John McCain and Permanent War

vaozcb ilqzrw shkjtb nubvydk uoyapz gbsd fqnblmo

vaozcb ilqzrw shkjtb nubvydk uoyapz gbsd fqnblmo

vaozcb ilqzrw shkjtb nubvydk uoyapz gbsd fqnblmo

Even if America would elect Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to be it's President, it won't affect the course of this world. Doomsday has long been foretold and it is said that all the unbelievers will be doomed. Surely, it won't be called Doomsday if only a few would be annihilated. Now, does that make sense why so many today are unbelievers? Go figure it out.

And who on earth had not heard the name of Christ? Wasn't that what He told his apostles that His Name would be heard around the world before it's coming?

And lastly, to Susan and to all unbelievers here, what makes you think you're smarter than Christ who knew all these things to come to pass?

McCain is a "good guy" and an independent thinker in theory. Unfortunately, he has a lot of baggage to carry around being part of the GOP and the Bush admin war supporter. All indications are that the GOP will get swamped this year across the board, and it may have to live out the next 60 years in the deep wilderness.

Thanks Susan for hitting it on the nail regarding the gretest danger facing USA: the merger of the right-wing christians with jewish neocons with totally diff agendas. The rightwing christians have their fantastic notion that the 2nd coming of Christ will be preceded by an Armageddon in mideast. The jewish neocons have cleverly manipulated this mythical religious belief into a potent political force which has forced our elected reps to confront and attack any muslim nation perceived as a threat to Israel. The neocons have succeeded with the Bush-Cheney regime with an illegal invasion, occupation and destruction of Iraq.. Now they are half-way there with the selection of another right-wing warmonger named McCain as the Republican nominee (they had a backup in the primary named Giullianni).. Their goal is clearly stated: Iran is a great danger to Israel and USA (total garbage: Iran with no airforce, no ICBMs, no nukes is a danger to USA or Israel. This cooked up danger is even more fantastic than the 2nd coming of Christ!!), and has to be eliminated as a threat. The real question is: are the people in this country really so stupid to be duped a 2nd time, and allow the neocons to manipulate them again, and get McCain elected? If McCain wins in November, we will deserve what we will get over the next 5-10 years: a bankrupt nation trying to pay its domestic bills while fighting alone a never-ending losing battle against mideastern muslim nations..Rest of the world will move on with India and China leading Asia, EU/Russia managing the business of Europe, and S. America doing just fine w/o USA breathing down its neck..

Wouldn't we want to encourage the implementation of Christian apocalyptic theology by removing ourselves from the region and letting the end of days begin? Why would we want to delay the ultimate outcome by continuing to finance and defend Israel? Why do we choose to fight when we already know how the story ends? Maybe this displays a lack of faith in our beliefs that we choose to do everything we can to prevent them. Wouldn't we look better to the almighty in forgiving our enemies rather than confronting them? Sign me up for this “transcendent” view of world politics and get this party started.

The stupidity of the Bush-McCain-Clinton doctrine about wars is that they think that a war against terrorism is fought with conventional weapons. These wars should be based on good intelligence. And this requires investing ressources to gather intelligence, increasing the cooperation between nations instead to not talking to them, reading and understanding intelligence reports before starting conventional wars.

The stupidity of the Bush-McCain-Clinton doctrine about wars is due in part to arrogance; they believe that having a bigger stick (more weapons, ...) gives them more judgement for their decisions.

The stupidity of the Bush-McCain-Clinton doctrine about wars is that it helped spreading the terrorism confined first in Afghanistan to the rest of the world. It increases dangers for the national security and for the world.

Anyone remember after 9/11 so many in the administration were saying that we were attacked because 'they hate our freedom'?

I've been reading some of the responses from people who disagree with Susan, and it sounds like that line of thinking is still alive and well.

And now I'm depressed...

My message to the generation before me (those leaving MY generation with a $3 Trillion+ debt and the potential of American troops still in Iraq): Thanks. Thanks a lot. Please stop trying to make the world a better place for us. You're not helping. Seriously.

If this country rejects Obama because of carefully selected sound-bites from his minister and elects John McCain, I'm seriously considering leaving this country. And to all those who would say "good riddance," I ask that they consider what religion is doing to this country. John McCain now even supports the views of Jerry Falwell (who he once labelled an "agent of intolerance").
In America, we care more about fetuses and the terminally ill than we do our children and the poor. We foam at the mouth about homosexuality, but we refuse to provide health care or quality education for all people. McCain will make sure nothing changes.
I seriously don't think there's much difference between the nutty superstitions of Christians, Muslims, or Jews. All of them contain so much violence and crazy beliefs that's it's a toss-up as to which is worse for the world. I'd rather live by the atheists' 10 commandments!

Clearly, Fundamental Christians and Fundamental Jews are at least as dangerous to the nation and the world as the rampaging hordes of Fundamental Muslims!
These fundamental Christians utilize a bastardized Bible of the fantasized tales of a Jew by name Jesus and a bastardized and Christianized "old" testament derived from fundamental Jewish books of their justification for the genocides of the Jewish conquest of Judea along with the genealogical history of their leaders along with their inevitable destruction by their jealous God disillusioned by their endless blasphemies. To use these fictions to predict events is one thing; to use them as a guidebook for actions to realize their inane fantasies is quite another! George and now John seem to yearn for the Christian apocalypse to justify their immoral, criminal, and inhuman acts…God made me do it!

Excuse me, but for a theologian, it is remarkable how like a political operative you slyly suggest that McCain has the same views as Hagee, but he has publically denounced them, though accepting the endorsement. It is not Christian, which I assume you present yourself as, not to accept McCains' disavowel of Hagee's views. It is never a Christian thing, which you smearingly do, to say that one man is a carbon copy of another. That, madam, is the definition of prejudice, according to Gordon Allport's landmark study of prejudice. That McCain was thoroughly disowned and vilified by neocons in the National Review, day after day, is more than proof of your being so very wrong in your prejudice. That you teach at a place that only pretends to be Christian, while simoultaneously, undermines its Creeds and teachings, makes this highly prejudicial column more than suspect.

Yes
ok

Regarless, McCain will be the next president.

Obama just has poor taste in Friends and Mentors

Hillary? Well.. lets not bother with that one.

To honestly believe McCain will keep us there for 100 years shows you are just as ignorant of political rhetoric as the rest of the WaPo writers.

He will keep troops there as needed to maintain stability, just like the rest of them. If it takes 100k soldiers for 100 years, then so be it.

Look how well Japan turned out when we stayed for a while. Every time we withdrawl early we end up with an issue and have to go back in spending even MORE money.

So, take your 100 year war and apply it to ALL candidates, regardless of whether or not they said it.

ZZIM:

What a poor excuse for abject immorality and incompetence: "the world is messy...."

You are Dick Cheney's child.

Andrew;

Excellent straight talk from the Independent UK.

The point is if we want to know whats going on in the Iraq war we shouldn't listen to the politicians.
We have to listen to journalists who are there reporting on it. The consensus seems to be that it's a disaster; but the lid is on tight just now; and the moment we take the lid off by reducing the military numbers or leaving...all hell will break loose.
Can't keep the lid on forever.

Arminius

Patrick Cockburn is among the better journalists reporting from Iraq, as is The Independents other veteran Middle East correspondent Peter Fisk.
I wouldn't dare take credit for their work.
I was just doing a cut&paste in order to share these pieces.

bye...

Andrew!

My abject, groveling, and humble apologies! I looked again, and you did give credit. Please forgive me.

Arminius

Andrew in UK,

I confess to some doubt here. What you posted was to the point, the bitter point. And extremely well written. If you did not write that, but cut and pasted, you should give credit to the source.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt here.

Arminius

Hi Arminius;

Yeah, I think this view is correct; the war is a disaster and Bush/Cheney will remain in denial and keep trying to convince everyone that they've done a great job bringing peace and freedom to Iraq.
Journalists tell a different story.

Independent.co.uk
Leading article: Five years after the invasion, the totality of our failure is clear

Wednesday, 19 March 2008

Five years on, let us take the high road. When the invasion of Iraq was conceived, it was as an experiment in the transforming force of a confident superpower; an evangelistic Tony Blair trotted on behind. Removing a dictator was only to be the start; the objective was a benign and democratic Middle East – an environment in which Israel and the Palestinians could make peace, and energy exports were plentiful and secure.

Even now, the removal of that dictator remains the single attainment of an enterprise that was always as flawed in its genesis as in execution. Iraq is a war-torn and wasted land. Estimates of its civilian dead range from almost 100,000 to more than 10 times as many. More than two million of its people have fled. The indiscriminate killings may have slowed, but ethnic cleansing continues apace.

Any semblance of democracy is confined to the Kurdish region – as it was before the war. The government and parliament are corralled in the Green Zone, walled off from the citizens they are supposed to serve. Neither the central government, nor the 150,000 US troops, have been able to match even the inadequate supplies of power and clean water that Saddam Hussein made flow in his day. Iraqi police and armed forces are still nowhere near up to standard or strength.

Over five years, the US has lost almost 4,000 troops, with 30,000 wounded – a toll of grief and suffering that is already influencing the course of US politics. At 175, the number of British dead might seem modest; as the price of involvement in a war that was unjustified and unnecessary, any figure would be too high.

Nor is the south that we British have handed back to the Iraqis the model of peace and tolerance that we had hoped to bequeath. Plagued by warlordism and riven by sectarianism, it is now left pretty much to its own devices. Yet they are still seen as holding a necessary line, now that the rest of the foreign coalition, such as it was, has departed. The Poles and Australians were the last to leave – both essentially voted back by disgruntled domestic electorates.

A RESURGENT IRAN

The US, for its part, is trapped. The controversial troop surge briefly subdued the violence – but at tremendous cost in men and material. With the effect wearing off, however, Washington can ill-afford to reduce their numbers, lest the violence return to previous levels. And their necessary visibility places them at greater risk. On the plus side, then, the demise of Saddam Hussein. On the minus side: thousands of deaths, the proliferation of suicide bombings, no great groundswell of democracy, still less energy security, and a resurgent Iran – youthful and militant – sweeping into the power vacuum left by Saddam. On the world stage, both the US and Britain are smaller countries.

Five years on, the totality of our failure is clear. But worse even than that failure, perhaps, is the obstinate refusal of our political leaders to learn the obvious lessons. Of course, any lingering shreds of idealism are long gone. On becoming Prime Minister, Gordon Brown changed the Government's tone to one of sombre realism, rather than messianism. And for a brief spell, he drew a distinction between the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than dishonestly conflating the two. That did not last. And the promise of a parliamentary vote on any future war, while good for a headline, is of limited value. There was a parliamentary vote on Iraq: the problem was not the lack of a vote, but the lack of an opposition.

On both sides of the Atlantic, however, political leaders still insist that the war was the right thing to do. If there were errors – and they admit there were – they were all in the implementation, not the enterprise itself. Nor, in official parlance at least, does the appetite for using armed force seem diminished. Mr Bush persists in threatening Iran with armed force, despite overwhelming evidence that his military is overstretched, while the British foreign secretary gives gung-ho speeches on the misunderstood merits of armed intervention.

In his Budget, Alistair Darling announced the higher military budget as though he was talking about new social spending, rather than the – very high – price of Mr Blair's Mesopotamian adventure. In terms of manpower and money, we have acquired a long-term obligation in Iraq. The true cost has still not been honestly acknowledged.

INQUIRY NEEDED

Meanwhile we await the comprehensive inquiry into how we got into Iraq – into the decision-making involved, the intelligence debacle, and the rest. Mr Brown's recent promise of an inquiry when the troops are home is a small step in the right direction – at least he recognises that such an investigation is desirable – but it disgracefully, and perhaps indefinitely, postpones the day of reckoning.

There are those, of course – an increasing number of self-justifying memoir-writers among them – who maintain that five years is but the blink of an eye in the greater perspective of history. The worst, they suggest, is over, and a new, modern Iraq will then arise from the blood and ashes. We hope against hope that it will.

The evolution of a new Iraq, however, will be proof not that might was right but of the indomitability of the human spirit. We would also remind those tempted to regard these five years of suffering as somehow vindicated that the timescale Mr Bush envisaged for operations was rather closer to five months.

Andrew in UK:

My compliments on a very well written post about the hell that is Iraq. Thanks.

Arminius

Independent.co.uk
Patrick Cockburn: This is the war that started with lies, and continues with lie after lie after lie

Wednesday, 19 March 2008

It has been a war of lies from the start. All governments lie in wartime but American and British propaganda in Iraq over the past five years has been more untruthful than in any conflict since the First World War.

The outcome has been an official picture of Iraq akin to fantasy and an inability to learn from mistakes because of a refusal to admit that any occurred. Yet the war began with just such a mistake. Five years ago, on the evening of 19 March 2003, President George Bush appeared on American television to say that military action had started against Iraq.

This was a veiled reference to an attempt to kill Saddam Hussein by dropping four 2,000lb bombs and firing 40 cruise missiles at a place called al-Dura farm in south Baghdad, where the Iraqi leader was supposedly hiding in a bunker. There was no bunker. The only casualties were one civilian killed and 14 wounded, including nine women and a child.

On 7 April, the US Ai r Force dropped four more massive bombs on a house where Saddam was said to have been sighted in Baghdad. "I think we did get Saddam Hussein," said the US Vice President, Dick Cheney. "He was seen being dug out of the rubble and wasn't able to breathe."

Saddam was unharmed, probably because he had never been there, but 18 Iraqi civilians were dead. One US military leader defended the attacks, claiming they showed "US resolve and capabilities".

Mr Cheney was back in Baghdad this week, five years later almost to the day, to announce that there has been "phenomenal" improvements in Iraqi security. Within hours, a woman suicide bomber blew herself up in the Shia holy city of Kerbala, killing at least 40 and wounding 50 people. Often it is difficult to know where the self-deception ends and the deliberate mendacity begins.

The most notorious lie of all was that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But critics of the war may have focused too much on WMD and not enough on later distortions.

The event which has done most to shape the present Iraqi political landscape was the savage civil war between Sunni and Shia in Baghdad and central Iraq in 2006-07 when 3,000 civilians a month were being butchered and which was won by the Shia.

The White House and Downing Street blithely denied a civil war was happening – and forced Iraq politicians who said so to recant – to pretend the crisis was less serious than it was.

More often, the lies have been small, designed to make a propaganda point for a day even if they are exposed as untrue a few weeks later. One example of this to shows in detail how propaganda distorts day-to-day reporting in Iraq, but, if the propagandist knows his job, is very difficult to disprove.

On 1 February this year, two suicide bombers, said to be female, blew themselves up in two pet markets in predominantly Shia areas of Baghdad, al Ghazil and al-Jadida, and killed 99 people. Iraqi government officials immediately said the bombers had the chromosonal disorder Down's syndrome, which they could tell this from looking at the severed heads of the bombers. Sadly, horrific bombings in Iraq are so common that they no longer generate much media interest abroad. It was the Down's syndrome angle which made the story front-page news. It showed al-Qa'ida in Iraq was even more inhumanly evil than one had supposed (if that were possible) and it meant, so Iraqi officials said, that al-Qa'ida was running out of volunteers.

The Times splashed on it under the headline, "Down's syndrome bombers kill 91". The story stated firmly that "explosives strapped to two women with Down's syndrome were detonated by remote control in crowded pet markets". Other papers, including The Independent, felt the story had a highly suspicious smell to it. How much could really be told about the mental condition of a woman from a human head shattered by a powerful bomb? Reliable eyewitnesses in suicide bombings are difficult to find because anybody standing close to the bomber is likely to be dead or in hospital.

The US military later supported the Iraqi claim that the bombers had Down's syndrome. On 10 February, they arrested Dr Sahi Aboub, the acting director of the al Rashad mental hospital in east Baghdad, alleging that he had provided mental patients for use by al-Qa'ida. The Iraqi Interior Ministry started rounding up beggars and mentally disturbed people on the grounds that they might be potential bombers.

But on 21 February, an American military spokes-man said there was no evidence the bombers had Down's. Adel Mohsin, a senior official at the Health Ministry in Baghdad, poured scorn on the idea that Dr Aboub could have done business with the Sunni fanatics of al-Qa'ida because he was a Shia and had only been in the job a few weeks.

A second doctor, who did not want to give his name, pointed out that al Rashad hospital is run by the fundamentalist Shia Mehdi Army and asked: "How would it be possible for al-Qa'ida to get in there?"

Few people in Baghdad now care about the exact circumstances of the bird market bombings apart from Dr Aboub, who is still in jail, and the mentally disturbed beggars who were incarcerated. Unfortunately, it is all too clear that al-Qa'ida is not running out of suicide bombers. But it is pieces of propaganda such as this small example, often swallowed whole by the media and a thousand times repeated, which cumulatively mask the terrible reality of Iraq.

Dabrack says the invading Iraq was "the right thing to do from the beginning...the right thing for all but Al Qaeda." This assumes several false predicates. First, it assumes that Al Qaeda was soemhow connected to Iraq. This demonstrably false. Second, it assumes securing Afghanistan was less important than invading Iraq. Events in Afghanistan, such as the resurgence of the Taliban (remember them?) and their harboring of Al Qaeda prove that was false. Third, it assumes that pulling our forces out of Afghanistan at the very moment they were poised to capture bin Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda leadership, giving them a "get out of jail free" card, was less important than deposing Saddam. Again, history has proven this false.

Iraq had no WMD. Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda. Iraq had no connection with 9/11. Not only does history tell us all this is true, history also shows that any honest evaluation of the facts at the time would have forced concluding they were true. Those who still harp about the disinformation used to deceive us into invading Iraq need to face reality. Pity they still refuse.

Anon says "[t]here is no Christian commandment to kill - quite the opposite." False. Read the Bible. The Old Testament commands genocide. What happened to the Philistines and Canaanites? What is happening today to the Palestinians, including Christian Palestinians? According to the Catholic Church, the New Testament commanded the Crusades. Acting on the Bible, the Crusaders butchered tens of thousands--including Orthodox Christians. The rivers of blood in Jerusalem were fed by the Orthodox. Hitler's Final Solution was the culmination of 2000 years of Christian anti-semitism. Nothing in the history of Islam compares. During the Reformation and the inevitable religious wars, joyous Christians butchered plenty of women and children. The phrase "Kill them all and let God sort them out" was coined by a truly devout Christian, not a Muslim. The Great Library of Alexandria was burned by Christians, not Muslims.

Anon is right in noting that most of the killers in Iraq are not Iraqi. But he then says they are Muslims. But the Iraqis too are Muslims. So the killers are not Muslims, right? Anon tries to pass off an elementary error in logic. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The killers are Muslims. Therefore, they kill because they are Muslim. They are also Arab. So why not blame Arabs? They have dark complexions. So why not blame those of dark complexions? Yes, they think they act in accordance with Islam. But they are mistaken. Blaming their religion in this case is illogical.

Anon also writes "[t]here is no Christian clergy which proclaims genocide or denies the right to exist for a people or a country." Oh, but there is. Christian Zionists deny the Palestinians the right to exist, and the right to their country. They elevate the rights of a long-absent people, the Jews, over the rights of the innocent Palestinians. The Palestinians had nothing to do with expulsion of the Jews from Palestine by the Romans. The Palestinians had nothing to do with so very Christian Holocaust. But Christian dogma makes them pay. To the point of death. Come on, how many Christians denounce Israel? How many Christians protect the Palestinians? Very few, because their religion tells them that Palestinians are Untermenschen who must be disposed of to further the Second Coming, the rapture, and all the rest of the their deranged hallucinations.

The useful idiots are the ones who deliberately misrepresent history to justify their actions. They and their fellow travelers in fraud have misrepresented the connections of Iraq to Al Qaeda, to WMD, and to 9/11. The misrepresent the history of Christianity and Islam. All to justify a blatant and proven fraud. Makes you wonder on whose side they're really on.

Yes, it will be a long war. A long waste of resources, playing right into the hands of our enemies. Bin Laden himself has expressed joy at our invading Iraq, toppling perhaps his greatest enemy in the Arab world, giving him the greatest training grounds for terrorists in the world, and the best recruiting angle possible. The real useful idiots are those who delivered this unto Al Qaeda. One wonders how a patriotic American could so aid and abet those who attacked us on 9/11.

Perhaps it was deliberate.

REPENT, FOR THE END IS NIGH

The World is changing.
Things will never be the same.
Markets, Globalization, The Enron Curse.
War, Rumors of War, scandal, oil, inflation,
And many many more.

In the twinkling of an eye,
At The Last Trump, The Crack of Doom,
All will be transformed, old will become new.
The first will become last and The Last First.
The Meek will Reign Forevermore
And never know fear again.
Every tear shall be wiped away
And Joy shall be all they know.

To be posessed by Love and not by Sin,
And all The Righteous shall anew begin.

Things will never be the same.
The World is changing.

REPENT! FOR THE END IS NIGH!!!

Andrew Geddis
Virtue Lord Purple

I can hear and see D1ck Cheney's deferment medals and ribbons clanging and shaking in anger at this post as he relaxes in the palace in Oman and maybe pays a quick visit to Halliburton now head quartered in Dubai..

Despite all of the insincere blather about loving their enemies, Christians quite cheerily slaughter any and all who oppose them - and always in the name of god.

I'm sure it's just the Christian prohibition against suicide that keeps some of them from adopting Al Qaeda-like tactics and strapping on a bomb vest.

McCain's position on the war in Iraq is the very reason he should not become president. Another, is his ignorance regarding the economy.

I read your Article, "John McCain...." with great interest. It is eloquent and well-reasoned. As a father of three children and a grandfather of six grandchildren, I want them all to live in a peaceful world.
I strongly believe that there are people out there who have no regard for human life, theirs or (especially) ours, and they have the desire and have (or will get)the means to alter our way of life.
I have just finished a book entitled "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. I wonder if you have read it and, if so, what you thought. Our enemy is very patient and has a long time horizon. A decade or two, even a century, is not too long to wait to achieve their goal. I, for one, don't think we can rely on talk to try and change their minds.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

I read your Article, "John McCain...." with great interest. It is eloquent and well-reasoned. As a father of three children and a grandfather of six grandchildren, I want them all to live in a peaceful world.
I strongly believe that there are people out there who have no regard for human life, theirs or (especially) ours, and they have the desire and have (or will get)the means to alter our way of life.
I have just finished a book entitled "America Alone" by Mark Steyn. I wonder if you have read it and, if so, what you thought. Our enemy is very patient and has a long time horizon. A decade or two, even a century, is not too long to wait to achieve their goal. I, for one, don't think we can rely on talk to try and change their minds.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Isn't McCain a brand of oatmeal? If I'm not mistaken, McCain's oatmeal is steel cut, not rolled, giving it a grainy texture that many people find appealing. If you're equating steel cut with permanent war, I beg to differ. Rolling is far more indicative of full out war. Doesn't anyone remember the caissons? They went "rolling" along. In fact, if "cutting" means anything in war, it means getting out. Cut and run.

So it stands to reason that McCain is for pulling out of Iraq as soon as possible. Who knows about the Democrats. If Bill Clinton were still in office we know what he'd do. I'm sure he rolled a few in his day.

McCain is a war monger who is obsessed with being president of the United States. I don't believe his obsession has anything to do with the welfare of Americans. I dread the thought of this man becoming president, this country would self-destruct.

McCain is a war monger who is obsessed with being president of the United States. I don't believe his obsession has anything to do with the welfare of Americans. I dread the thought of this man becoming president, this country would self-destruct.

The problem with the theology of this war lies within the islamic theology of the moslem.

There is no Christian commandment to kill - quite the opposite.

There is no Christian promise of martyrdom and virgins for one who commits murder. Quite the opposite.

There is no Christian clergy which proclaims genocide or denies the right to exist for a people or a country.

Islam cannot make the same claims in the face of scrutiny.

There is no Christian war against women and children - quite the opposite. Women and children have been killed in Iraq - thats true - but by mistake, not design. Our armed forces are not surrounding them selves with women and children to elicit attacks which are then propagandized by a willing and complicit media. Our armed forces are not deliberately attacking civilians as a matter of doctrine. Quite the opposite. We have lost far too many fine young men and women by acting with a great deal of restraint.

We invaded and conquered Europe to destroy the nazi war machine in a fraction of the time we have been in Iraq - with HUGE civilian losses. We destroyed entire cities on the way to Berlin.

We are not doing that now, and as a result, we are losing far too many good people, taking far to long to end this war and are still charged with fabricated outrageous war crimes by some - like this author - who should know better.

What the author and so many others either are ignorant of or refuse to accept, is that the majority of people doing the killing in Iraq are not Iraqis. They are moslems from all over the middle east, in search of culminating a deranged theological quest.

Over and over again, Iranians, Yemenis, Chechyans, Saudis - moslems from all over are found on the battlefield.

Thats why this is a long war. When Italy sided with Germany - we invaded and conquered Italy. That was when serious people fought a serious war - and the people at home recognized the threat, and supported the efforts.

Now, we have a majority of the world media refusing to tell the truth about the reality of islam - even though the stark reality of the killings over cartoons, one example of many of vicious islamic doctrine, should be a large enough clue bat to wake just about anyone up.

We have useful idiots and fellow travelers seriously comparing the treatment of terrorists and others pickup on the battlefield {not wearing a recognizable uniform - the one thing they do have on common is a koran} to Hitler's genocide and Stalins Gulag, which between the two accounted for untold millions of deaths. To what purpose? To somehow, through outrageous lies and deceit, have people who already tried to kill Americans returned - now in a much fitter and healthier condition - to try again? To make an insane political statement which weakens us and our allies and strengthens our sworn enemies?

We have quasi-Christian spokespeople who have spent decades studying theology without seriously studying the violent past of islam, instead, attempting to suggest this violence is some sort of modern day phenomenon brought on by a political group with which they disagree.

Yes, its going to be a long, long war. Surrender in the face of islamic terrorism, while seriously debated amongst those who really have the most to lose (those who eschew self defense and abhor the right to keep and bear arms), is suicidal, and fighting this enemy in a manner which would bring success seems out of the pale to those who would carry on the conflict.

If it's permanent war they want, it's permanent war we'll give 'em! By golly, if they're gonna keep coming over here with all their Islam and whatnot, I say fight 'em over there so they don't even show up over here. Sure it's expensive, that's why we need to secure all that oil. That's why the oil is rightfully ours in the first place. God sure made something special when he made America, and he means for us to take care of America, by gum! The only other place God ever made especially for the people is Isreal, and look what happened over there. The Jews fell down on the job and now the whole place is overrun with Islam! I don't know about you but I'm sure not gonna make the same mistake twice. We've gotta clean that place up, and if that means permanent war, well, it's God's war, so count me in.

Didn't bother to note that McCain has said rejected Hagee's thoughts on the subject. I guess that means Obama wants to destroy Israel, just like Jeremiah Wright.

John McCain is running on one issue only: Iraq. He does not even discuss national security but only Iraq. He has no plan for the economy and paying down our inflated national debt. He even mentioned that he didn't know that much about the economy.

Americans should run away from Senator McCain as fast as they can. Permanent war is evil and nothing good can come of it.

I supported the decision to go to war along with so many in the government and media. In retrospect, it appears to me that the war has been a strategic error, if not a disaster. The result is that Iran has been strengthened politically and militarily while the US is weaker in diplomatic, military and financial terms.

Excellent essay. In a sane world, "foreign policy experts" like John McCain who were demonstrably wrong in viturally every prediction they made regarding this war would be marginalized while those who stood for sanity (at great personal and professional risk), like you, would be the ones appearing weekly on Meet the Press, Fox Sunday, etc.

Alas, we do not live in a sane world, but it is good to know that people like you are still standing for peace, despite all the reasons there are (you ennumerate them well) for pessimism.

Hey Susan et al- Take a stroll down memory lane and ask yourself-

Democrats or Hypocrits?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVZlLBchVE

This conflict of religion and trade routes is thousands of years old. 5 years, or a hundred, are brief when looking into the past. The US got into this conflict by supporting Israel, 60 years ago. Not 5 years ago. After WWII we headed into oil exploration and development in the middle east.
John McCain never said we would be there in 100 years still fighting. He did say it was worth the time if necessary. We are still involved with keeping the peace in Europe after 100 years. Is that
a worthwhile position? Yes, and the middle east will
be fruitful too, because we care!!

Thank for your thoughtful note on McCain's dangerous millenanarism that follows in heels of the neo-con quest to remake the world in America's image. The sun will never set on america's military presence around the world. McCain is an even greater case of secular religion than the neo cons because his mythical language of transcendent challenge, danger,ultimate threat to America and the world i.e. invites his transcendent response. And this suggests that he is on a divine mission, in pursuit of a transcendent cause as was our savior Jesus Christ himself. and all this militarism is couched in the fake humanism of bringing peace to the middle east through the barrel of a gun. of course some one is laughing all the way to the bank with three trillion dollars of our taxpayers money and counting.

I am sorry, but I don't see Combatant Commanders, like ADM Fallon, as being the ones to stand between a President and war with some nation. That is the job of the US Congress. If we don't like the way the Congress is performing, we should vote them out in November. Or, we could band together for a recall right now. Those are two things that we, as citizens, can not do to an Admiral. (On the other hand, if we find acceptable the way it is going, we can do nothing.) For sure, five years is not a long time in terms of the Middle East. The Kingdom of Jerusalem lasted almost 200 years. And 1492 was a long ways from 732.

This is a brilliant piece of description and analysis. The theology of "right" and Christian trancendence that so many Americans cherish clearly are not biblical.
Sen. McCain, the so-called self-proclaimed expert on Islamic Extremism has never studied Arab History and Culture, has no knowledge of the Koran and its teachings, has never taken a course in Middle East Politics; yet thousands of Americans flock to his campaign and drink his brand of Koolaid.
America is a blessed country but not free from sin committed by its leaders who continue to unleash terror on many parts of the world.

Peace, and great job, Susan.

Today's article in the Post, "McCain Mixes Up Iraqi Groups," shows that McCain does not know the most basic facts about Iran and Iraq. He does not know the difference between al-Qaeda in Iraq and Shiites in Iraq or who Iran is assisting. This is after we have been there for five years; he has made numerous visits to Iraq; and he has been among the strongest Senate proponents of the war. McCain is not competent to lead us or to make policy concerning these two countries.

Ah, the hypocrisy of politics. Ms. Brooks makes a great deal of hay about Sen. McCain's acceptance of John Hagee's endorsement. To her way of thinking, this reflects Mr. McCain's underlying worldview, which she believes has a strong theological bent. She does not cite from the record of McCain's speeches or policies to support this assertion. With good cause: unlike President Bush, who repeatedly and clearly has linked the war on terror to his faith, Senator McCain has not made any such connection.

Let's look at the argument: to make the connection, she seizes on McCain's oft-repeated use of the word "transcendent" to describe the fight against radical Islam. She makes a huge leap, and says that the word "indirectly" invokes the transcendence of God. Then an even bigger logical leap: it must be "presumably the Christian God."

In fact, McCain uses the word "transcendent" to mean that, in his worldview, the fight against terror and radical Islam touches virtually every aspect of the modern world. It is a fight that exceeds what we used to believe were the boundaries of war. By the way, this is also the dictionary definition of transcendent. The word itself has no religious connotation.

You can disagree with McCain's point of view, as many people do. You can believe that the war on terror, the struggle against Islamic extremism, or whatever one calls it, is based on a vastly overstated threat. These are fair arguments. In contrast, Ms. Brooks' smear of Sen. McCain's motives, much less his faith, based on little more than gossamer threads of logic, not only distorts his record, but it actually harms her cause by clouding the argument.

As for the hypocrisy: I'm surprised that Ms. Brooks can declare that Sen. McCain's acceptance of Hagee's endorsement means that the two are connected at the hip, while remaining mute on the hateful rantings of other ministers whose support the Democratic contenders embrace (Jeremiah Wright, Calvin Butts, etc.).

These comments go to the underlying issue, namely, whether the Iraq War satifies the conditions of a "just war." Few would argue if Iraq had WMD and a plan to use them. We could consider variations (e.g., (1) Iraq had WMD but no plan to use them, or (2) Iraq had no WMD, wanted to develop them, but had no means to develop them, or (3) Iraq had no WMD, wanted to develop them, planned to use them once developed, but could be contained through inspections). But Iraq did not have WMD, so the issue is whether a sincere belief (which I assume) that Iraq had them and wanted to use them satisfies the conditions for a "just war"? I believe Ms. Thistlethwaithe's point about Senator McCain is that, when faced with the same or a similar situation, he too would have the propensity for a "sincere belief" that would support a "just war." If violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, then maybe she is also suggesting that Senator (President) McCain, like President Bush, may not be competent to be given the power to make that choice.

I feel bad for politicians. Clearly they need to read every bit of correspondence ever written by anybody who even partially supports them or else they will be found guilty of supporting whatever extremist nonsense those "supporters" write.

This author may want to note that many if not most of those in the Christian community who hold similar beliefs have hated McCain forever and some even threatened to vote for Hillary if he became the nominee. He is not nor has ever been a member of that community.

I respect anyone who believes that the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea and that thinks we should leave, but please make honest arguments. This author does not make an honest argument.

Dear Susan,
How right you are? Five years of utter misery and grief with no end result. If my performance is like this at my work and yet I will come up with say that what ever I am doing is working then there is none more shameful then me. President Bush and Cheney yet again are lying and have no shame. How can they over look the misery of American People. Recession, inflation and homeless Americans every where and they cintinue to praise their illogical and totally stupid war. McCain will no doubt continue with the current policies and I am disgusted with all thise who will support him in general election. The man don't even know what to say until some senator whispers in his ear. Who to ask for help, I don't know but God have mercy on this nation and all the people who are suffering from this administration.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. [1] It is a severe and ongoing emotional reaction to an extreme psychological trauma .[2] This stressor may involve someone's actual death or a threat to the patient's or someone else's life, serious physical injury, or threat to physical and/or psychological integrity, to a degree that usual psychological defenses are incapable of coping....

The four dissociative disorders listed in the DSM IV TR are as follows:
Depersonalization disorder (DSM-IV Codes 300.6 [2] )- periods of detachment from self or surrounding which may be experienced as "unreal" (lacking in control of or "outside of" self) while retaining awareness that this is only a feeling and not a reality.
Dissociative Amnesia (DSM-IV Codes 300.12 [3] )- noticeable impairment of recall resulting from emotional trauma
Dissociative fugue (DSM-IV Codes 300.13 [4] )- physical desertion of familiar surroundings and experience of impaired recall of the past. This may lead to confusion about actual identity and the assumption of a new identity.
Dissociative identity disorder '( DSM-IV Codes 300.14 [5] )- the alternation of two or more distinct personality states with impaired recall, among personality states, of important information.

"Has this administration's plan for the conduct of the war and the aftermath been well executed? Most would argue that it has not. But the Iraqi people themselves are the most to blame. Their inability to get past their ethnic and religions intolerance is the root cause of the violence. They, combined with the Al Quida terrorist groups (and their allies), are the problem, and the sooner we learn to deal with them in a real-world manner, the sooner we will have stability and the situation that will allow us to depart with dignity and what one could call a "victory"."

What is this real world manner that you speak of? Are you one of them folks who thinks our biggest problem was not killing more Iraqis on our way in?

See, I basically agree that the biggest problem facing Iraq are the ethnic and religious conflicts between the different tribes and different religions in the country. However, I'm still not sure why that isn't the President's fault as well. It's like this: if you saw a guy walk up to a hornet's nest with a stick and start whacking it, and the hornets started stinging him, you wouldn't say "damn those hornets!" You'd say, what a moron! Anybody with any knowledge of Iraq and it's recent history should have been able to have seen that one coming. Yet, we went over anyways with that stick and started whacking the hornets nest.

And for what? WMDs that weren't there (and had we let the sanctions play out would have been shown not to be there? To spread democracy (which isn't working)? To kill extremists (who's rank has actually grown due to the foolish war and the many missteps such as Abu Ghraib, since)?

A Reverend should not lie. And to purposefully misrepresent a comment about "100 years" is most certainly a lie. You could no doubt share the stage with Pastor Wright. You were wrong then, and you are wrong now. War is terrible, but turning your head to genocide (while wearing a colar) is far worse.

Robert-

I don't have time to respond- I work.. Here's a bit of Marx to compare with your statements:

"Under private property ... Each tries to establish over the other an alien power, so as thereby to find satisfaction of his own selfish need. The increase in the quantity of objects is therefore accompanied by an extension of the realm of the alien powers to which man is subjected, and every new product represents a new potentiality of mutual swindling and mutual plundering."

Marx, Human Requirements and Division of Labour (1844)

Oh. BTW. Patrick Henry who said- "Give me liberty or give me death"

Also said- "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."

So Jeremy, I'd be interested in how you came up with Marx and Engels, based on my previous comments to Tara? I was actually talking about a number of history books regarding the modern middle east, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the battle between the british and the mesopotamians post world war I. A good place to start would be The Peace That Ended All Peace.

As for you, I think I got a good handle on the kind of person you are.

In response, I am a proud American who considered himself a republican until 2004. I voted for this dim-witted president in 2000. Voted for McCain in 2000 primaries. I'm probably more of an independent now.

But first and foremost, I am an American. And when I see policies and ignorance threaten our way of life, I am not such a hypocrite to look the other way. I don't walk the party line if it means irreparably damaging my country.

Like I said earlier, we deserve the president that we get. You prove the point that there are way more idiots in this country than either party would like to admit.

Scott:--"I am surprised the WP would publish this piece without requiring the writer to come up with a more plausible link between McCain's position on Iraq and what she asserts to be his theology. All she has is his use of the word 'transcendent'".

You seem to be ignoring the 800 pound toad in the article. It seems to me that Senator McCain's acceptance of John Hagee's endorsement more than justifies concern for the Senator's position. While McCain says that just because he accepted the endorsement it doesn't mean he agrees with all of Hagee's positions, the question remains with which of the good pastor's loony positions *does* he agree?

I am surprised the WP would publish this piece without requiring the writer to come up with a more plausible link between McCain's position on Iraq and what she asserts to be his theology. All she has is his use of the word "transcendent". That word has a religious meaning only if used in a religious context. It also can be used in an entirely secular and non-theological context. The entire predicate of this piece is that use of this word implicates the religious and ideological agenda she then attributes to McCain. This election year is already weird enough without WP allowing such a flimsy narrative to masquerade as substantive discourse. I am making a somewhat technical point, I realize, but it is a matter of intellectual honesty that indicates how loose the standard of truth and credibility has become. The war has been a real mess, but so was D-Day and all that followed. The question is whether America is still willing to sacrifice and sustain painful losses to defend the idea of democracy, even where there is cultural opposition to it. As to WMD’s, Saddam is the one who lied, not the USA. He played poker with the UN and the USA, and he lost. Finally, in her opposition to permanent war, why does the writer conveniently omit any discussion of the USA role in Kosovo or Korea? Her scruples as to ideology and her theology clearly have a very selective and partisan application.

I am surprised the WP would publish this piece without requiring the writer to come up with a more plausible link between McCain's position on Iraq and what she asserts to be his theology. All she has is his use of the word "transcendent". That word has a religious meaning only if used in a religious context. It also can be used in an entirely secular and non-theological context. The entire predicate of this piece is that use of this word implicates the religious and ideological agenda she then attributes to McCain. This election year is already weird enough without WP allowing such a flimsy narrative to masquerade as substantive discourse. I am making a somewhat technical point, I realize, but it is a matter of intellectual honesty that indicates how loose the standard of truth and credibility has become. The war has been a real mess, but so was D-Day and all that followed. The question is whether America is still willing to sacrifice and sustain painful losses to defend the idea of democracy, even where there is cultural opposition to it. As to WMD’s, Saddam is the one who lied, not the USA. He played poker with the UN and the USA, and he lost. Finally, in her opposition to permanent war, why does the writer conveniently omit any discussion of the USA role in Kosovo or Korea? Her scruples as to ideology and her theology clearly have a very selective and partisan application.

Ok, so there are terrorists that want to kill us right? Do you think talking to them, doing nothing, making peace with the UN will keep them from attacking us? Hmm, 9/11 comes to mind. That's what happens when you allow radicals to enjoy peace and quiet ala Clinton ERA. Remember Bush just took over when 9/11 happened so I blame the previous administration. Since 9/11 there hasn't been another attack on U.S. soil! That too me spells VICTORY.

Next, Saddam needed to go, nothing good came from him. We gave him altimatums and he didn't execute them and the UN didn't back us up. So what were we to do? Not keep our word? Try to talk some more? Come on people, wake up!

I just don't understand what pulling out of Iraq will accomplish for us? I also don't understand what waiting on someone to attack us before we attack them will accomplish besides another 9/11?

Finally, please stop quoting people out of context. The 100 years in Iraq is nothing but political BS, we all know what McCain meant!

Robert-

Tara should read more books? You mean like-

Marx and Engels???

I agree with Nestor21. Though the war was often mis-managed it has been the right thing to do from the beginning. The right thing for all but Al Qaeda and the radical Iraqis and the right thing for the US.
Since the end of WWII we have developed an international expectation of limited war with cease fires and negotiated settlements. This is true for all American wars except Granada. The problem with limited war is that there is no surrender, therefore no end. Just look at last year's war between Hezbollah and Israel. Israel was attacked and the morning of the second day was being pressured to declare a ceasefire. After a month it all just petered out and will start again this summer. That is perpetual war.

Excellent point made by James. As for Tara, I think she needs to go and read some more books. She should start with the British exprience in that part of the world in early 20th century.

Why can't Tara and others understand that it is an utter offense for proud societies to be occupied and vicitimized by other nations? In particular a superpower with a leader who often invokes his very different faith.

As James mentioned, we would do much worse if our nation was similarly occupied. Weren't there even a bunch of Cold-War movies with a plot-line of insurgency fighting an occupying Russian force? Wasn't it romanticizing such a valiant effort to push back those infidel Commies?

What do you think Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or death" means? Liberty from who? Could it be liberty from an occupying force?

Aren't there a bunch of Patrick Henrys in Iraq crying the same thing?

You should read an article from Fareed Zakaria about why the Iraqis have not come to an agreement on the oil revenue sharing deal that we all attribute to sectarianism. It has very little to do with sectarian differences.

It is actually one of the few things the Sunnis and Shiites agree on, that this deal is equivalent to selling their country out to western powers and oil companies. They agree that signing this agreement will pretty much be the equivalent of signing their death warrants for giving all of the rights to their oil to Bib Oil companies in exchange for a 15% royalty fee. Iraq will in effect not even own their own oil if they sign this deal that they are being pressured to sign by our administration here in DC.

LOVEO & LOVEA is arrived. We are Here!

...~~~~~o.... -----___
.~~~~....(♥)...............\
~~~~~................]={|)...) HELLO WORLD!
.~~~~....(♥).......___./
...~~~~~o--------
=
~~~~X ----
..~~~~(♥) \
~~~~~ ]={}..) YA YA!
..~~~~(♥) /
~~~~X ----

Please visit :jo:zevz.us: OR

♦.J
♦♦..O
♦♦♦...Z
♦♦♦♦....E
♦♦♦♦♦....V
♦♦♦♦♦♦.....Z.us “WE are DiAMOND-PEOPLE“ OR

:j:
:o:
:z:
:e:
:v:
:z.us:

THANK YE ALL!

Let's unpack the 'argument' in the piece.

1) McCain supported the invasion of Iraq.
2) McCain used the word "transcendent."
3) "Transcendent" has several meanings.
4) The meaning of a word used by another person in their speech is what Rev. Thistlethwait interprets it to be.
5) McCain accepted support from a person who espouses Christian apocalyptic theories.
6) Some other people the Rev. doesn't trust have undertaken actions she finds threatening.
7) If you take all of the above into account, it means McCain wants neverending war.

I think you can see from this logical progression that the Reverend has clearly and unequivocally made her case, supported it with inescapable and undisprovable facts, and eliminated even the possibility of counter debate with the application of cool and unassailable logic. And what's more, she even included bright and cute analogies to leaven the tone! Thank goodness we have people like the Rev., blazing new trails in the field of contextual theories of liberation (specializing in issues of violence and violation), to help us all out!

Thoughtful, provocative, and true. Americans are shocked (shocked!!) by the capacity of Muslims to sacrifice themselves for what they mistakenly feel is "Allah's will", yet they are following equally silly dogma pronounced by our own home grown wacky theologians. I have grown fearful of anybody in public life who tells me (s)he is following the will of God, as the results are nearly always destructive. If the estimates of over 100,000 dead Iraqi citizens would be in St. Louis or Dallas, Americans would be acting far worse than we have seen Iraqis act, with guns and retribution that would be genuinely horrible in its consequence. Yet Americans still claim we are "doing the will of God" in Iraq. If this is the will of God, I want nothing to do with him or her. Thank you, Prof. Thistlethwaite.

Susan is taking what Mccain said out of context. Doesnt she realise that the US still has troops in Germany since World War 2, in South Korea since that war ended in the 50s.. In Vietnam since the war ended there? It is American military tactic to leave a small number of troops in an area where we once had conflict.. That is ALL he was saying. There will be some American presence there for years to come.. not a full blown conflict with a loss of American life.. Susan should take the time to listen to what the man said before she begins to preach. She sounds off-rail and rabid to proselytize her views. Does she think America has no enemies? She sounds like she wants to jeopardize the long-term security of the US.

McCain: 100 years in Iraq quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

Islamic fundamentalism is a red herring from top to bottom.

The issue is oil. We need oil because our leadership has declined to prepare for the obvious by exploiting alternatives. Which is to say, the American public is addicted to oil, and our leaders can profit by supplying it to us. The nagging obstacle is that the oil resources are owned by Islamic fundamentalists. Their measure of inconvenience adds staggeringly to the cost of oil, and so they must be paid for or dealt with one way or another.

Their fundentalism would be irrelevant if oil were irrelevant.

Thanks Susan! Great essay. Focused, informed and enlightening.

I think the nation is looking forward to a much more adult debate in '08, and hope that people like you get more chances to contribute.

Peace

The st way to describe this argument is to call it "the big lie."

If I might give my view, Senator McCain pointed out that we have troops in Japan, Germany and Korea and they are of no concern, so the problem is the level of violence and not the time they are there. We could reduce the violence and keep troops in Iraq for a hundred years without any more problems than Germany or the other nations where they serve.

People who blanch at the thought of 100 years in Iraq are thinking the future wil always be like the present Certainly a strong image, but no way to plan a war.

The question now, is what is the best way to bring peace, restore Iraq and leave all but a token force - if even that is needed. The option to avoid is to rush away in haste without doing our duty. If this is the case, I can only remember Homer Simpson's thoughts:

“If something’s hard to do, it’s not worth doing.”

We may need an honest debate. Mistakes have been made and the cost may be more than even the strongest want to spend. But we should stick to the facts and not misrepresent the views of those we want to lose. It is our flag the troops fly - the stars and stripes. Give them an honest chance and do not deny their victories.

McCain yesterday reiterated that he has no clue what is actually taking place in the Middle East. Worse yet, I don't think he cares to know.

All he wants is for the US to "win" and not "lose", like he saw happen in Vietnam.

Nothing else matters to him, much less any inconvenient facts or logic.

Excellent article. And this compliment is coming from someone who voted for McCain in the 2000 primaries and also backed the war on Iraq initially.

We were duped and we have not learned our lesson. The two likely contenders for the presidency are not what the country needs at this time.

Obama perhaps would have been a good candidate at a time when we had a surplus, thriving economy, peace and prosperity. Then we could have afforded to dream a bit.

McCain has become a dangerous warmonger who acknowledges his limitations on economy. And what is truly horrifying is Leiberman standing behind him every step of the way. Why do you think that is? Answer: War with Iran.

What I have come to understand over the last 8 years is that we, Americans, do not vote with our head, but with our heart. And I have come to grips with the fact that at the end of the day, we get the President that we deserve.

At least with Romney and Clinton, we would have had 2 extremely qualified candidates who are pragmatic as their records indicate.

I agree with Leszx- the appropriate label for the violent American theocrats like Bush, McCain, et al is "radical Christian extremists." Their world view is anything but conservative.

Sen. McCain would have made the same case for staying if the conditions were bad OR good. The only scenario he envisions leaving is one that has no possibility of happening. We are now simply policemen keeping 2 sides apart. And the threat from Iran is not convincing when their leader is welcomed in Baghdad.

This is unlike Vietnam or Korea where a case could have been made that we were protecting a united nation from an external threat. Eventually, the two sides there will battle for supremacy and one will win. How many more Americans need to die before the inevitable occurs

I believe the last major discussion of permanent war as public policy was in George Orwell's 1984. While that was an extreme example, what we are seeing is the effectiveness of war as a way to manipulate political opinion and consolidate power. Thanks for speaking to some of these issues, Susan.

Good essay - but I strongly object to the characterization of Hagee's and McCain's theology as "conservative Christian". It is not Christian to start unnecessary wars, bomb innocents, torture prisoners, and lie about WMDs. It is not conservative to expand the federal government, to practice social engineering abroad, or to transform America into an empire.

Dear Susan,

One of the most dangerous aspects of American politics, viewed from outside the U.S., is the mixing together of religious and nationalist discourses I perceive in current U.S. politics. They are submerged to such a degree in American civil religion that they emerge unnoticed in comments like ZZIM's, encouraging us to "fight the good fight", which is of course a reference to the fight of faith in 1 Timothy. To be American, it seems, is to fight, not for salvation, but for the Manifest Destiny.

Voices such as Bush's and McCain's, in my view, do tremendous damage to the public idea of Christian faith. Any demagogue who suggests that war is a "transcendent" value is wrapping themselves in ritual authority in order to claim nationalist or, worse yet, personal power. The image of Cheney as a peace maker would be funny, if it weren't so terrifying.

Thankyou for contributing to the process of making the public view of faith a heterogeneous one.

Dear Susan,

One of the most dangerous aspects of American politics, viewed from outside the U.S., is the mixing together of religious and nationalist discourses I perceive in current U.S. politics. They are submerged to such a degree in American civil religion that they emerge unnoticed in comments like ZZIM's, encouraging us to "fight the good fight", which is of course a reference to the fight of faith in 1 Timothy. To be American, it seems, is to fight, not for salvation, but for the Manifest Destiny.

Voices such as Bush's and McCain's, in my view, do tremendous damage to the public idea of Christian faith. Any demagogue who suggests that war is a "transcendent" value is wrapping themselves in ritual authority in order to claim nationalist or, worse yet, personal power. The image of Cheney as a peace maker would be funny, if it weren't so terrifying.

Thankyou for contributing to the process of making the public view of faith a heterogeneous one.

where is the messiah now that we need her?!?

This article reads as very light in substance - essentially a third hand review of a book that supposedly MacCain endorsed (?)

Stylistically a rehash of expressions used by not so talenred journalists ... "So and so entoned ..."

This article reads as very light in substance - essentially a third hand review of a book that supposedly MacCain endorsed (?)

Stylistically a rehash of expressions used by not so talenred journalists ... "So and so entoned ..."

Let's just ignore the fact that Saddam's Iraq invaded two of its neighbors, HAD previously been working on a breeder reactor (destroyed by Isreal), had used chemical weapons on Iran and it's own ethnic minority civilians, and was, with Syria one of the constant "troublemakers" in the middle east, providing terrorists with a safe haven, and even monetary support.

The region has been a troublespot since the re-establishment of Isreal, and even before that some might argue. And because it is where a large percentage of the world's oil flows from, we have no choice but to do what we can to maintain stability there.

Has this administration's plan for the conduct of the war and the aftermath been well executed? Most would argue that it has not. But the Iraqi people themselves are the most to blame. Their inability to get past their ethnic and religions intolerance is the root cause of the violence. They, combined with the Al Quida terrorist groups (and their allies), are the problem, and the sooner we learn to deal with them in a real-world manner, the sooner we will have stability and the situation that will allow us to depart with dignity and what one could call a "victory".

If our population doesn't have the stomach for a relatively low-intensity conflict that has such obvious global reprucussions, I fear for our country. Because we are so concerned about how we "look" to the UN, and foreign powers, we fail to act appropriately, instead dealing in only half-measures. Look at the wars we have won in the past - no half-measures - only total committment of resources, and a dedication to winning. Until we get back to that approach, all of our future military endeavors will end in this same way: stalemate and endless low-intensity conflict.

Hi Susan.

You said you would hate to see what failure looks like. I agree. Failure would have looked a lot like inaction on our part to remove Saddam. Yes, the real world is messy and difficult. Your entire essay appears to me to be a complaint that the world is messy and difficult.

I just walked by the TV and heard George Bsuh assert that invading Iraq was the right thing to do in 2002 and it's still the right thing to do. I think he's right about that.

I'm hoping to vote for either McCain or Clinton in the upcoming election, because they will continue to pursue our messy and difficult engagement with the Iraqis.

Hillary says she won't, but she's lying. She knows the world is messy and difficult and she's willing to fight the good fight regardless of what the media echo chamber says. Heh, hence her continued candidacy.