Blogcritics Author: Jude Nagurney Camwell

Harry Taylor is Running for Congress

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Wed, 7 Nov 2007 10:22:11 EST

Harry Taylor spoke up at a town hall meeting and now he wants to speak for his neighbors in Congress.
On October 31st, Harry Taylor announced that he was running as a Democrat for U.S. Congress, challenging incumbent U.S. Representative Sue Myrick who is currently in her seventh term representing North Carolina's 9th district and serves as deputy whip and is on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.Harry Taylor is the gentleman who surprised...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

John Edwards Visits Northern Uganda

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Sun, 8 Oct 2006 02:23:42 EDT

Former Senator and 2004 Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards of North Carolina recently returned from a trip to the African nation of Uganda. On the day of his scheduled return to the United States, he felt compelled to write a few paragraphs to his journal at the One America Committee about the things he'd witnessed during the days he'd spent in the war-torn nation. Senator Edwards took the trip to Uganda as part of an international delegation sponsored by the International Rescue Committee [IRC]. The IRC provides plenty of educational material about Uganda on their website, including the fact that "a longstanding civil war in Northern Uganda has shattered livelihoods, destroyed healthcare and schools and left a legacy of fear. Despite a recent truce, over 90% of the rural population remains crowded into 200 squalid and unhealthy refugee camps." IRC officials took Senator Edwards and his fellow delegates to IRC projects in the district of Kitgum, where nearly all the people now live in government camps. He was also taken outside the town of Lira, where some people displaced by the war have begun returning to their homes. The Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camp near the Kitgum district made a huge impression on Senator Edwards, leaving him with memories he says he'll never forget. There is a current humanitarian crisis and unimaginable suffering in the northern part of the country, of which too few American citizens are aware. Senator Edwards said, "The living conditions were awful -- open sewage, little water, malnourished children." He has said many children are living with high HIV/AIDS rates themselves while having to see their parents die of the same deadly disease, leaving them behind as orphans.The rebel army known as The Lord's Resistance Army [LRA] have abducted some 30,000 Ugandan boys and girls and forced them to serve as soldiers and/or sex slaves. They have robbed thousands more of their parents. During the protracted and vicious civil war in Uganda, they have forced innocent children to commit unspeakable atrocities -- sometimes even forcing them to kill their own siblings. There are some drawings by children who were forced to become soldiers available for viewing at the IRC website that will awaken the conscience of anyone who has a beloved child in their own lives. The assistance of the International Rescue Committee has been a ray of hope for many children in Northern Uganda. There is an autobiographical story written by a boy named Apollo at the IRC website. He's an orphan and a former abductee and child-soldier who has lost every single person and thing that has ever meant anything to him in this world. When it came time for something positive and hopeful to come his way [from the IRC], he had no one to congratulate him. As lonely as it seems, he made sure to take the time to congratulate himself for having received the opportunity. The IRC has done a great job in telling many stories like Apollo's. You can read more of them on the IRC's website.The following is an excerpt from Apollo's story: I got involved with the International Rescue Committee's ORACLE project after I returned from captivity in the bush in 2003. I had nobody to help me go back to school because my sister, who was paying my school fees, was killed the day I was abducted. The rebels used the new and young recruits to kill my sister. These were inexperienced children who used clubs to beat her ‘til death. So when I returned home I thought only of very bad things like hanging myself or joining the armed forces, since I had earlier bush experience. I received a letter from the IRC saying that I am most wanted in the IRC Kitgum office to fill out a form for education sponsorship. Since I am somebody who likes studies so much, I said to myself, "‘My God, congratulations! Congratulations!"Senator Edwards says the challenges and suffering in Northern Uganda will not end without a peace deal. He met with the President of Uganda while visiting the war-torn nation and said, "We talked about what we had seen, how important it is to have peace, and what we can do to help with both the peace process and all the suffering in northern Uganda."Uganda's President Museveni has, on numerous occasions, expressed his lack of faith in amnesty and peace talks with the LRA. He claims to have asked the Senator and the other U.S. political leaders to prevail upon the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo [DRC] to stop giving the LRA a safe haven in the Garamba jungles. The Ugandan president also claims to have asked Senator Edwards to lobby the United Nations Security Council to put Northern Uganda on the UN agenda if the LRA peace talks fail. This appears to be a position in line with the philosophy and desire of the IRC.Just after returning to the U.S., Senator Edwards accompanied his wife Elizabeth to New York City on a book tour for Mrs. Edwards' new national best selling book, Saving Graces. Senator Edwards briefly spoke to the audience and expressed his belief we should rally both our government and our donor community to make sure we’re supporting the peace process in every way we can -- as aggressively as we can. The United States cannot lead in the world simply by "being strong." We must have the moral authority to lead the world and to show that we are responsible to humanity. Governing over a chaos that we have helped to create, as we see in Iraq today, will not give our nation the moral authority or leadership that others will choose to follow. You can view a video of Senator Edwards' speech about his experiences in Uganda on YouTube.On a related note, the government of Uganda has very recently received 1.8 million treated mosquito nets worth $10.4 million in the initiative to fight malaria from the Global Fund. A partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector, and affected communities, the Global Fund represents an innovative approach to international health financing. Citizens living in Northern Uganda will be the ones who receive the majority of this benefit and will receive these nets completely free of charge.Uganda is one of the first countries to benefit from the $1.2 billion PMI (President's Malaria Initiative). Through USAID, new laboratory equipment was donated to the National Drug Authority in Uganda last week. Our country needs to do even more to show that we take responsibility for the world in which we play so powerful a part. Despite all the goodwill and generosity that exists among U.S. citizens, the amount of foreign assistance going from our government to the poor is still embarrassingly small. In his book Our Endangered Values - America's Moral Crisis, former President Jimmy Carter has pointed out that in 2002, President Bush announced a Millennium Challenge fund of $5 billion annually for development aid, but three years later (at the time the book was written) only $400,000 (less than one percent) had actually been distributed. The annual U.S. foreign aid budget for fighting malaria has been $90 million, but 95 percent of that money is being spent on consultants and less than 5 percent is being spent on mosquito nets, drugs, and insecticide spraying. There is no time to waste regarding our need to show the world a great example of moral leadership. We must actively demonstrate our nation's responsibility toward humanity now, because every wasted second means there will be more unnecessary and preventable deaths and abuses of innocent children in remote places to which the American media pays no attention.

Movie Review: Military Intelligence and You!

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Mon, 4 Sep 2006 00:32:58 EDT

At a time when we, citizens of the U.S., are still scratching our heads over former Secretary of State Colin Powell's pre-Iraq war intelligence presentation to the United Nations in 2003, all of which was wrong, wrong, wrong and for which he is embarrassed today, a new film strikes a rather heartsick humorous chord.Military Intelligence and You! is a unique satirical film that not only looks and feels like a World War Two-era training film, but is comprised of actual scenes from the era's propaganda/training films. It takes place during WWII at a place called Central Command where the daunting task of gathering and analyzing accurate military intelligence is dealt with on a minute-by-minute basis. There's a secret German military base somewhere out there whose fighters -- the evil Ghost Squadron -- is attacking U.S. bombers. It must be located and destroyed. The film parodies the importance of knowing what we're attacking before we attack it. Done completely in black and white to maintain an air of authenticity, it begins with a white-scripted message on a silent screen explaining that the film was declassified by the Freedom of Information act that was enacted on January 19, 2006. Indeed, these vintage sequences have gone unseen for over 50 years.Throughout the film, you see actors such as Ronald Reagan, William Holden, and Elisha Cook Jr. playing out their actual roles from black and white military films, their performances shedding new light on human intelligence failures with the help of Writer and Director Dale Kutzera's modern additions. Cook plays the guiding army pal to a small town rookie named Jimmy Ryan (Russell Arms), a soft-hearted young man who at first has a despairing and confused attitude about his place in the war, but eventually learns to be a proud killing machine for America. Holden plays Lt. Packard Cumming, an Army intelligence recon pilot. Scenes from the old films are blended seamlessly in both a physical and artistic sense, in that you never feel the scenes played by the modern actors are contrived or forced into their predecessors' scenes.There are five major characters at Central Command. Major Nick Reed is a hotshot military analyst determined to locate the hidden Nazi base in time for the 4th Amoured to attack. Lt. Monica Tasty is an ex-cigarette girl turned Central Command lieutenant whose current beau is Major Mitch Dunning, who is a conscientious and responsible Central Command major. General Jake Tasker, as we learn from the narrator, answers to "the man" himself - the leader of the free world - the Vice President of the United States. And Corporal Skip Andrews who is the radio operator at Central Command rounds out the main characters.In the beginning of the film, you hear the narrator (Clive Van Owen) say, in that typical 40s-era narrator's voice: "It is intelligence that distinguishes dangerous enemies from merely annoying foreigners." An amusing yarn of cultural detachment and deliberate estrangement from anyone that Americans might consider "foreign" is woven through the film along with a hyperbolic love of the Red, White, and Blue which was typical of the films of the era. There is a "big fat World War" going on. "The coalition of America (and company) is softly raining down bombs of liberty so our enemy can breathe the sulfur-scented air of freedom." There is no shortage of satirical wit in this film. The narrator says, at one point,There are no guarantees in Intelligence. In a perfect world we'd know everything about the enemy before we went into battle. More than that, we'd know how they think; what they feel. Maybe if we knew those things there'd be no need for us to fight at all. For if we could only strip away their language, culture, and religion, foreigners wouldn't be so foreign anymore. They'd be more like Canada - big friendly harmless Canada.According to the tongue-in-cheek narrator, the flow of intelligence becomes more uncertain as it races up the chain of command, from the "hot news" issued by mission commanders to mid-level managers who misfile them to regional coordinators who fail to appreciate their significance. After its debilitating trip up the ranks, the intelligence finally reaches Central Command, "the nerve center of our war on evil and the entire axis of generalities." After one mission, which has been woefully unsuccessful because of bad intelligence, a sarcastic Major Mitch Dunning (Mackenzie Astin) tells Major Nick Reed (Patrick Muldoon), "Try not to think of this as a humiliating failure." Dunning reminds Major Reed that we cannot attack based on hunches or second-hand gossip. The war-loving and all-around tough guy General Tasker (John Rixey Moore) is a Rumsfeld-type character who is all too often swayed by Major Reed's overconfidence in what turns out to be shaky or tragically insufficient intelligence. General Tasker gives "rush to war" its true meaning, and reminds us of recent sprints to war by the Bush Administration that would rival Jesse Owens in a 50-yard dash. After an embarrassing intelligence failure, he asks the rhetorical question, "What sort of nation would we be if we sent in troops just because something might be there? What we need is rock-solid roof." Major Reed desperately apologizes, "I'm sorry I couldn't manufacture any for you!"This deftly contrasts the stubborn and sometimes venomous defenses we've heard from the likes of our current Vice President and his band of neoconservative "yes-men" who publicly swear -- to this day -- that evil terrorists lunched in Prague, plotted with, and had connection to Saddam Hussein. All of this in the absence of credible evidence from any serious journalistic source and an actual recent acknowledgement of no connection made by the President himself. As unfortunate as the current real-life situation in Iraq is, the Bush Administration's reliance upon such extremely horrible intelligence in a rush to war in Iraq has provided a wonderful -- albeit unspoken -- backdrop to Mr. Kutzera's witty spoof.A love interest for Major Reed spices up the instruction film. She goes by the name of Lt. Monica Tasty (Elizabeth Bennett), currently the girlfriend of Major Dunning, who'd had a heated affair with Nick Reed before he changed and took on the cold, hard job as a Central Command Major. (Reed's self-description: "I'm am an empty hollow shell devoid of emotion.") Lt. Tasty had joined the Army when she'd begun to feel shopping wasn't quite enough to satisfy her prescribed patriotic duty to her country. Major Reed delivers an unforgettable line, "If we stop buying things, then ... well ... then I guess they really have won."Lt. Tasty is the little angel on Major Reed's shoulder he generally ignores while he lusts for her womanly form. She's a patriotic lady, as we can see in the conversation with Major Dunning when Lt. Tasty questions how anyone can hate Americans, the good guys. Major Dunning has a bit of patriotic myopia himself and has resigned himself to go against his own better nature; accepting, by rationalization, what he feels in his heart is wrong.Captain Jack Smith is an expert intelligence photography analyst who knows that any speculation on his part could lead the U.S. to attack a harmless target - "and we wouldn't want that, would we?" asks the narrator. A running gag in the film features Major Reed waxing poetic about the many ways war affects a man and just as he gets to the core of the emotional message, he is cut off by his radio operator Corporal Skip Andrews (Eric Jungmann) who breaks in to announce some major development. Major Reed expresses a bit of self-centered regret for having sacrificed the capability of being "warm and cuddly" because he's had to send soldiers to what all too often turns out to be their unfortunate deaths because of bad intelligence.In the spirit of films such as Zucker and Abrahams' Airplane! we see the "national threat level" go from Orange to Tangerine, from Tangerine to Butterscotch, and from Butterscotch to Autumn Harvest.References to torture abound in the film, showcased by scenes from an older training film that, for the sake of the current story, takes place at a German prison camp called Dulag Luft (aka "the place where Germans question you"). Major Van Behn and Captains Ruening and Gruenich cajole, torture, and steal information from American GIs. Showing GIs being tortured in their cells, the narrator says, "As German evildoers turn up the heat on American GIs, Americans never treat prisoners this way. Our torture chambers are always kept at a comfortable 72 degrees Fahrenheit." By the end of the film, we see something that generally only happens in the movies -- particularly in instructional and propaganda films of the 40s and 50s. Thanks to the effort and skill of Captain Jack Smith (the photo analyst), we get a perfect big fat world war win where the winner gets the girl and America is exalted for the hidebound giant that she is. I won't be a spoiler and tell you how it all happens, but a conversation toward the end of the film shows that it's only Lt. Monica Tasty at Central Command who seems to be at least partially immune to America-itis, regardless of the fact that we win or we lose our wars. You're left to wonder how she could be such a fool to have dumped sweet Major Dunning and fallen for this merely lucky 'hollow shell.' Some girls are just a sucker for a pretty face. From Tasty's final facetious love scene with Major Reed:REED: "If we can't go back to being myopic and self-centered, they really have won!"TASTY: "But maybe if we thought about the rest of the world every day, we wouldn't have to 'come to its rescue' every twenty years!"I think it's fairly obvious this relationship won't last beyond the physical; just as it's likely that intelligence will once again be cherry-picked or exaggerated to support a pre-conceived agenda.Come next war, I was left with a distinct impression we could expect the same mistakes would likely be made all over again. Although General Tasker proclaims "Maybe attacking a convenient target doesn't make us manly or decisive. Maybe waiting for real intelligence does," we still get a sense the hasty Major Reed and the callous General Tasker are nature-bound to make more of the same mistakes in future wars because of their innate nationalistic shortsightedness, their overall character, and the human fallibility factor in analyzing intelligence. One statement in this film bordered on the prophetic. The narrator says, "War only takes what we let go of." Coupled with a wry statement made earlier in the film, "Soldiers risk their lives defending the civil rights we've already given up to protect ourselves." You can sense the futility in trying to rationally reconcile or correlate the defense of freedom and democracy (especially in Iraq today) with the protection of civil liberties back home.Many will soon have an opportunity to see this film. Completed in July of 2006, the 80-minute, black and white production is now being submitted to festivals and seeking distribution. It has been accepted into the FAIF Festival (Foundation for the Advancement of Independent Films) in Los Angeles, and the Austin Film Festival in mid-October. A Pax Americana Pictures LLC production, the film was written and directed by Dale Kutzera. Greg Reeves, P. James Keitel, and Dale Kutzera produced the film photographed by Mark Parry and edited by Joseph Butler.

Federal Marriage Amendment: An Unwise Use of the U.S. Constitution

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Fri, 2 Jun 2006 16:51:15 EDT

I saw the oddest appeal on Town Hall.com today. The words stuck out like a sore thumb: “Marriage needs your help.” I asked myself, “Now, why would marriage need my help? I’m certainly no expert at saving marriages and if I tried to fix my neighbors’, they’d probably tell me to butt out and mind my own business.” “Marriage matters,” they say, and I can’t argue with that. Marriage is, in my opinion, a sacred institution. It’s a shame so many heterosexual couples don’t share the same fervor about their own unions -- at least 50% of their marriages crumble like last week’s crackers. Marriage is a privileged state to which committed people are admitted when they meet certain conditions, and it confers upon those individuals certain privileges and responsibilities. That said, the people at TownHall.com seem to think that, if we care about marriage, we’d best sign their petition to “save it.”I’ve listened to the voice of fundamentalist right-wing leader James Dobson of Focus on the Family saying, "Marriage is under vicious attack from the forces of hell itself." I've heard him give strong voice to his personal fear of Western civilization coming to an end. Who is going to cause all of this, you ask? The answer, according to Dr. Dobson, is "same-sex couples." (There is a brief MP3.) While I must respect Dr. Dobson's personal views based on his religious beliefs, I feel that he is a very irresponsible public leader, and I certainly do not agree with his extremist views. There are many voices coming from many individuals, each coming to the table with their own set of personal values opining on the topic of “marriage.” There is no one person or religious representative with the “right moral answer.” A diverse group of clergy and religious leaders met on Capitol Hill last week to speak against passage of the so-called “Federal Marriage Amendment”. Dr. Kenneth L. Samuel was present, and he said: If we want to protect marriage the answer is not in discriminating against a class of people. The answer is in putting our energy, our resources, and our effort at ensuring a decent public education for all citizens, decent health care for all citizens, and economic opportunities for all citizens. To discriminate against a class of people is wrong because a threat to justice anywhere is still a threat to justice everywhere.”Columnist David Waters of Scripps Howard News Service states that he believes that marriage between a man and a woman is not under attack by homosexuality, but instead by heterosexuals. He also comments on the timing of the proposal for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to specify that the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. We're pouring hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention thousands of troops, into the quicksand that is Iraq.Millions of Americans are uninsured or underinsured. Millions more can't afford the health care they need.Gas prices are hurting every level of government, every business, and every individual except the oil barons (in and out of the White House).The government can't seem to stop spying on us or lying to us.Our borders are about as secure as a screen door in New Orleans. Mother Nature is getting hotter and testier with every passing storm. We've got big problems. So, naturally, some of our political and religious leaders have something more important on their minds: Gay marriage. Must be an election year.We must ask ourselves: “Is this amendment really a pressing and dire necessity?” With all of the many pressing problems of a dangerous and wanting world, we see a hyper-focus on “saving” marriage by Republicans today, some of them have not been adept at “saving” their own personal unions. I’d wager that most Americans trust that Western civilization isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I believe the GOP is looking to pander to the fundamentalist right, and we know that the fundamentalist right is obsessed with the emotional issue of homosexuality. They use the issue to keep high emotion at the forefront of the national debate about "moral values." For the overwhelming majority of Americans, the issue becomes a dividing wedge that blurs and delays an honest debate about our wide array of common values. We need honest debate now more than ever.The last two suggestions made by Mr. Waters in his op-ed would make sense in today's America. (His first four suggestions, in my opinion, are highly debatable.) Stop obsessing about the specks in the eyes of gay people who want to get married.First deal with the planks in the eyes of child-bearing straight people who don't.The majority of Americans today accept the reality of same-sex relationships without condemning or ridiculing the people who choose that lifestyle. When religious fundamentalist leaders demagogue the issue of homosexuality, it often results in a narrow public debate about “moral values.” If this narrow debate translates to a political consensus restricting the civil rights of an entire class of Americans, the political acceptance of this public denigration encourages further discrimination against gays and lesbians in our country. The feeling of just how wrong that seems is palpable in terms of the civil injustice brought about by such a narrow debate on the values that the majority of Americans share in our society. It's undemocratic.I don’t think the debate about the definition of marriage should be turned into a food-fight where the worst of heterosexuality is compared to the worst of homosexuality. Instead, I believe that we should all call upon our government to define and protect civil rights for all citizens, including those of civil unions. It should be left to American church congregations in each state to define marriage, not the religious right or the U.S. Constitution.Calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution on the definition of marriage will increase the likelihood that a significant number of American citizens will experience an increase in discrimination for years to come. The message that the U.S. Constitution is up for discriminatory “grabs” by any political party that temporarily enjoys majority status sends the wrong message. It sends the sprit of America's rich legacy of freedom reeling backwards. Discrimination and injustice should never be the result of a proposal for any amendment to our U.S. Constitution. It's not a play-document to be used by political panderers at will. It is sacred to the heart of American freedom, justice, and democracy. I believe that the current amendment, as proposed by public leaders who I view as no more than divisive panderers, is an unacceptable political treatment of the question of civil rights, and we should not stand by silently while Republicans tinker with our sacred Constitution in order to rally quick and cheap conservative support for the November elections.I'm going to tell my representatives how I feel today. I hope you will examine your own conscience and do the same.

The "Mako Generation": Iraq's Young People Lose Hope

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Fri, 12 May 2006 23:49:30 EDT

In America, we have names for each generation of young people, such as "Generation Y" and the "New Silent Generation." A story from Kurdish Media speaks of today's "Mako Generation" in Iraq. The word "mako" refers to something that is missing, and "mako" in Iraq are essential things such as electricity, clean water, fuel, services they depend on, security, opportunity, trust, a state, and a government. Iraq's teachers say that their students honestly believe that they see "mako benefit from studying." It is saddest to know that Iraq's young generation is "mako hope."The following are quotes from young Iraqis from the Kurdish Media article:"I own a computer at home and am subscribed to the internet. But if there is no phone line and mako electricity, how am I meant to get connected to the internet?""We play at war and fighting. We sleep to the sounds of explosions and wake up to them. We have grown up with fighting, from the Iran-Iraq war, the liberation of Kuwait and the recent war.""Our future is unknown. My sister and brother completed their university education. She is a pharmacist and he is an engineer but they are unemployed. Will the situation improve? How and when? Our situation is worsening. Saddam is gone and in his place there are a hundred Saddams now!""We own two computers at home and are subscribed to the internet and an electric generator. However, mako fuel for the generator and we only receive an hour of electricity during the day and one at night. Our generation suffers from gloom and despair. We can't walk in the street or in the markets because we face the danger of being kidnapped or killed. I can't visit my girl friends or practice any hobby. Our only pastime is to keep an eye on the electricity....we turn off the generator, turn on the fridge and washing machine... the electricity is cut off and we turn the generator on again. This is our life.""I stopped going to school because it became dangerous. We now watch satellite channels when the electricity is available. Tell me, what sort of life is this? My uncle's family was lucky and emigrated to Canada. My cousin tells me about her life there. It seems extraordinary to me. Is this the paradise the US and the new governments promised us? Is this the democracy they promised?""We want a dictator to rule us on condition he provides us with security, services and a future. I don't care about this imaginary promises and democracy as long as problems are killing our youth.""I come here to visit sites where I can see the latest models of Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, and Austin Martin and others. Of course, I don't even think about buying one but I wish I could drive one... perhaps one day I will become rich or my father will be appointed to the cabinet and can [embezzle] lots of money... as it is alleged the majority of government ministers are doing."When we think of the kind of war in which America is engaged, and we see how it is affecting the real lives of a whole generation of Iraqi citizens, it's easy to empathize with their despair. They feel disconnected from the world; all they've known is war; they look toward the future and see no opportunity; they see hundreds of Saddams where only one monster once stood; they are afraid to leave their homes; rather than having time to visit friends, their time is spent on ensuring the milk won't spoil; the promise of democracy seems so far away to them that some express a desire to go back to the way things were before America's pre-emptive attack; some of them aspire to get rich quickly by emulating their leaders' criminal tendency to embezzle government funds.Many Americans are torn about our presence in Iraq, and most want to see it ended. There are statistical indications showing that the war in Iraq is more unpopular with Americans than was the Vietnam conflict at this stage. Bloomberg News' Heidi Przybyla points to the politically disturbing contrast of 57% of Americans who currently believe sending troops to Iraq was a mistake to 48% of Americans who disagreed with the Vietnam war in 1968, even though more than ten times the number of troops had been killed within the first three years of the Viet Nam war. Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi of Iran recently spoke in the U.S. and said there were lessons America should have learned from Iraq and that if this world is, indeed, a global village, that George W. Bush cannot expect to be "the only sheriff of that village." We can see that we are at a point in Iraq where nothing will improve for the lives of their young generation until America abandons a unilateral war footing within their nation. Imagine being in your home after nightfall and armed strangers burst into your home, forcing you and your elderly mother into a corner at gunpoint. The war that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld assured the President could be fought cheaply and fast while ignoring the recommendation of General Shinseki and other top military officers has proven to be more of a destabilizing force in the Middle East than a new beginning for freedom. The Generals are already talking about drawing down a limited number of troops at a time when there is not only no appreciable change, but even a deterioration of a stable Iraqi society. Look back and ask yourselves what we have accomplished with this mission? Before tackling and roping Saddam Hussein like hasty cowboys, we could have worked with the international community to confirm that there were no WMD and if need be, to have acted as a unified multilateral force to remove him from power, thus ensuring that peacekeeping forces from around the world could have provided the adequate level of security to allow NGOs to do their part in bringing education, relief, and democratic support to the young people of Iraq. We didn't do that, and now we have what we have - a disaster for which Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks did not responsibly plan. The writer Zelda Fitzgerald said that, "by the time a person has achieved years adequate for choosing a direction, the die is cast and the moment has long since passed which determined the future." This war against terror is a war of ideas. We are not convincing young Iraqis to hold onto their hopes for the kind of society in which they care to live, and time is not on our side. We must not allow the die to be cast for a hopeless future. This moment must not pass without a change if we want our children to someday look back in history and see that peace and stability were achieved in the Middle East before the scourge of nuclear war brought the world to its knees.The war-weary "Mako Generation" in Iraq had hoped America would fulfill its promise to them just as Americans had hoped that their President and his administration would not mislead them in order to garner their support for the war. I am not happy to know that the young people of Iraq have lost so much hope and that they struggle with worsening civil and security conditions our nation has played a major part in creating. As an American citizen, I would be utterly ashamed if my nation did not recognize where we have gone so very wrong and strive immediately to create conditions for peace and stability within Iraq. It will take a major change in our foreign policy focus. A sudden change doesn't have to end capitalism as we know it or send the markets reeling, as some market fundamentalists might irrationally fear. American investors who have sheer financial interest in the continuation of our morally-wrong "same-old" course in Iraq today should throw off their avariciousness in support of new and creative ways to make an honest dollar while supporting America's reclaiming of its reputation as an honest, trustworthy, supportive, and cooperative partner in the international community. Our entire nation would benefit, especially when wasted tax dollar that go toward unnecessary war would be filtered back to our own domestic needs. When Democrats worry about false pressure to become "tougher" on national security, what they should really consider, for the good of our nation and all nations, is a "wiser" national security. In a new globalized society living in a nuclear age, "Wise" is "The New Tough". Let's get wise and end this war as we've known it and move toward a course that will work. The "Mako Generation" is depending upon it and so are the "Gen Yers" of our own nation who we hope will someday be cooperative partners in peace with these young Iraqis.

Cheney Approves Immoral Budget

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:05:37 EST

"House Republicans are home now decrying the "War on Christmas," their houses festooned with lights and pretty red bows. It's hard not to wonder if their Christmas spirit is blunted at all by the big lump of coal they recently gave America's poor and working families. Republicans have wished the nation's least privileged citizens a "Merry Christmas" by whacking our already anemic social safety net system."- Karen Dolan, Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies [TomPaine.com - Tiny Tim v. Scrooge] ______________________Cheney Breaks Tie to Pass Spending Cuts "Bah Humbug!"_____________________ Jim Wallis in Washington D.C. "Our basic moral principles tell us that caring for the vulnerable should be our first order of business before we provide more to the wealthiest."- Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojo.netSenate Roll Call Vote on Deficit Cut No Democrats voted "YES".Kudos to Republicans who voted their moral conscience: Lincoln Chafee, R.I.; Susan Collins, Maine; Mike DeWine, Ohio; Gordon Smith, Ore.; Olympia Snowe, Maine, along with one Independent: Jim Jeffords, Vt.The truth from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites: Assessing the Effects of the Budget Conference Agreement on Low-Income Families and Individuals LATimes.com: Spending Cuts Would Barely Trim Deficit With Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) slamming the package as "a bill Scrooge would love," all 44 Democrats and one independent were expected to [and did] oppose it......Much of the criticism of the measure came from groups speaking for the poor, the elderly and college students."The provisions ... would cause considerable hardship among low-income families and people who are elderly or have disabilities," said the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.Medicaid recipients, particularly those just above the poverty line, would have to pay more for their healthcare or accept fewer medical services. Some could be forced to pay as much as $100 for services that now cost $3, the center said.For elderly and disabled Medicare recipients, the premium that covers visits to the doctor would be increased. Heckuva job, Dick 'n Dubya.The American public shares the blame for this immoral budget. Our political leaders talk a good talk about allevating the conditions that lead to poverty, but after election day, we see little action. Poverty increases in our communities by the year. Pro-rich policies are passed by the Republican party, who have been elected by a majority of Americans who attend church services on a regular basis. How does that make sense? Was Jesus pro-rich? Is God pro-rich?We hear a lot of empty talk about values - but what about the values being represented by this clearly immoral budget? Where are Americans of faith in this debate? There is virtually no discussion or debate in the public square about the moral values that would guide our Representatives to reconcile public policy with social justice. What good are values when we toss them aside?- In the middle class churches today, what is being touted as good, noble, and lofty? Why are the poor so often blamed for their own poverty? - Is the middle class so removed, both literally and figuratively, from the urban and rural poor that they have forgotten the importance of God's calling to serve the poor?- We may never realize the full alleviation of poverty, but does that spiritually excuse us from trying to address such problems? - Why are there literally thousands of references to poverty and/or serving the poor throughout the Bible, yet the Christian Right supports the policies of George W. Bush and his 'rubber-stamp Republicans?' - What about man's propensity for social injustice, selfishness, greed, and prejudice? Why isn't the Church talking about committing to economic justice and reconciliation in our congregations and communities?These are questions we need to ask ourselves - especially as the Holiday season is upon us. "Peace on earth - good will to men?" Not with this budget._____________ Note: The budget reconciliation measure must now return to the House after the Senate failed to overturn a Democratic point of order against the bill that makes a minor change to the legislation. After the House and Senate each pass a version of the reconciliation bill, members from each chamber will meet in a conference committee to produce a final bill. After both chambers approve this final version, it will be sent to the president for his signature.

Change the Course in Iraq

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:47:22 EST

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."- Martin Luther King photo credit: mathsong.comIMAGINE!President Bush Stuns the World - Announces An End to the Occupation of Iraq and a New World Organization for the Benefit of Civility in Iraq and Beyond...The public trust is all but gone. Our military is stretched and broken and can not take anymore without having to resort to a draft, because on the US's present course, over the next five years it will take to see Iraq through its bitter civil war, there will be a need for at least 400,000 American soldiers and marines in theater. President Bush decides to make a serious move to change the course of future events in Iraq - for the sake of morality, for the sake of a strong military, for stability of the Middle East, for US national security. He finally understands that his country needs to regain international respect and to seek sincerely the cooperation of all nations to end terror and to do the work of solving the complicated root causes of terrorism. (The kind of cooperation where you don't have to pay off the participants). Getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing in principle, and Bush knows he'll always have that piece of history to his benefit - but in Iraq today, as things stand, Bush has come to understand that he needs an immediate, strategic change of direction. Things are going terribly sour. Until he makes that basic change, Bush knows that the nation will pay a higher and higher price over a long time - until the ultimate train wreck occurs... when we are eventually forced to withdraw troops anyhow, but without a plan for stability in civil-war-torn Iraq.Bush will get the world's attention by proclaiming that Iraq will be demilitarized. This will require great humility on Bush's part, a virtual turning of the other cheek. Bush will redirect the correct level of American devotion and commitment to Iraq and he will call upon world leaders to join him in a unified international front against anyone who would employ terrorism against innocent civilians for political reasons.Bush realizes that he has been seen, by many in the world and in his own nation, as a leader who has sent his troops to Iraq for divisive political reasons, and that many innocent Iraqi civilians have unjustly suffered because of the many strategic errors on the part of a Bush-led US. He begins to convince the public that he "means business" by firing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and replacing him with _______ (imagine). Bush publicly rebukes and fires anyone in his office and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office who smeared Joseph Wilson and outed his CIA-agent wife Valerie Plame Wilson. Bush convinces the public that he believes that playing dirty politics by playing fast and loose with the identity of a CIA official is as close to being a traitor as one can get. The Pentagon's Office of Special Planning would be cleaned out - any of the neoconservative wonks still on the Washington payroll (the ones who haven't been indicted or promoted to UN or World Bank positions) are tossed out on their ears. Scott McClellan is either given leeway to actually talk to reporters instead of being a clammed-up automaton that no one trusts - or he is simply replaced because it's too late for anyone to believe him (thanks to the administration who sent him out to cover up their rot for too long).The End of a Too-Long-Wrong OccupationA new day begins. After putting diplomacy to work in a sincere and convincing manner, Bush, with humility, announces that, while al Qaeda is dangerous and while he still believes that they must be met by force, a war on a technique called "terror" - fought the one-party way we've been fighting it in Iraq - has backfired. Not only is the US left with a new Iraq where an ever-increasing league of terrorists are emboldened by their occupation, but a dangerous low-grade civil war is taking place while our troops are left to protect Sunnis from massacre by Shiites - while the US is also protecting Shiites from Sunnis; while the US is also supporting the Western ideas of the Kurds (who will likely soon completely lose interest - and faith - in a unified Iraq with a strong central government). The US simply can not appear consistent in its defense of the Iraqi people because the "Iraqi people" have not decided who they are or what they want - and to make that determination, they probably will have to fight it out between them. There has been a common demand by the Shia leaders and the Kurds - as well as Sunnis - for a timetable for withdrawal of US occupation forces, which has discredited the Bush Administration's argument that setting such timetables would be a disastrous mistake. There is simply no "there" there. Iraq's guerrilla insurgency says far more (and says it far more forcefully) than any Iraqi election could say. The US is defending everyone - and fighting some of the same people they purport to defend - for no clear goal, while theocrats set a new Constitution to water down and dismantle women's rights and militias roam a land of unbridled anarchy.President Bush tells us that he realizes that the US occupation must end now, and he insists that Iraq must be policed by its own citizens here and now. But the Iraqis will not be able to do it alone - not today - not six months from now - probably not even six years from now. Iraqis will still need help, but the US can't shoulder that burden alone - and the strategic course must change drastically without doing further harm to the security of Iraq's civilian population and infrastructure. We look back on what we've done and see the immoral ramifications. It's heartbreaking - and it's been ineffective. Too many dead civilians, too many orphans, too many towns destroyed, too many lives ruined and disrupted, no possibility (because of the lack of security) for nongovernmental organizations to do the real work of rebuilding lives or supporting the building of a new democracy.A New World Organization and A New Global Institute For Anti-Terrorism - Police vs. Militarization This must be an international policing effort with multilateral authorization - based on international law. Terrorist movements and finances must be monitored and their ranks must be infiltrated. These thugs must never be allowed to get their hands on nuclear weapons. The governments of Middle Eastern countries must become convinced that it is in their best interests to eliminate the threat of terror in their own countries and to join the international effort. Bush admits that the US can't police Iraq on a unilateral basis and that the military occupation is no longer effective. Rather than pulling out American troops and continuing a US-led air war with errant bombings that kill thousands more innocent Iraqi civilians, he announces a new global alliance against terrorist groups. This new organization will be led by the US and it will be called the World Anti-Terrorism Organization (WATO). A new think-tank for the global effort to end terror will also be established, with the best diplomatic and academic minds working on real solutions, in conjunction with the United Nations, to support democracy while attacking the complicated root causes of terror - such as human rights, world hunger, the lack of education, and disease. It will be called GIFT - Global Institute for the Freedom from Terrorism.Islamic Fundamentalists Join the DebateThe regimes of Syria and Iran, which have caused many problems for citizens within their respective nations who desire a more free and democratic society, would be far more intimidated by a Middle East that was prepared to act, with allied affirmation against those who employ the tactics of terror, in a multilateral effort to protect innocent civilians in Iraq as they work toward building a society they have not yet had a chance to experience. There are many Islamic fundamentalists who do not share the terrorists' commitment to violence. They could be the most important and instrumental group in putting down terrorism and dissuading those who would join the ranks of the terrorists. Iranian and Syrian citizens do not like the tactics of Al Qaeda anymore than any civil human being likes them. The world, acting as one, could be a light to these citizens and much more of a threat to totalitarian theocratic regimes. Bush will decide to pull back American-led forces in the areas close to the Syrian border, because it is doing nothing but fueling the insurgency in Iraq. Iraq will be unable to function normally until the insurgency is brought under control and history has shown that a conventional military power will never defeat a guerrilla force without the support of its indigenous people. That is where the international focus must be.Having made an unfortunate mess of the training (and the speed of training) of the Iraqi security forces up to this juncture, priority could be put on training more and more Iraqi forces - and many WATO nations could host and participate in this effort, with the US in the lead. An immediate and clear plan for training Iraq's troops, along with definite timetables for certain benchmarks to be met will be required. When President Bush contemplates the difference between what the US troops leaving "precipitously" vs. what leaving "responsibly" means, he sees that every moral person understands that you don't just pick up stakes and leave the country, but the time has come to plan a withdrawal with a responsible plan for the international police effort. If a battle was ever worth fighting, or if a a war was ever worth winning, the American people have always known what they have to do, and they've done it boldly, decisively, with courage and ferocity. We would do it in Iraq, if it was truly an American war, an American value, or an American interest. The battle is not - and has never been for America alone, and Bush finally realizes that we never should have taken it on as such - especially when bad intelligence was politically manipulated to fit the policy in order to gain the American public's trust - and fear was used to mold public opinion. Bush finally sees that it is in the world's best interest that terrorism is put down and its root causes are addressed - and most importantly, this big idea transcends all partisan politics.Europe Throws Schadenfreude AsideEuropeans will come the conclusion that they can no longer sit on the sidelines - regardless of how much they might wish to tell President Bush "We told you so, you impulsive imperialist bastard." The security failure in Iraq has created the immediate danger of destabilization which is affecting the European street and the European economy. Seeing the pain and struggle for the peace in Iraq and the hard work of establishing a new government, Europeans will find compassion and purpose (both economic and moral) in joining WATO. After the terror attacks on the tube and buses in London on 7-7-05, Tony Blair has changed his mind about his steadfast political support of Bush's unilateral cause. Jacques Chirac was reawakened last month to the inequities in France's own egalitarian society when Muslims staged violent and widespread local uprisings. Spain recalls the terror of 3-13-04, and the Spanish people have since elected new leadership who has been waiting for Bush to reach out to them with a multilateral plan that the people of their nation would accept - perhaps even embrace. Innocent people are tired of being used as the pawns in the power struggle.WATO ForcesTo this day, Iraq, a nation of 26 million people, still has no functioning judicial system or effective police force. European countries will make a commitment by establishing new WATO forces (taken from their respective militaries or civil police forces on a volunteer basis) and having them ready for international policing/security missions in about 10 weeks, with the assistance and training of knowledgeable and experienced US military generals, military-police trainers, and civil police trainers. They will then train as units, which could take at least another four to six months. Together, WATO forces will conduct a coordinated counter-insurgency effort alongside the Iraqi military police, who also need more training. The United Nations will eventually find a reasonable assurance that there will be security so it can move in again and begin to do the good works of humanity for the war orphans and displaced families in Iraq. The UN will also provide additional support for the burgeoning democracy and new government in Iraq, making efforts to ensure the rights of women and protect other human rights, even under a government that embraces some unavoidable theocratic elements based upon the unique culture and society of Iraq.The American Public Begins to See Some LightThe public will begin to forgive President Bush for his many mistakes in Iraq, knowing that he made up for those errors by turning the effort around to find success by what was the simplest thing he ever could have done - finding humility within his soul. The kind of humility that caused him to think about his people - even though he does not govern by the polls. His people are the ones who have depended upon him to be trustworthy and honest with them. The people are the ones who gave birth to the young men and women who fight and die for President Bush's vision of national security. The fight in Iraq is being done in the people's name, with President Bush as their leader. To know that the people are starting to believe - genuinely believe - that he sent the troops to Iraq based upon falsehoods and errors has made Mr. Bush heartsick. Humility was all it had ever taken to change many hearts - the hearts of his own people and the hearts of the most powerful leaders around the world who have understood, for a long time, that the tactics of terror that have been used for many decades in Europe and the Middle East have been increasing on their own respective countries' streets - and since 9/11 and the pre-emptive war in Iraq (mistake or not), terror-recruitment and copycat acts of terror have reached unacceptable levels. Humility Has Great PowerHumility will call all world leaders to have a change of heart. Terror has not occurred and grown in a vacuum. The powerful must understand that one can't put down terror on one end, with superpower and forceful might, while letting social tensions build on the other end - ignoring poverty, human-rights issues, and the valid civil arguments that the powerless bring to powerful leaders. The work of real peace, prosperity, and security will be harder than any war could ever be. Diplomacy is conducted by the wisest people who understand that the cycle of war between groups of people who are different from one another will divide them for all time, ensuring endless wars to come.Once this plan is accomplished successfully, the Republican Party might be assured electoral victories for many Novembers yet to come. The world would be a better and safer place - and the people of the United States, seeing their common values represented at last, could feel they were united on the issue. They would respect that President Bush remembered the importance of humility and love for our brothers and sisters, even in the face of hate, terror, and contempt. Christian Americans, especially those Christians who believe that devoted public service to the state is not the same as one's quiet individual service to God, think about Jesus' radical command to turn the other cheek, his rejection of the old law of "an eye for an eye." By the devil's own misleading, Jesus was told up on that wilderness mountaintop about promises of peace and of wealth, and of visions of control of earthly matters. He rejected that message. America was never meant to do this thing alone, and it shouldn't have ever been any wonder that somewhere along the way, the people lost faith in President Bush's promises that he would be able to erase their vulnerability to danger by removing Saddam Hussein and occupying Iraq unilaterally. Bush needs to prove that we are not continuing to try to transition from a 229-year-old Republic to a new American Empire, or we will ultimately fail - and destabilize the Middle East in the process. _______________________ This was a fantasy, of course. A workable fantasy. If President Bush can not do this now, because time is wasting, he should get our troops the hell out of Iraq - pronto. ___________________ Jude is the blogger known as Iddybud

John Edwards on Iraq Vote: I was wrong.

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 04:46:55 EST

"I was wrong....It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake."In today's Washington Post, Senator John Edwards is telling you that if he knew then what we all know now about the deeply flawed and politically manipulated intelligence, he never would have voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002.It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price. The world desperately needs moral leadership from America, and the foundation for moral leadership is telling the truth.This could never have been easy for Senator Edwards to admit. Most political leaders in Washington still won't admit what we all can see - that they were mistaken. I admire Senator Edwards' honesty and humility. He's a man of outstanding moral character. It isn't the first time he's publically communicated his regret, and it may not be the last. It isn't so much the regret that we should focus upon - instead it is the ideas for bringing our troops home with full honor intact and with something we can all identify as "success" brought to Iraq that should be in focus. I'd like all of my readers to put themselves in the position of being a responsible leader. All of you who've been calling for the troops to be sent home - what would you honestly do if you suddenly came to power? I've heard a lot of cocky answers on both sides of the political fence, but when I look reality straight in its face, the political leader who is speaking directly to my heart and mind is Senator Edwards.The urgent question isn't how we got here but what we do now. We have to give our troops a way to end their mission honorably. That means leaving behind a success, not a failure.Senator Edwards gives us a plan for success in Iraq, focusing on three interlocking objectives:1. Reducing the American presence. (We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals.)2. Building Iraq's capacity. (A more effective training program for Iraqi forces, implementing a clear plan for training and hard deadlines for certain benchmarks to be met.)3. Getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help. (To create a unified international front.)He honors the families who have lost their loved ones in this war by promising to implement clear plans for a definitive success, while removing the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq - even if that means asking American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave the country and hand the work over to Iraqi businesses.More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.I'm proud of Senator Edwards for sending this message to the people of America - to Washington D.C. - and to the world. Integrity, honesty, courage, humility, and truth are values that are largely missing in Washington D.C. today. Clear ideas born of ethics are even more of a rarity. Is it any wonder that our vision has been lost? The vision has been emptied of all the values that give meaning and moral force to it. I believe that Senator Edwards can bring the vision back and make it work.Related:Think Progress One America Oliver Willis Atrios David Sirota AmericaBlog Editor and PublisherJude is the blogger known as Iddybud

God's Politics featured at One America Book Club

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:06:26 EDT

For the next six weeks or so, I'll be helping to facilitate a discussion about the motivational and inspiring book God's Politics by Jim Wallis at the One America website. I'm honored to join with Senator Edwards, Mrs. Edwards, and Jim Wallis in leading the Book Club discussion. I encourage all of you to read the book and to join the discussion. God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat. Faith and politics, in the past, have been two issues that are individually volatile and rarely discussed in a combined or holistic way. (My silly rule of thumb: If you can't discuss 'em at the dinner table without the mashed potatoes being thrown at you, they're volatile.) Denying that we are faithful people when making public policy is, in reality, a very unhealthy denial of our humanity and our values. Because of this book, I'm encouraged to be fearless in my quests for both asking for social change and pursuing national policy consistent with our traditional and common spiritual values. Politics and spirituality do not have to be at odds with one another. It is not necessary that the two should be separated, polarized, or put into competition with one another. Most people who participate in public polls agree that this nation is headed in the wrong direction. We need a new vision. Our faith can play an important role in asking for social change. Visit the One America Book Club today.Jude is the blogger known as Iddybud Edited: PC

Bush Speech on War on Terror

Jude Nagurney Camwell — Thu, 6 Oct 2005 11:36:47 EDT

So Now We're Back to "It's A Global Campaign"It's back to "It's a Global Campaign," yet President Bush still hasn't learned how to lead the international community, with his attitude and actions, to understand why it's important to join forces to find a way to convince all people in the world that the murder of innocents will never be civilly acceptable. Bush invoked 9/11 to begin his major speech on the "War on Terror." The names of myriad countries were invoked next. The ideology of the terrorists was discussed next - along with all the monikers to describe them. He tells us that we stand for democracy and peace. I am convinced of neither after seeing the way we've conducted ourselves in Iraq. Bush says terrorists had "set their sights on Iraq," but that's not tue. Bush brought them there with a rash and ineptly-planned war and a stupid dare to "bring them on." When Bush says that "evil men and ambition must be taken very seriously," I look at him and think about his own ambition and I take him very seriously. He tells us that Syria and Iran share the goal of the terrorists - and I can feel the neocons' influence and I can almost see them typing out their plans for the next unnecessary war and death for our sons and daughters. Bush condemns Russia for not joining the folly in Iraq, and sends out an "I told ya so" to them after the Beslan tragedy. (What a way to win over the Russkies).He claims that no act of the US inspired the terrorists' reaction. Complete victory is the only acceptable answer - that brings applause from the audience - yet no one in that audience knows what "complete victory" is supposed to look like. Bush condemns the rich who prey upon the poor and turn them into terrorists. I look at the poor in America and wonder what will become of them under the Bush rule. (Has he been to the 'hood lately?)I understand that terrorists murder people in schools and mosques and churches and cafes - and any fool can see that it's murder and that it's heinous. Bush accuses the enemy of using the pretense of aggrievement, when they are really desiring "imperial domination..." and I can easily see that the "enemy" feels exactly the same way about Bush. When Bush talks about the enemy "despising freedom," he loses his credibility with me. Bin Ladenists want the U.S. out of their territories, and it has everything to do with their own view of "freedom."Bush wants and expects more sacrifice for his failing Iraq venture. He says the love of freedom is the mightiest force. He calls you a "self-defeating pessimist" if you disagree with his failing course. He asks you to blind yourself to reality and pretend we are succeeding. He doesn't talk about the fact that "spreading democracy" is not necessarily related to the fire-like spread of terror. (A terror, mind you, that he has fueled as the result of his course of action in Iraq.) Bush says we must deny the future of terror-recruits by spreading hope across the Middle East. People, he says, must choose their own destiny. I look at what Bush did (and failed to do) in the aftermath of Katrina and I think of the faces of the poor who never have had an opportunity to choose their own destiny because they've been virtually left behind by Bush's domestic policy. How can Bush expect us to believe the grandiosity of his plot for the Middle East when he fails his own nation's poorest citizens?Bush says he is responsible, while Commander in Chief, for disrupting three or more efforts to stop terrorist attacks in America. That's news to me. Let's hope someone will tell us more about that someday. Bush has many right ideas about the evils of the methods employed by the Bin Ladenists - but his ideas about how to fight them (by attacking states - the old "support and harbor"/"enemy of civilization" warnings) are wrong and will continue to follow Iraq's failing course. Murder is never justified. I was hoping to hear something different today. Bush is only stumping for new partners to join him in his failing war, which follows a course that neocons plotted out long before 9/11/2001. Yet, he offers nothing new to convince them.I don't disagree that terror is murderous, but I am not persuaded, heartened, or convinced about the bleak future by the president whose neocon-soaked administration lied our nation into war in Iraq and was never held accountable - not one person - by the Commander in Chief. Jude Nagurney Camwell is the blogger known as Iddybud