Warren and others

I don't really know most of the people Obama has appointed, but I am pretty pleased. More than anything, I'm pleased with his attitude. All the extremes are angry, which tells me he's doing the right thing. Bush said he was a uniter, but his administration turned out to be full of extremists.

Obama appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, reaching out to her constituencies. He has Rick Warren praying at inauguration, which has many liberals up in arms but shows a willingness to reach out to evangelicals (and it will be interesting if he makes some key decisions on stem cell research and stuff the same day! Smart move if so.)

I don't know what the Chicago education guy will be like, but I'm excited at the prospect of someone in office who recognizes that character is a much bigger problem in American schools than reading and writing. My impression is that Christian schools in America largely teach memorization, not the higher level Bloom's skills like analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Phonics to me is the poster child for what I believe to be the often inferior education of most Christian schools in America, when the behavior element is taken out of the equation. With the behavior element brought in, of course, many Christian schools become infinitely preferable and I have seriously considered them for my children as a result.

My hunch is, however, that Bush has had Christian school type philosophers running regular schools--the worst of both worlds, inability or myopia to deal with behavior issues, and an 1800's educational philosophy. I could easily be wrong. That's just how it's felt.

Finally, Obama has appointed real scientists rather than some of the quack people who have seemed to hold sway in Bush's regime. How refreshing to think that the scientific element in government might actually flow from people who use research as the basis for their advice rather than preconceived ideology. I'm sure there were some genuine scientists in the Bush administration. I just don't think they had any power or influence.

Perhaps these appointees will turn out to be duds. But so far they seem on trajectory to what Obama promised.

No Surprises, More Bush Administration...

Yawn, ho hum. No surprise that Bush justice department people illegally stacked the deck with lesser qualified Republican automatons.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25348796/

We've also heard that Bush administration people did this with science reports too.

Yeah America, the only nation where the smart kids in high school are somehow made out to be inferior and where we have a culture that makes fun of experts on any subject.

We are truly the smartest nation in the world.

McClellan vindicates everything I've said since 2004

For all who beat their chests at me when I started my other blog in 2004 and argued that Bush needed to be fired as CEO of the country then, for all the illogicians who defended the Bush administration and FOX News while I could see it all as the mounting evidence and voices overwhelmingly have shown it really was, to all those at whom history is already wagging its head, I submit Scott McClellan, along with Colin Powell and so many others.

It's no use. You've not learned anything. Religion and politics rarely have anything to do with rationality or truth.

Example of Karl Rove at Work? MSNBC's Dan Abrams

Conspiracy theories are, by their very nature, less likely to be true than not. Nevertheless, something very fishy seems afoot below in Alabama.

Parts of this administration (especially Rove) have seemed so crooked to me, and my recent disliking to Clinton is my fear that she will only be more of the same on the other side. I just don't get that impression from the Obama campaign. My fear of McCain is that it would just be business as has become usual.

Admittedly, I thought Bush had a good heart when he took office. I continue to want to think the same thing, although I find it so difficult. So out of good will I have him in the "well intentioned but misguided" category. Rove I put in the "Machiavellianly misguided, but good intentioned by a warped and twisted standard" box.

The Status Quo of the Union

Last night Bush showed me why Obama will win this election. There was nothing of any interest in Bush's talk whatsoever. We've heard it all before and none of it changes anything.

Cursed earmarks! Who cares? In fact none of the electable candidates give us any sense of anything new at all--except Obama. That's not an endorsement; it's an observation of why he will win the election.

Frankly, he scares me a little. I like his heart. I like his priorities. I'm a little afraid of what it would look like in reality.

Economy--I think taxation tends to cripple an economy. That's why an Obama scares me in this area even more than a Clinton. But by the same token, this 600 dollar stimulus package, funded courtesy of money borrowed from China, makes no sense to me at all. Strangely, Huckabee has made the most sense to me on this issue.

Foreign Policy--Obama will immediately go light years toward healing our relationships with the rest of the world. I hope he will not plot some precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. Ironically, although our invasion of Iraq was the defining stupidity of Bush's entire presidency, I am not gun ho about setting timelines. We screwed up. We bear some responsibility for the damage control.

Education--Obama will heal the short sighted approach to education known as "No Child Left Behind." Tell me, is it more important for a student to be able to know how to get along with others and fit into the world or to get a good score on a Geometry test. You take the test in Algebra 2, Bush, and if you pass we'll talk about what is most important to learn in the public schools to succeed in life.

Immigration--It is hypocritical in the extreme for Americans to get indignant about illegal immigration. We have looked the other way for twenty years, and businesses have been happy to have the cheap labor. We bear some blame for this problem, and now we're going to get "righteously indignant" that they're here--especially big business Republicans. Go take a log out of your own eye.

The Christian attitude to have is to be compassionate toward the non-criminal illegals. I guarantee we can find sins you commit equal to their crossing the border against the law (ever walked along a train track--it's against the law). In God's eyes, you're not worth one dime more than them. And the only practical thing to do is to secure the borders and find a way to mainstream the good people who are here. Say what you want, but this issue teems with hypocrisy, prejudice, and economic suicide.

Health Care--There are smart enough people to figure out how to insure everyone without killing the economy or watering down quality. Politics is the only thing that keeps such things from happening. This will happen. The question is how.

Environment--Whatever you attribute it to, the climate is warming in ways that are going to change the complexion of the planet significantly in the next 50 years. My advice, move away from Florida. Those expensive beach properties are going under water.

The only appropriate course of action is to work aggressively on the use of hydrocarbons. And why not, we should be working on technology that eliminates our use of oil period, foreign and domestic. The ethanol kick is a joke.

If I had the time, resources, and know how, I'd be building a pedal powered car to go back and forth to work in right now. Yes, you could finagle the gear ratios and maybe give a little help with a battery to go 40 and 50 miles an hour without great effort. Man, I'd love to build something likethis and stick it to the oil industry and OPEC. Again, only big business has kept the right things from happening in these areas.

My thoughts, filled with my frustration with how politics nurtures insanity.

Bush's Veto of Congress' Health Care Plan

Bush has called a congressional plan to provide medical coverage for children currently in between Medicare and other health plans "irresponsible" and has promised to veto it.

I haven't investigated the particulars of the plan. I do believe we need to make major changes in the American health care system, but we also need to make sure someone can pay for whatever changes we might make. Bush has no better answer.

But it is hypocritical in the extreme for Bush to say a word about irresponsible uses of funds in the face of his frivolous war and Sec. of Defense Gates' trip to Congress this week for yet more billions well beyond the billions already budgeted. Whether wise or not, at least Congress is asking for funds that would actually help someone. Bush's war has helped no one, but it has killed or maimed tens of thousands who would otherwise be living, and that with their limbs in tact.

Bush's Post Petraeus Speech Tonight

Bush did what he should have done tonight--put the most positive spin on Iraq and his coming actions that he could. So we all know that he has to begin downsizing the troop levels. So he has portrayed that decrease as a consequence of success in the surge. Good political tact. At the same time, of course, they are only going to decrease to what they were before the surge at this point. Little consolation. But rather than such withdrawal looking like failed policy, he can pin it on the success of his actions. He's not conceding to Baker-Hamilton. Look, he did it his way and was right and can now begin some withdrawal.

Has the surge brought success? I believe it has made the situation in Iraq better, yes. The real question is whether it has made it better in the long term or only because there are more troops there right now to police things. Time will tell.

Let us rejoice with what seems to have happened in the Anbar province. It does indeed seem good news that the Sunnis have turned on the elements whose main purpose is to fight us. But of course Anbar is not a Sunni-Shiite, mixed place with a lot of civil war going on. The biggest problem in Iraq by far is not those there to fight us. It is the civil war going on between Sunnis and Shiites.

By the way, remember how hard the Bush administration fought against that label--civil war? Publically we have had nothing but denial after denial. Well, only 20 some % of Americans actually believe Bush's spin now. These are either the enlightened ones or the expected small group who wouldn't change their minds if the truth came up and bit them on the ... nose.

But as a Christian, and as an American, I have to hope that it works out. My human side wants Bush to be held accountable for a frivilous war that has cost us thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi lives, not to mention billions of dollars and the moral high ground vis-a-vis the world.

But I have to hope that, against all expectations, Iraq and the Middle East will be a better place in the end. We have to hope that Bush can gloat about how the Iraqi government became unified and the sectarian violence came to an end. I have to hope that things will begin to go so well that he can try to rub it in my face. "Look at how wonderful life in Iraq is now. It truly is better than it was under Saddam Hussein."

I hope we can say that one day, in the same way that a teenage pregnancy can result in the birth of a wonderful person that we would never wish had not been born. But the facts of the beginning of the war cannot be changed.

• That Bush launched an inappropriate preemptive war without prerequisites long established for over 1000 years. He did it on the basis of a overarching strategy for the middle east first and only secondarily because of Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Without provocation, Hussein would not even have been a sufficient basis for going to war. Those who don't learn from history...
• That this war was a diversion that had nothing concrete to do with 9-11 or terrorists or Al Qaeda. We should have continued to pursue bin Laden. This was a switch-a-roo to accomplish side goals.
• That Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld launched this war with naive, utopian visions of Western freedom, thinking we probably would not lose much more than a 100 troops as they flocked to our ideals for them. Oops.
• That we are not "fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here." The terrorists in Iraq are not the 9-11 terrorists and they only joined to Al Qaeda after the war had started. I doubt what we have done in Iraq has diverted a single terrorist plot here in America.
• That our moral influence in the rest of the world is nil, that we have only pushed people away from the Christianity they associate with America. Rest assured no nation will be signing up for us to help them get freedom any time soon.

History will not be kind to President Bush.

Signed, a Republican

Farewell to Karl Rove

I'll confess my delight at the departure of Karl Rove from the Bush administration. He has appeared to be a genius of political strategy, a worthy adversary. Indeed, the bumbling Democrats weren't up to the challenge at any point. And when the American people fall right into his hands, how can you put all the blame on him?

But alas, truth ultimately doesn't care how clever you are, and no amount of spin can put the Humpty Dumpty that is the Iraq War back together again. "Blah, blah, blah" is the sound of the many words of those who think the truth can be changed by much talking.

The average intelligence of an American is, well, average.

Carmona's Surgeon General Testimony

Dr. Carmona, the outgoing Surgeon General, testified about a week ago before a Senate committee and indicated what I don't think any sane person finds surprising. He testified about the strong political interference by the Bush administration in what he was allowed to talk about during his tenure. Consultation with C. Everett Koop and other former Surgeon Generals confirmed that the level of interference was more than in any other administration for the last 30 years.

This is infuriating to me because, as a biblical scholar, I am well acquainted with non-specialists setting boundaries for truth on matters about which they are not competent to speak. Religion and politics both have a tendency to avoid the question of truth while shouting for truth louder than anyone else. Truth really doesn't care about such politics. An administration can issue a statement insisting that pigs can fly, but the truth doesn't care. Go ahead, throw them off the White House and we'll see.

I recognize the "truth" that post-modernism contributes to our culture--the need for science to be humbler than it has been in the past. But what we are witnessing is an immense surge in pre-modern ignorance, hosted by this administration's political maneuverings. I know I may find myself making the same comments about some far left administration voted in in over-reaction to this one. But I'll at least enjoy the justice of reversal for the first week--then Hades will begin, pay back for an administration that has listened to no one but itself.

Also begun last week I believe was the confirmation hearings of Jim Holsinger, a good man who is on the Board of Trustees at Asbury. I feel sorry for him. He is a really nice person whom I'm afraid Washington will eat alive. He will try to do what he thinks is right. In fact, his submission to God may actually lead him into conflict with conservative politics. He will live by the two great commandments over fundamentalist Christian "values." If politics and his God ever come into conflict, he will serve God rather than Cheney.

His theology I suspect is straight down the line conservative evangelical, which is why he is being appointed. I love the man. I would say he has most of the qualities needed for the job--a doctor who loves people and wants to help the nation. What he may lack is the pure pursuit of scientific objectivity.

Jimmy Carter on the Bush Administration

Carter is being quoted today as saying that the Bush administration is "the worst in history." This is of course an excerpted soundbite. The full statement made it clear that he was speaking in terms of the Bush administration's foreign policy rather than the presidency overall. Also very important is the qualifier "in terms of the adverse effect it has had on US foreign relations" (or something similar, I'm quoting from memory).

Carter this morning qualified the statement even further, placing it in the context of a question comparing the Bush administration with the Nixon administration, although he did not word his answer in such limited terms. For not doing that he characterized the comment as "careless." He was also careful to mention that the comment was about the administration as a whole rather than Bush alone.

However, I don't personally find the comment as fully stated careless. I think a good argument can be made that the foreign policy of the Bush administration has had a more adverse effect on US world relations than that of any previous administration. Time will of course tell. Who knows, maybe it will turn out a better world in the end. If so, I think it will be inadvertant and coincidental.

Truth doesn't care about feelings or office. It is cold and uncalculating. It is what it is and no amount of rhetoric can change it. I'm willing to overlook occasional overstatement because I think Carter is playing an important role in America right now, the role of "loyal opposition." He is often criticized for his criticisms, but I think the Bush administration long ago crossed the line when exceptions to this general rule became permissable.

The Bush administration responded that Carter was simply making himself irrelevant by such comments. But given the administration's approval rating on the war, such a comment points in the opposite direction. When Carter represents apparently the sentiment of the majority on the war, who is truly out of touch?

Iran, hostages, and such

It's been over a week since Iran seized, what is it, 12? British soldiers off a ship Iran claims was in their waters. I am of course disinclined to believe them. The news is saying that they actually revised the coordinates they gave first, after realizing that the first coordinates they gave were actually in Iraqi rather than Iranian waters! Oops! It's frustrating to be so certain that they are lying through their teeth... knowing that they are beaming propagandistic sound bites to their people to where they all are sure that the British (which of course mindlessly blurs into Americans) are lying.

Of course to be objective we can't rule out the possibility that the British government might lie. From all appearances, the British appear to have done an excellent job in Basra.

So far, the public statements of the British have seemed unprovocative. I have admired them for that. The frontal approach doesn't give the Iranians a way out with their honor intact, and honor/shame cultures often prefer to die than be shamed.

In comes Bush today. I don't know how he said it, but the news at least has reported a somewhat ultimatum-ish statement by him. Of course none of us knows what is going on behind the scenes, but I hope the British government was okay with it. Maybe they wanted him to do it.

But I doubt anyone will get the Iranians to admit they made a mistake unless they can do it and keep face. The most likely peaceful solution is to find a way for them to release the prisoners without admitting they did wrong or made a mistake, yet without the British backing off from the truth either.

Unless, of course, one or both sides wants a war!

Bush's State of the Union Address

State of the union night. I thought the beginning of the speech was good strategy. First, I think Bush is a good man with good intentions. His opening comments to Palosi and the Democrats were, dare I say, "Christian" and honorable.

I do give Bush and the economic philosophy of his cohort (including Greenspahn) credit for the quick turn around of the economy this decade. I am a Republican in my economics. I'm not competent to judge, but it seems to me that, whether we like it or not, whether it is Christian or not, economies are built when capitalists do their thing. The big economic blunder of Bush is the war in Iraq.

Some ho hum old plans. School choice. Fine, whatever. We'll see if it goes anywhere (I bet not). I'd be glad for something to shake out with health care and immigration. We'll see.

Nice things to say on shifting to alternative sources of energy. I smiled when he said "global climate change" and not "global warming." It's a way to acknowledge the issue without selling out the willful who continue to deny that the human element in global climate change is beyond reasonable doubt.

Bush's narrative of the Iraq story really leaves me speechless, dumbfounded. Is he even on the same planet as I am? Interesting subtle attempt to connect 9-11 to Iraq by calling them Sunni extremists. Again, no connection. He continues to make it sound like no one could have foreseen that these things would happen when there were a thousand voices he refused to listen to. Terrorists fear freedom, he says. I picture them laughing at him every time he says this nonsense. I don't know what the answer is but I'm glad Bush can't just continue blindly to do whatever Cheney wants anymore.

"Not the fight we entered but the one we're in"? No, we are responsible for this mess. Sheez.

Good words on Darfur. I hope he follows through.

Saddam Hanged

I watched one of the cell phone videos of Saddam's hanging on YouTube. It raised various emotions. I suppose my main sense was how pathetic the situation has become in Iraq. The punishment of Saddam Hussein should have been a climactic moment--it's the current reason we invaded Iraq. We entered to topple an evil dictator and bring democracy to a people.

So for a group of hooded Shiites to lynch him in some "back alley" ceremony behind closed doors--not what Bush or Cheney would have planned as a moment of final justice! Instead, it became an act of tribal revenge.

What to do, what to do...

Bush and the Joint Chiefs

I read a brief piece today about disagreement between Bush and the unanimous joint chiefs over sending more troops. They don't feel he has a plan for what they would do there. The chiefs feel it would simply intensify anti-American groups while Shia militias melted away until the extra US troops left. Then they simply come back in greater force and we are right back where we started from.

Bush's problem plain and simple is that he can't admit the colossal mistake he's made. At least he's stopped talking about victory in Iraq. And to think he might still be worried about his legacy... He's already established his legacy as the worst foreign policy president in the history of the United States.

I don't know what the answer is at this point. I'm not necessarily for time tables on withdrawal. But there's no point in "staying the course" because there is no course other than "let's drive around, stop any bad guys we run into, and try not to hit an IED today." Brilliant!

This is a fine mess you've gotten us into, Bushy!

John Bolton

Bolton turned in his resignation to Bush today as US Ambassador to the UN. Bush accepted it, but said he wasn't happy about it.

I haven't followed Bolton much since Bush decided to appoint him as interim, working around the Democratic filibuster and I believe even some Republican opponents at the time. I heard today of a few complaints against him, but by and large he doesn't seem to have messed up significantly.

All that is to say that I don't know whether he would be okay in the UN or not.

But it does seem to be a bit of justice today to see Bush having to accept his resignation in the face of a Democratic Congress. For the first five years or so in office Bush, Cheney, and friends did whatever they pleased while Fox News and others villified anyone who dared question their will.

I was thinking of that Dixie Chick and what Fox, Scarborough, and all had to say about her. There were other Hollywood voices that protested the war (who was that actor who played the president on West Wing) and the media pretty much skewered them. Of course I have no time for Michael Moore or that woman who lost her son and went off the deep end.

But it's time for a moment of truth. If we stop for a minute, some of the things they said turned out to be true about Iraq. It hurts, but the Fox News people should be forced to eat their words now that things are shaping up, well, exactly as those "filthy liberals" said they would back in 2003... 3000 dead soldiers later.

Look at what I blogged two years ago and apparently I understood what was going on in Iraq a lot better than a man who sits in an office getting daily intelligence briefings. What does that say?!

This started about Bolton. I don't know whether he is doing fine or not. But there is a whole lot of justice in Bush not being able to just do whatever he wants without consulting others.

(he ignored, almost shamed his father in his bull headedness to go to war and do what his father didn't. Well, he did what his father didn't. He has destabilized the whole world and potentially launched us into a period of American descendency).

Now watch it Democrats. I have seen in Nancy Palosi's early attempts at appointments the same dynamic potentially at work. ... rather than go with sane moderates, appointing her own set of whacko crazies. If God didn't spare the natural branches when he grafted you in, will he spare you?

P.S. Not to say that the Republicans are the original people of God :-)

Rumsfeld

OK, why did they wait till today for Rumsfeld to step down? It might have helped them win some elections, keep control of the Senate. Was there some sort of gamble? If so many seats are lost...

Frankly I don't think Rumsfeld is the main problem. Go higher up the food chain. I blame Cheney the most and Bush second. I'm sure Rumsfeld make some crucial errors but I don't know that troop numbers is the main one. We just had no idea how to win the hearts and minds, no idea how to nation build. We build buildings real well, but to understand how a different culture thinks...

Who cares about Rumsfelds resignation! It's almost a shrug. What's done is done, and I don't see anyone in this administration being able to extricate us with a good situation on the ground. This is like changing make-up. Sorry. There's just too much ungly underneath for it to do any
good.

NIA Confirms my claims

The National Intelligence Agency has lent credence to what I've been saying all along while undermining once again the bizarre claims of the Bush administration that the war with Iraq is "taking the war to them so we don't have to fight them here."

The NIA has concluded that the Iraq War, far from decreasing jihadism around the world, has intensified it and actually helped with recruiting.

Believe it or not, I was watching Fox News tonight when they were reporting it. In keeping with their particular leanings (not denying the leanings in opposite directions elsewhere), they did their best to mollify the impact of this deeply undermining claim. Their best shots were 1) an administration official who repeated the ludicrous, "It's keeping them from coming here" thing (surely Al Qaeda can spare 4 or 5 for New York City?) and 2) that's why we need to win this war.

I'd be glad for us to "win this war." But let's admit that the Bush doctrine, with Iraq as its primary example, has proved to be a failure. Let's not try that again.

Bush's push for secret prison legislation

Bush has recently come out with acknowledgement not only that secret CIA prisons exist but he has implied that they sometimes used techniques that "cross the line" of what is currently officially allowed. He has urged Congress to pass legislation that will allow for interrogation that does not fall within the generally accepted understanding of the Geneva convention.

First, I doubt many of us are sympathetic to the kinds of persons that are likely taken to such camps. We've been raised on Dirty Harry and action films where the good guy (or gal) has to break a few eggs to make the omelet of justice. But in these missions impossible, the good guy always is told that "if you are caught, the secretary will disavow knowledge of your existence." The purpose of plausible deniability and unknown knowledge was to hold two or three apparently irreconcilable necessities in tension.

The Geneva convention, I believe, is ultimately not a matter of human decency or morality. Don't fool yourself. It's about tit for tat. It's an agreement that we won't torture yours if you don't torture ours. I think Bush has questioned in the past whether the Geneva convention applies to terrorists, since they do not represent a sovereign nation and are not part of any such agreement. Frankly, we can question whether nations who have no intention of abiding by such rules are a part of the deal. But it remains an important symbol, a statement that a nation is morally upstanding. If America were blatantly to disregard the Geneva convention, we can kiss any trace of pretense to moral status in the world goodbye.

Then there is the "break the eggs" truth. Can we stop terrorists, find terrorists, etc... without someone breaking eggs somewhere? Many would say that we can. Yet I am sympathetic to those who believe that our justice system inappropriately favors the guilty in the face of their victims. Our fears that evil men would sue and otherwise make a mockery of our system make it all too easy to sympathize with those who secretly would work for good by questionable means. These are difficult issues for which I have no real solutions.

The problem with Bush is that he is disavowing nothing--likely because he can't. He is trying to unify the irreconcilable. And of course one suspects that there are two other real reasons to explain what's really going on here:

1. It's going to come out anyway. Bush is headed for a big crisis because the people from these secret interrogation prisons are now visible and they will be heard. They are detestable, but they will be heard. The attempt to pass legislation is an attempt to cover his buttocks in the ensuing thunderstorm that could even lead to impeachment.

2. Second, it is an attempt to polarize Congress into two camps: Republicans as those strong on defense and Democrats as soft on terrorism. Clever to try to leave Congress in this state just before mid-term elections. When the Democrats control Congress, the possibility of impeachment or at the very least an even lamer duck looms large.

Bush's problem is of course that the old shtick just isn't working as well as it used to and even more significant, his own party isn't going along with him completely. He will not be able to paint the Republican/Democrat divide as he had hoped.

So I'm going to be the first to use the word impeachment, at least I haven't heard anyone else use the word. I say this not because I hope Bush is impeached. I don't actually hope for that. But I am suggesting that there is a real possibility that Congress, led by a new Democrat majority, will attempt to impeach President Bush in the last two years of his administration. I've said it before and will say it again. The history books will evaluate President Bush as one of the worst presidents in American history.