"Blessed Are The Peacemakers..."

Thank you, Rick, for this tribute--and the difficult questions as well.

I met several of the Christian peacemakers in front of the White House at the prayer service/exorcism and was deeply moved by the faith they had, as well as their deeply reflective questions about war and ego.

I would like to think deeply about Tom Fox today, and to also use this loss as an opportunity to reflect deeply on my own role in making peace.

Beautiful post.

I mourn not only for Tom Fox, but the people who murdered him, for they are truly lost souls. That however does not forgive them for their crime. Just as Tom Fox deserves our recgnition, admiration and praise, his murderers deserve swift and merciless punishment for their cruel act.

Who remembers the CBS News show when Dan Rather signed off with a single word, "Courage"?

Amazing post Rick on many levels.

Thank you.

Ralph...

Did you hear the news from Michigan? Minimum wage was increased beginning 10/06, by the Republican legislature, after the Democrats have been out working the streets for the last six months to increase the minimum wage and get it on the ballot. Then 'boom' behind closed doors, the Republicans do an about face and suddenly "whoosh" the minimum wage increase before the Senate and passed the measure.

How many families starved in the meantime? Are you aware that during the summer when the Republicans shortened their work week, they still paid themselves full time? Are you aware that for the 3 1/2 months of their part time work, they still made more money than a person working full-time at minimum wage?

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Here is my opinion on this developement - this is Republican "pre-emptive strike" to take an issue of the Democrats off the table. (BTW I believe it was only approved in the Senate, not in the House yet)

Here was the Demo Party plan about the minimum wage:

1) for several months the Dems would be circulating petitions calling for an increase in the minimum wage - and fomenting anger at the petty, selfish Republicans

2) With much fanfare the petition makes it on the ballot for 2006 election

3) the Dems use the minimum wage proposal as a hammer over the Republicans during the campaign

4) in the election, poor and middle class voters come out in high numbers, voting in favor of the minimum wage increase proposal and for Dem candidates. DEMS WIN!!!

By taking the issue off the table, the Republicans are depriving the Dems an issue - I am sure this was part of the Republican thinking. They want the 2006 election as boring as possible with regard to economic issues (since the state has high unemployment and continues to lose jobs) such as the minimum wage and turn-out low among the poor and blacks...

Rick, Thank you for writing this and for recalling the central need for peace making in our lives.

And now for something OT:

Via Firedoglake, "Just a friendly heads up that the Koufax voting ends this evening [Sunday, March 12th] at 11:59 pm (EST? Not sure, so if you haven't voted, do so early.) The folks at Wampum do a fantastic job coordinating this insanity, so show them some love and vote for your favorite progressive blogs -- show all of them a little love, too."

The details on how to vote are in this entry as are links to all the individual categories and their entries. This round of voting will take the lists down to a list of 6-10 finalists in each category which will then be publicized for the final round of voting.
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/03/002457.html

We are nominated in the following categories:

Best Blog (non-professional)

Best Series

Most Humorous Blog

Best Post

Best Blog Community

Best Writing

Best New Blog

Posted by: ralpheh at March 12, 2006 09:36 AM

I suspect the glacial speed for impeachment proceedings are stuck on the fact that the next in line is the Puppet Master. No one wants him in office, even Repubs. They're forgetting he can be impeached, too, even if his VP candidate is as bad as he is. That one could be impeached, etc....

Even the neoCons know the top two criminals installed in office are criminals, LIARS of the first magnitude, but you can bet your sweet bippy that legislators are getting something out of their silence and lack of insistence on proceeding on to impeaching Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee, or they would have been screaming for impeachment long before this, Repubs as well as Dems. They all know they were lied to, which resulted in their bad decisions.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

But the Democrats - especially in the Senate - have not criticized the president at all, not on the issue of Iraq ( AND ALL THE LIES - they don't even use the word "lies", they say "mistakes" as if the president weren't responsible, because everyone makes "mistakes"). Bush got his patriot act right through the Senate easily. The NSA wiretapping issue got a "compromise" with no hearings etc... eventhough Bush probably broke the law by avoiding the FISA court.

At this point the Dems have no position on the war in Iraq - other than they don't like what is going on right now... but offer nothing in terms of positive solutions.

The online petition for withdrawal of troops at

http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ufpj/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=235

only has 1,100 signers. This very, very small - on a slow day an AOL poll gets 50,000 votes in 12 hours. I doubt that this petition will get near 100,000 signers (even though Move On Org supposedly has 3.3 members, I am beginning to doubt the Move On membership figure).

A couple of comments, just my opinions.

I don't think "cruel and merciless punishment" of the killers of the peacemaker will solve anything but rather will perpetuate the cycle.

I don't agree that the Democrats have not criticized the President at all, and it will take more than criticism to break the cycle of conservative power.

As far as petition signature, I haven't been signing all of those. There are too many. I have been sending money, since we don't have real campaign finance reform.

Posted by: sparrow at March 12, 2006 10:06 AM

You misquoted me be careful when you do that. Look at the post.

Sorry sparrow. My comment was meant for nmp's 12:49 post. Merciless is EXACTLY what I meant to say as there should be no mercy for people who murder an innocent man whose only fault was being an American trying to bring peace to a troubled area. Justice is blind. Whatever punishment is felt appropriate by the Iraqi authorities for the murder of an innocent individual should be swift and without mercy.

Hey Everybody,

Matthew Carnicelli's series "The Tao of Politics" has been nominated for a Koufax Award.

Congratulations, Matt!!!!!

As far as petition signature, I haven't been signing all of those. There are too many. I have been sending money, since we don't have real campaign finance reform.

Posted by: nmp at March 12, 2006 12:49 PM

There are only two petitions - online - to withdraw troops - the UFPJ and Code Pink. If no one signs the peace petitions (as you are doing) for the 3rd Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, the Republicans and Democrats will look at the numbers and say "people really don't care that much about the war in Iraq and we can get away with the war for another 2 years (until 2008)".

nmp,

I really don't understand why punishing murderers would not accomplish anything? Please explain.

Not necessarily (about the petition numbers) - does anyone even receive these petitions, once the quota of signatures is on them, or pay attention to them? One petition to the UN was not even accepted. Internet activism is great but don't make the mistake of overestimating the number of liberals and progressives. We took a giant Backbone to the media outlets and they didn't even come to the door. Until the rank and file of the populace supports leaving Iraq and impeaching Bush, it won't happen. Also need to convince movers & shakers such as businessmen.

The MoveOn thing I got had to do with voter fraud. I get probably 15 or 20 organizatons that want me to sign petitions. Then on top of that there are the candidates wanting money. Then people's chain letters and silly jokes. I can't possibly keep up with it all.

Slightly removed topic -I just went to Target to buy a broom. Everything was made of plastic, even the brooms (I wanted a wooden one with straw bristles). Most everything was made in China, one step up from Walmart. They even had a fake dollar store within the store.

OnCall

If we had not gone to the middle east on our military adventure, the peacemakers would not have gone there. To catch the murderers means probably killing a bunch of other people. We have fed into a situation where kidnap is profitable. Catching and punishing the murderers will not bring the person back. If they are apprehended and punished, fine, but it basically won't change the situation much and I doubt it will even deter it from happening again. It could even be free publicity and encourage copycat crimes. I think we just have to concentrate on ways to get the hell out of there, which will take more than petitions, demonstrations or even impeachment. We need change in our form of government, the personnel in our government, our economic philosophy and our military/foreign policy of outmoded global dominance.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 12, 2006 01:27 PM

Re: Matthew Carnicelli has been nominated for Koufax Award for best series.

In case you want to go vote, here's the link. It's the 19th one down on the list.

http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/03/002427.html

Congratulations to everyone else who was nominated for a Koufax Award, too!!!

We have outstanding contributors here!!!!!

I don't agree that the Democrats have not criticized the President at all, and it will take more than criticism to break the cycle of conservative power.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I will repost this article:

Why are Dems silent you ask?

IV. The key factor: how will the Democrats react?

So far their leadership has been cautious on Iraq and Homeland Security issues. Despite intense pressure from their leftist core, they have supported the war – few in Congress are more gung ho than Hillary – and, for example, voted to renew the Patriot Act.

VI. Usama Bin Laden

In this scenario, a large terror strike by Al-Qaeda – or anyone claiming to be them, or even distantly related to them – would have incalculable consequences
It would wipe the Democratic Party from American game board. Finding a Democrat in post-strike America might be searching for a snake in Ireland, or a Nazi in 1947 Berlin (this does not posit any relationship or similarity between Democrats, snakes, and Nazis – it’s just an analogy).

Our tolerance for multi-culturalism is already fraying. Another strike might push America over the tipping point, into some radically different and less pleasant configuration.

The Democratic leadership knows all this, of course. That’s why the attack on Bush is led by dispensables like Howard Dean and Al Gore – not John Kerry or Hillary.

Much rides on the ability of the ability of the Democratic leadership to resist the pressure from their base and the temptation of victory.

@@@@@@

As far as petition signature, I haven't been signing all of those. There are too many. I have been sending money, since we don't have real campaign finance reform.

Posted by: nmp at March 12, 2006 12:49 PM

@@@@@@@@@@

It will probably take more than criticism and money to beat the Republicans - it will take more votes, of course...

Not necessarily (about the petition numbers) - does anyone even receive these petitions, once the quota of signatures is on them, or pay attention to them? One petition to the UN was not even accepted. Internet activism is great but don't make the mistake of overestimating the number of liberals and progressives. We took a giant Backbone to the media outlets and they didn't even come to the door. Until the rank and file of the populace supports leaving Iraq and impeaching Bush, it won't happen. Also need to convince movers & shakers such as businessmen.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

You haven't been paying attention - the Move On Org petition, Out Of Iraq, was submitted to some 200 congresspersons' offices in December. The signers of the petition were catagorized by which Congressional district they lived in and local Move On people, like myself, received the petition and all of signers in that Cong. district in a PDF file. We printed out the pdf file and took it to the Congressman's office.

The UFPJ petition will be submitted to Congress in May. You might want to go to the link and read about it....

Posted by: nmp at March 12, 2006 01:38 PM

I don't disagree with most of what you say, and certainly there is a dead person who will not come back, but for murder there is no excuse that can be used to avoid punishment. If we are fearful that there may be copycats because punishment was meted out for the perpetrators of this murder, then what are our values?

I have been just as vociferous about my opposition to this war and the crimes committed in its name. Do we have a responsibility for what has happened? Absolutely we have a responsibility. But you and I did not torture and execute Mr. Fox. His murderers did, and for that they have to face the consequences.

Ralpheh
Good post - I had seen you refer to that article but hadn't read it all. It will take votes to win and we need to insure that no one is tampering with the internal software in the machines and the software needs to be in the public domain. Paper ballots need to be secure between posting and arrival, not subcontracted out to questionable entities. Then maybe we will start to see change. And yes, I should start paying more attention to the petitions again. If they are indeed being delivered and acknowledged then they need to be signed. We also need to get hard copy signatures off the internet too, as by people who don't have computers. That will take people getting signatures outside grocery stores etc. Then we may see more change.

On Call
I understand what you are saying. I was looking at the whole larger context. Justice seems rare nowdays. The Iraq was was sold as away of getting justice, but that's never what it was - not for 9/11, which it was not directly related to, not for those killed by Saddam, which it didn't help. Locking people up in Guantanamo, Abu Graib and ghost prisons was passed off as getting justice, as they might have knowledge that led to crimes, but holding them without charges and torturing them did not really serve justice. Conservative courts pass what they do off as maintaining justice, but it's not what they really do. I agreed with the work of the Peacemakers and also with the humanitarian aid workers such as World Concern and Mercy Corps (who have been forced out by the dangerous situation or else do not embed with the military because it makes them targets.) I agreed with the work of the journalists from several countries who have died in the line of duty. & speaking of justice, it needs to be done for the innocents who have died in these wars, but the fact is that it's impossible for that to happen.

Hmmm...

[Long Post Alert -- but please don't just scroll down past it, it's not just a repost of something taken from an email or a MSM source...]

================

If we had not gone to the middle east on our military adventure, the peacemakers would not have gone there.

Posted by: nmp at March 12, 2006 01:38 PM

----------------

As George Gershwin pointed out in his classic American opera 'Porgy and Bess,' "it ain't necessarily so." The CP teams would certainly have been practicing peacemaking in the Middle East whether we had invaded Iraq or not. In fact, they're practicing their peacemaking practically everywhere -- even here in the USA. Take a look at their home page at http://www.cpt.org and see for yourself how much they're doing in how many places. You'll be amazed. I know I was.

=================

Just as Tom Fox deserves our recognition, admiration and praise, his murderers deserve swift and merciless punishment for their cruel act.

Posted by: oncall at March 12, 2006 12:06 PM

----------------

That ain't necessarily so, either. In fact, it's necessarily *not* so. This is a direct quote excerpted from the official statement they made in re their presence in Iraq back in March of 2005 (which was, by the way, signed by Tom Fox along with the other members of his team):

"As a peacemaking team we need to cross boundaries, help soldiers and other armed actors be humane, and invite them to refuse unjust orders. We need to help preserve what is human in all of us and so offer glimpses of hope in a dark time.

"We unequivocally reject kidnapping and hostage-taking. In such an event, CPT will attempt to communicate with the hostage-takers or their sponsors and work against journalists' inclination to vilify and demonize the offenders. We will try to understand the motives for these actions, and to articulate them, while maintaining a firm stance that such actions are wrong. If appropriate, CPT will work with diplomatic officials from our representative governments to avoid a violent outcome.

"We reject the use of violent force to save our lives should we be kidnapped, held hostage, or caught in the middle of a violent conflict situation. We also reject violence to punish anyone who harms us. We ask for equal justice in the arrest and trial of anyone, soldier or civilian, who commits an act of violence, and we ask that there be no retaliation on their relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. Therefore, any penalty should be in the spirit of restorative justice, rather than in the form of violent retribution."

================

I am not a Christian myself, as most of you have figured out from things I've posted here over the last year or so. I'm about as anti-dogmatic and anti-piousness as they come. And my Goddess is certainly not their God.

But I followed the links at the beginning of this thread's header, and I did a little bit of googling about this specific Christian faith-based organization, and I have to admit -- what I learned about Tom Fox and his fellow CP teams around the world made me feel, well, humbled.

Especially when I read the last thing that Tom Fox posted to his CPT group on the day before he was abducted. He felt compelled to address from Iraq the question, "Why are we here?"

The following is only part of the answer he wrote in response. You can find the whole thing at http://www.cpt.org/archives/2005/dec05/0007.html ... and I hope y'all will take the time to read his whole message, and look through his organization's website in at least some detail, and then if you have the time, read some of Tom Fox's own blog.

----------------

As Tom Fox wrote:

"I have read that the word in the Greek Bible that is translated as 'love' is the word 'agape.' Again, I have read that this word is best expressed as a profound respect for all human beings simply for the fact that they are all God's children. I would state that idea in a somewhat different way, as 'never thinking or doing anything that would dehumanize one of my fellow human beings.'

"As I survey the landscape here in Iraq, dehumanization seems to be the operative means of relating to each other. U.S. forces in their quest to hunt down and kill 'terrorists' are, as a result of this dehumanizing word, not only killing 'terrorists,' but also killing innocent Iraqis: men, women and children in the various towns and villages.

"It seems as if the first step down the road to violence is taken when I dehumanize a person. That violence might stay within my thoughts or find its way into the outer world and become expressed verbally, psychologically, structurally or physically. As soon as I rob a fellow human being of his or her humanity by sticking a dehumanizing label on them, I begin the process that can have, as an end result, torture, injury and death.

"'Why are we here?' We are here to root out all aspects of dehumanization that exist within us. We are here to stand with those being dehumanized by oppressors and stand firm against that dehumanization. We are here to stop people, including ourselves, from dehumanizing any of God's children, no matter how much they dehumanize their own souls."

================

Wow.

I don't know about you guys, but reading statements like that, statements made firmly and sincerely in the face of danger, just knocks me off my pins.

These people are Christians. I am not a Christian myself. But we believe the same things when it comes to what they're doing in the name of peace... so much so that I almost wish I *was* a Christian myself, just so that I could volunteer to help them in their work.

maybe I'm amazed,
Otter

Otter
Thanks. I know Christians like that (Quakers & so on). & then there are the nuns who did time for putting blood on missile silos in Colorado, and there are many more instances.

I really think that the essence of any religion before it's doctored with by mullahs, bishops, rabbis etc would only consist of peacemaking activties. & the essence that the religions share is something we may all have within us.

So it's not so much about the "religion," as defined in human terms. If there is love and compassion, then individual religons have possibly tried to claim it. If there is peace, then it has usually not been the primary focus of most organized religions and their practitioners, obviously.

Thanks again for posting that stuff.
(I'm Buddhist by the way)

Another long post warning...

As for dems standing up about the Iraq War, Wampum Wabanaki has a very nice piece which includes the transcript of John Edwards with Tim Russert on MTP:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, in November of 2005, you wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, and said this: I was wrong. Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told and what many of us believed and argued was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake." Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: I don't think I was the only one who was wrong, but I'm the one who had to make the judgement about how to vote on this resolution about Iraq. I listened to the information we got on the Intelligence Committee which I served on. I talked to former Clinton administration officials. And it turns out that the very premise for voting for the resolution and for the invasion of Iraq, which was the presence of weapons of mass destruction, was inaccurate. It was wrong. I had an independent responsibility to make a judgement and cast this vote. It turns out that the vote was wrong and my judgement was wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: In February of '05, you praised the turnout in the election as a wonderful, extraordinary thing. And then back in November of '03, you were on MEET THE PRESS and I asked you about your vote then. Let's listen to your response in November of '03.

(Videotape, November 2003):

MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret your vote in giving George Bush, in effect, a blank check for the War in Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. I voted for what I believe was in the best security interest of the American people.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: That was after the war had begun considerably. We hadn't found WMD. What, what caused the change in your thinking?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, the truth is I was, then, I was still trying to defend my vote. When the election was over and I had time to think about this and reflect on it, it became increasingly clear to me that I talk a great deal about the need for moral leadership in America and for America to provide moral leadership for the world. Well, the foundation for moral leadership is the truth. And for me, saying that my vote was wrong is the truth. And so I thought it was important to say it.

MR. RUSSERT: In October - I'm sorry, in February of '02, you said, "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." Do you believe that was accurate?

SEN. EDWARDS: No. No, it's not accurate. I was wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: Just dead wrong.

SEN. EDWARDS: I was wrong. Absolutely.

Read the entire piece here...
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/03/002465.html

MTP transcript is here...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11654734/

-----

And then there's Sen. Russ Feingold who on the ABC program This Week today called for censure of President Bush. He's been a consistently outspoken critic of the President's moves.

-----

and as for a more specific plan, here's a lengthy excerpt from one offered in October 2005:

To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays.

The Administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector by sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn. No more shell games, no more false reports of progress, but specific and measurable goals.

It is true that our soldiers increasingly fight side by side with Iraqis willing to put their lives on the line for a better future. But history shows that guns alone do not end an insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq – Sunni versus Shiia – will only be settled by a political solution, and no political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on the indefinite large scale presence of occupying American combat troops.

In fact, because we failed to take advantage of the momentum of our military victory, because we failed to deliver services and let Iraqis choose their leaders early on, our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not the solution.

The Military Agrees:

And our generals understand this. General George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence “feeds the notion of occupation” and “extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.” And Richard Nixon’s Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, breaking a thirty year silence, writes, ''Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency." No wonder the Sovereignty Committee of the Iraqi Parliament is already asking for a timetable for withdrawal of our troops; without this, Iraqis believe Iraq will never be its own country.

We must move aggressively to reduce popular support for the insurgency fed by the perception of American occupation. An open-ended declaration to stay ‘as long as it takes’ lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want, and it becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption.

It will be hard for this Administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down, starting immediately after successful elections in December. The draw down of troops should be tied not to an arbitrary timetable, but to a specific timetable for transfer of political and security responsibility to Iraqis and realignment of our troop deployment. That timetable must be real and strict. The goal should be to withdraw the bulk of American combat forces by the end of next year. If the Administration does its work correctly, that is achievable.

We Need A Political Solution:

Our strategy must achieve a political solution that deprives the Sunni-dominated insurgency of support by giving the Sunnis a stake in the future of their country. The Constitution, opposed by more than two thirds of Sunnis, has postponed and even exacerbated the fundamental crisis of Iraq. The Sunnis want a strong secular national government that fairly distributes oil revenues. Shiites want to control their own region and resources in a loosely united Islamic state. And Kurds simply want to be left alone. Until sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base can not be created that isolates the hard core Baathists and jihaadists and defuses the insurgency.

We Need a Regional Security Agreement:

The Administration must bring to the table the full weight of all of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors. They also have a large stake in a stable Iraq. Instead of just telling us that Iraq is falling apart, as the Saudi foreign minister did recently, they must do their part to put it back together. We’ve proven ourselves to be a strong ally to many nations in the region. Now it’s their turn to do their part.

The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq’s neighbors, Britain, Turkey and other key NATO allies, and Russia. All of these countries have influence and ties to various parties in Iraq. Together, we must implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise. This must include obtaining mutual security guarantees among Iraqis themselves. Shiite and Kurdish leaders need to make a commitment not to perpetrate a bloodbath against Sunnis in the post-election period. In turn, Sunni leaders must end support for the insurgents, including those who are targeting Shiites. And the Kurds must explicitly commit themselves not to declare independence.

To enlist the support of Iraq’s Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure that strengthens the security of the countries in the region and the wider community of nations. This requires a phased process including improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and participation by countries both outside and within the Middle East.

Improve Training:

Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a six month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The Administration must stop using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more.

You can read the entire speech here...
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2005_10_26.html

Support our resisting troops (and it's hard to resist from inside the military system).

In the last few days, a Navy guy handed in his "wings" because he couldn't go along ethically.

http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=03100631036

Now, among our British "ally" troops:

Soldier Quits Over 'Illegal' Tactics in Iraq
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031206X.shtml

A British SAS soldier has refused to fight in Iraq and has left the Army over the "illegal" tactics of United States troops and the policies of coalition forces.

Dwahzon
That long post was worth it - thanks!

An update about the Koufax award voting -- the deadline has been extended till Monday, March 13 at 11:59 pm (presumably EST).

via watertiger at Dependable Renegade....

How-dee. The good folks over at Wampum have been suffering from server dyspepsia, so they've extended the voting deadline (which was supposed to be 11:59 p.m. tonight) at least until tomorrow.

Pass along good vibes to those guys over there - they're doing more than a heckuva job.

more from wampum wabanaki about the change
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/vault/2006/03/002483.html

Posted by: Otter at March 12, 2006 02:21 PM

The essence of Christianity, as far as what I have come to understand deeply, is that it has a message of love and hope for everyone.
I say this because when taken in it's entire context, the gospel of Jesus Christ is nothing more and nothing less than a message to all of God's children that God loves each and every single person and places extremely high value on each one as well.

Love. Agape love. The kind of love that gives without hooks and strings attached. He wants us to learn that we are loved, lovable, and to start to love ourselves the way He loves us. Then once we understand that, He wants us to love each other the same way. People get into serious trouble when they are catapulted into leadership in the Christian movement when they are too immature to understand that. They miss a step along the way. It usually starts with they aren't sure they themselves are loved or lovable. So they put all their treasures in money and material things, and try to outdo one another, and alot of pride and greed steps in.
The more they allow that to happen and to go on, the more callous they become.

This is not what Jesus taught, and never was. These people need to go back to the basics.

Don't ever expect anyone to care for you that doesn't care for, love, and respect himself. It won't happen. They don't have it to give.

Most of the other stuff is man made doctrine as far as I'm concerned, is not what Jesus taught EVER, and gives all Christians a bad name.

Alot of Christians know this. More don't because they are still IMMATURE. And the Rovester just uses them to confuse everyone.

Thanks for the post, Otter.

This doesn't happen to just Christians (the distortion and corruption of the message). There is much good is Islam and Judaism as well as other religions and then comes fanaticism, profit motive and ego. Within Islam, I like the Sufis so much - they're very heart-centered. The music is absolutely wonderful. & read Nasrudin, Rumi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufism

Also:

The Center for Disease Control has issued a warning about a new virulent strain of Sexually Transmitted Disease.

The disease is contracted through dangerous and high-risk behavior.

The disease is called Gonorrhea Lectim and pronounced "gonna re-elect him." Many victims contracted it in 2004, after having been screwed for the past four years.

Cognitive characteristics of individuals infected include:

anti-social personality disorders, delusions of grandeur with messianic overtones; extreme cognitive dissonance, inability to incorporate new information, pronounced xenophobia and paranoia; inability to accept responsibility for own actions, cowardice masked by misplaced bravado, uncontrolled facial smirking, ignorance of geography and history, tendencies towards evangelical theocracy, & categorical all-or-nothing behavior.

Naturalists and epidemiologists are amazed at how this destructive disease originated only a few years ago from a bush found in Texas.

I have seen Sufi dancing in Turkey and in Seattle & read Sufi writing since 1970. They also have some of the most beautiful music in the world.

If this form of Islam had gained more currency in the middle east, there would not be all the wars - I'm convinced. & I think true Christians, true Hindhus, true Buddhists & so on could all co-exist & also with those not espousing such a religion but with heartful values.

The central concept in Sufism is love. Dervishes—the name given to initiates of sufi orders—believe that love is a projection of the essence of God to the universe.They believe that God desires to recognize beauty, and as if one looks at a mirror to see oneself, God looks at himself within the dynamics of nature. This is substantiated using the famous Hadith Qudsi (extra-Qur'anic utterance of God): "I was a hidden treasure, and I wanted to be known, so I created Creation." Since they believe that everything is a reflection of God, Sufis try to see the beauty inside the apparently ugly, and to open arms even to what is considered the most evil one. The Sufi conception of divine love is not restricted to what the term "love of God" implies, it also includes human loves with a perspective that views everything a manifestation of God.

The central doctrine of Sufism, sometimes called Wahdat or Unity, is the Sufi understanding of Tawhid. Put very simply Tawhid states that all phenomena are manifestations of a single reality, or Wujud (being), which is indeed al-Haq (Truth, God). The essence of being/Truth/God is devoid of every form and quality, and hence unmanifest, yet it is inseparable from every form and phenomenon either material or spiritual. It is often understood to imply that every phenomenon is an aspect of Truth and at the same time attribution of existence to it is false. The chief aim of all Sufis then is to let go of all notions of duality (and therefore of the individual self also), and realize the divine unity which is considered to be the truth.

Ibn Arabi describes this doctrine in a poetic language:

It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon by every eye, worshipped in every object of worship, and pursued in the unseen and the visible. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find Him in its primordial and original nature.

Sufis teach in personal groups, believing that the intervention of the master is necessary for the growth of the pupil. They make extensive use of parables, allegory, and metaphors, and it is held by Sufis that meaning can only be reached through a process of seeking the truth, and knowledge of oneself.

Although philosophies vary between different Sufi orders, Sufism as a whole is primarily concerned with direct personal experience, and as such may be compared to various forms of mysticism such as Zen Buddhism and Gnosticism.

Otter and nmp,

Merciless is not the same as cruel.

Definitions are from the Oxford English Dictionary:

cruel: adjective ( -eler, -elest; Brit. -eller , -ellest ) causing pain or suffering
having or showing a sadistic disregard for the pain or suffering of others

merciless: adjective showing no mercy or pity

mercy| noun ( pl. -cies) compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm
an event to be grateful for, esp. because its occurrence prevents something unpleasant or provides relief from suffering [as adj. ] (esp. of a journey or mission) performed out of a desire to relieve suffering; motivated by compassion

As Otter posted upthread from CPT's site:

We ask for equal justice in the arrest and trial of anyone, soldier or civilian, who commits an act of violence, and we ask that there be no retaliation on their relatives or property. We forgive those who consider us their enemies. Therefore, any penalty should be in the spirit of restorative justice, rather than in the form of violent retribution."

So Otter, the CPT recognizes that there is a role for punishment. I am not advocating torture, but rather justice that fits the crime. That justice is defined by the Iraqis and is not for Americans to judge as to how appropriate it may or may not be. We have only Mr. Fox's words to gain a better understanding of how he viewed the interpersonal relations of his fellow human beings. There does not seem to be anything in his comments that excuse individuals for their crimes. Rather there is an observation that those behaviors negate what truly makes them human. He does not, nor does his organization seem to support the notion that criminal behavior should go unpunished. As best as I can understand what drove the murderers of Mr. Fox, that understanding does not excuse them from the punishment they deserve for their crime. If no punishment is deemed appropriate (taking your and nmp's point to its logical conclusion), then dehumanizing has won the battle.

Part of the Kerry speech:

The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not. The truth is, if the Bush Administration had come to the United States Senate and acknowledged there was no “slam dunk case” that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, acknowledged that Iraq was not connected to 9/11, there never would have even been a vote to authorize the use of force -- just as there’s no vote today to invade North Korea, Iran, Cuba, or a host of regimes we rightfully despise.

@@@@@@

Two things:

It is very sad that Kerry couldn't have said this exact thing during his 2004 campaign for president, if he had that's what you could call "leadership". Instead, during the 2004 campaign Kerry said things like "I voted against the $87 billion for Iraq then I voted for the $87 billion." or " I would still have voted for going to war in Iraq, knowing then what I know now." These strange statements stunned us anti-war people during the 2004 campaign, and this is why Kerry has very little credibility with me now, on the Iraq war issue.

BTW what is also troubling is Kerry's endorsement of Dem candidates who have not taken a position on the war.

And Clinton and Schumer are even worse - they support Bush 100% in Iraq...

No, as the WaPo and NYtimes articles point out, the Dems do not have an even modestly coherent position on Iraq.

This is Christian, baby.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell might consider it a heresy and a blasphemy but in fact, they have the roles quite reversed!

GNOSTICISM IS THE TEACHING based on Gnosis, the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means. Although Gnosticism thus rests on personal religious experience, it is a mistake to assume all such experience results in Gnostic recognitions. It is nearer the truth to say that Gnosticism expresses a specific religious experience, an experience that does not lend itself to the language of theology or philosophy, but which is instead closely affinitized to, and expresses itself through, the medium of myth.

All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it.

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

--Philosophically, how do religions differ as to whether the nature of the universe is perfect or flawed? That may play into ideas about sin and karma. It obviously doesn't look like a perfect universe at this point, but on the other hand it is complex and astounding.

What answer do humans really have except to practice unconditional love? & have enough tried this?! Do we try to assume we know the answers to things we do not, such as the age of the universe, how life developed or even what is right and wrong?!! Do orthodox religions even really get at these things? What do we have usually except for the opinions of some elders that we are supposed to follow?! I have talked to people from several religious traditions (by upbringing) who have these same questions.

Our politicians can't answer them and I don't think the religious heads can. Billy Graham finally said Katrina was no one's fault.

Oncall

Compassion has to be boundless or it is not compassion.

Ralpheh
Just so you know, I supported Kerry while disagreeing with his position on the war, Israel or trade. I did alot of work to try to get him elected and I do not regret it. It sounds like a contradiction but I was not one who tried to justify the IWR vote etc. Anyone who was on his blog can tell you sometimes I was the lone vocal antiwar person. I could justify my views, my support of Kerry as well (it was partially pragmatic, partially because I wasn't voting just on basis of the war). Other candidates had other pros and cons and of the collection, I supported him the most. It was not unconditional and I knew many like you. Just so you know. If I had to have supported someone on the issue mainly of the war, it would have been Kucinich.

If this form of Islam had gained more currency in the middle east, there would not be all the wars -I'm convinced. & I think true Christians, true Hindhus, true Buddhists & so on could all co-exist & also with those not espousing such a religion but with heartful values.

Posted by: DiAnne at March 12, 2006 04:14 PM

I agree.

DiAnne,

Not to split hairs, but gnosticism is not Christianity. Agnostics acknowledge a higher being. Christians acknowledge God and also acknowledge Jesus Christ.

The point is as you said earlier, DiAnne, that all could get along easily together if it weren't for the immature and fanatical in each religion,
and among the non-religious.

The point is as you said earlier, DiAnne, that all could get along easily together if it weren't for the immature and fanatical in each religion,
and among the non-religious.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 12, 2006 04:56 PM

And since there will always be the immature and fanatical among us, we have to make the best of it, those who understand this. And do what we can to make a difference.

Obviously my opions about punishment are not popular today. I have noticed there have been no comments about the first statement in my post. It is not necessarily all that different than what CPT espouses. Also my post initally was incorrectly quoted as well. Was that misquote Freudian? Let's remember one thing. I pity the people who are victims of a situation that is not their fault and thereby creates murderers, but I don't pity murderers.

I CANNOT accept being told about my compassion or lack thereof Posted by DiAnne at March 12, 2006 04:31 PM). Again, I ask you to reread my orignal post in its entirety (the second post in this thread). I have compassion for the unfortunate situation as it stands, but I feel no compassion towards the murderers (Arab/Muslim or Western/Christian). They all have broken the most sacred of laws. The circumstances (which includes the innocent) are all that deserve my compassion and pity.

Posted by: DiAnne at March 12, 2006 04:31 PM

I don't think compassion means you can't ever protect yourself, or draw a line in the sand.

Many mistake Jesus as a milque-toast character, and I don't think that was the entirety of his message. I could be wrong. I don't know for certain, but according to the balance I have sought in my own beliefs, I believe we are not asked or required to be enablers, nor are we required to be basket-case mamby pambies who cannot take care of ourselves or stick up for ourselves. (I am speaking of those in the Christian faith.)

I believe in mercy. I don't believe lone murderers should be killed in return. They might change their minds some day after they are educated and mature a bit. Not just into the religions, but speaking across the board. That is, unless of course, there is a whole country of them, or a whole network of them that want to take us out. In that case I sincerely think it is our responsibility to our sons and daughters to protect ourselves and our children's children and to do whatever is necessary to do so.

If the war in Iraq was indeed a pre-emptive strike and we all knew that for sure, would we all feel differently about the war there? I think I would. The fact that there is no proof that it was, and the apparent fact that we were lied to and manipulated makes it a very different, and very ugly story indeed.

I see what you are saying, DiAnne, and I see what you are saying too, OnCall.

That's the pity of such things. Once the murder has begun, who do you blame????

Truth Shall Prevail

Gnostics are not the same as Agnostics.
Gnostics are a mystical branch of Christianity.

OnCall

I consider you a very compassionate person.
It's a matter of semantics. I would be behind a just punishment but not cruel or unusual, and I would not use merciless, myself. There is always a point where i could see having mercy.
It may also be a matter of my personal beliefs about compassion but in no way a reflection on yours.
Also, you have now clarified that you mean all the murderers.
If I missed that, I am sorry and I am going to reread the whole post. I just wanted to be more "turn the other cheek" than "eye for an eye." (& I'm not suggesting you meant that) I

Truth Shall Prevail
I think that is what I was trying to say - I don't believe lone murderers should be killed in return. I don't see that it really balances things out.

I do not want to start ethical arguments or feed nto them.
I cannot think of a person on this blog who is not basically loving and ethical.

Once the murder has begun, who do you blame????

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 12, 2006 05:17 PM

It is not so much a matter of *whom* to blame IMHO, rather it is a matter of responsibility. Who is responsible for the murders? That is simply the distinction I make. However, your point about the potential for change, is well taken. I have considered it, and am not a death penalty supporter. The Europeans as best as I understand do not have a death penalty. I wonder if they have life imprisonment without parole?

Truth Shall Prevail

Theology gets complicated but from what I'm reading (and what I thought), a Gnostic "knows" there is a God, an Agnostic "does not know" if there is a God, as opposed to an Aetheist, who knows there is not a God. (Whether any really know, I'm not sure, but they sure do seem to THINK they know).

As far as I know, Gnosticism is an old mystical Christian tradition, as Sufism is an old mystical Islamic tradition. What i had read before was that the small mystic kernel of every religion was pretty similar. What they seem to have in common is that the person's experience of "God" is personal, moreso than indoctrinated, and they focus on that - rather than following a bunch of complicated doctrine and ritual.

Believe me, I don't know alot about theology but it's another thing, like immigration, that I'm trying to learn about because I want to know why there is so much conflict in the world and find some routes to improve the situation.

Over half the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty but not in a unform manner. Some retain it for certain crimes or with certain conditions. Aboliton of the death penalty is a condition for EU membership. US failure to abolish the death penalty isolates us among the developed countries.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=30&did=140

Once the murder has begun, who do you blame????

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 12, 2006 05:17 PM

It is not so much a matter of *whom* to blame IMHO, rather it is a matter of responsibility. Who is responsible for the murders? That is simply the distinction I make. However, your point about the potential for change, is well taken. I have considered it, and am not a death penalty supporter. The Europeans as best as I understand do not have a death penalty. I wonder if they have life imprisonment without parole?

On Call
I think Europe varies - Finland and Germany have life imprisonment without parole but Switzerland has various degrees. This is quite an interesting area of law.

DiAnne,

O.K. Thanks for that info regarding agnostics that don't know and know that they don't know, and Gnostics, who do know or at least think they know. Sheesh.

Oncall,

We all know that you are a very kind and compassionate person. You have dedicated yourself and your profession to help people live longer and not suffer. You are a dedicated husband and father, and a patriot.

I think all our tethers are getting a bit short because we are frustrated.

I don't know if you were able to catch the thread about a month ago when I was speaking about people in my own small community of just over a thousand people getting frustrated at this administration.

A blue collar worker and a restaurant owner were talking about the administration about a month ago in the restaurant. I had never seen the blue collar gentleman before, but he was in town to pick his wife up from work, and he was very upset.
He was talking real loud and saying that he doesn't think we can stand two more years of the present administration. The other man said he would be surprised if there wasn't a revolution before then.

I had never talked politics with either of them previously.

This in the heart of red America.

And then there's always Kinky Friedman's notion of a sect called the Jehovah's Bystanders -- they do believe that there is a God, they just don't want to get involved.

kinky for gubna,
Otter

Oncall and DiAnne,

I don't ever excuse murder. However, if the people who tortured and killed Tom Fox felt they were fighting a war in doing so would that make them less responsible?

That is the pity of the whole thing.

And the way we have seen spin in our own country, and the killing and maiming of our own children as they come back (if they come back) from this war, who's to say where it all just might go wild and everyone is out for the other side's blood?

I am sorry for Tom Fox. I am sorry for those men who thought they needed to torture and kill him. I am sorry for every single man woman and child who has had to suffer from the results of greed and positioning. I am sorry for the children we look at and we don't know what the future holds for them. I'm sorry for the innocent everywhere.
And, when, oh when, and how do we decide who is innocent? I'm sad for myself. I never thought in a million years that America would treat people inhumanely, or that we would ever enter into another war in my lifetime. I thought we had learned our lesson in Vietnam.

I do know one thing, at least I think I do. That if Saddam Hussein was not a proven threat to us we should probably have not gone for an occupation of Iraq. Now look at the hornets' nest.

If I were a more suspicious person, I would almost wonder if the terrorists who kidnap and kill these pro-peace Christian people in Iraq are indeed terrorists at all. It sure would behoove our spin doctors to get publicity out that showed that our Christian ambassadors are getting kidnapped and murdered by terrorists "over there". I would think that would play right into the right base's emotions.

So would also another strike on our nation, right before voting time.

We need change in our form of government, the personnel in our government, our economic philosophy and our military/foreign policy of outmoded global dominance.

Posted by: nmp at March 12, 2006 01:38 PM

We need societal change from the very roots.

Veritas!

I remember your post a few threads back where you said that everything is a cycle, and we need not think '08 can be easily won either.

Could you expound on that a little bit please?

TSP -

I'm working on a series of blog headers that I hope will answer your question more fully. (The first in the series was "Be the Government".)

I'll forward you via email a summary of the ideas as I discussed w/Karen & Dick.

In a nutshell: true, lasting governmental change can only emerge after society has been re-engineered from its roots. As you might imagine...this takes time. The current admin started planting their seeds in earnest some 40 years ago and it is only now that their plans are beginning to come to full fruition. (Yes, I did say this is just the beginning.)

"What I'm interested in is my colleagues acknowledging that we as a Congress have to stand up to a president who acts as if the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were repealed on September 11," he said. "We didn't enact martial law on September 11. We still have a constitutional form of government, and if the Congress of the United States does not stand up for that authority at this point, it will be an historic failure of our system of government."

- Senator Russ Fiengold

V.

Thanks.

Posted by: Veritas at March 12, 2006 07:20 PM

That makes sense. It really does.

We are running around every time we see an owie or a boo-boo trying to figure out a way to put a band-aid on the problem. And there are more problems at this point than there are band-aids.

So we worry worry worry and fret about all the boo-boos, and about the systemic cause of the boo-boos, but I think we are all overcome by boo-boos and don't know HOW to fix it.

Your headers should be great, V. I can't wait.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the politics of this. Are you concerned at all that this might backfire? The Republicans in the Senate and the House have been pulling away from President Bush. Do you think this might unify them behind him?

FEINGOLD: This is the tough question for us, especially the Democratic Party. We have a choice here. We can try to sort of gloss this over. In other words, go out like a lamb in March and say, OK, the president broke the law, but we're going to get in political trouble if we talk about that.

That is not the way for Democrats to talk. Democrats have to be as tough as they can on national security. This whole Dubai thing has indicated that. But we also have to be the party that stands up for the rule of law and for protecting the civil liberties of innocent Americans. We are the party, if we do it right, that can do both of those things, and I think that's the right message for the American people.

I agree with you, though. There is a possibility -- I've even heard some Democratic potential presidential candidates saying, you know, the president might have broken the law, but we shouldn't touch that. We have an absolute obligation as members of Congress and public servants to stand up for our system of government. And that overrides any political considerations that might exist.

http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Full_transcript_Feingold_announces_he_will_0312.html

With little hope of getting much legislation passed in an election year, Bush plans to stay relevant through an aggressive schedule of fund raising and rally stops for Republican candidates, most of whom are still eager for presidential visits. One Bush adviser sees political promise for the President in a nuclear peril. "Certainly, there's going to be a serious showdown on Iran," he said. "He's very relevant on that, and that may help his numbers a little bit."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1172231,00.html

Posted by: monkey at March 12, 2006 08:11 PM

That'll help his numbers alright.

Poof. What is 0 + 0?

Veritas
Yes I've been aware you were working on that (change from foundation up) - good project. I like to be practical but also am always curious about how the system works. I like to see patterns and know how things work, basically.

Truth Shall Prevail
It makes sense that those who supported Bush and has policies are starting to have their world shaken up. Alot of us, and alot of the rest of the world, already have and realized it a long time ago. If more are waking up, it's good.

Monkey
Invading Iraq may be popular at first with those who need their adrenalin rush and think the whole thing is a video game. I wonder how they'll like paying for it for the rest of their life, not to mention their offsprings'? & I wonder if they'll get enough excitement when it escalates into WW3?

I don't have answers, but I so appreciate the level of discussion on this thread--and thanks, otter, for the needed chuckle.

I have been thinking about Tom Fox and what he might try to tell us. So I called my friend Victor, who had called together a gathering to think about Tom, held at Busboys and Poets last evening.

Those who knew him agreed, Tom would not want retribution. They said they would like people to pray for those who killed Tom.

Victor said the mood in the room was intense sadness. People seemed shocked into silence.

The question resonates: how could this happen to us? As Americans, the internal sense of pain is so palpable.

I asked Victor why he thought Tom was killed. He said there was discussion of the fact that Tom had been a Marine, and they may have simply seen him as a symbol of evil.

We talked about the senselessness of the act. Those who killed him could not distinguish between the Christian peacemakers and the evil Americans, and how could they? WE don't understand the Christian peacemakers, nor why they do as they do. (I mean Americans in general, not necessarily us here at the DCP)

They believe in praying for forgivenness--for themselves, the murderers, and for all of us.

Pretty active peacemaking and it begs the question: am I even remotely capable of living a life at that level?

You have those peacemakers, and then you have these (so-called)...

Meanwhile, lobbyists and outside Republican strategists are pleading anew for a White House shake-up, arguing that if this were a business, the management would be thrown out. "The Bushies have proved that five people can run the country for four years and one day," a G.O.P. congressional aide complained. The critics are conducting their conversations with the President's men in polite code, such as asking how they can help. "There is a drumbeat," a Bush friend explained, "but it's not resonant in the White House. These are people this Administration, and the President in particular, disdains. You scrape 'em off your shoes--and keep going."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1172231-2,00.html

WHO are the wolves in sheeps clothing, eh?

Isn't it intersting Russet,Matthews and ilk continue to go after dems on the war vote,then NEVER take on reps for the same thing ??
The DLC needs to FORGET those Reagan dems that went for Reagan(1/2 are dead at best now),trying to get them back..they won't. We need LEADERSHIP that pushes the envelop to get those other 79 million a REASON to vote,and BACK to our base and just get them out to vote. Notice how MSM is already saying over and over again"DEMS HAVE NO PLAN." Pretty soon Joe six-pac believes that and in comes another rep adm.
Listened to Mike Patantonio on AIR (RING OF FIRE)yesterday with Robt. Kennedy...WOW..it was fire,hell and brimstone,the good kind.!You want to hear clear messaging in taking on reps (included scripture quotes ect)...that's exactly what we need now! Just go to Air America and click on the link for RING OF FIRE,live streaming.

JK on c-span 1 now.

Nice. This is from Feingold's site, about plan to call for censure of Bush tomorrow.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/03/20060312.html

Posted by: DAnne at March 12, 2006 10:44 PM

Who wants to make a prediction on how much press coverage Feingold's censure motion receives.

My prediction: Page 12 below the fold and maybe 45 seconds on network news. Perhaps a stunning one minute on cable news. I hope I am wrong.

Posted by: oncall at March 12, 2006 11:47 PM

I was just flipping through the news channels on cable, and I saw a teaser that said "Should President Bush be censored?"

I'm serious. But now I can't remember which one of the channels it was on. It looked as though they were going to comment on it later in the program.

It was either MSNBC or one of the CNN cable channels.

MSNBC is running a piece that shows footage of all the suffering down in New Orleans after Katrina.

Kind of looks like they are catching on sometimes.

Posted by: DAnne at March 12, 2006 10:44 PM

I went to Feingold's web site off of your link, and I additionally read the history of who was censured and when and why. Then I fired off this email to him:

Senator Feingold:

I wholeheartedly support censuring Bush.

I quibble with one thing, however. Bush didn't simply "mislead" this nation, whether one is talking about the war in Iraq or anything else.

Bush (and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzales, et al.) have LIED to this nation, repeatedly. They have also LIED to cover the original LIES. To say we were "mislead" by Bush and/or his administration, or that they merely "misstated" facts, makes the LIES seem less serious than they are (thousands of people have died because of their LIES that got us into an illegal, unjust, immoral, unethical, and dishonorable war!). I hope you and the other senators will come to call LIES for what they are: LIES. It's the blunt, honest truth. The American people deserve to hear the blunt, honest truth from our legislators, whether we like it or not.

Best wishes regarding the censure, and may your fellow senators endorse the bill.

Sincerely,
~~~~~~~~~~

I like that anyone from any state can write to senators. The web sites from Reps only take emails from people in their individual districts.

NonnyO
You are a great letter writer!!

Oncall
I would venture to guess Feingold's motion won't get as much coverage as it should. It's been wonderful to see his integrity though, as on the Patriot Act and so many other things. My husband and I were just talking about that.

Posted by: oncall at March 12, 2006 11:47 PM

I predict national or local TV stations will not even mention Feingold's bill to censure The Cretin ~ ~ ~ unless we write to them and ASK them to run the story....

Writing national networks and in-state TV stations is next on my "to do" list....

This could be good.

Hot off his best picture win for "Crash," Paul Haggis is in final negotiations to direct and produce "Against All Enemies," a project based on Richard A. Clarke's best-selling memoir chronicling the Bush administration's handling of terrorist threats.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060313/film_nm/haggis_dc

That is definitely at the intersection of art & politics!

Posted by: DiAnne at March 13, 2006 12:06 AM

Thank you, DiAnne! :-) I try.

It's an ordeal to keep letters short and not go off on tangents. It is really is difficult to resist listing the crimes of The Cretin's administration since they were installed in 2000. But I try. Once in a while I succeed. ;-)

No, I disagree. Since I already heard something on it tonight, I think it will be on tomorrow, either on the CNN channels, or MSNBC, or both. They're already talking about it.

Posted by: Truth Shall Prevail at March 13, 2006 12:16 AM

That's on cable.

Those of us without cable may never hear Lamestream Media mention it unless we write to them about it and ask (demand?) they talk about Feingold's bill to censure The Cretin.

Truth Shall Prevail
Would it be cool if it was just exciting and sensationalistic enough for them to cover it long enough for it to get out into the populace?! I mean this country is no stranger to impeachment proceedings and the leadup to them!

Right.

Posted by: NonnyO at March 13, 2006 12:04 AM

Nonny,

That is an excellent letter and you inspired me to send a letter to the Senator as well.

Former Top Judge Says US Edging Near to Dictatorship
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729396,00.html

That would be Sandra Day O'Connor. I knew about the speech but didn't realize she had used the D word.

Writer Jonathan Rabin (living in Seattle but from UK) comments.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1729350,00.html
This is if we continue our current path - this is most astounding, coming from a recent Supreme Court Justice. He also says Nina Totenberg of NPR was the only reporter to cover the speech.

Well I guess I'll join the letter writing campaign to Feingold.

Posted by: DiAnne at March 13, 2006 12:21 AM

Maybe if Feingold follows Nonny's advice and labels Bush a liar, we might see the censure motion get the coverage it deserves.

Well it will be in our paper - can't tell what page or how prominent from the internet. Frist freaks, & the White House has no comment.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1153AP_Bush_Censure.html

This is what I just sent off to two in-state TV stations to their news departments (and a tip of the hat to DiAnne for the original link!!!):

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/06/03/20060312.html

It's my understanding that Senator Feingold will be introducing a Resolution to censure Bush in the Senate tomorrow (13 Mar. 2006). I hope you will check out C-SPAN, see if the Resolution is introduced, and run a story about it on your evening news on Monday - or whatever day it actually happens.

Several Representatives have already signed on to proposed legislation to impeach Bush (Rep. Jim Oberstar of MN is one of the Reps who have signed it), but they don't yet have enough signatures to introduce impeachment legislation in the House.

It's about time our legislators did something about the illegal actions and abuses of power by the Bush administration!!!

It's also WAY past time for you in the media to fulfill the First Amendment responsibilities of a free press and start reporting the complete truth to your viewers/listeners. Not everyone in America has a computer and internet access, and not everyone has cable (I don't), although it's my understanding Feingold's Resolution to Censure has already been mentioned on cable news. Most people rely primarily on television news for information, and since 2000 they've had nothing but a steady diet of LIES and warmongering propaganda as put out by the White House and the Pentagon. There can be no responsible voting until/unless the electorate is fully informed about our politicians and the decisions they are making on our behalf.

Senator Feingold's Resolution to Censure Bush is a giant step forward in the politics of this country, and it could be a big story - IF you talk about it on the news. Otherwise, only bloggers and people with an internet connection will be fully informed about what's happening in Congress - and the rest of the world. (IMHO, Feingold's Resolution to Censure Bush should be the lead story tomorrow....)

Thank you.

Sincerely,

P.S. This is what I wrote to Senator Feingold earlier this evening: (I copied and pasted my letter to Feingold here, but I already posted that above, so don't need to repost....)

Posted by: oncall at March 13, 2006 12:39 AM

The thing I find frustrating is that we are doing the leg-work and research and feeding TV stations with info they could talk about on the news. Don't they have researchers and producers who are allegedly getting paid to do what we are doing? Why aren't they on top of this story?

Yes, I was not-so-subtly trying to shame the local in-state TV stations into running the news about Feingold's Resolution to Censure.

I'm not-so-patiently waiting for ANY legislator or news anchor to use the words LIE, LIED, LIES, LYING in connection with The Cretin, the Vice Cretin, and their Corporate Criminal Cabal who have so illegally abused the Constitution and Bill of Rights.... If legislators and TV news anchors ever start to use plain language to describe the propaganda LIES put out by the White House and the Pentagon, it will be a milestone in American media....

TV news really needs to follow the example of Molly Ivins and Helen Thomas, and speak plainly and honestly....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060313/ap_on_go_co/bush_censure
Feingold Proposes Bush Censure Over Spying

This seems to be the same AP story on the Seattle PI link above. (I seem to see a lot of AP stories in connection with uncovering administration LIES, stories where AP has used FOIA to obtain info that does not reflect well on the administration. Maybe AP is coming around and trying to get some truth out to people???)

This is a start, but it should not end with only people on the internet and/or bloggers knowing about it. Everyone who cares about this nation needs to see how much this matters, the fact that many people think the illegal abuses of power on the part of the administration can only lead to more horrors for this nation, including declared dictatorship, not just the de facto dictatorship already in place. The slippery slope is greased, and it can only get worse from here on out if the administration is not stopped dead in its tracks (as it could have been if media had been doing its job and reporting facts and truth starting in 2000).

Frist needs to be reminded that if it weren't for The Cretin's LIES, there would be no war; and if there were no war because of The Cretin's LIES, then there would be no administration-defined "enemies." (Read: "enemies": criminals who commit acts which result in feelings of fear on the part of innocent people; feeling 'terrorized' is collateral damage as a result of criminal acts. Anyone who has felt fear after being victimized in a crime against them, from burglary to assault to rape, can attest to how those 'terrified' feelings happen. The Cretin's warmongering rhetoric has made innocent people buy into that fear, even though they were not personally victims of a criminal act.) Frist has imbibed too much kool-aid, or he's smoking something illegal... and bought into the LIES of the administration. Frist's acquired paranoia should be treated by a competent psychiatrist.

think if Dems run on the platform of elect us so we can impeach, we will loose.
The good thing: Feingold is forcing Dumbo to play defense; something they are very bad at.
We need constantly keep reminding the public how awful Dumbo is.
All Democratic web sites should have an issue or talking points list with a laundry list of errors and then the magic three;
What Dumbo did wrong and what we will do different.
What Dumbo did right and we will do better.
What Dumbo did not do and we will do.
We have to differentiate our party from the Repubs.
So far, all we get is a bunch of moaning and groaning with no meat.
Every House seat and a third of the Senate are up for re-election. If we can get either the house or the Senate, Bush is toast.

Dumbo is screwing up so bad; the writers need to be speed typists

NonnyO
I notice Guardian.UK links only to AP for breaking US news.
They are ahead of us (time difference) so if I look, say, before bed, I can see what's coming up in the morning news in US
because the morning papers are already our in UK. By then,
tomorrow's version of our (& other) papers may be out too but it's quick to check "breaking news - international" and "breakng news - US" at the Guardian. Also, in newspapers, the editors sometimes change the title and slant or shorten the article.

Posted by: battlebob at March 13, 2006 06:41 AM

That's for sure, BB.

A plan, any plan, could win this thing. Come on, Dems!!!