I believe that to meet the challenges of our times, human beings will have to develop a greater sense of universal responsibility. Each of us must learn to work not just for oneself, one's own family or nation, but for the benefit of all humankind. Universal responsibility is the key to human survival. It is the best foundation for world peace.
-His Holiness the Dalai Lama
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Quote II
Biblically speaking, to repent doesn't mean to feel sorry about, to regret. It means to turn, to turn around 180 degrees. It means to undergo a complete change of mind, heart, direction. Turn away from madness, cruelty, shallowness, blindness. Turn toward the tolerance, compassion, sanity, hope, justice that we all have in us at our best.
- Frederick Buechner
Consider this as we, hopefully, turn away from the injustice of toture of detainees at GITMO and other locations. We must remember that we cannot pursue justice with injustice, morality with immorality, humanity with inhumanity, or peace with violence unrestrained.
- Frederick Buechner
Consider this as we, hopefully, turn away from the injustice of toture of detainees at GITMO and other locations. We must remember that we cannot pursue justice with injustice, morality with immorality, humanity with inhumanity, or peace with violence unrestrained.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
U.S. of Torture
Outstanding article exposing the US support of torture beginning almost immediately after 9/11. A must read article from the New Yorker. Read the whole thing, but some selections are below.
On September 17, 2001, President Bush signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to create paramilitary teams to hunt, capture, detain, or kill designated terrorists almost anywhere in the world. Yet the C.I.A. had virtually no trained interrogators. A former C.I.A. officer involved in fighting terrorism said that, at first, the agency was crippled by its lack of expertise. “It began right away, in Afghanistan, on the fly,” he recalled. “They invented the program of interrogation with people who had no understanding of Al Qaeda or the Arab world.” The former officer said that the pressure from the White House, in particular from Vice-President Dick Cheney, was intense: “They were pushing us: ‘Get information! Do not let us get hit again!’ ” In the scramble, he said, he searched the C.I.A.’s archives, to see what interrogation techniques had worked in the past. He was particularly impressed with the Phoenix Program, from the Vietnam War. Critics, including military historians, have described it as a program of state-sanctioned torture and murder. A Pentagon-contract study found that, between 1970 and 1971, ninety-seven per cent of the Vietcong targeted by the Phoenix Program were of negligible importance. But, after September 11th, some C.I.A. officials viewed the program as a useful model.
Lacking in-house specialists on interrogation, the agency hired a group of outside contractors, who implemented a regime of techniques that one well-informed former adviser to the American intelligence community described as “a ‘Clockwork Orange’ kind of approach.” The experts were retired military psychologists, and their backgrounds were in training Special Forces soldiers how to survive torture, should they ever be captured by enemy states. The program, known as SERE—an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape—was created at the end of the Korean War. It subjected trainees to simulated torture, including waterboarding (simulated drowning), sleep deprivation, isolation, exposure to temperature extremes, enclosure in tiny spaces, bombardment with agonizing sounds, and religious and sexual humiliation. The SERE program was designed strictly for defense against torture regimes, but the C.I.A.’s new team used its expertise to help interrogators inflict abuse. “They were very arrogant, and pro-torture,” a European official knowledgeable about the program said. “They sought to render the detainees vulnerable—to break down all of their senses. It takes a psychologist trained in this to understand these rupturing experiences.”
The use of psychologists was also considered a way for C.I.A. officials to skirt measures such as the Convention Against Torture. The former adviser to the intelligence community said, “Clearly, some senior people felt they needed a theory to justify what they were doing. You can’t just say, ‘We want to do what Egypt’s doing.’ When the lawyers asked what their basis was, they could say, ‘We have Ph.D.s who have these theories.’ ” He said that, inside the C.I.A., where a number of scientists work, there was strong internal opposition to the new techniques. “Behavioral scientists said, ‘Don’t even think about this!’ They thought officers could be prosecuted.”
A secret government document, dated December 10, 2002, detailing “SERE Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure,” outlines the advantages of stripping detainees. “In addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.” The document advises interrogators to “tear clothing from detainees by firmly pulling downward against buttoned buttons and seams. Tearing motions shall be downward to prevent pulling the detainee off balance.” The memo also advocates the “Shoulder Slap,” “Stomach Slap,” “Hooding,” “Manhandling,” “Walling,” and a variety of “Stress Positions,” including one called “Worship the Gods.”
On September 17, 2001, President Bush signed a secret Presidential finding authorizing the C.I.A. to create paramilitary teams to hunt, capture, detain, or kill designated terrorists almost anywhere in the world. Yet the C.I.A. had virtually no trained interrogators. A former C.I.A. officer involved in fighting terrorism said that, at first, the agency was crippled by its lack of expertise. “It began right away, in Afghanistan, on the fly,” he recalled. “They invented the program of interrogation with people who had no understanding of Al Qaeda or the Arab world.” The former officer said that the pressure from the White House, in particular from Vice-President Dick Cheney, was intense: “They were pushing us: ‘Get information! Do not let us get hit again!’ ” In the scramble, he said, he searched the C.I.A.’s archives, to see what interrogation techniques had worked in the past. He was particularly impressed with the Phoenix Program, from the Vietnam War. Critics, including military historians, have described it as a program of state-sanctioned torture and murder. A Pentagon-contract study found that, between 1970 and 1971, ninety-seven per cent of the Vietcong targeted by the Phoenix Program were of negligible importance. But, after September 11th, some C.I.A. officials viewed the program as a useful model.
Lacking in-house specialists on interrogation, the agency hired a group of outside contractors, who implemented a regime of techniques that one well-informed former adviser to the American intelligence community described as “a ‘Clockwork Orange’ kind of approach.” The experts were retired military psychologists, and their backgrounds were in training Special Forces soldiers how to survive torture, should they ever be captured by enemy states. The program, known as SERE—an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape—was created at the end of the Korean War. It subjected trainees to simulated torture, including waterboarding (simulated drowning), sleep deprivation, isolation, exposure to temperature extremes, enclosure in tiny spaces, bombardment with agonizing sounds, and religious and sexual humiliation. The SERE program was designed strictly for defense against torture regimes, but the C.I.A.’s new team used its expertise to help interrogators inflict abuse. “They were very arrogant, and pro-torture,” a European official knowledgeable about the program said. “They sought to render the detainees vulnerable—to break down all of their senses. It takes a psychologist trained in this to understand these rupturing experiences.”
The use of psychologists was also considered a way for C.I.A. officials to skirt measures such as the Convention Against Torture. The former adviser to the intelligence community said, “Clearly, some senior people felt they needed a theory to justify what they were doing. You can’t just say, ‘We want to do what Egypt’s doing.’ When the lawyers asked what their basis was, they could say, ‘We have Ph.D.s who have these theories.’ ” He said that, inside the C.I.A., where a number of scientists work, there was strong internal opposition to the new techniques. “Behavioral scientists said, ‘Don’t even think about this!’ They thought officers could be prosecuted.”
A secret government document, dated December 10, 2002, detailing “SERE Interrogation Standard Operating Procedure,” outlines the advantages of stripping detainees. “In addition to degradation of the detainee, stripping can be used to demonstrate the omnipotence of the captor or to debilitate the detainee.” The document advises interrogators to “tear clothing from detainees by firmly pulling downward against buttoned buttons and seams. Tearing motions shall be downward to prevent pulling the detainee off balance.” The memo also advocates the “Shoulder Slap,” “Stomach Slap,” “Hooding,” “Manhandling,” “Walling,” and a variety of “Stress Positions,” including one called “Worship the Gods.”
Sunday, August 05, 2007
We are LESS safe
This article is just another example of why the Pilgrim has and will continue to argue that the invasion of Iraq has damaged American security. The would-be "martyrs" are in such great supply, some now fear that they will soon seek to find there way to places other than Iraq, including the US. In other words, the supply of terrorists has risen because of the invasion of Iraq.
Surge of Suicide Bombers
The Iraq war has turned into a veritable 'martyr' factory, unlike any seen in previous conflicts.
The Iraq war has turned into a veritable 'martyr' factory, unlike any seen in previous conflicts.
In the first three years of the war, there were fewer than 300 such [suicide bomber] attacks; in the year ending June 30 there were at least 540, according to a U.S. Department of Defense intelligence analyst in Iraq who specializes in the subject but is not authorized to speak on the record. Since January, the U.S. military says, more than 4,000 Iraqis have been killed or injured by suicide bombers. Last Wednesday, 50 more died in a truck bombing in Baghdad. "Iraq has superseded all the other suicide-bomb campaigns [in modern history] combined," says Mohammed Hafez, author of "Suicide Bombers in Iraq" and a U.S. government consultant. "It's really amazing."
...Saudis account for half the suicide bombings in Iraq. U.S. military estimates agree, and put Iraqis a distant second...
An even harder challenge is to dry up the pool of willing martyrs in Saudi Arabia, where zealotry and resentment of infidels in Muslim lands are deeply ingrained.
The flow of bombers seems inexhaustible. Iraqi and some U.S. officials say there have been cases of suicide bombers whose hands were chained to the steering wheels of their vehicles, and reports of those who were drugged or heavily brainwashed. But most experts who have studied the subject doubt such tactics are common. Hafez, who has identified 139 of Iraq's suicide bombers, from U.S. government and jihadist sources, says he hasn't come across a single credible case of coercion. "You see these martyrdom videos, and they say, 'This is the button to paradise,' and they really seem to believe that," he says.
Oh Dear!
Weapons given to Iraq are missing
30 percent of arms are unaccounted for, GAO estimates
The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.
One would think that in a nation where our military is constantly under fire, and the people there are killing each other as rapidly as possible, keeping tabs on weapons would be a top priority. Adding to the discouragement is the fact that the man apparently responsible for the mismanagement of the weapons is now in charge of all of military operations in Iraq.
The evidence of incompetence continues to build.
30 percent of arms are unaccounted for, GAO estimates
The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.
The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.
One would think that in a nation where our military is constantly under fire, and the people there are killing each other as rapidly as possible, keeping tabs on weapons would be a top priority. Adding to the discouragement is the fact that the man apparently responsible for the mismanagement of the weapons is now in charge of all of military operations in Iraq.
The evidence of incompetence continues to build.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Democrats Fail- Again!
The Democratic-led U.S. Senate, amid warnings of further attacks on the United States, approved a bill on Friday that would allow President George W. Bush to maintain his controversial domestic spying program.
The Senate defeated, on a 45-43 vote, a Democratic alternative, which would have placed tighter controls on the spying and provided for independent assessments of the attorney general's implementation of the measure.
Rather than taking action to limit the actions of the President and Attorney General- to bring those actions within the limits of the US Constitution- the Senate has written yet another blank check to the Bush Administration.
Why? Not because of some real and imminent threat to the nation. The real reason: the President threatened to call the Congress back into session, eliminating or shortening the members' vacations.
For at least another six months the Attorney General gets to abuse the Constitution by conducting wiretaps without warrants, without oversight of those wiretaps for as much as 120 days, and where the oversight will not be on the specific wiretaps, but only on the general procedure used to justify the wiretaps. In other words, no restraint except for the competency of the Administration to determine true threats (don't get me started) and the ethics of the Attorney General ("Houston, we have a problem!").
Abuse of the Constitution and power by this Administration has been widely documented. But equal blame falls upon the Democrats for allowing this to happen. They have given in to the politics of the moment, pursued their own electoral self-interests, and failed utterly to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by strictly limiting the Bush Administration.
Update:
From the Washington Post
Privacy advocates accused the Democrats of selling out and charged that this bill gives the government more authority than it had under a controversial warrantless wiretapping program begun in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Under that program, the government could conduct surveillance without judicial oversight only if it had a reason to believe that one party to the call was a member of or affiliated with al-Qaeda or a related terrorist organization. This bill drops that condition, they noted.
Democrats "have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word 'terrorism,' they roll over and play dead," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Senate defeated, on a 45-43 vote, a Democratic alternative, which would have placed tighter controls on the spying and provided for independent assessments of the attorney general's implementation of the measure.
Rather than taking action to limit the actions of the President and Attorney General- to bring those actions within the limits of the US Constitution- the Senate has written yet another blank check to the Bush Administration.
Why? Not because of some real and imminent threat to the nation. The real reason: the President threatened to call the Congress back into session, eliminating or shortening the members' vacations.
For at least another six months the Attorney General gets to abuse the Constitution by conducting wiretaps without warrants, without oversight of those wiretaps for as much as 120 days, and where the oversight will not be on the specific wiretaps, but only on the general procedure used to justify the wiretaps. In other words, no restraint except for the competency of the Administration to determine true threats (don't get me started) and the ethics of the Attorney General ("Houston, we have a problem!").
Abuse of the Constitution and power by this Administration has been widely documented. But equal blame falls upon the Democrats for allowing this to happen. They have given in to the politics of the moment, pursued their own electoral self-interests, and failed utterly to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by strictly limiting the Bush Administration.
Update:
From the Washington Post
Privacy advocates accused the Democrats of selling out and charged that this bill gives the government more authority than it had under a controversial warrantless wiretapping program begun in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Under that program, the government could conduct surveillance without judicial oversight only if it had a reason to believe that one party to the call was a member of or affiliated with al-Qaeda or a related terrorist organization. This bill drops that condition, they noted.
Democrats "have a Pavlovian reaction: Whenever the president says the word 'terrorism,' they roll over and play dead," said Caroline Fredrickson, Washington legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
Quote
Even as a great rock is not shaken by the wind, the wise man is not shaken by praise or blame.
-Buddha
Friday, August 03, 2007
Children's Healthcare Bill
It has passed in the Senate. President Bush- the man who campaigned saying Jesus was his favorite philosopher- has threatened a veto. That wild-eyed liberal Orrin Hatch (R-UT) supports it. Maybe Bush misunderstands the biblical passage beginning "suffer the little children..." (Mark 10:14).
Senate Passes Children’s Health Bill, 68-31
The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.
The vote was 68 to 31. The majority was more than enough to overcome the veto repeatedly threatened by Mr. Bush. The White House said the bill “goes too far in federalizing health care.”
Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said, “To suggest that this is somehow socialized medicine is one of the most far-fetched arguments I have seen on the Senate floor. This care is provided by private physicians, using private insurance companies.”
The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate bill would cover 3.2 million uninsured children, including 2.7 million who are currently eligible but not enrolled. The House bill, it said, would cover 4.2 million children, including 3.8 million already eligible for benefits. In addition, both bills would provide money to prevent 800,000 children now on the program from losing coverage.
The current allocations of federal money, totaling $5 billion a year, are not enough for states to maintain their current programs.
Senate Passes Children’s Health Bill, 68-31
The Senate defied President Bush on Thursday and passed a bipartisan bill that would provide health insurance for millions of children in low-income families.
The vote was 68 to 31. The majority was more than enough to overcome the veto repeatedly threatened by Mr. Bush. The White House said the bill “goes too far in federalizing health care.”
Senator Kent Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, said, “To suggest that this is somehow socialized medicine is one of the most far-fetched arguments I have seen on the Senate floor. This care is provided by private physicians, using private insurance companies.”
The Congressional Budget Office says the Senate bill would cover 3.2 million uninsured children, including 2.7 million who are currently eligible but not enrolled. The House bill, it said, would cover 4.2 million children, including 3.8 million already eligible for benefits. In addition, both bills would provide money to prevent 800,000 children now on the program from losing coverage.
The current allocations of federal money, totaling $5 billion a year, are not enough for states to maintain their current programs.
Polling update
In an earier post, I noted that Obama was closing the gap between himself and Clinton in key states, but was still 15 points back in Iowa. A new poll finds Iowa a dead heat. Results below. Remeber that it is state by state victories, not overall national numbers, that will result in the nomination, and that the national numbers will likely change as a result of primary voting in the early states.
Washington Post?ABC News poll:
If the Democratic caucus were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel), who would you support?
NET LEANED VOTE:
Barack Obama 27
Hillary Clinton 26
John Edwards 26
Bill Richardson 11
Joe Biden 2
Dennis Kucinich 2
Chris Dodd 1
Washington Post?ABC News poll:
If the Democratic caucus were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel), who would you support?
NET LEANED VOTE:
Barack Obama 27
Hillary Clinton 26
John Edwards 26
Bill Richardson 11
Joe Biden 2
Dennis Kucinich 2
Chris Dodd 1
Thursday, August 02, 2007
No need to read between the lines
The US government, with the support of it's President and Attorney General, engages in torture. Were that not so, it would be easy to clearly indicate that torture was not in the CIA's tool kit. Instead, Gonzalez has to parse his words. From his testimony (source) before Congress...
DURBIN: Mr. Attorney General, the opinion of the judge advocates general was unanimous. They all agreed that the following interrogation techniques violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions -- and there are five -- painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, waterboarding and mock execution.Do you agree?
GONZALES: Senator, I'm not going to get in a public discussion here about possible techniques that may be used by the CIA to protect our country.What I can say is the executive order lays out a very careful framework to ensure that those agents working for the CIA trying to get information about the next attack do so in a way that is consistent with our legal obligations.And so, again, without commenting on specific techniques, we understand what the rules of the road are.
DURBIN: Mr. Attorney General, do you know what you are saying to the world about the United States when you refuse to acknowledge that these techniques are beyond the law, beyond the tradition of America?
DURBIN: These judge advocates general have a responsibility as well. They have been explicit and unanimous. The problem with your statement, Mr. Attorney General, is that you are leaving room for the possibility that you disagree with them.
GONZALES: And, of course, those in the military are subject to the Army Field Manual. It's a standard of conduct that is way above Common Article 3. And so they come at it from a different perspective, quite frankly, Senator.And, again, I wish I could talk in more detail about specific actions, but I cannot do that in an open setting.
DURBIN: But let me just ask you to consider this for a moment.Aside from the impact of what you've just said on America's reputation in the world, aside from the fact that we have ample record that you have disagreed with the use of Geneva Convention standards and have pushed the torture issue beyond where the courts and the congress would take it, would it be legal for a foreign government to subject a United States citizen to these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques which I just read?
GONZALES: Would it be legal for the United States government to subject...
DURBIN: No, for a foreign government...
GONZALES: For a foreign government.
DURBIN: ... to subject a United States citizen to the five -- any of the five interrogation techniques which I read to you?
GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, we would take the position if you're talking about an American soldier who fights pursuant to the rules of the Geneva Convention...
DURBIN: No, no, no. That's a different story. That's a uniformed person. I'm talking about a U.S. citizen.
GONZALES: Would it be legal under their laws? Would it be legal under international standards? What do you mean by, "Would it be legal?"We obviously would demand humane treatment and treatment for our U.S. citizens consistent with international legal obligations.
In other words, our government would demand that other governments not do to our citizens what we will not say we are not doing to their citizens.
Did I just type that?? With that kind of double-speak, I could be Attorney General.
Here's a video clip of Gonzalez on the same topic. Hang in there until the end of the clip and you'll see that our government does not prohibit the use of waterboarding or mock executions, to use two examples, and that the Attorney General says it is not 'clear' that such techniques are morally wrong.
DURBIN: Mr. Attorney General, the opinion of the judge advocates general was unanimous. They all agreed that the following interrogation techniques violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions -- and there are five -- painful stress positions, threatening detainees with dogs, forced nudity, waterboarding and mock execution.Do you agree?
GONZALES: Senator, I'm not going to get in a public discussion here about possible techniques that may be used by the CIA to protect our country.What I can say is the executive order lays out a very careful framework to ensure that those agents working for the CIA trying to get information about the next attack do so in a way that is consistent with our legal obligations.And so, again, without commenting on specific techniques, we understand what the rules of the road are.
DURBIN: Mr. Attorney General, do you know what you are saying to the world about the United States when you refuse to acknowledge that these techniques are beyond the law, beyond the tradition of America?
DURBIN: These judge advocates general have a responsibility as well. They have been explicit and unanimous. The problem with your statement, Mr. Attorney General, is that you are leaving room for the possibility that you disagree with them.
GONZALES: And, of course, those in the military are subject to the Army Field Manual. It's a standard of conduct that is way above Common Article 3. And so they come at it from a different perspective, quite frankly, Senator.And, again, I wish I could talk in more detail about specific actions, but I cannot do that in an open setting.
DURBIN: But let me just ask you to consider this for a moment.Aside from the impact of what you've just said on America's reputation in the world, aside from the fact that we have ample record that you have disagreed with the use of Geneva Convention standards and have pushed the torture issue beyond where the courts and the congress would take it, would it be legal for a foreign government to subject a United States citizen to these so-called enhanced interrogation techniques which I just read?
GONZALES: Would it be legal for the United States government to subject...
DURBIN: No, for a foreign government...
GONZALES: For a foreign government.
DURBIN: ... to subject a United States citizen to the five -- any of the five interrogation techniques which I read to you?
GONZALES: Well, again, Senator, we would take the position if you're talking about an American soldier who fights pursuant to the rules of the Geneva Convention...
DURBIN: No, no, no. That's a different story. That's a uniformed person. I'm talking about a U.S. citizen.
GONZALES: Would it be legal under their laws? Would it be legal under international standards? What do you mean by, "Would it be legal?"We obviously would demand humane treatment and treatment for our U.S. citizens consistent with international legal obligations.
In other words, our government would demand that other governments not do to our citizens what we will not say we are not doing to their citizens.
Did I just type that?? With that kind of double-speak, I could be Attorney General.
Here's a video clip of Gonzalez on the same topic. Hang in there until the end of the clip and you'll see that our government does not prohibit the use of waterboarding or mock executions, to use two examples, and that the Attorney General says it is not 'clear' that such techniques are morally wrong.
Bigotry
How's this for a sign that we still have some ground to cover in the US in terms of race issues?
From Baptists for Brownback (selections; italics in the original):
Bigotry abounds. From the repeated use of Obama's middle name Hussein (a tactic used repeatedly by Ann Coulter) to the obvious racism, here is an example of Christianity gone bad. Those of us who seek to practice the faith as Jesus would have intended must exercise constant vigilence and contend vigourously with such 'religious' hate groups.
From Baptists for Brownback (selections; italics in the original):
The Curse of Ham: Why Barack Hussein Oboma Will Never Be President
It is written in Rev 20:8-Satan shall go out to deceive all the nations which are in the four quarters of the Earth... As descendant of Canaan, Liberal Democrat, Barack Obama Hussein is indeed a liar for that there is no disputing. He has and will continue to with his lies to God’s children that abortion, blatant homosexuality, fornication, and socialism is fun and good. This does not however make him the great liar that God tells us is to be the Anti-Christ. It is Barack Hussein Obama’s curse of coloredness that will prevent him from ever being elected leader of a true Christian nation, one that is founded upon Christian principle by the chosen, fair-skinned people of God.
Bigotry abounds. From the repeated use of Obama's middle name Hussein (a tactic used repeatedly by Ann Coulter) to the obvious racism, here is an example of Christianity gone bad. Those of us who seek to practice the faith as Jesus would have intended must exercise constant vigilence and contend vigourously with such 'religious' hate groups.
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Dr. King, 1967
"Do not allow the Bill of Rights to become a prisoner of war."
Could be spoken today to Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and those who run GITMO.
If the price of victory is too high, is it even a victory?
Could be spoken today to Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, and those who run GITMO.
If the price of victory is too high, is it even a victory?
Firmly established on the boycott list
Glenn Beck continues to earn his place on the Pilgrim's boycott list, and is moving up in his bid for the Hall of Shame. CNN must be so proud.
In essence, according to Beck...
Al Gore = Hitler
(via Talking Points Memo)
You know, Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government.
"You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming....
"Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists that say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.
In essence, according to Beck...
Al Gore = Hitler
(via Talking Points Memo)
You know, Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax. The goal is the United Nations running the world. That is the goal. Back in the 1930s, the goal was get rid of all of the Jews and have one global government.
"You got to have an enemy to fight. And when you have an enemy to fight, then you can unite the entire world behind you, and you seize power. That was Hitler's plan. His enemy: the Jew. Al Gore's enemy, the U.N.'s enemy: global warming....
"Then you get the scientists -- eugenics. You get the scientists -- global warming. Then you have to discredit the scientists that say, 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did.
Obama today
Obama delivered a major speech on foreign policy today. I've not been able to find the full text yet (Obama's website is terrible about posting the text of speeches- nothing recent on the site), but Andrew Sullivan quotes:
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for...
The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission...
By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
This again shows the folly of Iraq. Having pursued al-Qaeda aggressively from the beginning would have been appropriate and perhaps effective. Now those who would hurt us have been able to find themselves a new hide-out, and the American military is not prepared (because of Iraq) and the American people are not willing (also because of Iraq) to do what should have been done 5-6 years ago which is to have focused our military and intelligence resources on the true threat.
"I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.
Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for...
The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda's war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn't exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission...
By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world's most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland."
This again shows the folly of Iraq. Having pursued al-Qaeda aggressively from the beginning would have been appropriate and perhaps effective. Now those who would hurt us have been able to find themselves a new hide-out, and the American military is not prepared (because of Iraq) and the American people are not willing (also because of Iraq) to do what should have been done 5-6 years ago which is to have focused our military and intelligence resources on the true threat.
Recent dust-up
A small fight has developed between Obama and Clinton over whether or not to meet w/ leaders of certain nations- Iran and Syria- for example. Clinton appears to be Bush-Lite on this one, and that is no good sign.
Sometimes it's not enough to talk to one's friends. We have to deal with our enemies.
The Concord Monitor published this Op-Ed, and, like Obama, got it right.
The disagreement between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over whether to engage in dialogue with rogue leaders from countries such as Iran and North Korea points finally to a substantive difference in how they view themselves as national leaders.
Sen. Clinton believes that formal contact with such leaders, at least early in her presidency, would provide them with a propaganda opportunity, which would not be in our country's interest. Sen. Obama sees such an opening in communication as a refreshing departure from the current administration's approach of not talking to people it doesn't like. Sen. Obama points to Sen. Clinton's position on the issue as similar to President Bush's practice. Sen. Clinton counters that her opponent was being "irresponsible and frankly naïve."
We see two styles of presidential leadership, one traditional and one, well, audacious. Given the urgency of our times, Sen. Clinton's stance means that progress in mitigating differences with our adversaries while showing our allies a diplomatically emboldened United States would move too slowly. In that way, her position is too much like the president's.
Initiating and hopefully continuing regular diplomatic, economic and cultural exchanges with nations, even those with whom we disagree, may usher in ties and agreements that would benefit the United States.
The first step is for our new president to demonstrate courage and confidence by going head-to-head with any national leader and to leverage the quality of his or her integrity and intellect in the context of a reemerging America proud of its instincts and mindful of its interests.
Sen. Obama got this one right.
BILL RYAN
Concord
Sometimes it's not enough to talk to one's friends. We have to deal with our enemies.
The Concord Monitor published this Op-Ed, and, like Obama, got it right.
The disagreement between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over whether to engage in dialogue with rogue leaders from countries such as Iran and North Korea points finally to a substantive difference in how they view themselves as national leaders.
Sen. Clinton believes that formal contact with such leaders, at least early in her presidency, would provide them with a propaganda opportunity, which would not be in our country's interest. Sen. Obama sees such an opening in communication as a refreshing departure from the current administration's approach of not talking to people it doesn't like. Sen. Obama points to Sen. Clinton's position on the issue as similar to President Bush's practice. Sen. Clinton counters that her opponent was being "irresponsible and frankly naïve."
We see two styles of presidential leadership, one traditional and one, well, audacious. Given the urgency of our times, Sen. Clinton's stance means that progress in mitigating differences with our adversaries while showing our allies a diplomatically emboldened United States would move too slowly. In that way, her position is too much like the president's.
Initiating and hopefully continuing regular diplomatic, economic and cultural exchanges with nations, even those with whom we disagree, may usher in ties and agreements that would benefit the United States.
The first step is for our new president to demonstrate courage and confidence by going head-to-head with any national leader and to leverage the quality of his or her integrity and intellect in the context of a reemerging America proud of its instincts and mindful of its interests.
Sen. Obama got this one right.
BILL RYAN
Concord
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
On the big screen
I don't know much about this movie, but I saw this trailer today. May have some value. It seems to come from the perspective that the war was mismanaged. True. Truer still is the position that it should never have been begun in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
