Things I’ve Seen

War Cannot Be Won

Asked “Can we win?” Bush said, “I don’t think you can win it.”

Of course you can’t. You can’t win a war which isn’t a war. Wouldn’t it have been better to realise this before you decided it was a war and treated it as such?
September 12, 2001:

…we will win.

Bush in 2002:

We will win … We will win … We will win … We will win

Bush in 2003:

We will prevail. We will win … We will win … we will win … we will prevail

Bush in April 2004:

We will win

Quotes via Kos

Costello refuses to rule out leadership bid.

Federal Treasurer Peter Costello has refused to rule out a leadership challenge if the Coalition is re-elected on October 9.

…Asked whether he could rule out any challenge to Mr Howard’s leadership in the next three years, Mr Costello said: “I am telling you, look at my record.

“My record over the last eight-and-a-half years speaks for itself in terms of discipline, in terms of commitment and in terms of achievement.

“That’s the best way of looking at these things.”

They are going to have to come up with a better answer than that, since this question is not going to go away…

Since I’m sure Mike won’t be plugging it himself, out of modestly, I will: Mike’s new book is now out.

An accessible guide for anybody interested in understanding more about Rowan Williams much-praised theology, the book will also be a useful companion text for students of modern and contemporary theology and of interest to the generalist wishing to know more about academic theology and its relevance today.

Based on the prerelease version I read, I’d say this book would be of considerable interest to any Christian interested in thinking about the way they think about their faith.

MyDD has got hold of some monthly averages from Democracy Corps.

…the trends here are obvious … Kerry has slowly moved forward every month … Bush has been static, mired just below 45 … as Nader’s support has dropped, Kerry’s has risen.

Here are some graphics (note the second plot has a false zero)…

So, the leader of the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” is lying.

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry’s most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry’s claim that the Massachusetts Democrat’s boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow’s military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to “enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire” directed at “all units” of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat “despite enemy bullets flying about him.”

A nice KerryEdwards press release

WHO DOESN’T “UNDERSTAND THE THREATS OF THE 21st CENTURY”?

May 2001 — Bush Said “Most Urgent Threat” Was Ballistic Missiles.

Most troubling of all, the list of these countries includes some of the World’s least responsible states. Unlike the Cold War, today’s most urgent threat stems not from thousands of ballistic missiles in the Soviet hands, but from a small number of missiles in the hands of these states, states for whom terror and blackmail are a way of life. They seek weapons of mass destruction to intimidate their neighbors, and to keep the United States and other responsible nations from helping allies and friends in strategic parts of the world. (Bush, Address at the National Defense University, 5/1/01)

May 2001 - Kerry Said “Immediate Threat” was From Terrorists and “Non-State Actors.”

But let me underscore that missile defense will do nothing to address what the Pentagon itself considers a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and from nonstate actors, who can quietly slip explosives into a building, unleash chemical weapons into a crowded subway, or send a crude nuclear weapon into a busy harbor. (Kerry, Speech on Senate Floor, 5/2/01)

Zogby has started tracking four new swing states

Zogby International will soon begin tracking the 2004 Presidential election in four new Battleground States: Colorado, Arizona, North Carolina and Virginia.

These were all considered safe Bush seats just a few months ago.

From the often excellent Soujourners - a petition and an advert

[L]eaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush.

We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion.

We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry - for reasons deeply rooted in their faith.

The Unnamed Enemy

Since the beginning of 2003, in fact, Bush has mentioned bin Laden’s name on only 10 occasions. And on six of those occasions it was because he was asked a direct question.

…Not once during that period has he talked about bin Laden at any length, or said anything substantive.

During the same period, for comparison purposes, Bush has mentioned former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein on approximately 300 occasions.

The last time Bush spoke protractedly about bin Laden was at a March 2003 news conference. … “So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. . . . I truly am not that concerned about him.”

Too busy fighting a “war” on “terror” to actually be concerned about real terrorists?

Can anyone give me a rationale for why it is OK to live a middle class life in the first world, when anyone, let alone the vast majority of people, live in poverty?

I know I’ve phrased it simplistically, I’m not about start spouting the stats, because you all know them, so I hope you know what I mean. For years I have tried to come up with an explanation as to why its OK for me to enjoy the good things I have, when others go without even a fraction of what I have. So far, there is no logic consistent with any principle of justice or equality or faith that I can invoke that has satisfied me.

In order to continue living the way I do, I just have to stop thinking about it. I find it hard to believe that all the good people in the world have also just parked this issue, so someone out there must have an answer - so I’m asking!

Please please respond with your ideas. I really do want to know.