Lets seperate some elements of the discussion that you blended together.

Firstly, my background. I have a background in intelligence. I have seen deceit as a policy CHOICE used again and again. It's not judgement, that's fact. I could give you specific instances, but lets speak of the issue at hand.

You brought up the 1st Gulf War, are you aware that Ambassador Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein a tacit go ahead to invade Kuwait?

Hi Neilgin...

First of all, regardless of whether or not this "interview" concerning the first Gulf War is correct (you did not leave a citation), I still cannot see a "tactic go ahead" as you suggest. If anything, it seems like a typical conversation that might occur between an ambassador and the President of a nation. One should remember that, while an Ambassador sits as a representative of the United States, his words are not definitive. Like all public officials, they sometimes say things that are not truly representative of the policy or administration that they represent.

Regardless, Saddam Hussein's actions in 1990-1991 were still an inexcusable violation of customary international law. This brutal dictator invaded a neighboring nation "in the name of Allah" for the sake of oil interests. After Iraq was defeated, they unconditionally accepted the conditions offered by the United States and the United Nations. Yet over the decade following the war, Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated those conditions -- including an attempt to assassignate former President Bush in 1993.

After such repeated violations, President Clinton ordered several military actions against Iraq -- including several massive bombings. Recently, the American forces in Iraq (including my uncle) have destroyed millions of pounds of illegal weapons over the past two years (mostly from France, Germany and Russia). If you would like to see some photographs of the demolition of such weapons, let me know. I have dozens that I can share.

As for the claim that President Bush [u]lied[/u], you have still not offered any concrete evidence. There are many liberals sitting in seats of power who truly have demonstrated hatred for the President. They would jump at the opportunity to find such "evidence" and use it to embarrass (or even prosecute) the President. To date, no evidence has been produced. Instead, there is only great ammounts of hateful rhetoric being thrust into the media by certain liberal groups and individuals.

Indeed, President Bush has publically claimed to be a Christian. While some have mocked him for his claims and the policy of his administration, I do not know this man's heart. Neither do you. Neither does anyone. Those who so quickly judge him must remember that they will be judged in a similar manner.

It is also dangerous to harshly label the "religious right" with such derogatory connotations. There are [u]many[/u] honest and well-meaning individuals who are considered part of the "religious right" by liberals. I know many of them -- and they are not blind hypocrites. They cannot all be judged by the questionable examples of men like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. Many of these individuals sincerely desire the best for their families and for this nation -- and they feel so strongly about issues like [i]abortion[/i] and [i]homosexual marriage[/i], that they are willing to demonstrate such beliefs with their votes.

I am amazed at the self-apparent authority of "armchair generals" who sit in judgment of the Administration today -- including those in the Church. I interned at NASA Langley Research Center during my undergraduate years. I saw images (including real time video) from spy satellites (mostly stationary satellites) that I found disturbing -- and quite frightening. Most of this would never be accessible to the public. The purpose of such satellite surveillance is to preserve the security of this nation.

The Pentagon, CIA and military leaders of this nation do not operate according to political "hunches." I am currently finishing my graduate thesis in the use of satellite technology in U.S. Foreign Policy during the Iran Hostage Crisis. I am learning that only a very small percentage of such data is presented to the President. In fact, the President hardly views much of this information at all. The Government has many experts combing through incredible amounts of data, and they in turn present any relevent data deemed important to the administrative staff of the President (particularly, the National Security Advisor -- during the days leading to the war in Iraq, Condoleeza Rice).

It is quite possible that the information presented to the President was wrong (or badly interpreted). Many individuals, including the intelligence community within several foreign nations, all believed that either Iraq already possessed WMDs -- or they were in the process of obtaining/developing such WMDs. And the possibility also remains that some in the Administration may have "jumped to conclusions" in order to orchestrate a war against Iraq. But to stand in judgment of the President or the Administration [u]without[/u] firsthand knowledge is wrong. Usually, the complete truth of the decision making process of a Presidential administration is never fully known. We can only make assumptions years later, following the publication of memoirs or declassification of time-sensitive material.

Many members of the left truly hates Christian beliefs. As believers, we take spiritual stands against abortion, sexual immorality (including homosexual immorality), and cultural degradation. This often results in believers being labeled as part of the "religious right" by members of the media. While there is blatant hypocrisy within some who claim to be believers, it is wrong to label all such believers that politically support the President in this manner.

Again, we do not have to agree with one another politically or in regards to Presidential support. Irregardless, I will always love and hold you as a brother in the Lord. It is marvelous that we live in a nation that allows us such vast freedom to publically praise or criticize our President. As believers, I hope that we can spend much more time praying for this President (or any President) than criticizing him. I am praying that God will do in President Bush all that I am praying that God will do in me. I want for this President to truly know and fellowship with Christ in his fullness -- and to spread that relationship with others around the world. While it may be idealistic to believe that this is possible, I still pray that it can happen.

:-)

_________________
Christopher

I would have to characterize the Glaspie/Hussein exchange as anything but typical.

He asked her directly if America had any opinion on his territorial claims towards Kuwait to which she replied:

Hi Neilgin...

I appreciate your quick response. As I stated before, we can disagree politically and still consider one another brothers. However, I do feel that the words found in some of your more political posts are filled with a contempt for the President that might not be based on concrete fact.

I did visit the website that you provided. After visiting the homepage (and a few subsequent pages), I noticed that it seems to be a commercial website filled with anti-Bush propaganda. I found alot of editorial articles -- but there did not seem to be any evidence provided which would substantiate their claims. While that does not mean that all of such information is [i]incorrect[/i], it does seem to amount to prejudicial [u]bias[/u]. Even the site specific inner URL that you referenced does not provide a single citation as to where they retrieved that particular Glaspie/Hussein "interview."

Again, you have not presented [u]any[/u] evidence that makes me believe that the President acted dishonestly. Instead, I have only read harsh and judgmentally specific accusations without any evidence to substantiate your claims. During my thesis' research, I was instructed to completely disregard all third-hand source material. Consequently, I have relied almost completely on firsthand sources (including my interview with President Carter in July, and several interviews with members of the Carter Administration), along with a few academic and governmental secondhand sources (for historical chronology).

Can wars sometimes be justifiable? Yes. While former President Carter did not believe that the current war in Iraq amounted to a "just war," he does argue that some wars are justifiable, such as World War II (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html). Like I stated in one of my previous posts, a preemptive strike can also be justifiable, as demonstrated by Israel's preemptive strike on four Arab nations to begin the Six Day War.

But all of this is beside the point. I am not defending the President. I am just trying to point out that no one can know the heart of this man besides God. Nor is it wise to make blanket accusations about the segment of the country that the liberal media mockingly refers to as the "[i]religious right[/i]." From many of your posts, it seems that you believe that Bush is [u]NOT[/u] a believer (even though he claims to be) because of your perspective concerning his actions (or how members of the media or certain political watchdog groups report his actions). In fact, you seem to somehow [u]know[/u] the heart and spiritual condition of the President of the United States. I truly believe that it is dangerous to judge any person like this. And I do not believe that God would reveal this to anyone -- even after prayer. I have seen would-be "prophets" who claimed such "gifts" from God that were actually cognitive "suspicion."

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not trying to defend the President's policies, the "religious right" or anyone in the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." I do see the hypocrisy of some people that claim to be acting on behalf of believers (even those labeled as the "religious right"). And please do not misunderstand my political leanings either. I definitely do not "fit" into either political party's platform. In some ways, I am decidedly conservative (especially on matters of abortion). Yet, in other ways, I would be considered a liberal (I oppose the death penalty). But the social, moral and religious hypocrisy that abides in our nation is not confined to one party. Remember, God is not an American. Nor is he a Republican or a Democrat. He is God. I am always reminded of the angel that appeared to Joshua. Joshua asked, "Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?" The angel replied that he was neither. Instead, the angel stated, "Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come" (Joshua 5:13-15). Thus, I believe people should vote on [u][i]issues[/i][/u] rather than blind allegiance to a political party or ideology.

I typically vote for the anti-abortion candidate. Abortion kills nearly a [u]million[/u] unborn babies each year in America alone. This issue is one that I consider of foremost importance. While there are some who argue that neither party truly opposes abortion, I would rather vote for the party that at least takes some measures to oppose this act of murder (even if it is reputed to be in word only) than the party that views abortion as a "fundamental right" within their party's national platform. As such, there is a clear distinguishment between the Republican and Democratic Parties respectively.

This thread began with the posting of an article where a liberal "church" faced the possibility of losing their tax-exempt status because of their blatant, leftist political bias. They openly preach against President Bush and his policies. They promote homosexual marriage and homosexual ministers. They support some abortion rights. They support the notion of "universal salvation" (everyone is saved, regardless of a belief in Christ). They also defend the religious ideology of muslims, hindus and buddists. Should such a Church lose its tax-exempt status? I do not believe they should lose their tax-emempt status -- even though I consider the doctrine of that particular "church" as "spiritual prostitution" with leftist philosophy. But like I wrote before, I am just happy that this particular "church" is being exposed for what it is -- a leftist political institution.

I ask that we all pray for the President. The Bible states that "the heart of the king is in the hand of God" (Proverbs 21:1). God can direct (or [i]redirect[/i]) the heart of this President.

:-)

_________________
Christopher

This IRS issue is very important. Why does the government need increasing ownership of our money and land? Clearly something is not functioning properly in our country from a constitutional point of view. I'm starting to feel as if I'm living in a monarchy where the King has the military and resources for war at his disposal.

After reading through this thread a question comes to my mind that I've not heard brought up before. Maybe Neilgin or ccchhhrrriiisss or anyone could comment...

How is it in the last part of the 20th century the executive branch of our Government can wage foreign wars without declaration from the congress as mandated by the constitution? Seriously, all of this Iraq war discussion centers on whether George Bush Jr., who is just one man, was able to commit US into war without a formal declaration from congress. Where are the state representatives, the senators, the generals and cabinet members in this scenario? Are they lying about their support?

For this conservative, this war is no longer a conservative or liberal issue; it's a constitutional issue. If the constitution is still the highest law in the land, then in the next couple years we need to see Bush systematically fulfill his public commitment to pull out of Iraq. (Pulling out does not mean staging a series of photo-op homecoming parades while leaving a network of fully equipped US Air bases throughout Iraq.)

If we do not pull out it is reasonable to conclude that Iraq is designed to be an instrument of US military control in this region. Rather then the remote control policy of the 20th century, we've moved into the neighborhood for the 21st century. I may not be an "armchair general" but I am pretty good at grade school math; from my reckoning we aren't too far away in this country from bringing back the draft. All our government needs is a dramatic issue to press the point...is China's rapid military build up dramatic enough? Or even just another 9/11 episode?

If the draft comes at a time when our country needs to defend it's survival then that's one thing. But if the draft is the cost of US global hegemony then our American dream has become a George Orwell nightmare where war is called peace and slavery is called freedom. Even without a confrontation with China, we may be fighting a string of these wars for the next 50 years...

It is an understandably tempting strategy to have a permanent military presence in a region that hosts so many terrorist operations. Indeed, one of the "benefits" of the present conflict is for the US to have a laboratory to perfect its warcraft for future conflicts. Yet, it is known that Chinese generals were so impressed with our hi-tech gunnery in the first Gulf war that they immediately began updating their own armed forces. And so, the hot war with the mid-east is being swallowed by an emerging cold war with the east. This is why this issue needs to be discussed fearlessly without IRS harassment.

I am still a conservative American who is admittedly suspicious of "international law"...but the next presidential candidate who has the international credibility and a realistic plan to stave off world war III will get my vote whether he or she is symbolically pro-abort or not. (I would say the same for my state representative but apparently representatives don't have a say about invading other countries...at least that's how they act.) The secular question that lies before us is whether democracy can lead to a safer world then fascism or dictatorships. But perhaps the question is mute. With God all forms of government can do good and without him no government can be anything but depraved.

MC

_________________
Mike Compton

I have no answers but didn't want these comments to be forgotten.

Hi there, Compton...!

_________________
Christopher

Thanks ccchhhrrriiisss for your helpful knowlege of the War Powers resolution. That answers much for me. It seems this subject is perhaps better suited to carry on in the "Day are evil" thread but I'm fine with continuing this discussion here if everyone else is. (I'm also respectfully aware that we are perhaps on the outskirts of Sermon Index's revival mission. After this response I will just listen to what everyone else has to say.) )

First off, I agree with your perspective of America. I'm not overly cynical about our nation. I recognize the good we have achieved in Iraq. I'm also not an anti-Bush guy. It was fair of him to note in his speech today that his political enemies are "deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began." So I don't think he practiced deciet but I do think the poor guy is in over his head. What is his ultimate strategy?

_________________
Mike Compton

Hi Compton...

Thanks for your post. This entire situation is indeed both troubling and thought-provoking.

_________________
Christopher

you wrote: