RHMD's Thoughts on Politics

I have a new blog

2006-09-17T14:17:00.000-04:00

To those few who read my blog, I've moved my blog to wordpress, and also changed the name of my blog. Please continue reading it at the following link:

The Good Democrat

Making a Deal With the Devil

2006-09-16T09:56:00.000-04:00

There are two things recently, out of many, which seems to indicate America is willing to make a deal with the devil. In other words, sacrifice its dear principles for "protection." We used to be willing to sacrifice our lives for these very principles, now we want to sacrifice these principles for our lives. What has happened, America?

The first thing is the torture debate. Bush and his cronies are actually advocating openly the use of "alternative set of procedures," known in the no-spin world as torture, methods Bush is still to worried to actually name openly. His fear is that naming them will lead to terrorists finding ways to withstand the new techniques, so they won't provide us with more information on supposed "ticking-time-bomb" scenarios, just like we see in the show "24." But the real reason Bush is worried about naming them openly (they have been, after all, leaked to the press, so terrorists can see exactly what we are talking about----furthermore, you think America has worse torture techniques than, say, Jordan or Egypt, who have refined the methods over the centuries?), is because he will then be advocating openly for something specific. It is the irony of the whole situation. Bush and his cronies decry Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions for being vague, but when asked what techniques need to be used, Bush and his cronies stay vague themselves. What Bush and his cronies want is protection from inevitable prosecution of CIA operatives and employees of the Bush Administration in the future for violations they have committed against the Geneva Conventions (which are the Law of the Land), and the War Crimes Act of 1996. In other words, Bush has already directed CIA operatives to violate the law and he is now seeking protection for himself and his workers. If he dares actually say what they did, instead of remaining vague, prosecutors will have recorded evidence of the Commander in Chief saying what he ordered CIA operatives to do in breaking the law. He has to remain vague for this reason. Any talk about not revealing our techniques to terrorists is a diversion, a red herring. Terrorists are not fearful of being captured by Americans; they fear us renditioning them to Jordan or Egypt, or Pakistan, or even Syria, because Jordan and Egypt and Pakistan and Syria have already sold their souls to the Devil and practice torture to their heart's content.

America used to criticize regimes that tortured prisoners, now we transfer our prisoners to them to torture. I think though, Bush would rather stop rendition and just torture our prisoners here. That's the debate right now. What does America want? What is more important? Living our lives under a contract with the devil supposedly "protected" from death and violence, or risking some casualties in a fight for our principles?

Remember, Bush is pushing Congress strongly right now because he has already broken the law. He just wants to cover his ass at judgment day, when the taxman cometh.

The second way we are making a deal with the devil is something that does not get much airplay, due to the distractions of everything else. But apparently the United States is following other countries in placing a chip inside our passports, which can then be tracked, so the government knows exactly where your passport is anywhere in the world. This is the slow creep towards a deal with the devil, and needs to be revealed openly before this ensnares us. Why do we need chips inside our passports? "Protection." From what? Stuff happening basically. So what if a person steals your passport; get a new one. That's not good enough for some. They would rather sacrifice their ability to remain private for the "protection" that such a chip would supposedly bring. It won't. It is a deal with the devil.

America needs to make a decision here. On the one hand we're given an option to trade some of our principles that we've fought long and hard and dear on for "protection." That's the deal that Bush is giving us.

"The professionals will not step up unless there's clarity in the law," Bush said. "So Congress has got a decision to make: Do you want the program to go forward or not? I strongly recommend that this program go forward in order for us to be able to protect America."

According to this side, the "professionals" supposedly cannot, or maybe will not, protect America without this deal. That's the offer. Trade your principles for your protection. Will America do this?

On the other side is the greater risk of another attack, supposedly, according to Bush. If we don't sacrifice our principles, we're supposedly at risk for another attack. And this is true. If we don't employ all the weapons we have, including nuclear weapons, we are at greater risk of another attack. No one should believe otherwise.

But here is the question. Are we willing to trade our principles for a reduced risk of another attack? What Bush and his cronies will not tell you, which is usual when you make a deal with the devil, is that taking his way won't necessarily reduce the risk of another attack to zero, in other words, we're still going to be at risk of another attack. So what are we getting in return for sacrificing our principles? What exactly are we getting in return if we are still at risk of another attack? Where's the supposed "protection?"

America must not sacrifice its principles. Americans have sacrificed their lives before for the very principles we no longer seem to hold dear. I am willing to sacrifice my life that my fellow Americans live in freedom and from fear. Do no make a deal with the devil; he will one day come to collect his end of the bargain.

Stay free, America!

Call It Like It Is: Bush Is Blackmailing the Senate

2006-09-15T19:40:00.000-04:00

Dude, Mr. Toobin, stop dancing around the words and call it like it is:

But the president didn't just say... the senators' proposal was unacceptable. ... He went even further. He was really playing chicken with the senators. He was saying, "Look, go ahead and pass your law. You pass that law. If it somehow becomes law, I'm shutting this program down. And that's on your head."

That is called blackmail. Bush is actually threatening to release the terrorists and blame it on the Senators. Blackmail is blackmail is blackmail, no matter the situation. Call it like it is, dude.

Call It As It Is: Bush Wants to Torture People

2006-09-15T16:33:00.000-04:00

well said!

It's so annoying to read mainstream press articles where they dance around what the real issue is on "terror suspect interrogations." They use every euphemism in the book. Bush seeks "clarity" on interrogations. Bush wants "wider leeway" in interrogations. Bush wants "tougher interrogations."

Tougher interrogations, my ass. Bush wants to torture people.

Every single person writing those stories knows what this is really about. They are so queasy about writing the word down on paper, but they're perfectly willing to have a legitimate debate on whether we should actually do it. That makes no sense. I wish the late Sam Kinison was around now to shout at the reporters, "Say it!!! Just say it!!!!" It's torture.

Is this really what America stands for? If it isn't, don't vote Republican in November. End the madness!

Cheney's Madness

2006-09-15T15:36:00.000-04:00

---By Stuart Carlson

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

To All Bush Supporters

2006-09-14T21:32:00.000-04:00

Bush says catching or getting Bin Laden is no longer a priority for him.

to all Bush supporters out there, let me give you an analogy.

a man comes to your house and kills your wife and your son and your daughter. do you go after him, or do you go on a crusade to stop murders in people's homes?

Diebold E-Voting Machines Can Be Hacked Into

2006-09-14T15:31:00.000-04:00

Professors at Princeton University have done a study showing that the Diebold Accuvote machines have serious security flaws, can be hacked into and have the information changed. Here is the abstract of the study:

This paper presents a fully independent security study of a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine, including its hardware and software. We obtained the machine from a private party. Analysis of the machine, in light of real election procedures, shows that it is vulnerable to extremely serious attacks. For example, an attacker who gets physical access to a machine or its removable memory card for as little as one minute could install malicious code; malicious code on a machine could steal votes undetectably, modifying all records, logs, and counters to be consistent with the fraudulent vote count it creates. An attacker could also create malicious code that spreads automatically and silently from machine to machine during normal election activities — a voting-machine virus. We have constructed working demonstrations of these attacks in our lab. Mitigating these threats will require changes to the voting machine's hardware and software and the adoption of more rigorous election procedures.

This is pretty disturbing news. I honestly cannot trust this machine to get my vote right. How can I? Unless it provides me with a printed record of my cast vote, I will not use this machine and will recommend that it not be used in elections.

Bush Thinks Getting Bin Laden Not Top Priority

2006-09-14T15:27:00.000-04:00

wow, i mean, wow. Bin Laden attacks the United States in the worst terrorist attack in world history, and the Republican president who wishes to be viewed as a go-getter, the war president, thinks catching the mastermind behind the operation that killed nearly 3000 Americans is not a priority!

Is this for real? Is this the party that America wants to elect in November? A party who's president thinks it is not important to get the man who killed the most Americans in a single blow?

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum says that terrorists are a greater threat to America than any enemy in the 20th century! That includes the most powerful nation on the planet in 1939: Nazi Germany and the second most powerful nation on the planet with 11,000 nukes: The Soviet Union. Santorum believes that terrorists, which includes Bin Laden, last I checked, are a greater threat to America.

So which is it? If terrorists are a greater threat to America than Hitler ever was, why does Bush not see going after Bin Laden as a greater priority, the greatest priority, I mean, he attacked us in the worst kind of way.

Wake Up America!

Pre-Iraq All Over Again

2006-09-14T09:56:00.000-04:00

Hey it worked the first time, so why not do it again the same way?

Congressman Hoekstra released a report about a month ago, not well researched, based mostly on newspaper sources and lacking research by actual experts in the field, that chided America's intelligence community for not knowing enough about Iran. This report then goes on to claim several things about Iran's nuclear capabilities that are just simply false. This is known to many who are familiar to this, but not known to regular Americans. That is the point of Hoekstra's report. He doesn't actually care about the truth; he wants a war with Iran and will try and scare enough Americans to continue supporting the Republican party so they win in November and they can have their little war next year with Iran.

Not so fast. UN Inspectors have, this time, come out and publicly disputed this report by Hoekstra. They publicly contend that the report is "outrageous and dishonest."

Among the committee's assertions is that Iran is producing weapons-grade uranium at its facility in the town of Natanz. The IAEA called that "incorrect," noting that weapons-grade uranium is enriched to a level of 90 percent or more. Iran has enriched uranium to 3.5 percent under IAEA monitoring.

The scary thing about Mr. Hoekstra is that his staff are working on another report about North Korea, most likely to chide the CIA for not knowning what he knows, for he knows all. How dare they not see the world through his eyes!

Hoekstra's committee is working on a separate report about North Korea that is also being written principally by Fleitz. A draft of the report, provided to The Post, includes several assertions about North Korea's weapons program that the intelligence officials said they cannot substantiate, including one that Pyongyang is already enriching uranium.

It is time for America to put people in power who do not base their foreign policy on ideology, but on fact. This, I thought, was the standard. Why Bush won still befuddles me.

What Will Happen in the Next 9/11?

2006-09-13T14:20:00.000-04:00

Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale University brings up a disturbing thought in a piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer. He discusses about the issue of whether this is war, and brings up the example of Jose Padilla, an American citizen stripped of his Constitutional rights when he was accused of being an "enemy combatant." Mr. Ackerman says:

Consider the case of Jose Padilla. A few months after Sept. 11, the president declared him an "enemy combatant," and locked him up in a military brig for three and half years. During all this time, Padilla was denied the right to challenge his detention before a military or civilian tribunal.

Yet he was an American citizen, and when he was detained at O'Hare airport, he looked like millions of others - wearing civilian clothes and without any dangerous weapons. Nevertheless, a federal court of appeals upheld the president's seizure as within his powers as commander-in-chief, and the Supreme Court refused to review this remarkable decision.

This gives the presidency a terrible precedent for the next Sept. 11. We all hope that this attack won't come for a long time. But the day after the next tragedy, the Padilla case will be invoked to support the president if he sweeps hundreds or thousands into military detention. After a year or two the Supreme Court may intervene on the side of freedom. But perhaps the vote will go 5-4 the wrong way.

It can't happen to me, we tell ourselves. Very few Americans have done anything to support the Islamo-fascists, whatever President Bush may mean by this dark term. But the next attack may be by home-grown terrorists. All of us are potential Jose Padillas, not a select few.

What will happen to Americans who question Bush's policies in the case of another 9/11 hitting us? Will the Michelle Malkins of America win the day and set up laws that allow for the forcible detention of Americans with Constitutional rights stripped away from them? The Michelle Malkins of the world would not mind this one bit, methinks.

I think Americans need to think rationally, reasonably, and with patience, making sure they know what they are getting themselves into here, regarding the laws we set up for today's terrorists. If we lower our standards, the right of habeas corpus, for example, what will it mean when we are hit again?

Air Force: Test Weapons On American Citizens Before Using Them On Enemies

2006-09-13T12:06:00.000-04:00

Can this world get any weirder? The United States Air Force wants to test their non-lethal weapons on U.S. citizens first, though with the caveat that they be unrully citizens in a large crowd.

Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

Now, I applaud the AF going in the direction of non-lethal weapons, but.....why would you not want to use it on the enemy first? I think what the Air Force is afraid of is that the weapons won't be effective enough against the enemies, and they want to see it on an easier target first, "unrully Americans." So watch out you football fans! Watch out baseball players who rush pitchers and cause an "unrully situation" on the field! The Air Force just might getcha!

Bush Uses Reductio ad Civil Warum

2006-09-13T11:59:00.000-04:00

Realizing that reductio ad Hitlerum is not enough, Bush now compares the current conflict with the Civil War. When will this ridiculousness end?

Quote of the Day

2006-09-13T05:22:00.000-04:00

Asked about the interrogation controversy, he said legislation should outline “clearly what is acceptable and provide liability protection so interrogators will feel protected going forward.” He was emphatic that people should understand that “as long as the War Crimes Act hangs over their heads, they [interrogators] will not take the steps necessary to protect” Americans.

George W. Bush

1. Yes, I am borrowing from Andrew Sullivan who does a "quote of the day" section. And yes, he got to this quote first.

2. Bush actually thinks the ony way to protect Americans is for interrogators to not fear the War Crimes Act......um....if they followed the rules in the War Crimes Act, why should they fear it? Silly rule of law. Who said we had to follow the law?

Quote of the Day

2006-09-12T13:20:00.000-04:00

"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

---Henry Kissinger

How To React Righteously to Terrorists

2006-09-12T12:54:00.000-04:00

Scriptural example of how to react to horrific events and terrorist acts. These are my thoughts

Nathan,

#374:

boy the ticking time bomb scenario rears its ugly head yet again:

Imagine a situation where you have a ticking bomb that will kill a school full of innocent children. You have a man with the code to turn the bomb off. You just saw him torture an innocent child for the sheer joy of doing so. You know with absolute certainty that if you pull out his finger nails with pliers, he will give you the correct information and the children will be saved. If you don’t pull out his fingernails with pliers then the bomb will explode and the children will be killed. What do you do?

Clearly, this is an unrealistic hypothetical on a lot of levels, but it is useful because it forces us to confront the basic question of whether or not we are willing to stick by an absolute prohibition on torture regardless of the consequences, or if we are willing to consider the consquences when making our decisions. Are we true Kantians or consquentialists.

you are right, there are far too many unrealistic things in this hypothetical to make it a good enough analogy for real life practice.

Let me provide you with an analogy from scripture and let me see what you think.

Imagine that you are in a city where the rulers have such a hatred for your teaching that they not only take you captive but they burn your books, take those you taught and start throwing them in a pit of fire to burn to death. What do you do? Do you try and stop the murdering of innocents? You could, after all you have the power from God to do so. Let’s look at the example in the Book of Mormon. Turn with me to Alma 14. Amulek says the following:

10 And when Amulek saw the pains of the women and children who were consuming in the fire, he also was pained; and he said unto Alma: How can we witness this awful scene? Therefore let us stretch forth our hands, and exercise the power of God which is in us, and save them from the flames.

What was Alma’s response? Was it to go grab their fingernails and get them to stop burning the people to death? Let’s read on.

11 But Alma said unto him: The Spirit constraineth me that I must not stretch forth mine hand; for behold the Lord receiveth them up unto himself, in glory; and he doth suffer that they may do this thing, or that the people may do this thing unto them, according to the hardness of their hearts, that the judgments which he shall exercise upon them in his wrath may be just; and the blood of the dinnocent shall stand as a witness against them, yea, and cry mightily against them at the last day.

12 Now Amulek said unto Alma: Behold, perhaps they will burn us also.

13 And Alma said: Be it according to the will of the Lord. But, behold, our work is not finished; therefore they burn us not.

14 Now it came to pass that when the bodies of those who had been cast into the fire were consumed, and also the records which were cast in with them, the chief judge of the land came and stood before Alma and Amulek, as they were bound; and he smote them with his hand upon their cheeks, and said unto them: After what ye have seen, will ye preach again unto this people, that they shall be cast into a blake of fire and brimstone?

Can you find a more painful and tragic scenario in the scriptures for innocent people? Yet what was the response from the Prophet of the Lord? Did he lower his standards to protect the innocent? Why did Alma sacrifice the innocent in this case?

Let’s look at another example in the Book of Mormon where innocent people are killed and those that could do something about it didn’t, or let me say differently, they didn’t lower their standard. Please turn to Alma 24. Here the Lamanites come upon the Anti-Nephi-Lehis to murder them. Let’s see what happens here. The Lamanites come upon them, slay about 1000 of them while they were prostrated on the ground praising God.

24 Now when the Lamanites saw this they did aforbear from slaying them; and there were many whose hearts had bswollen in them for those of their brethren who had fallen under the sword, for they repented of the things which they had done.

25 And it came to pass that they threw down their weapons of war, and they would not take them again, for they were stung for the murders which they had committed; and they came down even as their brethren, relying upon the mercies of those whose arms were lifted to slay them.

26 And it came to pass that the people of God were joined that day by more than the number who had been slain; and those who had been slain were righteous people, therefore we have no reason to doubt but what they were asaved.

Instead of continuing the slaughter, these Lamanites were converted, more than had been slain. What did Ammon do during this time? He had previously faced off against a great number of sheep thieves, killing the leader. He could easily have done a William Wallace speech and rallied the ANLs to fight for their freedom against oppressors. But what did he do? Nothing. He let the slaughter happen. Why? As we see, more were converted than were killed. Let’s continue the story, and see just how the two situations are tied together.

The Lamanites were angry that some of their own had just converted. Their anger led them to go over to the Nephites and quickly murder everybody who lived in the city of Ammonihah, the very town that had just murdered innocent people, throwing them into the flames, in Alma 25. This still did not quelch the anger the Lamanites felt towards the ANLs so they tried to go after them again to murder them. What did Ammon do this time? Did he face them off? No, as we read in Alma 27, this time, Ammon took them to the Nephites. I like what the Lord told Ammon in verses 11 and 12:

11 And it came to pass that Ammon went and inquired of the Lord, and the Lord said unto him:

12 Get this people aout of this land, that they perish not; for Satan has great hold on the hearts of the Amalekites, who do stir up the Lamanites to anger against their brethren to slay them; therefore get thee out of this land; and blessed are this people in this generation, for I will preserve them.

Who will preserve them? The Nephites? Nope. The Lord. In all of this, all this murder of innocents, did the righteous Nephites EVER lower their standard? Never. Not once. Not when innocents were being thrown into a burning pit. Why should we?

Meanwhile, Seven Prominent Republicans Say Repubs Should Lose in 2006

2006-09-11T20:15:00.000-04:00

Not pleased with foreign entanglements, runaway spending, etc., seven prominent Republicans give their case why Republicans deserve to lose in 2006.

Should Republicans lose in 2006?

Vote For Republicans Or You Will Die

2006-09-11T16:13:00.000-04:00

This is how low it has gotten. In a new ad debuting today in several targeted states, the Center For Security Policy, a conservative think tank, that uses an Orwellian "peace through strength" motto, claims this.

The ad shows images of the burning Twin Towers and Americans held hostage and concludes by flashing on the screen: "Vote as if your life depends on it. Because it does."

Wow.

Things Are Not Going Well For America

2006-09-11T07:32:00.000-04:00

These five articles show that things are not going well for America under Bush right now. The first article deals with the situation in Anbar province in Iraq, the largest province, which the military now says they've lost politically. No one there wants to deal with America, apparently. I wonder why.

Situation Called Dire in Anbar Province

Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.

Who has been asking for more troops? Oh yeah, those so-called appeasers who dare question the wisdom of Mr. Rumsfeld.

Losing the War on Terror

This op-ed basically says that America is not adapting fast enough to face their enemy that is adapting far quicker to America's strategies. He is a Pakistani journalist.

Top Soldier Quits Over Grotesque Afghan War

THE former aide-de-camp to the commander of the British taskforce in southern Afghanistan has described the campaign in Helmand province as “a textbook case of how to screw up a counter-insurgency”.

“Having a big old fight is pointless and just making things worse,” said Captain Leo Docherty, of the Scots Guards, who became so disillusioned that he quit the army last month.

“All those people whose homes have been destroyed and sons killed are going to turn against the British,” he said. “It’s a pretty clear equation — if people are losing homes and poppy fields, they will go and fight. I certainly would.

“We’ve been grotesquely clumsy — we’ve said we’ll be different to the Americans who were bombing and strafing villages, then behaved exactly like them.”

I couldn't have said it better.

Mao and Stalin, Osama and Saddam

Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have compared the current conflict to the cold war, a decades-long struggle that was ideological and political in nature, though always with a military aspect. But if we're going to use history and learn from it, it is worrying that America is beginning to repeat one of the central strategic errors of the cold war: treating a fractious group of adversaries as a unified monolith.

At the outset of the cold war in 1949, a senior State Department official, Ware Adams, prepared a critique of America's evolving policy of containment. While accepting that international communism was a monolith and that diverse communist parties around the world shared aims and goals, Adams argued that Washington was playing into the Kremlin's hands by speaking of communism as a unified entity: "[Our policy] has endorsed Stalin's own thesis that all communists everywhere should be part of his monolith. By placing the United States against all communists everywhere it has tended to force them to become or remain part of the monolith." For example, the memo explained, "in China, the communists are somewhat pressed toward being friends of the Kremlin by the fact that they can never be friends of ours."

Al-Qaeda Finds Its Center of Gravity

Finally, this last article shows just how free Al-Qaeda is to roam around the mountainous regions of Pakistan, our bestest buddy in the "war on terror"---no wait, the war on evildoers, no wait, the war on Islamofascists.

Can the irony be any clearer? Al-Qaeda finds sanctuary in a country ruled by a dictator who has nuclear weapons and who has fought wars against his neighbors in the past. Not only that but this country was at the heart of the global black market for nuclear technology. No, this country was not Iraq, nor even Iran. It is Pakistan.

What I Would Have Done Post-9/11: Afghanistan

2006-09-09T21:46:00.000-04:00

The first thing I would do is never lower my standards, irregardless of how low standards my enemy has. Who cares if my enemy chooses to use terrorism to hit me. Why should I lower myself, not necessarily to his standard, but anything below mine. None of us would lower our religious standards, say to take a sip of alcohol, for anyone. Why lower our moral standards?

The best thing America could have done after 9/11 was to put all the money and effort that was diverted into Iraq, put that all in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is America’s greatest failure of the new century, far worse than Iraq, because in Afghanistan, we had the support of the entire world. We could have done anything there. If we asked the world for full assistance, we would have had it.

Put all 150,000 Americans we sent into Iraq, into Afghanistan instead. Completely purge Afghanistan of the evil that has infected that poor country since 1981. Most Afghans alive today have never seen a world of peace. They have seen war for the last 25 years of their lives. Take out Bin Laden. The fact that he is still alive and taunting the United States FIVE YEARS after he attacked us is reprehensible to our leaders. He’s a CAVE DWELLER! How can he escape the mightiest military in the history of the world!

Pour all our money into Afghanistan and turn that country around. Not only will this show the world that we mean business, and that if someone were to attack us, we would completely wipe them out, but it would be the example of what we want the Middle East to look like.

Forget about Saddam. Those who wanted to go into Iraq missed the bigger picture. The irony is amazing. By taking Saddam out, America took out the only thing that kept Iran at bay. Now, by removing Saddam and failing in replacing Saddam’s Baath regime with a stable government, America has handed Iraq to Iran on a silver platter. Leave Saddam be. Let him rot in his palaces.

Focus on Afghanistan. Remember the bigger picture. Iran is our main threat in the Middle East. By keeping the rock in Iraq, and creating a hammer in Afghanistan, you corner Iran far better than by taking both Iraq and Afghanistan out and failing to create stable governments in both countries. Now, Iran, a stable government, has strong influence in both countries, rather than the other way around.

Moreover, a stable and flourishing Afghanistan would be good news for Pakistan and the troubles Pakistanis (especially those tribes that hate Musharraf) have against the West. They’ll finally see that America is not quite as bad as Bin Laden purports them to be. Right now they trust Bin Laden and give him sanctuary in Pakistan. Furthermore, they also agree with the Taliban and give them and Omar sanctuary too, over in Pakistan, our bestest buddy in the war on terror. Oh the ironies! A repressive dictatorship with nuclear weapons that has no control over a region that protects and shelters both the Taliban and Bin Laden, and they are our best ally on the war on terror. If it wasn’t tragically bad, I’d laugh at the irony.

But that’s what I would have advised the president to do.

Saddam Had No Ties to Zarqawi

2006-09-08T13:07:00.000-04:00

Ah, I'm glad to see this report has finally come out. It sure took them a long time, and released on a Friday to minimize the public effect, as usual. Here's a word of wisdom for everybody: keep an eye out on Fridays. That's when damning information usually comes out of the Bush Administration. Such as this report which proves that Saddam had no connection to Zarqawi, the key reason Bush went into Iraq for in the first place. Well, what do you know. It seems those of us who challenged this from the start were right.

Now when are we going to hold our leaders accountable for their lies?

The "Path to 9/11" Debacle

2006-09-08T10:40:00.000-04:00

ABC is releasing a mini-series fictional depiction of what happened from 1993 to 2001 that allowed 9/11 to occur. I'm not going to sit here and say Clinton did his job well at fighting terror (neither did Bush Jr. before 9/11, nor his father, nor Reagan who cut and ran when Hezbollah killed 241 Marines in their sleep!), but if you are making a fictional story, then say so. Don't portray the film as a docu-drama, or anything close to the truth.

What ABC should have done is create an actual documentary. But for some reason, ABC doesn't think Americans will sit and watch an actual documentary. Or maybe ABC didn't have the talent needed to create a real vision of what happened, like so many talented documentary creators have. ABC is about entertainment these days. They've given up any notion of being a station where one could learn something of value. So they now fib the facts to "dramatize" and tug at our hearts, create the anger in us at our "enemy."

The New York Times has reviewed the miniseries, and gets into the whole notion of documentary vs. dramatization. But something caught my eye as I read the review. The New York Times also does not hold back in criticizing the Clinton administration for not stepping up against Bin Laden. In discussing the issue of the sex scandal, the reviewer states the following:

The Sept. 11 commission concluded that the sex scandal distracted the Clinton administration from the terrorist threat. But in hindsight, surely the right-wing groups who drove for impeachment must look back at their partisan obsession with shame, like widows sickened by the memory of spats about dirty dishes and gambling debts.

The imagery is beautiful, but I seriously doubt right wingers who pushed the distraction realize just what they accomplished. In forcing Clinton's attention on the scandal, were not right-wingers taking the nation's security at risk? Moreover, I doubt they would even care that their deep passionate hatred of Clinton and their drive to impeach him gave Bin Laden all the breathing room he needed to plan and execute the most successful terrorist attack in history.

The irony is sadly tragic.

UPDATED: Bush Releases Bin Laden Video Four Days Before 9/11 Anniversary

2006-09-07T20:14:00.000-04:00

Anyone surprised? The Bush administration has released a new video of the plotters of the 9/11 attacks. Hmmm....four days before the fifth anniversary of the attacks. So yesterday, Bush blackmailed America, threatening to release the terrorists back into the world if Americans don't follow his plan, and today he played up the fear of 9/11 with this new video released.

Will Americans be smarter than fall for this play on our fears yet again? I can only hope, but America's track record is not very good.

UPDATED: an astute annonymous reader commented on my mistake in not reading the article I linked to carefully. This video was released by Al-Qaida's production company and not Bush. You still have to wonder why both sides are playing up the fear as the anniversary approaches. I'm leaving up my mistake and not changing a thing. Unlike some of our leaders, I can admit to making a mistake and not try to revise history to erase it.

Bush's Blackmailing of America

2006-09-07T10:56:00.000-04:00

Josh Marshall gets it.

Andrew Marshall gets it and here.

Greg Djerejian gets it and here.

Washington Post op-ed gets it.

What do they get?

They see the lie and evil in Bush's latest speech, yet another attempt to corner Democrats, rather than fight terrorism. Bush revealed, first off, that it was true, CIA had secret prisons in various parts of the world. That admission is interesting. Will the conservatives who denounced the Washington Post for revealing the secret prisons now denounce President Bush for admitting their existence? Or will they now claim, "hey he's da prez!---All Hail Da Emperor!---he can do what he likes because he's above the law!"

That's not the worst part. As has been analysed on many blogs, what Bush is cynically doing is saying, "either you accept my way, or you let the terrorists go free." In other words, Bush is blackmailing America. He is transferring the worst of the worst guys including KSM (the dude who orchestrated 9/11 at Bin Laden's command) to Guantanamo and saying to America, "Now do you want me to close Guantanamo?" This is pure blackmail. He is telling Congress, "either you give me the military tribunals I want (which will go on with no real protection for the defense), or because I cannot reveal national secrets in a military trial, let the terrorists off on lack of evidence. What do you want Congress?"

Republicans are cheering this blackmail, as they've given up all support for fair trials, don't mind America using Soviet style secret prisons, and the disappearing of individuals off the face of this planet with no consequence to the actions thereof. Republicans don't mind the blackmail because they care more about winning elections than protecting America. They would risk the release of the worst of the worst men on the planet just so they can create their favorite 30-second TV ad against their political opponent.

And we thought terrorists were evil. How about the men who would risk their release in order to score political points?

Political Pandering By Bush

2006-09-06T13:19:00.000-04:00

apparently today, Bush announces that all detainees held in secret prisons (note that this confirms that the United States government did in fact have secret prisons), in all places of the world, will now hold prisoner of war status. So why do I not say, "this is good news!" or "finally a step in the right direction!" Because the key to politics is timing. Why did it take Bush this long to finally do this? Why in September two months before an election in which his party will likely lose control of Congress? This is simply more evidence that Bush uses national security for political purposes. He did not order all prisoners to have these rights when the Supreme Court ruled against him back in June and July. In fact, back then, the Bush Administration's strategy was to get Congress to change the law to make it possible to continue having secret prisons, etc. Why suddenly the change? Simple: November. Make it look like Republicans are not against the Constitution of the United States. This is how vile the Bush Administration has gotten, where they play with people's lives just so their party can remain in power. Such lust for power is not in the best interest of America. Vote them out!

Reductio ad Civil Warum

2006-09-06T10:35:00.000-04:00

Condi Rice now compares the current conflict to the struggles to free slaves in the Civil War. She says:

"I'm sure there are people who thought it was a mistake to fight the Civil War to its end and to insist that the emancipation of slaves would hold," Rice said in the new issue of Essence magazine.

"I know there were people who said, 'Why don't we get out of this now, take a peace with the South, but leave the South with slaves?'" Rice said.

Hmmmm, conservatives who hold strongly to the South's position, like DKL over on BCC, that they fought not over slavery, but state rights, should be offended at Dr. Rice's lack of historical knowledge. Is it not Rumsfeld who recently said: "But some seem not to have learned history's lessons." Or is Dr. Rice using a reductio ad Civil Warum to relate two totally absurd and different situations?

In the eyes of Dr. Rice, relating the current war on terror to Hitler and fascism and even Lenin's communism is not enough. She is obviously speaking to a black audience, and of course what African American would say the fight to free slaves was not worth the cost! Blacks could care less about Hitler's fascism or Lenin's communism, in Dr. Rice's eyes. No, the best target for the African American crowd is the use of this reductio ad Civil Warum.

The Latest Al-Qaida No. 2 Arrested in June

2006-09-06T09:22:00.000-04:00

huh, how about that. Last week we heard about the arrest of yet another Al-Qaida number 2 (notice how we never seem to capture al-qaida number 1, or number 3, but always seem to catch the number 2 guy----number 2 seems jinxed [why oh why can't number 2 be jinxed here in America too!]). Apparently though, this arrest actually took place in June!!! and not last week as was so strongly plastered on all the TV screens.

The arrest of al-Qaida in Iraq's second in command took place in June, and not a few days ago as the Iraqi government had initially announced, a U.S. military spokesman said Wednesday.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell said Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, also known as Abu Humam or Abu Rana, was captured on June 19. Other suspects were in custody, he said, but their names have not yet been made public.

National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie announced al-Saeedi's arrest Sunday, saying it had occurred a few days earlier.

Hmmmm, now why would the Bush administration wait until Labor Day week to release this kind of information? Hmmmm.

Andrew Sullivan delves deeper into the UK terror plot, and discovers some interesting tidbits. He quotes John Judis who says:

While those arrested were British Muslims, they were thought to be acting on behalf of or in coordination with Al Qaeda. A "senior US intelligence official" told The Boston Globe, "There are suspicions that there is a real Al Qaeda connection - not just Al Qaeda wannabees or inspire-ees." Pakistani and American officials claimed that the "operational planner" of the conspiracy was Rashid Rauf, a British citizen, whom the Pakistanis said had admitted under interrogation of having met with an Al Qaeda leader in Pakistan ...

Was the plot an Al Qaeda operation? Rauf himself had been busted by the Pakistanis the day before the London arrests, and, according to the Pakistanis, had admitted - allegedly under torture - to having made contact with Matiur Rehman, whom the Pakistanis claim is an Al Qaeda operative. But that's hardly proof of Al Qaeda direction. Moreover, Rauf's role remains unclear. A British counterterrorism official told the Los Angeles Times that Rauf was not the plot's "mastermind." And Rauf's actual connection to Al Qaeda is also suspect. Rauf has been linked to Jaish-e-Mohammed, which operates in Kashmir. There could still be an Al Qaeda link. But, like all the initial details of this case, it remains in doubt.

As the details have become murky, what has also been cast in doubt is the explanation of why the arrests were made in the first place. According to British officials, the Brits did not want to arrest the plotters; they preferred to see who else, over the next months, the plotters recruited and made contact with. But their hand was forced when the Pakistanis arrested Rauf on August 9. Why the Pakistanis did so remains unclear, but there is a speculation that they did so at U.S. urging. "There have been reports that U.S. officials pushed for the arrest," the Los Angeles Times reported on August 20.

How much more evidence does one need to see that the Bush administration is playing politics with America's security? Does the Bush administration care more about electoral gains or protecting America? To this point, the evidence points pretty clearly to the former rather than the latter.

Army Will Use Geneva Rules on Detainees, Finally

2006-09-06T07:24:00.000-04:00

Getting back to, according to Rove and Rumsfeld, "pre 9/11 mindset", the Army has updated their field manual to include the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of detainees. Finally a step in the right direction. Would we all hope it is not the last step in the right direction.

The Use of Reductio ad Hitlerum

2006-09-05T16:19:00.000-04:00

So today Bush compared Bin Laden to Hitler and Lenin, i.e. used the logical fallacy known as reductio ad Hitlerum.

Upon reading the definition though, the examples given are absurd, hence Strauss's correlation between his newly defined reductio ad Hitlerum and reductio ad absurdum, which is a logical fallacy that tries to correlate two absurd items. As shown in the absurdum definition, usually the use of this logical fallacy is related to the use of the straw man logical fallacy.

So here we have a conundrum. Republicans use reductio ad Hitlerum frequently and often. Their use of this fallacy is tied to their use of a straw man. Yet no one seems to call them on it. Moreover, Republicans don't care if they use logical fallacies to paint their political opponents in a bad way. This is their straw man, and the backbone of their political strategy. "Don't vote for them because it will be worse with them in power."

So this is what Bush had to say:

"Bin laden and his terrorists' allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives of other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?"'

So the reductio ad Hitlerum and reductio ad Leninum that Bush uses says that Bin Laden and their allies are bad because Hitler and Lenin were bad. Okay. So what? What's your point, Mr. President? Why do you get to throw those names around and the rest of us cannot?

What makes a comment logically false? If I say Rumsfeld appeased terrorists by meeting with and condoning Saddam's actions in the 1980s, is that somehow logically false? What is not true about those comments? Is it that Republicans did not consider Saddam a terrorist in the 1980s, because he was their man? Only now when he is being tried for war crimes he committed in the 1980s is Saddam a terrorist? What about those who condoned his actions? Does not the supposed paradigm shift that 9/11 caused also reflect the same on those who supported Saddam in the 1980s?

yeah, I smell hypocrisy here.

My Comments to DKL on BCC about Rumsfeld

2006-09-04T23:22:00.000-04:00

I want to save them in case they were too harsh and someone on BCC takes them down:

DKL,

President Kimball was talking about ALL the people of the earth, not just Americans. Many General Authorities, as well as BYU professors, have served in all branches of the U.S. Military and honor others who do.

I know this. I have no problem with people who serve to protect my country. My sister is actually in Iraq as I type this. There is a difference between serving in a military to protect one's country, and, as Kimball said, relying on the gods of steel for protection from enemies. Moreover, I think we've gone even worse; we're not looking from protection from our gods of steel, but we're looking for our gods of steel to crush our enemies. This seems rather un-Christian to me.

I’m not going to defend President Bush’s war in Iraq. I’m glad I didn’t have to make that decision. However, I think you need some education in Middle East history. The Bath Party of Sadaam Hussein was modeled on the Nazi Party of Adolph Hitler. There were very close ties between Nazi Germany and Iraq. France and Germany would not do much, if anything at all, to support the invasion of Iraq, not because it was morally or ethically wrong, but because they are anti-semitic and seriously dependent on Middle East oil. Would you really want the U.S. in the same condition Europe is today–with serious problems with the Muslims and dependent on them for oil?

Interesting that you say this. First off, I am quite familiar with my Middle East history. I know much about the Baath culture and politics. I find it interesting though, that if you do really believe in your statement, that the Baath party is quite similar to that of the Nazi party, then why was Reagan and Rumsfeld doing business with Saddam in the 1980s? The real irony of Rumsfeld's speech last week was that it is he who fits the role of Chamberlain best out of anyone here today. It was he who worked with Saddam in the 1980s, who supported Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in 1983, and the use of chemical weapons on the Iranians in the war that Saddam started. More ironic is that just like Hitler, it was Saddam who started the conflict against Iran, trying to, just like Hitler, spread his strength past his borders. So, if Saddam was truly like Hitler, what was Rumsfeld doing shaking Saddam's hand? Furthermore, if you truly believe in fighting against all those who have at one point appeased "evildoers", why do you support Rumsfeld? Or is it okay on occasion to lend support to Nazi-type regimes? Is that the message Rumsfeld is giving?

Rumsfeld is an evil man, and by default, since he thinks Rumsfeld is right for the job, so is Bush, his boss. If Bush thinks Rumsfeld, who appeased Saddam, is the right man to fight terror, then this shows just how bad Bush is as a "fighter against terror." Doesn't it? Who does he trust as the front man against terror? A man who appeased terrorists. Let us also not forget that it was Reagan who cut and ran when Hezbollah killed 241 marines in their sleep. Talk about appeasing terrorists! What better message to send them then this: if you kill 241 of our best trained men, we're going to go away. This is the worst thing ever. Worse than anything Clinton ever did.

Do you really believe Islam is a peaceful religion? Many Muslims are, but their leaders are not; and the people are bullied by threats to harm them and their families if they don’t cooperate.

Yes, I believe Islam is a peaceful religion, just like all religions. You say many generalities in this that if turned on Christianity would be pretty accurate, yet that would offend you. Why do you say offensive things when you don't want to be offended yourself? Yes, Islam is a peaceful religion when practiced as it should, just like Christianity is. But in practice, Christianity has been just as, if not more so, violent. How many wars have Christians fought in the name of religion? Frankly, from what I keep hearing out of Christian conservatives, this war fought now is a religious war. I mean just look at how you framed this "war on terror." You don't talk about the tool---terrorism----but rather the religion, as if the religion is driving the tool. In other words, in your eyes, this is a war of religions, not anything else.

The religion does not change the fact that both have leaders who seem to advocate some kind of violence upon others. Christians show quotes out of context of Mohammed saying, "kill all infidels," while Muslims counter with quotes out of context of the LORD calling for the extermination of all living things in Caanan.

This is the folly of trying to frame this "war" into the paradigm of religion.

The Taliban is as evil as the Nazis, if not more so, and potentially much more dangerous, even to their own people. How would you like to live under the Taliban? I suggest you go try it, and take your sister, wife, mother, and any other female that thinks like you, with you and see how much they thank you for it. Taliban rule in Afghanistan is exactly what they plan should they conquer Europe, which they are doing, and America, which people like you would allow due to your cowardness and gullibility.

Potentially more dangerous than the Nazis? Dude, check your facts. When Hitler started his fighting, just how powerful was his military? It was the most powerful military on the planet. According to the facts, America's army size at the time was about the same as Finland's. Germany was the most powerful nation on the planet in 1938. The Taliban couldn't even run their own backward, war-torn, hellhole. And you say they are potentially worse and more dangerous than the Nazis? You're undermining your intellect, DKL. You're smarter than this. Stop with the false talking points, and look at the facts.

Furthermore, you say the Taliban are conquering Europe? What? And they are doing this because of my "cowardness and gullibility?" What? I supported the war in Afghanistan, so oops, there goes your insult. I supported the destruction of the Taliban the moment they destroyed the Buddhist statues back in 1999. I hoped Clinton would have used that as a good enough excuse to remove those fools out of power in Afghanistan. And now you tell me my "cowardness" is somehow making the Taliban "win" in Europe and America? I guess you really are not as smart as I thought you were. Your partisanship has clouded your intellect, DKL. Look at the world outside of your defense of Republicans. You'll see a much clearer picture, and you'll see the folly of the Republican strategy.

Do you really think the LDS Church and the Democrats, which are being taken over by the loony left and Hollywierdos, have much in common? The left wing, whom you seem to admire, stands for homosexuality, free sex, abortion, socialism, and anti-religion, etc. Where does that fit in with LDS doctrine. Is this your idea of “godliness”.

Yes, they do have much in common. They also have other things that are not in common, as is similar with Republicans. I don't admire the "loony left," but thanks for attempting to set up a straw man, a typical Republican strategy. That is not who I am.

Are you really so ignorant as to not understand that Hussein was paying big money to families to use their children as suicide bombers?

I knew this. I also know that the United States and Great Britain support a dictatorship in Uzbekistan. Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, has written an op-ed in the Washington Post, detailing just how we support torture and murder in Uzbekistan, even giving them money to do so. Bad people do bad things and get support from bad people. It is how this world works.

Do you not understand that the full intent of Iran and Syria now, and also Iraq in the past, is to nuke Israel?

I always knew this. In fact, I wonder why Bush supporters didn't realize that by removing Saddam from power only strengthened Iran's position. A report by the Chatam House of England shows that our actions in Iraq gave Iran control of Iraq, and further clout and strength in the Middle East. I quote a portion:

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the War on Terror in the Middle East," says the report from Chatham House's Middle East Programme.

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

In other words, our actions in Iraq brought about the very thing we were supposedly trying to avoid: a stronger Iran. Can you see why I've been against the war in Iraq from the get go? I knew right from the start what would happen, but no one listened, because they were too driven by fear.

Is your education so sparse that you do not understand that the Muslims were the first to invade Europe over 300 years before the first Crusade?

I knew this. What is your point? I can show that in fact, Christians invaded many countries even before Mohammed was even conceived!

Do you not realize that Istanbul, Turkey was once Constantinople, and on the European continent, and that Muslims attacked it over a period of centuries. They have no business there; they invaded and took over, and that’s what they want to do in Europe and America today.

Um.....by your logic, what did Christians have to do in Russia? Why did they invade and forcibly convert pagan Russians to Christianity?

Yes, there are things that do go wrong in war, but if there were no war you would not have the right to be so anti-American, which you most definitely are.

I challenge you here and now to show me where I have said anything that is anti-American! I'm tired of this libel. It is such a weak assault that conservatives have against those who rightfully and strongly question the policies of our leaders. Call them names. Is that the best you have? prove me wrong, show me facts, but the moment you call me names, you've lost your case, and show nothing but your immaturity.

Would you rather fight the terrorists on our soil? They are pouring over the border, along with drugs, weapons, and diesease. Is that what you want? Should we stop the war on terror and try to negotiate with them?

Woah, several things here. Yes, I would rather fight terrorists on my soil. First off, I know my territory better; it is to my advantage. Taking the fight to them has proven the folly of offensive war. The Taliban are still around five years after we started going after them. Iraq is in shambles and a horrific mess. Moreover, their anger is only fueled and enflamed by our presence in their lands. I say, fine, you stay where you are, and I'll stay here. You come here and I will end your life. I have no problem with that. Furthermore, it gives me the chance to trust in the Lord for my protection, not the gods of steel. I know the Lord will protect me if I look to him, of this I have no question.

Secondly, it seems you are equating Mexicans coming over the border with Islamic terrorists. Get off the Michelle Malkin buzz, dude. She is a fool. She does not know what she is talking about. Leave her vitriol to what it is, a pig pen.

No, don't negotiate with them. But let them be in their own lands. Let them destroy themselves. It is what they want. What better way to give them the freedom you want to give them than to let them kill themselves, as they seem to want to do.

This is the libertarian streak in me.

You curse President Bush, but if Bill Clinton hadn’t been such a coward and a glory-hound we may not have had 911. The government knew throughout Klinton’s administration that there were terrorists living in America, and in the U.S. Military. Ali Mohammed was one; that person was responsible for the first bombing in New York. Bill Clinton ignored that bombing and didn’t even personally investigate it, or go to see what happened, as Pres. Bush did. Then Mr. Clinton sends the U.S. military, which, like you he abhors, to Bosnia and Somalia and lets those Rangers die in Somalia because he wouldn’t support what he started. Men who volunteer to do your dirty work for you while you cower behind your philosophies died because of a President that just wanted to be popular, and some of you people just “swallow the party line”, and want nothing to do with responsibility.

I think my comments above about Rumsfeld and Reagan best answer this diatribe.

Don’t use President Kimball as a spokesman for your left-wing propaganda; you are twisting what he said, and probably with full intent to deceive.

My intent is to discover the truth. If you don't like the fact that Kimball's words sear your soul, that's not my problem. Take that up with him.

Rumsfeld's Appeasement of Saddam

2006-09-04T22:17:00.000-04:00

Last week Rumsfeld claimed that opponents of the war in Iraq were like Chamberlain and other Nazi appeasers in 1938. Hmmmmm......yet, who met with Saddam in 1983, shook his hand, and was silent, in fact, was approving of what Saddam was doing to Iranians and Kurds in the 1980s? Why none other than Donald Rumsfeld! Yep, that's him. Same eye glasses shaking hands with the man who used sarin on Kurds and other chemical weapons on the Iranians in the 1980s. Yep, the same attacks for which Saddam is now being tried as a war criminal in Iraq.

Was Donald Rumsfeld fighting terror here, or was he appeasing terrorists? After all, in 1938, Hitler hadn't really begun his fighting yet, his war against the world, so Rumsfeld really does fit the Chamberlain role really well, one would think. Mother Jones has opened the world to NY Times's Select Op-ed by Frank Rich called Donald Rumsfeld's Dance with Nazis in which he shows who the true appeaser is. Like Olbermann's rebuttal last week, this shows just how horrible Rumsfeld is as a secretary of defense. When will enough Americans realize this and order him out!

Progress Can Only Happen in Times of Peace

2006-09-02T09:30:00.000-04:00

The following are my comments on the Belgravia Dispatch in the comments section of this post

Pogue,

you say:

The disdain for the idea of arab progress toward freedom and democracy that is applauded

This is the heart of the pernicious lie of Bush supporters. Somehow you all think that the ONLY possible way to support "arab progress toward freedom" is through Bush's idiocy. What a lie. Moreover, the results of Bush's actions are far from creating a free and democratic world in the Middle East. Tell me, are Iraqis free from fear of death? How free are women in Iraq? Are they not still forced into marriages and then discarded on the streets as whores?

Where's the "progress" in Iraq? Elections are obviously not the end all be all of democracies are they, or Republicans would cheer for joy that Palestinians freely elected Hamas into their government, or that Hezbollah was freely elected in Lebanon, or that Moqtada al-Sadr is "freely" elected and part of the Iraqi government.

Bush and his supporters don't want to hear of any other options. In their eyes, it is either them or the terrorists, damned to hell if they are wrong. How can they make any mistakes when they know they are on a crusade, a mission from God to remake the Middle East as they see fit. Anybody that raises rightful and strong questions must be a terrorist appeaser.

Oh the folly and the bamboozlement of Republicans today! You used to call yourselves men of reason and sound understanding! What the hell has happened? How can you be so foolish? How can you not see the elephant in the room? It stares you down and roars, but you plug your ears and say "la la la la, I can't hear you!" At least Mr. Djerejian has unplugged his ears and stared the elephant down to a mouse. The more that do, the better it will be for America.

Standing up to Republicans and removing them from power in America does not equate appeasing terrorists in the least. Republicans want to cling to power and will say anything, including undermining the democratic process right here in America. But as we know from history, Republicans have had a nack for undermining real democracy because they don't agree with the results (Chile in the 70s and Iran in the 50s, for example). I don't particularly have a high regard for Republican propaganda regarding promoting democracy. Your record stinks.

Meanwhile, what American party has successfully pushed Arab nations to sign peace treaties with Israel? Can Republicans claim any such result? Nope. It was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter (all his other many faults aside), who forcefully pushed Egypt to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, something that has lasted now nearly 30 years. No war that Israel has fought produced such a long peace between Israel and one of her neighbors. The Six Day War produced no lasting peace, as just six years later, Egypt attacked Israel again. But notice that since 1979, Egypt and Israel have been at peace. There is no greater success for peace and reform in the Middle East than peace between Israel and her neighbors, including nations you would not think would make peace with Israel. I'm curious for those who are a little older than me, who were cognizant of those days, just what was the thinking? Could anyone forsee a peace between Israel and Egypt?

A war in Iraq has not brought more peace in the Middle East. In fact, with removing Saddam from power in Iraq, we've unintendedly given Iraq over to Iran, which, according to several studies, now rules the day in Iraq. Yeah, nice job Bush. Well done. You gave Iran exactly what it wanted. What do you think, Bush supporters? How do you feel that you, by your support for Bush, are inadvertently supporting Iran? How does that make you feel?

But I've said this before, calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the last days.

People don't want to talk about peace. They cannot see it. They've been blinded. All they can see is their gods of steel and iron. That's who they bow to and worship. "Oh save us, dear missile," you can hear. "Protect us from our enemies, dear warhead."

If you want progress among the Arab world, then it begins with us. We must stop being violent, we must stop punishing the whole Arab world for the sins of the few. Republicans set up false boogiemen (Evil Islamofascists) and like many who fall to the draw of a straw man, many Muslims take the bait and yell back, "yeah, but you're the Great Satan, so there!" By returning the schoolyard insult, they play right into Republican hands, who retort, "Oh yeah, well i'm not going to talk to YOU!" and, pouting, fold their arms, running to get their big brother to pounce the nerd. We've got to stop being so childish.

The thing about progression is that it takes a long time and a lot of patience. Starting wars does not bring about progression. Wars are all about regression and devastation. The only ones who benefit from war are the makers of weaponry. No one else benefits. Tell me, what is the return for our $200 billion we've spent in Iraq so far? What is our profit to this point? America has not profited yet, nor does it look like it will. But warmakers sure have. Boeing is sitting pretty with their military contracts.

Diversion aside, progression in a society can only happen in times of peace, because it takes a long time to change a culture. Stalin and Mao attempted culture changes cold turkey. How did those turn out? Not very well. In fact, they failed miserably. You deride what liberals say about how to change the Middle East, but in actuality, that's the best way, through patience, firm stances, and rewards for good behavior. Forget the bad behavior. Leave them for the past. The only way to change nations and cultures is to reward the good behavior, not punish the bad. The moment we begin punishing the bad, we lose our credibility because we've got bad behavior too, and they will see the hypocrisy, and they'll wonder why we bother with the mote in their eye when we leave the beam in our eye intact. See the problems of fighting? See the benefits of praising the good? There is no hypocrisy and no undermining who we are and what we stand for when we talk of the good vs punishing the bad.

But again, I fear we're long past such understanding, and the world will go up in flames. How sad we humans are. God is weeping over our childishness.

To Win Bush Can Always Fall Back on Lowering Gas Prices

2006-09-02T08:47:00.000-04:00

That seems to be the thought over on Andrew Sullivan's blog by guest bloggers. Bush's numbers go up and down according to gas prices, so why not pressure oil companies (he knows them personally anways), and get them to lower the prices. After all, Exxon, Mobil, BP, and the rest, all have made record profits under a Bush administration. They can make a little sacrifice for him in return. What do you think? Will gas prices go below $2 before November? I personally wouldn't put it past oil companies to lower prices by that much to keep their man in office.....

Pentagon Cheers Its gods of Steel Working!

2006-09-01T18:58:00.000-04:00

Yeah, remember a bit earlier I mentioned that the Pentagon lowered their expectations saying that their test was not to actually intercept the missile, but to "target" it, this way, when it actually does shoot down the other missile, they could claim their gods of steel work. Yeah, the test was successful in that the target was acquired and intercepted. Now the Pentagon can spread the propaganda that America's gods of steel will work to protect them against their enemies.

Olbermann's Rebuttal to Rumsfeld's Idiocy

2006-08-31T09:32:00.000-04:00

Seriously, how blind are conservatives these days? Why do they let charlatans like Rumsfeld say what he says? The following is Kieth Olbermann's rebuttal to Rumsfeld's idiotic speech the previous day in which he called opposers of the war in Iraq appeasers of terrorists.

That about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused… is simply this:
This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely. And as such,
all voices count — not just his. Had he or his President perhaps
proven any of their prior claims of omniscience - about Osama Bin
Laden’s plans five years ago - about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago
- about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one* year ago - we all might be able to
swallow hard, and accept their omniscience as a bearable, even useful
recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own
arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or
intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to
Katrina, to the entire "Fog of Fear" which continues to enveloppe this
nation - he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently
or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and
the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the
Emporer’s New Clothes.
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised?
As a child, of whose heroism did he read?
On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day
to fight?
With what country has he confused… the United States of
America?
—–
The confusion we — as its citizens - must now address, is
stark and forbidding. But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when
men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and
obscured our flag. Note - with hope in your heart - that those earlier
Americans always found their way to the light… and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and
this Administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the
terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for
which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City,
so valiantly fought.
—-
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country
faces a "new type of fascism."
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew
everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he
said that — though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
—-
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble
tribute… I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist
Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I
come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of
us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew
everything, and branded those who disagreed, "confused" or "immoral."
Thus forgive me for reading Murrow in full:
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty," he said, in 1954.
"We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction
depends upon evidence and due process of law.
"We will not walk in fear - one, of another. We will not be
driven by fear into an age of un-reason, if we dig deep in our history
and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men;
"Not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to
defend causes that were - for the moment - unpopular."

Democrats ARE Strong on Terror

2006-08-30T14:48:00.000-04:00

Well said Mr. Frank, well said! He lays it out in an op-ed in the Boston Globe, how the real war against terror is taking place in Afghanistan. How many Democrats voted for the war in Afghanistan? All but one! So there goes the argument that Democrats are soft on terror. The real battle against terror is in Afghanistan. Don't let the wiley charlatan Republican leaders fool you. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even Bush admitted this just recently. So.....what are we doing in Iraq?

Cut Through the Hysteria and See the Man Behind the Wizard

2006-08-30T11:16:00.000-04:00

Over on Talking Points Memo, Matthew Yglesias cuts through the bullcrap that keeps spewing out of right wingers's mouths. It's funny when you actually look at all the facts just how hyperparanoid conservatives are. They really believe this crap. They really are blinded and foolish. Moreover, I think they are attempting to divert attention from the debacle in Iraq, the horrendous non-actions with Katrina, and so on. Take a look at Santorum here in Pennsylvania talking up Iran as the "enemy of our generation!"

Let's crunch the numbers shall we. Yglesias links to several citations about military budgets in the Middle East. Let's take a look, shall we.

Iran's 2005 military budget at $6.2 billion

Iran's defense budget remains a fraction of the expenditure of its Arab neighbors in the Persian Gulf in per capita terms, according to the latest edition of Military Balance.

The spending by Iran is also the least as a percentage of the country's gross national product (GNP) in the region with the exception of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Military Balance, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, puts Iran's defense budget for 2005 at $6.2 billion.

Saudi Arabia spends $25.2 billion - Israel spends $9.6 billion on military budget

And according to that source, the United States spent $478 billion in 2005 on defense. If you think about it, proportionally speaking, we're not getting the bang for our buck......

Meanwhile, Pakistan increases military budget by 15%

Pakistan recently unveiled a 1.09 trillion rupee (USD $18.16 billion) national budget for 2005-2006. The budget increased defense expenditures from 194 billion rupees in 2004-2005 to 223 billion rupees, a rise of more than 15%. Spending on development will also rise, and the overall increase in expenditures is 21%.

The largest single item is for the country's debt payments, which amount to more than 300 billion rupees. The government also vowed June 6 to undertake a wide network of roads, dams and other infrastructural work under the 272-billion-rupee Public Sector Development Program.

Pakistan also is a dictatorship, sits on nuclear weapons, and is where Bin Laden is purpotedly hiding....Does it strike anyone that this is odd?

Currently the entire world is spending nearly One Trillion Dollars!!!! on arms sales and military expenditures, with the United States taking about 45% of the total. Spencer W. Kimball was right.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel -- ships, planes, missiles, fortifications -- and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching.

Calls for Peace fall on deaf ears in the last days

Bush Hosts Kazakh Dictator at White House

2006-08-29T08:06:00.000-04:00

Showing that they really do not stand for democracy in any and all places around the world, Bush and Cheney are hosting Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Oh by the way, Kazakh sits on a bunch of oil......just FYI

Cheney shows just how duplicitious he really is:

In addition to Nazarbayev's upcoming visit, Vice President Cheney went to the former Soviet republic in May to praise him as a friend, a trip that drew criticism because it came the day after Cheney criticized Russia for retreating from democracy. The latest invitation has sparked outrage among Kazakh opposition.

so.......as long as they are our dictators, they are okay?

Irony: Religious Zealots Want War

2006-08-28T10:33:00.000-04:00

I made the following comment on Belgravia Dispatch:

Isn't it interesting that on both sides the only parties that really want to fight each other are the religious zealots, both in Christian and Muslim world.....more secular people want to live in peace.

It's a shame really, what better way to further undermine the good names of Christ and Mohammed than this? That religious fanatics on both sides of the isle advocate war and murder.....

Can we trust the Lord to protect us from our enemies? Or do we look to the "priests of Baal" for our protection?

Missile Defense Shield Shenanigans

2006-08-28T06:18:00.000-04:00

Rumsfeld is up in Alaska visiting the MDS main hub and saying foolish things about North Korea, how NK is not a threat to South Korea, (even though NK could probably wipe out Seoul in half an hour with all its forces just 30 miles from Seoul!). But we've never known Rumsfeld to be a bright guy. In any case, look at the following report and see how the generals are "lowering their expectations," "moving the goalposts" so that the main objective of their missile defense shield test is NOT to destroy the target, but merely SPOT the target!

"We are not going to try to hit the target," said Scott Fancher, head of Boeing Co.'s ground-based missile defense program. "It is not a primary or secondary test objective to hit the target."

After a tour of the missile interceptor silos here Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that although he wanted to see a "full end-to-end test," he was patient. He rejected suggestions that the system should try to hit the target this time.

"Why not proceed in an orderly way with the kind of the test expert people [want to do]?" Rumsfeld told reporters. "They do not have to do it to demonstrate to you."

Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering III, director of the Missile Defense Agency, said it was "possible" the kill vehicle would take out the missile even though that was not a goal. But the military, he said, is focused on making sure a redesigned kill vehicle is able to spot the target missile, distinguish between its booster stage and warhead, and communicate with the control centers on the ground.

"This is about as good as it gets in terms of a system test," Obering said.

The general has said several times that he believes the missile defense system can shoot down a long-range North Korean missile aimed at the United States.

What?!?!?!? What the!?!?! After billions of dollars spent, the best they can come up with is a system where they are so afraid to test an actual HIT that they only want their target to be spotted?

I smell a political ploy here. Lower the expectation to just "spotting the target," so that when the missile actually destroys the target they can crow and gloat and bow and worship at their god of steel and iron actually doing its job of protecting them. I wonder though what will happen when America's "priests of Baal fail to call down fire". Will Americans realize the folly of trusting the arms of flesh for their protection?

Krauthammer Is Just Itchin' For a Fight With Iran....

2006-08-24T23:13:00.000-04:00

you can read it in his op-ed in the Washington Post.

Realistically speaking, the point of this multilateral exercise cannot be to stop Iran's nuclear program by diplomacy. That has always been a fantasy. It will take military means. There would be terrible consequences from an attack. These must be weighed against the terrible consequences of allowing an openly apocalyptic Iranian leadership to acquire weapons of genocide.

The point of the current elaborate exercise in multilateral diplomacy is to slightly alter that future calculation. By demonstrating extraordinary forbearance and accommodation, perhaps we will have purchased the acquiescence of our closest allies -- Britain, Germany and, yes, France -- to a military strike on that fateful day when diplomacy has run its course.

Yeah, you go get them! Can you sense the fate of inevitability? All the "multilateral diplomacy" is just a show, just a ruse, in his eyes. It's only meant to delay the inevitable. War with Iran. What a sad little man is Mr. Krauthammer. Why are people listening to him?

On Iran.....

2006-08-24T20:26:00.000-04:00

The Royal Institue of International Affairs at Chatham House in England has released a report in which they assert that Iran is now the key power in the Middle East and Iraq. It reports:

"There is little doubt that Iran has been the chief beneficiary of the War on Terror in the Middle East," says the report from Chatham House's Middle East Programme.

"The United States, with coalition support, has eliminated two of Iran’s regional rival governments - the Taleban in Afghanistan in November 2001 and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in April 2003 - but has failed to replace either with coherent and stable political structures."

I bring this up on the heels of Republican representative Hoekstra's report criticizing America's lack of clear intelligence on Iran, or more cynically said, American intelligence not fitting Mr. Hoekstra's ideology. Mr. Hoekstra is in line with those who would like to pop the head off the snake in Iran, irregardless of what the facts on the ground are. Similarly to the situation in Iraq, even though Powell said in February 2001 that the sanctions worked and Saddam hadn't reconstituted his weapons programs, and that no WMDs were found in Iraq, these fearmongers and warmongers don't particularly care. Ah, the inconvenience of not having the facts fit the ideology.....

The problem, as is evidenced today in the Middle East, is that our own strategy, Bush's Doctrine, Cheney's One Percent Doctrine, gave the Middle East to Iran on a silver platter.

Saddam is a Sunni, and Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, at about 30% or so. The large majority in Iraq are Shi'ites, at about 60% or so. The remainder are Kurds and other smaller groups. Iran is 90% Shi'ite. The Shi'ites in Iraq have been looking towards help from Iran for decades against Saddam. Saddam was what kept the Iranians in check from dominating Iraq. Now Saddam is gone and through democratic processes, the Shi'ites with strong ties to Iran now control Iraq---or at least the Shi'ite portion. The Sunnis knew what would happen the moment Saddam was taken out: Iran would take revenge on them for their aggresive war against Iran. That's why they revolted against the US occupation and have been fighting so hard against the Shi'ites.

The stupidity of Bush's Doctrine is that it did not destroy terrorism, nor terrorists. As I've quoted numerous times, Porter Goss, head of CIA testified in front of the Senate that Islamic jihadists were using the War in Iraq as a recruiting tool for more recruits. The stupidity of Bush's Doctrine is that it exacerbated terrorism so now we are far less safer than ever before. The stupidity of Bush's Doctrine is that so much of our effort has been expended in Iraq at such a high cost that can we even afford or have the tools and recruits needed for a real fight against a real enemy anytime soon? The stupidity of Bush's Doctrine is that he has not asked Americans to sacrifice to pay for this war, and now we will be in red financially as far as the eye can see. Tell me what business can run on red indefinitely? How can a country run on red indefinitely? At some point, it will do us irreprable harm. When will that moment be? I doubt it will be in Bush's lifetime. I doubt he will be around to pay this debt. He'll leave it on future generations. The stupidity of Bush's Doctrine is that our children and our children's children will come to hate our selfish and selfserving generation. This will be considered the worst time in American history!

I am curious if conservatives can actually name one "success" in Bush's Doctrine so far. Yes, you've removed Saddam, but now Iran runs Iraq. Is that really a "success?" Yes, Lebanon broke the bands of Syrian bonds, but you sacrificed the Cedar Revolution on the altar of Israeli defense. Is that a success? The Taliban still kill Americans and foreigners and those who work for foreigners in Afghanistan. Is this a success? 3400 Iraqi civilians were killed in July of violent deaths. Is this a success? Is that what you view as a successful strategy? Three times British Muslims have attempted to murder their own or Americans, twice succeeding. Is this success? Take a look at the State Department's Travel Warnings pages and see what they say. For example, this is what they say about Iraq: The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Is this success? Some might say, "we haven't had enough time yet." But, it took Roosevelt three and a half years to thoroughly defeat his enemies and fundamentally alter the entire world. We've now been in Iraq for three and a half years. Why is it still so dangerous to go into just one country? Is this success?

On Iran though, it seems that Republicans don't want peace. CATO's Justin Logan has the following to say about the neo-conservative strategy:

Neoconservative grumbling about diplomacy is nothing new, but this tone has become increasingly common. Regarding Syria, Iran, anywhere, if diplomacy can’t provide a slam-dunk, total, and complete resolution of all the issues, then it’s held out as a worthless exercise in jaw-jawing.

To some extent the point is well-taken: Diplomacy can be difficult, and can fail, and it always produces temporary, imperfect solutions. But that’s the point: all foreign policies produce temporary, imperfect solutions. Crusading in search of silver bullets puts us in predicaments like those of Iraq.

In the course of pooh-poohing talks with the Syrians, for example, we’re regaled with tales of how past dialogues have failed to wean them away from their client Hezbollah, and how the Assad regime is still, well, nasty. Since Iran hasn’t agreed to capitulate before even coming to the negotiating table, the supposed uselessness of diplomacy is demonstrated.

But the point isn’t to hold diplomacy out as the way to magically eliminate foreign policy problems. There is no way to eliminate problems in foreign affairs entirely. But diplomacy is a tool for managing crises, and for finding limited areas to cooperate or compromise.

By setting the standard for diplomacy so high as to demand a nice, neat, tied-up-with-a-ribbon solution in order to prove success, neoconservatives are framing the debate such that diplomacy is always a sure-fire “failure.” That’s harmful, because it misconstrues the choices and unnecessarily limits our options.

It makes it hard to see neo-conservatives interested in desiring anything but war. This is clearly the case when you read Max Boot articles and op-eds. They really think violence will solve their problems. The important question is, why are people listening to them?

Iran and Intelligence; Iraq and 9/11; Bush and America's Psyche

2006-08-24T14:05:00.000-04:00

Three things. All related. All showing the bamboozlement continues.

First.

A Republican prepared report criticizes the intelligence community for not keeping up with Republican ideology on Iran. That's basically the gist of it.

A key House committee issued a stinging critique of U.S. intelligence on Iran yesterday, charging that the CIA and other agencies lack "the ability to acquire essential information necessary to make judgments" on Tehran's nuclear program, its intentions or even its ties to terrorism.

The 29-page report, principally written by a Republican staff member on the House intelligence committee who holds a hard-line view on Iran, fully backs the White House position that the Islamic republic is moving forward with a nuclear weapons program and that it poses a significant danger to the United States. But it chides the intelligence community for not providing enough direct evidence to support that assertion.

"American intelligence agencies do not know nearly enough about Iran's nuclear weapons program" to help policymakers at a critical time, the report's authors say. Information "regarding potential Iranian chemical weapons and biological weapons programs is neither voluminous nor conclusive," and little evidence has been gathered to tie Iran to al-Qaeda and to the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, they say.

The report relies exclusively on publicly available documents. Its authors did not interview intelligence officials. Still, it warns the intelligence community to avoid the mistakes made regarding weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war, noting that Iran could easily be engaged in "a denial and deception campaign to exaggerate progress on its nuclear program as Saddam Hussein apparently did concerning his WMD programs."

Darn, Mr. Hoekstra, sucks when the facts don't fit your preconceived ideology, don't it? Mayhap you should follow the facts, not fears.

Second

Bush is now going negative on the war in Iraq. He now says that this war strains the nation's psyche, and that not following his plan could be worse. Really? Worse than a destabilized Iraq? Worse than an Iraq with strong Iranian influence now? Worse than 3400 civilians dying per month from violent deaths? Worse than our credibility being shot in the Middle East? Worse than having tens of thousands of Iraqis chanting "Death to America!" and "Death to Israel!"

So what is worse Mr. President?

Oh, and when will a member of the "press" corps actually do their job and "press" him to elaborate?

Finally

Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Not according to Bush, but we know who really runs this kingship, don't we.....

Israeli Military Leader Admits Mistakes

2006-08-24T07:17:00.000-04:00

Israel's top military leader admits mistakes in handling the war on Hezbollah. Ah, if only America's top military leader (Mr. Rumsfeld) would be this honest.....

Ah Those Sweet Sounds.....

2006-08-23T14:07:00.000-04:00

What are they? A Conservative saying Bill Clinton was right. It is a beautiful sound. Much rejoicing abounds. :)

A Look at Bush's Talking Points

2006-08-23T13:08:00.000-04:00

Over on the Huffington Post, Bob Harris shows Bush's notes in his press conference on Monday. As Mr. Harris says towards the end, "Pretty damn depressing."

Fearmongers and The Domino Effect

2006-08-23T10:57:00.000-04:00

Once again, yet another fearmonger writes how terrible it would be for the United States to leave Iraq to its own troubles. This particular fearmonger says that what will happen will be that Iran will then take over Iraq, because, after all, 60% of Iraqis are Shi'ites, like most Iranians.

Didn't we hear this argument before? The Domino Effect. Why go into Vietnam? To stop the Soviets from converting one nation into communism that would then lead to others, and others until the US is left alone, (so powerfully effected in the movie Red Dawn). But is that what happened in Vietnam? Did Vietnam's neighbors and other countries around the world turn to communism in the dreaded Domino Effect?

What fearmongers like Mr. Rassam fail to mention is that we CHOSE to enter Iraq and create the destabilized situation that now exists there. Iran could not create a strong influence in Iraq if it were not for our ineptitude! In other words, WE GAVE IRAN IRAQ ON A SILVER PLATTER! and now these fearmongers complain about Iranian influence in Iraq. What foolishness! Mr. Rassam, what do you think kept Iranian influence at bay in Iraq? Mr. Rassam, why do you think Ronald Reagan and Donald Rumsfeld were doing in the 1980s supporting Saddam's aggressive and illegal war on Iran? Why do you think they supported this monster then? Now you created a vaccum into which strong Iranian influence fills the void. It is people like YOU, Mr. Rassam, that GAVE the Iranians Iraq. When will people like you be held accountable?

Bush's Horrible Press Conference

2006-08-23T10:11:00.000-04:00

Fred Kaplan on Slate has a great breakdown of Bush's terrible press conference. Oh where are the journalists who ask tough questions? Why do they let him off the hook so easily!

How Easily Some Americans Advocate War.....

2006-08-23T09:42:00.000-04:00

Take a look at this from Mario Loyola, obviously not one of the sharpest saws in the toolbox. He recommends the following action on Iran, after Iran barred UN nuclear inspectors to view one location:

If this story is true, we should bomb the facilities right now. Article 51 of the U.N. Charter preserves the right of self-defense in cases of armed aggression. For Iran to hide a batch of LEU is not only a violation of the nonproliferation treaty, but also, strategically speaking, an act of armed aggression, because it is the last moment at which the scope of Iran's enrichment activities can be known with any certainty. Assuming the story is true, if we don't attack now, the optimal window for self-defense will close and any future military operation may have to be much more expansive in scope and would have a greatly diminished probability of success. At least now we know where this batch of LEU is. Within days the batch could be at another — totally clandestine — facility. And we will then find ourselves in a brave new world.

Woah, talk about the politics of fear! Not only is this full of fearmongering, but Mr. Loyola doesn't seem to know what an "act of armed aggression" is, or what Article 51 of the UN Charter is about. Matt Yglesias responds well on Talking Points Memo to this falsity:

Since in times of peace conservatives usually make no bones about the fact that they don't care about international law it's hard for me to understand why they go in for such tortured legal rationalizations about starting them. Article 51 preserves the "inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations." It's right there in the text -- armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations. Violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty is not an armed attack against the United States or any other country. This is pretty clear-cut. If anyone would have an Article 51 case in the event of the Loyola Plan being implemented it would obviously be Iran, the country subjected to an armed attack (veto power comes in handy here).

How does someone as foolish and ignorant like Mr. Loyola get not only a pulpit from which to spew out his vitriol, but even have a readership? What does this say about his readers?

The Bambozzlement Is Complete

2006-08-22T10:33:00.000-04:00

Yes, Republicans really believe Democrats are soft on terror. They really bought into Rove's lie. Jonathan Chait has a great analysis of Republicans, normal lay members, as well as knowledgable pundits and bloggers (like Andrew Sullivan), truly believing in their hearts that only Republicans are strong on terror.

Oh when will they wake up?

Good Devotional on Wars and the Gospel

2006-08-21T15:02:00.000-04:00

R. Kirk Belnap gave a great devotional at BYU entitled "Wars, Rumors of Wars, and Wise and Faithful Servants." It is nice to see church leaders emphasizing the importance of showing love and charity to our friends, neighbors and enemies around the world. Would that all Mormons learn this and stop advocating wars.......

The Difference Between America and Britain

2006-08-21T11:19:00.000-04:00

Here is why we cannot follow Britain's example in profiling Middle Easterners. Take a look at this article which shows how Pakistanis in America fit in with Americans, compared to Pakistanis in Britain.

Yet one major difference between the United States and Britain, some say, is the United States’ historical ideal of being a melting-pot meritocracy.

“You can keep the flavor of your ethnicity, but you are expected to become an American,” said Omer Mozaffar, 34, a Pakistani-American raised here who is working toward a doctorate in Islamic studies at the University of Chicago.

Britain remains far more rigid. In the United States, for example, Pakistani physicians are more likely to lead departments at hospitals or universities than they are in Britain, said Dr. Tariq H. Butt, a 52-year-old family physician who arrived in the United States 25 years ago for his residency.

The Evil Pedophiles

2006-08-21T11:16:00.000-04:00

New York Times has a great article on the dangers of pedophiles and their increasing sophisitcation. Forget terrorists, these are the worst of the worst kinds of people out there! Put them in jail for the rest of their lives. Keep them away from the children!

Keep These In Mind

2006-08-21T10:50:00.000-04:00

In debating the situation in Iraq, two particular incidents must be kept in mind of deliberate lies to keep the discussion within a certain Republican script. One is Colin Powell speaking in Egypt in February 2001 about the sanctions in Iraq. He says:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

That link to the Memory Hole also quotes Powell in a Senate Subcommittee, as well as Condolezza Rice who also thought Iraq was weak.

The second is probably more pernicious. Who out there thinks that Saddam kicked the inspectors out in 1998? Go ahead, raise your hands. Take your hands off the keyboard for a second and raise them if you think so. Now take a look at this.

Since January 1999, the Washington Post has spun a tall tale about the 1998collapse of U.N. weapons inspections in Iraq and the U.S.-British airstrikesthat followed. Not only has the Post rewritten Iraqi history, but thepaper's new version of events contradicts its own coverage from the time ofthe airstrikes. Despite running several letters to the editor pointing outthe mistake, the paper has repeated the error again and again. How manytimes can one newspaper get the same fact wrong?

The story centers on the Iraq crisis that broke out on December 16, 1998.Richard Butler, head of the United Nations weapons inspection team in Iraq,had just released a report accusing the Iraqi regime of obstructing U.N.weapons checks. On the basis of that report, President Clinton announced hewould launch airstrikes against Iraqi targets. Out of concern for theirsafety, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, and the U.S.-Britishbombing proceeded.

The Washington Post reported all these facts correctly at the time: ADecember 18 article by national security correspondent Barton Gellmanreported that "Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, inanticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night."

But in the 14 months since then, the Washington Post has again and againtried to rewrite history--claiming that Saddam Hussein expelled the U.N.inspectors from Iraq. Despite repeated attempts by its readers to set therecord straight in letters to the editor, the Post has persisted inreporting this fiction.

Not only did Saddam Hussein not order the inspectors' retreat, but Butler'sdecision to withdraw them was--to say the least--highly controversial. TheWashington Post (12/17/98) reported that as Butler was drafting his reporton Iraqi cooperation, U.S. officials were secretly consulting with him abouthow to frame his conclusions.

As the website says, the Washington Post was not the only one to say this. This is President Bush in the 2002 State of the Union address:

This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens; leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections; then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

FAIR also shows a comparison in news media sources, comparing what they said in 1998 with what they said in 2002 to show how the lie was produced. Take a look.

"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction."

-- Newsday, 12/17/98

"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous."

--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02

Here is the Neo-cons website, Project for the New American Century, that also shows this lie:

"But just five days later, Kofi Annan struck yet another "deal" with the Iraqi dictator--which once more gave U.N. inspectors permission to inspect--and Saddam won again.

Of course, much has changed since President Clinton gave that speech. The situation has gotten worse. Ten months after Saddam accepted Annan's offer, he kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq for good."

This website offers even more proof of what officials from Clinton to Butler actually said in 1998, and it wasn't that Saddam kicked out the inspectors.

This article catalogs Bush's way of lying, setting up the straw men and changing the words to fit a careful script. Evil. That's what these men are.

I wanted to get this post to keep a reminder of these events that otherwise might get lost to history, because the lies keep being spoken so loudly that they might just soon be held as the truth. And that would be a travesty.

Bush says nobody in his administration tried to link Saddam to 9/11. Ha! More Orwellian nonsense. Thankfully the good people at Talking Points Memo have several links and here that prove otherwise. Here is Cheney saying it is irresponsible to not see the connection between Al-Qaida and Iraq. Here is Cheney further discrediting himself as an honest man. There's plenty more out there.

8/29/06 Update:

Bush says that Iraq pullout will be decided by future presidents,

President Bush suggested yesterday that US troops might stay in Iraq beyond his presidency, which ends in 2009, saying at a press conference that the issue of removing troops from the country ''will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq."

but meanwhile, he said this earlier:

I believe it is the job of a President to confront problems, not pass them on to future Presidents and future generations. (Applause.) And in the last four years, we have faced some problems. We faced a recession, corporate scandal. We passed tough laws now to make it abundantly clear, we will not tolerate dishonesty in the boardrooms of America. (Applause.)

We faced a terrorist attack and war. Because we confronted these challenges with focus and resolve, our nation is on the path to a better future. If America shows weakness or uncertainty in this decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This is not going to happen on my watch. (Applause.)

Israel Breaks the Cease-Fire

2006-08-19T07:53:00.000-04:00

Is Olmert this politically dumb? Doesn't he realize that this will play extremely poorly in the court of public opinion to break the cease-fire with a commando raid and a missile launch? Isn't that what Hezbollah did to start this conflict, launch a few missiles and a commando raid? What are you thinking Olmert?

Federal Judge Orders a Halt to NSA Warrantless Surveillance

2006-08-17T14:49:00.000-04:00

Good work! This is a step in the right direction for America. This is a step back to what the Constitution actually states, not what a King believes.

Cheney: Incompetent Wimp

2006-08-16T13:26:00.000-04:00

Well said, Mr. Sullivan, well said!

It is my rallying cry, Mr. Sullivan. But, if it is yours, are you willing to vote for a Democrat, Mr. Sullivan? That's the only way you'll get rid of Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld.

Maybe There Is Hope for the Future After All....

2006-08-16T11:47:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan, a conservative, an originally a backer of the Iraq War, now quite rightfully questions this alleged British terror plot, with some hard questions that have not been answered by either British or American officials. Maybe there is hope for the future after all. Maybe conservatives will also start seeing through the slime that the emperor has no clothes, that there is a simple ordinary man behind the wizard. Com'on Conservatives, wake up!

Trusting in the Arm of the Flesh

2006-08-16T11:37:00.000-04:00

I agree with President Spencer W. Kimball, a prophet of the Lord:

In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had -- in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people -- a condition repugnant to the Lord.

We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel -- ships, planes, missiles, fortifications -- and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 5:44-45).

We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us -- and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Nephi 1:7) -- or he will fight our battles for us (Exodus 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" (Matthew 26:53). We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chronicles 20), and when Elish's life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, "Fear not; for they that be with us are more than they that be with them" (2 Kings 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, "And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha" (vs 17).

What are we to fear when the Lord is with us? Can we not take the Lord at his word and exercise a particle of faith in him? Our assignment is affirmative: to forsake the things of the world as ends in themselves; to leave off idolatry and press forward in faith; to carry the gospel to our enemies, that they might no longer be our enemies.

We must leave off the worship of modern-day idols and a reliance on the "arm of flesh," for the Lord has said to all the world in our day, "I will not spare any that remain in Babylon" (D&C 64:24).

Ammon and his brothers went to the Lamanites trusting in the Lord to protect them. They went not to war with them but to preach to them. Peace is possible. But you have to want peace. You have to trust in the Lord. Can Americans do this? I think we can. But we must stop fighting!

The Birth Pangs of the New Middle East

2006-08-16T11:01:00.000-04:00

Thank you Bush for handing to Iran such a victory. Take a look at these reports from the region. They should show pretty clearly who really won.

Lebanese Blast Arab Rulers, Praise Iran and Syria

Syria, Iran more powerful than ever

Syria warns Israel over Golan

This is the really dangerous one. Syria is telling Israel that it will learn from Hezbollah how to fight and remove Israel from the Golan Heights. Thank you Bush. This is exactly what Israel needed.

Iran wants new Middle East without US, British meddling

They should know. It was the British and Americans who in Operation Ajax removed a democratically elected leader of Iran, just because British Petroleum was unhappy that Iran had nationalized their oil production. Sucks when it cuts into a company's profits, don't it.

Many Arabs, sadly, see things Assad's way

All this because Bush gave Israel the green light to take Hezbollah's bait on July 12. Oh the future is going to be messy.

Christian Conservatives Use Churches to Increase Voter Turnout

2006-08-15T09:49:00.000-04:00

In a sign that shows that Republicans cannot stand on their own principles and philosophies, Christian Conservatives are using churches to drive voter turnout in November. It doesn't matter that their policies are failures, as long as you get the ardent coming to the "Party of God."

Of course you won't find Republicans claiming that today, because "party of God" means something in Arabic. It means Hezbollah.

Meanwhile, Thank You Israel!

2006-08-15T06:59:00.000-04:00

While Republicans use foreign wars for political purposes back home, Israel is showing us that they fight for the protection of their lands and their people. Thank you Israel for being an example to us. In Israel, Israelis can see when their government is failing and actually want to do something about it.

Thank you Israel. Please be safe.

The Politics of Fear and Smear

2006-08-14T20:54:00.000-04:00

an excellent analysis of the politics of Bush and Cheney. Will Americans fall for this sham again? What do you think?

2006-08-12T18:58:00.000-04:00

An American Indian elder described his own inner struggles this way: "Inside of me there two dogs. One of the dogs is mean and evil. The other dog is good. The mean dog fights the good dog all the time." When asked which dog wins, he reflected for a moment and replied, "The one I feed the most."

— Native American Proverb

The Loss of Israeli Invincibility

2006-08-11T21:47:00.000-04:00

Time magazine has an excellent analysis of the problem now facing Israel due to its hubris and pride in its modern technology, and in its failure to defeat 4000 guerrillas in Lebanon.

Today's 'situation' is not one that agrees with most Israelis. Promised a swift, knock-out punch against Hizballah's Islamic militiamen, Israelis are now being told that in order to neutralize Hizballah — forget about destroying them — they must brace for a bloody ground attack in Lebanon that could cost hundreds of soldiers' lives. Increasingly, Israelis are asking: how could a militia force of only 4,000 fighters withstand a prolonged beating by the mightiest army in the Middle East — and still keep pelting Israeli cities with rockets?

Once the cease-fire starts, both sides will surely claim victory. Nasrallah will declare himself a new champion of the Arab world for having survived the Israeli onslaught and terrorized 1.5 million Israelis with his blindly flung rockets. (In Palestine's West Bank, recordings of his speeches and ballads of Hizballah warriors are hot sellers.) The Israelis can argue they pushed back Hizballah from the border, killed hundreds of their fighters and replaced enemy militiamen along the border with regular Lebanese army troops and tough international forces. Israel may even be able to exchange its own Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners for two captive Israeli soldiers.( A third soldier was kidnapped by Palestinians militants Hamas, and a senior Hamas official told TIME that his release will depend on what Hizballah decides to do with its two Israeli hostages.) But many Israelis are worried that if they stop fighting now, they will have lost a weapon far more valuable than any "bunker-buster" — the Israeli army's aura of invincibility. And for that loss in this Lebanese war, more than any other casualty, Olmert and his top generals may pay dearly.

2006-08-11T13:41:00.000-04:00

So illegal immigrants, it turns out, don't really actually harm the economy as fear-mongers would like you to believe.

"We are simply looking for a pattern across 50 states, and we did not find one," Kochhar said. "We cannot say with certainty that growth in the foreign population has hurt or helped American jobs."

Right-wingers are getting too used to using fear as a policy tool. They ought to start using facts, methinks.

2006-08-10T20:41:00.000-04:00

James Forsyth argues on Foreign Policy Blog "how imbecilic it is to argue that if only Tony Blair hadn't allied himself with George W. Bush in the war on terror there would be no problem" regarding the radicalization of British Muslims. He shows polls taken among British Muslims showing their radical beliefs.

Mr. Forsyth believes that Bush's war on terror is winning....but Mr. Forsyth does not show polls taken among British Muslims before the Iraq war to gauge just when this radicalization took place among British Muslims. It is the argument of those Mr. Forsyth and his neo-conservative friends call "appeasers" that this radicalization took place BECAUSE OF Bush's GWOT, not in spite of. It is not appeasement to criticize a poor choice of policy, but wisdom. To follow a policy that further radicalizes those who we need on our side is pure foolishness and stupidity.

Iraq is a Failed State

2006-08-10T20:37:00.000-04:00

....and Foreign Policy Magazine has the numbers. Take a look for yourself and you will see Iraq in fourth place among failed states, only three points better than the Sudan, which is the world's worst failed state.

After three and a half years, this is the state of Iraq?

Heh, Somalia is in better shape than Iraq is, according to the numbers!

Hold Chertoff To His Word

2006-08-10T19:06:00.000-04:00

Michael Chertoff:

"We believe that these arrests (in London) have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted," Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff said. He added, however, there was no indication of current plots within the United States.

I'm going to hold him to his word. I better not hear of any more terror plots against the United States from now until November 2006........

Not Good for the "War on Terror"

2006-08-10T15:40:00.000-04:00

Ivo Daalder analyses that the foiled plot in Britain is actually NOT good for the status of the war on terror. I agree. Bush said that in the war on terror, we are to take the fight to the enemy. But.....these apparent terrorists are homegrown Brits. As Mr. Daalder says, what are you going to do, bomb Britain?

More on Shades of World War I

2006-08-10T10:26:00.000-04:00

Richard Holbrooke, in an op-ed in the Washington Post also links the current Middle East conflict to the scenario that started World War One. As I read his article, I got the impression that if peace is not found soon, it might well be a similar spark....

Surprise Surprise

2006-08-10T07:07:00.000-04:00

The November Congressional elections approach, and wouldn't you know it, the Bush administration is starting to once again reveal terror plots that the government has foiled!

I'm guessing we will hear and see more terror plots either unfolding or being foiled by our government, to highlight just how "good" the Bush administration and Republicans are doing at the 'war on terror.'

Bush Administration Wants to Revise War Crimes Act

2006-08-09T06:25:00.000-04:00

Now, why would they want to do that unless War Crimes were committed during the Bush Administration?

Why Rapturists Want Israel At War With Her Neighbors

2006-08-08T11:13:00.000-04:00

Israel has few friends in this world. Since their modern rebirth, they have fought many wars, angered many people, and has had only one real ally. Israel is an impressive country. Receiving the most financial support of any country in the world from the United States, they've created a rich, thriving nation in a desert. For comparison, to show just how impressive this feat is, compare Israel to Egypt, which receives the second highest amount of financial aid from the United States, behind Israel. Egypt has the same opportunity to create the same grand country. Instead, Egypt is beset by massive corruption and a dictatorship. Meanwhile, Israel is the stable democracy we wish to see other countries in the region follow.

Israel deserves the aid and support America gives it. However, Israel must be wary when they see Conservative Christians so fully backing anything Israel does. Israel wants peace with her neighbors. In fact, she made peace with two countries, Egypt and Jordan, both of whom wished for Israel's destruction before their peace was made. Conservative Christians (and neo-cons) however, cringe and privately are disappointed, when Israel makes peace with her neighbors. Why?

First, on July 12, Hezbollah made a cross-border incursion, killed eight soldiers and captured two, taking those two back into Lebanon. This occurred on the watch of a new Israeli prime minister who had not seen combat, like Sharon or any previous Israeli PM. Olmert felt like he had to show he was as tough as Sharon, or face revolts from his right in Israel. How to respond? he must have been thinking. Sharon did nothing in Lebanon, focusing solely on Palestine, and it didn't get him much. Now, Olmert thinks it might benefit his presidency to show he can take care of Hezbollah for good. But like the foolish Rumsfeld/Bush duo, he chooses a small force to enter Lebanon thinking that should solve the problem. He learns quickly that Hezbollah ain't no Hamas. Now he has to move his goalposts back and accept Hezbollah still being there. Can he find a political solution that will keep him popular at home? That depends on the Americans. More on them later.

Hezbollah, at Iran's behest, makes the incursion and kidnapping for a prisoner tradeoff, as both Israel and Hezbollah have done numerous times before since 1982. I don't think Nasrallah calculated that the new Israeli PM would react so strongly. However, Hezbollah was ready to show the world just how powerful they really were.

Iran is getting a lot of heat even from allies for its nuclear program. What better way to change the subject and focus of the major powers than to start a conflict between two foes that hate each other and will inevitably be the focus of the world? I'm not sure though which power in Iran ordered Hezbollah to action. Ahmedinejad is not that powerful a prime minister, his fiery rhetoric aside. Most of the power is still with the clerics. In any case, forward they move with their nuclear program.

Bush is faced with more problems than he would like to deal with. It's August for goodness sake!!! "I'm supposed to be on vacation in August!" You can see how tired he is. He is still focused. What does Bush want? He sees the opportunity to use the Israelis for his own purposes. The Israelis must realize that they are being used. Normally America holds them on a tight leash, giving them only a short while to act. They must realize they are an American tool right now.

Bush will use Israel to further isolate Syria's influence in Lebanon, remove Hezbollah and give a slap in the face to Iran, all in this one move. That's what Bush sees. He loves to see Israel pound Lebanon, even though that means sacrificing the only real success he has actually had in regards to democracy in the Middle East. The greater goal for Bush is the punishment of Iran, irrespective of who dies and what is lost.

America solidly backs Israel, as they should, and also as they cannot speak any word considered even possibly anti-Israel, or they'd get the Mel Gibson treatment. If one says that this attack on Lebanon will not give Israel the goals she desires, one is labeled anti-Semitic. That is a bunch of trash. I propone that those who avidly and unabashedly back any and all Israeli military action, are by their intents, anti-Semitic in two ways. I will get to this in a second.

I believe Israel should have, in this case, simply exchanged prisoners, and not take Iran's bait at war. Olmert did not see the bigger picture (and Bush doesn't care that he just got baited by Iran). Iran is playing a smart game here. By forcing Israel into bombing Lebanon, Iran is turning the public opinion tide further away from Israel and America. Iran and her allies can point to the civilian casualties as examples of how little America and Israel care for Arabs and Muslims. Iran and her allies can divert attention away from their own hypocritical horrors. This action has further weakened America's influence in the Middle East. Furthermore, Hezbollah's training far exceeds any previous military that Israel faced, and now Arabs look at Israel and do not see the all-powerful Army it used to see. This is very bad for Israel, for America, and for all the Arab countries around Israel, because it means more conflicts are coming in the future.

I've heard a great recommendation for how Israel can solve its problems. Hezbollah is popular with the Shi'ites in Lebanon because they provide social services, hospitals, and education. Perhaps Israel should provide these services instead. Show the soft side and perhaps they might get more friends then they realize.

I wonder why Lebanese who are fleeing the conflict do not go over the border into Israel for protection. Why do they take flight to Syria?

Back to America....Bush is a conservative Christian. In 1998 he went on a trip to Israel and was moved to tears, singing Amazing Grace, while seeing the Holy Land. What did he feel? Perhaps he knew a few things about scripture and prophecy.

Here is wisdom for Israel. If Christian conservatives are happy and giddy to see you at war, and are cheerleading you on, it is not because that war benefits you, dear Israel, but because this means that Jesus Christ will come again soon to save them, NOT YOU!

Let me share a few things these Christianists (as Andrew Sullivan likes to call them) believe:

Rapture on Wikipedia

What is the Rapture?

The rapture is an event that will take place sometime in the near future. Jesus will come in the air, catch up the Church from the earth, and then return to Heaven with the Church. In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, we are given a clear description of the rapture: "the dead in Christ will rise, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord."
The main thrust of this web site is to prove that the rapture will occur prior to the beginning of the tribulation. This has been well researched and documented throughout the site. But, whether Jesus returns for the Church before, during, or after the tribulation, the primary goal is that all people are ready to face the Lord and give an account for their lives.

"What takes place after the Rapture?"
After The Rapture, God will begin executing judgments against unbelievers, during a period called the Tribulation. At the end of the Tribulation all nations will attack Israel, and Jesus Christ will physically return, leading the armies of heaven. At the Battle of Armeggedon they will destroy everyone who is not a believer. Then Satan will be bound, and Jesus will set up the Millennial Kingdom, headquartered in Jerusalem. Jesus and the saints will rule over the nations of the Earth for a thousand years. During this period there will be people born who are not loyal to Christ. However, it usually will not be obvious. Therefore, at the end of the thousand-year period, God will release Satan and let him tempt those who inhabit the Earth. A large group will take up arms against the Lord and be defeated. Then, Christ will judge all who have ever lived, giving rewards to some and punishment to others. Those who were "destroyed" will be cast into the Lake of Fire, i.e., Hell. After that, God will destroy heaven and Earth because they have been polluted by sin. He will create a new heaven and a new Earth, put those who were saved on the new Earth, and rule it forever.

As you see, they believe that the world will turn on Israel and want to destroy her in battle. So what happens when Israel takes the battle to her enemies, in the sight of these Rapturists?

Take a look. These comments were on the Rapture Ready message board, but were taken down when Rapture Ready got too many visitors. But they have been saved, and several bloggers have them saved. Theyrereal, a DailyKos blogger, has posted these quotes as well.

July 11th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Ohappyday
Is it time to get excited? I can't help the way I feel. For the first time in my Christian walk, I have no doubts that the day of the Lords appearing is upon us. I have never felt this way before, I have a joy that bubbles up every-time I think of him, for I know this is truly the time I have waited for so long. Am I alone in feeling guilty about the human suffering like my joy at his appearing some how fuels the evil I see everywhere. If it were not for the souls that hang in the balance and the horror that stalks man daily on this earth, my joy would be complete. For those of us who await his arrival know, somehow we just know it won't be long now, the Bridegroom cometh rather man is ready are not.
July 11th, 2006, 10:26 PM
watcherboy
it has been quite a day today, if you caught all the news; I'm getting the feeling world tension is gonna be high for a long time with increased terrorism and nations being defiant. I don't think it will cool down until after the rapture when the peace deal is confirmed.
July 11th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Chess-guy
...How can we not be excited, our redeemer cometh. We should pray always for the lost. But he is coming. Amen Amen ever so come lord Jesus.
your brother in Christ,
Paul
July 11th, 2006, 11:30 PM
Ifnot4him
Ready, waiting and excited here! Still telling others whenever possible that the rapture could take place at any time because this world is in such a big MESS and evidently it goes through one ear and right out the other.
...July 12th, 2006, 08:15 AM
Bghtnpd4
I am excited beyond words that the struggle of this life may be over soon and I can finally be FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!
Shelle circles her fist over her head and imitates Arsenio Hall by yelling WHOO-WHOO-WHOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
July 12th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Waitin
I too am soooo excited!! I get goose bumps, literally, when I watch what's going on in the M.E.!! And Watcherboy, you were so right when saying it was quite a day yesterday, in the world news, and I add in local news here in the Boston area!! Tunnel ceiling collapsed on a car and killed a woman of faith, and we had the most terrifying storms I have ever seen here!! But, yes, Ohappyday, like in your screen name , it is most indeed a time to be happy and excited, right there with ya!!
July 12th, 2006, 12:46 PM
Kidsintow123
...Our bridegroom and kinsmen redeemer, what a beautiful thought!! To finally see His face!!!
Sound the shofar! Let the Enemy know the alert has been sounded and Yeshua is stepping onto the battlefield.
I am a Jewish princess, my Father is the King of Kings!
Kidsintow123
July 12th, 2006, 05:16 PM
...If He tarries, I will just have time to get my hair and nails done (you know let all I come into contact with know of my Bridegroom and what He has/will do). So i am all spiffied up for Him when He does arrive to take me home. No disappointment, just a few last minute details to take care of to be more pleasing to look at.
...July 12th, 2006, 06:46 PM
lilbitsyspider
Days like today it's all I want. Other days because of others I want one more. But what a privilege to be apart of the rapture. I can hardly wait!!

I propone that these people are anti-Semitic for two reasons.

1. They want to see Israel at war for selfish reasons. They don't particularly care if Israelis die, as long as it hastens the Lord's appearance.

2. They don't realize that Arabs too, are of the tribe of Shem, and therefore Semitic. Anytime one makes a derogatory comment about Arabs, that individual is anti-Semitic.

These "supporters" of Israel only support this and future wars, so that it hastens the Lord's return, so that they, selfishly, will be saved. They are not real supporters of Israel, and should be scorned, and shunned.

I am a Mormon and I do believe the Savior will come, and most likely pretty soon. However, I do not look forward to the violence that hastens his arrival. I look forward to his return to STOP the violence, as apparently we are incapable of doing so ourselves. We, humans, should be ashamed that we cannot solve our problems without resorting to violence. That is not the way of the Lord and of Christians. I am sorry others who profess a belief in Christ are so strong advocates of violence. They do not understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ and only further undermine the love the Savior wants us to have one for another. We cannot have charity for those we kill. It is impossible.

Krauthammer Turns on Israel

2006-08-04T06:37:00.000-04:00

hmmmm, could Krauthammer be a closet anti-Semite? if you read his op-ed in the Washington Post today, it sure sounds like he is criticizing Israel. Take a look:

Hence Israel's rare opportunity to demonstrate what it can do for its great American patron. The defeat of Hezbollah would be a huge loss for Iran, both psychologically and strategically. Iran would lose its foothold in Lebanon. It would lose its major means to destabilize and inject itself into the heart of the Middle East. It would be shown to have vastly overreached in trying to establish itself as the regional superpower.

The United States has gone far out on a limb to allow Israel to win and for all this to happen. It has counted on Israel's ability to do the job. It has been disappointed. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has provided unsteady and uncertain leadership. Foolishly relying on air power alone, he denied his generals the ground offensive they wanted, only to reverse himself later. He has allowed his war cabinet meetings to become fully public through the kind of leaks no serious wartime leadership would ever countenance. Divisive cabinet debates are broadcast to the world, as was Olmert's own complaint that "I'm tired. I didn't sleep at all last night" (Haaretz, July 28). Hardly the stuff to instill Churchillian confidence.

His search for victory on the cheap has jeopardized not just the Lebanon operation but America's confidence in Israel as well. That confidence -- and the relationship it reinforces -- is as important to Israel's survival as its own army. The tremulous Olmert seems not to have a clue.

I've been called anti-Semitic for saying Israel should not be fighting with her neighbors. But I believe those who advocate Israel fight harder with her neighbors are anti-Semitic. At their core, they don't care about Israel as much as they do about their own selfish goals. This op-ed by Krauthammer proves it.

What have you done for me lately? There is fierce debate in the United States about whether, in the post-Sept. 11 world, Israel is a net asset or liability. Hezbollah's unprovoked attack on July 12 provided Israel the extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate its utility by making a major contribution to America's war on terrorism.

America's green light for Israel to defend itself is seen as a favor to Israel. But that is a tendentious, misleadingly partial analysis. The green light -- indeed, the encouragement -- is also an act of clear self-interest. America wants, America needs, a decisive Hezbollah defeat.

This is Israel's importance to America: "what have you done for me lately?" Yeah, neo-cons are not truly pro-Israel, but rather are using Israel to further their own goals.

All those who are truly pro-Israel should help Israel get back from warfare. Her safety and security in the region is greatly enhanced when she is at peace with her neighbors.

Men Not Working

2006-08-02T09:53:00.000-04:00

There are apparently men out there taking advantage of disability insurance and their wives's work, and sitting idly at home, not working. An article in the New York Times lays out the situation well.

In a General Conference talk President Hinckley said the following:

I receive letters from time to time suggesting items that the writers feel should be dealt with at conference. One such came the other day. It is from a woman who indicates that her first marriage ended in divorce. She then met a man who seemed to be a very kind and considerate individual. However, she discovered soon after marriage that his finances were in disarray; he had little money, yet he quit his job and refused employment. She was then forced to go to work to provide for the family.

Years have passed, and he still is unemployed. She then speaks of two other men who are following the same pattern, refusing to work while their wives are compelled to spend long hours providing for their households.

Said Paul to Timothy, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel" (1 Timothy 5:8). Those are very strong words.

The Lord has said in modern revelation:

"Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken. . . .

"All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age" (D&C 83:2, 4).

From the early days of this Church, husbands have been considered the breadwinners of the family. I believe that no man can be considered a member in good standing who refuses to work to support his family if he is physically able to do so.

Com'on guys! Off your butts and to work!

Would-Be Citizens Sue U.S. Over Delays

2006-08-02T09:40:00.000-04:00

No wonder so many want to just get over to America illegally. Apparently it takes extremely long for immigrants to process their paperwork legally, so much so that they are suing the U.S. to speed up the process.

Ten Middle Eastern and Asian immigrants sued the government Tuesday for allegedly letting their U.S. citizenship applications linger indefinitely by delaying background checks.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, the suit asks that a federal judge review the files and administer the oath of citizenship.

It also seeks class-action status to include all immigrants who have been waiting at least six months for naturalization after filing applications at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service in Los Angeles.

One Pakistani has been waiting to hear back from U.S. Immigration since 2002!

Finally a Voice of Reason and Reality

2006-08-01T23:03:00.000-04:00

What took you so long Mr. Blair?

Blair says the Middle East policy is not working, in a speech in Los Angeles. Blair says the following:

He argued that the battle against Islamic extremism was "not just about security or military tactics, it is about hearts and minds, about inspiring people, persuading them, showing them what our values at their best stand for". In a speech devoted to the war on terror, Mr Blair called for "a complete renaissance of our strategy to defeat those who threaten us". He argued that what was needed to meet the threat from the "arc of extremism stretching across the Middle East" was "an alliance of moderation and reconciliation".

If only we can hear that out of Americans.....

Republicans in Pennsylvania Supporting Green Party

2006-08-01T16:17:00.000-04:00

No joke! According to the TPMmuckraker, Republican donors to Santorum's reelection campaign also contributed a ton of money to the Green Party candidate, in the hopes that the Green Party candidate siphons liberal votes from the Democratic candidate.

In other words, the "party of principle," can't stand on their own merits and have to rely on dirty politics in order to win. How sad. Vote Santorum out now!

An Unforgiving Distrustful Nation

2006-08-01T15:52:00.000-04:00

Dude, what's with all the ruckus over Mel Gibson drunkenly spewing off anti-semitic remarks? Yeah, that was stupid, yeah that was detrimental to his stature and his career. But let's think about this. Has Mr. Gibson ever done any Jew harm? Has Mr. Gibson ever shunned working with Jews? (He's working for Hollywood, I remind you). Has he also not apologized for his remarks, and tried to make amends? Then why do we have so many bloggers pouncing on him?

For example, Andrew Sullivan alone has 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 posts just in the last few days on Gibson's outburst.

The pile-on comes from left-wing blogs too. Here are all those from Huffington Post on Mel: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16.

What has happened to my nation? Have we forgotten how to forgive our trespassers or offenders? I think we have much work to do in our nation, it seems.

This is How Peace Works

2006-07-31T16:47:00.000-04:00

Take a look at India and Pakistan, meeting together and deciding the best way forward is to "remain in touch," "to remain engaged."

What a world of difference from the Israelis and the Lebanese. There will not be any peace in the Middle East until both parties learn that they need to "remain in touch, and remain engaged."

The Ineffectual Condolezza Rice

2006-07-31T13:45:00.000-04:00

As shown in this article that so-called 48-hour cease-fire never really existed. This just shows how ineffectual Rice is as a peace broker, and that her real intent right now is to delay delay delay the world. Give Israel all the time possible to carry out their attacks in Lebanon (which are not having the effect Israel is desiring---on Sunday 146 Hezbollah rockets were fired into Israel, more than at the start of the conflict!).

If in 20 days of fighting to this point, Hezbollah is still firing well over 100 rockets per day into Israel, how does Olmert think he can take down Hezbollah in 10 to 14 more days?

Perhaps it is time for people to start looking into other ways than violence to solve their problems.

The Impossible Diplomacy

2006-07-30T20:52:00.000-04:00

I wonder what Rice is thinking as she vainly and pointlessly goes around the Middle East. She keeps talking about wanting peace. But her boss doesn't want peace until Hezbollah is wiped out. In fact, Bush and his supporters would love nothing more than to have Israel continue their war into Syria.

How can Rice truly be a representative of peace in the Middle East when what she represents are warmongers? There is no other word for people who desire one country to expand a war against one country into another. After the bombing in Qana, where more than 50 civilians including 37 children were killed by an Israeli airstrike, Lebanon's prime minister told Rice he did not want to meet with her. He knows that Israel can only act as the United States gives it permission to act. He knows that if the United States wished for Israel to stop shooting, they would heed America.

If Rice truly wishes for peace, she needs to no longer represent George W. Bush or the Republicans of the United States of America. If she wants her name synonimous with peace, she needs to let go of all her ties to the Bush Administration. It is impossible for her to be an effective broker for peace while working in the Bush Administration. The reason is simple: Bush wants war. He wants Hezbollah destroyed. He wants Israel to attack Syria. How can his top diplomat even be considered a broker of peace?

It is impossible, and a contradiction in terms, to be called a peacemaker and a warmonger at the same time.

Bush Administration Inadvertently Supports Hezbollah

2006-07-29T14:28:00.000-04:00

I know, it's shocking, but take a look:

The Bush administration will impose sanctions on two Indian firms for selling missile parts to Iran, government officials said yesterday, acknowledging privately that the secret decision should have been shared with the House before it voted this week to support U.S. plans to sell nuclear technology to New Delhi.

It is not the first time Indian companies have been sanctioned for supplying Iran's suspected weapons programs. But the timing of the sanctions, which were not revealed before the vote and are being imposed during fighting between Israel and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia, elicited angry responses from Democrats and arms-control experts yesterday.

So in other words, the Bush adminstration delayed its report that India was selling missile technology to Iran in order to make sure they got the vote passed in the House. That means that the Bush Administration implicitly approved of India selling technology to Iran, which gives it to Hezbollah to fire on Israelis.

Looks Like Lybia Hasn't Given Up Her Terrorist Ways....

2006-07-29T14:26:00.000-04:00

from the Somali Prime Minister:

"Egypt, Libya and Iran, whom we thought were friends, are engaged in fueling the conflict in Somalia by supporting the terrorists," Prime Minister Mohammed Ali Gedi said, citing unnamed sources within his government.

Three and a Half Years

2006-07-27T09:53:00.000-04:00

Remember this number. Three and a half years. 3 and 1/2 years. That's how long it took Roosevelt to utterly defeat Japan and Germany and fundamentally alter the entire world for generations to come. I bring this up as a comparison to Bush's war in Iraq. It is almost three and a half years now since he invaded Iraq. Now, as this Washington Post article shows, Bush's Middle East is in tatters and in flames. Bush's supporters like to paint his war in the same vein as WWII. Fine. No problem. Let's compare the two. How long did it take for Roosevelt to complete his wars? Three and a half years. How about Bush? We don't know how much longer it will take. We do know he has said that he would let the decisions of Iraq be handled by "future generations" and "future presidents." i.e. he's going to remain at the status quo in Iraq and let someone else clean up his mess.

Dickey: Why The US is Letting Lebanon Bleed

2006-07-26T23:10:00.000-04:00

Christopher Dickey on the "show" in Rome. Notice that Rice is now in Malaysia, and not shuttling back and forth in the Middle East to try and get peace going. It seems Rome was just a PR show, intended to give Israel more time to destroy Hezbollah. But as Christopher Dickey says, this strategy is actually boosting Hezbollah. He says:

Worthy-sounding meetings of ministers, like the International Conference for Lebanon held in Rome today, rarely get very much done. The participants here were high-powered, to be sure: U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the prime minister of the country in question, Fouad Siniora, plus a slew of Europeans and Arabs (but no Israelis or Hizbullahis). Instigated by Washington, it was all for show.

The assembled dignitaries expressed their “determination to work immediately to reach with the utmost urgency a ceasefire” in the war that started two weeks ago today when the Hizbullah militia crossed the border to capture two Israeli soldiers, and Israel responded with a massive counterattack the length and breadth of Lebanon. But, at American insistence, the ceasefire would have to be one that’s “lasting, permanent and sustainable.” Which means the flames searing Lebanon, threatening Israel and endangering the most volatile region in the world will go on for weeks, if not months, to come. The consolation prize: a promise of “immediate humanitarian aid.”

Imagine, if you will, that arsonists have set your apartment block on fire. You call 911 and plead for help. The dispatcher tells you of her “determination to work immediately with the utmost urgency” to douse the flames, but only if plans can be agreed on for the new building to be erected when the decrepit old one has gone up in smoke. She’s stalling, hoping the arsonists will be eliminated by the conflagration. And she’s got a great vision for the way that block should look some day. That’s what counts. Not your furniture, or for that matter, your family inside … No wonder Siniora looked distraught as the conference closed.

But as irrational as the politicians who make policy may be, the professionals in their entourages often understand reality quite well. And in the corridors of today’s conference I met several men and women who, on background or off the record (meaning they were afraid of losing their jobs if caught talking too frankly) laid out a picture of the situation in the Middle East right now that was convincing, frightening, and seems to have escaped the notice of Dispatcher Rice altogether.

The bottom line: Hizbullah is winning. That’s the hideous truth about the direction this war is taking, not in spite of the way the Israelis have waged their counterattack, but precisely because of it. As my source Mr. Frankly put it, “Hizbullah is eating their lunch.”

We’re talking about a militia—a small guerrilla army of a few thousand fighters, in fact—that plays all the dirty games that guerrillas always play. It blends in with the local population. It draws fire against innocents. But it’s also fighting like hell against an Israeli military machine that is supposed to be world class. And despite the onslaught of the much-vaunted Tsahal, Hizbullah continues to pepper Israel itself with hundreds of rockets a day.

The United States, following Israel’s lead, does not want an immediate ceasefire precisely because that would hand Hizbullah a classic guerrilla-style victory: it started this fight against a much greater military force—and it’s still standing. In the context of a region where vast Arab armies have been defeated in days, for a militia to hold out one week, two weeks and more, is seen as heroic. Hizbullah is the aggressor, the underdog and the noble survivor, all at once. “It’s that deadly combination of the expectation game, which Hizbullah have won, and the victim game, which they’ve also won,” as my straight-talking friend put it.

Neither U.S. nor Israeli policymakers have taken this dynamic into account. If they had, they’d understand that with each passing day, no matter how many casualties it takes, Hizbullah’s political power grows. Several of my worldly Lebanese and Arab friends here in Rome today—people who loathe Hizbullah—understand this problem well. Privately they say that’s one of the main reasons they are so horrified at the direction this war has taken: they fear not only that Lebanon will be destroyed, but that Hizbullah will wind up planting its banner atop the mountain of rubble.

When I heard Condi talking in pitiless academic pieties today about “strong and robust” mandates and “dedicated and urgent action,” I actually felt sorry for her, for our government, and for Israel. As in Iraq three years ago, the administration has been blinded to the political realities by shock-and-awe military firepower. Clinging to its faith in precision-guided munitions and cluster bombs, it has decided to let Lebanon bleed, as if that’s the way to build the future for peace and democracy.

No wonder the world will be at total war when the Savior comes again. Who are the publishers of peace in these last days?

Talks in Rome Fail

2006-07-26T16:10:00.000-04:00

Is there any question as to why? Here's Monsters and Critics:

World leaders discussing the Middle East conflict in Rome agreed on the need for humanitarian aid and an international stabilizing force, with a number calling for a cease-fire, but efforts were undercut by the absence of the warring parties at the table.

Israel was not present. Hezbollah was not present. Syria was not present. Iran was not present.

Is this just another ploy by the United States to buy Israel some more time in their flawed strategy to remove Hezbollah from Lebanon?

If This is the Start of World War III.....

2006-07-25T10:53:00.000-04:00

then why are we not building our forces up to handle such a massive war? Why are we not raising taxes and asking Americans to make a sacrifice in order to be able to pay for such a war?

People like Newt Grinwich love hyperbole. They know it gets good copy and good airtime, but when confronted with how to pay for it, they back down. Gregory Djerejian brings up this and other massive holes in the logic of warmongers. He quotes Gideon Rachman who says:

But perhaps the most telling argument against the “world war three” thesis is that even many of those advancing it do not appear to believe their own rhetoric. In the same Fox News interview in which Mr Gingrich painted “a worldwide picture of efforts to undermine and destroy our civilisation”, he was asked by a clearly embarrassed interviewer about those who argue that “look, this is a costly war and maybe it includes raising taxes on the upper income to fight it”. Mr Gingrich was having none of it. The third world war will apparently not require “raising a penny in taxes”. Clearly, we are not yet at the blood, sweat and tears phase. The Bush administration is similarly reticent. It argues that we are engaged in a struggle to save western civilisation. But it is still all but inconceivable that the administration would re-introduce the draft – or even sharply raise taxes on petrol – to help win that struggle...

How dare one even conceive of raising taxes! Nothing can come in the way of giving the rich their "fair share" back! Mr. Rachman continues:

Incapable of offering the hope of a decent life (at least on earth), Islamism’s only real recruiting sergeant is an appeal to a sense of Muslim humiliation and rage against the west. There may be further occasions when the “war on terror” requires military action.

But each new military front will be eagerly greeted by Islamists as a validation of their world view. It is no accident that one man who would happily embrace Mr Gingrich’s vision of a “third world war” is Osama bin Laden.

Calls for peace fall on deaf ears in the latter days.

How the United States Lost Iraq

2006-07-22T21:21:00.000-04:00

A great article in the Washington Post on how the United States military lost Iraq, moved in the direction of the bloodbath Iraq is today. Highly recommended read. I'm glad to see the military has learned a few things, but I fear it is too late.

Meanwhile.....

2006-07-22T08:29:00.000-04:00

Take a look at the response from the Indians who recently just had a horrific attack in their largest city. The Hindustan Times has a section on the Mumbai bombings. Do you see any talk there about taking the fight to the enemy, about saddling up, about war? No. They go after the terrorists, yes, but they don't start pushing missile buttons at their neighbors as a collective punishment.

Peace actually can work if the people desire to use it.

Israel's Actions in Lebanon

2006-07-22T08:25:00.000-04:00

The Washington Post has a good analysis of the history of Israel's actions in Lebanon over the past thirty years. This is the third time they've entered Lebanon for the specific reason to clear out an enemy. Is this a policy that is working?

Predictably....

2006-07-21T22:39:00.000-04:00

Muslims all over the Middle East and beyond are protesting Israel's actions and praising Hezbollah for standing up to Israel.

Yet events in Lebanon have further mobilized the Shiites across the Muslim world and, if Hezbollah survives the current Israeli onslaught, the sect stands to become even stronger.

Calls for Peace Fall on Deaf Ears in these Last Days

2006-07-21T14:04:00.000-04:00

My calls for peace fall on deaf ears in these last days, because so many people want violence, have no problem in seeing other people die, no matter where or who they happen to be. It was prophesied that these last days would truly be sad days, with such violence as to make men’s hearts fail them. Why do we choose to destroy other human beings? (I’m speaking to everybody, Israelis, Americans, Iranians, Syrians, etc.). The irony in all this is that it is those hardcore religionists on both sides that find it easier to fight and kill and maim and destroy. So ironic.

The Realities of Iraq

2006-07-20T10:19:00.000-04:00

We are losing Iraq. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar, plain and simple. Cordsman and Burke at the CSIS have a great analysis of why we are losing Iraq. The fact that on average, 100 civilians die per day should be a sign that we've failed. Also, some have argued that the media are focusing on only the bad in Iraq, and they should paint a broader picture. Well, with modern technology, soldiers in Iraq are doing just that. Showing what they see. Is it rosy? you decide.

Videos uploaded to the internet by soldiers themselves depict, if anything, an even grimmer reality.
.................................
However, video is not the only medium, or the only way we remember. In "Combat Diary," a returning Marine talks about having to drink himself into a stupor every night in order to sleep. Making a music video out the horror of war won't keep the images from haunting your dreams.

There are even worse ones showing on YouTube. The reality of Iraq is that blood is spilling everywhere, that violence is unabated, and that, according to one YouTube video I saw, some American soldiers over there believe they are in Iraq to avenge the 9/11 attacks. With that in mind, just how are they going to view regular Iraqis?

In an article in the Ensign in January, 1973, Ezra Taft Benson said the following:

Let me ask, do we need a true prophet of the Lord on the earth today? Did the people in Noah’s day need a prophet to warn them spiritually and temporally? Had a man refused to follow Noah, would he have been saved from the flood? Yet the Bible tells us that in the last days in which we live, the wickedness of the people will become comparable to the wickedness of the people in Noah’s day when God cleansed the earth by flood. Do you think we need a prophet today to warn us and prepare us for the cleansing that God promised will come, this time by fire?

We know why God destroyed the world through a flood. He said to Noah in the book of Moses:

28 The earth was corrupt before God, and it was filled with violence. 29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth. 30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.

Anyone who advocates for violence and war in these last days are not advocating for the gospel of Jesus Christ.

War Without End - The Neo-Conservative Vision of the World

2006-07-20T10:16:00.000-04:00

A great article from the Cato Institute on the vision that neo-conservatives have of the world. Just today, two op-eds in the LA Times talked about letting Israel do its thing, and about possibly striking Syria and Iran. Just a few days ago, Kristol was talking about striking Iran. In the Weekly Standard, Kristol says, this is our war too. War War War!

Who talks of peace these days?

Israel: The Kidnappings Were Iran's Plot to Distract from Nuclear Showdown

2006-07-18T22:17:00.000-04:00

Israel is claiming that Iran is behind the kidnapping for the express purpose of distracting the world's attention from its nuclear program. Fair enough. But if that's the case, why did Israel bite? Why did Israel take the bait? Which priority is more important for Israel? Getting the international community to halt Iran's nuclear program or getting their two soldiers back?

How to Protect Israel

2006-07-18T22:05:00.000-04:00

From the Hindustan Times, probably the best advice on how to protect Israel, from a nation that also deals with terrorist attacks.

Suggestions of restraint usually fall on deaf ears in Tel Aviv because, understandably, they either sound naive or hostile to Israeli ears. But the strongest reason for Israel to show restraint is Israel’s security. In India, there have been hawks galore who have suggested ‘hot pursuit’ after terrorist strikes on our soil. Fortunately, neither this government or the previous one has considered it -- not for abstract, airy-fairy reasons but for practical ones. Israel’s sledgehammer-to-kill-a-fly policy has only resulted in swarms of flies erupting. Clearly, this tactic hasn’t worked. Instead, it has fed its enemies’ appetite. Israel needs to check its rage, if for nothing else, for its own well-being.

What the?!?!?!

2006-07-18T14:10:00.000-04:00

I'm not sure what to say about this. Bush apparently reached behind Merkel, the German Chancellor, gave her a quick rub on the shoulders and walked on. Look at her reaction. She doth not look very happy about that. One of the commentators on this blog said the following:

Seeing her wince made me wince. In German culture, this approaches being unforgiveable. Nowhere is it appropriate, but Germans have one of the most sharply defined sense of privacy and space of any culture, even more so than frequently contact-phobic North Americans. This was a bully showing who was boss. Really, what type of married man puts his hands in a familiar way on the shoulders of a woman other than his wife? I never liked Bush but until today I did not actually hate him. I feel like writing a letter of apology on behalf of 295 million Americans, most of whom know better.

Just earlier you've got Bush cussing like a 13 year old to the Prime Minister of Britain. Michael Hirsh writes:

As he munched on a roll, Bush told the British prime minister, with whom he is very familiar terms: "See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hizbullah to stop doing this s--t and it's over." Bush added that he felt like telling U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who visited the gathered leaders, to get on the phone with Syrian President Bashar Assad to "make something happen."

We don't have Blair's answer to that remark. But another question might be: why doesn't Bush himself make something happen? And to whom was Bush referring when he told Blair that "they" need to pressure Syria? If "they" meant Annan and the U.N., it is true that under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, the world body has officially demanded that Syria stop its interference in Lebanon, including its support of Hizbullah. But the U.N. Security Council generally has little capacity to act on its own, and certainly no enforcement ability. The Council is mainly a tool of the major powers. It is prime ministers and presidents like Bush who are the ones who generally put teeth into those U.N. resolutions.

Interesting that the "decider" shifts the burden of action off to others in this case. Could it be that politically speaking at home, action against Syria at this time is imprudent? After all, you've got Congressional elections happening in just a few months.

Another interesting perspective on Bush's potty-mouthing Syria:

Personally, I could care less that a grown man used a swear word when speaking to another grown man. I'm more disturbed that the President used "irony" to describe what seemed to be an entirely unironic situation. Have we learned nothing from Alanis Morrisette?

Perhaps Bush needs a lesson on what is ironic and what is not.

The real irony is that this is what many conservatives call a "statesman." Now THAT is ironic. Arianna Huffington, though, excoriates the ineptitude on display at the G-8 meeting on the part of Bush:

Churchill it ain't. Indeed, it says all you need to know about how this president's disastrous mismanagement of foreign policy has undermined America's standing in the world. The Middle East is teetering on the brink, and the President of the United States is reduced to sitting on the sidelines, helplessly ruminating on what "they" need to do to try and broker a settlement. Even worse, he tells Blair: "I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen." You want irony? How about a president who has shown nothing but disdain for the UN, wistfully fantasizing about being bailed out by an organization his man John Bolton felt could lose 10 stories of its headquarters without it making "a bit of difference." You want impotence? How about a president who is so paralyzed he doesn't even tell Kofi to make the call.

Modern Day Secret Combinations: The Swiftboat Veterans for "Truth"

2006-07-18T13:56:00.000-04:00

For those not familiar with what a secret combination is, I refer you to the wikipedia section on it. It states:

In the Latter Day Saint scriptures, including the Bible, Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, a secret combination is an evil fraternal organization which exists for the purpose of the economic and political advancement of its members at the expense of righteous people, believers in Christ, and society at large. Towards these ends, members of a secret combination commit murder, robbery, and acts of war and each member of the society is bound by an oath to maintain secrecy, as well as to do whatever is necessary to prevent the member's discovery, apprehension, and prosecution.

The Swifboat Veterans for Truth fit that description to a T. David Johnson on the Patriot Project has a good analysis of this secret combination, its ties to Republican leaders and their malicious efforts to undermine and destroy otherwise good people.

You have to question why Republicans want to use such tactics. Can't they stand on their own principles?

The Rise of Vladimir Putin

2006-07-17T21:38:00.000-04:00

The Telegraph has a great analysis of Putin's rise to power; not just as a leader of Russia where he has systematically taken control of the country, but of his influence in the world.

"What makes Putin such a formidable opponent is that he knows how to identify your weak spot and he exploits it mercilessly," said a western diplomat. "Unlike any other G8 leader, he can use the most undiplomatic language and he can get away with it."

He can, with ease, tell off other world leaders, including Bush who chided Putin on the anti-democratic measures he's been using in Russia. Bush said that he should try Iraq-style Democracy to which Putin replied:

To that, Putin replied, "We certainly would not want to have the same kind of democracy that they have in Iraq, quite honestly."

How does he do it? The Telegraph article continues:

Yet no matter how much he humiliates his fellow statesmen, Mr Putin seems to be able to get away with it. That is partly because, despite his dour public persona, he charms those who meet him in private - even hardened politicians. He gives the impression, say those who know him, of not just listening to every word his visitor utters but of agreeing wholeheartedly with it too. So at a private dinner, when the issue of democracy was raised, Mr Putin soothed his guests, promising that he would abide by Russia's constitution and stand down in 2008. Diplomats said leaders appeared satisfied with the pledge. In reality, it seems there is not a lot that other leaders can do to rein in Mr Putin's autocratic tendencies. Unlike every country apart from America, Russia is directly involved in all the major crises: North Korea, Iran and Israel. On all three, it sees things differently from the White House and clashes over democratic issues risk making Russia more recalcitrant on the world stage, diplomats say.

It has been Putin's policy to bring glory back to Russia, as they had during their Soviet days. He is succeeding immensely. What does this mean for the United States? It means that not much will happen now in the future without Russian involvement, unless America goes unilateral as they did in Iraq.