Mission Accomplished Three Years Later

The way the rightwing has rendered the press impotent is troubling enough, for sure, but now even this vehicle of free speech and information -- the internet -- is under similar assault. Ironically, it's the internet providers themselves who will hold the net hostage (for profit), and there's not much doubt the Republican Congress will let them since it would serve the rightwing's need to control the flow of information to do so. Go to info@freepress.net to read about it.

In response to gPope...

I can honestly say that if I hadn't found so many inconsistencies in between what the likes of CBS/CNN/NBC reported, I might still put some credit in what they say. And don't get me STARTED on the Washington Post. Any wonder why they cut about 80 newsroom jobs? I hardly can't go anywhere in the DC metro area without someone trying to GIVE these things away they are so desperate for readership.

Maybe if they'd print the truth, someone would buy their lousy paper. I refuse to stock it, or their little blurb they hand out on the Metro, as spare toilet paper.

And, I'd REALLY like to know what direction this Christian Alliance is trying to Progress towards, can someone tell me?

I'm all for progress, but what direction? Did anyone ever stop and ask that?

"but now even this vehicle of free speech and information -- the internet -- is under similar assault."

In what way?

Joker--take a look around--it's a headline story on TomPaine.com--I'd provide a link but they're ripped out on this site, so go to:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/28/democracy_20.php

So... what you're telling me is that you can't explain on your own how the internet is under assault? I'm not going to bother reading something that you're not even capable of putting into words on your own because there's no potential for any kind of debate between us if you can't even communicate your own ideas.

AbNo, if you'll go to the homepage of this site and look at the header, you'll find links that will tell you a great deal about our theology. It may be less dogmatic than what you may be used to, but that's because part of our philosophy is to be more inclusive than exclusive. The personal testimonies may be particularly enlightening.

I'll tell you that my own interest in this movement came with the invasion of Iraq at which time I discovered within my religious community an attitude of complacency toward that action at best. But, moreover, I found the disposition that no "real" Christian would oppose the action. I still practice the rites of my religion, but, if I am to have no voice in that community, then, I'll go where I do have a voice.

I don't want my children to have to live in a theocracy and I don't want the religious community I am raising them within to advocate for theocracy from the pulpit. So, for me, one of the most important goals of the Christian Left is to restore the separation of church and state in this nation -- not only for the sake of the state, but for the sake of the church as well.

So Gpope, you can't even tell me what direction you're "progressing" in? You're just going to follow blindly follow what a bunch of other people tell you, is that it? I asked YOU what direction you felt your group was progressing in, not for a link to a bunch of tired, worn out catch phrases.

From what I did read, your group seems to be trying to have it both ways, play finger-in-the-wind politics, whatever you may wish to call it. You're trying to be everything to everyone.

And as far as the war in Iraq, I thought Christians had a duty to free the poor and opressed, the meek, if you will.

I mean, maybe I just completely missed it, but I certainly don't remember any huge antiwar protests about ten years ago. Care to tell me why that is? Nobody had a problem with us being at war with Iraq until we started up again recently, now, it's a huge problem. What's the difference between now and then? Same country, same raping, murdering dictator. Or was it ok for Good men to do nothing in the 2000's? Yes, let us allow Evil to flourish over there, shall we?

As a side note, what is your opinion of the "Fairness Doctrine", which, I might add, was more or less dropped like a bad habit back in 1987, after its first incarnation?

Please don't be afraid to respond to any of this. It should be an interesting learning experience.

Looks like we freed them all right, Ab No.

What Progress do we want? Not new ethnic cleansing, but toward real justice, as the Bible directs us, and we have a long way to go.

Violence Uproots 100,000 Iraq Families

By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press WriterSat Apr 29, 6:43 PM ET

Sectarian violence has forced about 100,000 families across Iraq to flee their homes, a top Iraqi official said. At least 17 people, including an American soldier, were killed Saturday in fighting.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi, one of the country's two vice presidents, estimated on Friday that 100,000 Iraqi families — 90 percent of them his fellow Shiites — had fled their homes to escape attacks by rival religious sects.

Abdul-Mahdi's estimate was higher than any offered so far by Iraqi officials.

Dr. Salah Abdul-Razzaq, spokesman of a government body that runs Shiite religious institutions, put the number of displaced Shiite families at 13,750 nationwide, or about 90,000 people.

That includes 25,000 Shiites who have fled since the bombing of a Shiite mosque in Samarra on Feb. 22 triggered a wave of attacks on Sunni mosques and clerics.

The hardline Sunni clerical Association of Muslim Scholars said about 980 Sunni families, or about 5,000 people, have left five mixed areas of Baghdad in recent weeks and moved in with relatives in Sunni-dominated communities outside the capital.

However, the U.S. military insists that even the lower estimates appear exaggerated.

U.S. command spokesman Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch said this week that American troops investigate all reports of displaced people and have found no evidence of "widespread movement" away from religiously mixed areas.

Lynch said sectarian attacks in the Baghdad area had fallen by 60 percent last week and were approaching the levels before the Feb. 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, which triggered a wave of reprisal attacks against Sunnis.

Accurate counts are difficult because many people simply move in with relatives. Despite U.S. claims, it is clear that substantial numbers of people have relocated to areas where their communities form the majority.

About 400 Shiite families are in a camp near Khanaqin, a largely Kurdish town near the Iranian border. Most fled Baghdad with only what they could carry.

The Human Relief Organization, an Iraqi NGO, has provided the refugees with tents from the regional government and is talking with officials to get more help.

"We get some every day," said Omar Mansour, an official with the relief group. "I'm afraid the numbers will increase greatly when the school year ends and people feel freer to flee. All these families have letters with death threats. So they came here fearing for their lives, only to live in these harsh conditions."

One letter was signed by "The Mujahedeen Brigades" and addressed to "The Rejectionists" in Beiji, using a Sunni extremist term for Shiites.

"Leave our city now, because we don't want to have to kill you as Sunnis in their regions have been killed. Go. You have been warned. The (Shiite) dogs won't stop barking until their mouths are shut," it said.

U.S. officials are hoping a new national unity government can calm sectarian tensions as well as lure disaffected Sunni Arabs away from the insurgency. Prime Minister-designate Nouri al-Maliki has three more weeks to finalize his Cabinet — the final step in forming the unity government.

That is necessary before Washington can consider a substantial drawdown in the 130,000-strong U.S. military presence.

Two former Cabinet members have emerged as contenders to head the key defense and interior ministries, officials said Saturday.

Qassim Dawoud, an independent Shiite politician, was under consideration to head the Interior Ministry while Hajim al-Hassani, a Sunni Arab, was being discussed for the Defense Ministry post.

Both jobs are currently held by members of the same religious groups.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations, said the names of both candidates were raised with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Baghdad this week.

Rice raised no objections because both Iraqis are not affiliated with political parties that maintained armed militias, the Iraqi officials said. U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has insisted that the heads of those ministries have no ties to militias.

U.S. officials believe the key to a stable Iraq is to abolish sectarian militias and rid the army and police of their influence. Militiamen, including some who have infiltrated security forces, are believed responsible for the wave of tit-for tat killings by Shiite and Sunni militants that have raised sectarian tensions and threaten civil war.

The Iraqi officials emphasized that no decision had been made on the two key security posts and that other names were under discussion.

Dawoud served as minister of state for national security during the administration of former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. Al-Hassani, who lived for several years in Los Angeles, was industry minister under Allawi and speaker of the previous parliament.

Neither Dawoud nor al-Hassani has been tainted by accusations of corruption, but each carries considerable political baggage within his own religious community.

Followers of Muqtada al-Sadr have not forgiven Dawoud for his role in Allawi's government during fighting between U.S. troops and the radical Shiite cleric's Mahdi militia in 2004. Dawoud became the first Shiite figure to call publicly for replacing Ibrahim al-Jaafari as nominee for prime minister, which angered some Shiite politicians.

Al-Hassani broke with his own Iraqi Islamic Party in 2004 when he refused to resign from Allawi's government to protest the American assault on the Sunni insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

The 17 people killed Saturday included six men found dead in the Dora section of southwest Baghdad, police said. All were handcuffed, blindfolded and appeared to have been tortured, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.

The soldier's death in a bombing southwest of Baghdad brought the U.S. death toll for April to at least 70 — the highest monthly figure since November, when 84 Americans died.

AbNo, I have no idea what you're talking about with this "having it both ways" deal.

As far as Iraq, I find your logic lacking. If we as Christians have a responsibility to free the poor, forcibly with military action, our first action should have been to attack our own country, where poverty can be found where ever you look and the income gap is widening every day.

But then, freeing the Iraqi people didn't become justification for the war until after it became clear there were no WMD there. But are we going to invade other country's with dictators and free their people? Are we going to do anything to free Tibet, to stop the genocide in Darfur, to free the people of Burma? Nope. Because the war isn't about freeing the oppressed. Thats just a nice sound byte to tell the media.

Few protested the first Iraq war because the situation was completely different. Iraq had invaded Kuwait. We had clear goals, clear motivations, and a clear exit strategy. This time around, the administration has consistently lied to the people about why we're there, and we have no exit strategy. Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 are apples and oranges.

Janed, do you deny that as poor as the situation may be for Iraqis today, it's still many times better than it was under Hussein's Ba'athist regieme?

John G writes: "Few protested the first Iraq war because the situation was completely different. Iraq had invaded Kuwait. We had clear goals, clear motivations, and a clear exit strategy."

Can you not read or can you not subtract? Abno said "about ten years ago." Iraq wasn't invading Kuwait in 1996.

Well, then, Joker, maybe you should ask AbNo what war with Iraq he's talking about, since he's the one who said "about ten years ago."

AbNo, I did give you an answer. I gave you an honest account of what drew me to this movement. What's more, I did it without insulting or belittling you. What you are calling catch phrases are the honest accounts of others who've been bold enough to put their ideas here for anyone who visits this site to read. Catch phrases only occur when the independent consciences of individuals cease to matter. That's what I believe has happened with the Christian Right. I think they've supplanted spirituality with nationalism, and I don't believe that is what Christ would have us do. So, what I hope to achieve by my association with this movement really is no different from what I wanted to achieve before I found this movement: I want to please Christ. And I want every human being who isn't good enough for the Christian Right to know that he or she has a home among Christians nonetheless.

Gpope writes: "Well, then, Joker, maybe you should ask AbNo what war with Iraq he's talking about, since he's the one who said 'about ten years ago.'"

Why? I'm well aware of what he's reffering to. The funny thing is that I honestly think you aren't.

[referring]

What's amusing, gPope, is this comment, ::maybe you should ask AbNo what war with Iraq he's talking about, since he's the one who said "about ten years ago."::

What's funny is, only tweleve hours before you made this post, John g had stated, ::Iraq 1 and Iraq 2 are apples and oranges.::

So, how is it that John knows what is going on in the world, but you seem incapable, gPope?

Anyone care to guess who said this?

"[Hussein's] regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act."

Anyone? Please. Take a wild stab in the dark.

"Iraq 1" would be the Gulf War. That did not happen in 1996, AbNo. You aren't following the thread

Your quote is Pres. Clinton. So what?

So, you're telling me that we weren't at war at all with Iraq throughout most of the 90's, is that it?

I seem to remember differently. Then again, I suppose it is easy to completely forget things when they prove one wrong...

Oh, and "So what?"

Well, it seems to me that he always felt Hussein was a threat. Are you saying that he was wrong? Or maybe... a liar?