School's Open

WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Republicans and Democrats traded accusations of improper politicking Wednesday as they sparred over a resolution commemorating the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Despite a rhetorical battle, the resolution commemorating the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks passed 395-22, two days after the nation marked the anniversary.

Democrats criticized the GOP-drafted resolution for praising controversial legislation, including the USA Patriot Act and a border security bill. Some faulted it for stating "the nation is safer than it was on September 11, 2001."

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California called the resolution "self-congratulatory."

"It praises Congress for some reason. Instead of having the focus on the innocent victims of 9/11, it talked about the accomplishments of this Congress. I can't even imagine why they thought that was a good idea," she said.

The bill's sponsor, New York Republican Rep. Peter King, called the criticism "cheap demagoguery."

Republicans defended the inclusion of the GOP-crafted security laws and bills. Without them, said Rep. David Dreier, R-California, "We would not be here today without having suffered another attack on our soil."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, disputed the idea that terrorism dangers had grown. "Five years after 9/11, America is safer and much more alert to the dangers that lurk in the darker corners of our world," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/13/terrorism.politics.ap/index.html

Don't Mean To Disgust Much

"Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels." - Ann Richards

Senator John Kerry will respond to news on Afghanistan and address the war in Iraq and achieving real security for America TODAY at 12:30 pm at Howard University in Washington, DC.

Bush visiting Congress to get war support
Move follows internal GOP tension over interrogations, wiretapping

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush is facing a tough crowd as he steps behind closed doors to ask House Republicans divided by the politics of war to support his drive for more power to spy on, imprison and interrogate terrorism suspects.

For Bush, the unusual visit to Capitol Hill on Thursday caps a week of high-profile administration pressure to rescue bills mired in turf battles and privacy concerns. Indeed, negotiations between the White House and a trio of powerful GOP senators snagged Wednesday.

The visit also gives GOP leaders a chance to press for loyalty among Republicans confronted on the campaign trail by war-weary voters.

“I have not really seen anybody running away from the president,” House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters this week when asked about the caucus’ split. “Frankly, I think that would be a bad idea.”

In the basement conference room in which House Republicans meet each week, Bush was expected to ask for support for two key pieces of legislation he says are crucial to preventing terrorist attacks. One would meet CIA demands that Congress reinterpret the nation’s treaty obligations to allow tougher interrogations of detainees, but it’s snagged in the Senate between the leadership and a trio of powerful Republicans.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14814940/

President Bush, in the basement, with a lead pipe.

Clueless.

Oh My! More #2...

U.S. says key al Qaeda in Iraq associate captured

September 14, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- U.S. forces in Iraq have detained more than 70 suspected terrorists, including a key associate of the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, a military spokesman said Thursday.

Maj. Gen. William Caldwell did not identify the associate of militant leader Abu Ayyoub al-Masri but said he is "known to have directly participated in terrorist acts, including kidnappings and executions."

The suspect also played a "key operational role" in terrorist activities before and during the U.S. military siege of the central Iraqi city of Falluja in November 2004, Caldwell said.

Al-Masri, an explosives expert, became head of al Qaeda in Iraq after U.S. forces killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in June.

The Iraqi capital saw no letup in violence Thursday as nine people were killed and 26 others wounded in two explosions in central Baghdad, police said.

more...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/iraq.main/index.html

p.s. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Wednesday that Mideast leaders believe the Iraq war has "been a real disaster" for the region. His comments came after a two-week trip through the Middle East.

Diebold machines hacked:

Watch the Youtube video at this link:
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com
Please add your comments

Ann Richards, 1933-2006. No relation to Keith; Charismatic former Governor of Texas who was defeated by George W. Bush.

She learned the hard way that Bush's verbal dyslexia and seemingly moronic leaps of logic were amazingly appealing to the people of Texas. She tried to treat him like he was mildly retarded and it backfired on her. On the national stage, Bush met with similar approval and similar treatment at the hands of Al Gore. Sure, Bush lost the popular vote, but what's half a million votes between ideological enemies? And the magic of inferiority also worked during his woefully poor performances against Kerry in the last election's debates.

Ann Richards was always quotable. The best thing she said was about W's dad, Bush the First: "He was born on third base and thought he'd hit a triple." She wishes she'd said this about Dubya: "He was born on home plate and thought he'd scored a touchdown." She never said that, someone else did.

(From Forum at artdish.com.)

Posted by: Hawkeye at September 14, 2006 12:12 PM

Truly a great lady & one who will be greatly missed.

Take a load off Annie, take a load for free;
Take a load off Annie, and ... and... and...
You can put the load right on me.

White House Seeks a Way to Keep Bolton at the U.N.

By Peter Baker and Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 14, 2006; A12

President Bush's nomination of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations appears increasingly endangered in the Senate, prompting the administration to explore other ways to keep him in the job after his temporary appointment expires in January, officials said yesterday.

The situation represents a sharp turnaround from two weeks ago, when the White House was confident it could finally push through Bolton's long-stalled nomination. But last week's surprise move by Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) to delay a vote convinced Republicans on Capitol Hill that the nomination may be doomed, prompting a search for alternatives.

Administration officials said they have not given up. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Chafee yesterday to kick off a lobbying campaign that will continue today when he returns to Washington after his hard-fought Republican primary victory in Rhode Island on Tuesday.

Bush and national Republicans pulled out the stops to help Chafee win the primary, and they expect a payback. But with Chafee now preparing to face a strong Democratic challenger in a Democratic state in November, many Republicans said he has less incentive to support a firebrand figure such as Bolton.

"It's dead as far as the Senate is concerned," said one Republican official at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where Chafee holds the decisive vote. "Chafee made it a 9 to 9 vote, and that's not going to change." A Senate Republican leadership aide added: "Chafee holds Bolton's future in his hands, and people are very worried he's going to squeeze and never let go."

White House officials said that assessment is premature. "John Bolton's been a tireless advocate for the United States at the U.N.," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. "We continue to be confident he'll get the up-or-down vote he deserves, and it remains our goal that the vote would happen before the recess."

Another failed nomination would be a stinging defeat for Bush, who defied Senate opposition last year and installed Bolton at the United Nations on an interim basis with a recess appointment. That appointment will end in January unless the Senate votes to confirm him before adjourning for the year.

more...
http://tinyurl.com/ll36k

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Chafee yesterday to kick off a lobbying campaign that will continue today when he returns to Washington after his hard-fought Republican primary victory in Rhode Island on Tuesday.

Posted by: monkey at September 14, 2006 01:20 PM

I think Chafee is going to find that he's now in debt to the RNC et al... Selling your soul to win is never a good strategery. Paybacks are hell.

Posted by: madame defarge at September 14, 2006 02:00 PM

The bigger question is this... "Bush and national Republicans pulled out the stops to help Chafee win the primary, and they expect a payback."

What STOPS were pulled out, exactly, for Chafee to win the primary. Details, details!

I have trimmed this but there is more at the website (I got it both from the site owner & from Kerry's people). It's good. I've been thinking about Afghanistan for months & wondering why it was treated in the news as a "solved" issue, more or less. It seems to be anything but. Also wondering if anyone was at Howard University to hear the speech directly. Glad Kerry is doing so much public speaking.

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/

Not A Forgotten War
Posted by John Kerry
September 14th, 2006 @ 9:40 am
As I spent the last weeks working and writing on national security, what jumped out at me over and over is that while I believe we are slowly, painfully forcing a better debate on Iraq, the war we began in Afghanistan after 9/11 has become kind of a forgotten war — even though it is the real epicenter of the terror threat. I was struck by how much in meeting after meeting I heard that Afghanistan was falling apart. But where’s the sense of urgency? I’ve tried to pull together that picture as best as I could — and a specific — no fooling around — get tough policy for Afghanistan to rescue this effort.
----------

On another topic, heard the author of "Enemy Combattant" interviewed this AM on NPR. He's British, articulate, and survived Guantanamo. It always amazes me that people were rounded up and held for YEARS now, without charges or trial.

It always amazes me that people were rounded up and held for YEARS now, without charges or trial.

Posted by: DiAnne at September 14, 2006 02:44 PM

I know, it's Nutzi.

Helen Thomas: Bush's Lame Justification for Iraq
By Helen Thomas
Thursday, 14 September 2006

The Bush administration is relying on a slender thread to justify its disastrous war in Iraq: Saddam Hussein is now in jail.

“The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power,” President Bush insists, because “he was a clear threat.”

Bush’s rationalization comes up lame, given the administration’s reluctant and deferred acknowledgement that Saddam had nothing to do with the 9-11 terrorist attacks and especially in view of the mounting casualty tolls of American service members and Iraqi civilians.

Vice President Dick Cheney also says “the world is better off today with Saddam Hussein out of power.”

While holding no brief for Iraq’s brutal dictator, I question whether we now live in a safer world.

The world would be better off without any dictators, of course. That’s a given.

But I’m thinking of all the Americans and Iraqis who would be alive today had there not been a U.S.-waged war of choice.

Anti-terrorism experts regard the U.S. invasion and occupation as an alluring recruiting poster that is attracting more Islamic radicals to the ranks of suicide bombers in Iraq and elsewhere.

That may explain the insistence by Bush and Cheney that Iraq is the central front in the fight against terrorism. If it wasn’t before the invasion, it is now.

more...
http://www.fcnp.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217&Itemid=35

Big split in GOP ranks on Bush's terrorism legislation:

Senators (McCain, Warner, Graham) and Secretary (Powell) with military experience support human rights for prisoners;

Cowards with no meaningful military experience (Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc.) but huge egos support torture.

I just heard at lunch time that Bush's torture plan had to be scrapped and that the amended version (by actual war veteran Senators) won out. I hope this is true.

Also have been very concerned by port security, since I live at a seaport - our Senator Murray has brought this up again and again. So now ..
(& I see my other Senator is on the bill)

Kerry Amendment Passes as Part of Port Security Package -- Law Would Ensure First Responders Receive Additional Training and Support

Today the Senate passed Senator Kerry’s bi-partisan amendment to the Port Security bill (HR 4954) that will ensure seaport personnel, law enforcement and first responders get the security training and support they need in order to be better prepared in the event of an attack. Kerry’s amendment was accepted unanimously by the Senate. It would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement a Port Security Training Program and Port Security Exercise Program that will prepare ports to prevent and respond to a terrorist attack.

“Five years after 9/11, we know that we should be doing much more to reinforce our domestic security systems, and we know that training and exercise programs are critical in helping first responders, law enforcement, and seaport personnel deter terrorist attacks at our ports. DHS has failed to create and implement these important programs, and I believe it’s about time we ensure they do.”

Although the House version of HR 4954 makes these programs mandatory, the Senate bill leaves it to the discretion of the DHS Secretary to implement them. The Kerry amendment will ensure that they are mandatory and implemented as soon as possible.

The amendment was co-sponsored by Senators Lautenberg, Lieberman, Clinton, Akaka, Kennedy, Cantwell, Snowe, Inouye, Smith, Schumer, and Bill Nelson.

---
Wow - that is pretty well-rounded and represents both coasts and Hawaii. Well done, Senators!

Also, did you know Senator Kennedy was the first Senator to have an on-line website? & now he supports internet neutrality. It's great!

Just heard on air america the REPS were EXSTATIC today over meeting with Bush/Rove re this coming election. Can't you just feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeel the elation going on?? Old men,young men about to pee on the floor and then some.Sheesh.
Something stinks here as I'm wondering after reading Dianne's prior note if the new game plan is to actually cooperate with the Dems,so "they" look like the party of bringing us together vs animosity. Notice Bush's poll #'s are up to 42%,since his 911 spout and gas prices are down. These sheeple that follow that garbage are just as idiotic as those in charge. Covering up what is the problem and getting to successes is exactly "their" plan. No wonder "they're" happy today.
What short term memories these crazies have. Economy going well? We haven't been attacked again and gas is on it's way down. Sounds good to me.... so not time to change horses...AGAIN!!

So the sheeple get 5 years of misery and 1 month of comfort and they will vote for 1 month and a day....because this ADM has scarred them to death. Disgusting! WAKE UP already!!

Posted by: Patti F. at September 14, 2006 06:58 PM

Who knows what the spin is coming out of todays Repub-a-Club. All I know is that the electorates memory span lasts about as long ...

Wait, what was I talking about?

Oh-ohh, that smell.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday voted 15-9 to recommend a bill -- over the objections of the Bush administration -- that would authorize tribunals for terror suspects in a way that it says would protect suspects' rights.

The bill was backed by Republican Sens. John Warner of Virginia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Sen Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

It differs from the administration's proposal in two major ways: It would permit terror suspects to view classified evidence against them and does not include a proposal that critics say reinterprets a Geneva Conventions rule that prohibits cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees.

In a decision earlier this summer, the Supreme Court ruled that the administration must meet Article III standards in its treatment of detainees.

Article III prohibits nations engaged in combat not of "an international character" from, among other things, "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment."

White House: Critics 'confused'
The vote came after White House spokesman Tony Snow said opponents of its proposal on detainee treatment misunderstood the administration's intentions when it proposed to define how Article III applies to the interrogation of terrorist suspects.

The administration believes that the court's ruling prevents it from properly interrogating terrorist suspects because it opens military and CIA personal to prosecutions, so the White House asked Congress to define the the terms of Article III, Snow said.

"If you have people in the field trying to question terrorists, if you do not have clear legal definitions, they themselves will be subject to the whims and the differing interpretations given by foreign courts, foreign judges and foreign tribunals," Snow said. "And we don't think that's appropriate."

-snip-

After returning to the White House from Capitol Hill, Bush said the administration's proposed re-interpretation of Article III was essential if necessary intelligence was to be obtained from terrorist suspects.

"It is very important for the American people to understand that in order to protect this country, we must be able to interrogate people who have information about future attacks," Bush said. "I will resist any bill that does not enable this program to go forward with legal clarity.

"If there's not clarity, if there's ambiguity, if there's any doubt in our professionals' mind if they can conduct their operation in a legal way, with support of the Congress, the program won't go forward and the American people will be in danger," Bush said.

-snip-

Republican showdown looming
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, has threatened to ignore the Armed Services Committee and bring the administration's plan directly to the Senate floor, which could lead to an election-year showdown within Republican ranks.

more ons...
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html

How not to win a war of ideas:

'But the pope began this speech at Regensburg University with what he conceded were “brusque” words about Islam: He quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/world/europe/15papalcnd.html

I just sent my comments regarding these two stories off to my Rep, and I'm thinking of sending them to my new Dem Senate candidate:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/border_security

House approves U.S.-Mexican border fence
Excerpt:
Senate Republicans said its unlikely the fence proposal would pass in that chamber as a single bill, but might win approval if attached to spending bills.

The House fence bill is HR 6061; the voter ID bill is HR 4844.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WHAT about the wildlife...? This fence idiocy will heavily impact any number of animals who do not recognize artificial man-made borders on maps... and the fence will only make things harsh for wildlife who need to hunt for food and find water in order to live.

WHERE are the heads of the Congressional members who enact such moronic legislation?!? Halliburton has a $385 billion dollar open-end contract to build "detention centers" (read: concentration camps) here on US soil for the purpose of holding "illegal immigrants," and that (to me) is more than enough idiocy. Halliburton (and it's subsidiaries, DynCorp and KBR) have been getting more than enough US taxpayer dollars (putting us further into debt) by building the new concentration camps on Guantánamo and rebuilding some of the military bases in the Gulf Coast after Katrina and Rita went through last year.

I still don't know who is staffing Guantánamo. Although Lamestream Media interviews plenty of troops who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan (naturally, they believe Bu$hCo propaganda and support the [illegal] "war effort" of the administration), I've never, ever seen any interviews on TV with soldiers who are guarding the prisoners on Gitmo, and I suspect the guards (and most, but not all, of the torturers!) are mercenaries (aka "private security officers") hired by Halliburton and/or its subsidiaries DynCorp and KBR, or any other corporation who has hired mercenaries to work at Gitmo. (Three men from Minnesota were mercenaries who were working for DynCorp when they were killed in Iraq. In-state news about their deaths said they were working for DynCorp when they broadcast information about their deaths.)

Halliburton and Blackwater are two names I remember in connection with the martial law in New Orleans, so mercenaries have been serving their corporate masters here on US soil (aren't they still there?), while the National Guard serves Bu$hCo in Iraq and Afghanistan. The major immigration kafuffle that was talked about so avidly a few months ago died down in Lamestream Media within the last few weeks, so if some of this idiotic immigration and fence legislation does not pass either the House or the Senate, then I do have to wonder: WHO will be put in those concentration camps that Halliburton is building here on US soil...???

Mercenaries do not swear an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America; mercenaries owe no loyalty to the US; their only loyalty is to the corporation who signs their paychecks (Halliburton, DynCorp, KBR, Blackwater, Custer Battles, Bechtel, et al.). Progressive bloggers have been chattering for years about "what if" shortly before the '08 election cycle Bu$hCo engineers another criminal event like 9/11, declares martial law and cancels the '08 election, which will make him the dictator-in-fact, and not the simple de facto dictator he already is, since he does not have the constitutional authority to declare war.

The Iraq war and occupation are both unconstitutional and illegal, not to mention war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and the judgment of Nuremberg! Democracy (in the form of "elected leaders" in Iraq or Afghanistan who will act as puppets for the US oil corporations) cannot be imposed on a country that doesn't want it. While the US had permission from the UN to invade Afghanistan, the occupation of Afghanistan might be construed as an illegal war crime - Osama bin Laden hasn't been caught as a result of the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan anyway, and the panel formed to go after him has been dismantled, so it's WAY past time to bring the Guard and Reserve troops in Afghanistan and Iraq home where they belong! The US has no business building permanent military bases in either country!

If the concentration camps Halliburton is building on US soil do not have any "illegal immigrants" to house if/when any immigration legislation fails to pass, that means they will have room for anyone who opposes a Bu$h-Cheney dictatorship (See the PNAC web site for their objectives involving world domination). If that "what if" scenario happens, the only people who will NOT be surprised will be the progressive bloggers here in the US and anyone in all countries around the world who have watched the political situation in this country deteriorate to a de facto dictatorship since SCOTUS appointed Bu$hCo to their offices in 2000...!!!

Seriously; Congressional members are not thinking things through here!!! If members of the House and the Senate truly love the United States of America, their primary objective right now needs to be how to stop the appointed de facto dictators running this country, impeach all of them, hold them to account for their unconstitutional actions, the high crimes and misdemeanors they've committed, and the war crimes they've committed in *our* names!!!

How much longer do the citizens of the United States of America need to endure hanging their heads in shame because of Bu$h, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et al.???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060914/ap_on_go_co/bush_congress
Senate panel defies Bush on terror
Excerpt:
"The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism," Powell, a retired general who is also a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in his letter.

Powell said Bush's bill, by redefining the kind of treatment the Geneva Conventions allow, "would add to those doubts. Furthermore, it would put our own troops at risk."
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Beginning to doubt"...??? No "beginning" about it...! Since day one, those of us in this country with an IQ above a rock, and the rest of the world, have ALWAYS doubted everything about the current administration...! Duh.

Keith Olbermann announced a bit ago that they have received (I think he said) a quarter of a million supportive emails since his 9-11 commentary. Because of that, they will replay the commentary tomorrow at 8:00 pm and midnight on Countdown on msnbc.

If you missed it, watch it.

He will also appear on the Today Show tomorrow morning to discuss his comments.

Go Keith!

The more that I think about it, I'd say Ratzinger's astonishingly insensitive reference should prompt calls for his resignation.

Here's what Muslim leaders are saying about his comments (from the same Times story):

“I don’t think the church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions, Aiman Mazyek, president of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, told the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, recalling the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Vatican’s relations with Nazi Germany.

The French Council for the Muslim Religion demanded that Benedict “clarify” his remarks. “We hope that the Church will very quickly give us its opinion and clarify its position so that it does not confuse Islam, which is a revealed religion, with Islamism, which is not a religion but a political ideology,” Dalil Boubakeur, the council’s president, told Agence France-Presse.

In Kuwait, the leader of the Islamic Nation Party, Haken al-Mutairi, demanded an apology for what he called “unaccustomed and unprecedented” remarks.

“I call on all Arab and Islamic states to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican and expel those from the Vatican until the pope says he is sorry for the wrong done to the prophet and to Islam, which preaches peace, tolerance, justice and equality,” Mr. Mutairi told Agence France-Presse.

In Pakistan, Muslim leaders and scholars said that Benedict’s words widened the gap between Islam and Christianity, and risked what one official called greater “disharmony.”

“The pope’s statement is highly irresponsible,” said another ranking Muslim, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, an Islamic scholar. “The concept of jihad is not to spread Islam with the sword.”

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at September 14, 2006 08:51 PM

I completely agree, his kind of rhetoric is exactly what is NOT needed.

Pope Dubya the Worst

IAEA: ‘Outrageous’ inaccuracies in Iran report
House letter ‘dishonest’ in case against Tehran, official says

VIENNA, Austria - A recent House of Representatives committee report on Iran’s nuclear capability is “outrageous and dishonest” in trying to make a case that Tehran’s program is geared toward making weapons, a senior official of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has said.

The letter, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press outside a 35-nation board meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, says the report is false in saying Iran is making weapons-grade uranium at an experimental enrichment site, when it has in fact produced material only in small quantities that is far below the level that can be used in nuclear arms.

The letter, which was first reported on by The Washington Post, also says the report erroneously says that IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei removed a senior nuclear inspector from the team investigating Iran’s nuclear program “for concluding that the purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to construct weapons.”

In fact, the inspector was sidelined on Tehran’s request, and the Islamic republic had a right to ask for a replacement under agreements that govern all states relationships with the agency, said the letter, calling the report’s version “incorrect and misleading.”

Hiding the truth?
“In addition,” says the letter, “the report contains an outrageous and dishonest suggestion that such removal might have been for ‘not having adhered to an unstated IAEA policy barring IAEA officials from telling the whole truth about the Iranian nuclear program.”’

Dated Aug. 12, the letter was addressed to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by Vilmos Cserveny, a senior director of the Vienna-based agency.

An IAEA official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the letter, said it was written “to set the record straight.”

more lies...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14838090/

Here's an excerpt from an earlier Times piece, from the 12th, describing the political currents that led to Ratzinger's election:

"In the weeks after John Paul’s death in April 2005, Islam and how to confront terrorism seemed key issues in the selection of a new pope. As a candidate, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who took the name Benedict after his election, embodied the more skeptical school inside the Vatican."

"Unlike John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger did not approve of joint prayers with Muslims and was skeptical of the value of interreligious dialogue, with a faith of many shadings and few representative leaders to speak with."

"In 2004, he caused a stir by opposing membership in the European Union for Turkey, saying that it “always represented another continent throughout history, in permanent contrast with Europe.” He has not repeated this opinion since he became pope, and he is scheduled to visit there in November."

"Once he became pope, Benedict’s new approach was apparent quickly: in his first trip outside Italy, he met with Muslim leaders in Cologne, Germany, and politely but clearly told them they had the responsibility to teach their children against terrorism, which he called “the darkness of a new barbarism.” He said Catholics and Muslims had the obligation to meet and to overcome differences."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/europe/13pope.html

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at September 14, 2006 08:25 PM

I am NOT exactly a fan of Muslim theology myself, as many of you already know. But the US Secretary of Faith (which is what Benedict really is) didn't have to be so insensitive.

But then, Benedict is from Bavaria, a region that is to Europe what the Bible Belt is to the US. While there are gems like Munich there, it's in general a very backward region.

Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at September 14, 2006 08:25 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/14/world/europe/15papalcnd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Excerpts:
Benedict’s remarks came on Tuesday, when he delivered a major address — which some church experts say was a defining speech of his pontificate — saying that the West, and specifically Europe, had become so beholden to reason that it had closed God out of public life, science and academia.
~~~~~~~~~~
“I don’t think the church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions, Aiman Mazyek, president of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, told the newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, recalling the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and the Vatican’s relations with Nazi Germany.
~~~~~~~~~~

The pope is playing right into the evil hands of Bu$hCo. I have to wonder how they're connected, aside from both having connections to Nazi Germany. One of the ancient popes who lived during the Dark Ages wrote that 'the masses are to be kept uneducated because ignorant people are easier to control' - someday I gotta dig out the book and write down his name and the precise wording, because I never remember his name! The 'Christian' religions have conveniently forgotten their own history if they don't know how their own religious origins terrorized and murdered people during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition and the ignorant nonsense about burning 'witches' - a great many were midwives who were the only 'doctors' anyone knew about during those times, since the midwives knew which plants they could make into medicines to help people - some worked, some didn't - but midwives were still the only people to turn to for medical help - oh, and they were women, and women, however educated and knowledgeable, were anathema.... In the name of religion (Catholic vs Protestant), Bloody Mary had more people tortured, beheaded, or burned at the stake in the five short years of her reign than in the entire 45-year reign of her younger half-sister, Queen Elizabeth I.

In today's America, besides the massive publicity by fundie religious reich "leaders" wanting 'Christian' influence and dogma taught the public classrooms (which will only make us regress back to the 'educational standards' of the Dark Ages), I notice no religious reich organization in the US coming out against torture policies put into place by "der fearless leader, herr Boosh" (the one they believe has gotten messages to start his wars straight from the man upstairs himself, which they believe is going to bring on this fictitious 'rapture'). No huge public outcry from 'Christian' leaders about either the war or torture policies. About the fact that fundie religious reich-types want creationism taught in public schools (paid for with taxpayer dollars), fundie views about politics and their anti-choice and anti-gay over-the-top rhetoric, yes, we've heard plenty in Lamestream Media from so-called 'religious leaders' who seem hell-bent on imposing their views on this nation - but nothing against illegal torture and Bu$hCo's illegal war.... As a descendant of some who fled England and came to this country when the crown tried to impose its state religion on its citizens by violent means, I find that remarkable, even astonishing (well, not that many people in this country know anything about history)....

The millionaires who lead the megachurches in this country are heard from often enough in Lamestream Media. IF they really were "good Christians," then why aren't they urging their fellow "good Christians" to go out and massively protest the illegal torture and illegal, immoral, unethical, unjust and dishonorable war policies of the current administration, which are war crimes by Geneva Conventions and the judgement at Nuremberg...? IF religion truly does have that much of an influence on politicians and the decisions politicians make, why no hue and cry from the average 'religious' people of this country against war and torture...? IF we really had a "Christian nation" then the "good Christians" of this nation should have been organizing million-person marches against PrezNitWit and his illegal war and illegal torture policies....

Oh... right... silly me. I momentarily forgot about the government taxpayer dollars funding "faith based charities" because of the Executive Order DimWit signed his first few months in office, bypassing Congressional approval for such idiocy. Never mind, of course, that not all taxpayers are 'Christians,' nor have all taxpayers approved of the blatant disregard for the separation of church and state mandated by the First Amendment, nor do all taxpayers want their money going to any churches whatsoever (after all, churches are exempt from paying taxes!), since many churches mandate a tithe from their members and that means some churches get money from their members as well as from the taxpayers of this nation - profiting both ways.

Considering the fact that the Catholic church has been losing big bucks because of the law suits involving pedophile priests, I have to wonder if they're replenishing their coffers (and Vatican coffers) with US taxpayer dollars...?

I got home from work & had emails telling me about Pope Ratz & also the Intl Atomic Energy story - nice to see them cited above.

Someone called from Austin & got some money out of me - they used the magic words - Carlyle - Palast - James Baker - Bin Laden.

John Kerry on the Passing of Governor Ann Richards

“Intelligence, eloquence, wit, and moxie, Ann Richards was a great American maverick who had it all. She carved out a special place in history, in politics, and in our hearts. Beating the odds, as the first woman Governor of Texas in fifty years, only Ann Richards would laugh and say, she did it all ‘backwards and in high heels.’ Her larger-than-life leadership will be missed by all of us who knew her, but most of all by the family that loved her, including Cecile, who carries on her passion for progressive causes.”

DCPers....

I'm bloody sick and tired of hearing (in 100 words or more) political candidates' long and convoluted answers to simple questions. I would like short questions that require simple yes or no answers, or at least short answers, to simple questions.... This is what I've come up with so far:

Do you support Net Neutrality?
Yes
No

Are you Pro-Choice or Anti-Choice?
Pro-Choice
Anti-Choice

Will you support impeachment proceedings?
Yes
No

Do you believe in the First Amendment's separation of church and state?
Yes
No

Do you think funding faith-based charities is unconstitutional?
Yes
No

What would be your short questions that you would like to ask your political candidates that only require short answers...?

Oh, and P.S....

There are two in-state TV stations that have what passes for political talk. I think the local PBS station will host another show asking for political candidates' views on issues before Nov. 7. If not, I'm going to ask them to... and I do plan on sending them the short questions that only require short answers....

Do you speak a foreign language?
Yes
No

Boy did Mary Landrieu let 'em have it in the Senate.
http://www.senatemajority.com/sen_landrieu_strikes_back

I had a good day despite it all. Someone passed me on the freeway and gave me a big thumbs up (for bumper stickers).

I left a bunch of educational postcards (pro-voting, issue awareness) around up north where it is less progressive.

I can't get away from work tomorrow, as it's my last day before vacation and would probably get me fired, but a bunch of people I know are going to be protesting Karl Rove as his limo heads to the east-side (Bellevue, WA).

More questions I just wrote out:

Do you think creationism (aka intelligent design) should be taught in public schools?
Yes
No

Do you think George W. Bush violated the Constitution when he ordered the invasion of Iraq?
Yes
No

Do you think permanent military bases should be built in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Yes
No

Do you think torture should be made legal?
Yes
No

Do you think equal rights are special rights?
Yes
No

Posted by: DiAnne at September 14, 2006 11:56 PM

Good on Landrieu!

Wish that would have been broadcast on Lamestream Media...!

Posted by: Rachel at September 15, 2006 12:05 AM

In what context?

Do you believe in the philosophy of the 'unitary executive'?
Yes
No

Do you think Social Security should be privatized?
Yes
No

Do you think pharmaceutical corporations should be allowed to write legislation regarding Medicare prescription coverage?
Yes
No

Posted by: DiAnne at September 14, 2006 11:56 PM

I'm sure glad somebody mentioned Saudi Arabia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_go_co/congressional_corruption
Ohio Rep. Ney expected to plead guilty
WASHINGTON - Abandoning months of defiant denials, Rep. Bob Ney intends to admit guilt in the congressional corruption probe spawned by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to Republican officials.
~~~~~
Ney said he had been duped into helping Abramoff on both the tribal casino and the Florida deal, and that he was duped again about who paid for the Scotland trip. Abramoff denied misleading Ney.
~~~~~~~~~~

Well, that puts this particular Republican scandal on and off the political radar screen almost two months before election day... and since a great many voters in this country seem to have short-term memory problems, this Republican scandal is conveniently not going to be in the news close to Nov. 7 (replaced with "new" OBL tapes and/or red alert levels broadcast in hysterical tones of voice by snooze anchors at least once every half hour the week leading up to Nov. 7, would be my best guess).

Posted by: DiAnne at September 14, 2006 11:56 PM

I'm sure glad somebody mentioned Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Cyrano at September 15, 2006 07:34 AM

I think perhaps it's about the first time I've heard someone in power dare to do so! She's stating the obvious. She has a way of doing that. She spoke out similarly after the stealing of the 2000 election. When she gets fed up enough, she dares to say things that need to be said, and with controlled contempt. I think it's powerful.

NonnyO
I like the foremat of the Y/N questions. It makes the "Have you stopped beating your wife" thing possible also, and puts people on the spot. I love it when anyone tries it at the White House Press Corps but I think only Helen Thomas is courageous (or curious) enough & they try to keep her as far from the mike as possible. Bush has had 3 press secretaries and they're all terrible bunglers. Snow just said he thought Colin Powell is confused. Never mind that McCain and Powell are popular among undecided independents and attacking them can sway people away from those following the Bush line.

The Y/N direct format breaks things down into black and white. If someone thinks the question isn't fair, they will have to elaborate but this automatically makes them look a bit evasive.
It seems like a good format for any live venue with cameras covering, and is probably one reason why Bush appearances are screened for admission.

In my mind, I will be with the protesters against Rove today.
The guy who called me from Austin had protested Rove there two weeks ago. Can you imagine people paying thousands to be photographed with Karl Rove?!!

Hello from Utah!

I am sitting here looking at a mountain that is so sheer and so close it takes my breath away. It is vertical and the eye goes upwards, towards the heavens, like a gothic cathedral, only without the Christian brutality.

A thunderstorm is beginning, lightening just flashed by. Snow is predicted.

The access to raw nature here is so healing for me, after spending the past few weeks trying to get folks to stand in the rain with me and listen to luminaries such as Lester Brown, Gareth Porter, Sheldon Rampton, Harvey Wasserman, Ray McGovern, and Arun Gandhi.

My heart hurts from the efforts, but my soul is beginning to seek to understand the battle we are in.

I come here every day to read and hope that I can contribute more soon. I think about what we are all trying to accomplish together and it is very much like we are all trying to climb the mountain outside my window--a very high climb indeed. And then the weather turns on us...

It is a quest we are called to. The goal is not gold or even salvation; the goal is justice for all.

I am off to the day, which is, for me, about continuing to climb that mountain, looking for the footholds, centering myself for what could always turn out badly, but which, through breath and focus, could just possibly be miraculous.

I send you all the clear light from Arun Gandhi's eyes, which reminded me that time is much longer than we think, and space much larger.

Be the peace you want to see.

Karen:

Namaste

Turkish official compares pope to Hitler
Politician joins outcry across Muslim world over pontiff's comments in Islam

Updated: 24 minutes ago
The Associated Press

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey’s ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on Friday, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades with remarks he made about the Muslim faith.

Muslim leaders elsewhere in the world also expressed dismay, with Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemning the pope.

The Vatican said the pope did not mean to offend Muslims with his remarks — made in Germany on Tuesday during an address at a university.

-snip-

“He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world,” Kapusuz was quoted as saying by the state-owned Anatolia news agency. “It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades.”

“Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words,” he said. “He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as (Adolf) Hitler and (Benito) Mussolini.”

Turkey’s staunchly secular opposition party also demanded that Benedict apologize to Muslims before his visit to Turkey.

“The pope has thrown gasoline onto the fire ... in a world where the risk of a clash between religions is high,” said Haluk Koc, deputy head of the Republican People’s Party, as a small group of protesters left a black wreath in front of the Vatican’s embassy in Ankara.

more...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14846353/

Thanks for carin' Karen...

King of the Mountain
by Midnight Oil

Walking through the high dry grass, pushing my way through slow
Yellow belly black snake, sleeping on a red rock
Waiting for the stranger to go
Sugar train stops at the crossing, cane cockies cursing below
Bad storm coming, better run to the top of the mountain

Mountain in the shadow of light, rain in the valley below
Well you can say youre peter, say youre paul
Dont put me up on your bedroom wall, call me the king of the mountain

Blacksmith fires up the bellows, cane cutters burning the load
Workers of the world, run to the top of the mountain

Mountain in the shadow of light, rain in the valley below
I cant take my hands from my face, there are some things we cant replace

Mountain in the shadow of light, rain in the valley below

Over liquid tarmac wastelands of cactus and heat
Down cobblestone alleyways of washing day sheets
Up ghost prairie mountains of sunset and space
Down the road at a familiar place, across the wilderness
Out further than the bush,

I will follow you
I will follow you
I will follow...

You

Shrub's having a hissy fit in his news conference-- trying to sound angry & tough to obscure the logical fallacies & obfuscation. Hmmm-- re. immigration he just said we have to treat people with dignity in this country...

o_O He is talking faster & faster-- maybe an effort to try to come across better in news conferences?

Argh! reasons we must perservere...
paraphrase- imagine an enemy who hates us getting a-hold of a bunch of oil & holding it off the market...

Posted by: aimzzz at September 15, 2006 11:38 AM

I'm waiting for him to say, "You live in my country, you'll live by my rules, damn it!"

At Liberal Values:

The Case for Kerry 2006

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=320

Incidentally, Technorati currently has this post listed as the number one post under What Everyone Is Blogging About. I have no idea how it made the list, but the more buzz that can be created about the post I assume the more likely it will remain there.

I accidentally caught the beginning of this "news conference" DimWit is having trying to sell the idea of "clarifying" Common Article 3... I thought for a minute he was going to have a stroke, yelling and nearly frothing at the mouth in trying to get his crazy "point" across! If he really believes a "civilized" nation can stoop so low as to allow torture of anyone, anywhere, at any time, he's even crazier than I thought...! What's to "clarify" about Common Article 3??? It's perfectly clear to me.

I notice DimWit's not pointing out the other part of the bill he's proposing: making him and others immune from prosecution for war crimes...!

He's pushing - hard - to get this idiocy passed before the Nov. 7 election, I believe, because he's afraid he's not going to be left with rubber-stampers he's relied on for so long....

It's as if there was
He wants us to think it's his idea to "clarify" the process or "this thing".

He just said that Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (sic) is hard for alot of the American people to understand... speaking as though he does understand it. The talking point is that the Geneva Conventions are merely an instance of 'international courts telling us how we are allowed to protect ourselves' (paraphrase)

Oop.. looks like I started out to say something & jumped right into something else :p

Hmmmm... there's a kind of "urban myth" here in Washington that this administration won't stay focused on OBL...

Is Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention hard to interpet or understand, as the President states? No I am a stay at home mom who has never been to college and I understand what it says. Evidently our military leaders understand it, the only persons who do not, belong to the Bush Administration. President and world leader since 1949 have understood it that is 57 years no one in that time has claimed its hard to interpet or understand. It is very straight forward not ambiguous.

ARTICLE 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/e160550475c4b133c12563cd0051aa66?OpenDocument

Pretty clear cut to me.

But I guess even Powell is confused about what this means according to the Administration at least.

One more thing everytime someone in the administration attacks someone who is against thier policy, we need to remind people that at the end of the day Bush is the Administration, most of these people are NOT elected to office but appointed by the President meaning they represent him and HIS Administration therefor their thoughts words and attacks belong to the President as well as them. Everyone needs to stop giving him a pass when he says well I wouldnt word it that way or I do not attack anyones patriotism. Yes he does through them enough is enough.

Oh no-- the culture of responsibility again
(where is that mendacity smilie?)

Posted by: aimzzz at September 15, 2006 12:12 PM

That is not myth its fact, he mentioned Osama Bin Laden 17 times on 9/11 anniversery, then the next day said he thinks the resources used to go after Osama could be better used elsewhere, so he doesnt care if Osama Bin Laden is caught he likes the mastermind of sept 11 out running around free. I for one am sick of him in one hand claiming we are safer then trying to scare us all to death.

Posted by: DiAnne at September 15, 2006 09:34 AM

Thank you. I also like the idea of making things short and simple, easy to answer. In this modern world of sound bytes, few people have the attention span to listen to any answer longer than ten words. A simple yes or no answer, or a short one-word answer gets the point across.

While it's true that some responses to questions might take up to 25 words to "explain" - it's also true that some of these "issues" are black and white issues: like torture.

I just called Dayton's office to ask him to please vote against 'the torture bill.' And I did refer to it as such. The woman on the other end was taken aback (I think) when I referred to it as a torture bill, and said 'you mean... blah, blah... I forget her terms, but apparently the official title of the bill. When I asked if he planned to vote for or against the bill, she said she couldn't speculate on that and offered to read yesterday's prepared statement by Dayton. She read Dayton's prepared statement and he praised the three Repub senators who are against the bill, which isn't enough for me. I told her the other part of the bill exempts Bu$h, Cheney, et al., from being charged with war crimes. And I said that if the US is going to be a civilized nation, we just can NOT stoop to torture, and asked that he not vote in favor of the bill. She said she'd pass my message on.

"Do you think torture should be made legal?" seems the appropriate question of the day.... I think I should also ask: Do you think any members of the current administration should be immune from prosecution for war crimes...?

And, no. I can't imagine anyone paying good money to have a photo op with Turd Blossom. I would walk in the opposite direction if I thought he was within ten miles... otherwise I just might spit in his greasy little ugly face....

April, he particularly singled out this one as something that could mean just about anything, insinuating that it's representative of what a muddle the whole thing is :

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

Posted by: April at September 15, 2006 12:20 PM

I was quoting him-- he used the term "urban myth". It didn't exactly roll off his tongue

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

Posted by: aimzzz at September 15, 2006 12:32 PM

What this means not to do was highlighted very well by Abu Ghraib. Does anyone in this country have any doubt about what this means, Besides the President and the Admin? grrr

I actually listened to the press thing this morning the rambling answers that werent. I wanted to see what his justification for claiming this was hard to understand was, I feel stupider for even trying to listen to his rambling answers and discourse.

We need a president who can make us feel smarter because he understands what he is talking about instead of dummer for trying to interpet his meaning and words. Bush is smart in one way he knows how to no matter what the question stick to his talking points.

Posted by: April at September 15, 2006 12:17 PM

Thanks for posting the link and the Article....

With the exception of the phrase 'hors de combat' there is nothing whatsoever in Common Article 3 that could not easily be understood by any person with a grade school education. No "high falutin'" ten-dollar words, so to speak, that would send anyone hunting for a dictionary.

IF DimWit wants this phrase "clarified":

"(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;"

...then he needs to refer to this:

"To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;"

WHAT is so difficult to understand? WHAT needs to be clarified???

I think we need a copy of the Senate bill that lays out just WHAT DimWit wants "clarified." There is nothing whatsoever in Common Article 3 that needs any clarification. It is very easily understood because it uses common, elementary easily-understood words.

IMHO, what DimWit wants "clarified" is whether or not he or members of his administration could be brought up on charges of war crimes....

THAT is the part of the Senate bill I want to read...!

One more thing Powell who had in the run up to the war with Iraq lost a ton of my respect gets some of it back with his letter and the wording of it.

Nonny here is the only copy of the article that is up for discussion from the President I could find.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/PostHamdan.Bush.Draft.pdf

Here is Findlaws overveiw of what this bill is and would mean.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20060731.html

Playing With Fire: The Administration's Draft Bill on Detainees Would Violate the Geneva Conventions and Thereby Put Americans at Risk
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----

A few minutes after the comments of Article 3, someone asked a question about immigrant issues. In his response, he just said we have to treat people with dignity in this country. If he doesn't understand part (c) of Article 3, then how does he know what he means? It would be funny if it wasn't so incredibly important.

Once again, the difference in what the US is concerned about vs. what the world is concerned about, as presented by CNN poll...

International CNN poll
Do you fear Afghanistan is slipping out of control?
Yes
No

US Consistently No News poll
Is it a good idea to split the teams in the next season of 'Survivor' along ethnic lines?
Yes
No

Excellent political cartoon by Harpers' Friday's Mr. Fish...

http://www.harpers.org/Yoyo-20060915.html

Having now had the opportunity to read the Pope's entire talk, it's evident to me that he clearly had no intention of making the Byzantine Emperor's critique of Mohammad the focus of the discussion. But neither did he intellectually distance himself from those remarks, which he could have easily accomplished with a phrase like - "not that I agree with these sentiments". And he returns to this controversial dialog between the Emperor and the Muslim emissary at the conclusion of the lecture.

I am tempted to conclude that he shares the Emperor's view - which is reinforced by my recent review of the research of Thomas Madden, a Catholic crusades scholar at St. Louis University, whose columns have also appeared on the National Review website. Madden argues that the Crusades were defensive in nature - and an attempt to reverse centuries of Muslim conquest.

It's interesting to contrast this perspective with that of John Esposito, a professor of Muslim studies at Georgetown - who attributes the causes of the crusades to Papal shenanigans. That's two very different perspectives from two Catholic professors at two different Catholic universities. Which is closer to the truth? Darn if I know, but my guess is that Madden's view reflects consensus opinion among traditionalist Catholic scholars.

What I know is this. The final stage of Mohammad's ministry takes place during a time of war, as he leads the army of Medina against the forces of Mecca. Now, I'm not a Koranic scholar - but I'd imagine that "moderate" and "modern" Muslims would argue that those verses that exhort the spreading of the faith through the sword must be understood in the limited context of the struggle for control of the Arabian Peninsula. What happens after Mohammad's death in 631 AD may not accurately reflect his intentions - any more than the countless outrages committed by Christians in Christ's name over the centuries reflect Jesus' intentions. And make no mistake, the first of these invasions only happen after Mohammad's death. The reality of centuries of Muslim conquests cannot be denied - but neither can we know what Mohammad would have thought (or what the Angel Gabriel would have instructed him to recite - since the entire Koran is considered by Muslims to have been whispered in The Prophet's ear by Gabriel) had he been around during this period.

That Benedict would not qualify his use of the Emperor's critique of Islam says quite a bit about his qualifications to speak for Catholics at this time of religious strife. One of the things his comments make crystal clear to me is that, at heart, like the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, he's more a divider than uniter.

Why did the new Pope have to turn out to be a troublemaker? Some Holy Man! No man of peace would use inflammatory speech disrespectful of other religions & which might instigate violence. There are elements in all religions which treat women as second class citizens. This Pope is lowering his institution in the eyes of the world by resorting to a 14th century mentality in the 21st Century.

This morning I heard Ted Koppel speaking from Isfahan Iran. He interviewed a lot of common people and their fear was this: they believe that Bush is a Christian extremist and Amoudinijad is an Islamic extremist - that both believe in a type of Armageddon. Bush is waiting for the book of Revelations to unfold. Amoudinijad is waiting for a certain Iman. The feat of these people is a religious confrontation, clash of civilizations. Isn't that what many of us fear as well? & the Pope has amped it up with his rhetoric. He should be ashamed.

Matthew Carnicelli
Some of the Iranians also said that according to Islam, it would be unethical to use nuclear weapons. They cannot be strong upholders of use of the sword. One man was primarily worried about getting some type of surgery for his wife.

Why "in God's name" are religious "leaders" and heads of state endangering common people who can do very little about it?! It's got to be ego and delusion, the very things they should be struggling the most against. What ungodly hypocrites.

If there is a God, may he "damn" them.
Literally. That is a curse, because if there is any truth to their beliefs, they commit heresy and blasphemy constantly. It's an abuse of power. Bush's "third awakening" is feeling more like a second "Dark Age."

It's got to be ego and delusion, the very things they should be struggling the most against. What ungodly hypocrites.

Posted by: DiAnne at September 15, 2006 05:10 PM

That would be my take as well, based on my training and experience. The essence of spirituality to me is finding a way to escape the prison of ego, and today's consensus reality, and encounter a wider, more inclusive perspective - much like Malcolm X does at the very end of his life. It has much more to do with Joseph Campbell's formulation of the Path of the Hero and much less to do with adherence to ancient rituals and dogma.