Many of us, around the planet, were in the streets, demonstrating against the Bush/Cheney war.
But BushCo ignored everyone's advice.
And they lied America into this disastrous war.
In doing so, they have committed a war crime.

Obama offers wise advice.

But nothing will happen in Iraq until the criminal Bush administration is removed from office.
The longer this takes, the bigger the mess to clean up.

I'm working on impeachment.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 5:19 PM

A picture is worth a thousand and the unflattering picture Sojo chose to post along with this column seems to express nothing but disdain towards our men in uniform.

Of course, the fact that Sojo repeatedly publishes stories of soldiers who refuse to go to Iraq contradicts any claim they make to "supporting the troops." It would be nice if they were more forthright with their pacifism and all that that entails.

Posted by: jesse | August 15, 2007 6:13 PM

For once, I agree with Kevin. I think I'm going to see a shrink.

Posted by: Sarasotakid | August 15, 2007 7:51 PM

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 5:19 PM

I'm working on impeachment.

Save yur energy justintime - Bush only has about 14+ months left in office. Wait for the next election and if a Republican wins it should only take you and your friends about 24 to 48 hours to come up with something to impeach them on.

Hind site is so 20-20

Have a great day -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 15, 2007 8:40 PM

So are most of your posts, ML
So what?

Pleasant dreams.

Posted by: justintime | August 15, 2007 8:53 PM

So are most of your posts, ML
So what?

Justintime the author made a point of saying they were being balanced . When you then start talking about morality and other virtues , and come from a view that is easily seen from the left side of the political compass , and make a point of youself as balanced and mainstream , it makes the rest of the editorial appear to be less credible . Regardless of what he was asying had merit or not , his position of being balanced is laugable .

Thats what .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 15, 2007 9:52 PM

jurisnaturalist said

Finally, there are not that many militants out there. Of the insurgents in Iraq I'd have to say that most of them are just Freedom Fighters, spiteful of foreign occupation.

oh, glad to hear it

Posted by: micksheldon | August 16, 2007 3:52 AM

To:
M o d e r a t e l a d ,

From:
juris nut ralist
just another nut
just use english not latin
jury says you're nuts
just nathan ish

By the way, I am non-partisian. I think both sides are pagan statists. The truth lies on a different spectrum.

Don't take yourself too seriously.

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | August 16, 2007 9:10 AM

"These people have legitimate concerns. They are reasonable concerns.

But I think they are wrong to be afraid, and I think their reactions to those things which frighten them merely cause more problems."

I agree with your point about protectionism, and I am sympathetic to your point about militarism, but you provide them in support of your notion that we ought not be afraid. I disagree that we ought not be afraid, or at least that our government ought to be afraid on our behalf.

I don't think it make sense to argue that the insurgents suddenly became enraged at our presence. They are looking to take advantage of a power vacuum, to be certain, and you can argue that we have done a good job creating that vacuum, but the "freedom fighters" canard doesn't gel with their actions.

Posted by: kevin s. | August 16, 2007 12:15 PM

"Hind site is so 20-20"

I don't think that is a legitimate claim concerning this war. Not when many people saw it as a potential quagmire long before we went to war. Not when many of the President's generals and top military advisors said we weren't employing nearly enough troops to get the job done. Not when Donald Rumsfeld said "we don't go to war with the army we want, we go to war with the army we have", which is a distinctly unbiblical concept (what king, when considering going to war with his enemies, does not first determine whether he has the resources to win the war?). Not when we have a historical example of how nasty non-conventional wars can become (Vietnam). It wasn't that hard to see where this war would lead, and yet, those in power couldn't (or more likely, wouldn't) see it, and utterly failed to examine and consider all the problems they would have to face in fighting the war and stabilizing the region. I'm no military specialist, but everything I feared about this war has occurred--does that mean I have 20-20 foresight? Not likely. More likely is that military advisors DID see the pitfalls and did not speak out because of fear of retribution, especially since some that did received that retribution.

Posted by: squeaky | August 16, 2007 1:00 PM

Moderatelad favors a moderate approach to war.

What should Bush do next in Iraq, moderatelad?

Bomb the $%^& out of Iran?

Pleasant dreams.

Posted by: justintime | August 16, 2007 2:15 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 16, 2007 3:39 PM

"If you're going to fight a war, do it right."

But everyone had their own idea about how to do it 'correct'. Even our allied countries were not talking about needing additional troups at the time the conflict began. I am not sure that you would need to raise taxes as there is more money coming into the US gov't under Bush than there was under Clinton - and Bush cut taxes. (let's see - cut taxes + more money)

I still think that a few Iraqi religious leaders should be dispatched to Allah, the area would be a better place. I would have blown the 'golden dome' into history as they were shooting at US from it. But that would have given some nut-case the idea to bring a divice into St Peters and when would it stop. I still believe that if you cut off the head of some of these fringe groups. If you did, I believe that many in the lower ranks would be leaving for the safety of their home.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 16, 2007 4:00 PM

Even our allied countries were not talking about needing additional troups at the time the conflict began.

If you recall, most of them opposed it from the outset.

I am not sure that you would need to raise taxes as there is more money coming into the US gov't under Bush than there was under Clinton - and Bush cut taxes.

That's a bit misleading. More tax money was coming in because people at the top were earning more and more money -- it had nothing to do with cutting taxes (in fact, it's the rationale for cutting taxes further on the wealthy). And it still didn't address the actual budget deficit.

I still believe that if you cut off the head of some of these fringe groups. If you did, I believe that many in the lower ranks would be leaving for the safety of their home.

That has no basis in fact, especially not in this case. The political right does this all the time with people it wants to defeat, not realizing just how committed to the cause people are -- it doesn't realized that it it cuts off one head one or more will take its place. It, for example, always says it wants to "reach out" to African-Americans but simultaneously denigrates their leaders, thus sabotaging their intentions.

Posted by: | August 16, 2007 4:17 PM

Mick -- Powell was frozen out not because we actually went into Iraq but how the war was prosecuted once we got there.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 16, 2007 4:43 PM

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when an analysis based on the facts has to be rejected as "from the left side of the political compass" and "unbalanced". Presumably some people here think that truth needs to be "balanced" with error whenever the truth happens to vindicate what we wicked lefties were saying all along. (Just as the one whose nom de plume we must not misspell probably sincerely thinks of himself as a moderate.)

To most people I've had dealings with, Skillen's statement would not be particularly uncontroversial.

Mark

Posted by: mark | August 16, 2007 5:30 PM

Rick

That was the convenient excuse. However, whatever money they didn't pay out in taxes that didn't go into buying more politicians or other companies in fact went into their own pockets

Just like trial lawyers Rick , just like trial lawyers . Nothing wrong with allowing people to be compensated when wronged , and nothing wrong with allowing business to make a good profit .

Those are not excuses , thats just common sense .

Posted by: | August 16, 2007 6:45 PM

Squeaky

You made some excellent points. I recall my main concern was how we would get out of there , and wondered why important voices were not at least talking about it . Being a Vietnam era person that concern has always stuck with me , amazing we do not learn from history as much as we should . Nothing new under the Sun a Great man once said .

Mark said

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when an analysis based on the facts has to be rejected as "from the left side of the political compass"

Me
Really Mark , that was why it was rejected . It was not based on facts , but partsian views . Using words like delusional and immoral you consider facts ? I admit just because you hear it on Air America does not make it unfactual , but it certainly is dishonest to represent it as impartial .

Not meant to enlighten , but only to be read by like minded cheer leaders. What facts , use words with negative meanibngs instead of positive describing events from a political view point ,

Rick Said
That was the convenient excuse. However, whatever money they didn't pay out in taxes that didn't go into buying more politicians or other companies in fact went into their own pockets

Just like trial lawyers Rick , just like trial lawyers . Nothing wrong with allowing people to be compensated when wronged , and nothing wrong with allowing business to make a good profit .
Those are not excuses , thats just common sense .
Its allowing excessive amounts because of loop holes caused by in the pocket politicians , in both cases that is wrong .

Rick said
Mick -- Powell was frozen out not because we actually went into Iraq but how the war was prosecuted once we got there.

Me
I don't know about that Rick , could have been . I was just pointing out Powell thought the weapons that Iraq was assumed to have was an important aspect of why we went into Iraq , and as part of his U.N. presentation played that card largely . . Chenny was saying like it had nothing to do with why we went in .

Powell's expression was pretty obvious when he heard Chenny's quote on the matter . Like what the heck ?
I figured Powell left because of disagreements , he was pretty much over cautious with the first Iraq deal also , I think its why so many Americans like him . He does his duty well , was a great soldier , and looked at war as the very last alternative .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 16, 2007 7:18 PM

Moderatelad,
"I still believe that if you cut off the head of some of these fringe groups. If you did, I believe that many in the lower ranks would be leaving for the safety of their home."

I think if that had really been the important mission, we wouldn't even be in Iraq right now. Bin Laden is still at large, and better to have spent those resources capturing him and making sure Afghanistan was able to get solidly on its feet--something we were doing before we diverted resources to the Iraq boondoggle.

Mick (it's weird, I still read your name as Mike--I blame it on my 40 year old eyes),

I believe I have heard Cheney say that as well--that the WMDs weren't that important to begin with. The story is changing, and apparently he and others are banking on Americans' short attention spans. Would that the administration had listened to those like Colin Powell who have not only extensive war experience, but extensive experience in that region. I kind of wish Powell was runnning for president...

Posted by: squeaky | August 16, 2007 7:35 PM

I think he would have won, I think his wife did not want him. That's what I gleaned out of it, and I guess she is a democrat also. Powell was not a social conservative from what I heard and I bet he was concerned about getting rifled for that too and not being in the pocket of the NAACP would have caused him problems for sure.

It is true that Powell's wife didn't want him to run because of the abuse he risked by campaigning. He was a Republican but never a social conservative, and for that reason alone he wouldn't have been accepted by GOP honchos. He was far and away the most popular black political figure in the black community in the late 1990s and when he was in the Bush administration, so blacks would have voted for him heartily -- but only as long as he didn't "sell out" to the conservatives. He also was a hearty supporter of affirmative action, especially in the military, which also didn't go over too well with the right.

Had nothing to do with the fact he was used to make the best points for invasion? Then the information was proven false. Well if I was him I would have felt used, abused and would want to apologize to the world.

Which he basically did. See, the Bushies wanted a black man on their side for cosmetic purposes, which is why he initially got so much publicity. But Powell, like many before him, ran afoul of the neo-cons when he wouldn't knuckle under to them, and guess who won that power struggle. So you had no one to tell them that they were going about it the wrong way.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 16, 2007 9:04 PM

Justintime and Moderatelad-

Give it a rest, you two aruge over the most petty things...You two venture into a meaningless banter...save it for myspace...

Posted by: Whitman | August 16, 2007 10:00 PM

Add Love to politics, add art, add FUN, add excitement with a deliberate conscious choice and create a FRESH view of a necessary government. GET involved or NOT - without pressure, but when and IF you FEEL a need to.

Political action and saying NO to some candidates, some issues is the BEGINNING of a PURPOSEFUL and TRUST WORTHY action that aligns with the thought of the SOUL to do something, to THINK OUTLOUD toward an intention is to VOTE for the thing you want without discounting the opposing/alternate perspective.

"Where ever two or more come together in my name, there shall I be." In His name, bearing His witness, speaking words of truth - words that change, words that transform, words that transcend, will indeed reconcile opposites.

NO WRONGS in politics - just differences ----and in GODS perfect design, isnt it something magnificient, truly wonderful and worthy of PRAISE that we are NOT all the same, but different? Why did God make us babble in variou languages, and come in a variety of packages, with the FREEDOM to THINK and CHOOSE that THOUGHT force to CREATE the world we want? THE POWER we have to create would require many many many many lifetimes to exhaust one person's creation potential.

GRACE during a thunderstorm of thoughts is my protection and perception - POLITICS is the science and art of civil government. An artful politician is prudent, a creative in how they sell the idea which becomes the law that governs the City, the State, the Country.

"The Spiritual Solution to every Problem" by Wayne Dyer is a testimony to Dr Dyers self definition as he continues to examine his thoughts and make correcting choices - to catch the wind of change - We are the masters of the SAIL in our minds - Knowing that what we THINK is ENERGY coming through us - WHOA ---WHAT I THINK of the President I think of myself? WHAT I think of NEALE I think of myself? THE correct GOD VIEW is LOVE. The human mind, ways, include a rapidly firing list of auto-matic judgements, opinions, adnausem - till I BE STILLED and corrected with the THOUGHT OF LOVE all as I am loved WHILE I act and motion toward that which I want. Correcting my SAIL is my self-defining spiritual TASK which - as at sea, my Captain GOD allows me to make errors as we whip through the waves of emotion - My picture is that Captain God throws His head back and LAUGHS with pleasure at the ride I take Him on - with the INTENTION of pleasing my Captain - He never ever has told me that I should have taken a different route.

GOVERNMENT is necessary in order to enforce responsibility of actions necessary to create a safe community. AGREE with GOD - He governs us, God is politicing for your vote to include Him in your daily thoughts right here on CWG.

Did we by ourselves accidently or "co-incidently" resonate with Neales writings, blog posts, soul desires? Are we not SPIRITUAL BEINGS who were drawn together for a PURPOSE?

Spiritual is the UNSEEN energy that draws, attracts, transforms us as we get involved with our minds. The unseen prayer work - the good intender that never gets involved with politics - THAT individual CHOICE TO NOT VOTE or ACT = a VOTE and it counts for keeping things as they are.

Saying "No!" to gang graffiti - saying "NO" to murder - saying "NO" to local issues in local government IMPACTS with a POSITIVE VIBRATION that creates a change that ripples out through the unchanging, non-biased, non-political, PRINCIPLE PURPOSE of GOD'w living word which the LAW.

Take responsibility for your choices, your thoughts about politics. POLITICS is necessary - the government of people is needed. Consider a City without stop signs? Consider a world without government of any kind. The collective "WE" did create what we have and we elected those that govern those who sleep.

I work for City government, I am a spiritual being living in a physical body and I make a contribution daily as I respond to the complaints of citizens - minor complaints like my neighbor left their garbage can on the curb last night. Another is abandoned vehicles, homeless people living under the bridge, slum lords taking advantage of illegal California residents --- The complaint department of every City in the USA receives threats and compliments to how the City is being managed, governed by the citizens of the world. Taxes are paid and tax dollars are put to use to help the needs of people who cannot take financial care of their families - spiritually - with the eyes of God - with a human heart that is swollen with compassion - I respond, I dispatch an officer, and I send out the citations to those responsible to take care of the properties they own.

PAUL and NEALE are in sync and they are both to be applauded for creating a space for us to look in a mirror and be honest --- do we just pray about the election, talk about the elected, and not vote? Do we THINK politics is crap, crooked, bunk and not worth listening to? We are ALL spiritual beings in physical bodies with the freedom to think, create, vote or not ---as we are loved EQUALLY by GOD --whether we ACT, REACT, VOTE or not.

BEING A DIFFERENCE MAKER requires thought and action. Hypocrites say one thing and do nothing with their enlightnment. Spiritualist say one thing and do something. An Activist says one thing and does many things with focused intention. Each one loved by God and each one makes a contribution / a difference in politics or not. JUDGE NOT and thou shall not be judged. GOOD WORLD, great FREEDOM to BLOG whatever we THINK as a CREATION that VIBRATES and ATTRACTS to us according to ---that which our SOUL NEEDS to grow.

Joydancer

Posted by: Barbara Alley | August 16, 2007 10:37 PM

Posted by: Whitman | August 16, 2007 10:00 PM

Sorry - not into myspace.

Kinda loosing interest in this thread too.

Have a great one -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 17, 2007 12:14 AM

One other really major reason Bush Jr needs to be impeached is that every day he stays in office he does more damage to America's society, reputation and liberties and poses more risk of creating further needless bloodshed. This is equally as serious as the impeachement precedent argument.

For all these reasons - precedent, accountability & damage being done each day plus tehsignals you'resending the world - Americans need to IMPEACH Bush II.

Posted by: StevoR | August 17, 2007 1:33 AM

Well put, Mark. It is indeed hard to see how folks of any political stripe (the post indicates, rightfully, that many Democrats hew to it) can still swallow the first, "delusional" narrative.

Notice how WMD is wholly absent from that narrative?

Notice how it asserts that the whole point of invasion was ALWAYS to oust Saddam and "return sovereignty to the Iraqi people?"

Regardless of whether or not you think removing Saddam was worth our massive expense of blood and treasure, you *must* admit that this first narrative is dishonest.

That is what is meant by non-partisan. Balanced. Because it deals in facts.

If removing baddies and restoring democracy unilaterally around the world is really what America is all about, then let's see those lineups at the recruitment centers! We've still got Zimbabwe, North Korea...hey, did you hear that Liechtenstein voted to give its Prince absolute power a few years ago? We'd better save them from themselves, poor bastards...

Posted by: sangerinde | August 17, 2007 5:11 AM

Mick, do you care to make a substantive response to Mark, or just make a snide comment?

To me, Mark seems to allow that the provocative "delusional" and "immoral" statements come as *conclusions* (reasonable ones, in my opinion) reached from the disparity in the two narratives. As I suggest above, it's that disparity itself which is fairly plain to see, and ought to be considered unbiased.

You can perhaps draw other conclusions from the fact that these two narratives (one composed of forgetfulness and spin, one factual) are in strident conflict.

However, if you can offer us a lesson which explains why invading a country on weak intelligence, dissolving their government and institutions, creating conditions in which violence and sectarian terror can flourish, and then blaming them for failing to bring all this under control, is compatible with Christian ethics, then we're all ears.

Do, Mick, teach us what ethics ARE. We're obviously flailing in the dark here.

Posted by: sangerinde | August 17, 2007 7:08 AM

Posted by: StevoR | August 17, 2007 1:13 AM

The real lesson we should learn is that we mst NEVER repeat the mistakes of Iraq agian - or Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs for that matter. If we don't absolutely HAVE to go to war - if we are not attacked ourselves directly then we shouldn't invade other nations. Period.

So - we had no business entering WWII against Germany because Hitler had not attacked the US - just want to be clear on that one.

What about Clinton going into the Bulkins? Oh - the Nancy and Harry crowd cheered that one on - big time. "He's making the world a better place by getting rid of a lousey dictator". Even our own newspaper the Minneapolis Star&Sickle praised Clinton for being so 'presidential'.

Suppose Bush nuked Baghdad with an H-bomb at the start.

Never said that one - joked about turning Iraq into a big piece of glass. No Pres. would have supported that idea.

Also those repsonsible -the neo-cons, Bush II et al, should be made accountable and punished appropriately or a very bad precedent has been set.

I believe that if Koffi had been doing his job and if Clinton had not be so concerned about getting one. We would not have the mess in Iraq and the middle east that allowed UBL to train and execute 9-11. The UN inspectors were inept in my book. Excuse me - Saddam is telling the UN inspector where they can and can not look - hello???

If, say, Washington was 'Decapitated' by a similar strike or the Vatican or Jerusalem or London or Canberra (hmmn forget Canberra! ;-) )

I think that they are on the short list already. I believe that Iran will have the bomb in less than two years and they have already developed the tech. to launch a short range missle off a ship with a nuclear warhead. Any major city within two hundred miles of the coast is in the cross-hairs. (but save Canberra - I hope to get there someday)

Impeachment in the US is a dead issue. As long as the Senate is elected by popular vote - they will never have the '(you fill in the blank)' to impeach any President.

Have a great weekend!!!!
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 17, 2007 8:46 AM

Posted by: | August 17, 2007 9:04 AM

The above post is mine and is only directed at justintime and no one else.

Posted by: Whitman | August 16, 2007 10:00 PM

You got your wish -

Have a great weekend!
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 17, 2007 9:08 AM

The United States is the only nation in the world founded under the principles of and in submission to God. Which God? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Theologically incorrect and historically inaccurate. In fact, many of the founders and thinkers were hostile to the fundamentals of Christianity -- the most devastating critique of the faith I've read came from Thomas Paine in "Common Sense." More to the truth, many of the Founders were Masons; given that they were not that far removed from the Protestant Reformation that was the only way they could agree on anything.

And as for Israel being "chosen" -- God did that to bring blessings to the whole world. He never meant that as a "permanent" status, to elevate themselves above all.

All other nations in the Middle East have in some way, shape or form condemned Israel and/or called for its annihilation.

You have to go back a few hundred years to understand why. Modern-day Israel is a constant reminder of Western colonialism, which decades carved up the Middle East in a way that kept the West, mostly Britain and France, in power. It's directly why Iraq is a quagmire.

As a side note, the US is no longer leading the world in manufacturing. Asia is rapidly growing, especially China. So is Christianity there. In the US, the very opposite is the case. Conincidence? I don't think so.

You forget one thing: Evangelical Christians have never been part of the political/economic apparatus anywhere in Asia, especially in communist China -- in fact, they are a distinct minority. You can't even say that they have any direct influence. However, in this country, Christian "culture" was part of the fabric -- but it lost the cross.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 17, 2007 10:14 AM

While we could (and probably will) go on for years debating whether or not Bush's decision to invade Iraq was "right" or "wrong," there is a far more incidious issue that must eventually be acknowledged. The debacle that we have witnessed in Iraq did not happen in a vaccum; it did not just pop up out of nowhere. It is a product of a neo-conservative ideology that has infected our political system for several years and has finally festered to the point of toxicity. This ideology, inspired and fueled by the religious right's pursuit of political power and control, has propogated a destructive attitude of egocentric arrogance on the part of the President, Vice President, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, and Company. It has fostered a delusion of nationalistic and moralistic superiority that strategically identifies its "enemies" - both at home and abroad - and seeks to "convert" them to the truth, by force if necessary - militarily abroad, politcally at home. At the root of this self-serving ideology lies the presumption of a Divine Mandate - the warped conviction that their "crusade" is somehow sanctioned, even authorized, by God - that they are doing "the Lord's work." How is this different from the claims made by Osama bin Laden? Why, back in 2002 when rumors stirred about the US invading Iraq, were the vast majority of nations around the world (including the United Nations) so passionately opposed to the idea? Is it possible they saw what was really going on? While this administration meticulously conspired to deceive the American public and Congress of the truth concerning Iraq and non-existant weapons of mass destruction in order to satisfy their ideological thirst to convert the infidels, the rest of world stood by agast and horrified. The current state of affairs in the White House demonstrates what happens when perverted power, driven by a egocentric ideology and the fantasy of a Divine Mandate, goes unchecked. We have ravaged a sovereign country, unleashed the forces of evil in a culture we thought we could "convert", blamed the vicitms of our ignorance for the problems we created, sacrificed thousands and thousands of lives (not just the dead, but the mutilated, injured, and mentally devastated). We can justify finding over a trillion dollars to feed this ideological beast of a war, but cannot adequately fund our nation's schools. As a nation, we must do some serious soul-searching and face our sickness. Hasn't the neo-conservative agenda caused enough pain and suffering?

Posted by: Glen S. | August 17, 2007 11:06 AM

The United States is the only nation in the world founded under the principles of and in submission to God. Which God? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The one made manifest in the man Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago. -

John, while I respect your passion and insights, I use your earlier comment as an example of the warped ideology that fuels the neo-conservative agenda. While it is factually untrue, it certainly propogates the belief that America has a nationalistic and moralistic superiority as well as a certain Divine Mandate to go forth and make democracies of all nations in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Sorry, my sarcasm, born of frustration.

Posted by: Glen S. | August 17, 2007 11:17 AM

Yes, but these are backed by Biblical prophecies... seek out in Jeremiah where God says that the nations will turn their backs on Israel, and I shall rise up against them.

You forget one thing: Those prophecies are generally based on Israel's obedience to God and the conditional promises He makes. My favorite Scriptures are the prophetic books, and He makes clear that "if you obey Me, here's what you can expect in blessings, but if you don't you will receive the appropriate curses." Modern-day Israel has shown little bent to obey God in that way.

Is not God bigger than than the ruling parties in these countries? Because of these people who are experiencing God's hand moving in their lives, their enire nations are being blessed.

Most of those countries are dictatorships of one sort or another, and the "blessings" reach but a few, both of which Christians would consider suspect, and certainly not the Christians themselves. Which is OK with them because that's not their goal. Besides, Japan is easily the richest, most democratic and most economically powerful Asian nation, but Christians make up -- maybe -- two percent of the population there.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 17, 2007 11:49 AM

Glen S. says:

"The United States is the only nation in the world founded under the principles of and in submission to God.
....
OK so far.
....
Which God? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The one made manifest in the man Jesus of Nazareth 2000 years ago.
....
I must disagree with you on this point, Glen.
The US Constitution purposefully did not include any such statement about Christianity being the foundation of our Nation.

America is NOT a religious theocracy.
Theocracy was viewed as a great danger by the founding fathers.
The founding fathers had been witness to the barbaric sectarian violence of their time.
The US Constitution was intentionally designed by the founding fathers - to avoid theocracy and resultant sectarian violence developing in America.

It's 'One Nation 'under God', with liberty and justice for ALL'.

I believe there is only 'one God' for ALL faithful Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

And so did the founding fathers of this great Nation.

In spite of what Pat Robertson says.

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2007 11:57 AM

Sorry, Glen, my last post on theocracy in America is really for John who made the original statement.

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2007 12:12 PM

Posted by: squeaky | August 17, 2007 11:51 AM

We could have faught Japan and not the Germans in WWII - they started at different times and ended at different times. They had an alliance that was seperated by a lot of land and water and would never be able to come to the aid of the other.

'...bombed the %$#$ out of Baghdad...'

With the techo that we have today - you can take out a building and cause little to no damage to the ones on either side. Collateral damage would have been at a min. compaired to the fighting that has gone on so far. Nancy - Harry and Co. skewered Bush One for bombing Bagdad the way he did in the 1st Gulf War because they thought is was too much. I believe that Bush Two was trying to not have that kinda retoric come out of her and Harry this time - didn't work.

Tell that to Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon.

Nixon was never 'impeached' as he resigned prior to that happening. Clinton was impeached but the Senate could not finish the job. They knew that they had to face the voters and many on either side of the isle would have lost their seat. As long as the Senate has to be voted into office - impeachment will never happen regardless of party affiliation or the crime.

Blessings -
.

Posted by: | August 17, 2007 12:36 PM

Pleasant dreams, moderatelad.

Posted by: sandman | August 17, 2007 12:45 PM

We went to war because of Pearl Harbor. Stayed out for several years until we were forced in. Japan was an ally of Germany, so going in meant going in whole hog, not just against Japan.

Actually, the day after the U.S. declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 17, 2007 1:27 PM

Actually, the day after the U.S. declared war on Japan, Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S.

So - we had to go to war with Germany and Italy just because they declared it? There is a really big pond between them and us and we could have protected our shores with far fewer lives lost if we had stayed home. Didn't Champerlain get Her Hitler to sign a peace agreement - what went wrong? (could it be that bad rulers bent on world conquest can not be trusted?)

Have a great day -
.

Posted by: | August 17, 2007 1:42 PM

Mark said

To reach conclusions which justify the Bush invasion you have to distort the facts or adopt a wholly different ethical system

Sangriene said

As I suggest above, it's that disparity itself which is fairly plain to see, and ought to be considered unbiased.

ME

As someone who opposes this war , I suggest to you I do not share your delusional or non ethics of others who do not share with our opinion . Just as I just recently read that Colin Powell was only picked for his position because he was a black man by Bush by another supporter of this hit piece . . That I find is opinion based to be based in a poisin that has made our political process a sewer . No facts , just nastiness and an assumption of no ethical standanards of those we disagree with .

I do not believe a soldier who believes in his mission right now is delusional or in need of a ethics class . His commitment to his his mission I respect , as those who are committed to thes effort . I happen to disagree . I have complete confidence and belief that intelligent , ethical , Christian men and women can have a differing opinion based on truth , honesty , and a sense of right and wrong .

But in a non partsian article about Iraq , and even coming from someone who sees it as a mistake , there is much good also that has come from it , and the possibility of what was wanted indeed would have been good for the whole middle east .

Did you know that 96% of Iraqi children under the age of 5 have received the first 2 series of polio vaccinations? 47 countries' have reestablished their embassies in Iraq
The Iraqi government currently employs 1.2 millionIraqi people?
3100 schools have been renovated, 364 schools areunder rehabilitation,
263 new schools are now under construction
and 38 newschools have beencompleted in Iraq.

Did you know that Iraq's higher educational structure consists of 20Universities,
46 Institutes or colleges and 4 research centers, allcurrently operating?

Did you know that 25 Iraq students departed for the United States inJanuary 2005 for the re-established Fulbright program?

Did you know there are more than 1100 building projects going on in Iraq? They include 364 schools, 67 public clinics, 15 hospitals, 83railroad stations,22 oil facilities, 93 water facilities and 69electrical facilities.
4.3 million Iraqi children were enrolled in primaryschool by mid October?
There are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers in Iraq and phone use has gone up 158%?

Did you know that Iraq has an independent media that consists of 75radio stations, 180 newspapers and 10 television stations?

Did you know that the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened in June of 20oo4 . 2 candidates in the Iraqi presidential election had atelevised debate recently?

Your view that to share another opinion in Iraq is delusional , is a slam against every American who has sarificed his life , limbs , and service for this nation . To suppose that a man who has sacrifices some limbs has to have a new set of ethics to defend his honor for serving is pathetic . . I repeat pathetic .

It disgusts my sense of ethics .
and above all it is intended to discourageAmerican citizens and intimidate those who may speak up for our continued effort in Iraq , it was not a fact based editorial , it was a name calling ridicule of those who share a different view . It did not help us as Americans , it ridiculed some of us who are Americans .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 17, 2007 3:52 PM

AMEN!!!!!

I met a man in 1996 who worked in a Mobil gas station in Connecticut. He was Syrian by birth. He shared with me then that Saddam was very dangerous and needed to be dealt with. I asked him what basis he had for his opinion, being someone who was only employed in a gas station.

He explained to me that he was previously employed as the overseer of the three magazines Sadaam allowed to be printed in Iraq. He knew Sadaam and his sons personally. He knew things and was told never to disclose them with the threat of his very life. And these were threats from Sadaam's own mouth.

Shortly after being exposed to an incident he could not even then tell me, his son disappeared on his way home from work. He pleaded for his son many times before Sadaam.

Finally one night, he was awakened by a knock on his hotel room door. It was someone he knew from Sadaam's personal guard telling him to get dressed and to leave with him immediately. He was to take him and kill him that night as ordered by Sadaam. Instead the guard took him to the airport in Baghdad and put him on a private jet bound for Syria and was told to never return to Iraq if he wanted to live.

He asked about his son. The guard only replied with a head shake, then closed the door to the jet.

He knew Sadaam was "Very dangerous... chemicals, weapons..."

Posted by: John | August 17, 2007 5:00 PM

I don't think anyone would disagree with you or your Syrian friend that Saddam was a cruel and ruthless dictator.
But why was it America's job to remove him from power?

Are you telling us this story to justify Bush's illegal, immoral war?

Posted by: justintime | August 17, 2007 10:25 PM

Did you know?......

The illegal occupation of Iraq has, so far, cost in excess of $456 billion = $456,000,000,000 = an average of $4,300 for each American family.

A Congressional estimate puts the current cost of the Iraq occupation at $2 billion per week.

The final cost of the Iraq occupation will likely be in excess of $1.2 trillion.

The occupation of Iraq has cost the lives of 3700 American soldiers, 168 UK, 129 other 'coalition' soldiers and over 1,000 mercenaries.

In addition, up to 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated to have occurred.

4 million Iraqi refugees have been forced to flee their homes as a result of the violence in Iraq.

Posted by: justintime | August 18, 2007 12:24 AM

JohnH,

Huh--you just said a child of God disgusts you. I hope you can find at least some cognitive dissonance in that statement.

Posted by: squeaky | August 18, 2007 1:02 PM

Moderatelad said

but my assessment is that most of the people here on Sojo and I believe Wallis himself would say that even these facts are not worth the loose of life.

Well I would have to aggree with that also , My original point was the editorial was slanted .

.How do you have rational conversations with people when they support editorial bias and perjoritives because of supposed actions from a secret political circle with decoder rings from the 50's . So if a person calls a left minded person delusional , it is acceptable because FDR cheated on his wife and imprisoned Japanese Americans .

When editorialist are writing about this war , I would suggest people keep in mind of the many sacrifices from soldiers , in lives , family sacrifices , and such . Honor and respect many of theose people who have a investment of sorrow , hurt , and life from this war from their involvement . To respect that some have given the last full measure , their limbs . To call them delusional because they support their mission is wrong . It is perverted .
To point out why you believe the war is wrong or just I find patriotic . The reason we did not have a reasonable discussion before we went in the first time , is because of the editorial above . Those kinds of discourses do not bring people together to discuss , it assumes one side is anti truth , one side is smart , the other side is ignorant . One side is Godly , the other side is anti God .

I agree we made the wrong decision , show some respect for those who viewed it differently . It should take nothing away from your point of view .

Love In Christ

was a name calling ridicule of those who share a different view

Rick said
Be advised that you've been doing just that on this blog as long as you've been here

Rick .. The log is so big in your own eye you have lost even the ability to understand the conversation .

You comments I find to be often racially based with with opinion expressed as fact , that puts the people you disagree with conjunction with people having motives that are bigoted .

I believe you love God , but I have no problem with stopping any converstaion with you . I don't believe you have the ability to discuss on my inferior level . That is based in the realm of respect , honesty and integrity . When I fail doing so , I will admit that I failed , lost my temper , lost my ability to communicate my thought , or perhaps I was just wrong and yes sometimes I don't see that I failed . But trust me , most people who know me like the fact I usually will get it that I was wrong . No matter how slow .

You do not have that caspability Rick , I have an advantage , I am a human being , a fallen one at that , you believe you are the Holy Spirit. Sorry I just don't get why you think that of yourself .

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | August 18, 2007 4:54 PM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 17, 2007 10:58 PM

Moderatelad -- I know the details of the entire story and it's one you don't want to hear, so I won't give them here.

You know your 'perspective' of the story. No one out side of Bill, Monica or God know the whole story and the first two will not be truthful and God is not saying anything at this time.

Clinton's morality, or lack of same, had absolutely nothing to do with his impeachment.

I believe that it had something to do with it but we knew what he was like prior to the election and the voters still but him in the White House.

They've have done the same to any Democrat as popular as he was.

Bull! If a Joe Liberman was in the Oval Office - he will respected by many on both sides of the isle. Even though I disagree with him - Barack Husain Obama - I don't think that he is as immoral as Clinton. (either one of them) He could be in the White House and no one would talk about impeachment.

I know that you believe that Clinton did not have an 11 year affair with Ms Flowers and you would be correct. It was 10 years and 11 months - not 11 years so the answer that it was not true is correct.

Later -
.

Posted by: | August 18, 2007 5:53 PM

The reason we did not have a reasonable discussion before we went in the first time, is because of the editorial above. Those kinds of discourses do not bring people together to discuss, it assumes one side is anti truth, one side is smart, the other side is ignorant. One side is Godly, the other side is anti God.

No, your problem is that people on the other side of yourself are not supposed to express strong opinions. You're now getting it, and it makes you squirm.

You comments I find to be often racially based with with opinion expressed as fact, that puts the people you disagree with conjunction with people having motives that are bigoted.

What I'm saying is fact, but it makes the conservative side look bad and you can't accept that. I also know bigotry from both sides of the street, so accusing me of such holds no quarter.

You do not have that caspability Rick, I have an advantage, I am a human being, a fallen one at that, you believe you are the Holy Spirit. Sorry I just don't get why you think that of yourself.

I never said that about myself. But, should God allow you to live that long, check these threads in about 20 or 30 years. You'll be surprised -- I've always been ahead of the game.

You know your 'perspective' of the story. No one out side of Bill, Monica or God know the whole story and the first two will not be truthful and God is not saying anything at this time.

No, I do know the facts -- something you never bothered to check out because you hate Clinton so much. I do not want to be bothered with people who willfully remain ignorant.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 18, 2007 6:12 PM

Even though I disagree with him - Barack Husain Obama - I don't think that he is as immoral as Clinton. (either one of them) He could be in the White House and no one would talk about impeachment.

Then please explain why the Washington Times published an outright false story, later reported on the Faux News Channel, about Obama's allegedly attending a radical Muslim seminary and then tried to tie the smear to the Clinton campaign. This is par for the course for the right wing.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 19, 2007 12:19 AM

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | August 19, 2007 12:19 AM

'...why the Washington Times published an outright false story...'

Rick please - the Washington Times speaks for the conservatives in the US - I don't think so. The story has never been proven to be totally true or totally false. As for trying to tie it to the Clintons' - I would not put it past the Clintons' to have put that story out there as there is nothing so powerful and a 'victim'. The Clintons' have done so well playing that card.

As for smear - even if that were true. It pales compared to what the Dem Party in IL along with the Old York Times did to the Rep. Canidate for the Senate in getting his sealed divorce records opened to expose him and cause his children complete embarsment so that he dropped out of the race and 'presto' we have Barack Husain Obama in office. Even I have to tip my hat to their accomplishements.

In politics - Smear Happens
.

Posted by: | August 19, 2007 3:00 PM

Posted by: | August 19, 2007 3:00 PM

My post - Moderatelad

Posted by: Moderatelad | August 19, 2007 3:09 PM