Dobson Broadcast

I was driving back into town Tuesday night from a long trip and was surfing the radio stations in the rental car since I didn't have my usual presets. I landed on a station broadcasting "Focus on the Family" with guests Chuck Colson, Professor Robbie George and Alan Sears. In the spirit of Streak's recent postings I thought, "Hey, why not give it a listen." The discussion and ranting concerning the recent supreme court decision on the ten commandments and the related rubbish that followed would have been hilarious if I didn't know that it probably carries a great deal of influence with a large number of people. At some point one of the panel, I think it was Colsen, said that the upcoming appointment of supreme court judges needs to be the top priority issue (paraphrase) on the Christian agenda. That statement, along with some of the panel bringing up persecution of Christians and Christianity in the US, made me want to crack the door and hurl in a technique reminiscent of the old imbibing days. First, I have to think that there are issues more critical to the inhabitants of this planet, those labeling themselves "Christian" included, than who gets appointed to the supreme court. Granted, in the US this is an important issue and the justices get to make lots of decisions affecting us here in the US. However, for a Christian leader to label this the most important issue facing his followers is a sad manipulation of religious fervor to achieve political gain. This guy knows good and well that regardless of who is appointed to the supreme court, he is going to get to practice his religion for years to come. Christians in the US aren't killed because of their faith, and if someone DID murder you because of your faith they would be prosecuted. Churches aren't bull-dozed, government officials don't attend services to record attendees, Christian children aren't refused college entrance and people aren't refused jobs because of christian religious affiliation. Drawing moral equivalence between not allowing the posting of the ten commandments (a CONSTITUTIONAL issue related to the establishment clause) and REAL religious persecution is a pile of shit and a lame attempt to bait and switch their constituency. These guys like their money, power, and influence, and they have figured out how to maintain it by convincing their subscribers that precursor events to real persecution events are going on right now. They say to MOBILIZE or the precursors (ten commandment postings being banned) will soon lead to more severe persecution! These guys evidently wouldn't know real persecution if it bit them in the ass- they could use some just to give them some perspective. Being a Christian seems to have paid off pretty well for them. They are broadcasting their annoying message of self-righteousness and judgement over public airwaves and getting plenty of cash for the deal.

By the way, if you want to listen to the broadcast you can get it here. However, you will have to give the "suggested donation" of $9. Try it and see if you can change the "suggested donation". I'm not finding it. So, it seems the "suggested donation" is actually the "minimum donation". Where I come from we usually call that the "price". I guess that wouldn't do, though, for a reputable non-profit to require you to pay a "price" for an item. Each one of these guys is.... how did W put it the other day? Oh, yeah, "a real piece of work."

The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse

I'm reading a very informative, well written book and at the same time experimenting with how to post a photo to the blog. More blogging on this book to follow.

Dick vs the Generals

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a concern when the vice-president sticks to assessments that differ from the military practically 180 degrees?
Highlights of this article :

The three military commanders — Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command; and Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq — described an Iraqi insurgency that had not weakened despite two years of intense counterinsurgency operations.

Vice President Dick Cheney on Thursday defended his comment that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," saying the recent surge in violence was a final convulsion before the opposition forces collapse.

Rumsfeld Noncommittal

Amazingly enough in this BBC article Rumsfeld doesn't have a good idea of when we'll be out of Iraq. No surprise- there hasn't been a good estimate of our commitment time since this thing started. From Rummy:

But Mr Rumsfeld said that timing in war was not predictable and there were no guarantees.
"And any who say that we've lost this war, or that we're losing this war are wrong. We are not," he told senators.
Setting a date for withdrawal would "send a lifeline to terrorists", he said.

Kingdom of Heaven

Thanks to Sojourners for this article in which the author describes viewing the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, in Beirut amongst a predominately Muslim crowd.

Always Take the High Estimate and Add to It

I found a few interesting articles in some idle time (read: Procrastinating). One is this AP article concerning the dollar costs of the war in Iraq. A few highlights:

Rumsfeld defended the Pentagon's pre-war vagueness at an October news conference, saying: "We were criticized for not giving answers because we didn't know the answer."

Wolfowitz told a House panel in March that Iraqi oil revenues could be between $50 billion and $100 billion in the next two years. Current Pentagon estimates say that Iraq's oil revenue will be about $12 billion to $15 billion next year and around $19 billion in 2005 - a fraction of Wolfowitz' pre-war boast.

Former White House economic adviser Larry Lindsey also came under fire last year when he estimated a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. Mitch Daniels, then Bush's budget chief, discounted the estimate as "very, very high," and the issue was cited as one of the reasons why Lindsey resigned in December.

The sad part about the above article is that it was written in NOVEMBER 2003!!!

A Feb 2005 article says

This latest supplemental includes $64 billion for Iraq and increases the total cost to the US to more than $200 billion through 2005.

and, finally,

"...You are talking about $500 billion in total annual spending, of which 20% - the total of the supplement - is unaccounted for. No other agency has discretionary authority of 20% of its budget."

The point of all of this for me is: Over and over again we have learned to take the administration's most favorable estimates and divide by 5 or 10. Then, take any estimates that the administration scoffs at as being rediculously exaggerated and multiply it by ten or twenty percent. If someone gets fired over their concerns, call your bookie and make a large wager on whatever the fired person may have claimed, especially if it involves the cost of something in terms of dollars and/or lives. Righteous indignation, particularly on the part of Bush or Rumsfeld, is also a dead give away. This happens OVER AND OVER. Someone else is always to blame. So much for the buck stopping anywhere! The incompetence of the administration is only matched by it's lack of willingness to take responsibility for anything. As Rummy says, "...we didnt' know the answer." Unfortunately, instead of leading us to caution and further investigation, our ignorance was followed up with the command to attack.

Flag Burning

Streak's Blog alerted me to this event going on in our congress. A few highlight of the article are

"Ask the men and women who stood on top of the [World] Trade Center," said Rep. Randy [Duke] Cunningham, R-California. "Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment."

and

But Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said, "If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents."

Of all the things our country needs to be spending its time on the best we can come up with is an amendment banning flag burning. I'd be interested to know the cost of putting this through even if it doesn't get passed. Here is a site where you can see how the vote came out. I think we need to make sure we write some letters letting our reps know how rediculous it is for us to have men and women dying in combat for freedom and we're spending time, money, and political capital to introduce an amendment that would LIMIT rights. Evidently congress has decided that the bill of rights now needs to be used to LIMIT rights rather than protect them. Protection of an object, even if it is a symbol, over the civil rights of our citizens is an amazing place for us to be.

De La Torre Does It Again

I love a well crafted analogy. De La Torre does an excellent job of it in this Ethics Daily article. It's quite timely for me since just a few weeks ago I was amazed to hear from a friend who has always been staunchly fundamentalist-Christians only teaching her children in the public schools. She announced that she was now against teachers leading students in prayer at school. Further inquiry revealed that the influx of South Asians, Muslims, Hindus, and other non-WASPs into their community had made her realize that she would be uncomfortable with someone of another faith leading her child in prayer. Hmmmm. Imagine that.

CNN Article: Conyers Petition

Amazingly enough, the mainline entertainment media actually followed this story. Hopefully it's not the last we'll hear.

Interesting Timing

Interesting post by Gary Schmitt on the PFNAC site. Highlighted is an article entitled The Coming War with Saddam, by Stephen F. Hayes from which Schmitt quotes, "Removing Hussein from power is no longer a question of if, but when." Note the date: July 2002- just like the Downing Street Memo.

Downing Street: Not Necessarily New News

I am please with the growing attention to the Downing Street memo. Many are expressing serious concerns over the statement, "But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy", as they SHOULD be. However, it bears keeping in mind that the Project for the New American Century has, since it's inception in 1997, consistently made a case for regime change in Iraq. Given the direct line most of these people have to the president (his brother, his V.P., his secretary of defense, etc....) the revelations of the Memo simply confirm what is openly posted on the neo-cons own website. Of course, W has not posted articles on the site and his name does not show up as being part of the organization so his deniability is nicely intact. However, several of his administration have been drafted from this organization which clearly states its recommendations for US policy.

There are plenty of articles, but I'd like to point you to this one in particular by the PFNAC entitled, "Letter to President Clinton on Iraq" which is dated January 26, 1998. WMD's are highlighted and I'll emphasize the following:

"In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Later articles are consistent with this theme, and you can access them on the PNAC site.

Another interesting article is on this page. Click on or download the article at the top entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses". It's about 90 pages so I'll pull a couple quotes out for you. Please note that this article is dated September 2000:

"American military preeminence will continue to rest in significant part on the ability to maintain sufficient land forces to achieve political goals such as removing a dangerous and hostile regime when necessary."

"... Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria – “already have or are developing ballistic missiles” that could threaten U.S allies and forces abroad."

Finally, there's the man himself in a July 8, 2002 press conference:

"Q But I wonder, Mr. President, regardless of when or how, is it your firm intention to get rid of Saddam Hussein in Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- and how hard to you think it will be?

THE PRESIDENT: It's the stated policy of this government to have a regime change. And it hasn't changed. And we'll use all tools at our disposal to do so.."

So, I don't think it takes too much connecting the dots. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on perspective, this administration has felt so right and so impervious to scrutiny that they have done little to hide their intentions. WMDs were convenient justification for action that was decided on long ago. Or, as someone else on the inside said, "... the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

Amazing Cast of Characters: The Project for the New American Century

Here is the link to the Project for the New American Century's Statement of Principles. While most of the signers are readily recognizable, I've linked their names so that you can conveniently check out complete profiles.

Elliot Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen,Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, John Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

Conyers' Letter

Here's John Conyers, Jr. -- Letter to Pres Bush Concerning the "Downing Street Minutes" On C-Span he said there are 122 signatures from congress on it. Any chances this is a chink in the Bush armor? Images of impeachment are dancing in my head.

Downing Street Memo

Here is the complete text of The secret Downing Street memo - Sunday Times - Times Online. I think this should be posted in as many places as possible.

C-span just showed a Democratic committee meeting on the Downing Street Minutes. Conyers says he has over half a million citizen signatures to deliver to Bush. Good to see some momentum picking up.

The secret Downing Street memo

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

The Cost of War

Those who want to be informed on the dollar costs of the war in Iraq can check out this site:Cost of War

More playing around

Check out Streak's Blog. I'm playing around with a widget!

Trying out the widget

Here's trying out the widget with Tiger