For Dems only.

[Soxy]

Evangelical pastor speaks against mixing church/politics. Good read.

 

Highlights:

Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

 

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

 

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

 

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

 

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others — by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others — “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

 

One woman asked: “So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn’t we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?”

 

Mr. Boyd responded: “I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.”

[kapkomet]

Evangelical pastor speaks against mixing church/politics. Good read.

 

Highlights:

Before the last presidential election, he preached six sermons called “The Cross and the Sword” in which he said the church should steer clear of politics, give up moralizing on sexual issues, stop claiming the United States as a “Christian nation” and stop glorifying American military campaigns.

 

“When the church wins the culture wars, it inevitably loses,” Mr. Boyd preached. “When it conquers the world, it becomes the world. When you put your trust in the sword, you lose the cross.”

 

“More and more people are saying this has gone too far — the dominance of the evangelical identity by the religious right,” Mr. McLaren said. “You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people.

 

Mr. Boyd lambasted the “hypocrisy and pettiness” of Christians who focus on “sexual issues” like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson’s breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

 

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek “power over” others — by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have “power under” others — “winning people’s hearts” by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

 

One woman asked: “So why NOT us? If we contain the wisdom and grace and love and creativity of Jesus, why shouldn’t we be the ones involved in politics and setting laws?”

 

Mr. Boyd responded: “I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label ‘Christian’ on it.”

 

I haven't had time to read the link, but this snippet is very interesting... thanks for posting it.

[Balta1701]

Katherine Harris breaks House rules by receiving a subpoena and not informing Congress. Normally this would be referred to the Ethics committee as an ethics violation, but that committee is still blocked after the last attempt by the majority to dramatically weaken the committee.

[BigSqwert]

Evangelical pastor speaks against mixing church/politics. Good read.

Thanks Soxy. Great read.

[Balta1701]

How do you know when a debate ends? When Pat Robertson comes around.

 

They are defending the society. But I tell you stay in doors ladies and gentleman. Stay cool. Get fans or whatever. And the poor, they need emergency fans and ice to cool down — the number of people dead. I have not been one who believed in the global warming. But I tell you, they are making a convert out of me as these blistering summers. They have broken heat records in a number of cities already this year and broken all-time records and it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of the planet we need to do manage about it.

[Balta1701]

So according to Raw Story, former Ambassador Peter Galbraith is about to come out with a book on Iraq, and in that book he's going to claim that Bush didn't know that there were even 2 religious sects in Iraq until early 2003.

 

In his new book, The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End, Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

 

A year after his “Axis of Evil” speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq’s first representative to the United States. The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.

 

Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, “I thought the Iraqis were Muslims!”

[Balta1701]

Republican Congressman from Ohio Bob Ney, aka "Representative #1" in the Jack Abramoff indictments, is dropping out of his reelection bid. The nice thing for him is that it lets him take the $417k in his campaign war chest and move it towards his legal defense. The nice thing for the Democrats is that it sets the Republicans in that district, where we're mounting a strong challenge, back by $417k.

[Balta1701]

If anyone wants a preview of the opening of the Daily Show tonight, here ya go.

 

BUSH: My attitude is that a young democracy has been born quite quickly. And I think the Iraqi government has shown remarkable progress on the political front. And that is is that they developed a modern constitution that was ratified by the people and then 12 million people voted for a government.

 

Which gives me confidence about the future in Iraq, by the way. You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box. And a unity government is working to respond to the will of the people. And, frankly, it’s quite a remarkable achievement on the political front.

 

And the security front is where there has been troubles. And it’s going to be up to the Maliki government, with U.S. help, to use the trained forces and eventually a trained police force to take care of those who are trying to foment sectarian violence.

Cross that with the Generals testimony last week, and you've got a good start.

[KipWellsFan]

Bush Approval 33%

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060811/ap_on_...icans_ap_poll_5

[Balta1701]

A U.S. District Judge in Michigan has ruled Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered it stopped.

 

Glenn Greenwald is of course on top of it.

 

Notably, this is now 2 courts in a row who have ignored the "This trial cannot happen because of national security" defense.

Edited August 17, 2006 by Balta1701

[kapkomet]

I see how this works. Make sure you file suit in a court where you KNOW things will get overturned, etc. Uh-huh.

[Cknolls]

It is interesting, and possibly significant, that Judge Taylor was involved in a judge-shopping scandal in connection with her effort to preserve race discrimination at the University of Michigan, where her husband is a regent:

 

Chief Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the federal District Court in Detroit tried to take the suit against the law school away from Judge Bernard Freedman, who had been assigned it through a blind draw--and who was suspected of being skeptical about affirmative action--and consolidate it with a similar suit against the university's undergraduate admissions practice, which Judge Patrick Duggan was hearing. The chief judge dropped that effort after the judge hearing the law school complaint went public with a blistering opinion objecting to what he termed "the highly irregular" effort of the chief judge. Judge Duggan ruled in favor of the undergraduate racial preferences, while Judge Freedman ruled against the law school preferences.

 

 

This case will be overturned on appeal. IMO

[Balta1701]

Here's the Detroit Free Press profile of that judge. Feel free to read and judge for yourself.

 

But even if Taylor harpoons the spying program, experts said, the decision likely would be overturned by the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

"Given the composition of the 6th Circuit and its previous rulings in related areas, it seems more likely to favor national security over civil liberties if that issue is squarely presented," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. "And that's what this case is all about.

The question of course is going to wind up being whether or not the 5-4 majority from the Hamdan decision holds together on this.

[Balta1701]

What right-wingers see when they look at the NY Times (a lil' profane)

[Balta1701]

Bush on Iraq: ‘We’re Not Leaving So Long As I’m The President’.

 

There should be a rule where every single Democrat running for Congress this year has to use that clip in at least 5 ads.

[Balta1701]

Animal House in the West Wing

 

He loves to cuss, gets a jolly when a mountain biker wipes out trying to keep up with him, and now we're learning that the first frat boy loves flatulence jokes. A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.

US news

 

[Balta1701]

Rush Limbaugh decides to see how many racist stereotypes he can possibly fit into one segment, while analyzing the next season of "Survivor" (The Asians will be the smartest team, the African Americans can't swim, etc.)

[Soxy]

No words. . .

 

Rumsfeld derides Iraq war critics

Equates them with Nazi-era appeasers

 

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis

Tribune Newspapers: The Baltimore Sun

Published August 30, 2006

 

WASHINGTON -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld unleashed one of the Bush administration's most caustic assaults yet on war critics Tuesday, comparing such critics to Nazi-era appeasers and ramping up the GOP election-year attack against Democrats over national security.

 

The verbal broadside is part of an emerging pattern in which President Bush, attempting to transform the war into a winning election theme for the Republican Party, is using surrogates to deliver the most stinging criticisms of Democrats while sticking to milder -- though no less disparaging -- rhetoric on the war himself.

 

Speaking to the American Legion's annual convention in Salt Lake City, Rumsfeld warned against "moral and intellectual confusion." He said that "some seem not to have learned history's lessons" as the nation confronts new threats. He did not mention any names.

 

"It seems that in some quarters, there is more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats."

 

Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failure to confront Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. He quoted Winston Churchill as observing that trying to accommodate Hitler was "a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last."

 

"I recount this history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism," he said.

 

Bush is to speak Thursday before the American Legion.

 

Rumsfeld's remarks came as Vice President Dick Cheney was accusing unnamed critics of "self-defeating pessimism," the second time in two days he used that description. Earlier this month, Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, said Democrats were "obstacles" to national security.

 

Bush has been quick to lash out at those who question his strategy in Iraq, but he couches his objections in the loftier terms of a statesman. He recently denounced Democratic calls for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, but not before noting -- twice -- that they are "good, decent people." He told reporters last week he would never question the patriotism of his critics.

 

By arming Cheney, Rove and Ken Mehlman, the national Republican chairman, with cutting barbs and sending them into conservative strongholds, GOP strategists hope to stoke the enthusiasm of a conservative base that gives them high marks for keeping the country safe.

 

Bush's allies also hope it sows doubt among fence-sitters about Democrats' fitness to govern.

 

Democrats have worked to tie Bush to his surrogates' harsh statements. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, responding to Rumsfeld's speech in a statement Tuesday, said, "The Bush White House is more interested in lashing out at its political enemies and distracting from its failures than it is in winning the war on terror and in bringing an end to the war in Iraq."

[kapkomet]

This was a STUPID comment to make by Rumsfeld. I understand the 'appeasement' thoughts, but the rest was absolutely stupidity.

[Rex Kickass]

Olbermann talked about the speech last night on "Countdown" and said that the administration comparing itself to Churchill's British government was a misnomer. Their tendency to vilify any person who disagreed with administration policy in the war on terror is more similar to Neville Chamberlain's British government who did the very same thing - to Winston Churchill.

[Damen]

This was a STUPID comment to make by Rumsfeld. I understand the 'appeasement' thoughts, but the rest was absolutely stupidity.

 

What about appeasement do you understand?

[Balta1701]

New Enemies demand new thinking

 

IN THE LAST FEW DAYS I have had the opportunity to speak at the annual conventions of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion. It is always a humbling experience to be in the presence of those who have served and fought for our country during some of our darkest, most trying times — when it was unclear whether our way of life would prevail.

 

We are again engaged in conflicts that are testing whether we believe that the defense of liberty is worth the cost. And again, there are those who disagree with the mission, who question whether it is worth the sacrifice. This is to be expected in a time of war.

 

Today, some think that World War II and the Cold War were black-and- white affairs: good versus evil. But there were always those who thought that we should retreat within our borders.

 

In an effort to avoid repeating the carnage of World War I, much of the Western world tried to appease the growing threats in Europe and Asia in the years before World War II. Those who warned against the rise of Nazism, fascism and communism were often ridiculed and ignored.

 

The enemy we face today is different from the enemies we have faced in the past, but its goal is similar: to impose its fanatical ideology of hatred on the rest of the world.

 

In speaking to our veterans, I suggested several questions to guide us during this struggle against violent extremists:

 

• With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?

 

• Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

 

• Can we truly afford to pretend that the threats today are simply "law enforcement" problems rather than fundamentally different threats requiring fundamentally different approaches?

 

• Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world's troubles?

 

These are the central questions of our time, and, as in all periods of conflict, we have no choice but to face them honestly.

 

The last question is particularly important, because this is the first war of the 21st century — a war that, to a great extent, will be fought in the media on a global stage. We cannot allow the terrorists' lies and myths to be repeated without question or challenge.

 

We also should be aware that the struggle is too important — the consequences too severe — to allow a "blame America first" mentality to overwhelm the truth that our nation, though imperfect, is a force for good in the world.

 

Consider that a database search of the nation's leading newspapers turns up 10 times as many mentions of one of the soldiers punished for misconduct at Abu Ghraib than of Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith, the first recipient of the Medal of Honor in the global war on terror.

 

Then there is the case of Amnesty International, a long-respected human-rights organization, which called the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay the "gulag of our times" — a reference to the vast system of Soviet prisons and labor camps where innocent citizens were starved, tortured and murdered. The facility at Guantanamo Bay, by contrast, includes a volleyball court, basketball court, soccer field and library (the book most requested is "Harry Potter"). The food, served in accordance with Islamic diets, costs more per detainee than the average U.S. military ration.

 

With examples like these prevalent in the world media, I do worry about the lack of perspective in our national dialogue — a perspective on history and the new challenges and threats that free people face today. Those who know the truth need to speak out against the myths and distortions being told about our troops and our country. My remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars and American Legion conventions have generated much discussion. I encourage everyone to read what I actually said at defenselink.mil/speeches.

Reply:

In his op-ed piece on 9/1/06, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld lays out what he feels are several key questions which should guide the U.S. in its current conflicts.

 

The most notable aspect of these questions is not the fact that the answer to all of them is no, nor is it the fact that no one has actually suggested any of the alternatives he attempts to shoot down. No, the most interesting part is that in his zeal to attack his political opponents, he failed to include the key question in the entire struggle, one which he personally asked in a memo in October of 2003.

 

“Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”

 

If Mr. Rumsfeld spent more time trying to answer that question of his own posing, then he wouldn’t need to accuse his political opponents of appeasement, because he’d be doing a much better job.

 

Brian Balta

[NorthSideSox72]

New Enemies demand new thinking

 

Reply:

Very nice, sir. That question from Rummy indeed gets at the very heart of the matter, at many levels.

 

Rumsfeld is a bit scary. One of the more well know graduates from my high school. But his hawkish tendencies have grown too far to be useful.

[kapkomet]

What about appeasement do you understand?

We can't negotiate with these people, nor can we withdraw our troops now. Any talk of this is 'appeasing' the terrorists and basically giving in to say it was too tough to do. It can't happen, or they will become even more emboldened then they are already because they know that we don't have the stomach for it over the long haul.

 

Yes, it's that important.

[Balta1701]

We can't negotiate with these people, nor can we withdraw our troops now. Any talk of this is 'appeasing' the terrorists and basically giving in to say it was too tough to do. It can't happen, or they will become even more emboldened then they are already because they know that we don't have the stomach for it over the long haul.

 

Yes, it's that important.

Aye, but you see, there's the rub. The question remains...are we killing more of the terrorists than we are creating? Given how the violence in Iraq has worsened every year we've been there, and violent movements throughout the middle east have been strengthened significantly during our presence, I would contend the answer is "Absolutely not."

 

Now, this begs the question...if our current strategy is creating more terrorists than it is removing, do we have any other options which would allow us to cut into the supply? One potential method would be to dramatically expand the size of the U.S. forces in Iraq in an effort to remove more terrorists and establish order, but since this conflict is not important enough to call for a draft (and thus destroying Mr. Bush's political career), that won't happen. There simply aren't more troops to commit. Another option would be to actually have a real reconstruction plan with a goal of something other than profit, but it may be too late for that given the lack of security and the inability to move supplies around that country.

 

The only other option I can see beyond those is to start some sort of pullback. You can say what you want about how that strategy would "Embolden" the terrorists, but if it could cut into the supply of people directly fighting the U.S., who cares about emboldening them? Besides, isn't a man willing to strap a bomb to his chest or drive a car carrying one pretty emboldened as it is?