Dean Supporters- Angry or Concerned?

Dean Democrats aren't angry....we're genuinely concerned.
With perfectly good reason.
Sensationalist media are
more a distraction than they are a contribution to reason.


Personally, I'm sick to death of being portrayed as just an angry aimless hater by journalists. Are they really that clueless as to the plight of our nation today? If they are not clueless, then why are they being so incredibly intellectually dishonest?
To keep their jobs, perhaps?


Can you think of one historical example where the 'out' party has lost a presidential election "because it has come on too strongly against the incumbent"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"This is beyond normal partisanship. The feeling in the Democratic base about Bush's presidency is that he's a dangerous leader, as opposed to a bad leader."
Simon Rosenberg/New Democrat Network

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Sept 6:

**Note: I agree with presidential historian Allan Lichtman:

Mobilizing the voters

"While the "angry Democrats self-destruct" scenario has some currency among political analysts and insiders, there's an alternative school of thought.

"I don't buy that for a minute," presidential historian Allan Lichtman said of the notion that anti-Bush passions are counterproductive for Democrats.

"I can't think of a historical example where the 'out' party has lost because it has come on too strongly against the incumbent," Lichtman said.

"You cannot win unless you get your base energized and mobilized. Let the Democrats nominate whoever they're most enthusiastic for and not worry about being too strident or too left-wing," he said.

In other words, the nominee will do what all nominees do: nail down the base, then adapt for the general election.

When it comes to Dean in particular, there's another dimension to the argument. Is he a stock liberal with niche appeal or - as he and his campaign contend - is he harder to pigeonhole, with some stands (balanced budget, gun rights, pro-death penalty) that defy stereotyping and a temperament (combative) that makes it hard for conservatives to define him as too soft to protect America?

Independent pollster John Zogby said that in the key nominating battleground of New Hampshire, Dean's support is just as strong right now among independents as among Democrats - that as an "outsider," he's appealing to many non-ideological voters.

"He's not just throwing red meat to liberals. He's the John McCain," Zogby said, referring to the Republican senator who defeated Bush in New Hampshire four years ago."

From Swagger to Stagger

MAUREEN DOWD: From Swagger to Stagger

to - - >

In today's NY Times, Maureen Dowd asks:

"...Does Mr. Bush ever wonder if the neocons duped him and hijacked his foreign policy?
....Some veterans of Bush 41 think that the neocons packaged their "inverted Trotskyism," as the writer John Judis dubbed their rabid desire to export their "idealistic concept of internationalism," so that it appealed to Bush 43's born-again sense of divine mission and to the desire of Mr. Bush, Rummy and Mr. Cheney to achieve immortality by transforming the Middle East and the military...."

I only have this to say:

Being "duped" would make GW Bush even more of a dangerous leader than he already appears to be.
What kind of a leader lets himself become "duped"?
You've got it! An ignorant leader without a mind of his own.
Not Presidential material.
He never has been.
He's the worst President in American history.
I need say no more. (But I probably will say more quite soon.)

Dean supports Davis

Howard Dean Talks Sense to Californians.
We are not the United States of the Right Wing.

Article: In an Appearance With Davis, Dean Denounces Recall Effort

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
NY Times

"LOS ANGELES, Sept. 6 — Howard Dean today became the first Democratic presidential candidate to appear alongside Gov. Gray Davis as he fights off a recall initiative, urging Californians to turn back a campaign that Dr. Dean said was orchestrated by President Bush and the White House.

"This is not about Gray Davis," Dr. Dean said, as a tieless Mr. Davis smiled at his side. "This is about whether America is going to continue being a democracy or whether we are going to be dominated by the far right, to serve their own purpose and not the purposes of America."

Asked if he thought the White House was orchestrating the recall, Dr. Dean said: "Absolutely. I think Karl Rove and George Bush have their hands in this."

*How refreshing to see Howard Dean take the lead!
I believe this is only the beginning of Governor Dean showing what democratic leadership really means.
Once again, he's giant-steps ahead of the pack.

Abbas Resignation

Piteous Development in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict--
Abu Mazen Resigns

From the Associated Press:
Abbas Resignation Leaves U.S. Groping for Formula to Keep Peacemaking Going
By Barry Schweid

"...Yet Abbas has shied away from repeated U.S. demands that he dismantle Palestinian extremist groups on the West Bank and Gaza and has limited his efforts to persuasion. Most anything more substantial, he has insisted, would lead to civil war.

Nonetheless, the Bush administration maintained a drumbeat of demands that the terror structure be dismantled. Otherwise, Powell insisted repeatedly that Palestinian aspirations for a state would not be fulfilled and peacemaking hopes would "go over the cliff."

Let me say this clearly.
Abbas' resignation has caused the road map to go "over the cliff"(and over the river and through the woods.)


OOPS!

As I posted last week, the Bush Administration was pushing Abu Mazen and the Palestinians into civil war with the unrealistic demands in their roadmap to "peace". It was a roadmap to "war". Abu Mazen, a very wise man, knew this.
The Associated Press writer Barry Schweid said it best:

"....Clearly the administration and its road map partners were at a loss on how to keep alive the plan for establishing a Palestinian state by 2005 to live side-by-side at peace with Israel..."

We need to hope, pray, and act for the sake of all innocent souls in that sad-but-beautiful land.
The prayer is for hope.
We're losing sight of hope.
The prayer, then the hope, will be translated to action.



I believe a good start would be to pray, hope, and act to install an American leader with a sound, keen mind and a truly compassionate soul to match.
We have the power.
We need a President who will use that power to answer our prayers and meditations for peace in a land with which so many of us have mystic connection.

Presidential Debate

The Debate


Credit: www.cagle.slate.msn.com

My first comment would be to say that all the candidates did a great job of showing how they would save our country from the mess that GW Bush has made of it. Dick Gephart drove the point home clearly and often, saying that Bush and his policies have been a miserable failure.

I appreciated the fact that John Kerry was secure enough in his own candidacy that he did not feel he needed to attack Howard Dean.
Kerry was in fine voice and he articulated his stand on the issues with clarity.
He may have been last night's "winner", if there was to be one.
Howard Dean held his own as well, reducing Senator Lieberman to a lame retreat after he initiated an attack on Dean.

I was disappointed to see those couple candidates who attacked fellow Democrat Dean (rather than concentrating on Bush). For those who participated in the attacks, let's just say it diminished their 'leadership-aura'.

Rep Dennis Kucinich (introduced by the moderator as"Kucinchi") looked incredibly dopey when he said to Howard Dean (regarding Dean's claim to keeping a balanced budget in Vermont):
"You can talk about balancing the budget in Vermont, but Vermont does not have a military ...And if you are not going to cut the military and you are talking about balancing the budget, then what are you going to do about social spending?Hello?"
I had thought Kucinich was rather dignified in his presence until then.
Not that what he said wasn't worth saying..the question was reasonable.
It was the time..the place..the WAY he said it.
Perhaps Rep Kucinich was feeling defensive and/or vulnerable about the idea of another candidate who could balance a budget.
I'm not sure why he did that..I only know he looked rather goofy doing so.


Senator Lieberman proved that he knew he has been low on candidacy fuel.
We could see it in his attack upon Dean.
He attempted to jump start his viability by snobbishly feigning that he was "stunned" by a Dean statement he'd read.
(I didn't think it was oh-so-stunning myself).

Lieberman said:
" . . . He would not have bilateral trade agreements with any country that did not observe fully American standards. That would cost us millions of jobs. If that ever happened, I'd say that the Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression."

It sounded like a poor imitation of Johnny Cochran's "If it fits, you must acquit."
At least Cochran's statement raised rational doubt.
Senator Lieberman's statement was just a cheap and untrue shot.
We all know Lieberman is smart enough to know what he did was simply cheap.

Overall, I'd have to say Senator Lieberman was the big loser of the debate.
The DLC should turn into the Dump Lieberman Club
Hmm--what cute little rhyming arrow can I throw HIS way??

Joe is very much out of touch.
On the war, he's no Gore.
Closer to Bush--send him out on his tush.


Here's a real hoot.
Look at the headline...yes, I said the HEADLINE on an MSNBC article about the debates.
Do you think the headline is about the debate on the war?
Do you imagine it might be about corporate scandal discussion?
Healthcare?
No..the burning issue for America, according to MSNBC, is the issue of trade.
What IDIOTS our American pressroom editors have become!
It's no wonder we're so dumbed down in this country.
Those in journalism who could be helping Americans understand the issues better by reporting the relevant
points are instead reaching for the lowest common denominator.
Perhaps it sells, but it's gossip-quality schlock, pure and simple.
BOO! SHAME ON MSNBC.
Their article:
Lieberman opens anti-Dean offensive
Connecticut senator warns of ‘Dean Depression’ if trade accords must meet U.S. standards

Back to the debate.

I was comforted to see these candidates employing their fine sense of humor.
There has been so little of it in the press and from the Bush administration these past two years.
After 9-11, it seemed that humor was wiped away and replaced with fear-mongering by our Presidential leadership.
Dwight D. Eisenhower said that 'a sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting along with people, of getting things done.'
If this is true, and I believe it is, then these candidates are "stand-up" leaders! (Pun intended).
America needs to get back a bit of levity and our right to laugh ... as well as our collective sanity.

Carol Moseley Braun did a fantastic job, in my opinion. She was dignified, rational, and had some great basic ideas for restoring health to our democracy. She would make an excellent President..or a wonderful running mate.
Why aren't we giving her the attention she deserves?

Howard Dean's opening statements were concise and exactly on-point. Overall, I would have liked to have seen him put more "meat" into his reasoning on the issues. Many of his statements sounded like stumptalk rather than spontaneous reasoning.
His statement about the Bush Administration "not paying any attention to Latin America, which is the most important hemisphere in American history" was a little scary. The average voter would not know what he meant by that statement. I'm not even certain myself. I'm sure this will be going around the
right-wing talk shows today (payback for Bushisms, perhaps).

Here's the difference, however:
Governor Dean has to work on giving clearer, more precise answers....NOT answers that have to be clarified later.
Debate responses shouldn't be left to a manipulative media's assumption and analysis.

I believe that Howard Dean is truly an intelligent and compassionate fellow.
We know different about the compassionate conservative Chimp, don't we?

By the way, with the exception of Dean, they all looked pretty silly when they dabbled (badly) in Spanish.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Albuquerque Tribune: 10 BEST THINGS ABOUT THE DEBATE

1. Best barb about President Bush: "The only jobs Bush has created are the nine of us running for president" - U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts.

2. Best catchphrase: "This president is a miserable failure" - U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri.

3. Best shot at making the first tier of viable candidates: Gephardt; Kerry; former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean; and U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut.

4. Best shot at making the second tier: U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois.

5. Best shot at bidding an early exit: U.S. Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and the Rev. Al Sharpton of New York. (Sharpton couldn't make it past the rainy East Coast to take part in the debate).

6. Best job at exceeding expectations: Braun, whose calm, firm and informed presentation forced reassessments from many debate watchers.

7. Best attack on a fellow Dem: "The Bush recession would be followed by the Dean depression" - Lieberman, describing the effect of Dean's economic policies.

*Jude's note:
I recall two such "attacks".
There was either Lieberman's attack or Kucinich's "Hello???"
Hmmm..not a tough choice.

8. Best flashback: "You remember: 23 million new jobs in seven years, unemployment was at 3 percent; we took a $5 trillion deficit and turned it into a $5 trillion surplus" - Gephardt, recalling the tenure of former President Clinton.

9. Best reality check: "You can talk about balancing the budget in Vermont, but Vermont doesn't have a military" - Kucinich to Dean.

10. Best audience: Albuquerque attendees politely applauded their favorites and refrained from disrupting the debate's flow with cheers, hisses or boos.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

God Not On Our Side--Pope John Paul II

To Catholics Who Support Bush's War on Iraq--
The Pope Gives It the Thumbs Down in the 'Just-War Theory Department'

From the Houston Catholic Worker:

Pope John Paul II calls War a Defeat for Humanity:
Neoconservative Iraq Just War Theories Rejected



Just?....say....no.

Fire Rumsfeld

It's time to fire Rumsfeld

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

".....Every day, Iraq's troubles make it more certain that Rumsfeld was wrong in his assessment of troop needs. His rapid action plan brought quick victories. But just as Gen. Eric Shinseki warned, security requires several hundred thousand military..."


As I blogged about on July 11, Rumsfeld needs to go.


Give Rummy the boot!

Death of a Schoolboy

Death of a schoolboy

After years of being relentlessly bullied, last month Thomas Thompson took an overdose and died. He was 11 years old. Here, his mother Sandra talks to Libby Brooks

Monday August 25, 2003
From The Guardian / UK

".....More than 200 mourners packed St Paul's Church, Wirral, to say goodbye to Thomas Thompson, many of them children. By the day after the funeral, Sandra had received so many cards that she had to display some of them on the floor around the mantelpiece. "He was a lovely lad," says his grandmother, "and he touched a lot of people's hearts."

His mother is inevitably suspicious of the motives of the children who attended the funeral. "If Thomas had had all those friends then he wouldn't have been where he is. Where were they every Saturday morning, knocking on the door and asking him out? Where were they on the bus that morning? Where were they when my son was getting bullied?...."

Iraq War Pricetag--Winners and Losers

Winners and Losers

Loser: U.S.-- ".....A $20 million budget shortfall is forcing cuts at U.S. ports of entry that could impact security..."



~~~~~

Loser: U.S.-- Bush set to double price tag for Iraq....



~~~~

Loser: U.S.--"....Bremer himself revealed the enormous economic toll of the occupation when he told reporters that it will cost "several tens of billions" of dollars next year alone--money that will come from even deeper cuts in education, health care and other social services at home..."



~~~~

Loser: U.S.-- "Meanwhile, Taliban Terror Surges in Afghanistan.."


~~~~


Where is the winner, you ask?

Sorry.

I haven't a clue.

9-11: Bush let Saudis Run

This story should make you shiver, knowing what you now know about the quality and reliability of U.S. Intelligence
at the time of 9-11.


9-11: Thanks to Bush, it was time to say "goodbye" to Osama Jed and all his kin.
Was it the bum's rush or a rush to protect the Bush family assets?

New York Times
September 4, 2003
White House Approved Departure of Saudis After Sept. 11, Ex-Aide Says
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

".....Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin
Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today..."

"...The adviser, Richard Clarke, who ran the White House crisis team after the attacks but has since left the Bush administration, said he agreed to the
extraordinary plan because the Federal Bureau of Investigation assured him that the departing Saudis were not linked to terrorism..."

Note: Mr. Clarke's recent statements have provided the first acknowledgment that the White House had any direct involvement in the plan and that senior administration officials personally signed off on it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was far too great a risk.
Why did the President take it?
140 Saudis on 9-11.
Let go.
No questions asked.


"It's almost as if we didn't want to find out what links existed." Senator Charles Schumer

A season for sighs

A season for sighs



So, yesterday we learned that Wesley Clark is a Democrat.
Howard Dean is electable.
George Will is worried...
As he should be.
*Can you say: "running mates"?*

George Will: Don't underestimate chance of Dean victory

".....A Dean presidency is not inconceivable. Granted, it is unlikely for reasons that make it undesirable. He may not wear well with the public. If he is half as bright as he thinks he is, he is very bright. And his is no uncertain trumpet: the brio with which he proclaims his beliefs proves that he is not paralyzed by the difference between certitude and certainty.

But there is danger as well as benefit for Dean in his very Deanness. The obverse of his high opinion of himself is his low opinion of President Bush. So he probably would sigh, or do the functional equivalent.

If Al Gore had not expressed his disdain for Bush by those exasperated sighs during the first debate, Gore might be president. But Gore had to sigh. Expressing disdain of Bush was for Gore a sensual delight, almost a metabolic necessity. It might be for Dean, too. But most of the electorate would be unforgiving of bad manners toward any president...."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

**HAHAHAHA! Hey, Dr. Dean---you're electable...just don't sigh!!

Seriously, if we had known THEN what we NOW know about Bush, we'd all have been sighing.
It's said: "To everything there is a season.."
This is a season for sighs.

Antiwar protest planned for Washington

OCTOBER 25, 2003
Mark your calendars.
Antiwar protest planned for Washington

".....Organizers predict the Oct. 25 march from the Justice Department to the White House and the Pentagon will attract tens of thousands of people."

Would you like some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. President?

Would you like some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. President?
*****************************



Six months after spitting in the face of the world, the Bush administration
is crawling on its belly before the U.N. If the world doesn't rush to help
it, the White House has only itself to blame.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Gary Kamiya
www.salon.com

Sept. 4, 2003 | Let me make sure I've got this right. After being insulted, belittled and called irrelevant by the swaggering machos in the
Bush administration, the United Nations is now supposed to step forward to supply cannon fodder for America's disastrous Iraq occupation -- while the
U.S. continues to run the show?

In other words, the rest of the world is to send its troops to get killed so that a U.S. president it fears and despises can take the credit for an
invasion it bitterly opposed.

The rest of the world may be crazy, but it ain't stupid.

The Bush administration's humiliating announcement that it wants the U.N. to bail it out officially confers the title of "debacle" upon the grand
Cheney-Rove-Wolfowitz adventure. Not even the world-class chutzpah of this administration can conceal the fact that by turning to the despised world
body, it is eating a heaping plate of crow. This spectacle may give Bush-bashers from London to Jakarta a happy jolt of schadenfreude, but it
does nothing to help Americans who are stuck with the ugly fallout of the Bush team's ill-conceived, absurdly overoptimistic attempt to redraw the
Middle East.

The bitter truth is that everything the administration told us about Iraq
has turned out to be false.

The biggest falsehood, of course, concerns the reason we went to war in the first place. President Bush's recent hints that we invaded Iraq to get rid
of the evil tyrant Saddam are patently false: The administration's entire prewar argument, until it began to grasp desperately for other explanations
on the eve of the invasion, was that Iraq represented an imminent threat to our security. That was, of course, a lie. Iraq never had any connection to
al-Qaida (not even the ever-serviceable Tony Blair tried to claim that) and
if it had weapons of mass destruction -- which in any case there is no reason to believe it would have used against the U.S. -- none have been
found. (In this light, Bush's somewhat peculiar attack on "revisionist historians" appears to have been a Freudian slip.)

However, the Bush administration has succeeded in making its fears come true: Iraq now does harbor enemies who represent an imminent threat to the lives of the 140,000 American servicemen who are hunkered down there. By
removing Saddam's dictatorial regime, the U.S. turned a nation that borders Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan and Syria into a lawless, anarchic swamp, open
to every jihadi and America-hater who wants to blow up the Yankee infidels who invaded a sovereign Arab state. A G.I. dies almost every day, and 10
more are wounded, and there is no end in sight, and the reasons why are beginning to seem even murkier than the reasons we were in Vietnam.

The Bush administration is probably hoping that the American people won't notice that the invasion created the very problem it was supposed to solve.
After all, half of all Americans believe that Iraq was behind 9/11 -- the result of months of the administration's repetitive, hypnotic demonizing of
Saddam and total silence about the embarrassingly uncaught Osama bin Laden. Why not go for an even bigger lie and claim that the Iraq nightmare shows that the invasion was needed because now we see just how evil those terrorist ragheads really are?

Perpetual war for perpetual reelection: According to this master strategy, even a losing "war on terror" is a winning hand for Bush, because it makes
the world a scarier place and when people are scared they vote for the tough guys. Even if the tough guys don't know what they're doing.

The administration, which in its supreme arrogance regarded postwar planning as beneath it (that's for sissy nation-builders), never acknowledged or
even considered that the war and occupation could be messy, long and ruinously expensive -- and it silenced those who tried to warn that it was
living in a fool's paradise. When straight-shooting Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, warned that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would
be needed to pacify Iraq, the insufferably smug Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld squashed the now-departed officer like a bug: "Any idea that it's
several hundred thousand over any sustained period is simply not the case."

Sober contingency analysis could not be allowed to derail the administration's carefully timed new product rollout. The misgivings and
warnings of professionals could not be allowed to spoil the grand visions of inspired amateurs embarked on a grand crusade.

Bush said the U.N. must sanction his war on Iraq or "become irrelevant." It did not. Yet today he is crawling on his belly to the supposedly irrelevant
U.N., begging it to bail him out of the quagmire he created.

The administration said that America was so omnipotent that it could afford to spit in the face of the rest of the world. Indeed, for the ideologues
who run the Bush show, flouting our solo might almost seemed to be a sign of God's special favor. Now, having burned our bridges to all of our allies
except Britain, the America über alles crowd is reduced to sputtering in rage as the rest of the world -- surprise! -- declines to rush forward with
open checkbooks.

Had the U.S. worked with the U.N. to deal with Iraq, as Bush's considerably more world-wise father did in 1991, we would not be facing this problem.
The community of nations would have regarded Iraq as its shared responsibility and stepped forward. But by alienating the world -- and
squandering the unparalleled goodwill created by 9/11 -- the Bush administration created a powerful disincentive to even those nations that
understand the vital necessity of rebuilding Iraq. The unpleasant truth is that for much of the world, helping this shattered nation, even if
understood to be a worthy and necessary goal, now equals lending aid and
comfort to an American regime that is perceived as blustering, simplistic, addicted to violence, self-righteous, and dangerously out of control.

In a nobler world, France and Turkey and Germany and Russia would forget all those nasty things that Bush officials (and their mouthpieces in the
Murdoch media empire) said about them and send tens of thousands of troops to bail us out. But the real world does not work that way. The "axis of
weasels" is now enjoying every minute of it while the Bush regime squirms.

By insisting that any U.N. forces be placed under U.S. control, the Bush administration is trying to save what little face it has left, but also
making it that much harder to enlist the help of other nations. Moreover, no one at the United Nations is likely to have forgotten that the bombing
that blew up the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad could never have been carried out except in the power vacuum that followed the ouster of Saddam. Had the Bush administration not poured contempt upon the U.N., that fact might not have led to acrimony and finger-pointing -- after all, it is unreasonable to blame the U.S. for that vile deed. But the Bush team is reaping what it has sowed.

To be sure, some kind of deal may yet be worked out. But if the terms of that deal are more niggardly than the Bush administration would like, if
much of the world stands on the sidelines and watches the bully twist in Iraq's deadly breeze, it will have only itself to blame.

The Ambassador Wilson Affair: The End of Karl Rove – And George Bush?

The Ambassador Wilson Affair: The End of Karl Rove – And George Bush?
by Al Martin

"....(Sep 2) This is the hottest and most explosive story behind the scenes in Washington in terms of how it could affect the Bush administration..."

".....Ambassador Joseph Wilson has been turning up the heat in this situation. He revealed on Friday August 29 in a symposium in Washington the person in the Bush administration, who had leaked it out to the Washington Post that Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent of 26 years. As a consequence of this leak, her entire team of overseas assets were liquidated.

The leaker, it turns out, was none other than the notorious Karl H. Rove, Bush’s so-called White House advisor. Ambassador Wilson identified him as Karl Roverer, with the umlaut over the “o.”

According to reliable sources, as well as our own Al Martin Raw.com investigation, Karl Rove is, in fact, the grandson of Karl Heinz Roverer, the gauleiter of Mecklenburg, who was also a partner and senior engineer of Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurbüro AG. They built Birchenau, the concentration camp in Nazi Germany....."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OTHER BLOGS TALKING ABOUT THIS STORY:

ANONYMOSES

MARK A R KLEIMAN

World Council of Churches wants U.S. out of Iraq

World Council of Churches wants U.S. out of Iraq

September 2, 2003
Council's central committee says U.N. forces must take control

By Jerry L. Van Marter
Ecumenical News International

GENEVA - The governing body of the World Council of Churches (WCC) has called
for coalition forces in Iraq to be replaced by United Nations personnel.

In its statement on Iraq, issued Sept. 1, the WCC's central committee also
implied that U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony
Blair might appropriately be charged with war crimes for their "illegal
resort to war" on Iraq.

"To do this, the U.N. Security Council would have to take action against two
of its permanent members, which is not likely," Peter Weiderud, director of
the council's Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, conceded.
"But there is a need to look at the totality of the situation."

The WCC statement, approved unanimously with two abstentions, was praised by
several delegates as "forward-looking."

Among them was the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, stated clerk of the Presbyterian
Church (USA), who said he was "deeply grateful" for the statement, which he
said "gives some understanding of what we're to do next, because we have been
so concerned with trying to stop the war."

The central committee reiterated its condemnation of the abuses of the Saddam
Hussein regime, but nonetheless called the U.S. and British-led war "immoral,
ill-advised and in breach of the principles of the U.N. charter."

It called for the U.N. Security Council "to insist on the establishment of a
legitimate, sovereign, elected and inclusive government as early as possible,
and (to order) the immediate and orderly withdrawal of the occupying forces."

The committee praised the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq after 13
years, and called for cancellation of the country's onerous debt, which it
said resulted from "loans that merely financed the previous Iraqi regime."

It affirmed the inter-religious cooperation being demonstrated in Iraq, and
said the country's religious institutions must play a central role in its
reconstruction. It also urged all Christians to pray for the Iraqi people and
churches."

U.S. lays out new Iraq UN resolution

A proposal for a new UN Resolution?

It's about time!
Let's hope Bush is sincere and humble. He's made a real mess of things in Iraq....and in this world.
Let's hope it's not too late. You can almost be sure there will be intense UN negotiations to follow since Bush has regularly and ignorantly shown himself to be an international divider.
How much time is there to spare before we lose this war in shame?

U.S. lays out new Iraq resolution
From CNN's Dana Bash and Elise Labott
Wednesday, September 3, 2003

WASHINGTON (CNN) --"
A U.S. resolution strengthening the United Nations' role in Iraq and calling for a broader multinational force in the country could be presented to the Security Council as early as Wednesday, White House officials have told CNN."

Look, people...I'm just a writer in the wilds of upstate New York. I'm not a politician or a foreign policy expert.
I do, however, have good clean common sense. I could see this coming for months. If you don't believe me, go to my archives and read what I've been saying.
So many of us common folk could see this disaster on the horizon.
Why didn't our President see it?
Why didn't our Congress ask the hard questions before we began this fatal adventure in Iraq?
Did Republicans fall in blindly?
Did Democrats vote YES to give this duncecap-President the authority to make war upon Iraq....hoping he'd mess up and they would score political points?
Do you find it all disgusting?
Do you want your country back?

Another soldier has died tonight in a helicopter crash south of Baghdad.
The military says two more American soldiers were killed in a roadside bomb attack on their convoy in southern Baghdad on Monday.

This is madness.
Our Founding Fathers would die if they weren't dead already.

Bush is the worst President in U.S. History

So how much will the Iraq War cost us?
George Bush won't say right now because of the likely political fallout.
Bush will wait until the last possible moment so Congress won't have time to debate.
As usual, it's politics first, the American public last.
Bush is the worst President in U.S. History.


From USA Today Article Posted 9/3/2003 12:19 AM
Officials: No Iraq price tag for now


"....Administration officials, speaking on the condition that they not be identified, say they believe adequate funding is available for Iraq through December. Presenting the funding request in November gives Congress a limited amount of time to debate before acting.

The administration did not offer a prewar estimate of postwar costs. It has said profits from Iraq's oil wells would be used to offset expenses, but production remains below prewar levels.

Leon Panetta, who served as budget director for President Clinton, says the administration probably doesn't want to be specific about costs "for fear that it will set off a political explosion."

Other current articles:

Army Lacks Forces for Iraq Mission, CBO Warns
By Thomas E. Ricks and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 3, 2003


Frustrated lawmakers question Bush Iraq policies

Congress starts to grumble over Iraqi occupation
DOUBLE TROUBLE: Both sides of the political spectrum are engaged in a debate over whether to send more troops, while others groan about costs

Iraq occupation could cost from $8 billion to $29 billion, congressional analysts say
By Alan Fram, Associated Press, 9/2/2003 22:32

Latest Iraq threat: cash crunch: US administrator Paul Bremer says the coalition budget for Iraq will fall short by $3.5 billion this year.

Bush's Labor Day Charade
Richfield, Ohio is not convinced:



''If I had George Bush's economic record, I'd stay at Camp David on Labor Day,'' said Rep. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, whose congressional district includes Richfield. "President Bush has the single worst economic record of any president since Herbert Hoover led the country at the onset of the Great Depression", Brown said."

I'll bet the Labor Day reception wouldn't have been much warmer in Galesburg, Illinois.

Defying the Dependent Deity

Defying the Dependent Deity
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 2, 2003

"...All over the world, people are hideously butchered in the name of God, which is to say condemned to death on account of an accident of birth. (This, after all, is how most of us get our religious convictions.) Religion can have a hard time being tolerant. To many adherents, the stakes are too high.
I am at a loss to explain this mentality...
...I am at a loss, too, to explain why the all-powerful deity needs some schoolteacher to lead a prayer -- why, for instance, the religious do not tend to this matter before their children leave for class. I do not understand why a God who once smote with abandon and authored miracles that science could never explain needs a statue here or a display there to remind us of his omnipresence......"

Salem Pax's home gets busted

From The Peking Duck blog: Salem Pax's home gets busted

Peking Duck writes:

"A shocking story over at Salem Pax about a recent raid of his house by American troops. It's not that they did anything brutal or cruel. But it certainly isn't the way to win friends and influence people. It told me me how much the Iraqis must despise us.

SP is educated, erudite and urbane, probably more so than your average Iraqi. So imagine how they must feel during events like this, which are apparently quite commonplace now. Are we welcomed and beloved by most Iraqis or feared and despised? My common sense tells me it has to be the latter, in which case I wonder, how can we ever succeed there? The whole thing was based on the premise that we'd be greeted with open arms and welcomed as liberators, if not saviors. And to a certain extent, we were. But as so many of the "weasels" and "anti-Americans" feared, there was no realistic plan to deal with the aftermath. We over-reached, the most common blunder of heady conquerors."


Fellow blogger Salem Pax tells the story firsthand at his weblog. Link HERE.