FDR, year end 1939, in which Hitler invaded Poland: “The old year draws to a close. It began with dread of evil things to come and ends with the horror of another war.”

FDR, one year later, 1940, as American isolationism prevailed, as Europe became further ‘Hitlerized’: “Sometimes we who have lived throught the strifes and the hates of a quarter century wonder if this old world of ours has abandoned the ideals of the Brotherhood of Man.”

FDR, in December of 1941, with Churchill present, was able to say: “We have joned with many other nations and peoples in a very great cause. Millions of them have been engaged in the task of defending good with their life-blood for months and for years.”

We Americans were no longer safe by our “protecting oceans”, as Churchill said of us.

Note that Bush-43 was not able to build a coalition with “many other nations” for his Iraq War, a major shortcoming that is growing worse as other nations reduce or drop out.

FDR, after D-Day, before the Germans had surrendered, said this: “We may hasten the day of their doom if we here at home continue to do our full share.”

What sacrifice has President Bush asked from all of us? Nothing; only a few have sacrificed! This is dead wrong, if we are right!

Truman, on Christmas 1945, having achieved the surrenders of the Axis, said this: We must strive without ceasing to make real the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more’”.

Yet five years later, Truman was trying to rationalize his invasion of Korea on moral grounds claiming that “Communism was godless” whereas Democracy was “faith in the brotherhood and dignity of man under God”.

In my view, that is where Truman went wrong, and where Bush, an admirer of Truman, has gone wrong in the same vein. We have no monopoly on God, assuming that there is one in the first place.

Lyndon Johnson deluded himself in 1965 at Christmas when he said about his Viet-Nam war: “We would not have it so. We have not sought the combat in which they are engaged.”

Of course we all know about the Gulf of Tonkin to justify his Viet Nam war, as Bush did again in 2002-2003 to justify his Iraq War. Both lied to us!

We Americans have yet to learn the lessons of History right before our eyes.

At Christmas 1968 after Nixon had been elected, Johnson was still trying to justify his actions when he said: “To you [and me] fell the hard duty of preserving freedom in the agony of war, during a restless time of doubt and of division. But you [and I] have stood as the rock of our resolve that freedom shall endure on this earth.”

Cannot you hear Bush saying the same thing in 2008, like Johnson wishing to be viewed as a “rock of resolve”?

Bush was on target on Hanukkah 2001 when he said: “And while we celebrate peace and lightness, I fully understand in order to make sure peace and lightness exist in the future, we must bring him [Osama bin Laden] to justice. And we will.”

But we have not. Instead of focusing on Osama, he has diverted himself and us into a quagmire, a quagmire from which we may never honorably extricate ourselves.

Perhaps Bush forgot, or never read these words of FDR given at Christmas 1941: “Our strongest weapon in this war is that conviction of the dignity and brotherhood of man which Christmas Day signifies … Against enemies who preach the principles of hate and practice, we set our faith in human love and in God’s care for us and all men everywhere.”

George Bush has not been true even to the Faith in God that he professes, because his faith in human love has been constricted to narrow partisan political ends, justified by any means that achieve these ends. So now it is up to the American people to restore the values that he has so distorted.

It might do well for us and George Bush too to heed the words of Churchill when he urged: “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never given in, except to convictions of honour and good sense.”

{My thanks to Jon Meacham and John Kerry for quotes used.}

Delaware Senator Joe Biden has made official what we already knew; he’ll seek the nomination of the Democrat Party in a run for President of the United States.  A survey of Dan Gaffney Morning show listeners gives us the early line on Biden’s chances:

13%

Notable answers: 

“Carter likes him?  Negative 35%”

“I hope it’s 100%, so we can get a new Senator”

“His chances?  Slim and none, and slim just left town” 

 

Certainly it is for Christians world wide, being an important religious celebration for them, although it has moved more and more toward consumerism/materialism — good for the economy, right?

But what about Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, et al? Many are free to celebrate their own religious events.

My point is, however, that there are many who are suffering, suffering because of actions taken directly by our own government. Should I enumerate them? No, it is better to lament them and put a stop to them.

Yet our leaders in the Executive Branch do not appear to be in such a frame of mind as to lament and change course. No, they appear to be doing all they can to find a way to keep us on their course, circumventing/ignoring the political defeat they suffered in the recent election with carefully selected words, as usual, words selected to instill more fear in order to generate their continued military surge, don’t they?

But wait, not only Iraq, but regarding the Middle East in general. We are beginning to be told that we must increase the size of the US Army by about 75,000.

In my view, the reason is that the neocons now wish to threaten Iran, as they appear to see only a military solution to counter the Iranian threat. Diplomacy, suggested by the Iraq Study Group, has already been discarded as an option.

Thus, well before the upcoming President’s speech in January, they have already discarded a diplomatic approach, having dialog with Iran, with Syria. They continue to make no meaningful gestures to get the peace process going again in Palestine. They continue to avoid developing a regional dialog in the Middle East. When will they learn that military solutions are totally counterproductive, providing only suffering and intense hatred of our nation? So what is the prospect for Middle East peace under George Bush?

In the meantime, there are many American families who are suffering this Christmas, suffering at the loss or maiming of loved ones, including those whose heads are now unscrewed, perhaps for life. These and the hundreds of thousands of suffering Iraqis and Palestinians, all suffering partly because of the incompetent policies of George Bush, a man who thinks that being stubborn is a desirable quality in a leader.

Matt Damon said it right on Hardball the other night, when he said all this suffering is so unfair; so few of us carry the burdens of the Bush Iraq War. Not only are most of us not involved, we have not even been asked to pay, as we have had tax cuts; instead, we borrow, from China et al. How prudent is this? How fair is this?

The implied litmus test is this: Would George Bush be able to continue his militaristic violence if we had a draft? The election results are telling as to the true answer to that question. Bush cannot continue to fight this war his way without the political support of the American people. I don’t think he realizes this; that is how out of touch this man is!

The Iraq Study Group had it right when they said the we need a policy that has bipartisan support in order to bring resolution to this failed war.

Bush & Co. do not appear to be listening to the American people, so the result will inevitably be continued strife, self inflicted and inflicted as well on the Iraqis, maybe as well the Iranians in the near future.

Sorry, I cannot trust George Bush; and I continue to think he is incompetent. The only hope is that the new Congress will insert/force sanity into an insane WH. Only then can we hope to play a constructive role in making for Christmas, and for all the other important religious celebrations, occasions permeated with peace, joy, and good will to/for all!!!

What’s all the fuss? Keith Ellison is preparing to take his “oath of office” and chooses to do so with the Qu’ran. For one thing, there isn’t a requirement for representatives to use any religious book…Bible or otherwise. What they are required to do is swear to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not require anyone to use a religious book…Bible or otherwise. There is nothing to prevent one from using such a book if they so choose, it’s not a public ceremony (though there is a photographic “record”) and Mr. Ellison is choosing to exercise his choice for that instance, which he has every right to do. Others have preceded him by using different texts, others have chosen nothing but the required raising of their right hand while swearing or affirming to uphold the Constitution. This is what we require of our representatives…nothing sacred or holy but simply that they will follow and work for their constituents according to the laws of the land. And there is a mini-uproar! Before getting knickers in a twist what about biding time, waiting to see how this man carries out his office? He has been a State Rep in Minnesota since 2002 and looks to me like he upheld that office well enough since he was recently elected to represent his State in Congress. Let’s see how his record stands in a few years…or at least until the next election before deciding how his choice of swearing in will affect our fate.

To the ‘nay-sayers‘, I would also ask…what then about those who have gone before, using their religious book, or even nothing at all…were seen to be sworn in and, ultimately, thumbed their noses, filled their own pockets or created national scandals thus bringing dishonour to their office? Let the man do his job, illustrate his effectiveness for the good of his country and his own constituents, before assuming he’ll be bringing Islam to us all.

I find it noteworthy that even to this day President Bush has continued his surveillance of the internet communications of American Citizens without a court warrant to do so.

And then we hear Newt Gingrich’s call several weeks ago that we must seek for a new interpretation of the First Amendment in order to accommodate his perceived need for that new weapon in this so-called War on Terror. This speech was made in NH before an audience gathered to honor the First Amendment, believe it or not.

This initiative to operate above the law by certain elements of our GOP leadership accounts for the loss of confidence by the American people for the Cheney/Bush leadership we continue to suffer in the Executive Branch.

This loss of confidence is reinforced when we hear Bush, in his farewell address to Rumsfeld on his departure, that Rumsfeld is “the greatest Secretary of Defense” this nation has ever had! On which planet does the President now reside???

For one other sharp critique of this Cheney/Bush/Newtonian mindset, focused this time on reworking the meaning of the First Amendment, I recommend this piece by Keith Olbermann for all to hear. Sure, he uses hyperbole to make some of his arguments; no matter, I believe the American people need to listen first, then contemplate about these attacks on our basic freedoms from our current leaders.

We Fight for Liberty by Having More Liberty and Not Less

Quite a number of years ago I was a fan and supporter of Colin Powell. At one time even hoping he’d run for the Presidency. I wasn’t alone…many people had immense admiration and support for this seemingly thoughtful, somewhat compassionate man.

His initial opposition to the pre-emptive attack on Iraq was welcomed, both by many of his fans and those who did not believe this to be a just course of action. And then…inexplicably…he caved to the demands of his office, his boss or both. Many, certainly myself among them, watched in disbelief and horror when he made his presentation to the U. N. and the many who respected, had faith in this man didn’t only wane…it pretty much was tossed into the trash along with his previously good name.

So today, when it was announced he would be first up on “Face The Nation” (the first interview he has given in a year) I wanted to see what he had to say for himself. Wish I hadn’t bothered…in fact, about half-way through I switched off, nothing restored but angrier than I’ve been in some time. Of course I may be wrong in thinking that what he says today gives some voice to how he really believed those few years ago. In which case, why on earth did he cave? Why has it taken those years, too many lives, a country’s destruction and far more unrest there than existed before we ever attacked for him to publicly voice what so many…including, perhaps, himself believed at the time. Now…when he is in no position to be effective as he once could have been; when position, status, perhaps ambition had him detour from the person we thought he was and could have been more. Would the real Colin Powell please stand…or does he even have difficulty remembering which he is?

Today, far too little much too late for who could believe the “real’ Colin Powell could not, did not, see this coming when he first resisted any idea of this “war“.

The Iraq Study Group Report is an attempt by a non-partisan commission to get President Bush to change his definition of “victory”.

Even our new Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, confirmed by a vote of 95-2 yesterday, thinks we are losing in Iraq.

A military “victory” is not possible, the Iraq Study Group has unanimously concluded. Moreover, they maintain that a continuing military effort in Iraq is unsustainable without the support of the American people.

Basically the Iraq Study Group is saying that Bush has completed his mission there, consequently now is the time to turn the rest of the mission over to the Iraqis in a timely and orderly fashion.

This will be very difficult for Bush to accept, because he went over there to dump Saddam, to have some control over oil, and to establish a military position there. (Forget all the WMD, al-Qaida link, and the nuclear threat garbage we were fed!) He succeeded only on the first objective.

Obviously, therefore, Bush has had to morph these superficial goals with the new one: A stable, democratic Iraq government able to provide its own security and rebuild the infrastructure. So far this objective has not been achieved under our guidance; in fact, the situation on the Iraqi ground has grown seriously worse, a civil war many now say, including Colin Powell. So Bush must change his strategy and tactics. Will he?

We need to invoke a comprehensive diplomatic effort involving Iraq’s neighbors, we need to better train and equip Iraqi security and police, and we need to focus on helping to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, recommends this Iraq Study Group.

Will Bush sign on to these recommendations? I think he will try to “Stay the course!”, but use more moderate rhetoric to make it look as if he has signed on. That’s his style!

It is a good thing that control of Congress has changed, because now it will not be so easy for Cheney/Bush to wiggle to get their own way regardless.

Instead of stabilizing the Middle East, their neoconservative strategy as implemented has done the reverse. There was no way that such a strategy based on US dominance in the Middle East would ever have worked, in my view.

The Iraq Study Group has provided the nucleus of a new plan for Iraq, a plan that is actually an exit plan. Will Cheney/Bush listen? I believe they are going to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this exit plan, so Congressional oversight will be needed to git er done!!!

So YES, the Iraq Study Group Report will be immensely helpful in this internal political battle to follow!!!