Lee Iacocca

Found this on the blog of Greg Caruso.

Lee Iacocca has a new book out: Where have all the Leaders Gone?

And he is mad, acoording to Caruso. This excerpt:

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

To read more of the excerpt, click here.

But watch out, if you are a Bush fan. GW gets nailed.

B.C.

Johnny Hart, the creator of the comic strip B.C., died last weekend.
I have enjoyed comics since I was a teenager, and especially B.C.
I'll never forget two poems from strips I read 35 years ago:

When Hydrogen U played Oxygen Tech
The game had just begun.
When Hydrogen racked op two quick points
And Oxygen still had none.
Then Oxygen scored a single goal
And thus it did remain
Hydrogen 2, Oxygen 1,
Called because of rain.

Little earthworm in the ground
Tell me something quite profound:
How, with attributes so few,
They named a planet after you.

Someone sent me this strip last week for Good Friday.
Hart died on Saturday.
Another legend gone.

Very large stone

Three women were on their way to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body.
Three women who had been touched deeply by Jesus' words and actions.
They loved him deeply enough to perform this last service to him.
But they were worried.
"Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" they asked themselves.
Mark says that it was a "very large" stone.

What kinds of large stones are there in your life?
Which impossibilities stare you in the face?
Failures?
Obstacles?

"When they looked up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away."
You have a choice.
You can believe that the very large stone will never be moved.
Or you can believe that there is Someone who can roll it away.

The choice you make has enormous consequences.
It determines how you live your life.

Bad news for Bush

Juxtaposition

I have been thinking this week about the contrast that we experience in this week of the death and resurrection of Jesus.

It is strange and unusual that we, in this one short week, and actually in two short days (Friday to Sunday), are confronted with so much death and so much life.

Have you ever thought about that?

Which other religion or celebration or ritual invented by humans has this kind of contrast?

Death is dramatically posed next to life in a juxtaposition that only the Bible and the gospel could think of.

And the gospel displays all of its glory: the deeper the darkness, the more radiant the light.

Good money after bad

According to this website, the war in Iraq has cost almost 414 billion dollars up until now.

Are we, after spending this money, any safer from Isalmic fundamentalist terrorism?
If you want to say the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam, OK.

But are we (I mean Americans, citizens of these United States - and it is, after all, about us) any safer?

We have spent money on security within the United States, and we haven't had any attacks, so you can presume that money is being spent reasonably well (although I heard the other day that a stewardess took a handgun on board an airplane without any problems).

But has the money we have spent in Iraq made us any safer?
Is the worldwide threat of terrorism, and the threat to our society, any less?
Are the terrorists now less capable of succesfully attacking us?
Do fewer terrorists want to attack us?

All the Bush government can say is, that if Congress sets a date for withdrawal, the terrorists will have won.
I don't hear them showing us how we are winning now, or will win if we keep spending this money.

The message is what will happen if we don't.
I want to know what will happen if we do.

Dobson (again....sigh)

Well, our man Dobson has done it again.
He apparently is, has or knows the litmus test that determines if someone will be a good president, and even if someone is a Christian.
Speaking about Fred Thompson in U.S. News and World Report, Dobson said this:

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression."

What is a Christian, according to Dobson's spokesman? "We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians."

In the old days, preachers mounted the pulpit with fear and trembling because of the awesome responsibility to preach the word of God correctly and call people to repentance. Nowdays that doesn't happen much anymore.

Dobson takes an awesome responsibility upon himself to judge the heart of a man he doesn't know, and make his judgement public, based on an impression. I think his knees should be shaking.

Dobson's phone call to U.S. News senior editor Dan Gilgoff Tuesday was unsolicited, reports the article.

Imagine.

Republicans

Those Republicans...

"Rudy Giuliani has defended Newt Gingrich, saying it's okay Newt had an affair and that no one is perfect. That's when you know the Republicans are in trouble -- when a guy with three marriages and an affair is defending the guy with three marriages and two affairs, so they can team up and beat a Clinton."

--Jay Leno

Proposal

It is a reasonable proposal.
At least he can pronounce it.

Casualties of War

Zbigniew Brzezinski

You can tell I like Jon Stewart.
In this clip, his guest is Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Articulate, smart man, who has good things to say about how the last three presidents have squandered the opportunity to really do something in the world after the fall of the Soviet Union.
If you have the time, take it to watch this clip.
If I were in the U.S. I'd buy the book.

Bush in South America

Dead before you die

This quote found on this blog:

Psychological studies reveal that Americans live in less than forty percent awareness, as though our minds and spirits cringe before the banality and ugliness of national life. Such studies imply an enormous waste of potential lost to trivial pursuits - game-playing, fantasizing, daydreaming, television, self-pity, brooding, boredom, gluttony in food or drink. Lost is the prospect of personal and social renewal, reading, study, meditation, prayer, teaching, service to the poor, justice, peacemaking, and non-violent resistance to power-mongering government and corporations. The scripture likens such crippled attentiveness to death - death before one dies.
Philip Berrigan

Newt Gingrich

Well, Newt Gingrich has admitted to having an affair at the same time he was heading up the impeachment procedings against Bill Clinton for perjury.
He is well educated, and is clear about how he could do that while carrying on an affair. He attempted to impeach Clinton because of perjury, not because of sexual immorality. So his own personal immorality played no rol in his efforts.
Technically he is correct.
When one divorces twice and has at least one affair, he has to lie more than once. There is no other way.
A liar is a liar is a liar. The room in which it happens doesn't make much difference. Courtroom or living room.
Certainly Christians with a moral conscience know that.

Gingrich has been interviewed on Focus on the Family radio by James Dobson.
One of the things Dobson said in his introduction: "We have often talked about pro-family issues that we care about so deeply."
I think it is scandalous for Dobson to overlook Gingriches' morality in this way, and help him prepare for a possible presidential run.

The Right and the Religious Right are seeming to make fools of themselves without thinking twice about it.
President big-smile-I-am-the-decider-I-am never-wrong Bush has mislead our country and dumped us into a mess of historic proportions and has been incompetent in almost every area of his presidency.
Dobson focusses on a couple of moral issues, promotes war and hate langauge and thinking, and now supports Gingrich who has a horrible moral record, not to mention the ethical questions which caused him to leave his post in Wshington.
The Right's most popular talk radio host has been divorced three times, is a (ex?) drug addict and was recently caught with Viagra in his handluggage while coming into the U.S.

It boggles the mind.

Bono

Bono's speech at the NAACP has received a lot of attention.
If you haven't seen it, you can see it here.
A couple of quotes:

Martin Luther King: A man who refused to hate because he knew love would do a better job.
Where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die.
This is not a burden, this is an adventure.
We can be the generation that ends extreme poverty.

Nukelar

There's a very well written blog by Cynthia Huddleston called Prodigal Aspersions.
She wrote a piece about George Bush, Iraq and the way he says "nukelar".
A little bit of it here to whet your appetite.
Click here for the rest.
I got to Cynthia via Real Live Preacher. Also a well written blog.

Most of us had no idea George Bush would be president this long. (Stop a minute... Breathe...) Heck, George Bush probably didn't think that far ahead either. He said nukelar because that's the way he is...a Texas good ol' boy. He probably never realized that folks would find it incorrect or uneducated or misinformed. He always said nukelar, so nukelar it will ever be. Even if he now sees that it might look a mite rubish, what can he do?

George Bush cannot just start saying nuclear, as if he had always done so. That might point out the embarrassing fact that he has said nukelar about a million times...wrongly. What...wrong? Never. Gee folks, it was cute the first hunnerd times, but, ok, no more nukelar. Heh, heh..or more improbably... I was wrong. Can you imagine him saying it the right way just once and the story of it not leading the nightly news shows on all channels?

He cannot admit he was wrong. He just can't. It is not in him. He can't risk public ridicule by suddenly starting to say the word correctly. So he will just continue to say nukelar. You know he will. He will chuckle at it occasionally. Heh, heh. That's my nature. (Big grin)

Christian Pick-Up lines

I love the Wittenburg Door, the only Christian satire magazine.
Only thing is, because I've lived out of the U.S. for so long, there's a lot of satire I don't get.
But that Christians are a constant source of good satire is clear and pretty funny in and of itself.

This issue helps young Christian men pick up girls in a spritually wholesome way.
I wish I was young enough to try it.

Pick-up lines range from beginner-level, such as the favorite, "Do you want to start a Bible study with me?" to professional-grade, "In Koine Greek you would be known as babelios-dynimo. I've studied the ancient language for three years just to be able to tell you that truth with confidence." (Do not attempt this line unless you have actually studied Koine Greek.)

"Can I have your number? God told me that if I have faith when I ask I shall receive." (Matt. 6:7)

"Miss, I believe that if you were to count your ribs you'd find you have one of mine." (Gen. 2:21-23)

"Excuse me? Would you hold my hand as I pray? I believe that so long as you're standing with me, God will grant me anything I ask." (Matt. 18:20)

Conservapedia

Jon Swift, one of my favortie bloggers - no, make that my favorite blogger, including myself - has written a great piece on something I had not heard about yet. Conservapedia.
I took a look at it myself today. Really unbelievable and amusing.
Conservapedia bemoans Wikipedia's biases (anti-Christian and anti-American), but manages to say clearly on the main page: Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America.
That's not bias?
Just for fun I looked up Copernicus.
Copernicus is described as having made the stunning claim that the earth revolved around the sun, opposing the views of science and the church of his time. Copernicus did make some unforgiveable mistakes, however: he thought the planets moved in circular revolutions and that the sun was stationary.
Conservapedia reports that most Protestant countries reacted negatively to the theory of Copernicus because it clashed with the Biblical truth that the sun had stood still for a while in the time of Joshua.
This illuminating article concludes with the assertion that To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory.

I had not realized there were Protestant countries today.
I'm glad I found Conservapedia. Thanks, Jon.

Intellingence and Iran

This from Time Magazine:

Worst foreign policy mistake in history

"Things getting very nasty in Washington. Today the White House denied an assertion by Senator Harry Reid that the Iraq war is 'the worst foreign policy mistake in U.S. history.'
The White House said, 'You have to realize that President Bush has two more years in office.'"

--Conan O'Brien

Are we winning?

This in the news today about a resurgence of Al Qaeda.
Not really surprising.
Up until recently Buish has been saying that we are significantly crippling Al Qaeda. Apparently not.
It has already been announced that we are not winning in Iraq, probably soon he will have to announce we are not winning against Al Qaeda either.
I would use the word crazy to describe this if it weren't so dangerous.

Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

American officials said there was mounting evidence that Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, had been steadily building an operations hub in the mountainous Pakistani tribal area of North Waziristan. Until recently, the Bush administration had described Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri as detached from their followers and cut off from operational control of Al Qaeda.

The new warnings are different from those made in recent months by intelligence officials and terrorism experts, who have spoken about the growing abilities of Taliban forces and Pakistani militants to launch attacks into Afghanistan. American officials say that the new intelligence is focused on Al Qaeda and points to the prospect that the terrorist network is gaining in strength despite more than five years of a sustained American-led campaign to weaken it.

The concern about a resurgent Al Qaeda has been the subject of intensive discussion at high levels of the Bush administration, the officials said, and has reignited debate about how to address Pakistan’s role as a haven for militants without undermining the government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president.
Last week, President Bush’s senior counterterrorism adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, went to Afghanistan during a Middle East trip to meet with security officials about rising concerns on Al Qaeda’s resurgence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, an administration official said.
Officials from several different American intelligence and counterterrorism agencies presented a consistent picture in describing the developments as a major setback to American efforts against Al Qaeda.

Sad but funny

If it wasn't so sad you could make it really funny...

Press Conference 2

Yesterday I said I'd quote some from Bushes' press conference of yesterday.
This post will be a little longer than normal, because I am quoting from the transcript.
The first subject has to do with the reliability of the intellingence telling us that Iran is sneding weapons to and meddling with the situation in Iraq.
It seems to me a most reasonable question and, in the light of the intelligence mistakes upon which the war in Iraq is based, absolutely necessary that we can trust the intelligence information we are getting. There is nothing political or negatively critical about the question. It is perfectly reasonable, and one we are most interested in.
That question was asked at least twice yesterday, and received no answer.
It is at least scandalous that no answer was given, and also alarming. Read it for yourself:

Q Thank you, sir. I'd like to follow on Iran. Critics say that you are using the same quality of intelligence about Iran that you used to make the case for war in Iraq, specifically about WMD that turned out to be wrong, and that you are doing that to make a case for war against Iran. Is that the case?
THE PRESIDENT: I can say with certainty that the Quds force, a part of the Iranian government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops. And I'd like to repeat, I do not know whether or not the Quds force was ordered from the top echelons of government. But my point is what's worse -- them ordering it and it happening, or them not ordering it and it happening? And so we will continue to protect our troops.
David, our strategy is comprehensive in order to resolve problems that will affect our own peace and the peace in the world. And the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon. As you know, we've been dealing with this issue ever since you've been covering me, and pretty much ever since I've been the President. And we've made it very clear to the Iranians that if they would like to have a dialogue with the United States, there needs to be a verifiable suspension of their program. I would hope that they would do that. I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people.
But my focus is on making sure that this weapon is dealt with, the program is dealt with in a constructive, peaceful way. And we'll continue to work toward achieving our common objective with other nations in the world in a peaceful way.

Q. What assurances can you give the American people that the intelligence this time will be accurate?
THE PRESIDENT: Ed, we know they're there, we know they're provided by the Quds force. We know the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. I don't think we know who picked up the phone and said to the Quds force, go do this, but we know it's a vital part of the Iranian government. What matters is, is that we're responding. The idea that somehow we're manufacturing the idea that the Iranians are providing IEDs is preposterous, Ed. My job is to protect our troops. And when we find devices that are in that country that are hurting our troops, we're going to do something about it, pure and simple.

He gives us no assurance that the intelligence now is of a better quality than that of five years ago. None.

I also mentioned how difficult it is to understand Bush. If you have some time, try to figure out his answer to this question.

Q Mr. President, do you agree with the National Intelligence Estimate that we are now in a civil war in Iraq? And, also, you talk about victory, that you have to have victory in Iraq; it would be catastrophic if we didn't. You said again today that the enemy would come here, and yet you say it's not an open-ended commitment. How do you square those things?
…The reason I described that is that no matter what you call it, it's a complex situation, and it needed to be dealt with inside of Iraq. We've got people who say civil war, we've got people on the ground who don't believe it's a civil war. But nevertheless, it is -- it was dangerous enough that I had to make a decision to try to stop it, so that a government that is bound by a constitution, where the country feels relatively secure as a result of a security force that is even-handed in its application of security; a place where the vast resources of the country -- this is a relatively wealthy country, in that they've got a lot of hydrocarbons -- is shared equally amongst people; that there is a federalism that evolves under the Constitution where the local provinces have got authority, as well; and where people who may have made a political decision in the past and yet weren't criminals can participate in the life of the country; and is an ally in the war on terror. In other words, that there is a bulwark for moderation, as opposed to a safe haven for extremism. And that's what I would view as successful.

Now only 704 days.

Press Conference

I'm listening live to the Bush press conference today.
He really does simply avoid answering some pretty straightforward questions.
Some of what he says is really absolute nonsense.
Some of it is not understandable.
The English continues to be butchered.
It's an embarrassment.
When the text is printed, I'll comment more specifically.
Only 705 days, my counter tells me.

Children and the Kingdom

Today UNICEF published a report entitled: An overview of child well-being in rich countries.
It is an assessment of the wellbeing of children and adolescents in econcomically advanced nations.
On the front page are these words:

The true measure of a nation’s standing is how well it attends to its children – their health and safety, their material security, their education and socialization, and their sense of being loved, valued, and included in the families and societies into which they are born.

The older I get, the more I think this is correct. When we as families cannot or will not provide a safe place for our children, we fail miserably, however rich and powerful we may be.

It is interesting that Holland takes the first prize, having the highest average ranking.

The United Kingdom and the United States find themselves in the bottom third of the rankings for five of the six dimensions reviewed - Britain last and the U.S. next to last.

The U.S. has the higest number of children in households with less than 50% of the median income, and ranks, in that category, last.

My sermon this coming Sunday will be on Jesus' parable about Kingdom as a mustard seed that provides a nesting place for the birds of the air. Where the Kingdom is, people - and children - are safe.

Should give us a lot to think about. Where is Gods Kingdom now really?

Why are children so safe in "secular" Holland, and so unsafe in "Christian" America?

And what are you doing to promote the wellbeing of the next generation?

Derailed

Yesterday I had a conversation with someone about what it is like when things get difficult - either temporarily or for the long haul.
I used the example of a train that is derailed. It's not going anywhere (for a while).

What you don't need is someone who makes all kinds of suggestions about what you could/should have done to prevent the derailment.
It also doesn't help if those around you say or think look, you derailed the train, get it back on the tracks yourself, and when things are running again I'll catch up with you.
You need someone who bends down to help you without saying too much.

Sometimes you need more than one person.

Deadly Sins

This list of the deadly sins of preaching as given by John Ortberg and reproduced on Out of Ur. Good stuff, and so relevant.

1. The temptation to be inauthentic
We want to present an image to others that makes us appear more holy, intelligent, or godly than we actually are. In the end this is a foolish pursuit because the truth of who we are will always leak out.
2. The temptation to live for recognition
After finishing a sermon the question that runs through most of our minds is, did they like it? But we need to learn to root our identity in something other than applause. Ortberg cited Dallas Willard’s ability to present his material and give no thought to people’s reactions. He’s like a child who releases a helium balloon. He says what God’s given him to say, and simply lets it go.
3. The temptation to live in fear
What if I fail? That question plagues many pastors. But there is a difference between failing at something and being a failure. You are not a failure. Again, our identity must been hidden in Christ and not our accomplishments.
4. The temptation to compare
With the radio, television, and the internet our generation faces this temptation more than any previous generation. Our culture of celebrity pastors causes us to compare ourselves to others. This does nothing good for the soul.
5. The temptation to exaggerate
This seems closely linked to temptation number one. Overstating facts is how we often try to manage our image and appear better than we are. John also linked this to plagiarism—passing someone else’s story, sermon, or idea off as our own to win approval.
6. The temptation to feel chronically inadequate
7. The temptation of pride
Having people listen to you give a monologue every week can make you prideful. The antidote? A wife. (Ortberg’s joke, not mine.)
8. The temptation to manipulate
Having a pulpit and speaking the words of God might give some a power rush. We mustn’t use our position to manipulate people into doing what we want them to do.
9. The temptation of envy
This seems related to number four, the temptation to compare. But envy carries the nuance of desire and ambition. We not only compare ourselves to another preacher, but we seek to achieve what they have. Such selfish motivations will undermine our spiritual health.
10. The temptation of anger
John read this quote from Henri Nouwen that says it all:
Anger in particular seems close to a professional vice in the contemporary ministry. Pastors are angry at their leaders for not leading and at their followers for not following. They are angry at those who do not come to church for not coming and angry at those who do come for coming without enthusiasm. They are angry at their families, who make them feel guilty, and angry at themselves for not being who they want to be. This is not an open, blatant, roaring anger, but an anger hidden behind the smooth word, the smiling face, and the polite handshake. It is a frozen anger, an anger which settles into a biting resentment and slowly paralyzes a generous heart. If there is anything that makes the ministry look grim and dull, it is this dark, insidious anger in the servants of Christ.

Contrast

If you have some time, check out these two videos.
One is emerging church.
A little, like, too much, like, vague, for me, like, what are these guys like really saying?
The second is selling someone a product based on fear - fear of hell. Can you imagine how succesful a counselor would be using this approach to save a marriage on the rocks?
(I did like the girl who wouldn't admit that "cursing" was such a sin. She stood up to them.)
Been there, done that.
Won't do it again.


Publish

Death by Ministry

From Mark Driscoll, the following information about pastors in America.
When have you last prayed for your pastor and his wife?
When have you last encouraged your pastor and his wife?

Pastors
• Fifteen hundred pastors leave the ministry each month due to moral failure, spiritual burnout, or contention in their churches.
• Fifty percent of pastors' marriages will end in divorce.
• Eighty percent of pastors and eighty-four percent of their spouses feel unqualified and discouraged in their role as pastors.
• Fifty percent of pastors are so discouraged that they would leave the ministry if they could, but have no other way of making a living.
• Eighty percent of seminary and Bible school graduates who enter the ministry will leave the ministry within the first five years.
• Seventy percent of pastors constantly fight depression.
• Almost forty percent polled said they have had an extra-marital affair since beginning their ministry.
• Seventy percent said the only time they spend studying the Word is when they are preparing their sermons.

Pastors' Wives
• Eighty percent of pastors' spouses feel their spouse is overworked.
• Eighty percent of pastors' spouses wish their spouse would choose another profession.
• The majority of pastor's wives surveyed said that the most destructive event that has occurred in their marriage and family was the day they entered the ministry.

Don't embolden the enemy

One bullet

This story in the New York Times of Monday, January 29.

You can do nothing else than have enormous respect for the soldiers who exhibit such bravery in such dangerous and overwhelming circumstances. I hope and pray with all my heart that God (and anyone else who can) protects them from harm.

Staff Sgt. Hector Leija scanned the kitchen, searching for illegal weapons. One wall away, in an apartment next door, a scared Shiite family huddled around a space heater, cradling an infant.

It was after 9 a.m. on Wednesday, on Haifa Street in central Baghdad, and the crack-crack of machine-gun fire had been rattling since dawn. More than a thousand American and Iraqi troops had come to this warren of high rises and hovels to disrupt the growing nest of Sunni and Shiite fighters battling for control of the area.

The joint military effort has been billed as the first step toward an Iraqi takeover of security. But this morning, in the two dark, third-floor apartments on Haifa Street, that promise seemed distant. What was close, and painfully real, was the cost of an escalating street fight that had trapped American soldiers and Iraqi bystanders between warring sects.

Staff Sgt. Leija died.

I have already said on this weblog, but I will say it again: guerilla warfare can almost never be won. Our soldiers are being put into a no-win situation, and the addition of 21,000 troops does nothing to give hope that the situation will improve in the long term.

If I was in the States I would join a peace rally. For a half-decent comparison of Iraq with Viet Nam, click here.

God weeps

"God weeps," Archbishop Tutu told participants in the ecumenical gathering near the conclusion of the World Social Forum in Nairobi, "and says, 'Who will help me so we can have a different kind of world, one in which the rich know they have been given much so they can share and help others?'"
More than 50,000 community activists, social reformers, religious leaders, and movers and shakers met at the seventh World Social Forum in Nairobi, Kenya, this January to compare strategies on transforming global economic systems to benefit the majority world, rather than maintaining economic systems that produce immoral disparities: one percent of the world's adults owns 40 percent of the world's wealth, while the bottom half combined owns less than one percent.

This from God's Politics, the weblog of Jim Wallis.

What can you do, as an unbelievably rich person, to contribute to righting the imbalances in the world?

Words

The New York Times has an interesting interactive site that helps you see what words George Bush used in his State of the Union speeches, how many times he used them, in which speech, and the context of the words.
He has spoken over 34,000 words in these addresses, and you can search for words and find out exactly when and how he used them.
For example, "Iraq" was used 34 times in 2007, "Social Security" twice. In 2005, the year of his big (failed) Social Security push, he used the word 8 times.

Interesting that he clearly says, in 2007, that we are failing at protecting Social Security.
About Iraq he says: Let us find our resolve, and turn events to victory.

He also says that our commitment to Iraq is not open ended. (I thought we couldn't say that, that would be capitulating to the enemy.)
And we learn that Iraq's government has committed itself to a series of benchmarks. During the election campaign, benchmarks were of the devil.

Throughout history, Presidents have begun their State of the Union with the ringing words "The State of our Union is strong".

This year he couldn't bring himself to begin this way. So he slipped it in the last sentence: We've met challenges and faced dangers, and we know that more lie ahead. Yet we can go forward with confidence -- because the State of our Union is strong, our cause in the world is right, and tonight that cause goes on.

Check out the site, it is a lot of fun.

Hillary

Well, she's done it.
She's going to run.

I hope they don't, but the Religious Right is going to have her for dinner, if they can.

Which I don't really understand.

When her husband strayed, she stayed with him.

Sounds like pretty good family values to me.

Crickets

Diplomacy

This is what we need more of, and it is encouraging.

Public American diplomacy in the Middle East: high level (Condoleeza Rice) and public. The Isreali-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of much of the problem in the Middle East. Anything that will help solve that problem will help reduce terrorism.

Good.

Good.

It appears that Rice also wants to try to sell Bushes' plan for Iraq. I hope she listens well.

A good car salesman listens to his customer.

The latest funnies

"The good news is last night President Bush finally admitted he's made mistakes in Iraq. The bad news is he's planning to make the same mistakes again." --Jay Leno

"After hearing the president's speech, Democrats in the Senate are seeking bipartisan support for a non-binding resolution opposing President Bush's deployment of his military escalation. In response, President Bush said, 'Huh?'" --Conan O'Brien

"President Bush is now calling for sending 21,000 more troops to Iraq. How does he come up with that number? I don't even think 21,000 people in the country think it's a good idea." --Jay Leno

"President Bush announced he's creating 20,000 new jobs. They're all in Iraq." --Jay Leno

"Yesterday Al Sharpton was asked about running for president, and he said, 'I'm not hearing a lot of meat. When the meats hit the fire, we'll find out if there's some real meat there.' Personally, I think it's a shame President Bush can't run again, because that would be one hell of a debate." --Conan O'Brien

Guts

News report today:
A British newspaper reported Sunday that Prince Harry (who is third in line to the British throne) was scheduled to begin final training for deployment to Iraq with his Army regiment -- but the defense ministry said no decision had been made on whether his regiment would be deployed.

John McCain's son may also go to Iraq, now that the President needs more troops.

There were, of course, many stories going around about G.W.'s stint in the military. Who knows what the truth really is, but the very fact that these stories are out there (and no stories of this nature would even be taken seriously if they were about John McCain, his son, or Prince Harry) says something about our Commander in Chief.

Failure according to Bush

You have certainly seen or heard this, but if not, here it is.
And it isn't even a late-night joke!
Apparently Bushspeak and Rumsspeak is contagious.

An interview by CNN with Frances Townsend, Homeland Security Advisor:

HENRY: You know, going back to September 2001, the president said, dead or alive, we're going to get him. Still don't have him. I know you are saying there's successes on the war on terror, and there have been. That's a failure.

TOWNSEND: Well, I'm not sure -- it's a success that hasn't occurred yet. I don't know that I view that as a failure.

They don't have to come

A first reaction to the speech of President Bush.

He said this: The consequences of failure are clear: (..) Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities.


116 Americans died in December 2006 in Iraq. The total number of deaths to this point is 3019.
If the violence continues at this same pace (and most - including Bush himself - expect it to get worse) another 1000 Americans will lose their lives in 2007.
On September 11 2001 we lost 2996 Americans.

The terrorists don't have to come to the streets of our cities anymore.
They can kill us right in the streets of Baghdad.

Poll

Another facet

An article by Ryan Beiler on another aspect of Saddam and Iraq. Click here for the weblog.

One salient point that I've found missing from most commentary on the execution is that the specific crime of which Hussein was convicted - the 1982 massacre of 148 Iraqis in the town of Dujail - occurred while Hussein was being aided by the United States.

The infamous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein was taken in 1983. What's more, the U.S. actively supported Hussein throughout the '80s in spite of reports of such atrocities, including the use of chemical weapons. This isn't conspiracy theory - the report linked above is drawn almost entirely from mainstream media sources like The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and The Washington Post. Of course, this isn't news to anyone who's followed Iraq-U.S. politics for any length of time. The joke about how "the U.S. knows Iraq has WMDs because we have the receipts," isn't far off.

It just seems especially ironic that so many Americans are celebrating the death of a tyrant who was executed for a crime committed while he was "our S.O.B." Iraqis had long suffered because of U.S. support for Saddam, and now American servicemen and women have joined them in paying dearly for the war to remove him.

Biting my fingernails

Apparently George Bush is going to unveil his plan for Iraq next week.

I’m pretty nervous about it.

I have just minimal knowledge of how other cultures work, and the culture of the Middle East is not my area of experience. But it seems that some common sense things are being ignored in the Iraq situation that even I can figure out. It is interesting to see people like Zbigniew Brezinski and William Cohen say things on Wolf Blitzer’s Late Edition that echo what I think. A couple of things:

1. Don’t ever make a martyr out of someone. Every culture has its martyrs, who are heroes. The worst thing you can do if you are trying to stamp out a resistance movement is create martyrs for it. That means, I would think, that one would wait with Saddam’s execution until the situation has stabilized in Iraq. Insisting on doing it now only inflames the resistance. And don't tell me that the U.S. did not influence the timing of the execution.

2. A war should always be for just causes and bring justice (at least from our Western perspective). By not making Saddam stand trial for all the crimes of which he was charged you create a deep sense of injustice in many victims. I believe you could heal things in Iraq more quickly by insuring that everyone feels he or she has had the chance to seek and find justice or reconciliation. South Africa provides a fine example of that, it seems to me.

3. Avoid looking like an occupying army. The U.S. fumbled this ball from the beginning, and while it looks like a small thing, transporting Saddam to the execution chamber and his body afterwards cannot have helped things in that regard.

4. The hardest war to fight and win is a guerrilla war. We should have learned that in Viet Nam. World history is clear on the difficulty of winning guerilla warfare. If Bush does increase the troops in Iraq, and only by 30 or 40 thousand, it will show that he and his advisors do not understand this basic principle. We either need to get out of the guerrilla war as soon as possible or send in 400,000 troops and an atomic weapon to finish off the job. Now.

5. You cannot impose, from outside, a political system or a religion on a people. Democracy, for example. You have to win hearts and change the culture from inside. The barrel of a gun will never do it.

The signals we are getting are not at all encouraging to me.

But I still hope.

Attitude toward enemies

A quote from Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

Don't forget that he voluntarily returned to Germany from a safe position in New York because he felt he could not minister to his people after the Nazi regime was gone if he didn't suffer with his people under the regime.
And we was finally hanged by the Nazis in prison in 1945, just three weeks before the liberation. He has the right to speak about the Christian attitude towards enemies:

[N]ever be conceited. With respect to our attitude toward our enemies, this means first, remember that you were God's enemy and that, without having earned it or being worthy of it, you were met with mercy. It means second, remember that God hung on the cross for your enemy too, and love God and God loves you.

- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The secrets died with him

Robert Fisk is a controversial figure. Some say he is in bed with the Arab countries of the Middle East and so his reporting and criticism of the West can't be trusted. I don't really know. It is obvious that he has spent much time in the Middle East and gets to places (partly because he is a very brave man) that other reporters don't. It certainly is worth listening to his voice.

This article (one of a couple) on the death of Saddam from which I reproduce a few excerpts:

We've shut him up. The moment Saddam's hooded executioner pulled the lever of the trapdoor in Baghdad yesterday morning, Washington's secrets were safe. The shameless, outrageous, covert military support which the United States - and Britain - gave to Saddam for more than a decade remains the one terrible story which our presidents and prime ministers do not want the world to remember. And now Saddam, who knew the full extent of that Western support - given to him while he was perpetrating some of the worst atrocities since the Second World War - is dead….

Iran's official history of the eight-year war with Iraq states that Saddam first used chemical weapons against it on 13 January 1981. AP's correspondent in Baghdad, Mohamed Salaam, was taken to see the scene of an Iraqi military victory east of Basra. "We started counting - we walked miles and miles in this fucking desert, just counting," he said. "We got to 700 and got muddled and had to start counting again ... The Iraqis had used, for the first time, a combination - the nerve gas would paralyse their bodies ... the mustard gas would drown them in their own lungs. That's why they spat blood."

At the time, the Iranians claimed that this terrible cocktail had been given to Saddam by the US. Washington denied this. But the Iranians were right. The lengthy negotiations which led to America's complicity in this atrocity remain secret - Donald Rumsfeld was one of President Ronald Reagan's point-men at this period - although Saddam undoubtedly knew every detail. But a largely unreported document, "United States Chemical and Biological Warfare-related Dual-use exports to Iraq and their possible impact on the Health Consequences of the Persian Gulf War", stated that prior to 1985 and afterwards, US companies had sent government-approved shipments of biological agents to Iraq. These included Bacillus anthracis, which produces anthrax, andEscherichia coli (E. coli). That Senate report concluded that: "The United States provided the Government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-systems programs, including ... chemical warfare agent production facility plant and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment."……

We still don't know - and with Saddam's execution we will probably never know - the extent of US credits to Iraq, which began in 1982…..

The whole truth died with Saddam Hussein in the Baghdad execution chamber yesterday. Many in Washington and London must have sighed with relief that the old man had been silenced for ever.

Happy New Year

In 2007 a new look for this blog, which is not read by too many people. The last count showed an average of 6 persons per day.

That's alright - it gives me a chance to express myself, particularly on politics, Iraq, etc. If you want to read a really good blog that will make you think and laugh, try Jon Swift.

Anyway - a Happy New Year to all 6 of you!

I hope you have a healthy, happy, fruitful and blessed 2007!

Sleeping again.

According to news reports, President Bush was sleeping when Saddam Hussein was executed.
Let's see:
6 AM in Iraq is 4 AM in Amstderdam
4 AM in Amsterdam is 10 PM in Washington.
Bush was not in Washington, but in Texas.
10 PM in Washington is 9 PM in Texas.
And Bush is sleeping.
A week or so ago there was a column in the paper here about the leaders of the "good old days" who slept very little. Churchill was reported to sleep as little as possible, but he always took a nap during the day. Especially during World War II Churchill could bring himself to get to bed early at all.
And now we are in a 'war aginst terrorism', in which our freedom hangs in the balance.
And our leader is already sleeping at 9PM.

The Innkeeper

by Frederick Buechner

“That was a long, long time ago,” said the Innkeeper, “and a long, long way away. But the memories of men are also long, and nobody has forgotten anything about my own sad, queer part in it all unless maybe they have forgotten the truth about it. But you can never blame people for forgetting the truth because it is, after all, such a subtle and evasive commodity. In fact, all that distinguishes a truth from a lie may finally be no more than just the flutter of an eyelid or the tone of a voice. If I were to say, ‘I BELIEVE!’ that would be a lie, but if I were to say, ‘I believe…’ that might be the truth. So I do not blame posterity for forgetting the subtleties and making me out to be the black villain of the piece – the heartless one who said, ‘No room! No room!’ I’ll even grant you that a kind of villainy may be part of the truth. But if you want to speak the whole truth, then you will have to call me a villain with a catch in your voice, at least a tremor, a hesitation maybe, with even the glitter of almost a tear in your eye. Because nothing is entirely black, you know. Not even the human heart.

“I speak to you as mean of the world,” said the Innkeeper. “Not as idealists but as realists. Do you know what it is like to run an inn – to run a business, a family, to run anything in this world for that matter, even your own life? It is like being lost in a forest of a million trees,” said the Innkeeper, “and each tree is a thing to be done. Is there fresh linen on all the beds? Did the children put on their coats before they went out? Has the letter been written, the book read? Is there money enough left in the bank? Today we have food in our bellies and clothes on our backs, but what can we do to make sure that we will have them still tomorrow? A million trees. A million things.

“Until finally we have eyes for nothing else, and whatever we see turns into a thing. The sparrow lying in the dust at your feet – just a thing to be kicked out of the way, not the mystery of death. The calling of children outside your window – just a distraction, an irrelevance, not life, not the wildest miracle of them all. That whispering in the air that comes sudden and soft from nowhere – only the wind, the wind…

“Of course I remember very well the evening they arrived. I was working on my accounts and looked up just in time to see the woman coming through the door. She walked in that slow, heavy-footed way that women have in their last months, as though they are walking in a dream or at the bottom of the sea. Her husband stood a little behind her – a tongue-tied, helpless kind of man, I though. I cannot remember either of them saying anything, although I suppose some words must have passed. But at least it was mostly silence. The clumsy silence of the poor. You know what I mean. It was clear enough what they wanted.

“The stars had come out. I remember the stars perfectly though I don’t know why I should, sitting inside as I was. And my wife’s cat jumped up onto the table where I was sitting. I had not stood up, of course. There was mainly just silence. Then it happened much in the way you have heard. I did not lie about there being no room left – there really was none – though perhaps if there had been a room, I might have lied. As much for their sakes as for the sake of the inn. Their kind would have felt more at home in a stable, that’s all, and I do not mean that unkindly either. God knows.

“Later that night, when the baby came, I was not there,” the Innkeeper said. “I was lost in the forest somewhere, the unenchanted forest of a million trees. Fifteen steps to the cellar, and watch out for your head going down. Firewood to the left. If the fire goes out, the heart freezes. Only the wind, the wind. I speak to you as men of the world. So when the baby came, I was not around, and I saw none of it. As for what I heard – just at that moment itself of birth when nobody turns into somebody – I do not rightly know what I heard.

“But this I do know. My own true love. All your life long, you wait for your own true love to come – we all of us do – our destiny, our joy, our heart’s desire. So how am I to say it, gentlemen? When he came, I missed him.

“Pray for me, brothers and sisters. Pray for the Innkeeper. Pray for me, and for us all, my own true love."

Mideast rules to live by

It would really be good if our government had some understanding of how things work in the Middle East. I know from my experience working in other cultrues how important it is to understand how the other person thinks, without passing judgement as to whether that is the correct way to think or not. The worlde is made up of different cultures, and we need to learn to work within that framework. We don´t have any choice. This article by Thomas Friedman is good along those lines.

For a long time, I let my hopes for a decent outcome in Iraq triumph over what I had learned reporting from Lebanon during its civil war. Those hopes vanished last summer. So, I’d like to offer President Bush my updated rules of Middle East reporting, which also apply to diplomacy, in hopes they’ll help him figure out what to do next in Iraq.

Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn’t count. In Washington, officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Mideast, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.

Rule 2: Any reporter or U.S. Army officer wanting to serve in Iraq should have to take a test, consisting of one question: “Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?” If you answer yes, you can’t go to Iraq. You can serve in Japan, Korea or Germany — not Iraq.

Rule 3: If you can’t explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don’t try to explain it at all — they won’t believe it.

Rule 4: In the Middle East, never take a concession, except out of the mouth of the person doing the conceding. If I had a dollar for every time someone agreed to recognize Israel on behalf of Yasir Arafat, I could paper my walls.

Rule 5: Never lead your story out of Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq with a cease-fire; it will always be over before the next morning’s paper.

Rule 6: In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates tend to just go away.

Rule 7: The most oft-used expression by moderate Arab pols is: “We were just about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have stood up, but now it’s too late. It’s all your fault for being so stupid.”

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas — like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war as we once did. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It’s the South vs. the South.

Rule 9: In Middle East tribal politics there is rarely a happy medium. When one side is weak, it will tell you, “I’m weak, how can I compromise?” And when it’s strong, it will tell you, “I’m strong, why should I compromise?”

Rule 10: Mideast civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is us. If we don’t want to play that role, Iraq’s civil war will end with A or B.

Rule 11: The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation. The Israeli-Arab conflict, for instance, is not just about borders. Israel’s mere existence is a daily humiliation to Muslims, who can’t understand how, if they have the superior religion, Israel can be so powerful. Al Jazeera’s editor, Ahmed Sheikh, said it best when he recently told the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche: “It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about seven million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West’s problem is that it does not understand this.”

Rule 12: Thus, the Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary.

Rule 13: Our first priority is democracy, but the Arabs’ first priority is “justice.” The oft-warring Arab tribes are all wounded souls, who really have been hurt by colonial powers, by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, by Arab kings and dictators, and, most of all, by each other in endless tribal wars. For Iraq’s long-abused Shiite majority, democracy is first and foremost a vehicle to get justice. Ditto the Kurds. For the minority Sunnis, democracy in Iraq is a vehicle of injustice. For us, democracy is all about protecting minority rights. For them, democracy is first about consolidating majority rights and getting justice.

Rule 14: The Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi had it right: “Great powers should never get involved in the politics of small tribes.”

Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can’t want it more than they do.

"This week a top general at the Pentagon said the War on Terror could take a 100 years to fight. President Bush was furious about the 100-year prediction and said, 'Stop setting a fixed timetable'" --Conan O'Brien

"They had the Iraqi Commission report and President Bush says he will not make a decision about getting us out of Iraq until 2007. He says he wants to give it some careful thought ... unlike getting us into Iraq." --David Letterman

"Did you know former President Garfield could write Latin with one hand and Greek with the other at the same time? That was Garfield. When President Bush heard about it, he said, 'We had a talking cat for president?'" --Jay Leno

Advice Squad

Changing with every wind

Here you have it again.

"Like most Americans, this administration wants to succeed in Iraq," the president said yesterday after 90 minutes of discussions and a briefing from Baghdad.

Before the elections, "most" Americans were accused of not wanting to win but wanting to lose, especially if they openly raised questions about the progress in Iraq.

If you figure that the Democrats won the election with a small majority, and they were the ones questioning Bushes' policies, and thus were accused of being unpatriotic and wanting to lose, this is quite a change of perspective.

Makes one long for the good old days of John Kerry.

Clinton in Holland

Yesterday Bill Clinton gave a speech in de Soestdijk Palace in Holland, the former home of Prince Bernhard and Queen Juliana.

His William J. Clinton Foundation is working together with the Dutch Postcode Lottery to fight AIDS, poverty and promote environmental responsibilty.

I know I had said I would put a short hold on bashing Bush while waiting for his response to the midterm elections, the TSG and other input into the Iraq war and situation. But the contrast between the speaking skills of these two men is so enormous I can't let it pass by.

I listened to the speech via the website of the Postcode Lottery. A few remarks:

Clinton has the innate ability to get a crowd eating out of the palm of his hand. I realize you can say it is fake, a put-on, that he is a charlatan. I don't think so. I do public speaking for a living, and I know what it takes to get a crowd sitting on the edge of it's chair. You don't do that day in and day out if you are a fake.

He is extremely articulate, makes very few grammatical mistakes, and knows exactly what words to give to what he wants to say. And it has been known for a long time that his mastery of facts and figures is superb.

Specific facts and stories are placed in the context of larger themes and developments. The listener knows, at the end of a speech, how to think and how to act. It is a real learning experience to listen to him.

After the speech was over, Clinton received a light bulb that is being developed in the Netherlands. It produces a certain amount of light using 75% less energy.

Clinton's off the cuff remark was (and he had just come back from a long trip to Asia): "When I saw a Buddhist monk meditating in Asia, I thought to myself that I also could use a little bit of enlightenment. I didn't know I would be getting it this soon."

The master.

You say it, then I won't have to

Watched the press conference with Blair and Bush today (live).

I was interested to see how Bush would act and what he would say after yesterday’s ISG report came out.

One thing stands out in the report – it is a plea for unity in the American government and people:

What we recommend in this report demands a tremendous amount of political will and
cooperation by the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government. It demands
skilful implementation. It demands unity of effort by government agencies. And its success
depends on the unity of the American people in a time of political polarization. Americans can
and must enjoy the right of robust debate within a democracy. Yet U.S. foreign policy is
doomed to failure—as is any course of action in Iraq—if it is not supported by a broad,
sustained consensus. The aim of our report is to move our country toward such a consensus.

I actually agree with Rush Limbaugh (3 times divorced, caught coming across the border recently with Viagra – what does he need that for with no wife? – and admitted drug addict) that the plea for consensus and bipartisanship seems to be the primary goal of the drafters of the report. I don’t agree with Limbaugh's usual rant and rave that it is because they want America to be defeated.

I was planning to give Bush a lot of slack and be easier on him than I have been in the hope that he would really start to change his language and perhaps even his thinking. The jury is still out on that, but today’s press conference was not encouraging.

I actually got the idea that he gladly lets the ISG and, today, Tony Blair, say the hard things that need to be said so he doesn’t have to say them. It seems that that was also the mission of Robert Gates yesterday in front of the Senate.

“You guys say the hard stuff, that gives me the chance to just agree with you without having to say it myself.”

He did today repeat his contention that we are in an ideological struggle. My question still remains: it seems obvious that you don’t fight an ideological struggle only with military means. What other means are we using to fight – and win – that struggle? I don’t sense any understanding of those issues on his part.

I still will give Bush a chance. I hope he gets on track, I really do.

But I do continue to be embarrassed by his (mis)use of the English language. And, honestly, sometimes it looked as if Tony Blair (an Englishman who takes great pride in the English language) was really suffering watching George speak.

A few direct quotes:

A report chaired by James Baker…..
We will support the democrat government of Mailiki…
I talk to families who die…
We must remove obstacles necessary to achieve the vision….

Lord, help us….(again - or keep doing it - or something)

Blowing the enemy's "mind"

Rumsfeld's memo

With the elections of November 2006 - and thus the need to politicize so much of its rhetoric - over, it is becoming more and more clear what a mess the Bush administration has made of the Iraq situation, and how much of the election rhetoric has been disingenuous and political in nature.

And now this has been made startlingly clear in the leaked Rumsfeld memo. I have read the memo and it is absolutely shocking, when you consider that it was written one day before the elections.

While - and perhaps even on the same day - Bush was shouting “stay the course!”, Rumsfeld was writing: In my view it is time for a major adjustment.

With Bush insisting “we are winning and we will win”, Rumsfeld was writing: clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough.

The Democrats were being accused of “cut and run”, and of therefore not wanting us to win in Iraq because they were suggesting withdrawal. Rumsfeld was writing: conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007 and begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start “taking our hand off the bicycle seat”), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country.

While Saddam Hussein was being sentenced to death, Rumsfeld proposed the following: provide money to key political and religious leaders (as Saddam Hussein did), to get them to help us get through this difficult period.

The cynicism of these statements is breathtaking in the light of almost 3000 U.S. soldiers dead: Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis. This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not “lose” (quotation marks are Rumsfeld's).

Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) — go minimalist.

And the final below-the belt-blow to his credibility, that of the Bush administration and the honor of those who suffered and died in Iraq is his “less attractive option”: Continue on the current path. Those who wanted to consider another course in Iraq were painted as unpatriotic, while the Secretary of Defense is calling "stay the course" a less attractive option.

It would, of course, be doubly cynical if the White House was using this memo and other "leaks" occuring now to prepare the ground for a change of rhetoric and stance. I remember when Bush declared that leaks would not be tolerated in his administration. Now he's not saying anything.

I saw John Kerry live on CNN’s Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. He was very articulate and knowledgeable. He could speak easily of the different factions vying for power in Iraq, and of the difference between Persians and Arabs.

I’ll bet 99% of the American public couldn’t follow what Kerry was saying, including George Bush.

You certainly never hear George Bush speaking with any kind of sophistication about these complex and extremely important matters. ("One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards.")

If I had to choose between which evil was worse, this mess in Iraq or getting a blow job in the Oval Office, the choice would be easy.