Liberal Grace

People who criticize Obama must not be faithful church goers.

2008-03-18T12:12:00.000-07:00

Most Christians totally understand how Obama can disagree with his pastor but still love him.

Nearly every faithful Christian knows what it's like to love a pastor, be devoted to a church but then cringe during the sermon.

I've sat in pews and been told that George Bush is God's will for America! Yet, I love that person as a fellow Christian and it would never occur to me to denounce them.

But, ironically, many in the Religious Right are not faithful church goers.

Sure, they go to church but they aren't faithful. They stay until the pastor says something they don't like, then they march out in a huff and join (or start) another church... but not faithfully.

In my own hometown, we had a family who were highly conservative ... real pioneers of the political the Religious Right. They were high profile Christian and even ran for office but they couldn't stay in one church.

My own church was very conservative and the pastor made it no secret that he thought all Christians should vote Republican. But then he had nerve to say that Christians had an obligation to forgive Bill Clinton if he asked for it. (Matthew 6:12 and all).

That man left our church in a steaming huff because the pastor preached forgiveness!

Here's another irony: I still love that right winger.

I certainly disagree with him. I don't like him at times. But he's part of my spiritual family and I'd welcome him back to church, anytime.

That's the Christian sentiment I heard in Obama's speech today. I get it. I think most Christian's get it. Just not some conservative Christians.

I wore a sombrero once in Tijuana -- am I a Mexican?

2008-02-27T09:23:00.000-08:00

The photo of Obama in a turban plays to Americans most un-American urges.

In my photos albums, somewhere, there are photos of me dressed like an Afghan, a Mexican, an Egyptian, a Japanese, an Indian and goodness-knows-what. Am I somehow all those things? That's just a foolish notion.

It's good to dress like a local.^* It's a gesture of friendship.

So why would anyone think a photo of Barak Obama dressing like a local could hurt him politically?

Because so many Americans are xenophobes.

And, sadly, this will be the strategy that John McCain and the conservatives will use against Obama in the fall -- that's he's a vaguely suspicious brown guy with a Muslim middle name.

I was listening to some right winger radio guy who got a call something like, "I'm a Democrat but I won't vote for Obama. I don't know... there is just something I don't understand about him."

This is exactly the strategy McCain is going to use against Obama ... exploiting Americans' worst impulses. An impulse -- I might add -- that is un-American. I strongly believe that we good Americans need to call-out and condemn this xenophobic strategy every time it's used against Obama.

I condemn it even if Hillary Clinton used it against Obama -- at last that's what the Obama people counter-charged. According to Drudge, a Clinton staffer passed it to them. I, for one, never believe what Matt Drudge says. Propagandists lie as their profession.

I certainly condemn Matt Drudge for playing the un-American xenophobia card againt Obama and I condemn any Clinton staff member if they passed it on to him.

By the way, when I first saw the picture of Obama, it didn't strike me as uniquely Muslim. It struck me as local. Is it? I have Googled without any success.

The photos of Hillary in head scarf, in contrast, is Muslim specific. (Not that this is a bad thing. All the Christian women I know routinely wear them in strict Muslim countries.) Head scarves are clearly a religious symbol and often political statement in the Muslim world.

- - - - -

^* If they invite you to. Tourists often make the mistake of dressing like a local un-invited and this can come across as mockery.

2008 - the end of southern racists polluting our democracy

2008-02-05T07:48:00.000-08:00

I'm supporting Obama for the message it sends to southern white racists: YOU'RE DONE

I supported John Edwards for what he was saying. His issues were my issues.

Now I'm supporting Obama for what his election will say to America: the era of southern white racists is over.

The southern racists dominated the Democratic party for way too many decades until they became Republicans during the Reagan era. As a Democrat I said good riddance to them back then and as a proud American I say good riddance to them now... assuming that we get our first black president in spite of their hate politics.

I've heard many pragmatic Democrats express fear that a black Democrat candidate means a big fight for the south. I, myself, am spoiling for that fight and I think we can win it this year.

By the way, I'm not voting for Obama just because he's black. I agree with his positions and I believe he'll make a fantastic president.

But I do think electing a black man will be a great step in finally healing America of our original sin.

Bush Administration lie #936 and counting

2008-01-23T09:23:00.000-08:00

Bookmark this page -- Fox News is going to act like this story never happened.

Study: False statements preceded war

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

What is the reaction of the Whitehouse? TO JUST KEEP LYING!

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

This is lie 936 from this administration.

We all now know that there was good intelligence which contradicted Bush & Co.'s claims. The Bush administration cherry picked the intelligence but continues the lie that there was "collective judgment" agreeing with them.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

Bookmark or save this story: "Study: False statements preceded war" because the Bush Administration and their news agency, Fox News, will pretend like it never happened.

When the rare words "Bush lied" is dared uttered by a guest on Fox, the host will act outraged, hurt and indignant, claiming that liberals just hate George Bush. But Bush & Co. didn't just lie -- they lied shamelessly and they lied often.

In my opinion, they lied to the point of treason and beyond.

Do Conservative Christians Believe in Redemption?

2008-01-22T10:44:00.000-08:00

The "Obama is a Muslim" email reveals a cynicism about the redemptive power of God among evangelicals.

Like many politicians, Obama seems to have held back from the ugly Swiftboating he's received about supposedly being a Muslim probably for fear of legitimizing it.

This charge is zig zagging from one Christian's in-box to another by the gazillions. Perhaps you received the email yourself:

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it.

Who is Barack Obama?

Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches.

Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States , one of their own!!!!

[I've shortened it. Click on the link to read the whole odious thing.]

Finally this last week, Barak has started to speak out directly against the charge:

At a rally to kick off a weeklong campaign for the South Carolina primary, Obama tried to set the record straight from an attack circulating widely on the Internet that is designed to play into prejudices against Muslims and fears of terrorism.

"I've been to the same church _ the same Christian church _ for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the family Bible. Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some silly e-mail ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this is all crazy. Educate."

This email shows once again that conservative Christians will gleefully and glibly break the ninth commandment for cheap political gain.

This particular campaign of lies also reveals just how much conservative Christians don't believe in redemption.

Let's say the premise of the email is true (although it is not): Obama was raised as a Muslim.

Shouldn't Evangelical Christians be REJOICING that he has accepted the Lord and is now a Christian?

But no! Instead, they believe that any claim of salvation must be false and that the grip of Islam must be more powerful than the saving power of Jesus Christ.

It is tragic how the heretical politics of Jerry Falwell and the Religious Right have ruined the most sacred belief of the Evangelical church -- that Jesus could save anybody.

Huckabees second heresy

2008-01-19T10:08:00.000-08:00

Besides changing the US constitution, Huckabee also wants to change the bible.

I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian and we railed against heretics. It was our main complaint about liberal Christians... that they did not adhere to the whole word of God.

I was taught that it is heresy to either add or remove from biblical teaching. I couldn't help but think about that this week when Huckabee said he wanted to re-write the US constitution to adhere to the bible:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family."

Holy smokes! Isn't rewriting the constitution to fit the bible a heresy of American values? Of course, lots of people pointed this out.

But less mentioned is Huckabee's second heresy -- and that's reduction of the bible. As I was taught so carefully in my fundamentalist church -- it is heresy to reduce biblical teaching.

Colmes: When you make statements like that, changing the Constitution in keeping with your God.

Huckabee: On two things. The context is two things. Human life amendment, which I support and which has been in the Republican platform since 1980. And by the way, Fred Thompson doesn’t support it, nor does John McCain. And yet it’s part of our platform and it’s a very important part of our platform to say that human life is something we’re going to stand for. And the second thing is traditional marriage. So those are the two areas in which I’m talking about. I’m not suggesting that we re-write the constitution to reflect tithing or Sunday school attendance. I want to make that very clear.

But why not tithing? The bible is very clear about tithing ... certainly much more clear than it is about abortion! Who is Huckabee to add abortion but remove tithing from the bible?

Isn't it heresy for Huckabee to reduce biblical teaching down to just two items? Conservative Christians use to claim so.

Huckabee and Romney's lying problem.

2007-12-21T09:48:00.000-08:00

If conservatives are so confident, why lie?

Al Gore never said he invented the Internet. Yet the GOP hammered him for his supposed "truth problem." The irony, of course, is that countless conservatives lied to accuse Gore of lying.

Previously I pointed out Romney's fibbing about who Jesus Christ is to the Mormons. Mormons believe that Jesus is a son of a god... not the Son of God as orthodox Christians traditionally believe.

As a liberal Christian, I respect Mormons and defend their right to believe whatever they want about Jesus Christ. However, I expect them to be honest and open about their beliefs.

But Romney's "truth problem" seems to go beyond his faith.

Romney told that nation he saw his dad march with Martin Luther King.

Mitt Romney forced to backpedal over Martin Luther King claim Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney

Politicians hate the word lie. When caught dissembling, they will concede that they misspoke, or misremembered, or even that they were economical with the truth.

Now the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has added another delicious entry to the lexicon of political euphemisms for the blatant fib.

When he said that as a boy he "saw" his father march with the civil rights leader Martin Luther King – a claim debunked yesterday – Mr Romney now says he used the word "saw" in a "figurative sense".

Continuing his clarification, Mr Romney said: "If you look at the literature, if you look at the dictionary, the term 'saw' includes 'being aware of' in the sense I've described. I did not see it with my own eyes, but I saw him in the sense of being aware of his participation in that great [civil rights] effort."

OK, this is very Clintonesque of Romney, "That depends on the definition of what "saw" was.

To further Romney's "truth problem" is that George Romney never marched with MLK, no mater how you torture the English language.

Huckabee also clearly has a "truth problem" in that there is no way he never noticed the cross in his commercial. I've done some video professionally -- fast and cheap.

Even at my amateurish level, there is absolutely no way -- not possible at all -- that a big, prominent floating cross in a frame would be missed in one of my videos.

In the very remote chance that it was missed in the original framing of the scene, it would have been noticed during the shoot. In the extremely unlikely case that it was missed in the shoot, it would have been noticed and pointed out during editing where every frame is reviewed again and again and again.

In very very, highly, extremely improbable chance that the gigantic cross was missed in the editing, it would have been noticed in the focus group and executive pre-screening of the video.

In other words: Hucakbee is lying.

Not good for a minister running as a Christian.

Romney fails the honest test about his religion.

2007-12-06T10:19:00.000-08:00

Romney fibs about what Mormons believe about Jesus Christ.

First let me be clear: I have no problem with Mitt Romney's Mormonism. I'd happily vote for a Mormon if I thought they'd make a great president. (Clearly, this is not Mitt Romney.) I'd say the same for any religion or lack of it. I wish all Americans would be like me and respect the US Constitution which prohibits a religious test for office.

However, I expect the candidate to be truthful if they chose to talk about their faith. Romney was not, yesterday:

"There is one fundamental question which I'm often asked: What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the savior of mankind.

This is deceptive.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is a son of a god.

The church teaches that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are "one God" in the sense that they are one "in purpose", but does not accept the Nicene Creed's definition of Trinity, that the three are "consubstantial". Rather, the church teaches that the Father and the Son are two distinct beings, both with glorified, perfect bodies of flesh and bone, while the Holy Ghost is a distinct being with only a "spirit body". God the Father is understood to be the literal father of all the spirits who inhabit this earth and the father of Jesus' spirit body and his physical body.

Romney's believes that "god" is one god among many who live on many planets. Jesus is his son but one among billions.

This is very different than the exclusive claims about God and Jesus Christ in orthodox Christianity.

As a liberal Christian I respect people who disagree with me on issues of faith. God bless them too, I say.

However, I don't respect them if they fib and deceive about what they believe.

Constitutional niceties in perilous times like these.

2007-12-06T09:35:00.000-08:00

Using the logic of conservatives, can we afford the luxury of a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Lord help us. It's happened again:

9 Dead in Nebraska Mall Shooting

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — A man opened fire with a rifle at a busy department store Wednesday, killing eight people in an attack that made holiday shoppers run screaming through a mall and barricade themselves in dressing rooms.

The young shooter, who left a note predicting, "Now I'll be famous," wounded five others, two critically, then took his own life.

Witnesses said the gunman sprayed fired down on shoppers from a third-floor balcony of the Von Maur store using what police said was an SKS assault rifle they found at the scene.

The conservatives have scolded us liberals that strict interpretation of the constitution is simply not practical in these perilous times.

Why does that apply to Habeas Corpus and privacy rights but not to the right to bear arms?

I've never argued that the Second Amendment should be abolished -- just that it should apply to well-regulated militias, as it states.

If conservatives are intellectually consistent, they should support me in this. They want to restriction the constitution because 3,000 people died on 9/11/01. Since then, approximately 180,000 people have died in gun violence.

It's only logical: if we are going to soften any constitutional protection in these perilous times, it should be the Second Amendment. Any non-hypocritical conservatives want to join me?

Save this article!

2007-12-04T09:55:00.000-08:00

Bush & the Right Wing Media will pretend like this report never happened.

Our own US intelligence says Bush has been lying about Iran when he claims their nuke program is reason to go to war.

Bush has been making this claim, even though the report is months old.
Soon everybody will forget about this report.

Sound familiar?

The very same thing happened in the run-up to the Iraq war.

CIA Intelligence Reports Seven Months Before 9/11 Said Iraq Posed No Threat To U.S.,
Containment Was Working
by Jason Leopold

CIA Director George Tenet testified before Congress in February 2001 that Iraq posed no immediate threat to the United States or to other countries in the Middle East.

But immediately after the terrorist attacks on 9-11, which the Bush administration has said Iraq is partially responsible for, the President and his advisers were already making a case for war against Iraq without so much as providing a shred of evidence to back up their allegations that Iraq and its former President, Saddam Hussein, helped al-Qaida hijackers plan the catastrophe.

This report should have totally changed the debate in America about the need to invade Iraq since our own intelligence agencies had determined Iraq was not a threat. At the time, I remember debating with my conservative friends and they just claimed that the CIA is incompetent. "Everybody knows Iraq has WMDs. The CIA is wrong." they claimed then.

Now, of course, those same goofballs claim that we invaded Iraq because the CIA had faulty intelligence claiming Iraq was an imminent threat! It's not their fault! This is a surreal disconnect from reality.

It's happening again.

Our intelligence agencies are reporting that Iran doesn't have WMDs and won't anytime in the near future.

Once, again Bush is contradicting his own intelligence sources. We can expect that -- after a guaranteed disastrous bombing of Iraq -- he will blame the CIA for faulty intelligence.

So, save this report.

U.S. Finds Iran Halted Its Nuclear Arms Effort in 2003

And, this time, we must force the conservatives to change the debate.

The new debate is, "You lied to start a war in Iraq. Stop lying to start a war with Iran."

Who would Jesus Execute?

2007-11-29T10:42:00.000-08:00

Huckabee's answer is separation of church and state.

There was a fascinating exchange with Huckabee in the CNN debate last night that revealed his core value about applying Christian values to politics.

Cooper: I do have to though press the question, which -- the question was, from the viewer was? What would Jesus do? Would Jesus support the death penalty?

Huckabee: Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do.

(Applause)

In other words... Huckabee believes that Jesus was not a politician and what Jesus said does not apply to public policy.

Notice, also, that his answer received applause.

Troop withdrawal reduces violence by 90%

2007-11-16T08:16:00.000-08:00

Why aren't Americans talking about this instead of drivers licenses for Mexicans?

Holy smokes! A 90% drop! Ninety percent! If Bush's "surge" had led to a 90% drop in violence, no one would doubt them that the surge has worked.

But who thinks, for example, that denying Mexicans drivers licenses will lead to a 90% drop in illegal immigration, even if it works? I seriously doubt we'll notice any difference in illegal immigration, either way -- and yet we Americans have been debating this policy with the most vigor.

I'd much rather we debate someting that might actually make a difference. A ninety percent reduction in violence is a real difference.

Here's the article:

Britiain Credits Troop Withdrawal for Significant Drop In Attacks in Iraq

BAGHDAD — Attacks against British and Iraqi forces have plunged by 90 percent in southern Iraq since London withdrew its troops from the main city of Basra, the commander of British forces there said.

The presence of British forces in downtown Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, was the single largest instigator of violence, Maj. Gen. Graham Binns told reporters Thursday on a visit to Baghdad's Green Zone.

"We thought, 'If 90 percent of the violence is directed at us, what would happen if we stepped back?"' Binns said.

Britain's 5,000 troops moved out of a former Saddam Hussein palace at Basra's heart in early September, setting up a garrison at an airport on the city's edge. Since that pullback, there's been a "remarkable and dramatic drop in attacks," Binns said.

"The motivation for attacking us was gone, because we're no longer patrolling the streets," he said.

Last spring, British troops' daily patrols through central Basra led to "steady toe to toe battles with militias fighting some of the most tactically demanding battles of the war," Binns said. Now British forces rarely enter the city center, an area patrolled only by Iraqis.

The majority of attacks now target Iraqi forces, but overall violence now is still a tenth of what it was in May and June.

Please read this article and memorize the main facts. The next time your co-workers or family start debating something that doesnt really matter, (Kucinich and the UFO, come to mind) change the subject to this -- a real issue that might actually make a real difference.

Pat Robertson flip flops on sin

2007-11-08T07:22:00.001-08:00

If Clinton was morally unfit to be president, how can Pat Robertson endorse Giuliani?

I have to say, this story really chaps my hiney.

As a Democrat Evangelical, I got verbally beat up for YEARS because of my support of Bill Clinton. Sure, he doing a fantastic job as president but how could I ever personally support someone who was of low moral character. Character is everything!

Driven on by the likes of Pat Robertson, my conservative Christian friends even believed that I was morally complicit in Clinton's sexual antics because I supported him politically.

And now Pat Robertson proudly and publicly endorse Rudi Giuliani,

Pat Robertson endorses Giuliani

WASHINGTON -- Republican presidential candidate Rudolph W. Giuliani on Wednesday received the endorsement of televangelist Pat Robertson, who said the former New York mayor's promises to appoint conservative judges and protect Americans "from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists" should trump conservatives' concerns about Giuliani's support of abortion rights.

If there was one issue I got beat up more for than the "Monica Affair" was my supposed support for the "murder of millions of babies" because I supported a pro-choice president.

So, is it fair to believe that Pat Robertson endorses the "murder of millions of babies" because he endorses pro-choice Giuliani?

Robertson, does seem to realize his moral flip-flop but explains it away:

Robertson backs Rudy despite abortion differences

Robertson said Wednesday he set aside his differences with Giuliani on issues such as abortion because he believes that fighting the war against terrorists is more urgent.
"To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists," Robertson said. "We need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."

But I've been beat up on that very point, too! Here's their logic:

Abortion and terrorism: Chillingly similar

... at the heart of terrorism is a willingness to act without regard to the claims or loss of innocent human life. We have seen this firsthand and on our own soil with the events of 9-11 and countless other atrocities around the world. In fact, we maintain it is this savage disregard for innocent human life that cannot be tolerated by the civilized world.

[...]

[A] contradiction is created by abortion. We condone it personally with our inaction and sanction it corporately with our laws. We are therefore complicit in the taking of innocent human life. Maybe this explains why we as a nation are not wholly committed to the war against terrorism – there is no guiding principle for protecting innocent human life from one group of people versus another. That means to some extent we have lost our standing in this fight.

So, there you have it. If you are anything less than an activist against abortion, you support terrorism.

So, where does that leave Pat Robertson in the eyes of the Religious Right?

In my eyes, its reveals Robertson nakedly as a political operative.

Rice's wink and nod to Turkey attacking Iraq

2007-11-07T10:13:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one worried about Turkeys likely invasion into Iraq?

The news media is focused on Pakistan this week, apparently having just noticed that the country is run by a military dictator.

As one who knows a thing-or-two about Pakistan, I greatly fear for it's future. However, the events of this week are nothing new.

The other big international news this week was Condoleezza Rice's wink and nod to Turkey's Ali Babacan for an attack in Iraq.

Common sense tells me an attack within Iraq by Turkey would be a huge mess and make it much more complicated to stabilize the country.

Considering Rice's incredibly bad diplomatic skills, it's possible that she has no idea she just green lighted an invasion.

But it seems pretty clear that's what just happened on her recent visit there. See how this is being reported to the Turkish people:

U.S. Considers P.K.K. As A Terrorist Organization, Rice

ANKARA - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that the United States considers PKK as a terrorist organization and a common enemy.

"We have agreed with Turkish FM Ali Babacan that effective measures must be taken so that Turkey is not faced with terror attacks in the future," told Rice a press conference in Ankara.

In a joint press conference after her tete-a-tete meeting with Ali Babacan, Rice indicated that they discussed the problem in north of Iraq and terrorist organization PKK.

"PKK is a threat to Iraq's stability; and security of both Turkey and the United States," underlined Rice.

Now, according to the Bush Doctrine , which everyone in the Middle East is acutely aware of, Turkey has the right to preemptively and unilaterally invade a country if it's perceived as a threat.

Well, the Kurds in Iraq are more than a perceived threat to Turkey -- more than 35.000 people have been killed in the conflict with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)

There was a time when I assumed that someone as bright and intelligent as Condoleezza Rice knew something that my common sense wasn't telling me. I mean, you dearly hope that's true with out leaders. Now I trust my common sense more than the best and the brightest in the Bush Administration.

Well, common sense says that having another country in Iraq killing people and blowing things up is going to be a huge, tragic mess for everybody, including the U.S.

From the memory bank: This visit by Rice reminds me of when the G HW Bush administration accidentally green-lighted Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.

Dang commie-lib witches and bunnies! Get off my lawn!

2007-10-30T08:41:00.001-07:00

Conservatives significantly less likely to give the kids treats.

Check out this AP poll:

Nearly two-thirds of the people in the survey said their households will distribute Halloween treats to children who come to call; the likeliest to pass out goodies include younger and higher-earning people.

Seventy percent of people in the poll who consider themselves liberals and 67% of the moderates questioned said they would hand out treats, compared with 55% of conservatives.

This is a revealing statistic but I'm not sure what it reveals.

* Maybe conservatives are just too stingy to spend money on kids.

* Maybe they think trick-or-treating encourages liberal welfare culture.

* Or, maybe conservatives just don't like kids -- "No health care or treats for you punks this year! Get off my lawn or I'll set the hose on you!"

Bill Kristol: The worst pundit in America today

2007-10-24T09:53:00.000-07:00

Yet again, Bill Kristol is completely confident and stunningly wrong.

Who can forget that Bill Kristol gave the single worst piece of political punditry in the ramp up of the Iraq war:

"... there has been a kind of pop sociology in America that somehow the Shi’a can't get along with the Sunni ...there is almost no evidence of that at all"

No evidence of sectarianism in Iraq

Well he's at it again! Listen to what Kristol said this week on Fox:

Iran is the only real threat to success in Iraq

You and I may not be as smart as Bill Kristol but think about this quote for one moment.

Is there any possibility that it might be true?

Without even thinking very hard you could come up with a list of non-Iranian hindrances to peace and stability in Iraq: An invasion by Turkey comes to mind; Syrian meddling, too; Saudi insurgents fueling the Sunni resistance; and, of course, the presence of American troops and mercenaries.

Then ask yourself -- why in the world does anyone let Bill Kristol talk on TV anymore? They should pay you to give your opinions instead of him. You'd certainly be more correct than Kristol.

Ann Coulter's Heavenly America

2007-10-13T07:21:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter's dream America is a police state, locked-down to serve a political party.

Lot's of people are talking about Coulter's "perfected Jews" comment but another surprising think pops out of that transcript:

During the October 8 edition of CNBC's The Big Idea, host Donny Deutsch asked right-wing pundit Ann Coulter: "If you had your way ... and your dreams, which are genuine, came true ... what would this country look like?" Coulter responded, "It would look like New York City during the [2004] Republican National Convention.

Do you remember New York during the RNC convention?

City Police Spied Broadly Before G.O.P. Convention

For at least a year before the 2004 Republican National Convention, teams of undercover New York City police officers traveled to cities across the country, Canada and Europe to conduct covert observations of people who planned to protest at the convention, according to police records and interviews.

264 arrested in NYC bicycle protest

NEW YORK (CNN) -- In the first major clampdown on protesters before the Republican National Convention, New York police arrested 264 people Friday night during a mass demonstration.

About 5,000 cyclists gathered in Union Square Park at 6 p.m. for "Critical Mass," a monthly bike ride around Manhattan, sponsored by environmental group "Times Up!"

Police started making arrests at around 8:30 p.m. in several locations along the bike route, including Madison Square Garden -- the venue for the Republican National Convention.

Suit Filed in GOP Convention Arrests

N.Y. Police Accused of Overstepping Bounds, Detaining Bystanders

NEW YORK, Nov. 22 -- Twenty-three people filed a lawsuit Monday in federal court here, saying New York city officials violated their constitutional rights by orchestrating massive arrests and detentions to sweep up political dissenters during the Republican National Convention in August.

The lawsuit seeks to represent all of the nearly 2,000 people arrested during the convention

That's just the three articles that come at the top of the Google pile.

The mass arrests -- often for nothing more than free speech or just freely standing around -- is what allowed Ann Coulter to have her little vision of heaven here on earth: a bunch of rich whites, wrapping themselves in the flag as they joyously tried to destroy a liberal veteran.

The police had to spy-on, threaten, cordon-off and arrest thousands of people for the GOP to make Ann Coulters fantasy world a reality.

God help all us Christians if our heaven is like that!

How will Iran hit us back?

2007-10-11T08:45:00.001-07:00

The Bush administration isn't going to ask the hard questions, so we adults must.

One thing we've learned for sure: the Bush administration doesn't think issues through.

Their lack of planning for the invasion of Iraq is certainly one of America's biggest bungles of all time.

So: How is Iraq going to hit us back after Bush insanely bombs them?

Of course, anticipating Iran is not easy but I can think of several likely scenarios:

1) Collapse the Iraq central government.

2) Disrupt oil flow out of the gulf.

3) Trigger an invasion of Kurdistan by Turkey.

One or all of these things would be a serious headache for America and cost us even more billions of dollars -- yet this could be done asymmetrically avoiding a direct confrontation with America.

One thing we can know for sure: Iran is going to respond. (or do these things preemptively to a bombing)

Another thing we can know for sure: The Bush administration will claim, "This could not have been anticipated."

The New Face of Treason

2007-10-10T06:49:00.000-07:00

Modern treason puts political party and ideology above country.

I grew up as a spy fan during the cold war, where traitors betrayed their own country to an enemy country. But these days, modern American treason betrays country to a political party or ideology.

This is exactly what happened with the Plame betrayal; the Bush administration (Dick Cheney's wing, most likely) outed a CIA agent to further the neo-con agenda of invading Iraq.

Well, it looks like it happened again:

Bush administration denies leaking al Qaeda video

WASHINGTON, Oct 9 (Reuters) - The Bush administration on Tuesday denied leaking an Osama bin Laden video obtained by a private terrorism monitoring group which said the leak had exposed its surveillance methods and potentially closed a window on al Qaeda.

Private monitoring firm SITE Institute said in a Washington Post article that its years-long efforts to monitor al Qaeda communications had been set back after government agencies prematurely leaked to the media a pre-release video of bin Laden last month.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," SITE founder Rita Katz told the Post.

The White House denied it had leaked the video but said the issue was a cause for concern and an investigation would be needed to determine what happened. The office of the Director of National Intelligence said U.S. intelligence agencies were not involved.

Of course the Bush administration is pledging to investigate and find the leaker.

Don't hold your breath.

You can bet they are going to lower the cone of silence and the full truth of this will never come to light.

But we can make a pretty good speculation since this totally fits the pattern of the Bush administration that we've become familiar with: they released a piece of intelligence, timed to help their cause. In this case, it was the Petraeus report timed with the anniversary of 911 to get the maximum boost of fear.

It's time for Americans to change their stereotype of traitors -- they are no longer secret commies or money grubbing secret leakers. The modern American traitor is a political operative within our own government.

The producers of "24" need to get up-to-speed and do a season about modern treason.

Wouldn't it be satisfying to see Jack Bauer slapping around a spoiled, self-serving Karl Rove-like character?

Is Blackwater just another Militia in Iraq?

2007-10-03T06:55:00.000-07:00

Americans having their own private army in Iraq is a horrible way to start a democracy.

The details of the murky Blackwater are finally emerging and they seem sordid and horrible.

Here is a snippet form the Washington Post about an incident last week... pay special attention to the last paragraph.

U.S. Security Contractors Open Fire in Baghdad

Blackwater Employees Were Involved in Two Shooting Incidents in Past Week

A Blackwater guard shot and killed an Iraqi driver Thursday near the Interior Ministry, according to three U.S. officials and one Iraqi official who were briefed on the incident but spoke on condition of anonymity because of a pending investigation. On Wednesday, a Blackwater-protected convoy was ambushed in downtown Baghdad, triggering a furious battle in which the security contractors, U.S. and Iraqi troops and AH-64 Apache attack helicopters were firing in a congested area.

Blackwater confirmed that its employees were involved in two shootings but could neither confirm nor deny that there had been any casualties, according to a company official who declined to be identified because of the firm's policy of not addressing incidents publicly.

The Iraqi official said the driver encountered the Blackwater convoy after leaving a gas station just outside the Interior Ministry. Some witnesses said the shooting was unprovoked, the official said. He said the driver had wounds in his shoulder, chest and head.

The Blackwater employees refused to divulge their names or details of the incident to Iraqi authorities, according to two of the U.S. officials and the Iraqi official. The officials described a tense standoff that ensued between the Blackwater guards and Interior Ministry forces -- both sides armed with assault rifles -- until a passing U.S. military convoy intervened.

First of all... why are the US Military having to rescue Blackwater when they should be fighting Al Qaeda? Aren't we paying Blackwater to increase security -- not to be rescued from Mexican standoffs with the local police.

But here's what really stands out to me: The Blackwater employees refused to divulge their names or details of the incident to Iraqi authorities

What right do Blackwater employees have to "refuse to divulge" anything to the authorities? Doesn't refusal to cooperate make them outlaws?

"Private armies" are the scourge of the region. Local strong men with their private armies have a made a mockery of local police and the rule of law.

I can't imagine a democracy breaking out in a country dominated by private armies.

If America is democracy building in Iraq, it's a horrible precedent for America has it's own private army going around shooting people with impunity.

Pace thinks sinners shouldn't be in the military.

2007-09-29T09:12:00.000-07:00

Pace is selectively applying the bible to the military. This is even worse than mixing church and state.

Gay Soldiers Dismayed by Pace's Comments

Some gay members of the military were shocked that outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace repeated his personal belief that homosexuality is immoral during congressional testimony Wednesday.

[...]

"My upbringing is one that says that sex between anyone other than a man or woman inside the bonds of marriage is a sin," he said during the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing as protesters booed and called him a bigot.

I wonder if Pace's religious upbringing also taught that fornication was sin?

If so, shouldn't Pace also be calling for the expulsion of all soldiers guilty of fornication?

Here is a relevant passage in the KJV which Pace probably grew up with:

1 Corinthians 6:9 KJV (King James Version)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

I grew up near a navy base and when the ships would come in, fornication was pretty much the main agenda item of shore leave with drinking a close second.

Speaking of drinking, I wonder if Pace's upbringing taught him that was sin, too? The bible certainly teaches so.

Read on to verse ten of 1 Corinthians 6:

... Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

So, if the military should not condone sin by allowing sinners into the military, shouldn't the military ban those who drink too?

That would certainly put the skids on war! The only soldiers left would be a small minority of just the most pious Christians.

I, myself, would actually have been allowed into the military since I was both celibate and sober as a youth.

Why? Because I take very seriously the moral obligations of the bible for Christians.

I, unlike many of my more verbally pious conservative friends, believe that Christian morality is for us Christians -- and should not be codified in the military code.

But what Pace has done is even worse than mixing religion and public policy -- he has selectively done so.

There is no big distinction between homosexuality, fornication or even gluttony and greed in the bible. Sin is sin.

To lift out homosexuality as a special category of sin, would be heretically altering scripture.

So, General Pace, should heretics be allowed in the military?

Nope. No gays in Iran. That's an American thing.

2007-09-25T05:55:00.000-07:00

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gets a big laugh by claiming Iran has no gays

One of Ahmadinejad's comments at Columbia that got the most laughter was his claim that Iran is free of homosexuality:

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that like in your country. ... In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this. "

This difference in Muslim self-perception about homosexuality versus my own observation has been a mystery I've tried to unravel.

In my observation, there is more homosexuality over there than in the west.

Does that mean that Ahmadinejad is lying? I don't think so; I suspect he actually believes his claim. Even though, quite possibly, he himself has had gay sex.

It's all from a very different definition of homosexuality.

For starters, boys are not considered fully men, so sex with them is not considered homosexual.

I had a friend who had a deep knowledge of Islam in Pakistan and she believed that a very high percentage of boys -- perhaps 80 or 90 percent -- have been homosexually abused. And, just like in the west, many of those abused boys grow up be bi-sexual with a high percentage also being abusers.

Yet, with all this homosex going on, very few participants would consider themselves homosexuals. This is because they have a very different definition of a homosexual; a homosexual is person receiving penetration. In other words, a homosexual is not defined by having "homosex" but is defined by taking the "feminine" role in the sexual act.

Best I can tell, there are relatively few gays in Muslim cultures by that definition with many of those being sex workers, I'll guess that most adult-only homosexual activity -- of which there seems to be a lot -- is Larry Craig-style non-penetration recreational encounters. (I also suspect that Larry Craig honestly believes he's not gay.)

Perhaps this is something like the African American phenomenon of being on the "Down Low" where the participants generally don't consider themselves gay even though they are having gay sex.

I have not seen much written on this phenomenon had have pretty much sussed it out myself by talking with a lot of people about it. So, take it has on man's opinion. If you have a different impression, please leave a comment.

Will mercenaries derail a young Iraq democracy?

2007-09-24T09:02:00.000-07:00

Private armies operating above the law are antithetical to democracy.

We "whiny liberals" have been pointing out the danger of mercenaries in Iraq since we first heard about them years ago. Anyone with common sense intuitively understands that it's a bad idea to have outside-the-law private armies in a country where we're trying to establish rule of law.

Blackwater's alleged practice of "shoot first, ask no questions later" is not how free and democratic cultures are run.

Another concern is who are the mercenaries. People who bear arms for big bucks are bad ambassadors for America -- especially to a society learning how to be free. I apologize to all Blackwater employees for saying this but I firmly believe it.

This is in contrast to a regular army made up of citizens who are disciplined, fighting according to military code and international treaties. Most importantly they are motivated by a sense of service and patriotism rather than profit.

As I've understood them, mercenary armies are typically a hodgepodge of nationalities recruiting anyone who will carry a gun and kill for money, putting profit above patriotism.

The Iraq contracted mercenaries are a little different because they claim some patriotism but I've heard more than a few finally admit they went over there out of patriotism but now it's all about the money.

Not long after 911, I met a mercenary in Dubai who was on his way to Afghanistan. As a pacifist I'm fascinated by people so opposite of me. We were driving together and he had enough time to tell me about his assignment and his motivations for doing it.

He made no mention of freedom, justice or democracy. He was in it for thrills and money. Period.

I should also mention that he was exiled Afrikaans South African.

I suspect that mercenary "contractors" tend to attract these kind of unsavory characters. The stories this week reminds me of earlier reports that Blackwater was recruiting soldiers from South Africa and other previously anti-democratic places like Pinochet's Chili.

Mercenaries 'R' Us

With the casualty toll ticking ever upward and troops stretched thin on the ground, the Bush administration is looking to mercenaries to help control Iraq. These soldiers-for-hire are veterans of some of the most repressive military forces in the world, including that of the former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and South Africa's apartheid regime.

In February, Blackwater USA, a North Carolina-based Pentagon contractor, began hiring former combat personnel in Chile, offering them up to $4,000 a month to guard oil wells in Iraq. The company flew the first batch of 60 former commandos to a training camp in North Carolina. These recruits will eventually wind up in Iraq where they will spend six months to a year.

"We scour the ends of the earth to find professionals -- the Chilean commandos are very, very professional and they fit within the Blackwater system," Gary Jackson, the president of Blackwater USA, told the Guardian.

[...]

Apart from Chile, the other popular source for military recruits is South Africa. The United Nations recently reported that South Africa "is already among the top three suppliers of personnel for private military companies, along with the UK and the US." There are more than 1,500 South Africans in Iraq today, most of whom are former members of the South African Defense Force and South African Police.

This dependence on "contractors" is just another spectacularly bad neo-con idea. There are just something you shouldn't outsource and your military is one of them.

If the Iraq war is going so well... who needs Blackwater?

2007-09-23T16:56:00.000-07:00

Bush and McCain should use Iraq armed forces for their security if Iraq is going so great.

If, as Bush claims, "Absolutely we're winning. Al Qaeda is on the run." then he should have no problem using Iraqi security forces to protect him on his visits.

The same for McCain who claims Americans can walk safely in Baghdad. If so, then let him prove his claim by relying on Iraqi security forces.

GOP candidates running from Jesus

2007-06-06T21:14:00.000-07:00

Bush ran so hard on his relationship with God and then failed so mersabley, the GOP candidates now seem to be running from Jesus.

Of the sound bites I heard from the GOP presidential debate, the one where McCain reminded everybody that immigrants are God's children, was the most Christian.

McCain defends immigration bill

The most Christian thing I heard said, yet the conservatives Christian are going to hammer McCain for it. Don't those guys read their bibles?

I just want to remind people that the bible says WAY MORE about welcoming the immigrant than it does about homosexuality and abortion.