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

Baghdad in the Stone Age

Here is an article from Newsweek that I find very sad.


City in a Time Warp War is pushing Baghdad out of the 21st century and back to a bygone age of ferrymen, midwives, donkey drivers and shepherds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20326315/site/newsweek/from/ET/

This is the fruit of Bush's naive belief that everyone wants Western freedom.

When will we own up to the fact that homo sapiens is an animal? Individuals can rise above the norm of the species. But most humans never truly exist. They are born. They eat, poop, and reproduce. Then they die. Oh, and the humans who are most animal kill those who want to exist.

Most people don't want to be created in the image of God.

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.

Bush Administration Gets Something Right

The Bush administration is going to lift its sanctions against the Palestinians in the West Bank. To do so of course requires little on their part, since Mahmoud Abbas has reformed his cabinet in a way that excludes Hamas. The background to this action is of course the fact that Hamas has largely taken over Gaza.

But this is a smart move and I suggest they "wine and dine" the West Bank. I have a number of thoughts here.

1. The West Bank is already a very peculiar piece of land. Its boundaries are very fluid in the sense that Israeli settlements have incurred all over the place into it. It is geographically isolated from the other half of the Palestinian "territory" in Gaza, if we can call it that since the Palestinians don't really have a state to speak of at present. Israel has dominating power over this fluid piece of land and can enter it at will without serious fear of loss of life (Gaza is much different).

2. The unification of Gaza and the West Bank has always been a brain teaser to me. There's no way Israel will give up or lose the land between the two. It is just plain dumb for the many who continue to think that Israel will somehow cease to be a state. The region will be completely uninhabitable before that happens.

I have generally seen two main solutions: 1) two Palestinian states and 2) making the West Bank Palestinians citizens of Israel, just like the Palestinian city of Nazareth is. I don't see the second one happening, so this seems as good a time as any to work toward the first.

3. They say there are three main elements in the creation of most suicide bombers (there are the ideologues, but they are the exception): 1) poverty, 2) anger, and 3) no hope of any change (I hope I'm remembering the second correctly, oh feeble mind of mine). What this means is that the general tactic that Israel and the Bush administration have tended to use actually generates more terrorism than it stamps out.

We would be stupid to pass up on any legitimate opportunity and reason to "wine and dine" these sorts of places. The desperate blow themselves up. Every ounce of hope we can give is in our own (and Israel's) best interest.

Abbas could be a friend to the West. It's land locked country, but with Israel and Jordan as friends, it could make a real go of it as a prosperous nation, even while Gaza self-destructs at the hands of Hamas.

4. For Christians out there, we should remember that, at least at the turn of the millennium, there were far more Palestinian Christians than Israeli ones. In fact, I've heard it is illegal to try to convert someone to Christianity in Israel and that 85% of Israelis aren't even practicing Jews, let alone Christians.

Instead of American fundamentalists blindly funneling their money to non-Christians, even anti-Christians in Israel, they should have been supporting the Christians of the region, both Israeli and Palestinian. How many of these clever Americans know that there is a Palestinian Baptist Bible College in Bethlehem?

Our blind support of the Israelis has likely hurt Christianity in the region! So many American fundamentalists ignorantly think Israeli=Christian while Palestinian=Muslim. Quite the contrary. The Israelis are not yet the people of promise in Romans 11--"All Israel will be saved." Hasn't happened yet!

When I was in Israel at the wailing wall, orthodox Jews could spot a Christian tourist a mile away and came a runnin' looking for donations to the cause. I didn't give anything of course, but I can see them raising tons of money off of all the fat, camera laden American dullards. Then they joke with their friends that evening about all the stupid Christians who give them money.

And yet many Palestinians have historically been Christian. They are the ones who live in Nazareth and Bethlehem. The Israelis do not worship in these churches. If anyone does other than the tourists, it would be the Palestinians.

I consider myself a friend of Israel. But I think it is in our best interest to be just as good friends with Abbas as well. And as far as God is concerned, He does not show favoritism. He is the God of the Jew and the Greek. The circumcision of those Jews who do not believe is as uncircumcision, and the uncircumcision of those Palestinians who do believe is as circumcision.

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?

Is McCain Insane?

No, I don't think he is, even though he has just endorsed Bush's surge.

I thought that McCain's support of Bush's policy in Iraq might actually be fatal to his presidential bid. He can't do any more damage there... BUT he can try to turn it into a strength. One of Hilary's big problems is her previous support for the war. She could stand by her vote to keep from looking like Kerry, but it's not clear how profitable that will make her with her party.

It's different with McCain. Standing firm on the war for him might just strengthen his base enough to win him the Republican primaries.

Some might be surprised to know that I have never been sure what to make of this surge. I don't trust Bush's foreign policy or military judgment any further than I can throw him. But I'm not sure that setting timetables for withdrawal is the right tactic either.

Long and short--I think McCain would be an infinitely better president than Bush. I don't think he would have gone to war with Iraq, if he had been in the hot seat at the time. And I think that regardless of what he might feel he has to say at this point of the game.