Related Article:

For Turkey, challenges - and opportunities? - in the current Middle East crisis [SFGate.com]

Key Country by Huseyin Gulerce

Tragic Partnership With The U.S. - Turkish Press/Mustafa Balbay

Rice's "New ME Birth pangs" Deliver "Daughter of the Mountain" - Op-ed/ K Gajendra Singh/Al-Jazeerah

Moscow will not let down Damascus .In the wake of ill conceived Neocon policies in Middle East , in spite of historical enmity , Syria has made up with Turkey , and despite Washington's displeasure , Ankara has also made up with Moscow and Tehran .Caught up in its quagmire in Iraq and now the Israeli denouement in Bint J'beil , USA at odds with Turkey ,is now trying to entice Ankara in its ME objectives, but the price demanded might be too high .

The New UN Force in Lebanon - Should TurkeyParticipate? - JTWNews.com

Conservative Leaders Insult and Blame Katrina Victims

Conservative Leaders Insult and Blame Katrina Victims

Some conservatives are stooping so low as to put all the blame on the blacks who couldn't escape New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina because they were poor. Hearing them take stabs at the character of desperate human beings who were confused and living in their own feces at the Superdome while Washington D.C. virtually abandoned them is disgusting to me.

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, president of BOND -- the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny -- says many blacks in New Orleans were too dependent on government to flee from the storm.

He says that when officials then put evacuees into the Superdome, "within a three-day period they turned the dome into a ghetto." He says that showed "a lack of moral character."

Bill Cosby-izing Hurricane Katrina victims is about as low as you can go.

Listen to more of this crap:

Rev. Grant Storm, who is the Caucasian minister and president of Conservative Christians for Reform, echoed Peterson's view. "The mentality of 'government's going to bail me out. Where's the government?'" is "in the black culture," Storm said. "The mentality is instilled within their churches and in their homes -- of 'the government owes you, the government is your solution, and the government will come and help you.'

"When the government doesn't come and help them, frankly all they do is yap and complain," said Storm, instead of "saying 'Hey, I better go get a job, I better go on my own, I better go find an apartment, I better go take care of myself and my family.

Those who fail to realize what it's like for the millions of Americans who are living in poverty today who work for wages that will never afford them upward mobility [and will likely not even get them through the month without a shortage for things their families require] are completely out of touch if they believe that any government program today is to blame for "keeping them down." If they believe that the government owed no responsibility to these citizen-victims of Hurricane Katrina, and if they believe that expectations were not bitterly crushed and the chaos and loss of lives, homes, and jobs was the fault of the victims, I'd say that they are too elitist and too stubbornly ideological to possess hearts and minds worthy of American political leadership.

It is not poor blacks or any other New Orleans citizens who had caused the hurricane or the disastrous response of the federal government. We have to look at the breakdown of the emergency response system and at an economic system that rewards the richest while failing to provide social spending to empower and educate low-wage or unemployed workers.

What's next? Will these dolts blame weatherman Al Roker for Hurricane Katrina? It would make as much sense. Its all Al's fault for turning the Gulf Coast into a ghetto!

Tar Heel Tavern Edition 75

Tar Heel Tavern Edition 75



Erin did a great job on the Tar Heel Tavern this week. Number 75 is HERE.

Billy Jones will host next week's edition.

Turkey Proposes Peace Force With Conditions

Turkey Proposes Peace Force With Conditions

As I reported here on Friday, there is breaking news that Turkey is proposing a peace force in Southern Lebanon.

Let's not assume too much from this headline. There are stil reservations and conditions on Turkey's part.From Zaman.com:

Turkey is hesitant about the planned UN-led military force, and Ankara will not participate in an international force if the clashes with Hezbollah continue.

Before engaging their forces, Turkey would also require that Hezbollah agree to the implementation of the UN’s decision to disarm them. [Do we really think this will happen anytime soon?]

In response to Zaman’s questions, diplomatic sources revealed, “We will not rush soldiers to embattled areas.”[..]

There are other voices from the peace conference held recently in Rome, and the following is an example of just how hard this is going to be. The goal of the U.S. to disarm Hezbollah without acknowledging them or Syria in international discussions; obtain a UN agreement; and create an international peacekeeping force while completely avoiding the requiring of Israel to cease-fire is looking pie-in-the-sky- especially since the most recent development where every country in the world except the U.S. is publicly expressing repulsion upon seeing Israel randomly killing innocent women and children:

[..]In response to the question “What would Turkey’s attitude be if the mission of implementing the UN peace force includes disarming Hezbollah,” Ankara replied, “It depends on the parties’ (including Hezbollah) positive approach.”

Foreign Affairs officials on the other side responded: “The UN decision regarding the international force will be taken first. States are free to join. The direction, time and the mission of the force are crucial. A force, which will have an active role when weapons are laid down and the ceasefire starts, should keep the peace in the region.”

My question still stands: What concession will Turkey get from the U.S. for their participation - and will it inflame passions amongst the Kurds [specifically PKK] in northern Iraq? As always, oil is the material for which the forces of greed and the lure of power will walk over the human rights of any proud population who stands in the way.

With the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyan pipeline on July 14, and the pumping of Iraqi crude to begin in a few days, Turkey's hopes of becoming a key player in the global oil industry is closer.

Listen to the fear and frustration from a Kurdish doctor who is beginning to lose faith in the U.S. support of a system that fairly addresses human rights in their dealings with Turkey [because of the conflict in Lebanon]:

"....the Israeli Terror holocaust is not sparing anybody in Lebanon in their killing and destructive attacks. The Islam-inclined Turkish government was very careful not to raise its voice against those crimes. That spells danger to me for Turkey may well be tempted to follow the Israeli example and attack Kurdish populations in the south to force the PKK into surrendering and disarming."

On Meet the Press today, a Lebanese representative said that he wished world leaders would use their brainpower instead of their firepower. There's the soundbite that says it all. In international relations and support for healthy Western-firendly democracies in other nations, Bush is losing Lebanon because he cannpt reconcile his seemingly blind support for Israel, regardless of their wanton bombings in Southern Lebanon. His administration is now risking international relations with Turkey. How could this have happened? To say that Iraq is not related would be a deadly error of judgement when looking at the overall picture of where the failed Bush foreign policy has taken us. If U.S. citizens have lost the democratic power to demand a change in the course, I'm afraid there may be no outcome other than a new and deadly world war with the United States as a tepid international influence because of a president who never took the advice of the best and brightest minds.


Related Articles:

For Turkey, challenges - and opportunities? - in the current Middle East crisis [SFGate.com]

The Return of Turkey's Kurdish Problem [LA Times op-ed by Henri J. Barkey]

James Zogby's Advice on Middle East

James Zogby's Advice on Middle East

"You cannot exact this kind of pain and this kind of suffering without it creating a reaction at some point down the road."

CSPAN - James Zogby, Arab American Institute, President, offers his perspective on the current conflict between Israel and Lebanon. In a recent op-ed, Mr. Zogby criticized those who reject calling for a ceasefire because it would be perceived as a sign of weakness.

"You cannot have a military solution to what is essentially a political problem."

James Zogby - What Must Be Done in Lebanon

From yesterday's Washington Post:

“I’m devastated,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, in Washington. “I thought we’d come further. We’re doing well, so far, in terms of our capacity to deal with everything from the humanitarian crisis to identifying families and working to get people out. What is distressing is the degree to which this neoconservative mindset has taken hold of the policy debate. It’s like everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid.”

Spiritual Progressives Raise $$ For News Ad on Middle East

Spiritual Progressives Raise $$ For News Ad on Middle East

Friday's Washington Post:

The most coordinated dissent by American Jews so far is a campaign by the liberal Tikkun magazine and the Network of Spiritual Progressives, both founded by Rabbi Michael Lerner in Berkeley, Calif., to raise money for newspaper advertisements calling for a cease-fire by both sides and an international peace conference.

The content of the newspaper advertisement (from an e-mail received last week):

STOP THE SLAUGHTER IN LEBANON, ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES!

Convene an International Middle East Peace Conference to Impose a Just, Equitable and Lasting Settlement on All Parties

In the name of our sisters and brothers suffering and dying in Lebanon, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, we, the undersigned religious leaders, scholars, academics, cultural leaders, poets, writers, philanthropists, social change activists, and citizens of the world demand that the Israeli government, the leaderships of Hezbollah and Hamas, the U.S. Government, the international community and the United Nations immediately take the following steps to stop the war in these countries:

1. We demand that the Israeli government immediately halt its attacks on Lebanon. We join with the Israeli peace movement and the thousands of Israelis who demonstrated against this war in Tel Aviv on July 22, 2006 in their insistence that these attacks are utterly disproportionate to the initial provocation by Hezbollah, have killed innumerable innocent civilians, displaced half a million people, destroyed billions of dollars of Lebanon's infrastructure, and will not, in the long run, secure peace or security for Israel. We also call on the Israeli government to supply food, electricity, water and funds to repair the humanitarian crisis caused by its invasion of Gaza

2. We demand that Hezbollah and Hamas immediately stop shelling or otherwise engaging in violence against Israel. These actions, which have killed numerous Israeli civilians, terrorized the people of Israel and damaged many towns and cities, played a central role in provoking the current crisis, and do nothing but harm the cause of Palestinian and Lebanese independence and democracy. It is this kind of violence which has over the years pushed many decent Israelis into the hands of its most militaristic and paranoid political leaders.

3. We demand that the U.S. government and governments around the world call on Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas to observe an immediate ceasefire, place an immediate embargo on all shipments of weapons to all parties in the war (including Syria and Iran), and join an international conference to provide security on the border between Israel and Lebanon. By endorsing Israel's attacks and explicitly giving it time to do more damage to the people of Lebanon, the U.S. government has become a party to this violence, which, together with American military actions in Iraq, is sure to create enmity towards the U.S. and Israel in the Muslim world for generations to come.

These are the minimum steps necessary to stop the violence and the humanitarian disaster in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip. But these steps alone will not ensure that the region doesn’t return to an untenable status quo which will again eventually break into violence and new rounds of warfare.

We therefore also issue:

A Call for Lasting Peace

We call upon the international community to hold an International Peace Conference to impose a fair and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to the conflict between Israel and other states in the region. Why do we say “impose”? There are too many forces in each country in the region who are committed to continuing this struggle forever. Their provocations will continue until the international community stops the violence once and for all and imposes conditions of peace that will allow the peace and reconciliation forces in each country to flourish.

Such a solution would be based on the following conditions:

a. The creation of an economically and politically viable Palestinian state (roughly on the pre-1967 borders with minor border modifications mutually agreed upon between Israel and Palestine); and simultaneously the full and unequivocal recognition by Palestinians and the State of Palestine and all surrounding Arab states of the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state offering full and equal rights to all of its non-Jewish citizens;

b. An international consortium to provide reparations for Palestinians who have lost homes or property from 1947 to the present, and reparations for Jewish refugees from Arab states from 1947-1967;

c. A long-term international peacekeeping force to separate Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon and to protect Israel and Palestine from each other and from other forces in the region who might seek to control or destroy either state; and

d. The quick imposition of robust sanctions against any party that refuses to sign or violates these agreements.

A New Spirit of Open-Heartedness and Reconciliation

We know that no political solution can work without a change of consciousness that minimally includes an open-heartedness and willingness to recognize the humanity of the Other, and repentance and atonement for the long history of insensitivity and cruelty to the other side.

Both sides must take immediate steps to stop the discourse of violence and demeaning of the other in their media, their religious institutions, and their school text books and educational systems. They should implement this by creating a joint authority with each other and with moral leaders in the international community who can supervise, and if necessary, replace those in positions of power in both societies who continue to use the public institutions of the society to spread hatred or nurture anger at the other.

Once the other parts of a lasting peace have been set in place, we call upon the parties to this struggle to launch a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, following the model used in South Africa.


Use This Moment to Challenge the Paranoid and Cynical “Political Realism” That Generates Endless Wars

The paranoid and allegedly “realistic” version of global politics asserts that we live in a world in which our safety can only be achieved through domination, or others will seek to dominate us first. Of course, when we act on this assumption, it becomes self-fulfilling.

We propose, instead, a strategy of generosity—to act on the assumption that people have an enormous capacity for goodness and generosity (without negating the truth that certain conditions promote fear, anger and hatred which sometimes are expressed in horribly destructive ways). For the U.S. and other G8 countries, we call for a Global Marshall Plan: for each of the next twenty years, the U.S. and other G8 countries should dedicate 5% of their Gross Domestic Product to eliminating global (and domestic) hunger, homelessness, poverty, inadequate health care and inadequate education for the peoples of the world. This would have to be carefully monitored and apportioned in ways that ensure the care reaches the people for whom it was intended. But what is critical is the spirit in which it is done.

Similarly, we urge Israel not only to return to its 1967 borders (with minor border modifications mutually agreed upon including a sharing of Jerusalem and of its holy sites) but to do so in a spirit of generosity and caring for the other before it is forced to return to those borders by the international community and before thousands more young Israelis and Palestinians die in these senseless wars that will otherwise continue in the coming years.

The only protection that we in the advanced industrial countries of the world can ever really have for our lives is to spread a spirit of love so powerful and genuine that it becomes capable of reducing the anger that has justifiably developed against the powerful and the wealthy of the world.

The “cynical realists” claim that others are entrenched in their hatefulness, and that war and domination is the only way to battle them. This kind of thinking has led to five thousand years of people fighting wars in order to “end all wars”—and it has not worked. It’s time now to try a new strategy of generosity, both economic generosity and generosity of spirit. As stated above, there will first have to be a transitional period in which real military protections are available to people on all sides of the struggle. But by beginning now to simultaneously commit our economic resources and change the way that we talk about those whom we previously designated as “enemies,” we can begin the long process of thawing out angers that have existed for many generations.

Nothing can redeem the deaths and suffering that all sides have faced in this struggle for the past 120 years. But this very moment could also be the time in which the human race realizes the futility of violence and comes together not only to impose a lasting solution for the Middle East, but to begin a new era and to recognize that our own well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet. The International Middle East Peace Conference should be structured to achieve this end—which means it should have an explicit psychological and spiritual dimension and a visionary agenda.


We Affirm the Sacredness of All Human Beings

This is the moment to begin to make that real. The U.N. raised these possibilities 61 years ago, but relied on political arrangements while ignoring the need to simultaneously build ethical and spiritual solidarity among the people of the world, resolutions that most people never even heard about, a system that represented the elites of countries around the world but not necessarily the will of their own people, and fell into politicizing every issue. We need to strengthen international institutions that move in a new direction, but we also need a commitment of the heart from everyone on the planet. Our own countries must take the lead in a whole new approach to security and well-being. This may well be the last chance we in the advanced industrial societies have to avoid international catastrophe (either environmental or nuclear) by modeling something else besides brute power, military might, and indifference to the well-being of others. If not now, when?

Unrealistic? Nope. What has proved unrealistic time and again—whether we are talking about US policy in Vietnam and Iraq or Israeli and Arab policies in the Middle East— is the fantasy that one more war will put an end to wars. The path to peace must be a path of peace.

Religious and spiritual leaders are also making a global call for ten days of prayer and fasting toward the aim of peace, reconciliation, and ending violence, beginning July 27th and continuing through August 6th.

Signed by:

Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor, Tikkun and chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives
Annie Lamott, author, Operating Instructions: A Journal of My Son’s First Year
Nan Fink, original publisher of Tikkun
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, chair, The Shalom Center
Prof. Cornel West, Professor of Religion, Princeton University
Rev. Tony Campolo, Evangelical Association for Promotion of Education
Robyn Thomas, former executive director, Tikkun Community/NSP

(Space permitting, your name and identification, plus the names of hundreds of others.)

Click here to view the ad as a PDF file
Actual size will be full page in the New York Times

Please click here to add your name as a signatory to this statement and to make an online credit card contribution.

Will U.S. Christians Listen to Christian Bishop in Jerusalem?

Will U.S. Christians Listen to This Christian Bishop in Jerusalem?

A Christian Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem calls out to Christians around the world:

....Write every elected official you know. Write to your news media. Speak to your congregation, friends, and colleagues about injustice and the threat of global war. If Syria, Iran, the United States, Great Britain, China and others enter into this war - the consequence is incalculable. Participate in rallies and forums. Find ways that you and your churches can participate in humanitarian relief efforts for the region. Contact us and
let us know if you stand with us. I urge you not to be like a disciple watching from afar.

2 Corinthians 6.11:

“We have spoken frankly to you Corinthians, our heart is wide open to you. There is no restriction in our affections, but only in yours. In return - I speak as to children - open wide your hearts also.”

In, with, and through Christ,
The Rt. Rev. Riah H. Abu El-Assal
Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem

Hat tip to Juan Cole

Will Turkey Be the Next Problem for America's Interests in Iraq?

Will Turkey Be the Next Problem for America's Interests in Iraq?

Less becomes morally clear as Bush and Blair stall on declaring an immediate cease fire in Lebanon. In a press conference today, it seemed to me that perhaps Tony Blair was forseeing the destruction of the entire Middle East if Bush were left to be Israel's sole (blind) supporter and therefore elected to stand by his side in order to bring a modicum of sanity to the discussion. The problem was, he failed to convince me. A trip to the United Nations to press for action on Resolution 1559 will mean weeks or perhaps even months of more death and destruction in Lebanon at the hands of an unbridled Israel. The offer to build new homes for those who have been spared death by the bombings in Lebanon rings hollow when bombs are still falling. One look at Iraq will tell you how well Bush's vision has progressed there. It's not working out. I'm convinced that neither leader, Blair or Bush, is on the right course, and to hear Blair's mea culpa about his own errors in pre 9-11 leadership must have made former President Bill Clinton shiver with pain and disappointment.

Bush keeps saying he wants to get to the root causes of the problem in the Middle East, but he falls short of realistically or honestly discussing them. As long as he remains on a fundamentalist foreign policy course where you don't talk to the people you see as your enemies - because they are inferior, "evil" or "hateful", you will always have a one-sided solution that will serve no justice for the cause of human rights. Hearts and minds are what have always needed to be won, and Bush is breaking hearts and blowing minds every day with a policy that leaves no room for political solutions - only endless war.

I'm afraid we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg, but the war we began and handled woefully wrong in Iraq, now combined with increased anger at the U.S. for its blind support of Israel and with increased instability between Israel and Lebanon, is sure to spread both outward and inward and break that country into pieces.

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul last week summoned the US and Iraqi ambassadors to warn them that Ankara would act in self-defence if effective measures were not taken to end the presence in northern Iraq of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party). Turkey opposes the Kurdish demand for quasi-independence and their claim to the city of Kirkuk (in Iraq) and its oilfields. Turkey believes that Iraq's territorial integrity needs to be protected; that Iraq's natural riches belong to all the people of Iraq; that supremacy of ethnic and religious groups over each other should be prevented; and that the disputed city of Kirkuk should be given a special status.

What's happening in Lebanon is having an effect an the Turkish street, and U.S. economic interests could be negatively affected by Turkish instability and war in northern Iraq.

The support given by the US administration for Israel’s massive assault on Lebanon – and the understanding shown by the rest of the G8 – have compounded Turkish premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s difficulty in containing domestic pressure to disregard US and EU warnings against a cross-border operation to root out PKK bases in northern Iraq.

Even before the weekend attacks, Erdogan had difficulty in making himself heard in his home town of Rize (on the Black Sea) where a large crowd shouted abuse at the United States and Israel.

Accused of indecision by the opposition and pressed by his own supporters, Erdogan has to respond to the demand for national self-assertion, in spite of the misgivings expressed privately by some of his ministers.

Turkish patrols cross the Iraqi border frequently in pursuit of the PKK and they also have observation posts in Iraqi Kurdistan. If this Middle Eastern war continues to burn with no hope for moral, realistic, or hopeful leadership from the West, how long do you suppose it will be before an all-out war breaks out with Turkey as an aggressor in northern Iraq?

Fu'ad Husayn, an adviser to the Kurdish autonomous region's President Mas'ud Barzani, doesn't appear to have been kept "in the loop." If he knew about any recent trilateral meetings held between the United States, Iraq, and Turkey (about Kurdish interests without the Kurds' participation), he isn't admitting it (the bold lettering below is my emphasis):

Husayn: Baghdad is the capital of Iraq and we [Kurds] are also in Baghdad. Baghdad is not far away from us. I think it would be good if any kind of conflict or misunderstanding would be solved through negotiations around a table. We will support negotiations, we will support any talks.

But of course, we must be informed about the talks and the agenda must not be against the Kurds. We are part of this country; we are part of the Iraqi system. If there is any negotiation in Baghdad about the intervention...the Kurds must be there, and the Kurds must be informed about it.

RFE/RL: But as of now, Kurdish officials are not taking part in these talks?

Husayn: I can't comment on that because I don't have that information. But I didn't hear that a meeting is going on in Baghdad.

RFE/RL: This was reported widely in the Turkish press. There are also unconfirmed reports in the Turkish press this week that the United States has agreed to take action by bombing the Qandil Mountain range.

Husayn: I don't think this information is correct.

RFE/RL: So, you're not worried that the United States would take unilateral steps against the PKK without consulting the Kurds.

Husayn: No, I think one must be realistic if one knows the area...and the relationship between the U.S. and the Kurdish authorities here. I think the information which has been published in the Turkish press is not right.

Turkey Wanted for Lead An International Peacekeeping Force in Lebanon

If there is to be an international peace force in Lebanon, the Lebanese people say they want Turkey to lead it, and Turkey has listed its own conditions for being a part of that force.

Turkey may win some political points from Washington D.C., since they will be dependent upon Turkey's assistance with the crisis in Southern Lebanon.

Ali H. Aslan:

I don’t think that the Bush-Erdogan telephone traffic was focused primarily on the PKK. The Israel-Lebanon crisis must have been the top priority. However, Turkey’s opening its arms to American citizens evacuated from Lebanon when Cyprus’s maximum capacity was filled must have reminded once again those at the top of the Bush administration of the value of Turkey’s friendship in this troubled geographical region. Even if the importance of our relationship has been written down in the “shared (strategic) vision” document, practical benefits become obvious in such dark days

Will a Kirkuk that belongs to all of Iraq come as part of their reward?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark Mejia Article on Sibel Edmonds Raises Controversial Questions

In a story only loosely related,Mark Adams asks you to carefully consider this article by Mark Mejia.

Mr. Adams asks: Why is Osama bin Laden still breathing? And he replies to his own question, Ladies and Gentlemen, we may have found a clue.

Turkey's secular establishment, including the Turkish military and intelligence services (MIT), as well as political parties associated with former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller, appear to have been more connected to the Turkish mafia than the Turkish Islamic Parties that Washington abhors. Furthermore, it appears from reading into some of Edmonds' statements that the Turkish mafia was partnered with Osama Bin Laden's al Qaeda network in the drug trade - meaning Turkey's secular establishment was more connected to al Qaeda - pre/9-11 - than were the Islamists in Turkey.(My emphasis - Mark)

This is quite a thought-provoking read - I recommend it, but I do hope you'll use your critical thinking skills to take what is currently conjecture - unproven to date - and not use the information to jump to any immediate conclusions. I find it compelling, in light of these thoughts from Mr. Mejia and Mr. Adams, to know that there us such an increase in passion among the right wing to victimize whistleblowers (when you would think, by nature, for truth, and the "American way", that they would support quite the opposite. Are they afraid of what we might find out?

In The News

In The News

IRAQ

William Rivers Pitt on a larger number of U.S. troops returning to Baghdad:

"Sectarian Break-Up of Iraq Is Now Inevitable, Admit Officials," read the headline from Monday's UK Independent. "'Iraq as a political project is finished,' a senior government official was quoted as saying," continued the report, "adding: 'The parties have moved to plan B.' He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. 'There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into (Shia) east and (Sunni) west,' he said."

At a minimum, the predicted Balkanization of Iraq points to nothing more or less than the comprehensive failure of the Bush administration to bring democracy to that nation. The Iraqi parliament is today comprised of Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish elements, the three main groups that comprise the Iraqi population. Yet the fighting within this parliament mirrors the bloodshed taking place on the streets, and this signaled desire to split Iraq into three parts means there isn't any hope left for anything other than an utterly shattered state.

At the New York Observer, Joe Conason can hardly believe that a serious journalist would buy the myth perpetuated by nervous consultants that the Internet and it's bloggers "conjured up voter opposition to Senator Joe Lieberman" of Connecticut. He says:

[...] anyone who knows how to read a poll—indeed, anyone who has read a poll during the past several months—knows that popular opinion on the war is strongly negative. The American public now understands that the Bush administration deceived them about its reasons for invading Iraq, that the President never had any serious plan for establishing order there, and that he badly understated the costs and grossly overstated the benefits of “regime change.” They are beginning to understand that his belligerent foreign policy has been a sham, and that his management of the war on terror has been a shame.

DEMOCRATS 2008

Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi says Hillary can run - but she can't hide hide behind Bill on Iraq.

Enough with the triangulating. What worked in the last century doesn't necessarily work in this one.

In the past, Clinton ''triangulation'' meant positioning oneself between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Now, triangulation means positioning between the two wings of the Democratic Party - the antiwar left and the centrists who don't want Democrats to look ''too angry'' about dead soldiers in Iraq or a foreign policy in meltdown.

In a practical sense, triangulation for Hillary Clinton now means: hug the center. Then, if the center gets bumpy, speed-dial husband Bill to smooth things over [...]

[..] Democrats who support the Bush policy have to stand up and answer for it, just like Joe Lieberman is doing in Connecticut.

In lighter news, here's a must-read from the NY Daily News about Senator John Edwards' yoga experience with hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons.

"He had never seen or done it before. He was a yoga virgin," yoga fanatic Simmons told me yesterday. "The entire practice, he was sweating. The guy runs 5 miles a day, but I promise you he is in pain today. At one point, I looked over at him, and he looked like he was going to die." [...]

[...] Afterward, Edwards accompanied Simmons and his posse — including former NAACP head Ben Chavez and activist Glen Friedman — to dinner at Downtown Cipriani, where they discussed spirituality, how to end poverty, the higher self and other inspirational topics.

"It showed that Edwards is flexible and has an open mind," Simmons pronounced. He added that the evening has sent the would-be White House occupant to the top of his list — and far above Sens. John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. "But I'm happy to go to yoga with anybody who wants to."

Stop Coastal Drilling and Other Giveaways to Big Oil

Stop Coastal Drilling
and Other Giveaways to Big Oil





Many thanks to House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert from my neighboring district NY-23. Congressman Boehlert sent the following letter to his colleagues today, explaining his opposition to H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act, which will be before the House tomorrow:

Dear Colleague:

On Thursday, the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 4761, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act. I urge you to oppose this bill. Even if you support off-shore drilling, you might want to think twice about this measure. Here are some of the aspects of the bill you may not be aware of:

· The bill makes it far easier for states to allow drilling than to prevent it. A one-time state petition can open a state’s waters to oil drilling for good, but a petition to bar oil drilling requires several different petitions for each area and they have to be renewed every five years. If a state misses a deadline, the area is open for drilling permanently.

· The bill limits states’ abililty to review specific oil drilling activities once drilling is allowed and limits states’ ability to block pipeline construction.

· The bill makes every other use of coastal waters subordinate to oil drilling. Federal agencies could not take any actions under any law that could conceivably interfere even with future oil drilling.

· The bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to threaten states with a loss of funding if Congress passes any law that restricts oil drilling in any way.

· The bill eliminates many environmental reviews and public participation requirements for oil leases to be issued and for exploration and drilling activities.

· The bill significantly weakens the requirements to mitigate any activities that would harm the environment.

· The bill creates three new mandatory spending programs and would worsen the federal deficit by giving states more than half of all drilling revenues. States now get 27 percent of revenues from drilling that is close to state waters.

Few Members or staff have had time to read this complex, 147-page bill because it is being rushed to the floor for no reason. As of 11:30 this morning, the bill was still being rewritten through a manager’s amendment. This is no way to legislate.

We should not be increasing the deficit and making unprecedented changes in environmental law without even a chance to read what we are voting on. I urge you to oppose this bill.

Sincerely,

Sherwood Boehlert
Member of Congress

The right wing of the GOP wants to do everything it can while it still has control...but not all Republicans are with them as evidenced by Rep. Boehlert's letter.

Let's not let the right wing of the Republican party mar our coastal areas needlessly.


TAKE ACTION NOW

Stop Coastal Drilling and Other Give Aways to Big Oil!

The high price of gas and election year politics has put Florida's coastal areas at great risk of environmental degradation. For the first time in over a decade, the bipartisan consensus to spare coastal areas from drilling has broken down. The House passed a bill ending the moratorium last month, and the Senate is set to vot this week. The Weekly Action Coalition urges you to contact your Senator to oppose opening our precious coastal areas to oil drilling.

From the SF Chronicle:

(07-24) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The Senate is expected to decide this week whether to open vast areas off the coast of Florida to oil and gas drilling, a debate with billions of dollars in energy royalties at stake that could affect the ability of coastal states like California to prevent drilling off their shores.

Senate Republicans want to allow drilling in Lease Area 181, a portion of the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of Florida's Panhandle that is believed to contain one of the nation's largest untapped reserves of oil and natural gas. Proponents claim that opening the new area could help rein in the high energy prices consumers are paying and reduce America's dependence on foreign sources...

(E)nvironmentalists and many California officials are worried (that) the bill, if approved, could be merged with a more sweeping House measure approved last month that would end the quarter-century federal ban on drilling off the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and offer states lucrative financial incentives to approve oil and gas exploration.

"It is too early to speculate about what the final Senate bill will look like and what compromise, if any, can be reached in conference," said Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, a leading opponent of drilling in the House. "I would submit that any expansion of offshore drilling is a step in the wrong direction because it continues to enable our addiction to fossil fuels rather than pursuing efforts to reduce consumption and develop alternative energy sources."

California's two Democratic senators -- Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer -- had joined with New Jersey's two Democratic senators to stop the bill, until they received assurances it would not harm their states' coasts. But Senate Republican leaders decided to put the measure on the fast track, despite the threat of a filibuster led by drilling opponents. Key votes on the drilling measure are expected as soon as Wednesday.

From Save Our Environment.org:

Dear Senator:

As your constituent, I urge you to protect America's Gulf coast and oppose S. 2253, sponsored by Senators Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman. The Domenici-Bingaman bill would allow oil and gas leasing and drilling in millions of acres off of Florida's Gulf coast in an area known as Lease Sale 181.

Florida's coast is a complex mosaic of sea grasses, wetlands, bays, estuary systems, beaches and dunes, and offshore drilling is simply not compatible with the quality of life and economy this fragile ecosystem supports. That is why both Florida senators, Senators Martinez and Nelson, are opposed to S. 2253.

Finally, there is not much oil and natural gas thought to be in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. At current rates of consumption, Florida's coast probably contains less than four months of oil and only six month's worth of natural gas.

Obviously, we cannot drill our way out of our energy problems. There is simply not enough oil and natural gas off of Florida's Gulf coast, certainly not enough to reduce prices or make America energy independent.

We strongly urge you to vigorously oppose - and not sign on as a cosponsor - S. 2253, the Domenici-Bingaman bill, and oppose any attempt to lift the moratorium for offshore drilling off of our coasts. Instead of promoting drilling projects that harm our coasts and do nothing to solve our energy problems, we urge you to support energy projects that promote energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Thank you for your consideration.

Send this letter to your Senator.

Where Do We Find Cross-Faith Commonality?

Where Do We Find Cross-Faith Commonality?





Being human - simply human - helps us to understand that we of different faiths have common threads that can be woven together to achieve the most loving accomplishments - not in Heaven - but with God's help here on earth.

_____________


Religion writer Cathleen Falsani [Chicago Sun-Times ] has written her first book, "The God Factor: Inside the Spiritual Lives of Public People."

Although many of her interview subjects had traditional conceptions of God and spirituality, others did not. However, Ms. Falsani says there was a similarity that characterized just about every single person she interviewed. "As I look back on it, I can see two themes that emerged," she says. "First, everyone in the book was mindful of the fact that they were blessed. And secondly, they were aware of that, and therefore felt an obligation to give something back."

"Embodied faith recognizes it's not enough to save souls or enlighten minds if people are still languishing in sickness, poverty, or injustice, and embodied faith recognizes that physical violence in the name of spiritual truth is the most heinous sort of abomination."

- Lorianne Sabato

Lorianne Sabato of Hoarded Ordinaries speaks of a common call to humans as spiritual beings that she refers to as an "embodied faith," of which fundamentalism can play no productive role.

Jesus Christ was "grounded." Because he was flesh and blood - as are we - I believe that any Christian can identify Jesus (and themselves) with Lorianne's "belly-instinct" description of spirituality and faith. Jesus was brought up in the Jewish faith. He had mastered the wisdom of his faith by the age of twelve, if we are to believe the scriptures. In Luke 2:46-52, you see the "belly instict" in Jesus' mother Mary, as she comes to accept and embrace that which she does not understand through love for her son and faith in God:

46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and dasking them questions.
47 And all that heard him were astonished at his aunderstanding and answers.
48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.




49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? awist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?
50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was asubject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

Although, as the Mishnah (oral law) in modern-day Jewish tradition requires boys of that age to become conscious of the faith, the average twelve-year old would not have had Jesus' capacity for such depth of spiritual knowledge without having had first passed through the training of Rabbinic schools. The fact that young Jesus had worried his mother sick when he disappeared in Jerusalem shows that, in some ways, he was very much like a typical twelve-year old. Yet, he amazed the scholars with his strong wisdom borne of pure faith. His sense of mission and self-awareness was intense.

The Jews asked about Jesus, after he'd grown to manhood, "How doth this man know letters, having never learned?" How do any of us know of Heaven what cannot be known on earth? Does the voice come from our bodies? From our minds? From the earth? From the Heavens? No one knows, but one thing I've come to understand is that each common thread that has been woven through every act of human progress creating a quilt of peace and understanding here on earth has shone, like the sun, with the light of love. The fact that I use the words "sun".."thread".."quilt"..tells you that I need to refer to that which exists here on earth in order to communicate my idea of Heaven to you. Jesus Christ's time here on earth would have been lived in vain if we Christians missed the all-important point that he tasted the fig, heard the call of the birds, felt the morning breeze brush his cheek, experienced a mother's devotion, and had lain on his back looking at the sky - dreaming. That, to me, is part of the embodied faith that Lorianne is speaking about:

I've already pointed you toward Rev. Bruce Prescott's excellent definition of "progressive faith", and over the past day or so I've been thinking that I might add an eleventh item to his list. Progressive faith is an embodied faith. Embodied faith believes that paying intellectual lip-service to spiritual ideas isn't enough; embodied faith insists that believers get their hands dirty in the real world doing the work of compassionate service. Embodied faith recognizes it's not enough to save souls or enlighten minds if people are still languishing in sickness, poverty, or injustice, and embodied faith recognizes that physical violence in the name of spiritual truth is the most heinous sort of abomination.

Fundamentalism of all stripes (and I speak as one who used to be a literal-minded Bible-thumper myself) is literally an out-of-body experience where believers become so enamored with a purely spiritual truth, they are willing to withstand and even overlook the bodily ills they inflict on others or themselves. How can enforcers of a particular ideology convince ordinary believers to sacrifice bodily comforts or even indulge in physical mortifications? How can clerics and other spiritual authorities convince otherwise able-bodied souls to become suicide bombers or willing participants in unjust wars?

The answer, of course, is other-worldly: if you convince believers that this world and its bodies are insignificant and the rewards of spiritual merit are granted in the Hereafter rather than the Here, you can get spiritually-minded folks to commit all sorts of acts that go against what an honest gut would advise. Rather than asking myself what Jesus would do, or Buddha, or any Jewish or Muslim prophet, at any given moment I'd like to ask myself what my belly would have me do, trusting that a grounded body can't lead me wrong.

Who's Fiddling While the Middle East Burns?

"...the conflagration both broke out and instantly became so fierce and so rapid from the wind that it seized in its grasp the entire length of the circus.."

Tacitus, Annals XV, 38

Who's Fiddling While the Middle East Burns?
Any chance for success in seeing a pro-Western Iraq government is lost each and every moment that the U.S. delays in playing a major part in stabilizing the region.

Watching Josh Bolten so easily eviscerated by Tim Russert on Meet the Press yesterday, the man Anonymoses has so craftily named "Mini-Dick" sounded more like a fiddler than a man who represents a leader with a plan.

Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is in Washington DC to "expose" Iran's leaning upon him to say those nasty things about America and Israel.

Those big bad Iranians are doing just what you'd expect them to do. They're pressing their advantage because the Shia street is ablaze with anger toward the U.S. and Israel. Just like the U.S., who has offered up thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of American casulaties, Iraq is hoping for as much influence in Iraq's politics as they can muster - off the backs of America's failure to win the political struggle once they'd removed Saddam Hussein from Iraq's helm.

From an op-ed by Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, is a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars:

[..]an American administration thought it could transform the Middle East overnight, using regime change in Iraq to jump start rapid democratization throughout the region. Instead, Washington's ideological hubris and practical incompetence have succeeded only in setting the region ablaze, awakening extremist and militant voices.[..]The toppling of Saddam Hussein was intended to send shock waves across the Arab world, intimidating the region's brittle tyrannies while encouraging the spontaneous civic movements that have brought democracy to much of post-Communist Europe. In Iraq itself, democrats were to replace a brutal autocrat, providing a model for the region.[..]Precisely the opposite has happened.

Of course, you cannot stabilize a region unless you know what you're doing there in the first place - and unless you fully understand the attitudes of the people and governments of the region. After hearing the evasive and cunning Dick-Cheney-like White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten on Meet the Press yesterday, I am not at all convinced that the Bush administration knows what they are getting themselves into. [Echoes of "we'll be greeted as liberators" still ring through our minds.]

I was concerned after reading Juan Cole's posting yesterday,

The chief outcome of the "war on terror" has been the proliferation of asymmetrical challengers. Israel's assault on the very fabric of the Lebanese state seems likely to weaken or collapse it and further that proliferation. Since asymmetrical challengers often turn to terrorism as a tactic, the "war on terror" has been, at the level of political society below that of high politics and the state, the most efficient engine for the production of terrorism in history.

To any moral human being, this is DREADFUL news - especially given the fact that Jan Egeland, the United Nations undersecretary general for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, said Sunday after touring South Beirut that most of the victims of Israel's attacks on Lebanon have been innocent civilians, and that children are dying.

We should be concerned about Professor Cole's comments regarding what was overheard as Bush chewed on his lunch and talked (with his mouth full) with UK PM Tony Blair last week. Bush clearly thinks that the war broke out because Syria used Hezbollah to create a provocation. It's far more complicated than that, as I'm sure you all already know. Professor Cole says it's "scary" to hear Bush say such things because the Israeli planning had to have been done in conjunction with Donald Rumsfeld at the US Department of Defense.

Let's heed Lawrence Kaplan's warning at TNR:

"...red lines have been drawn, whether the White House chooses to acknowledge them or not. With its own timetable for contesting Iran's nuclear ambitions--not to mention 130,000 U.S. troops fighting next door in Iraq--the administration has no appetite for a wider war. "If this escalates into open conflict between Iran and Israel," says Ray Takeyh, an Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, "America's goals in Iraq and its nuclear diplomacy at the U.N. will both go up in flames."

Bush cannot rely upon Israeli aggression alone for any form of success in Iraq. Kaplan suggests that the common American and Israeli goal seems to be the neutralization of Hezbollah (..although Joshua Bolten wouldn't admit it on Meet The Press on Sunday. Then again, he avoided admitting to just about everything with which he was confronted.)

Mr. Kaplan said:

the administration has given Israel the green light to "hit Hezbollah hard," in the words of a senior Israeli official. But, with one eye to the aftermath, the Bush team fears civilian casualties will amplify the chorus of international criticism, forcing a premature halt to the campaign and poisoning a post-conflict settlement. "Israel knows it can't dismantle Hezbollah from the air, and it knows the [Lebanese] government can't rein [Hezbollah] in," says a Pentagon official. "Everything you're seeing is about leverage for the end game." That end game, both the United States and Israel hope, will include European--and particularly French--political support for an effort to neutralize Hezbollah.

Hezbollah will not likely be neutralized anytime soon, but their violent tendencies may serve to cause the international community to marginalize them with the right showing of international force. If we are truly allies to Israel, the U.S. had best not unilaterally act like co-hooligans with them, but instead like a civilized nation of thinking gentlemen (and women).

Billmon speaks of the the flucht nach vorne --

the flight forward into even bigger follies.

Billmon says:

I'm disappointed to see that even Martin van Creveld, whose work I admire, has fallen prey to the comforting delusion that the situation can be salvaged with ever more destructive applications of firepower:

The problem in Lebanon is not Israel’s "excessive" use of violence. Quite the opposite, the real problem could be Israel’s extreme reluctance to use a sufficiently high level of force to solve this problem once and for all..

Dr. van Creveld, more than most, should understand where that logic ends in this kind of war: defeat or genocide. For some time now, one of my biggest fears has been that the neocons and their helpmates will finally drag America into a situation in the Midlde East where those are the only choices. The last twelve days seem to have taken us -- or at least our Middle East proxy -- another step in that direction.

In the Arab world, another major player in the worsening Middle East instability comes into play, and that is Syria. Here's a statement from Juan Cole on why the Bush administration's hopes of using the Israeli attempt to destroy Hezbollah as a wedge to convince Syria to give up rejectionism and detach itself from Iran are crazy. (my emphasis):

Syria is not going to give up its stance toward Israel unless it at the very least gets back the occupied Golan Heights. That is non-negotiable for Damascus. Since the Israeli Right is diehard opposed to making that deal, Israel will go on occupying part of Syrian soil. Syria cannot accept that outcome. Likewise, the Alawi regime in Syria faces a powerful challenge from the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood. The high Baath officials would be afraid that if they made peace with Israel and got nothing out of it for Syria, there would be a mass popular Islamist uprising. A separate peace that leaves the Palestinians to the Israelis' tender mercies would also stick in the craw of the Syrian public. The administration plan will fail.

In Joseph Braude's latest TNR piece on Syria, he warns against a misreading (a la Michael Rubin/WSJ) of the feeling on the Arab street and in inter-Arab politics, making the point that Syria's refusal to comply with UN resolution 1559 has "long irked other Arab states":

I've been glued to Al Jazeera the past few days, and let me tell you, a large contingent of Arab nationalists and Sunni Islamists alike have no particular beef with Shiism lately. On the contrary, they fault Arab governments for shirking their duty to join Shia Hezbollah and Iran in fighting Israel. As the Lebanese death toll increases, this sentiment stands only to be solidified by the mass broadcast images of Arab blood. To insist that a bias against Shia power drives Arab leaders tacitly to support Israel is to impute a higher degree of sectarian chauvinism to Arab autocrats than one finds in their societies.

Note: I'm sure "the Arab street" won't be any happier to learn that Amnesty International is reporting that there've been "dozens of cases of individuals subjected to torture and ill-treatment in Jordan, ten of whom appear to be victims of the United States' renditions program."

Harold Myerson on what must be done to head off more needless death and destruction:

The remarks of Sharon's successor, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, scaling back Israel's goals from Hezbollah's destruction to the return of prisoners, the end of rocket attacks and the placement of Lebanese troops on the border, may signal a welcome descent from fantasy to reality in Israeli policy.[..]Real border security is going to require the kind of force that didn't exist as World War I loomed.[..]With the Lebanese army no match for Hezbollah, a genuine international army such as that proposed by Kofi Annan and Tony Blair (and bigger and more assertive than the Boy Scout troops that the United Nations periodically deploys) is needed to restore the peace. It offers no decisive outcome to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but no decisive outcome is remotely in the offing. [..] In a region rapidly succumbing to blood-drenched fantasies of victory or of martyrdom, however, an international holding action may be the only thing to spare us from another 1914.

WaPo: Michael Grunwald Suggests Al Gore For 2008 VP

"I'm already involved in a campaign, but it's not a campaign for a candidacy, it's a campaign for a cause. And the cause is to change the minds of people all over the world, especially in the US, about why we have to solve the climate crisis. If we don't do that, the rest of it doesn't matter at all. It won't matter how you are rebembered in the history books if there are no history books. And no one to read them!"

- Former Vice President Al Gore [Speigel Online]

WaPo: Michael Grunwald Suggests Al Gore For 2008 VP

I'll preface this op-ed by saying how much I admire Al Gore and all he has so selflessly done for the American people. Since his excruciatingly painful (and dubious) loss to George W. Bush in 2000, we've seen our nation's international reputation head toward the dustpile. I'd been disappointed and disillusioned when Al Gore had announced that he would not run for President again in 2004, and I often wondered why he would have chosen to let that opportunity slip away and wait another four to eight years to run again in what would surely be a new political world (in light of 9/11 and the immoral Iraq War.) "The gap" gave him time to become more of a trusted authority on Global Warming, an admirable pursuit standing to be of immeasurable value for America and the world. "The gap" also provided George W. Bush with another four years to turn America even further toward the kind of policies that have been a severe detriment to our freedom and progress.

I have been greatly impressed by Mr. Gore's great skills as an orator since he lost that close election to one Supreme Court vote. Pain and adversity can create greatness in us. Yet, his uncertainty and reticence to be a fiery contender in 2004 left the Democrats with an open spot that I personally believe could not have been filled (in a winning sense) by any other candidate at the time. I wish he had not turned away from the timely challenge while it was calling his name so strongly. He blinked.

Eight years later, there are potential 2008 presidential candidates who have the fire (including John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama). After the bitter division the country has witnessed in Congress for the past five and a half years, these energetic politicians are willing to do whatever is necessary to not only eke out a win in November 2008, but to run away with the majority of votes from Democrats, Independents, and a good majority of Republicans disgusted with the status quo. Mr. Gore is concentrating on environmental issues, and this should be our number one priority, because if we don't have a healthy and sustainable environment, then nothing else matters because nothing can survive (see his own quote at the heading of this post). Mr. Gore has already said that he is uncomfortable with the everyday logistics of the campaigning-life, but he's clearly not uncomfortable with what he's been doing out amidst the people around the nation as he rallies against Global Warming. He has told us that we only have ten years before climate change starts to destroy humanity, and I would rather see an Al Gore who is politically strong, leading, and devoted than an Al Gore who is edged out by a McCain-style Republican in the 2008 general election. If you don't think it could happen, I'd ask you to think again. Remember that, as a Presidential front-runner, Mr. Gore would have to answer to every talking point held to his head like a gun by the Republican party about the pre-9/11 handling of terrorism.

Mr. Gore's own words, as spoken to Spiegel in this interview, were:

I'm a recovering politician. I have run four national campaigns. I have been there and done that. I've found other ways to serve my country and I enjoy them.

Why should we doubt his sincerity? Still, what if Al Gore was willing to take on a high-profile position with which he was familiar and comfortable?



If Michael Grunwald hadn't publicly suggested it first, I probably would have. Al Gore has sage-like wisdom; a politics-shunning humility; he has public respect and admiration; he shows the patriotic desire to serve his country. Judging from the following exchange at Spiegel, I would question whether he'd even consider serving as a VP:

SPIEGEL: Should you have done more about climate change when you were in the White House?

Gore: Well, I enjoyed being in the Clinton-Gore Administration. I'm proud of the work we did. I helped to get the breakthrough at Kyoto and I worked very hard to make changes in US environmental policy. But it wasn't my administration. I shared in it. And I learned in that process that the most urgent need in the US is to change the minds of the American people....

And later in the same interview:

SPIEGEL: And The New Yorker called you "Mr. Ozone," like a superhero. The Economist believes you're a viable rival to Hillary Clinton. Don't you feel at least a little bit flattered that everybody considers you a candidate for 2008?

Gore: Sure. I'm only human. But I'm also old enough now and have been through enough in politics not to take that very seriously. I'm already involved in a campaign, but it's not a campaign for a candidacy, it's a campaign for a cause. And the cause is to change the minds of people all over the world, especially in the US, about why we have to solve the climate crisis.

Would he be willing to spend four to eight more years serving as our Vice President with the opportunity to sharpen the focus on his anti-Global Warming agenda? For me, an Edwards-Gore ticket would be beneficial for America. I think about the effect of this scenario coming true.

Think about Al Gore casting all ego aside and standing behind one other person who could lead extremely well on general issues without the pre-9/11 anvil hanging heavy over his (or her) head, while at the same time standing beside one cause in which he believes so much that he would be willing to make such a humble sacrifice. It would have a powerful influence over the way voters saw both candidates on the Democratic presidential ticket and it would increase political capital as more of the public united in supporting the vision of the two convincing candidates on the ticket. The face of American war would change as we began to focus on poverty at home and throughout the world while leading toward a cleaner and more sustainable global environment with alternative energy moving in to replace our hostage-like dependence on oil.

Dick Cheney was able to focus on the neo-conservatives' goal to get an unnecessary war on in Iraq while he was in the powerful Vice President's seat. Think of an honest person like Al Gore with a productive progressive goal in the same seat and with the same amount of time on his hands as the scheming misleader Cheney, accomplishing a goal that would move us toward oil independence and a return to international cooperation on protecting the environment.

It's just a thought.

I deeply admire and respect former Vice President Al Gore. I cried for him and for this country in December, 2000. Little did I know back then just how much America would come to lose. I believe that his political and personal hesitancy to run in 2004 would be a negative for him in 2008, especially since he was a pre-9/11 leader of the highest profile. Some would say it's never too late, but I disagree. Following Mr. Gore's movements closely over the years, I have come to believe that he has experienced enough adversity, pain, success, and joy in politics that, when he tells us something here in 2006, that he means exactly what he says. We trust him. We need him to serve in whatever capacity he thinks is best for America. We can use his great wisdom and leadership. He isn't just a rhetoric machine with his finger in the air so he can see which way the political wind is blowing. He's made environmental issues his life's work. I consider him to be invaluable to America. My personal hope is that he would not take Mr, Grunwald's idea as any form of an insult, but instead as one of the greatest opportunties for success for all of us.