Replies to post #44102 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[migo]

very good article.
this underscores the rift in the country, and why the "healing" is such a hard process. There are too many making hay on rhe pain and suffering of others: whether it is in the domain of religion or politics. viz. the GWOT


The holy blitz rolls on


Pastor Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church
AP file photo

The Christian right is a "deeply anti-democratic movement" that gains force by exploiting Americans' fears, argues Chris Hedges. Salon talks with the former New York Times reporter about his fearless new book, "American Fascists."

By Michelle Goldberg

Jan. 08, 2007 | Longtime war correspondent Chris Hedges, the former New York Times bureau chief in the Middle East and the Balkans, knows a lot about the savagery that people are capable of, especially when they're besotted with dreams of religious or national redemption. In his acclaimed 2002 book, "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning ...

[bulldzr]

F6, Thanks for sharing that article, though I have too many relatives and old friends to send it too...

[F6]

Battle of the Bushes


A Salon photo composite of George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush.
Photos: AP

The battle lines between father and son were drawn. In the balance hung policies that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people and change the global balance of power for years to come.

Editor's note: This is Part 1 of an excerpt from "The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America's Future." Parts 2 and 3 will follow on Nov. 8 and 9. For more information on the book, visit http://www.craigunger.com/

By Craig Unger

Nov. 7, 2007 | It was a cool, crisp day in the spring of 2004 -- a rarity for Houston -- and George H.W. Bush chatted with a friend in his office suite on Memorial Drive. Tall and trim, his hair graying but by no means white, the former president was a few weeks shy of his eightieth birthday -- it would take place on June 12, to be exact -- and he was racing toward that milestone with the vigor of a man thirty years younger. In addition to golf, tennis, horseshoes, and his beloved Houston Astros, Bush's near-term calendar was filled with dates for fishing for Coho salmon in Newfoundland, crossing the Rockies by train, and trout fishing in the River Test in Hampshire, England. He still prowled the corridors of power from London to Beijing. He still lectured all over the world. And, as if that weren't enough, he was planning to commemorate his eightieth with a star-studded two-day extravaganza, culminating with him skydiving from thirteen thousand feet over his presidential library in College Station, Texas. All the celebratory fervor, however, could not mask one dark cloud on the horizon. The presidency of his son, George W. Bush [ http://dir.salon.com/topics/george_w_bush/ ], was imperiled.

One way of examining the growing crisis could be found in the prism of the elder Bush's relationship with his son, a relationship fraught with ancient conflicts, ideological differences, and their profound failure to communicate with each other. On many levels, the two men were polar opposites with completely different belief systems. An old-line Episcopalian, Bush 41 had forged an alliance with Christian evangelicals during the 1988 presidential campaign because it was vital to winning the White House. But the truth was that real evangelicals had always regarded him with suspicion -- and he had returned the sentiment.

But Bush 43 was different. A genuine born-again Christian [ http://dir.salon.com/topics/christianity/ ] himself, he had given hundreds of evangelicals key positions in the White House, the Justice Department, the Pentagon, and various federal agencies. How had it come to pass that after four generations of Bushes at Yale, the family name now meant that progress, science, and evolution were out and stopping embryonic stem cell research was in? Why was his son turning back the hands of time to the days when Creationism held sway?

But this was nothing compared to the Iraq War [ http://dir.salon.com/topics/iraq_war/ ] and the men behind it. George H.W. Bush was a genial man with few bitter enemies, but his son had managed to appoint, as secretary of defense no less, one of the very few who fit the bill -- Donald Rumsfeld [ http://dir.salon.com/topics/donald_rumsfeld/ ]. Once Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney [ http://dir.salon.com/topics/dick_cheney/ ] took office, the latter supposedly a loyal friend, they had brought in one neoconservative policy maker after another to the Pentagon, the vice president's office, and the National Security Council. In some cases, these were the same men who had battled the elder Bush when he was head of the CIA in 1976. These were the same men who fought him when he decided not to take down Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. Their goal in life seemed to be to dismantle his legacy.

Which was exactly what was happening -- with his son playing the starring role. A year earlier, President George W. Bush, clad in fighter-pilot regalia, strode triumphantly across the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, a "Mission Accomplished" banner at his back -- the Iraq War presumably won. But the giddy triumphalism of Operation Shock and Awe had quickly faded. America had failed to form a stable Iraqi government. With Baghdad out of control, sectarian violence was on the rise. U.S. soldiers were becoming occupiers rather than liberators. Coalition forces were torturing prisoners [ http://www.salon.com/news/abu_ghraib/2006/03/14/introduction/ ]. As for Saddam's vast stash of weapons of mass destruction -- the stated reason for the invasion -- none had been found.

Bush 41 had always told his son that it was fine to take different political positions than he had held. If you have to run away from me, he said, I'll understand. Few things upset him. But there were limits. He was especially proud of his accomplishments during the 1991 Gulf War, none more so than his decision, after defeating Saddam in Kuwait, to refrain from marching on Baghdad to overthrow the brutal Iraqi dictator. Afterward, he wrote about it with coauthor Brent Scowcroft, his national security adviser, in "A World Transformed," asserting that taking Baghdad would have incurred "incalculable human and political costs," alienated allies, and transformed Americans from liberators into a hostile occupying power, forced to rule Iraq with no exit strategy. His own son's folly had confirmed his wisdom, he felt.

But now his son had not only reversed his policies, he had taken things a step further. "The stakes are high ..." the younger Bush told reporters on April 21. "And the Iraqi people are looking -- they're looking at America and saying, are we going to cut and run again?"

The unspoken etiquette of the Oval Office was that sitting and former presidents did not attack one another. "Cut and run" was precisely the phrase Bush 43 used to taunt his Democratic foes, but this time he had used it to take a swipe at his old man. Having returned recently from the Masters Golf Tournament in Augusta, Georgia, the elder Bush was eagerly looking forward to his celebrity-studded birthday bash in June. But, to his dismay, the media didn't miss his son's slight of him. On CNN, White House correspondent John King characterized the president's speech as an apparent "criticism of his father's choice at the end of the first Gulf War." Thanks to a raft of election season books, the press was asking questions about whether there was a rift between father and son.

So on that brisk spring day, a friend of Bush 41's dropped by the Memorial Drive offices and asked the former president how he felt about his son's controversial remarks. The elder Bush was stoic and taciturn as usual. But it was clear that he was not merely insulted or offended -- his son's remark had struck at the very heart of his pride. "I don't know what the hell that's about," George H.W. Bush said, "but I'm going to find out. Scowcroft is calling him right now."

The battle lines between father and son had been drawn even before the Iraq War started -- a discreet, sub-rosa conflict that was both deeply personal and profoundly political. In the balance hung policies that would kill and maim hundreds of thousands of people, create millions of refugees, destabilize a volatile region that contained the largest energy deposits on the planet, and change the geostrategic balance of power for years to come.

Ultimately, it was the greatest foreign policy disaster in American history -- one that could result in the end of American global supremacy.

The two men shared overlapping résumés -- schooling at Andover and Yale, membership in Skull and Bones, and an affinity for Texas and the oil business. But that's about where the similarities end. From the privileged confines of Greenwich, Connecticut, where he was raised, to Walker's Point, the Bush family summer compound in Kennebunkport where his family golfed and ate lobster on the rugged Maine coast, to the posh River Oaks section of Houston after they settled in Texas, George H.W. Bush epitomized a blue-blooded, old money, Eastern establishment ethos that was abhorrent to the Bible Belt. By contrast, his son had been a fish out of water among the Andover and Yale elite, and scurried back to the West Texas town of Midland after graduating from the Harvard Business School. Nothing made him happier than clearing brush off the Texas plains.

People who knew both men tended to favor the father. "Bush senior finds it impossible to strut, and Bush junior finds it impossible not to," said Bob Strauss, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who served as ambassador to Moscow under Bush 41 and remained a loyal friend. "That's the big difference between the two of them."

More profoundly, they epitomized two diametrically opposed forces. On one side was the father, George H.W. Bush, a realist and a pragmatist whose domestic and foreign policies fit comfortably within the age-old American traditions of Jeffersonian democracy. On the other was his son George W. Bush, a radical evangelical poised to enact a vision of American exceptionalism shared by the Christian Right [ http://dir.salon.com/topics/christian_right/ ], who saw American destiny as ordained by God, and by neoconservative ideologues, who believed that America's "greatness" was founded on "universal principles" that applied to all men and all nations -- and gave America the right to change the world.

And so an extraordinary constrained nonconversation of sorts between father and son had ensued. Real content was expressed only via surrogates. In August 2002, more than seven months before the start of the Iraq War, Brent Scowcroft, a man of modest demeanor but of great intellectual resolve, was the first to speak out. At seventy-seven, Scowcroft conducted himself with a self-effacing manner that belied his considerable achievements. Ever the loyal retainer, he was the public voice of Bush 41, which meant he had the tacit approval of the former president. "They are two old friends who talk every day," says Bob Strauss. "Scowcroft knew it wouldn't terribly displease his friend."

Well aware that war was afoot, Scowcroft had tried to head it off with an August 15, 2002, Wall Street Journal op-ed piece titled "Don't Attack Saddam" and TV interviews. As a purveyor of the realist school of foreign policy, and as a protégé of Henry Kissinger, Scowcroft believed that idealism should take a backseat to America's strategic self-interest, and his case was simple. "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations," he wrote, "and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks." To attack Iraq, while ignoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he said, "could turn the whole region into a cauldron and, thus, destroy the war on terrorism." A few days later, former secretary of state James Baker, who had carefully assembled the massive coalition for the Gulf War in 1991, joined in, warning the Bush administration that if it were to attack Saddam, it should not go it alone.

On one side, aligned with Bush 41, were pragmatic moderates who had served at the highest levels of the national security apparatus -- Scowcroft, Baker, former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger, and Colin Powell, with only Powell, as the sitting secretary of state, having a seat at the table in the new administration. On the other side, under the younger George Bush, were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Advisory Board Committee -- all far more hawkish and ideological than their rivals.

Of course, both Scowcroft and Baker would have preferred to give their advice to the young president directly rather than through the media, and as close friends to Bush senior for more than thirty years, that should not have been difficult. After all, Scowcroft's best friend was the president's father, his close friend Dick Cheney was vice president, and Scowcroft counted National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen Hadley among his protégés. And James Baker had an even more storied history with the Bushes.

"Am I happy at not being closer to the White House?" Scowcroft asked. "No. I would prefer to be closer. I like George Bush personally, and he is the son of a man I'm just crazy about."

But in the wake of Scowcroft's piece in the Journal, both men were denied access to the White House. When the elder Bush tried to intercede on Scowcroft's behalf, he met with no success. "There have been occasions when Forty-one has engineered meetings in which Forty-three and Scowcroft are in the same place at the same time, but they were social settings that weren't conducive to talking about substantive issues," a Scowcroft confidant told The New Yorker.

Meanwhile, Bush senior did not dare tell his son that he shared Scowcroft's views. According to the Bushes' conservative biographers, Peter and Rochelle Schweizer, family members could see his torment. When his sister, Nancy Ellis, asked him what he thought about his son's plan for the war, Bush 41 replied, "But do they have an exit strategy?"

In direct talks between father and son, however, such vital policy issues were verboten. "[Bush senior is] so careful about his son's prerogatives that I don't think he would tell him his own views," a former aide to the elder Bush told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. When the Washington Post's Bob Woodward told Bush 43 that it was hard to believe he had not asked his father for advice about Iraq, the president insisted the war was never discussed. "If it wouldn't be credible," Bush added, "I guess I better make something up."

Likewise, friends who saw them together found that they had absolutely nothing to say to each other on matters of vital national importance. "I was curious to see how they related to one another, and I'll be damned," said Bob Strauss, who shared an intimate dinner with them in the White House. "They never discussed the war, never discussed politics. We talked about social things, friendships, what was going on back in Texas. It was like a couple of old friends just gossiping about the past."

About the writer
Craig Unger is the New York Times bestselling author of "House of Bush, House of Saud" and a frequent analyst on CNN, ABC Radio, Air America, "The Charlie Rose Show," NBC's "Today" show and other broadcast outlets. He has written for the New Yorker, Esquire and many other publications and is currently a contributing editor at Vanity Fair. He lives in New York, where he is a fellow at the Center on Law and Security at NYU's School of Law.

Copyright ©2007 Salon Media Group, Inc.

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/11/07/house_of_bush/index.html

[F6 note -- in addition to (items linked in) the post to which this post is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also in particular (items linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24462047 and preceding (and following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24438220 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24084529 and preceding (and following);
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24074072 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=23914832 and preceding and following; and
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2716969 and following]

[F6]

"The Greatest Story Ever Told"

ZEITGEIST, The Movie - Official Release - Part 1 of 3

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5216975979627863972 [view at this link]

----------

GMP
26 min 20 sec - Jun 26, 2007
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com

This section explores the little known foundations of the Cult of Equinoctial Christolatry (Christianity) which, unannounced to most, rests in the astrotheological belief systems of the ancient world.

The complete source list for Part 1 and the entire Zeitgeist Production can be found here:
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm

For further research online regarding the subject of Part 1, articles by Archarya S (a consultant for this section) are highly recommended.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Full Film Here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331

----------

[F6 note -- in addition to (items linked in) the post to which this post is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also in particular (items linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=25150920 (and preceding) (. . .) and following; and
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=7580754 AND (the MANY) preceding and following]

[F6]

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Bob Moser
posted March 6, 2008 (March 24, 2008 issue)

Longwood, Florida

On the late-January Sunday before this state's decisive Republican primary, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee got praised and blessed and prayed over during morning services at one of the biggest conservative megachurches in the political swing region of Central Florida, Orlando's 14,000-member First Baptist. In a time when the much-ballyhooed evangelical political machine shows unmistakable signs of flying apart and scattering in uncertain directions, here was a momentary return to the old order. Here was Pastor David Uth doing just what an evangelical megaminister is supposed to do--anointing the nearest thing to a theocratic candidate as the more or less official choice of his church, while simultaneously sending the not so subtle signal that has issued forth from the nation's pulpits for three decades now: Christians vote Republican.

But while Uth was reinforcing that well-worn commandment, his encomium of Huckabee had something fresh about it. Rather than emphasize the governor's Dark Age convictions on culture-war issues, or his wild-eyed pledge to amend the Constitution in the Lord's image, Uth told a story dating from the civil rights era. His father had tried to integrate his Baptist flock in Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and, to make a long story short, the Uths got run out of town by the Klan. But the elder Pastor Uth was followed in the Pine Bluff pulpit by a young Mike Huckabee, who successfully "broke the race barrier." His admiration for the candidate, Uth said, stems from their common conviction that if the church "isn't for everybody, it isn't for anybody."

If this wasn't exactly revolutionary talk--and if Huckabee hadn't exactly run the kind of inclusive campaign Uth's anecdote suggests--the change in tone is characteristic of the sharp, surprising turn evangelical politics is taking. Even if you're endorsing Huckabee, it seems, you're duty-bound in 2008 to find a broad-minded rationale for doing it.

Just four years ago, when unprecedented turnout by born-again "values voters" was credited with ensuring George W. Bush's re-election, the political face of evangelicalism was Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, screeching red-faced to football-sized crowds about gay marriage as "the Waterloo," "Gettysburg" and a force that "will destroy the earth." Now the Moral Majority generation of Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Phyllis Schlafly, the folks who fired up politically apathetic born-again Christians in the 1970s by declaring war on public schools, abortion rights, gay rights and "liberalism," has lost its grip on the movement--partly by refusing to expand their agendas to suit a rising generation of younger evangelicals who care more about global warming than winning elections for corporate Republicans, more about combating poverty than denouncing homosexuality. With one-quarter of Americans identifying themselves as evangelicals--about 4 percent more than those who say they're mainline Protestants--the political stakes could hardly be higher. But the political upshot could hardly be murkier.

Twenty miles up the road, deep in the suburbs of Seminole County, a more thoroughgoing departure from Moral Majority-style politics is on display that same Sunday at Northland, Central Florida's cutting-edge megachurch. More than 12,000 folks--mostly middle-class, mostly white--praise Him here at four elaborately choreographed services each weekend. They're drawn not only by the rock-concert atmospherics and full-service approach (preschool, childcare, coffee bar) but also by the genial magnetism and post-religious-right message of the Rev. Joel Hunter.

And what, pray tell, does "post-religious-right" mean, exactly? In Northland's case, on this critical political Sunday, it means that almost nothing is said about politics. During his opening announcements, director of student ministries Sean Cooper, a lanky 34-year-old in slim-fitting prewashed jeans, encourages first-time voters to "believe in the process that God has called this country to." That's as political as it gets. Cooper segues into the four-piece house band, which ably thumps its way through two trippy tunes of U2-inspired praise rock, both tied to Hunter's equally trippy theme for the day: "Beautiful Collision." The concept comes from liberal theologian N.T. Wright, who observed that the purpose of Jesus' work was to bring heaven to earth, resulting in inevitable "explosions." Materializing onstage, Hunter kicks off his message by proclaiming: "They say at the birth of the universe, there was a big bang. I can believe it!"

It's impossible to imagine Jerry Falwell opening an election week sermon quite like this--and with an implicit embrace of a scientific fundamental, for goodness' sakes. But, then, Hunter's chief aim is to crack open the closed minds of his fellow conservatives. "He's the only evangelical pastor I've ever heard call on his congregation to donate during an NPR pledge drive," says Mark Pinsky, the Orlando Sentinel's religion writer, who has followed Hunter's ascendancy for more than a decade. "Certainly the only one who references Foreign Affairs in his sermons--I mean, I don't read Foreign Affairs."

Hunter clearly relishes kicking against his parishioners' limits, intellectually, spiritually and politically. On election Sunday, his sermon is chock-full of reminders that this is not your grandfather's evangelicalism. He makes a playful break from hidebound literalism: "There were twelve apostles," he says at one point, interrupting himself to add, "maybe a few more than that. Maybe a hundred." He distances himself from the feel-good Christianity of prosperity preachers: "A lot of times life doesn't get better" when a person accepts Christ, he says. "It's hard. Things become not clearer but more complicated." And he embraces mainstream culture, informing the folks that he's agreed to an interview on The Colbert Report. "Anybody can be on a religion channel," he says. "But when Christians are on the news channel, on the Comedy Channel, we're out there where God is.... What we're interested in is taking the Bible out of these rooms."

Like Purpose-Driven Life author and pastor Rick Warren and the Rev. Bill Hybels, who heads the 12,000-church Willow Creek network, the 59-year-old Hunter has vaulted to national prominence as a frontman for the new wave of evangelicalism--a fast-spreading movement intent on expanding the scope of Christian politics beyond the Falwell/Dobson generation's obsessions. "You've gotta go back to the re-engagement of Christian activism in the '70s," Hunter tells me later, to understand how the movement took the form it did. "All of these new things had started happening with the cultural shift and the free sex, and abortion, and taking prayer out of the schools.... There arose some real reaction, and it was really negative, very protectionistic." The political push for "moral values," he says, "wasn't bad. But I think there was a fixation on a very narrow agenda, a very self-centered agenda.... It was a very kind of paranoid language and still is to this day, partly because that's the easiest way to mobilize people and raise money." But it's not the end of the story, Hunter said. "You start tilting toward, 'Wait a minute. Are we just against stuff, or are we actually for something? Can we really build something good instead of just being against something bad?'"

What this "something good" might add up to, particularly when it comes to politics, is anybody's guess. At Northland on this election Sunday, the clues are decidedly mixed. When he finally gets to politics, Hunter asks the congregation to consider signing the petition for a statewide referendum on gay marriage. And then, having reverted momentarily to classic Christian-right politics (though not of the red-faced variety), Hunter offers one last reminder of how things are evolving. Go vote on Tuesday, he says. But don't expect your pastor to tell you how, or for whom. "I don't care who you vote for," Hunter says, shrugging theatrically. "Vote your values. Vote what you think Jesus' values would be." He laughs. "As close as you can get!"

In the grim days after the 2004 elections, when the religious right was basking in the credit for an unlikely Republican triumph, I asked the Rev. Mel White, a former ghostwriter and filmmaker for Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and Billy Graham who now leads the LGBT rights group Soulforce, what progressives and Democrats could do to reach out to evangelical voters. It has to involve a message that emphasizes what the two sides have in common, White said: "We forget that Jesus was intent on liberating us from materialism--while fundamentalists are all about materialism. Jesus' message was: 'Sell everything you have; give your money to the poor; take up your cross and follow me.' The real Jesus calls us to justice and mercy." But while "the Republican Party has framed all the issues in moral terms, the Democrats have framed the issues mostly in economic terms," said liberal evangelist Tony Campolo. They haven't been asking voters to see "moral values" in social terms, rather than those of personal morality.

The social gospel has been taken up in this campaign by Barack Obama and John Edwards, who have spoken often about the deep influence their personal faith has on shaping their progressive politics. But, as White cautioned me then, there is only so much that the Democrats can do about changing evangelicals' minds and hearts. "Only people of faith can take on people of faith who've gone nuts," White said.

None of the rising generation of evangelical leaders have been more outspoken, and for longer, than Joel Hunter. In 1988, when Northland was still meeting in a skating rink, he became alarmed by Pat Robertson's campaign for President and penned a warning tract called Right Wing, Wrong Bird, observing rather bracingly that "Christians have this image of just being raving lunatics; and in some respects, it is well-deserved." Hunter exhorted evangelicals to think for themselves, to look past the culture-war issues that had come to define Christian politics.

At the time, Hunter's dissenting voice was drowned out by the media-amplified cacophony of the Falwells, Dobsons and Robertsons. But by 2006, when Hunter mounted his most audacious challenge to the religious-right hierarchy, new voices were being heard. There was the Rev. Jim Wallis, whose book tour for God's Politics turned into a Christian left mini-revival. There was Gregory Boyd, losing 1,000 congregants in his St. Paul megachurch after delivering a series of six "Cross and the Sword" sermons decrying Christian-right imperialism in the frankest terms: "Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn't bloody and barbaric," Boyd said. "I am sorry to tell you that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and hope of the world is Jesus Christ." There was former rock guitarist Rob Bell, "revolutionary" leader of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, preaching a Bible-centered social gospel for young evangelicals while poking the Christian right in its tenderest spot: "Religious people killed Jesus because he threatened their system. So what they say is faith is actually fear...it is fear that is rooted in ignorance and, actually, a lack of faith."

Hunter took a flying leap of faith in 2006, when he signed on to the unlikely challenge of reviving the debt-plagued, internally divided Christian Coalition. The episode made headlines when he resigned before officially assuming the post. He says he made clear his intention to refocus the coalition toward "compassion issues," but once rank-and-file coalition stalwarts got wind of Hunter's blunt opinions about religious-right excesses, his opposition to the death penalty and support for a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, his backing withered. Hunter now wonders, "Man, what was I thinking?" But, he says, "I was curious as to whether or not any of the traditional hard-right organizations could really expand the agenda."

He got his answer. But the story made great copy, and it turned Hunter into a symbol of the generational clash in evangelical politics. In 2007 the National Association of Evangelicals asked him to star in a thirty-second "Creation Care" commercial promoting its Evangelical Climate Initiative. "Did you know that evangelical leaders are telling us that global warming must be stopped because it will bring more devastating floods, droughts and disease?" Hunter asks in the spot. It sounded meek enough, but it set off a major fuss among traditionalists--Dobson, Gary Bauer et al.--who sent the NAE a strongly worded letter of objection, clearly fearing an ignominious retreat toward the gentle social gospel of mainline Protestantism. Hunter, who'd gotten death threats after publicly supporting an independent Palestine, was still surprised at the blowback against Creation Care. "It was, 'You're un-American. You hate America because you believe America ought to do things.'"

Which is precisely the point of the new politics, he told me the week before the Florida primaries: doing things. Redeem the Vote, an evangelical and ostensibly nonpartisan effort to register young voters, had come to Seminole County in the form of a bus full of registration forms, Cokes and doughnuts, and Hunter was holding forth in the breezy chill outside with some college-aged kids from Northland. There is now, Hunter said, "this whole younger generation of evangelicals who say, 'You know? I'm not so sure that I'm mad at anybody. But I care about the earth. I care about poor people. I care about those who have been exploited by the system. So I don't care what's conservative or liberal; I care about getting stuff done.'"

Jeremiah Shaw, a student at nearby Rollins College, comes as near as anybody to exemplifying that generation. He's a registered independent and still undecided about a candidate even after Hunter's seminar on the presidential candidates the week before. (The main topic, he said, was Obama.) An international affairs major, Shaw said he's "heavily involved in Africa, working with villages with orphaned children." When I asked him about "moral issues"--like the controversy over prochoice Obama speaking at Rick Warren's conference on global AIDS--Shaw pshawed. "I don't find that controversial, actually. The more people are educated about the pandemic, the better off we are."

Under-30 evangelicals like Shaw hold the keys to a new political kingdom. They are less likely to be weekly churchgoers, less likely to be biblical literalists and they believe that the government should do more to protect the environment. On the core culture-war issue of gay marriage, they increasingly stray from the fold, with fewer than half favoring a gay-marriage ban. While they remain overwhelmingly antiabortion, a large majority would like a civil cease-fire in the abortion wars. And they are all too vividly aware of the unflattering reputation given to the name "Christian" by many of their evangelical elders. When I asked Shaw if people ever assume he's going to be narrow-minded and hateful when they find out he's a Christian, he laughed. "All the time, man. And I always find myself kind of saying, 'I'm a Christian, but...' I try to model my life on Jesus' life, not on that other kind of Christianity. And I'm going to try and vote the same way." All of which would have made his pastor proud. Except that Hunter was busy at the moment, across the street at the elections office, casting an early vote for Huckabee.

For students at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, on the brisk, blowy Friday morning before Super Tuesday, there is no missing the Redeem the Vote bus. Pumping Christian rock from exterior speakers, it has parked smack dab in front of the campus union. All morning students pass by, eyeing the spectacle somewhat suspiciously as local TV cameras and a reporter from Sweden mill around on the sidewalk and chat with Redeem the Vote's three-person staff. When they venture close, the students are seized upon by a lanky, balding, high-octane fellow asking rapid-fire questions: "Are you registered? Are you planning to vote? Good. Absentee? Well, look, you're going to need to know what the law is for absentee voting in the state where you're from. We have all kinds of information inside the bus..."

With his wife, Pam, Randy Brinson, a successful gastroenterologist in Montgomery, founded Redeem the Vote in 2003. This vigorous, seat-of-the-pants push to register young voters became an unlikely smash in 2004, with estimates of newly Redeemed voters ranging from 78,000 to nearly 100,000. The effort was boosted by PSAs featuring Passion of the Christ star Jim Caviezel, which aired for free on some 2,500 Christian radio stations and flashed on Jumbotrons at Christian concerts and festivals. "USA Today called us the most influential group in the 2004 elections," Brinson says. This year, the bus--a new twist--has pulled onto twenty college campuses and countless church parking lots during early primaries. In Iowa, Redeem the Vote set up tables at rallies for both Democratic and Republican candidates, while offering the Brinsons' e-mail database--which they claim is to be the largest in the country--to candidates of both parties. The only one to make extensive use of the database, which US News & World Report deemed "God's black book," was Huckabee, who won the state. The only candidate besides the Arkansan to accept Redeem the Vote's invitation to pray was Senator Obama, the other winner there. The group was credited with helping increase voter turnout among "faith voters" and under-30s.

But who is Redeem the Vote bringing to caucuses and primaries? Jeff Sharlet, an editor of therevealer.org, which reviews religion and the press, has called it a "thinly-veiled GOP vote machine." After all, with the focus on Christian colleges and concerts, those being reached are going to come, overwhelmingly, from Republican homes. But Brinson insists there's nothing partisan in Redeem the Vote's pitch. "Just because we're from the faith community, we're not antagonistic toward the Democratic Party," he says. "And just because we're interested in issues like healthcare and poverty, we're also not hostile to the Republican Party."

This even-handedness sounds like a bit of a stretch to some, especially given that Brinson is chair of the Christian Coalition of Alabama (much weakened after financial scandals and a mass right-wing defection, but hardly "nonpartisan"). Sharlet also noted that the effort in 2004 was heavily staffed by students of the religious-right Patrick Henry College and that the Redeem the Vote board--of which Huckabee was briefly chair before he ran for President--is overwhelmingly Republican despite the inclusion of evangelical Democrats. Though this year's edition includes at least one Democratic staffer, with whom I spoke, Redeem the Vote's "partners" still include Fox News and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.

But the point of Redeem the Vote, Brinson says, is not to multiply Republicanism but to disperse evangelicals' political power across the spectrum. "Evangelicals in their voting blocs were supposed to be like sheep," he tells me. His mission, like that of Hunter and Warren and Bell, is to combat that sheeplike behavior. By the time the bus pulls out of Birmingham, about 100 Samford students have registered and solemnly promised to vote. (The day before, the Redeemers made successful stops at two public universities, signing up about 200 new voters at traditionally black Alabama State in Montgomery, and upward of 100 at Auburn University.) What clearly interests Brinson more than the numbers is what happens when he can lure an audience into the bus. Around 11 am, he is perched in the middle of its comfy lounge area, surrounded by a Samford journalism class, doing his darnedest to make them think.

In the course of ten minutes, Brinson plunges into all sorts of uncomfortable territory: gay "lifestyles" ("everybody is a unique creation of God"), abortion ("if a woman has ended up in a situation where she feels compelled to make that decision, we're not going to condemn her for that") and, finally--eyeing his mostly female audience--something that really wakes them up. "There is a strong connection between domestic abuse and the traditional idea of male supremacy and wifely submission to husbands in the church," he says. "The gay community puts more resources into this issue, into fighting domestic abuse and violence, than anybody!" he thundered.

The students seem a bit dumbstruck by it all. Eventually Brinson dials back his voice. "Can I pray with you?" The students nod yes, yes, a little nervously. "Lord," he says rather tenderly, "I just pray that you light them up."

Whatever the short-term partisan effect of efforts like Redeem the Vote, there's no question that the rising generation of evangelicals are looking at politics from very different angles. While they voted overwhelmingly for Bush in 2004, there is good reason to believe that the GOP's edge will soften, perhaps considerably, over time. Among other moderating influences, younger Bible believers see the role of government in a vastly different way from older evangelicals; 60 percent believe that government should work to redistribute wealth more evenly. Their elders generally believed--in sync with Reaganism--that government should be small and people should fend for themselves with the Lord's assistance. When the most popular magazine for young evangelicals, Relevant, asked readers recently to characterize their "political views on social issues (healthcare, poverty)," the largest portion, 44 percent, called themselves "liberal." Asked, "Who do you think was a better president?" 55 percent picked Clinton over Bush. Asked the most crucial question of all, "Who would Jesus vote for?" the most popular answer was a Democrat, Barack Obama, at 29 percent.

"Obama holds the youth card," says Samford student Caroline Bell. She has friends on campus working on his campaign, and that's OK with her, even though she is working for John McCain and the local GOP. "I'm not one to play the Christian card. We want to move away from that, to no longer be thinking, 'Is this the Christian view? Is this the Christian candidate?' It's a whole lot more about policies now."

"It's almost shocking," says Rob Howell, Samford's student government president, "that abortion and gay marriage were so important before, and now those issues have disappeared." Instead, "People are talking about healthcare and social reform. The economy is talked about more than anything. There's a lot of focus on the war and on the morality of our foreign policy. One of the main objections I hear is our insistence on being an occupying force in a foreign country." It all cuts the Democrats' way, he says, except that the perception of the party as "anti-religion" lingers. "It's not as prevalent as it used to be," Howell says, "but it's still there beneath the surface."

The trend away from slavish evangelical loyalty to the GOP clearly constitutes a gathering storm for the party; Republicans stand to lose not only millions of voters but also their "faith-based" edge in grassroots organizing and voter mobilization. Meanwhile, as Time magazine's "Nation" editor Amy Sullivan, author of The Party Faithful: How and Why Democrats Are Closing the God Gap, has written, "this is a better moment for Democrats to pick up support from religious moderates"--a group that includes 40 percent of evangelicals--"than any other time in the past few decades. That's because evangelicals themselves are the ones who are broadening the faith agenda." This broadening is overdue, when you consider that 40 percent of Bush's evangelical voters in 2004 also considered themselves "liberals" on economic issues. Fewer than half--most of them over 45--say Dobson or Robertson speaks for them politically. In 2008, says Mark Pinsky, "Democrats can peel away 15 to 25 percent of white evangelicals, as Carter and Clinton did."

But in the long run, the direction of evangelical politics is about as clear as the Book of Revelation. Even when former religious-right leaders like Frank Schaeffer endorse Obama, as he did recently on The Huffington Post, they are hardly calling for a mass defection to the Democratic Party. "In 2000, we elected a president who claimed he believed God created the earth," Schaeffer wrote, echoing a widespread view, "and who, as president, put car manufacturers and oil companies' interests ahead of caring for that creation. We elected a prolife Republican Congress that did nothing to actually care for pregnant women and babies. And they took their sincere evangelical followers for granted, and played them for suckers."

Evangelical moderates and progressives are increasingly making one thing clear: they won't be suckered again. Which will make them as much of a challenge, going forward, for Democrats and progressives as for Republicans and conservatives. "We don't think Jesus is a Democrat," cautioned Tony Campolo, "any more than we think he's a Republican."

Copyright © 2008 The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080324/moser

[F6 note -- in addition to (items linked in) the post to which this post is a reply and preceding and other following, see also (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27457446 and preceding, and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=25151993 and preceding and following]

[F6]

President Bush Attends National Religious Broadcasters 2008 Convention

Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center
Nashville, Tennessee

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 11, 2008

11:00 A.M. CDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. (Applause.) Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you for the warm welcome. Nothing better than being introduced by a fellow Texan [NRB chairman Ron Harris ( http://www.theledger.com/article/20080315/COLUMNISTS0402/803150374/1326 ; http://content.nrb.org/press/harrisbio.pdf )]. (Applause.) And it's good to see some of my Texas buddies here. (Applause.) Like my friend, Evans, from Dallas. Good to see you, Tony. Thanks for letting me come by.

This is kind of a rambunctious crowd. (Laughter.) I really am pleased to be with you. For 64 years, this association has brought together some of the most memorable voices of the -- our Christian community here in America. You've preached the blessings of grace and understanding and patience. I've needed all three during my time as President. (Laughter.)


President George W. Bush addresses his remarks at the National Religious Broadcasters convention Tuesday, March 11, 2008 in Nashville, Tenn.
White House photo by Chris Greenberg

I was very young when I first learned about obedience to a higher power -- and my mother sends her best to you. (Laughter.) I am surrounded by strong women, and have been all my wife -- (laughter) -- and speaking about a strong and gracious woman, Laura sends her love and best. (Applause.)

We have something else in common; each of us has had doors opened to us by the same man. He led the way for America's religious broadcasters. He brought the Gospel to millions, and many years ago he helped me change my life. And today this good man is recovering from surgery in North Carolina -- and please join me in sending our love and prayers to Billy Graham. (Applause.) A lot of Americans love Billy Graham, and I'm one. So, Billy, we're thinking about you.

He has led countless Americans to the grace and goodness of the Almighty, and each of you performs the same mission every day. You renew the poor in spirit. You bring comfort to those in anguish. And you show millions the path to salvation and the peace of God.

I thank you for guiding the faithful. I thank you for strengthening America's families. I thank you for standing up for our values, including the right to life. (Applause.) And I appreciate your firm belief in the universality of freedom. I believe -- and I know most of you, if not all of you, believe -- that every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth has been given the great gift of liberty by an Almighty God. (Applause.) And today I want to speak about this precious gift, the importance of protecting freedom here at home, and the call to offer freedom to others who have never known it.

But before I do, I do want to thank Dr. Ron Harris, and his wife Judy -- straight out of Arlington, Texas. (Applause.) Appreciate other members of the National Religious Broadcasters Executive Committee. I thank Dr. Frank Wright, and his wife Ruth. I appreciate members of Congress who have come today -- Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana; Congressman Lincoln Davis of Tennessee; and Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Thank you all for coming. Proud to be with you.

This organization has had many important missions, but none more important than ensuring our airways -- America's airways -- stay open to those who preach the Good News. (Applause.) The very first amendment to our Constitution includes the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Founders believed these unalienable rights were endowed to us by our Creator. They are vital to a healthy democracy, and we must never let anyone take those freedoms away. (Applause.)


President George W. Bush poses for photos on his departure Tuesday, March 11, 2008 from Nashville, Tenn., following his address to the National Religious Broadcasters convention.
White House photo by Chris Greenberg

I mention this because there's an effort afoot that would jeopardize your right to express your views on public airways. Some members of Congress want to reinstate a regulation that was repealed 20 years ago. It has the Orwellian name called the Fairness Doctrine. Supporters of this regulation say we need to mandate that any discussion of so-called controversial issues on the public airwaves includes equal time for all sides. This means that many programs wanting to stay on the air would have to meet Washington's definition of balance. Of course, for some in Washington, the only opinions that require balancing are the ones they don't like. (Laughter and applause.)

We know who these advocates of so-called balance really have in their sights: shows hosted by people like Rush Limbaugh or James Dobson, or many of you here today. By insisting on so-called balance, they want to silence those they don't agree with. The truth of the matter is, they know they cannot prevail in the public debate of ideas. They don't acknowledge that you are the balance; that you give voice -- (applause.) The country should not be afraid of the diversity of opinions. After all, we're strengthened by diversity of opinions.

If Congress truly supports the free and open exchange of ideas, then there is a way they can demonstrate that right now. Republicans have drafted legislation that would ban reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives have blocked action on this bill. So in response, nearly every Republican in the House has signed onto what's called a "discharge petition," that would require Congress to hold an up or down vote on the ban. Supporters of this petition are only 24 signatures away.

I do want to thank Mike Pence, who is with us today, and Congressman Greg Walden, for pressing this effort and defending the right for people to express themselves freely. And I urge other members to join in this discharge petition. But I'll tell you this: If Congress should ever pass any legislation that stifles your right to express your views, I'm going to veto it. (Applause.)

We love freedom in America, and we're the leader of the world not because we try to limit freedom, but because we've helped to spread it. You and I know that freedom has the power to transform lives. You and I know that free societies are more peaceful and more prosperous. You and I know that if given the chance, men and women and children in every society on Earth will choose a life of freedom -- if just given a chance. Unless, of course, you don't believe freedom is a gift from the Almighty. The liberty we value is not ours alone. Freedom is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to all humanity. (Applause.)

It is no coincidence that the region of the world that is the least free is also the most violent and dangerous. For too long the world was content to ignore oppression -- oppressive forms of government in the Middle East, in the name of stability.

The result was that a generation of young people grew up with little hope of improving their lives, and many fell under the sway of violent extremism. The birthplace of three of the world's great religions became the home of suicide bombers. And resentments that began on the streets in the Middle East killed innocent people in trains and airplanes and office buildings around the world.

September the 11th, 2001, was such a day. We saw firsthand how the lack of freedom and opportunity in the Middle East directly affects our safety here at home. Nineteen men killed nearly 3,000 people because someone convinced them that they were acting in the name of God. Murder of the innocent to achieve political objectives is wrong and must be condemned. (Applause.)

These murderers were not instruments of a heavenly power; they were instruments of evil. (Applause.) And we have seen their kind before. It's important not to forget the lessons of history. We must remember the extermination of Jews in Nazi death camps were -- was evil. The crimes of Pol Pot were evil. And the genocide in Rwanda was conducted because people's hearts were hardened. This kind of enemy must be confronted, and this kind of enemy must be defeated. (Applause.)

It is the calling of our time. Generations are often called into action for the defense of liberty, and this is such a time. Since 9/11, we're on the offense. My most important duty, and the most important duty of those of us who serve you in government, is to protect the innocent from attack. And so we're on the offense. My view is, is that if we press the enemy, if we bring them to justice, if we defeat them overseas, we won't have to face them here -- is the best strategy to protect America in the short term. (Applause.)

But that only works in the short term. The best way to defeat the enemy in the long term is to defeat their hateful ideology with a vision based upon hope, and that is, a society is based upon liberty. If you believe in the universality of freedom, then you'll recognize that people, if given a chance, just given a chance, will seize the moment, and marginalize the extremists and isolate the radicals.

Hopeful societies are those which will eventually provide the protection we want here in America -- and it will happen, unless America loses its vision and its nerve. It's going to happen, unless we forget the lessons of history.

I want to share one story with you. Some of you may have heard me tell you this before. But one of my best friends in the international community, someone with whom I spent a lot of time talking about how to defeat extremism and defend the peace, was the Prime Minister of Japan. And what I found most interesting was the history of my family. My father, like many of your relatives, signed up to fight the sworn enemy, the Japanese. And 60 years later, his son is at the peace table, planning and thinking about how we can confront this form of extremism in the short term and the long term. Something happened between Ensign Bush and Bush President 43. And what happened was, Japan adopted liberty as the core of its political system.

Freedom can transform societies. Freedom can transform enemies into allies. And some day, if the United States is steadfast and optimistic, people -- a President will be able to say, amazing thing happened: I sat down at the table with a leader of Muslim nations, all aiming to keep the peace, to spread freedom and keep America secure. (Applause.)

We're engaged in this struggle all across the world. And of course, the two most notable theaters in this ideological struggle are Afghanistan and Iraq. Some seem to believe that one of these battles is worth fighting and the other isn't -- in other words, there is a good war and a bad war. You know, the enemy are fighting hard in both countries to seize power and impose their brutal vision. The theaters are part of the same war, the same calling, the same struggle. And that's why it is essential we succeed.

Seven years ago Afghanistan was a haven for America's enemies. Under the protection of the Taliban, the September 11th -- 9/11 hijackers trained and plotted. We worked with -- because we worked with brave Afghans, because we upheld doctrine that said, if you harbor a terrorist you're just as guilty as the terrorist, we removed the Taliban from power; thereby freeing 25 million people from the clutches of a brutal, barbaric regime. (Applause.)

The camps used by the terrorists have been dismantled. The Taliban was removed from power. And then we took on a task that we knew would be as difficult, but as essential, for keeping our enemies from regaining power, and that is we offered to help the Afghan people replace tyranny with freedom. We did the short-term job of denying safe haven. But we did something else. We said, we want to help you live lives based upon liberty. And it was a daunting task, when you really put it in perspective. The Afghan people had little experience with democracy. It's a foreign concept. We've grown up in it here; in Afghanistan, you say democracy, they're not exactly sure what you're talking about.

Afghan people under the Taliban didn't have any constitution or any of the normal institutions of a free and stable government. Afghanistan was one of the poorest countries in the world, with few natural resources, and a population that thought it was condemned to unspeakable suffering.

In the entire nation, there were only 30 miles of paved road. Only 9 percent of the population had access to health care. Under the strict control of the Taliban, women were treated like chattel and girls could not attend school. Children lived in hatred and misery, and they were not even permitted an act as simple as flying a kite. It was a backward, brutal society.

But we had better aspirations for the people of Afghanistan. We set our sights high, because we believe in the universality of freedom. We trusted in the power of freedom to transform the country, a certain trust that has to go with basic principles in life. And we're seeing the results. Eight million Afghans went to the polls to elect a President for the first time in their history. Afghans drafted a new constitution and elected a national assembly. With the support of international partners, the Afghan economy has doubled in size. There are now more than 1,500 miles of paved roads. A majority of the population has access to health care. Women have seats in the parliament. Girls attend school again. And one small but telling sign is this: Afghan children are flying kites again. (Laughter and applause.)

A free society is emerging, and the fundamental question facing the United States of America and our friends and allies is, is it worth it and necessary? I believe it is necessary, and I strongly believe it's worth it. Afghanistan has got a lot of challenges. They got to overcome corruption, they got to fight narcotics trafficking, and they got to strengthen the government at all levels. They face a vicious and brutal enemy that is determined to regain power and deny the people of Afghanistan their freedom.

We saw the nature of this enemy when Taliban extremists invaded an Afghan school. They kidnaped six teachers; they beat the schoolchildren with sticks to scare them away from attending classes. We saw the nature of this enemy when extremists beheaded the principal of an Afghan high school and forced his wife and children to watch. We saw the nature of this enemy last summer when Taliban extremists paid an Afghan boy to push a cart carrying explosives into a crowded marketplace. And the terrorists detonated the cart, killing the boy and Afghan security officials.

This enemy sees no value in human life. And they continue their campaign of bloody and horrific attacks, all attempting to demoralize the people of Afghanistan, and all attempting to wait the coalition out. For the sake of humanity and for the sake of the safety of our people, for the sake of human life and human dignity, and for the sake of the security of the United States of America, we will stop this murderous movement now, before it finds a new path to power. (Applause.) I believe it is important for administrations to confront problems now, and not pass them on to other people. And that's the choice I have made for the sake of peace and freedom.

Our forces made progress last year in partnering with local Afghans against the enemy in eastern Afghanistan, which was an insurgent stronghold. Now the Taliban and its allies are seeking to launch new attacks against the people. In other words, these are relentless killers. Their methods and their immorality have alienated many of the people who once supported them.

It's amazing what happens when there's a contrast -- ideological contrast presented to people with clarity: Do you want to live in freedom, or do you want your little girl denied the opportunity to go to school? Afghans across the country are fighting back. More than 50,000 Afghans have stepped forward to serve the Afghan army; 76,000 have joined the police force. They've invested in this fight, and they need our help. That's what they're saying -- they want help. And we're going to give it to them. It's in our interests that we support these people.

In the year ahead, the United States will work with our allies and the Afghan people in an aggressive effort to counter the enemy. This spring the United States is increasing our military commitment to the country. We're sending a Marine expeditionary unit and an infantry battalion, totaling more than 3,200 additional Marines, to train Afghan forces and to support the offense against the Taliban in southern Afghanistan.

NATO allies and other partners are also in the fight. Many of these allies, particularly the Canadians and the Australians, the Dutch, the Danes, and the British are taking on some of the most difficult missions in dangerous areas. You may have recently heard about one young Brit who fought against the Taliban. It was Prince Harry of Wales. When he returned to England, he said this: "If you spoke to a lot of the other guys who came off the plane with me, there are plenty of people willing to go back and serve their country." And we admire that spirit, and so do the people of Afghanistan.

In a few weeks, I'm going to attend the NATO summit in Bucharest. I'm going to thank our allies for standing with the people, the brave people of this young democracy. I will remind them that we're not only in a mission to protect our own security; we're on a humanitarian mission that will free young girls to be able to realize their dreams.

I will also ask NATO to join the United States in doing even more. Now is the time for nations to make the hard decisions necessary so our children can grow up in a more peaceful world. I will call upon more international assistance to help Afghanistan on the road to freedom. We know what's at stake, and we know what we have to do -- and so we're going to help the people of Afghanistan realize the blessings of liberty.

The other front in this ideological struggle is Iraq. And just as we did in Afghanistan, we removed a lethal threat to our national security. The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it is the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will forever be the right decision. (Applause.)

And again we took on a difficult task that we knew was essential to keeping America's enemies from gaining power. We did not take the easy path of replacing one dictator with another. Instead we offered Iraqis a chance to build a future of freedom. In that effort, our coalition faced -- also faced daunting challenges. Like Afghanistan, Iraq had little experience with true democracy. Iraqis held nationwide votes for President, but it turns out only one candidate was on the ballot. In 1995, Saddam Hussein received 99 percent of the vote. Seven years later he did a little better -- (laughter) -- he got 100 percent of the vote. (Laughter.)

As Iraqis lived through these grotesque charades, they were rounded up at random by secret police. Women were raped by Iraqi authorities. Citizens were mutilated and dumped into mass graves. And Shia and Sunni and Kurds were oppressed and pitted against one another.

Despite the divisions and challenges, I believed, as did many in my administration, that freedom has the power to transform this country; that freedom has the power to provide hope after despair. And so we reached out to the population and the Iraqi people responded. Together, Shia, Kurds and an increasing number of Sunnis joined America to advance a bold vision, and that is to build a lasting democracy in the heart of the Middle East.

Twelve million Iraqis braved threats of violence and went to the polls to elect a representative government. You might remember those days of people waving purple-ink-stained fingers. Iraqis drafted one of the most democratic constitutions in the Arab world, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have raised their hands and risked their lives to defend their nation.

The enemy saw these advances and were determined to stop them. They mounted horrific acts of violence designed to exploit sectarian divisions and incite further killing. And in these acts we again saw the nature of the enemy. We saw the nature of the enemy when they killed a young boy and then booby-trapped his body so it would explode when his family came to retrieve him. We saw the nature of this enemy when terrorists put children in the backseat of a car so they could pass a security checkpoint, and then blew up the car with the children still inside. We saw the nature of the enemy just over a month ago when they sent two mentally retarded, troubled Iraqi women wearing suicide vests into crowded marketplaces. The vests exploded, killing the women and dozens of innocent people.

Anyone who doubts the importance of defeating this vicious enemy need only imagine what would happen if we were driven out of Iraq before the job was finished. What would happen if they seized territory from -- to be able to have safe haven? What would happen if they seized oil fields and used their wealth to attack America and our allies?

These are vicious people who know no bounds of humanity. They would not hesitate to murder. It's essential for our citizens to understand this. And that is why this war must be fought, and that is why this war -- this enemy must be defeated.

I wish I didn't have to talk about war. No President wants to be a war President. But when confronted with the realities of the world, I have made the decision that now is the time to confront, now is the time to deal with this enemy, and now is the time to spread freedom as the great alternative to the ideology they adhere to. (Applause.)

Just over a year ago, things were not going well in Iraq. Terrorists and extremists were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. American peace and security required us to defeat this enemy, just as I said. So my administration reviewed our strategy, and changed course with victory in mind. I sent reenforcements into Iraq in a dramatic policy that's now being called "the surge."

We also changed the way our troops were used. U.S. and Iraqi forces began living together among the Iraqi people, to help drive the terrorists out. Our forces stayed around to ensure the terrorists did not return. We launched a civilian surge to help local governments deliver economic resources in the wake of the security gains. We launched a diplomatic surge, with an expanded and active role for international organizations like the United Nations and the G8. We've encouraged its neighbors to help this young society flourish and recover from the brutality of a dictator.

The Iraqi people saw these efforts; they had renewed faith in America's commitment to the fight. As you can imagine, during that period of time a lot of folks were wondering, is America going to stay with us? Do they understand our deep desire to live in freedom? Can we count on them? And when they found out they could, they launched a surge of their own. Increasing numbers of Sunni leaders have turned against the terrorists and begun to reclaim their communities. The government in Baghdad has stepped forward, as well. They've added more than 100,000 new Iraqi soldiers and police during last year. They're beginning to pass laws in Baghdad. They passed a budget -- on time. (Laughter and applause.)

Folks who were involved in the insurgency have now decided they want to be a part of their government. The Iraqi people have begun to see what freedom offers. They've seen what the enemy plans, and they have chosen to stand on the side of freedom. And America stands with them. (Applause.)

Next month, General Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker will return to Washington to report on the progress in Iraq and offer their recommendations. And I will carefully consider their recommendations. I can report this to you, though, that since the surge began, sectarian killings are down; al Qaeda has been driven from many strongholds it once held. I strongly believe the surge is working, and so do the Iraqis.

And as a return on our success -- in other words, as we get more successful, troops are able to come home. They're not coming home based upon defeat, or based upon opinion polls, or based upon focus groups, or based upon politics. They're coming home because we're successful. (Applause.) And the pace of that withdrawal has been determined, and then the commanders will take a further assessment. But I want to assure you, just like I assure military families and the troops: The politics of 2008 is not going to enter into my calculation. It is the peace of the years to come that will enter into my calculation. (Applause.)

The gains in Iraq are tenuous, they're reversible and they're fragile, and there is much more work to be done. This enemy is resilient, and they attack -- they use asymmetrical warfare. They use suicide vests. Just yesterday the enemy killed eight of our soldiers in two separate attacks. And I know you join me in offering our prayers to their loved ones, that the Good Lord will provide them strength and comfort during the ultimate test.

We mourn every loss of life. We also know that the reason why the enemy uses such brutal tactics is they're trying to shake our nerve. And frankly, that's not hard to do in America because we're a compassionate people. We value life, and we care. We really do want to reach out to others, and when we see this kind of horrific killing, it affects us, all of us. It also must send a message to us that we must be determined and steadfast. We're determined to defeat this enemy, and you just got to know, so are the people of Iraq. Millions who have suffered decades of tyranny and torment now are beginning to see hope. And for the sake of the security, and for the sake of peace, and for the sake -- a generation of kids coming up, the United States will help the Iraqis succeed. (Applause.)

And the effects of a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan will reach beyond the borders of those two countries. I believe that success of these two countries will show others the way. It will show others what's possible. And we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our Maker. That's why we're doing this. No one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. (Applause.)

People of all faiths and all backgrounds deserve the chance at a future of their own choosing. That's what America believes. After all, those were the ideals that helped create our nation. Those ideals were an honorable achievement of our forefathers, and now it's the urgent requirement of this generation.

The work before our country is hard and it has risks -- it's just hard work. And yet I don't see that as a reason to avoid it. Our enemies are ruthless, but they're going to be defeated. (Applause.) They've got the capacity to blow people up through suicide -- but you notice none of the leaders ever are the suicide bombers, however. (Laughter.) But we got something more powerful: We got determination, we got will, and we got freedom at our disposal.

Evil in some form will always be with us, and we must never be afraid to face it. I know you understand that. I also know that you understand that for those who are on the front lines, and for those who struggle against evil, they could be helped through prayer. And I appreciate your prayers. I appreciate your prayers to help comfort millions of people. I appreciate the fact that you pray for our troops and their families. And I appreciate the prayers that you have directed my way. I feel your prayer. I can't tell you how meaningful they have been, to help Laura and me deal with -- do our job. And I can report to you this: that the prayers of the people have affected us, and that being the President has been a joyous experience. (Applause.)

So I thank you for what you do. I thank you for giving me a chance to come and share some of my thoughts with you. God bless you, and God bless America. (Applause.)

END 11:42 A.M. CDT

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080311-3.html

[F6 note -- in addition to (items linked in) the post to which this post is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also (items linked in):
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27661875 and preceding and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27224769 and following;
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24074072 and preceding and following; and
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4929796 and preceding and following --
and see also:
U.S. mustn't forget history, Bush tells NRB
http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=27596
'Moral reformation' group sets its sights on Ohio
http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories05/october/1021051.htm ]

[F6]

Khalid Sheik Mohammed On Same-Sex Marriage, Value of Counsel


A closeup of the new, improved Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sketch, with the more flattering nose he suggested be modeled on a shot the FBI issued after his capture.
(Credit: Jess Bravin)

Posted by Dan Slater
June 6, 2008, 3:39 pm

WSJ Supreme Court reporter Jess Bravin, who is in Gitmo this week covering the appearance of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged Sept. 11 conspirators before a military judge, has sent along a couple more interesting dispatches from his notebook. Click here [ http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/06/a-nose-job-for-khalid-sheikh-mohammed/ ] for an earlier post on yesterday’s hearing.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on same-sex marriage:

For the past five years, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has been under the care of federal civilian and military employees who have taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The experience apparently has not enamored him of the document.

At his arraignment here Thursday, the alleged 9/11 mastermind said he would not accept any attorney, even a fellow Muslim, “who is sworn to your American constitution.” Displaying a surprising understanding of such concepts as federalism and dual sovereignty, Mohammed referenced recent decisions by state courts in California [ http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/ ] and Massachusetts [ http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/conlaw/goodridge111803opn.pdf ] under the powers reserved to them under the Tenth Amendment.

“I consider all American constitution” evil, he said, because it permits “same-sexual marriage and many other things that are very bad,” he told the military judge, Col. Ralph Kohlmann. “Do you understand?”

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on pro se represenation:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who’s insisting on representing himself, told Col. Kohlmann, the military judge, that while he was an “expert in the gospel and the Koran,” he had no training in the common law system. Nonetheless, the alleged terrorist commander’s comments suggested he held sympathy for the 20th century American analytical movement known as legal realism [ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=339562 ].

When Kohlmann urged Mohammed to “keep an open mind” about the value of having an attorney represent him in his capital trial, Mohammed remarked on the judge’s brusque treatment of civilian attorneys, whom he repeatedly silenced before they could state their objections.

“You tell [David Nevin, a volunteer civilian attorney], ‘Sit down! Sit down! Sit down Sit down!,’” said Mohammed. “It is inquisition, not trial.”

Mohammed continued: “We have been five years under torturing,” he said, and yet are being told to listen to American attorneys they’ve barely met. “All of this has been taken under torturing, and after torturing they transfer us to Inquisitionland in Guantanamo.”

“I hope you can reconcile your concerns” about his religious duty with the issues involved in self-representation, Kohlmann said.

“You will continue now to the end, to the plea guilty?” Mohammed, more eager than impatient.

“Yes,” the judge said.

----------

Comments

-----

Mohammed’s statements on gay marriage prove that there is something to admire even in the most despicable among us.

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 4:14 pm

---

Just hang this maggot and be done with it.

Comment by ed - June 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm

---

Absolutely correct 4:14

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 4:16 pm

---

Torture him some more please.

Comment by dave - June 6, 2008 at 4:17 pm

---

I would have thought that having a despicable murdering member of Al Qaeda supporting your position would be a negative…but that’s just me.

Comment by Ed - June 6, 2008 at 4:18 pm

---

The legacy of the Bush administration is turning this monster into a morally sympathetic figure. Congratulations.

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 4:26 pm

---

Sorry, that you didn’t like the decision in Cali 4.21.

Comment by Ed - June 6, 2008 at 4:27 pm

---

The drawing makes him look like he’s wearing a fake-beard-and-glasses disguise. Or maybe that’s what he really looks like. Or, it’s part of his plan to escape while *appearing* to wear a disguise…

Comment by Poindexter - June 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm

---

Don’t forget the decision in New York state, aswell, Mr. 4:21. It’s rather amusing you have to hide behind a veil of anonymity. Too afraid to let people know who’s displaying such a bigotted oppinion?

Comment by Mighty Chip - June 6, 2008 at 4:31 pm

---

It is suprising how much common ground there is between radical Islam and the radical right in this country. One difference is that is that KSM appears to be smarter and more articulate that our home grown extremists.

Human + goat = “Anonymous”

Comment by Pragmatist - June 6, 2008 at 4:32 pm

---

Gay Marriage is another attack on our ever decaying standards of the American way of lifestyles. It’s sick. And to have a loser like this twisted moron to be telling us that it is wrong, is another warning that the end is nearer that we may think

Comment by Ken Gunter - June 6, 2008 at 4:43 pm

---

Pragmatist: Islamofacists, Christian Right, and Obamists are alike in that they’re all statists, subjugating the individual to the “greater good.” Ayn Rand was right!

Comment by Steve - June 6, 2008 at 4:46 pm

---

Can’t imagine what set him off, no?

Comment by Dr. Otto VanDerWahl - June 6, 2008 at 4:47 pm

---

Stop covering this monster. He deserves no media attention, no martyrdom, nothing. Let him just rot away in some hole somewhere.

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 4:48 pm

---

After reading some of these comments, I can confirm that I am plased as punch that I am not an American.

Comment by Gary - June 6, 2008 at 4:52 pm

---

RE: Ed

Spot on there bud, but while we’re there let’s apply the same logic to Sen. Obama, who has been endorsed by every radical muslim short of UBL himself. If you find yourself, or your candidate, being supported by despicable murdering radical muslims you need to rethink your position… hard.

Comment by Chris - June 6, 2008 at 4:54 pm

---

After reading Gary the Rat’s comment at 4:52, I’m as pleased as punch he’s not an American, either. natch.

Comment by Jack M. - June 6, 2008 at 4:55 pm

---

There is really nothing wrong with radical muslim clerics. I just wouldn’t want my son to grow up and marry one.

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 4:58 pm

---

This guy deserves a fair trial & execution after he is found guilty. Please do not associate the Christian Right with this lunatic. And just because I do not support same-sex marriage does NOT make me an extremist or looney. I believe differently than you do , obviously which could make you every bit as extremist as you think the Christian Right is. The “thought police ” are in action again !!!!!!!

Comment by Big D - June 6, 2008 at 5:01 pm

---

“Shortly after the hearing, Mohammed continued his discourse on the American legal system. ‘Frankly, I think you all went wrong after Marbury. If the separation of powers demands judicial review, why does it not similarly require Executive review or a deeper involvement of the legislature in crafting precedent? You can follow Marshall or you can follow Montesquieu, but not both….I mean…uhh..death to infidel judge.’”

Comment by Hey wait a minute... - June 6, 2008 at 5:01 pm

---

AMAZING,THIS IDIOT WASN’T AFRAID OF KILLING 3000 PEOPLE ON AMERICAN SOIL BUT HE’S SCARED OF ELLEN.HIS VILLAGE MISSES HIM.

Comment by JEFF - June 6, 2008 at 5:02 pm

---

In reading the above comments I am deeply saddened at the number criticizing anyone who believes in the God given principles in the American Constitution and that these are constantly being eroded by arrogant high courts.

Comment by John Robertson - June 6, 2008 at 5:06 pm

---

Mr. Extremest meet Mr. Extremest. The trial is a farce as is the word Terrorist. He is just your enemy. A famous man once said: be careful who you choose as your enemy for you are destined to become just like him. He is a mirror for those who would use religion to impose their “high” moral standards on other poor hapless people who are weaker than them. And so they choose a bunch of good people working in the Trade Center Buildings to make a statement. What is the statement: “we don’t care about love, human kindness, compassion”, the very stuff all of the religions teach. We only care about the books, the laws, the regulations. The heart of religion has been ripped out and we are seeing the dead cold shell.

Comment by Waywuwei - June 6, 2008 at 5:10 pm

---

After reading Gary’s comment, i must admit! I’m sure were ever he is from. He is a loser, and he is in America so he can become a real loser.

Comment by KG - June 6, 2008 at 5:11 pm

---

Very fascist statement Steve. Kinda interesting, those Ayn Rand followers (what?!), Satanist, Libertarians and Neocons are increasingly saying the same things from the same boat. BTW those translations sound badly done, I’d like a better transcript. Anywho we all know an America under FallWell would be like an America under Taliban rule just replace the moon and star with a cross on that flag.

Comment by Jason - June 6, 2008 at 5:11 pm

---

CHRIS: I directly challenge you. Your comments about Obama are venemous and demonstrably wrong. And cowardly! Sustantiate one of your pathetic claims. “Endorsed”…..you are a creep.

Comment by Pragmatist - June 6, 2008 at 5:13 pm

---

Christopher Hitchens, as I recall, had a nice response to the question of how to bury Jerry Falwell, and it applies equally and across the board to the religious right in this country (for whom Falwell was a model). Hitchens said that if “you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox.”

Comment by Amused - June 6, 2008 at 5:24 pm

---

If you told your friends that you had just spoken to God on the telephone they would think you were mad.

I fail to see how the addition of a telephone makes any difference.

Comment by Ed - June 6, 2008 at 5:37 pm

---

This man needs to be a keynote speaker at the Republican Convention. He hates central government, hates gun control, believes in restricting free choice among consenting adults, and is concerned about moral decay in society. If he had an anglo name and carried a Bible he’d be running for office.

Comment by John Jay - June 6, 2008 at 5:38 pm

---

“This man needs to be a keynote speaker at the Republican Convention. He hates central government, hates gun control, believes in restricting free choice among consenting adults, and is concerned about moral decay in society. If he had an anglo name and carried a Bible he’d be running for office.”

Unfortunately he opposes torturing prisoners, which makes him too liberal for today’s GOP.

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 5:53 pm

---

Altho’ I am from Canada , it blows me away to see comments from someone like John Jay. Close-minded & small-minded!!! “Free choice among consenting adults” Too bad this individual does not think about the babiy that will be aborted. Oh , I guess he thinks the baby does not have any rights. You should be reminded that 1/2 of your country votes Republican ( or more specifically 48% ) as do the people voting Democrat. So , because we think differently than you , we are the “bad guys” Let’s just let the moral decay continue in both our countries as you would have us do. The radical Muslims will not have to take over N. America. We’ll destroy it ourselves with our selfish demands for our “rights” no matter what the cost to others Yes , I believe the Bible & yes I love my fellow “man” & yes , I think same-sex marriage is wrong & yes , I am concerned about the moral decay in both the US & in Canada. Government is not going to correct these problems. Only when we N. Americans stop our own self-centerness will these problems start to be addressed. Unlike your letter that is so vitriolic to the Christian Right , I just feel sorry for you that you have no moral compass to guide you. Incidentally , I see no shame whatsoever in carrying a Bible. I believe that even Barak Obama , the darling of the Left admits that he carries one & he follows it’s words of wisdom. Maybe if more people did , then our society would be a lot kinder to one another.

Comment by Big D - June 6, 2008 at 5:57 pm

---

The picture makes it look like he’s wearing Groucho glasses and nose

Comment by wacka wacka wacka - June 6, 2008 at 6:06 pm

---

Another funny coincidence: Didja know that both Osama Bin Laden and Obama Hussein Barack (or whatever his name is) both like to go home, close the door, make sure no one’s listening, and then sing the “Theme From the Man From La Mancha” while wearing Groucho glasses and nose? I know it must be true — I think I read it on Huffington Post once, or something…

Comment by hey Pragmatist - June 6, 2008 at 6:10 pm

---

You are all a bunch of hypocrites. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty by a court of law?

This is no court of law either, it’s a kangaroo kourt! These men aren’t even allowed to see the evidence against them, do you realize that?

But you have all decided in your own tiny minds that he’s guilty. I suppose then, if this man were your father, you would still be making stupid comments like this?

Do you realize that his children were also detained and used against him? The children are still missing. Amnesty and Human Rights Watch as well as others have the information on what was done to them. They were scared into saying where their father was. They put bugs on their legs and threatened them with other things. They didn’t feed them… these are little children.

This is your government. This country is supposed to be “we the people”. That makes you all complicit in these crimes if you don’t act to make it right. Clearly you don’t care, I see your idiotic comments tell it all.

Please reconsider. This is wrong, very very wrong.

Comment by Linda G Richard - June 6, 2008 at 6:17 pm

---

Don’t kill him, that’s what he wants. Keep him in Guantanamo till he dies and feed him nothing but pork.

Comment by Tony - June 6, 2008 at 6:18 pm

---

It’s interesting that the anti-gay marriage people are so desperate to find any reason to be anti-gay that they think having this mass murderer on their side is somehow legitimizing for the anti-gay crowd. Hey — Hamas endorsed Obama — does that mean he’s the best candidate too? Iran had the death penalty, just like we do. Therefore the death penalty is morally correct, right? Do the anti-gay forces see how ludicous their arguments have become?

Comment by Chris - June 6, 2008 at 6:22 pm

---

Please do not think that because Big D is from Canada that all of us think like that, unfortunately we have a small minority of ignorant, asinine rednecks here too.

I think you should look closely at who you discriminate against, before declaring that the Christian right has any moral compass whatsoever. You are a blight on our country and should probably immigrate to a bible belt state before you taint what makes Canada so great.

Freedom of religion is only allowed so far as it does not affect the lives of those that believe differently from you, if you don’t like that you can also choose to live in a nice Islamo-Fascist regime somewhere.

Comment by Shawn - June 6, 2008 at 6:25 pm

---

He is admitting to what he has done and he is getting more of a fair trial then he would have gotten under Islamic law. The problem is with us that some people feel bad about his children and don’t mention hundreds of children that he admited to have left without fathers and mothers. Get over it. I give it to him about the same sex marriage though

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 6:26 pm

---

It’s interesting to note that , once again , The Christian right are called all kinds of names & villified because we think differntly from the Left. It’s also interesting to note that the radical Left-Wingers are the ones doing all the name calling. reading the comment from Shawn , I could not have made my case better than he did for me.It strikes me that your last sentence fits quite nicely into the Radical Islamists’ thinking. Think differently than they do & you are finished. Not a real intelligent way of thinking & obviously not well thought out. But , hey , you have the freedom to say what you choose because I believe in that right.

Comment by Big D - June 6, 2008 at 6:35 pm

---

Death is to kind a gift for a venemous soul like this, but then again I don’t want my tax dollars spent on keeping him alive either. People like this could not even begin to understand what it means to live in a free society. Ours is quite far from perfect, and becoming less so everyday (and will become even more so under any one of these presidential candidates), but to live in acceptance of every human is a blessing not understood by those that live and rule by fear. I’d like to tell the government to let the gays be gay, let the polygamists be polygamist, let the law abiding own guns, and leave me the hell alone so that I may raise my family to live not for themselves but for their fellow humans.

Comment by Guru - June 6, 2008 at 6:42 pm

---

Chris -

I don’t know if these anti-gay forces see how ludicrous their arguments have become or not. I just don’t want my son to grow up and marry you.

Comment by Anonymous - June 6, 2008 at 6:48 pm

---

Well at least we both believe in the freedom of speech, and I have no problem with you believing what you like. Spitting your vitriol at those of the left (I am actually not of the left, more centre), makes you a hypocrite however. I am calling you ignorant (meaning you have little knowledge of a particular subject, this one being freedom) and asinine (meaning you are acting like an ass) because you seem to misunderstand or perhaps refuse to understand the way our great country works.

Freedom means that people have the right to do what they like, without fear of discrimination based off of many factors, your beliefs do not give you the right to be discriminatory, and Canada was founded on, and holds a prominent place in the world concerning our acceptance of diversity. Those that think that we should live under the rule of a particular faith are not truly Canadians.

You have the right do believe and say what you want, and I have the right to refute what you say, but at the end of the day the law, the constitution, and the view of the general population back up what I say. You, not so much.

Comment by Shawn - June 6, 2008 at 6:51 pm

---

Hey KG

You’re assuming that Gary is in America. I hate to break it to you, but internetland actually extends beyond US borders.

Comment by Al - June 6, 2008 at 6:58 pm

---

Don’t kill him, he wants to be killed, don’t let him get his 72 virgins. Let him rot in prison and witness American prisoners. He will be their bitch.

Comment by Jason - June 6, 2008 at 7:02 pm

---

Shawn,

Big D never said anyone HAD to believe in anything. He was pointing to the fact that the moral decay of society will decrease the less self centered we are.

If a person is to be a moral person, that would require that person to have a duty to do what is right. In this case, Big D’s duty is to follow the commandments of Jesus, which can be summed up as love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Or, simply put, be less self centered. I think all humans should be able to agree that this would decrease moral decay, don’t you?

More people need to reevaluate their morality:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2008/06/05/dnt.ct.hit.and.run.wtnh?iref=videosearch

Comment by Fish - June 6, 2008 at 7:16 pm

---

Giving him a voice in the press perpetuates the hate that he embodies. He could only know of events in the United States by being kept apraised of current events. Of these he should be deprived. Freedom of the press is for citizens of your United States not for those who attempt or plan for the destruction of it. Do not kill him - he strives to be a martyr - put him away - ignor international pleas for decent treatment - his people do not obey the laws of the United States where people have the choice - the United States should choose to isolate him, but perhaps he should be given to the Government of Iraq…they know how to use a rope.

Comment by Ali-khan Mohamad - June 6, 2008 at 7:18 pm

---

Khalid Sheik Mohammed seems to know more about US law than many of the people commenting here. I’d say that’s pretty pathetic. At least he practices what he preaches, no matter what our personal opinion of him is.

And, as I recall, Jesus never once tried to force someone to follow him; his anti-everything apostles did that. The Samaritan woman at the well is an excellent example. Seems to me, christians should be following their leader, not a bunch of hateful old men.

And if God didn’t want some people to be either unable to have children or attracted to the same gender, He’d do something about it Himself. Species extinction, comes to mind. Seems to me, also, that if people paid more attention to how they were born instead of what some seriously out of date Book tells them, this planet wouldn’t be so over-crowded. Perhaps there would also be less abuse, if people were honest with themselves and lived their lives as they were meant to live -the way God made them. Hypocrits.

Comment by Michele - June 6, 2008 at 7:45 pm

---

That’s what’s so hilarious about the Right; they can’t even get along with each other. I see the Christian right, fronted by Bush, at war with the extreme Islamic Right, and both of them swear that they’re fighting the good fight, for the glory of God.

The world will never be united in harmony so long as conservatives are calling the shots.

Also: two parents are better than one, regardless of their sexual orientation. If people want to see a return of the Family Unit, Morals, and of classic Americana, they should embrace ANYONE willing to give it a shot with a two-parent household.

Divorce and “baby-mama”s are destroying families more handily than homosexuals could even if they wanted/aimed to.

Comment by Tom - June 6, 2008 at 7:49 pm

---

Fish: I so agree with you in some respects here, and I do not want to start a big debate on what is right and wrong, but in stating that the moral decay stems from the acceptance of gay rights, or freedom of choice, or any of the “moral” hotbeds is not in line with loving thy neighbor. It would be more like loving thy neighbor as long as he is not gay, or is an abortion doctor.

Following what you believe is your calling is important, and loving whatever benevolent creator you happen to believe in can be a source of great strength, as long as that does not extend to attacking verbally, spiritually and physically, those you beleive to be in the wrong. Is that not what got the world into the situation that it is in?

The extreme right in any case is detrimental to society, as is the extreme left. This of it this way, of you don’t think it is fair to be attacked for being a Christian, then why do you think it is right for those of the religious extreme to attack people who are gay, Muslim, or in some other way diametrically opposed to their views?

I feel that everyone should have a right to the beliefs, lifestyle, and genetic diversity that we have been granted, free from the tyranny of those who would disagree, providing they do not harm anyone else or break any laws. Debasing a person for being a person seems pretty un-Christian to me, but as I am not Christian or any other strict faith I could very well be wrong. And if (and I am not in any way saying it is) being a Christian means discriminating against others I am glad I made the choices i did.

“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).” Seems fairly clear to me, do not judge those you think to be sinners, that is your God’s job.

Thank you for your input though, I think if we thought more about how we relate to our fellow man (and not just those that think like us) the world would, indeed, be better off.

Comment by Shawn - June 6, 2008 at 8:03 pm

---

Unborn do not have rights.
Homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Obama is the man.
Christians are extremeists.
The Bible is well….

If you believe the above items you are whats wrong with America.

Comment by Not any of you. - June 6, 2008 at 8:15 pm

---

Blast. I am apparently what’s wrong with America.

Comment by Brian - June 6, 2008 at 9:04 pm

---

Yea me too, I guess I was mistaken in believing it had something to do with the right wing American president that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the name of weapons of mass destruction that never in fact existed.

Oh wait, I am not an American, well I guess I don’t feel so bad now.

Comment by Shawn - June 6, 2008 at 9:15 pm

---

I think that like all who are taught to be ’selfless’ as children that he is confusing his self with the self of others. Democracy (social variety) rules! Which is to say that it is the best form of centralization, not that it rules Nature. Very frustrating at times… and then rewarding… and then frustrating… and then rewarding… and then frustrating… and then… Oh, nevermind.

Comment by Eric - June 6, 2008 at 9:39 pm

---

Shawn, I believe you are absolutely right, you are not an American. True Americans believe in democracy. I believe that is defined as majority rule. Anyway, that’s what our country was founded on-I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who made the statement that America was founded on Christian principles. I didn’t see anywhere that a panel of five to six judges were allowed to overthrow the vote of the majority. However, for some, majority rule has been changed to a minority (not ethnic) rule. I don’t believe that’s freedom.

Comment by American Joe - June 6, 2008 at 10:05 pm

---

I’m not sure why I am commenting. Khalid is pleading guilty. I say life in prison only because he wants to be martyred. It’s odd how those who claim, after being caught, they want to be martyred do everything in their power not to be the one wearing the explosive belt. As for this idiotic left vs right and whose on which side; grow up, people. All you are doing is spouting “talking points” by those who allegedly lead you.
The Left believes in freedom of speech unless, of course, the speech offends them. The Right believes in individual freedom unless your behavior offends them. Khalid offends me in any case.

Comment by Douglas - June 6, 2008 at 10:10 pm

---

American Joe shows us clearly “what is wrong with America.” It stands out in the comments by “Not any of you”, “Big D” and others here.

American Joe writes “True Americans believe in democracy. I believe that is defined as majority rule. Anyway, that’s what our country was founded on” - sounds nice if it were true. Our country was founded as a Federal Republic specifically to prevent “the Tyranny of the Majority” and “Thomas Jefferson who made the statement that America was founded on Christian principles.” Really?

From Thomas Jefferson- 3rd president, Drafted Declaration of Independence, Signer of Constitution, influential on 1st Amendment, friend of American Joe:

“I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.”

“Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies.”

“Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burned, tortured, fined, and imprisoned, yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites.” [Notes on Virginia]

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes” [Letter to von Humboldt, 1813].

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” [Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823]

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own” [Letter to H. Spafford, 1814].

“…an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ…the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’” [Jefferson’s Biography]

So you are as good in History as you are in Politics, huh, American Joe? A panel of six Judges?

This is “what is wrong” with America. Too many today think they are born experts because they are Americans. They think their opinion, their very lives, are more valuable, because they are Americans. But this too shall pass. Reality is a hard teacher. Should start realizing it in 2015 or so when China’s economy becomes larger than the US.

Comment by Oracle - June 6, 2008 at 10:26 pm

---

NOT IF THEY GET NAILED BY ANOTHER MASSIVE EARTHQUAKE-GOD FORBID.BY THE WAY,WHY IS GOD ALWAYS AN ISSUE HERE IN AMERICA?ISN’T THAT WHY PEOPLE WORKED TO BUILD AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE.TO ESCAPE THE TYRANNY OF ORGANIZED RELIGION.

Comment by JEFF - June 6, 2008 at 10:41 pm

---

The idea for the September 11 plot came from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who first presented the idea to bin Laden in 1996. There were 2,974 people died as an immediate result of the 9/11 attacks. According to the Commission Report, 1,366 people died who were at or above the floors of impact in the North Tower. As many as 600 people were killed instantly or were trapped at or above the floors of impact in the South Tower. From the burning towers at least 200 people jumped to their deaths landing on the streets hundreds of feet below. All of the fatalities in the attacks were civilians except for 55 military personnel killed at the Pentagon.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to a total of 31 plots and attacks including being the mastermind in the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. This mass murderer should see how his actions in detail have caused death, pain and suffering on innocents and their families. Let him receive a swift judgment and sentence. Above all ensure this man is remembered not as a Martyr but as the psychopath that his actions have shown him to be. He should be seen with his peers such as Hitler, Stalin, Dalmer, and Ted Bundy.

Comment by Mike - Texas - June 6, 2008 at 10:43 pm

---

Hey, American Joe. You’re mistaken about Jefferson. He actually went out of his way to be clear that the U.S.A. was NOT founded on Christian principles: “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” Common to all these faiths — misguided or not — is the injunction to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Alas, so many of the faithful of every creed are forgetful of that key point.

Comment by David A - June 6, 2008 at 10:44 pm

---

I would like to address to “moral” legislative issues addressed above. First of all, the LAW, by definition, is the legislation of morality. Merriam-Webster, for example, defines it as 1 (a) (1) “a binding custom or practice of a community; a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority.” Accordingly, it has been, and most necessarily should be the continuing province of the state and local sovereigns to determine what behaviors are to be considered immoral and therefore unacceptable to their respective societies. It is therefore entirely constitutional and appropriate for laws to be enacted that reflect the various sensibilities and moralities of individual state and local societal decision-making bodies–to wit–legislatures. In summary, there are absolutely no constitutional rights, implied or expressed, that guarantee any of the rights recognized by the Supreme Court–e.g. abortion, gay marriage, contraception, etc.

Comment by Alexander Hamilton - June 6, 2008 at 10:46 pm

---

It is definitely a challenge though to love this KSM character. Let him sit in some forgotten jail cell for the rest of his days. Death is too kind a penalty for some crimes.

Comment by David A - June 6, 2008 at 10:46 pm

---

Hey Not any of you,

I would like to commend you on you way of looking at this. Finally, somebody said something worth reading. Your words summed it all. If I was to describe your views, i would say “Idiotic” and thats a compliment.

Comment by WiseMan - June 6, 2008 at 10:49 pm

---

I HAVE A GREAT IDEA!!!!!

Since KSM hates gays so much, maybe his sentence should be to be jailed in a cell with a Horny Huge, Smelly, Ugly, Nasty prisoner who is gay.

Comment by WiseGuy - June 6, 2008 at 10:55 pm

---

So evil Americans put bugs on KSM’s children so they would rat out their terrorist dad? I guess that is better than beheading the children as was done by AQI to try to keep Sunnis in line in Iraq. If Amnesty International is looking for sympathy, they will have to do better than that. I say bring on the bugs - lets get more of these little ones to squeal on what rock their dads are hiding under!

Comment by Tom - June 6, 2008 at 10:58 pm

---

They are people too and yet we don’t give them the same respect as we would expect? What animals we’ve become. I would like to hear their side of the story and get to the truth and not through the continued torturing and gestapo type rule of silence. Let’s hear the truth! What is the USA afraid of not to allow common law and inalienable rights to our fellow man to prevail? What are we hiding ? What are all the “suits” and “uniforms” so paranoid about? Open up the process and stop all the stupidity and illegalities by these militaristic minded insects. History will look back at this time and judge us to be no better than any other power-crazed politically out of control inadequate excuses for a Human Being. Knowledge is freedom and power.

Comment by pablo - June 6, 2008 at 11:04 pm

---

Most of you are correct. The idiots are wrong. Can we all agree???

Comment by hangglide - June 6, 2008 at 11:20 pm

---

If you are gay you are the devil.

Comment by nick - June 6, 2008 at 11:24 pm

---

There is no credibility or trust in this rotten process. Their leaders a attorneysre rotten, their judges are puppets, their attorneys are a laugh. This man has proven he becama aquainted with ordinary manipulations. Why weren’t they tried in the US? You all know the answer; and you also know it has absolutely nothing to do with Justice,.

Comment by Zeev Reuteman - June 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm

---

Let’s get smart and use their religion against them-before executing him show him the pigskin he will be buried in (but do not kill a pig for this;he is not worthy of a pig; slice up old footballs). Thus, he will know he will not be a martyr but will be doomed to hell.

Comment by Mark G- New York - June 6, 2008 at 11:42 pm

---

KSM’s a Republican!! It’s starting to makes sense now!

Comment by Gabe F - Texas - June 7, 2008 at 12:14 am

---

Lovin the Lord!!

Comment by Marie - June 7, 2008 at 12:29 am

----------

Copyright © 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/06/06/khalid-sheik-mohammed-on-same-sex-marriage-value-of-counsel/

[F6 note -- in addition to (items linked in) the post to which this post is a reply and preceding and (other) following, see also in particular (items linked in) http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=24438220 and (preceding and) following]





"Eternal vigilance is the price of Liberty."

F6