I personally consider the up-coming election one of the most important in the nation’s history, because it will not only mark the political judgment of the people, but also their moral judgment of the Bush administration, and Republican dominated Congress and Senate. This election is critical for the following reasons; 1) it will either condone or rebuke the neo-con notion of preemptive invasion of foreign nations, 2) it will accept the status quo on the war against terror, or ask for a new war against terror based in a global approach that includes diplomacy and involves all the nations of the world as opposed to the current policy of foreign invasion, 3) it will accept or refuse the current self centered psyche of the nation and its people as evidenced in the nation’s reaction to the destruction of New Orleans and the surrounding Gulf Coast by Katrina last year, 4) It will make or break our destructive use of the environment, 5) It will decide the course of future energy use (oil versus alternative energy sources), 6) it will reject or accept the not to well hidden Bush agenda of increasing protection for the rich and the slow disenfranchisement of the middle class, 7) it will accept or reject the current Bush administration’s arrogant abrogation of the separation of church and state, , 8) it will help to pass verdict on the divisive moral judgment of persons according to their sexuality, and, finally, it may very well decide whether or not this nation resumes a path to growth or continues to follow one of self-destruction.



I realize the eight points made above are ideological. I am biased, and I see the past five and one half years as dangerously wrong headed. The United States under the current administration has been behaving like the proverbial chicken with its head chopped off; charging in circles, retracing its already useless tracks as it spews forth its life blood. Let’s hope it’s not to late to get a really good surgeon to give the chicken a new head, or at least two-thirds of one, that can help to redirect the stump left from the old one. If the electorate fails to exercise its right to change the government in this election as it has in the last two, then I will have lost faith in it, and I suppose, democracy as well, for such a failure will prove that this electorate certainly doesn’t have the wits necessary to choose a government that is able to function constructively in the world on its behalf..

The Southern Poverty Law Center is one of my charities, a special non-profit organization that I have given to for years. They are the primary reason the KKK has been in decline these past 15 years. Their project for tolerance in the nations schools has helped to create many schools that have eliminated prejudice of any kind, racial, religious, ageist, sexist, and sexual from their educational environments. These schools are safe places, where staff, faculty, and administration cannot damage children, or, as is more often the case children, the sons and daughters of prejudiced parents cannot damage other children because intolerance of any kind is not accepted in these schools.

The Southern Poverty Law center is an organization I highly prize. I have found them to be honest and truthful. They are a much-needed force for good in the contemporary divisive social atmosphere in our country. For instance, recently I received the Intelligence Report, the organization's magazine, and I found an article titled “A Few Bad Men,” about neo-Nazis being trained by our “recruit starved" armed forces. The article details a history of extremists in the U. S. military, and ends with the current infiltration of our armed services by extremist skinheads and neo-Nazis. The cover letter that came with the magazine said, and I quote ”Hate groups and neo-Nazi leaders routinely encourage their members to join the military to hone their skills. Military investigators have identified 320 extremists based at Fort Lewis, Washington alone, as well as 57 neo-Nazis at five other military installations.”



Frightening stuff, though it’s no wonder with Mr. Bush’s “War on Terror” focusing on the wrong foreign soil, with destructive (need I say KILLING) war tactics that aggravate rather than alleviate the universe of factors leading to the Islamic extremist terrorist threat from outside and within the nation. Just think, we are probably training several new Timothy McVeigh type terrorists in our own military – and with the blessing of the desperate military establishment!

How can we as individuals help prevent such a nightmare from taking place? Go to the Southern Poverty Law Center Website and find out.

The President’s series of speeches last week and the week before have served to transform “The War on Terror” into Worldwide War Against Fundamentalist Islam and Islamic Terrorists

“With less than 8 weeks until Election Day, the president’s public relations offensive gives him a way to handle his biggest weakness – the war in Iraq by absorbing it into his biggest strength – the War on Terror, Axelrod reports.” *1

Absolutely amazing! Why is the War on Terror Mr. Bush’s leading strength? What has been done to protect the United States other than establishing a Department of Homeland Security? Let’s begin with a few random bits of information. First, This administration has worked systematically to weaken both the CIA and the FBI, the chief government organs of domestic and foreign criminal investigation and defense. At the same time, the CIA has been used to establish secret prisons scattered around the world in which to torture terrorists (Yes, I know, the president says, “not.”). Second, The president and his administration have misled the American people, twisting CIA and FBI information to suit their purposes in Iraq. And, another thing, while we can no longer take toothpaste on an airplane - mind you, I’m not complaining, they can check my armpits if it means I’m protected against terrorists - there is no government program in place to check packages placed in airplane holds. Instead, this administration relies on the companies transporting the packages to check contents, and less than 10% of the packages are checked. It is only a matter of time till terrorists seize this window of opportunity. Additionally, not one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which did place blame for that horror just as squarely on Mr. Bush’s administration as on the Clinton administration by the way, has been implemented. Finally, instead of finding and defeating Osama Bin Ladin and other al Qaeda leaders, we have the war in Iraq, and more decentralized terrorist cells proliferating worldwide. Bill Cusack says it best, “Had Bush immediately gone into Afghanistan with overwhelming numbers and sealed the border Bin Laden would be dead by now, he could have forced Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to stop supporting terrorists and 9/11 would not have been a turning point in world history. But Bush, it turns out, wanted Iraq all along, and skimped on Afghanistan so he could have Iraq.”*2

By some counts, the Bush War on Terror has resulted in the deaths of more U. S. military service members in Iraq than all those killed, both foreign nationals and Americans, excluding terrorists, in the 9/11/2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

The President Speaks



In his speeches, Mr. Bush actually drew a picture of the war in Iraq that looks surprisingly like the beginning of a War against Worldwide Fundamentalist Islam. He went so far as to compare the new decentralized proliferating terrorist cells in Iraq and across the world to Nazis – while pretending that the Iraq war has nothing to do with that explosive expansion. Though the comparison to Nazis is apt, the implications of a war against fundamentalist Islam is frightening because the president’s idea of worldwide conflict can only lead to another World War. If anyone thinks that a world war would not create a catastrophic atomic conflagration, he or she is a fool.

Instead of creating images of worldwide conflict in his speeches, Mr. Bush should be pursuing resolution of “The War on Terror” through diplomatic relations with the nations of the world. I guarantee that such a course will be slow, but will inevitably be safer than worldwide conflagration.

Ah well, I could go on with more damning stuff, but I won’t. Sometimes I think it’s pointless because Americans allow themselves to be led by the pied piper. Mr. Bush’s popularity is actually going up this week (42 percent)! *3

*1 “Bush Speech Links Iraq War And Nazis: President Says U>S> Withdrawal From Iraq Would Give Victory To Enemies,” CBS/AP, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/31/politics/main1957257.shtml. Salt Lake City, August 31, 2006. Viewed Tuesday, September 5, 2006, 8:50 AM EDT.

*2 Cusack, Bill, “Osama Bin Laden is Kicking George Bush Ass.” Yahoo News, http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20060901/cm_huffpost/028478. Friday, September 1, 2006, 1:11 AM ET


*3 “President Bush – Overrall Job Rating,” PollingReport.com. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm. Viewed Monday, September 18, 2006, 8:38 AM. EDT.

Sanger, David and O’Neil, John, “U.S. Strategy Shifts Focus From Al Qaeda,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/05/washington/05cnd-bush.html?hp&ex=115751. September 5, 2006.

…Bush (can’t) avoid a looming date on his calendar: 7 November. That day, Americans will flock to the polls in record numbers for the mid term elections - and deliver possibly their definitive referendum on Bush and his presidency. For his entire time in office, Bush has enjoyed the luxury of having both a House and Senate that are Republican-controlled; now he faces the possibility of at least one of them returning to the Democrats, as well as a personal humiliation that would strengthen my edict that before long, Americans will see Bush as second only to Warren Harding (1865-1923) as the worst US president in history.

*1

Yeah, right! Lest you should relax and think it’s all sewn up – a warning – Don’t count your chickens. The President’s series of speeches last week were designed to firm up his support among committed republicans, and they did. I have personal evidence as I’ve spoken with Republican family members (Ugh, yes I have those.) and while they may have been “flip-flopping” about the war in Iraq the week before last, they’re not now.

As you know, Dear Journal, I’m diametrically opposed to the war in Iraq because I believe it to be a religious / ethical atrocity. So, I don’t always discuss the issue logically, like the Republicans and evangelicals do. However, the President and his neoconservative cronies have hit upon a viable strategy here. The American public still wants to win the war in Iraq –so what if 2700 of our finest have been killed, and 40k plus Iraqis – we want to win, damn it! Thus, they’re totally willing to be hoodwinked (one more time!) into subsuming a war against fundamentalist Islamic terrorists within the Iraq war. Yes, it is simplistic. Yes it is unethical. Yes it is against everything Jesus Christ teaches us through the New Testament. Simplicity, however, is the Twenty-first Century mantra for evangelical Christians in the United States, and they vote in vast numbers while so many of our more liberal voters have a “lazy fare” attitude and voting habit.

Who, me, sarcastic? I’m Pessimistic, yes, ironic too. On the other hand, I will try to deliver a more logical statement or statements about the president’s speeches in the future.

*1 Stephen, Andrew, “Bush Faces the People.” New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/20060911002. Monday, September 11, 2006. Viewed Thursday, September 7, 2006, 9:12 AM EDT.

I propose a basic question. Does the nation’s “preemptive strike” policy cast the United States counter terrorist activity in the same light as the international terrorist organization that caused us to adopt that policy. First, I must state that my own position is biased, as I am dogmatically opposed to the idea of the preemptive strike. Second, let me point out that the “preemptive strike” is not George W. Bush’s policy alone. Rather it is a generally accepted strategy among neoconservatives and counter terrorist organizations such as the Institute for Counter Terrorism(ICT) in Herzlia, Israel. In 2003, Shabtai Shavit, chairman of the ICT presented the preemptive strike as part of a comprehensive policy against international terrorist activity . “III. Fighting terrorism–strategy. 1. Right to self-defense justifies a pre-emptive strike.”*1 As such, the notion of the preemptive strike has justified the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States, and Lebanon by Israel, and the subsequent deaths of tens of thousands of civilian men, women, and children. It will no doubt be used to defend future invasions of foreign nations by the United States, and/or Israel. Of course, the defenders of the policy, including George W. Bush, will state that it is the government’s responsibility (any government) to protect its citizens and defend its territory. They will also say that the threat to civilians empowers them to preemptively invade a foreign nation when that nation supports, harbors, and/or aids terrorists. On the surface, that sounds justified, though the logic is based on the notion that the end justifies the means. Less subtly stated, routing out international terrorists justifies killing the innocent citizens of a foreign nation. In actual practice, however, the war in Iraq has demonstrated that any government can make mistakes, and invade a nation that has no connection with international terrorists. I will not consider the WMD defense of the war here as that has proven to be totally inaccurate, perhaps disingenuous. However, it is necessary to reflect on ethics when looking at this issue. Is the idea of the preemptive strike ethically sound?

One ethical expert (Michael Walzer) has put forward some conditions that he thinks must be satisfied to justify a pre-emptive strike:

* an obvious intention to do injury
* active preparations that turn that intention into a positive danger
* a situation in which the risk of defeat will be greatly increased if the fight is delayed

*2

Is the preemptive war in Iraq justified by any/all of these three? First, Did Saddam
Hussain - admittedly a destructive dictator who killed his own countrymen and members of his own family – threaten to do physical injury to the United States and / or its citizens? Second, was Iraq preparing for a war with the United States? Reports by both the UNGA in 2001-02, and the United States in 2004 have shown that not to be the case. Finally, would the United States have risked defeat by delaying the invasion of Iraq? The same reports prepared by the UNGA and the United States government demonstrate that there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, and that Iraq was not working to create these.

Before the war, many Christian organizations and church leaders denounced a preemptive invasion of Iraq on religious ethical grounds.

This week, Kofi Annan of the UN said there should be no such attack without a UN Security Council okay. And more religious voices agreed, among them 48 prominent U.S. Christian leaders, the top foreign affairs official at the Vatican, the Jesuit magazine AMERICA, and the Council on American Islamic Relations. Also, the top staff person of the Board of Church and Society of the United Methodists, President Bush's denomination. General Secretary Jim Winkler said he considers it "inconceivable that Jesus Christ ... would support this proposed attack."

*3

On the same program, Professor Shaun Casey, Professor of Religious Ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary stated

One, you don't want to normalize the notion of preemptive war -- defensive war is allowed. Secondly, war must be a last resort. You must try and exhaust all peaceful alternatives to war -- we haven't done that. Finally, there's the criteria of proportionality -- that the good you want to achieve has to outweigh the evil that you might incur in the process.

*3

In his April 27, 2006 position and policy statement for the United Nations General Assembly, Kofi Annan makes the following statement.

Past cases show that Governments that resort to excessive use of force and indiscriminate repression when countering terrorism risk strengthening the support
base for terrorists among the general population. Such measures generally invite
counter-violence, undermine the legitimacy of counter-terrorism measures and play
into the hands of terrorists. I therefore call on Governments to avoid excessive use
of force and to comply with international human rights law.

*4

Though carefully couched so as to sound as though the UNGA is referencing domestic terrorism, Annon’s statement is certainly a cautiously worded rebuke of Western preemptive strikes.

As I stated at the beginning of this entry, I am and have been from the beginning dogmatically opposed to the notion of the preemptive strike, and the war in Iraq. The attempt here is to support and defend my position with ethical and religious ethical thought. I have done so. Based on that defense, I know that at some point in time, it becomes necessary for The United States of America to admit an error of judgment, and institute a policy of restitution to the people of Iraq. Perhaps that will not be possible for many years for two reasons. First, because of the internal civil strife (civil war) that has been ignited by our invasion. Second, because the current government of the United States and many of our citizens are incapable of admitting to such an ethical or ethical religious error. Nevertheless, it must be done, if we are ever to say proudly, once again, “We are the champions of Democracy, rather than, we are the champions of destruction and terror.”


*1 Shavit, Shabtai, “Defeating International Terrorism: Trends, scenarios, and future threats.” Institute for Counter Terrorism, http://www.ict.org.il/. Viewed Sunday, August 20, 2006, 9:21 AM EDT.

*2 “The Ethics of War,” Religion & Ethics, The BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/print//religion/ethics/war/preemptive.shtml. Viewed Friday, September 1, 2006.

*3 Bob Abernathy, “Episode no. 602, Religious Views on War with Iraq.” Religion and Ethics Newsweekly: an on line companion to the weekly televison news program, Perspectives, On PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week602/perspectives.html, September 13, 2002, viewed 9:55 AM EDT. September 2, 2006.

*4 Annan, Kofi, Uniting Against Terrorism: recommendations for a global counter-terrorism strategy. Report of the Secretary-General, Sixtieth Session, Agenda Items 46 and 120. United Nations General Assembly. http://www.un.org/ (April 27, 2006) viewed August 15, 2006, 9:02 AM EDT.