President Bush continues to view what is now largely a complex civil war in Iraq as a critical test of the United States’ “War on Terrorism,” and a decisive global ideological conflict between democratic tolerance and fundamentalist extremism. Further, the president persists in believing that democratic governance in Iraq can be imposed through U.S. military force. Both of these assumptions, in my judgment, have been wrong from the start. But, given the president’s latest explanation of his goals and strategy to the nation, his steadfast convictions mean that the U.S. will remain militarily enmeshed in Iraq for the next two years of his presidency, unless Congress acts decisively to the contrary.
What exactly can Congress do if a majority of members disagree with the president’s policy? Recent discussion of these options seems confused. The perspective I offer comes from my experience as legislative assistant to Senator Mark O. Hatfield during the time of the Vietnam War. Let me set that scene briefly.
Trying to change direction from President Johnson’s Vietnam policies, newly-elected President Nixon proclaimed, in 1969, a plan to shift more military responsibility to the South Vietnamese (“de-Americanization of the war”). But his actions, including expanded bombing of the North and the invasion of Cambodia in the spring of 1970, intensified and prolonged American military involvement. Mass demonstrations at that time (including the killing of students at Kent State) riveted the country’s attention and isolated the president. Up until then, members of Congress opposed to the war had held hearings (especially Senator Fulbright’s Foreign Relations Committee), written letters to the president, and made statements. But the only real power of the Congress to change policy was the power of the purse.
In early 1970 Senators Hatfield and McGovern introduced legislation to cut off appropriations for U.S. combat military involvement in Vietnam by a date certain in the future. The idea was to give the U.S. military sufficient time for an orderly withdrawal; in the legislative process, that evolved from six months to a year’s time. In the mean time, all necessary appropriations and support would be given to support U.S. troops. The point was to establish a specific date that would terminate the combat role of the U.S. military.
This legislative effort was always bipartisan. Hatfield was a Republican, joined by others, and McGovern a Democrat. When this measure was first brought to a vote, 39 Senators were in support. And then, a modified version with the same effect, offered by Senator Lawton Chiles, received 50 votes — one short of the number needed to pass.
I recall this history simply to point out that this would seem to be the only realistic option for Congress today, in my judgment, if it wishes to oppose the president’s policy effectively. The Constitutional framers purposely gave the power to both declare and to pay for war to the Congress. It can choose not to support present policy by withholding appropriations. But the only responsible way to do so, the way that insures support of troops engaged in battle and provides an orderly time to change course, is to set a certain date in the future when such appropriations would no longer be approved. That avoids the politically indefensible position of depriving funds for supporting soldiers deployed in the field.
This, of course, is risky business. Like others who contribute to this God’s Politic’s blog, I am a follower of Jesus. So the question I keep asking is, what option before us holds the best hope of eventually reducing the terrible bloodshed? Bringing still more U.S. troops to serve essentially as a police force on the streets of Baghdad seems, to my way of thinking, to be a recipe for endless conflict. Setting a date, such as a year, at which point everyone will know — all the Iraqi factions, the neighboring nations, and U.S. military and diplomatic planners — that U.S. combat operations will cease offers the best hope, in my judgment, for spurring an internal political solution to what is largely an internal, sectarian civil conflict.
The U.S. is in a moral quagmire in Iraq. No option is without uncertainty, risk, and ambiguity. We can’t predict for sure the results of these actions. But setting a reasonable timetable that withdraws, rather than increases, U.S. military troops could change the political dynamics, both within Iraq and among its neighbors and the international community. That is the prerequisite for a political solution that has any hope of curtailing bloodshed.
Wes Granberg-Michaelson is general secretary of the Reformed Church in America, and a board member of Sojourners/Call to Renewal.
posted January 12, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Wes, I agree that funding for military operations in Iraq should dry up, but I think leaving high and dry in the hopes of spurring them to act is a doomed option as well. Another lessen from Vietnam: they are only just now stumbling out from the dark night of communism. We broke Iraq, it’s our responsibility to clean up the mess. Before the Dems do this, they’ll need to get the message out repeatedly and strongly that they demand the President pursue support for a true international or at least regional peacekeeping presence. I believe the Dems should conditionally guarantee, upon the President’s securing a broad and international effort, that they will approve rebuilding expenditures and economic assistance for Iraq.>
posted January 12, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I have a question: who has access to better, more complete, and more reliable information about the situation in Iraq, you or the President? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say it isn’t you. So why would you assume that you can better asses the situation as a “complex civil war”, when all you have to go on are news reports That are trying to paint the picture of civil war? I’m not saying that it isn’t a civil war, I’m not there, so I can’t know. But why don’t we wait until an official entity with some real intelligence access actually calls it such. They’ve said it could become one, it might be one, there’s danger of one, but they never actually said, “this is a civil war”.>
posted January 12, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Elmo — How naive are you, especially since we have a president who has consistently prevaricated 1) to go to war in the first place and 2) to “stay the course” without understanding the culture and political situation we’re dealing with? In fact, we all know today that the intelligence we received was either ignored or “sexed up” — and that the media the right wing did its best to denigrate were (horrors!) right all along. My newspaper ran a column by Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr. asking why, given this reality, why should we trust President Bush. So I think you’re asking the wrong question.>
posted January 12, 2007 at 10:18 pm
In early 1970 Senators Hatfield and McGovern introduced legislation to cut off appropriations for U.S. combat military involvement in Vietnam by a date certain in the future. This did nothing more than tell the enemy how long to sit out and then kick it back into high gear. Johnson’s handling of the V-N war was all too political and very little military. Nixon was blasted by the big three NBC-CBS-ABC for bombing Cambodia. Excuse me – the Viet-Con was using the border with Cambodia to bring weapons down toward the south – you have to go where the enemy is in war. I have to agree with R-M when he said that we do not have the stomach for war/conflict anymore. Unfortunately our enemies thrive on it weather we are in the conflict or not. It will be interesting to see how this congress handles itself over the next few months – it will say volumes to the Iraqi people how much they value their safety and well-being. Have a great weekend! .>
posted January 12, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Daniel, How long would it take to get the President to ask for a peacekeeping force and then how long for anyone to accept the invitation and then how long for the peacekeeping force to accomplish the objective… Would all of that ever happen… During all of that, how many Iraqis would die or be injured or lose their home or business… and how many US troops would be killed or injured… If the US would instead withdraw or redeploy, how would the numbers of Iraqis and US troops killed or injured and other forms of devastation of Iraq compare… Which will result in less harm for ordinary citizens of Iraq… waiting for a successful peacekeeping force to assemble and be allowed in… or getting out of the way and allowing Iraqis to reach whatever status they would have reached had the dictatorship that kept order there ended by some other means… My impression was that there was substantial bloodshed in Vietnam after US troops withdrew, but that the conditions of the ordinary citizens of South Vietnam (and North Vietnam) improved significantly and relatively soon afterward… and my impression is that they are much better off today than they were before 1975… under the French and then Diem (the US)…>
posted January 13, 2007 at 2:27 am
Mike Hayes, Have you ever talked to Vietnamese people to determine if your impression is true? I have and I have an anecdote that suggests your impression could be wrong. A colleague of mine came to the US from Vietnam about 15 years ago with her family. She did not return until last year. She was so homesick, she could barely contain herself before she left. When she returned, I asked her about her trip. She was extremely disappointed. “The place is a dump,” she said. “I can get better Vietnamese food at just about anyplace in the US than I could in Saigon [she still refers to her birthplace as Saigon]. I will probably never go back again.” This is a lady who is very proud of her Vietnamese heritage and is actively involved in Viet cultural and community events here in the states.>
posted January 13, 2007 at 2:30 am
Thank you Wes, for bringing this era back from memory. At the time I was a young university professor, active in the peace movement. Many of my high school classmates got drafted and served in Vietnam. Some didn’t come back. My university students were distracted by the possibility of being drafted on graduation. My little brother got drafted after he returned from 2 years in the Peace Corps. He faced prison time when he refused induction. Except for the lack of a military draft, today’s events in the Middle East bear an uncanny resemblance to those Vietnam War days over thirty years ago. Nixon’s secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia sparked the nascent peace movement and Kent State ignited student activists on campuses across America. The Kent State massacre, occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others wounded. The students were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon launched on April 25, and announced in a television address five days later. There were significant national effects to the shootings; hundreds of universities, colleges, high schools, and even elementary schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country along political lines. I remember the Hatfield-McGovern amendment. It was the great hope of the peace movement at the time. Here’s an excerpt from wikipedia: Hatfield-McGovern amendment, the end the war amendment Minutes before the voting began, McGovern appealed for support with the strongest and most emotional language he had ever used regarding the war: “Every senator in this chamber is partly responsible for sending 50,000 young Americans to an early grave. This chamber reeks of blood. Every Senator here is partly responsible for that human wreckage at Walter Reed and Bethesda Naval and all across our land – young men without legs, or arms, or genitals, or faces or hopes. “There are not very many of these blasted and broken boys who think this war is a glorious adventure. Do not talk to them about bugging out, or national honor or courage. It does not take any courage at all for a congressman, or a senator, or a president to wrap himself in the flag and say we are staying in Vietnam, because it is not our blood that is being shed. But we are responsible for those young men and their lives and their hopes. “And if we do not end this damnable war those young men will some day curse us for our pitiful willingness to let the Executive carry the burden that the Constitution places on us.” According to historian Robert Mann, McGovern’s brief, passionate speech stunned his Senate colleagues. As McGovern took his Seat, most senators sat in stunned silence. “You could have heard a pin drop,” recalled John Holum, McGovern’s principal Vietnam staff advisor. As the Senate prepared to begin voting on the amendment, one senator approached McGovern and indignantly told him that he had been personally offended by the speech. McGovern responded “That’s what I meant to do.” The amendment failed 55R – 38D and the war continued for 3 more years. During the run-up to the 1972 presidential election, the war was again a major issue. An antiwar Democrat, George McGovern, ran against President Nixon. The president ended Operation Linebacker on 22 October after an agreement had been reached between the U.S. and North Vietnamese negotiators. The head of the U.S. negotiating team, Henry Kissinger, declared that “peace is at hand” shortly before election day, dealing a death blow to McGovern’s already doomed campaign. Bush is about to expand the war into Syria and Iran. Wars are easy to start. It takes an incredible effort over an extended time to stop them. Now we have to do it again. .>
posted January 13, 2007 at 3:21 am
timks Since shortly after 1975, I haven’t see film of Vietnamese civilians being forced to dig a grave, lie down in it, and have theri throats slit… or of little children running away from their villages after a napalm attack… or other similar bloodletting that I remember so clearly from the 60′s. I think you are trying to distract the conversation… again… The point is whether continuing the course the President set our country on is going to improve the lives of ordinary citizens of Iraq… and whether it is worth the continuing loss of life and injuries to US troops. I do not think the possible benefits of stay the course outweigh the costs…>
posted January 13, 2007 at 3:27 am
“…Nixon’s secret and illegal bombing of Cambodia sparked the nascent peace movement and Kent State ignited student activists on campuses across America… Bush is about to expand the war into Syria and Iran. Wars are easy to start. It takes an incredible effort over an extended time to stop them. Now we have to do it again.”. Thank you, anonymous…>
posted January 13, 2007 at 4:07 am
Enough of all of this! The rationale for invading Iraq wrongly presumed that chemical and biological weapons were available for distribution to terrorists who might use them against US cities… the plan for liberating the Iraqi people failed to consider the need for adequate numbers of troops to quell the predictable sectarian violence that would erupt after the dictator’s brutal rule was ended… the November 2006 elections failed to persuade the current administration to realize the errors and change course… A campaign to convince members of the US Congress to exercise the authority and responsibility they have to conduct proper oversight of the administration in its conduct of the war in Iraq is long overdue… The time for non-partisan “take action” opportunities for citizens to speak to our respective members of congress is long overdue… The time and resource investment by contributors to this blog (including “comments”) should be diverted to some mechanism that allows those of us who see the need for a change of course to coordinate our contacts with members of congress… otherwise, the Vietnam experience will repeat… And no, the US did not lose in Vietnam because liberals refused to stay the course until victory was achieved… the US lost because military power could not solve the political reality that existed there… any more than military power can solve the current political reality in Iraq…>
posted January 13, 2007 at 4:18 am
The Viet Nam war was the north trying to incorporate the south into one communist nation. It was the north that brought Cambodia into the conflict by getting permission to use their territory to expand the war in the south. This war against Radical Islamic Terrorists does not include borders. They will wage war on us from any position or strong hold that they can get anywhere in the world. They wear no uniforms – the same person that rides the bus with you during the day to work could be training and preparing for your demise that night. They are senseless in who they kill because they are more willing to murder their own people in the advancement of their ideology while our desire is to cause as few civilian deaths as possible. We either take them on in Bagdad or somewhere in the Mideast or we will be fighting them in the streets of Detroit. I personally rather engage them over there than put American lives at risk. Greater love has no one than he that lays his life down for their friend. Radical Islamic Terrorists are no friend of mine. .>
posted January 13, 2007 at 4:35 am
Mike Hayes, How does responding to an item you wrote make me a distraction? I assumed you were an individual interested in exchanging views and not just a sockpuppet for truthsquad/justin/anonymous. Was I mistaken? These are your words, My impression was that there was substantial bloodshed in Vietnam after US troops withdrew, but that the conditions of the ordinary citizens of South Vietnam (and North Vietnam) improved significantly and relatively soon afterward… and my impression is that they are much better off today than they were before 1975… under the French and then Diem (the US)… I provided a true incident of events after the war, which is the period of time you brought up, which suggests that things aren’t as rosy as your impression. Why the hostility towards me? Obviously the cessation of hostilities between the US and N. Vietnamese is one huge benefit, but that in itself doesn’t necessarily mean they are better off. Hostilites didn’t end immediately, as you said, just those from the US forces. And you did mention “substantial bloodshed” after the US troops left. How do you know about that? Why did you mention it? You may be right about the potential benefits vs. cost of staying the course in Iraq, but since you brought it up don’t you think one of those costs is the possibility of “substantial bloodshed” in Iraq? Does that concern you? It does me and I don’t have any idea what the appropriate strategy is in Iraq. But the possibility of a bloodbath a la Vietnam in the era you brought up is something I pray will be avoided once we pull out. I ask again, why the hostility towards me?>
posted January 13, 2007 at 4:47 am
Where were you during the Vietnam War, Tim?>
posted January 13, 2007 at 4:59 am
Mike Hayes wrote – I do not think the possible benefits of stay the course outweigh the costs… when voices like yours were heard during the revolutionary war – did it outweigh the costs. There were so many mistakes made during that war that in hind sight we see so clearly but at that time did they? when voices like yours were heard during the civic war – did it outweigh the costs. when voices like yours were heard during the WWI or WWII – did it outweigh the costs. the cost in lives during WWII was staggering at times. 2000+ dead on the shores of France because the ‘life belt’ they were given to go under their arms, they put around their waist. But where would Europe be today if we hadn’t paid the cost? Iraq could be a wonderful safe place to Muslim men and women to create a life for them and their children – will that out weight the cost? Not for the families of those that died – just like it didn’t for those who died in WWI or WWII. But the greater good for the entire world – the benefit of a free Europe – helped to balance the books a little. Let us help bring peace and prosperity for the people of Iraq. .>
posted January 13, 2007 at 5:14 am
war doesn’t bring peace>
posted January 13, 2007 at 5:51 am
The effort being expended on this blog to respond to comments that supported the invasion of Iraq and the aftermath could be better spent in communicating with members of congress. This is the third time I have tried to respond to comments in the last hour or so, and each time I have encountered some problem with getting my message posted. If this one does not get through, I give up.>
posted January 13, 2007 at 6:00 am
Repeatedly I have encountered the following message in my efforts to respond to those who support the invasion of Iraq: “Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. Request header field is missing colon separator”. I’m tired of trying. There is no point to trying to communicate with persons who just do not get it… the invasion was a huge mistake. Those of us who recognize that would better invest our time and effort in communicating among ourselves and our members of congress.>
posted January 13, 2007 at 6:17 am
Mike, this just happened to me too.>
posted January 13, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Finally, someone at Sojourners has decided to quit spitting bile at the President and actually put some thoughts into what should be done. Not that I would support this sort of thing right now, but at least someone around here is trying, within the context of his view of the war, to be constructive. At long last here’s a proposal that we can discuss. I can’t guarantee the discussion will always be civil, but it will be a nice change of pace after umpty-leven discussions of whether or not George Bush is the Antichrist. Wes, you are now, officially, my favorite writer at Sojourners. Wolverine>
posted January 13, 2007 at 6:25 pm
To: Supporters of the values in “God’s Politics” Subject: “Bush: If you don’t like my Iraq plan, tell me yours”, at http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/13/Bush.Dems.radio.ap/index.html The time for the President to ask that was long ago. Now it is too late. There is a Progressive Democrats of America letter you might want to consider, at “>http://capwiz.com/pdamerica/issues/alert/?alertid=9233036&type=CO>
posted January 13, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“And no, the US did not lose in Vietnam because liberals refused to stay the course until victory was achieved… the US lost because military power could not solve the political reality that existed there… any more than military power can solve the current political reality in Iraq…” Coercion through military might has its limitations. However, according to Scripture, the sword has its place and God will use leaders of nations to accomplish His will. Nations will do what nations will do to preserve themselves and their people. We cannot expect secular nations to act like the kingdom of God. We are more interested in the hearts of men, won by faith and not coercion. We need to pray for our leaders. Whatever you think of Bush, his intention is the safety of the country in which God has given him leadership. Meanwhile, Christians must continue to live out the beatitudes and be the kingdom (without borders) in the midst of a confused and contentious nation and planet. These conversations are valuable inasmuch as we help one another test our ideas and prepare our minds to be the aroma of Christ in our respective circles of influence. What is the role of the military compared to the role of Christians? There are many countries where Christians are winning over violence with love and their own blood. Bloodshed will happen no matter what, whether we invade with guns or with the gospel. That’s what evil men do. Maybe, we need to stop looking for the speck in the eyes of our politicians and address the beams in our eyes for our armchair quarterbacking and judgmentalism.>
posted January 13, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Wolverine is officially our favorite pedantic idiot on this blog. Next, in order of their entertainment value, are: 2. Kevin.s 3. Timk. 4. Jesse Robster and Donny are in another category – the clinically delusionary. In spite of this condition, they can both be quite entertaining. .>
posted January 13, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Not that I would support this sort of thing right now, but at least someone around here is trying, within the context of his view of the war, to be constructive. Wolverine, Do you have a plan for getting America out of Iraq? We’d love to hear what it is. .>
posted January 13, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Or are you just stuck in your armchair, following your dear leader, ‘staying the course’ while aiming snide comments at those who are trying to get America out of Iraq and stop Bush/Cheney from starting another war with Iran?.>
posted January 13, 2007 at 8:28 pm
anti war liberal wrote: Do you have a plan for getting America out of Iraq? We’d love to hear what it is. There was another thread a couple of weeks ago in which I went through several options for ending the US occupation of Iraq. Personally I believe our best option is probably partition with a smaller US force based in the Kurdish area. Wolverine>
posted January 13, 2007 at 9:09 pm
What do you think about the Bush/Cheney plan to attack Syria and Iran? Which seems to be already underway. .>
posted January 13, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Excerpt from AP article follows: Democratic leaders in the House and Senate intend to hold votes within a few weeks on Bush’s revised Iraq policy. The nonbinding resolutions would be one way to show their opposition to any troop buildup and force Republicans to make a choice about whether they support the president’s plan. Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minnesota, said that he, along with most Democrats and an increasing number of Republicans, believe sending more troops compounds a bad situation. Walz, a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, said diplomatic and political solutions are needed, not more troops. “Before moving forward with this escalation, we owe it to these troops, to their families, and to all Americans to ask the tough questions and demand honest answers about this policy,” Walz said in the Democrats’ Saturday radio address. “Is there a clear strategy that the commanders on the ground believe will succeed?” Walz said. “What are the benchmarks for success, and how long does the president believe it will take to achieve them? Is this a policy that will contribute to the America’s security in the larger war on terror, or distract from it?”>
posted January 14, 2007 at 3:00 am
Personally I believe our best option is probably partition with a smaller US force based in the Kurdish area. Wolverine _________________________ Bush/Cheney is two steps ahead of us. They provoke Iran into armed conflict. They shoot for the moon with a burned out military. America loses in the end. God save America. .>
posted January 14, 2007 at 3:37 am
Excerpt from position on the escalation in Iraq by “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good” at http://thecatholicalliance.org/new/media-center/catholic-leaders-respond-to-the-presidents-proposal-for-a-change-of-course-in-iraq.html “… We are keenly aware that the members of the U.S. military and their families are shouldering the heavy burdens of extended service in Iraq. They risk death and injury of both body and spirit. However, it is crucial to recognize that political and economic concerns, not military issues, are fueling the continuing strife. Therefore, only solutions that combine the political, diplomatic, economic and religious issues Iraqis face will effectively resolve the underlying conflict and bring peace to Iraq. As the last three years have demonstrated, increasing the U.S. troop presence in Iraq will neither address the root causes of civil strife nor quell the violence. Increased U.S. military action will needlessly endanger our troops and detract from effective action to achieve a cease-fire and create peace. Therefore, the escalation of military presence in Iraq is detrimental to our men and women in the armed forces…”>
posted January 14, 2007 at 4:05 am
To: Supporters of the values in “God’s Politics” Subject: Letter to members of congress Excerpt from a draft letter to your members of congress at http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=21853&afccode=RSS101 “…None other than President Bush said, a mere 18 months ago, that “Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight.” He was actually right about that — and his abrupt flip-flop on this issue of vital national importance is deeply troubling…”. Excerpt from “About us” at Working Assets: “…Working Assets has been helping busy people make a difference since 1985. It’s a belief that’s generated over $50 million in donations to nonprofits working for peace, equality, human rights, education and a cleaner environment…”.>
posted January 14, 2007 at 4:29 am
Excerpt from Response to Bush’s Escalation–An Effective Strategy by Rabbi Michael Lerner of The Network of Spiritual Progressives: A Project of the Tikkun Community at http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/article.php?story=20070110184703996 “…For right-wingers and for far-too-many liberals seeking to find an elusive “center” from which to base their politics, the fundamental paradigm that they hold, what I describe in my book The Left Hand of God as “the right hand of God,” is that real security comes from domination and control and manipulation of others, and that the only realistic path is to be savvy and cynical in advancing one’s power to dominate the other before they dominate us. They may debate whether the best path to domination is through military means or through diplomacy backed by military, but they agree on the goal: security through domination…”.>
posted January 14, 2007 at 4:39 am
Excerpt from “Iraq: ‘The Value of Human Life’ by Omid Safi” at http://www.pmuna.org/archives/2005/04/iraq_the_value.php#more on the Progressive Muslim Union: “…The ongoing U.S. occupation of Iraq presents a special challenge for Muslims who self-identify as socially and politically progressive. The challenge is to speak out, rise up, and act against the unilateral American display of unbridled military power, as well as against acts of violence by some Iraqis toward that same American might or perceived Iraqi sympathizers. This double critique arises out of the Qur’anic view that to save the life of one human being–any human being–is to have saved the life of all humanity, and to take the life of a single human being, any human being, is as if to destroy all of humanity [Qur'an 5:32]…”.>
posted January 14, 2007 at 5:51 am
Excerpts from Thank You Lt.org at http://www.thankyoult.org/ “U.S. v. 1LT Ehren K. Watada Pre-Trial Hearing January 4, 2007 Supporters Rally at Ft Lewis Iraq Vets Against the War – Camp Resistance Missing Movement Charge Nuremberg Principles Conduct Unbecoming Charge May Open Door for Defense Subpoenaed Reporters Barred During Pre-Trial … The judge asked what this had to do with Lt. Watada, and added for the sake of argument, crimes against the peace under Nuremberg only apply to leaders. Seitz replied, No, Nuremberg applies to any soldier who has knowledge that he is carrying out an illegal act. If that soldier has no other moral alternative, he must refuse. Judge Head: What was the illegal act? Seitz: To go to Iraq and participate in a war of aggression and commit possible war crimes. Judge Head: Then every soldier is committing a crime against the peace? Seitz said that each individual soldier has the responsibility, according to his training, according to his oath, and by law to determine the legality of their acts. If Lt. Watada violated a lawful order, then he should be punished. But the defense should at least have the opportunity to show why Lt. Watada believes war is illegal. If it can be reasonably concluded that the war is in violation of the law, he should not be punished. Seitz also said that every legal scholar agrees the war is illegal…”.>
posted January 14, 2007 at 11:39 am
How does the human brain develope progressive disease? It can see anything moral as a civil rights vioaltion to be screamed about and fought at all costs, and anything Islamic-terror (the majority of Muslim history) as something to be ignored. Is it a sort of reality cancer that sweeps away the progressive’s ability to reason and think properly?>
posted January 14, 2007 at 3:26 pm
In “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think”, liberal cognitive linguist George Lakoff attributes the differing priorities liberals and conservatives place upon various moral values to the “nurturing parent” vs “strict father” models of families. Lakoff stress the importance of language (“framing”) in communication about values. Conservative Frank Luntz has a new book out “It’s Not What You Say, It’s What They Hear”. It also apparently stresses the importance of language in our communication about values. It’s on my list to buy and read.>
posted January 14, 2007 at 6:27 pm
To: Liberals and conservatives Subject: Eliminating “safe” seats in the US House and in state legislatures This isn’t on topic but liberals and conservatives might an share interest in it. Alongside all the information about Iraq lately has come some scattered information about the cooperation between democrats and republicans in California state government on health care and education and even for objective redistricting! I hope the effort to take away the control of redistricting from political parties and place it in the hands of an independent commission succeeds in California and then is replicated in other states. Doing that would reintroduce competitiveness in campaigns for public office by bringing an end to “safe” democratic and republican districts in which the incumbent runs unopposed term after term. That circumstance does not serve us well, any of us. Go California!>
posted January 14, 2007 at 7:08 pm
sockpuppet says, Wolverine is officially our favorite pedantic idiot on this blog. Next, in order of their entertainment value, are: 2. Kevin.s 3. Timk. 4. Jesse I wuz robbed!>
posted January 15, 2007 at 12:19 am
Robstur says: “We either take them on in Bagdad or somewhere in the Mideast or we will be fighting them in the streets of Detroit. I personally rather engage them over there than put American lives at risk.” I see you have fallen for the 9/11 fear tactics. Please remember that the architect of the 9/11 attacks still remains at large, and we left Afghanistan long before we should have in order to chase phantom WMDs in Iraq. We, in this country, have been told that we are in Iraq because of terrorism. I do not believe this is true. The first Gulf War was fought over oil–specifically to secure Kuwaiti oil and to protect Saudi Arabia, who has the largest oil reserves on the planet. Don’t be naive enough not to think that terrorism is nothing more than a cover excuse to secure our energy interests. Think about it–the neocon agenda has always been to oust Saddam Hussein for the security of the region, even before 9/11. The security that the Neocons are concerned about is oil security, without which, our economy would be in major trouble. It doesn’t take much imagination to make the connections here. Control over Iraq’s considerable oil reserves would give us some freedom from OPEC’s influence on our energy security. We didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan. And we can’t finish the job in Iraq. And now they are setting their sights on Iran and Syria? Are they insane? First of all, we don’t have the resources, and second of all, if the Neocon agenda is to ensure regional security, the result of attacking Iran and Syria will be a collapse of the security in that region. If that occurs, our economy is in major trouble.>
posted January 15, 2007 at 2:33 am
Squeaky, “…Think about it–the neocon agenda has always been to oust Saddam Hussein for the security of the region, even before 9/11. The security that the Neocons are concerned about is oil security, without which, our economy would be in major trouble. It doesn’t take much imagination to make the connections here. Control over Iraq’s considerable oil reserves would give us some freedom from OPEC’s influence on our energy security…”. I tend to ignore claims that the US (now or in the past) seriously considers use of military force in the middle east, primarily out of an intent to guarantee oil supply to the US. When I read your thoughts about this, it did remind me of the Bob Woodward mention of the extent of the interest by Prince Bandar in the actual intent of the Bush administration to invade Iraq or not, prior to the invasion. I recall being puzzled by that interest. And I also remember Dick Cheney’s un-public discussions with energy corporations and his unwillingness to consider energy conservation measures. But my impression remains that Paul Wolfowitz and others who were predisposed to invade Iraq at the time of the Gulf War were operating more out of a role of “superpower as world micromanager” than as “protector of US access to oil”. What do you think?>
posted January 15, 2007 at 4:19 am
“Enough of all of this! The rationale for invading Iraq wrongly presumed that chemical and biological weapons were available for distribution to terrorists…” – But Saddam threatened to use these same weapons against the allied forces if we invaded Iraq just weeks prior to us invading Iraq. We know that he used them before – why should we not believe that he was going to use them again. Have a great day. .>
posted January 15, 2007 at 4:33 am
Squeaky – You can believe whatever you want to and listen to whomever you want to. I believe in being more proactive in situations and from what I read you are more reactive. A question if you please… If those that we involved with 9-11 and the WTC and Pentagone and other distruction that might have happened. If we (the US) knew that all of them were together one last time on 8-11 and after they left the little hut on the Afgan-Iraq border we had no way of tracking them. We knew that they were planing to attack the US in some form or fashion but we did not know how or where. If on Scud missle would take them out and stop their plot, would you give the order to send the missle? Think about it – Have a great week. .>
posted January 15, 2007 at 6:00 am
Robster said: “…and after they left the little hut on the Afghan-Iraq border…” [spelling corrected from original] Now, Robster, whereabouts on that border would this be? Have you looked at an atlas recently? If you do, you will find that no such border exists. Or maybe you’re in a parallel universe where there is such a border…. (It would explain a few of your other comments.) Mark>
posted January 15, 2007 at 6:10 am
Robster said: “We know that he used them before – why should we not believe that he was going to use them again.” Because the UN inspection teams who went out to Iraq mostly expecting to find something found nothing. They went to all the known storage / manufacturing facilities, and found nothing of substance. They sought information on other possible sites from various national intelligence agencies, and not one single intelligence lead was accurate. They would have kept on looking. But they were forced to go home because the timetable for war had already been decided. (Just as they’d been forced to go home a few years previously so that Clinton and Blair could pursue their policy of increasing bombing raids) Mark>
posted January 15, 2007 at 6:28 am
Mike said: “…my impression remains that Paul Wolfowitz and others who were predisposed to invade Iraq at the time of the Gulf War were operating more out of a role of “superpower as world micromanager” than as “protector of US access to oil”. What do you think?” I think it is both-and, not either-or. Maybe Wolfowitz and his fellow neocons were more ideologically-driven – true believers in the manifest destiny of the USA as global imperial master as per PNAC. But I suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld were more interested in securing longterm oil reserves (and anything else they could get their hands on) on favourable terms for US big business. (Remember – the only Iraqi ministry that they chose to protect from looters was the Oil Ministry.) Mark>
posted January 15, 2007 at 2:46 pm
If we take lessons from the Vietnam war, we have to realize that many Americans are cowards. They are simply gutless cowards. Progressives seem to dwell within that realm effortlessly. They used to be called hippies. Now, they’re called “Professor.” Our country cannot last much longer with the weak allowed to lead the youth.>
posted January 15, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Mark Sorry I should have used the Iran-Iraq border. You still did not answer the question – you going to press the button and sent in the missles? Have a great day .>
posted January 15, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Mark But Saddam said that he would use the weapons after the inspectors had left. Like he had fooled them and still had them hid away where we did not look. The inspectors were hampered all the time in their inspections. If the IRS were able to be manipulated and misdirected in their dealings with tax problems like Saddam was able to do with the inspectors – our gov’t would never be able to collect unpaid taxes. I do not take idle threats from leaders like Saddam lightly. I handle Iran and North Korea the same way. Have a great day .>
posted January 15, 2007 at 5:17 pm
To amplify on what Robstur was saying: The fact that WMDs were never found in Iraq greatly weakens the rationale for the Iraq invasion, but it does not completely negate it. We know that Hussein had them, and used them, in the past. We also knew that he had the industrial capacity to rearm with WMDs in the future. Finally — and this is the one thing where I think the left, including Sojourners, needs to accept some responsibility — we knew that the UN had been compromised through the corruption of the oil-for-food program. If the UN could not be counted on to maintain sanctions, the last obstacle to Hussein rebuilding his WMD arsenal and perhaps pursuing nuclear weapons would be gone. Now is this enough to jusify the invasion of Iraq? I honestly don’t know. But to call Bush a war criminal or compare him to Hitler is absurd. Bush had a very difficult moral and diplomatic dilemma and he chose a course of action that seemed reasonable at the time. Wolverine>
posted January 15, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Mike Hayes “But my impression remains that Paul Wolfowitz and others who were predisposed to invade Iraq at the time of the Gulf War were operating more out of a role of “superpower as world micromanager” than as “protector of US access to oil”.” Well, it’s both, actually. Any superpower as micromanager must have a secure energy supply, and in that sense, Iraq would be part of the micromanaging goal. Security in the Middle East is a goal not because the U.S. is trying to find solutions to hundreds of years of fighting. Security in the Middle East is vital to U.S. energy and therefore economic security. Your recollection of Cheney’s downplaying of the importance of conservation is a very telling aspect of this current administration. Conservation is an untapped resource, one that we turned to quite effectively during the OPEC oil embargo in the 70′s (so effectively, in fact, that OPEC felt a pretty severe backlash as a result), and we can do it again. We haven’t asked to sacrifice our comforts, as our granparents were asked during WWII. On the contrary, we’ve been encouraged to spend, spend, spend. We consume way too much in this society, and if gluttony is the way of Christ, go for it. But I don’t see Biblical evidence that supports that it is. Conservation is just one way to be proactive. And Robster, in answer to your question. If, in fact, there was solid evidence of the 9/11 plans on 8/11 (and the 9/11 Commission does, in fact, reveal that we knew enough about the plans to stop it, but that’s another story), and if we could have stopped it all by one…um…Patriot missile…by all means, yes. Stop it, if you can. However, the converse of your argument then goes like this: If we DO NOT have solid proof of terrorist plots, we are not justified in attacking that hut with our Patriot missile. What you are saying is that we had clear proof that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks on Americans, that he had weapons of mass destruction, that he had clear ties to Osama Bin Laden. Turns out, none of that was true at all. If the proof was overwhelming instead of hazy at the time Congress voted to go to war, I would have supported it. But it was never better than hazy, and now it is non-existant. Reactionary behavior is behavior that uses 9/11 as an excuse for starting a war in Iraq that was unprovoked (never done that in U.S. history) and that allows our government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and hold its citizens without charge. That behavior is justified by the use of fear tactics that this government has used against its own citizens. I don’t know, sounds a lot to me that if the terrorists hate us because of our “freedom”, when we let our freedoms go so easily, the terrorists have won. But, I’ve skidded off on a tangent…>
posted January 15, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Squeaky, If our concern was just securing the oil, why go to war? Why not just make a deal with Hussein? It’s not like the US had nothing to offer him in terms of money or military hardware or diplomatic cover. I’m not saying oil wasn’t part of the calculations, but there’s more going on here. Wolverine>
posted January 15, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Wolverine, Well, there was that oil for food thing. And also Hussein was deemed impossible to deal with. In fact, wasn’t the whole reason we went to war was because of how uncooperative he was? Didn’t we go to war because diplomacy had supposedly run its course? And if he hated the U.S. as much as he did, was he really going to cooperate with us to supply us with oil?>
posted January 15, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Squeaky wrote – …Patriot missile…by all means, yes. Stop it, if you can. – The question is would ‘YOU’ press the button to send the missle? Be blessed .>
posted January 15, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Robstur…whether or not I would push the button is a completely different discussion altogether and has nothing to do with the points I was making. Diversionary tactic. I call shenanigans! Blessings to you too!>
posted January 15, 2007 at 7:56 pm
But to answer the question anyway, although, I admit, evasively…maybe the better question is not what I would do, but WWJD? I would do whatever Jesus would do because that is what I’m commanded to do. Which then begs the question…what WOULD Jesus do?>
posted January 15, 2007 at 10:14 pm
This is a problem similar to what is known in the literature of international relations studies as “Game Theory Dilemma #4.” It was first hypothesized at Rand Corporation in the early 1960s by thermonuclear war theorist Herman Kahn and his associates. Later in the 1970s, in a study commissioned by the Committee on the Present Danger (organized by Paul Nitze and others, including several neocons), mathematicians from MIT and political scientists from Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program pooled their talents in an intensive review of the issue. Their conclusions,informed by deterrence theory and stochastic modeling, were kept secret by the CPD for some years. Certainly they offer little confidence to those of us who desparately hope to avoid a catastrophic nuclear War. “Squeaky wrote – …Patriot missile…by all means, yes. Stop it, if you can. – The question is would ‘YOU’ press the button to send the missle? Be blessed .Robstur | 01.15.07 – 2:16 pm”>
posted January 15, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Oops!! Forgot to write my name in previous post. “Anonymous” is me.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 2:53 am
Squeaky and Carl Copas, Do you think George Lakoff has the right approach in distinguishing liberal and conservative viewpoints based on “nurturing parent” and “strict father” models of families, translated to politics? My email is hayesmike@InsightBB.com>
posted January 16, 2007 at 2:54 am
Squeaky | 01.15.07 – 2:36 pm | Come on – let us know what you would do. Either answer is OK and has justification for why you think that way. I will still respect you – really! Have a great one! .>
posted January 16, 2007 at 3:07 am
“…I think it is both-and, not either-or. Maybe Wolfowitz and his fellow neocons were more ideologically-driven – true believers in the manifest destiny of the USA as global imperial master as per PNAC. But I suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld were more interested in securing longterm oil reserves (and anything else they could get their hands on) on favourable terms for US big business. (Remember – the only Iraqi ministry that they chose to protect from looters was the Oil Ministry.)…’. Mark, What is PNAC, and, isn’t oil from Iraq relatively insignificant compared to other sources?>
posted January 16, 2007 at 3:21 am
To: Supporters of the values in “God’s Politics” Subject: Citizens lobbying congress to force a course change As I’ve said before: The rationale for invading Iraq wrongly presumed that chemical and biological weapons were available for distribution to terrorists who might use them against US cities… the plan for liberating the Iraqi people failed to consider the need for adequate numbers of troops to quell the predictable sectarian violence that would erupt after the dictator’s brutal rule was ended… the November 2006 elections failed to persuade the current administration to realize the errors and change course… A campaign to convince members of the US Congress to exercise the authority and responsibility they have to conduct proper oversight of the administration in its conduct of the war in Iraq is long overdue… Is there any way we can do that? My email address is hayesmike@InsightBB.com>
posted January 16, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Rumsfield and his buddies knew there were WMD’s because – if you’ll recall – they setup Iraq with the capabilities. AND Iraq under Saddam, used them. We thought they would be used for defending against Iran’s aims for ruling Iraq, but, power was more important to Saddam. The knowledge of WMD’s was a fact. Like the way a liberal/progressive views human life, you cannot change those that bring death to the inconvenient. THE ONLY THING not realized is the Muslim (mid-eaat) tendencies and tenacity for non-stop war and violence. The Iraq situation is the fault of Muslims and no other persons. “Sectarian violence,” is one Muslim killing another. And when a non-Muslim pops their head up, then both Shiities and Sunnis, kill them. Pull our troops because of that. But, call a spade a spade OK. Liberalism is a disease that somehow replaces the ability to see facts through the delusion of some kind of utopian dream the liberal feels they can build on earth. Liberals are supporting terrorists, make no mistake. Not surprisingly, the “anything goes” approach of the garden-variety leftist only grows the worse of human nature to take center stage. You would think that some evil supernatural power fuels the goals of both liberal-progressives and Muslim totalitarianism, as both have death and destruction as the bottom line outcome of their actions. Conservatives, on the other hand, are wrong in thinking people want to be free and do things independent of group-think. It seems quite clear that most people want to be lemmings. Look at our kids in colleges. Look at examples of the heroes of the left: Chavez and Castro, pimps, bithches and ho’s, abortion doctors and Rosie O’Donnel. Some Conservative desires? Private property rights, personal accountability, low taxes and individual independence . . ., so every person can live free and “earn” things for themselves. The Iraq war is failing because Muslims do not desire to be free and independent. Not because Bush is incompetent. Like liberals, Iraqi’s in typical Islamic fashion, want a government to RULE the populace. I choose to be independent and free, therefore I side with freedom and the conservatives and I choose not to follow Islam as well. Conservatives should stop thinking that everyone wants to be free and morally sound. In that, President Bush has his first wrong position. Invading Iraq to bring freedom was an impossible goal. Believing that Muslims would embrace peace, morality, individual accountability and freedom (like a liberal promoting abstinence programs), was just plain wrong. It was never going to happen. Really, that was the main thing that President Bush and his administration got wrong. Many people do not want to be free.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Wow Donny–must be boring living in a world where all you see is black and white. I can acknowledge that conservatives bring some good values to the table. You on the other hand, seem bent on simply demonizing liberal politics as if they have no important insights. One of the reasons the 2006 elections went overwhelmingly to the Democrats was that Americans finally realized we live in a Democracy where there are three branches of government that are meant to check and balance each other. That is nearly impossible when only one party reigns in all three branches. And Americans are clearly sick of not having alternative viewpoints being heard or considered. And Liberals are sick of being told they aren’t patriotic because they don’t tow the war-monger line. Maybe it is time to get past insults and demonizing and actually listen to what the Democrats and liberals have to say. I’m not saying become one, I’m just saying listen to some different perspectives for a change rather than pumping your mind full of Rush or FoxNews.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Mike Hayes, “Do you think George Lakoff has the right approach in distinguishing liberal and conservative viewpoints based on “nurturing parent” and “strict father” models of families, translated to politics?” I think so, although I have always looked at it this way: Democrats=God’s Grace; Republicans=God’s Law. Is one better than the other? No. Both are needed, which is why I can’t take the liberal equivalent of Donny’s views above. You also asked about Iraqi oil reserves–150 billion barrels, and no pumping required. Easy, cheap oil in huge amounts. The PNAC is the Project for the New American Century, a Neocon vision of American world domination, essentially. It is their answer to the question “Since there are no other superpowers to challenge us, what is next for America?” In a letter to President Clinton, their policy on Iraq is clearly outlined, which can be found on the website http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm I’m not saying they don’t make good points. However, given the Neocon mindset and who came into power in 2000, I think it is at least possible that they allowed their own agenda to color the intelligence reports they were hearing coming from Iraq. They wanted WMDs to be there, and so that is all they see. It was always their vision to invade Iraq, and 9/11 gave them the opportunity they were hoping for.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Donny, Bob Woodward interviewed the military person who was assigned the responsibility to prepare the US led invasion to defend the troops against biological and chemical weapons. This person could find no information that allowed any prioritization of one supposed location for these weapons over any other location. The person was astounded to discover that the US had decided to invade Iraq on the premise that weapons were there and the UN was just being led around by its nose, but the facts justifying that decision were just not available.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Squeaky | 01.16.07 – 9:15 am | One of the reasons the 2006 elections went overwhelmingly to the Democrats was that Americans finally realized we live in a Democracy where there are three branches of government that are meant to check and balance each other. – Don’t think that I would use the ‘overwhelmingly’ word in the Dem. majority in congress. If Johnson from SD does not get back – I believe that the Reps will have control of the Senate. The House is a small margin for the Dem. The Dems won in 06 because a lot of Rep’s ran poor campaigns. And Americans are clearly sick of not having alternative viewpoints being heard or considered. – As compared to the nearly 40 years reign of the Dems on Capital Hill prior to the ’94 election. Under Tip O’Neal’s leadership – the Rep were always marginalized and bipartisanship was a word that the Dem’s did not know how to say. All three braches under Dem rule during the Kennedy – Johnson – Carter – and the first part of Clinton. Think your assessment is a little too modern history and you need to look back a little further. (dare I talk about the years of the Dem in the House and the ‘banking’ scandal…) No – the Rep’s are far from perfect – but what you are accusing the Rep’s of the Dem’s did for many more years prior. Have a great day. .>
posted January 16, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I am using “overwhelmingly” in the same sense that Bush interpreted his 2004 re-election as a “mandate to push through my policies.” He barely won that election, and if anything, he should have interpreted the results as a picture of how very divided the nation is and try to build connections rather than push people even further away. But, as he chose the latter, we saw the results. Yes, not as wide a margin in the Senate, but a huge margin in the House–and Indiana, once largely a bright red state, is now a deep purple. Indiana! Where I saw not one presidential campaign commercial because the outcome was already assumed and the Dems saw no reason to invest money into it! You wrongly assume that because I tend towards Democratic politics that I prefer Democrats to control everything as the Republicans did prior to the elections last year. Nope. Anytime only one power is in control, that is just asking for trouble. It doesn’t matter who is in control. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. You are quick to point out the scandals in the Dem party when they were in control. We saw the same thing happen to the Reps when they were in control. All perspectives need to be brought to the table and considered. If you only look at the trunk of an elephant, you might think it is a garden hose. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that your favorite party will bring about the salvation of this country. No party can do that, not Republicans, not Democrats. Don’t make the mistake of thinking only Republicans can be Christians. There are plenty of Christian principles found within the Democratic party as well. Maybe we Christians do need a fast from politics. We’re clearly too entangled in the cares of this world to be affective in God’s work. And, um what, specifically, am I accusing the Republicans of that the Dems were guilty of years before? Methinks you may be putting words into my mouth, er keyboard… Blessings>
posted January 16, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Squeaky, Maybe in another several decades there will be more independents than democrats or republicans… and maybe we’ll be able to vote for all the candidates in primaries that we would want to choose from in the finals… and maybe “voting by ranking all candidates” will by then eliminate the need for primaries… I’d like to live to see the day…>
posted January 16, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Ah, Mike…that would be nice. Hard to overcome the influence money has on politics, so I wonder if it is possible. ‘Tis a good dream. I’d like to live to see that day, too…>
posted January 16, 2007 at 5:25 pm
“Squeaky and Carl Copas, Do you think George Lakoff has the right approach in distinguishing liberal and conservative viewpoints based on “nurturing parent” and “strict father” models of families, translated to politics?” Mike, it makes a lot of sense to me. I’d marry it to to Hunter’s argument in Culture Wars that the cons believe more strongly in absolutes than do libs.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Just to add to previous post. I like Squeaky’s formula that libs emphasize God’s grace and cons stress God’s law.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Carl Copas, I don’t have access to my copy of “Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think” presently, but I recall that George Lakoff tested his “strict father” model on a wide variety of positions taken by conservatives and his “nurturing parent” model on a wide variety of positions taken by liberals. He felt that those models more adequately accounted for the two differing positions on those issues, in contrast with some prior theory which characterized the source of the positions in some other way. Over time, better models may emerge, and he may be the source of some of those, but for now I think it’s the best models liberals and conservatives have for understanding why we differ so much and why conservatives and liberals are so astounded to see that each of our versions of “facts” are rejected by the other side.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mike, it’s a very useful model. What accounts for why some fall in “strict father” and others “nurturing parent”? Socialization, childrearing, education, denomination, personality, temperament? Divine predestination? I was raised in “strict father” family (I hasten to add that my dad is one of the most loving people I know) but am now “nurturing parent” (though my kids would often disagree). One of my brothers is “strict father” and the other is “nurturing parent.”>
posted January 16, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I agree–it is a very useful model. Most of us know that children raised in super strict environments with no freedom can end up just as messed up as children raised in completely nurturing environments where there is no consequence for actions. I personally think politics (and parenting) works best when there is a thoughtful balance between the two extremes, and that requires taking the good from both positions, and there certainly is good in both positions. What’s been happening with Christian politics is that we’ve focused too much on one aspect of morality (the morality conservatives are concerned about) and ignored other aspects of morality (the morality that liberals are concerned about). God cares about both moralities, and we shouldn’t care about certain moralities at the exclusion of the others. It’s hard to be in the middle, though, because few candidates emphasise truly Christian values from all ends of the spectrum.>
posted January 16, 2007 at 8:58 pm
When I was young – I was raised by a ‘strick father’. But as I got older and more of an adult – he was more the ‘nurturing parent’ even when the direction that I was going he was not in agreement with and knew that it was not going to work out. He was more nurturing. Have a great day. .>
posted January 16, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Robstur, which category do you tend to fall into?>
posted January 16, 2007 at 10:30 pm
http://www.vcnv.org/the-occupation-project is a project to begin what I would think of as “sit-ins”. An excerpt: “…The campaign will begin the first week of February 2007 with occupations at the offices of Representatives and Senators who refuse to pledge to vote against additional war funding…” I wonder what Martin Luther King would think?>
posted January 17, 2007 at 3:41 am
Carl Copas | 01.16.07 – 5:16 pm | with my daughter who is in 6th grade – I am a little more strict. with my sons – one in college and one in high school – I am more nurturing. when my daughter gets into high school – it will be more or less the same with her. have a great one! .>
posted January 17, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Getting back to the subject, I don’t see how a US withdrawal from the Iraqi theater can be reconciled ethically with any sense of responsibility or justice. Is the United States just some misguided wrecking ball that tragically demolishes one country after another and leaves nothing but chaos and power vacuum in its wake? Or do we actually help to rebuild after the damage we cause? The 2003 invasion should never have been undertaken, but undertaken it was, and our forces have left the country’s infrastructure in absolute ruin. Until the Iraqi government formally dismisses us, I do not see how we have any business leaving. In fact, it’s becoming obvious that we need to listen to our military leaders and increase drastically the number of soldiers we have in the region. We caused this mess and we have an ethical responsibility to put our forces completely at the disposal of the Iraqi authorities until such time as they decide they no longer need our assistance, regardless of the cost to our own national well-being or even, I daresay, our national security. I am a secular humanist, atheist, and independent voter. I do not take this position for any political purpose but merely out of a sense of responsibility which I think our country can afford to uphold.>
posted January 17, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Quill | 01.17.07 – 3:20 pm | “…and our forces have left the country’s infrastructure in absolute ruin.” My understanding from people that I have been able to talk to is that we are improving the infrastructure. Saddam had neglected it at best and in some cases destroyed parts of it in retaliation against his own people. Do not agree with your assessment on this one. Have a great day. .>