1

But really, who wants evangelicals to vote? They can't even get their Bible right!

2

Doogie Howser's gay?!?! But his theme song was so...masculine.

3

OK all my knuckle-dragging, troglodyte, fundie friends. Let's go out and vote today, just to antagonize Mummy, Raven, Rob Ryan, Amy, ex-preacher, Marco and all the other angry leftists who come here to tell us how stupid we are and how demoralized we are that we won't vote.

4

Cheesehead:

We're not "angry." We just want our country back. We want the organized criminal Republicans put in jail for violating RICO statutues (by its very nature the Republican party is a criminal enterprise), and given sentences that would give John Gotti heartburn.

Your vote is only your assertion that you drank the Kool Aid.

Ho hum.

5

Aw gimme a break, Cheesekopf.

The "angry leftist" thing sounds so... so 70s. The country is waking up and you'd be well advised to attend to the changing mood. Authoritarian rule may sit well with the devout, but average people have been making it clear that enough is enough. Our rulers have failed us, utterly and completely. It's time to send a message.

Oh, and consider this:

Democracy works. It has been battered and bruised by the most vicious self-serving thugs in our history. Stone Cold Bastards who deliberately put their own thirst for power above the good of the nation and the world. Bloodless soulless incompetent second-stringers whose only solution to the nation's woes was to take from the poor and give to the rich while sending our sons and daughters to die. They have twisted or broken every rule and law. They have gutted huge parts of our sacred document. They have set brother against brother and American against American as at no time in our history since the civil war. They have even betrayed their own allies while betraying not just the American People, but American honor as well.

This is your chance to give George Bush a report card. You fill in the grade.

6

Setting aside the two main issues behind supporting Republicans (aborion and homosexual marriages), what does that party offer us by way of legitimately representing what's in the best interests of the people?

This two-party system of government we have is highly questionable at best. Both parties have taken this nation down the road we're currently treading. We're acting like Global Police, which we can't afford, both parties allowed our borders to open up to massive quantities of industry jobs to leave the country, therefore great reductions in average income in various locales, both parties are to blame for the massive increase in the power of the federal government over matters that should be left to each individual state, and the list goes on. We got to where we are because of these two parties, so why do we support either one of them? Why not vote them all out, and vote in non-professional politicians and non-lawyers?

Well, we all know THAT isn't going to happen. So, in many cases, we're left yet again with voting for the lesser of two evils.

7

Mumon deeply desires a major propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda, which is exactly what his above assertions, if carried out would provide. Apparently the murder of some three thousand US citizens by Islamists was not quite enough for his bloodlust.

Admit it Mumon, you get off on dead Americans right?

8

The "angry leftist" thing sounds so... so 70s.

Well, you're right. It does. As someone who was in my 20s and an "angry leftist" in the 70s, I remember it well. Well, pretty well, considering.

But let me go a bit further. If you look at images of the "antiwar" demonstrations today, it looks like the 70s minus the bellbottoms. Even the signs have barely changed to reflect the times, and the PA systems are just as scratchy. And the "commentary" on Kos and Puffington is similarly sophomoric and vituperative to the point of suggesting the resurrection of Abby and Judge Hoffman. Oh, those were heady days! I pine for the tang of tear gas in the air!

" It's time to send a message." Hmmmm. Now where have I heard that line before? Was it in Chicago in '68 or DC in '72?

Personally, I think it's the recycling craze. Not satisfied with tossing cans in the bin and sorting plastic bottles, the left has decided to recycle its politics. And, of course, that requires that an icon of the 70s, John Kerry (who allegedly holds the military records for medals won per month and the Medal Throw), lumber on stage at a gathering of sophomores and sophomoric sophists on campus in California - of all places - to do his "duty".

Yes, I agree, it is reminiscent. In fact, one might argue that it's downright reactionary.

9

A couple more breaking news items to keep us from voting:

1. The war really was for oil.

2. Everyone before Bush was telling the truth about WMD in Iraq. Bush lied.

3. Bill Clinton was really telling the truth. All those women were lying.

4. Clinton told the truth and still no one died.

5. Al Gore really did invent the internet.

6. John Kerry was truly courageous and principled when he voted for the war before he voted against it.

7. According to NARAL, abortion has been a good thing for America's poor women and according to Kim Gandy, "It's just been plain good for America."

8. People who used to be Christians are truly smarter and more aware than those of us who remain faithful.

9. The American Psychological Association has determined men who worship Jesus have latent homosexual tendencies

10. Mumon has a point.

(Number 10 is also on the list "YOu might already be dead if you believe..."

10

Shawn:

It's your Republican Criminals that favor al Qaeda; it was George W. Bush and his cronies who let bin Laden go at Tora Bora,it's George W. Bush and his cronies who removed troops from Saudi Arabia, caving in to a key al Qaeda demand it's George W. Bush and the Republicans that al Qaeda favored in 2004 according to the CIA, and it's George W. Bush and the Republicans who, by creating that human rights mess in Guantanamo, are already negoitating with al Qaeda.
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/17/102332/157)

The "soft on terror" thing doesn't work: we've seen the hazards Republicans brought us with Katrina, and with SARS, and with the flu, and with Iraq.

And all you've got left, the only thing Republicans have left is smears, lies and distortions.

11

I've been voting in elections since 1968 and each vote has been for the "lesser of two evils". Sometimes "evils" is probably a bad choice of words but always my choice has been against someone rather than being strongly for one of the candidates. Still the choice has always been quite clear. Well, I'm off to the polls and Raven if you happen to live in my state, I'm sure I'll be canceling out your vote. Now there's a choice I can get behind.

12

It is refreshing, Joe, to know that you recognize the significance of the Haggard affair: "Some evangelical pastor you’ve never heard of gets caught in a tawdry scandal."

BTW, I believe the ABC/WP poll was showing the extent to which white evangelicals favor Republicans, not their likelihood of voting.

13

Raven - I agree and hope our nation has the brains to send the selfish, self-righteous ding-a-lings down in flames, whatever the party.

I also hope they eventually pull this democracy (republic) thing we're so privileged to enjoy, off in Iraq.

On that note, I just got my finger purpled to vote for Rick Santorum. ;-)

14

Many moons ago, I remember waiting upon my guitar teacher to appear when I heard him coming down the hall having a loud argument with another guitar teacher. In exasperation, he exclaimed, "You don't follow up 'Steve Vai sucks!' with 'Slash rules!'".

While I'm sympathetic to those who say "the Republicans" suck, I simply don't see how anyone can think the Democrats are the answer. They're the same only worse. They invented the destruction of our freedoms and the march toward totalitarianism. The Republicans only picked up the torch.

15

> This is your chance to give George Bush a report card. You fill in the grade.

Hmmm Raven last time I checked, Bush wasn't on the '06 ballot. This isn't a "chance to give Bush a report card" it's a chance to elect representatives in congress, which should be figured on their own merits. I guess if you have Democratic representatives who voted in favor of the Iraq war (many of them have) then you should definitely consider ousting them. Or, ya know, just stay home, because the weather sucks today.

16

> It is refreshing, Joe, to know that you recognize the significance of the Haggard affair: "Some evangelical pastor you’ve never heard of gets caught in a tawdry scandal."

You see something more here, ex-preacher? I'd never even heard of Ted Haggard before the story broke. Here's a guy who struggles with homosexuality and caved into temptation and hurt his family and his church in the process. It's a sad story but not exactly an original one. Why in blazes should it have any effect on how I vote?

17

The most important national issue in the elections today is the war in Iraq and the war against jihadism in general. There are some real choices available in many of the contested races.

In addition, the net result of whether the Republicans retain control of the Senate and/or the House is going to be important as well.

The U.S. is currently in a long, hard slog against Islamist terror and fascism.

We liberated Iraq rather quickly, but we're still stuck trying to help democratic Iraqis construct a civil society that is self-sufficient and self-perpetuating.

The stakes in Iraq are very high. If we succeed in building a liberal democracy with civil rights, the world will eventually become a better place. Iraq would serve as a beacon to oppressed and otherwise disfunctional societies everywhere.

If we fail, then the Islamo-fascists will have scored a substantial victory against the Great Satan. The jihadist cause will have received a tremendous boost, and we will probably pay a terrible price somewhere down the road.

Of course, there is only so much that we can do. Our Iraqi allies have to stand up and establish their own civil society, we can't do it for them. But they won't be able to do that if we cut and run.

That's why it's important for everyone to vote for candidates who won't cut and run. Our votes will really have some impact on what we end up doing in Iraq.

Happy election day!

18

we've seen the hazards Republicans brought us with Katrina, and with SARS, and with the flu, and with Iraq.

And all you've got left, the only thing Republicans have left is smears, lies and distortions.--Mumon

Hello, Mr. Pot? Kettle calling! So Republicans caused Katrina, and SARS (last I heard it was pretty much restricted to CHina and a few places in Canada) and the flu!? Talk about smears, lies and distortions. You forgot, by the way, to mention the absolutely crappy season the Steelers are having.

19

"The 'soft on terror' thing doesn't work: we've seen the hazards Republicans brought us with Katrina, and with SARS, and with the flu, and with Iraq."

Good point Mumon.

The country is still trying to recover from the devastation wrought by SARs and the flu.

20

"The stakes in Iraq are very high. If we succeed in building a liberal democracy with civil rights, the world will eventually become a better place. Iraq would serve as a beacon to oppressed and otherwise disfunctional societies everywhere."

And we would all get ponies!

No, Matthew, no Democratic candidates I'm aware of advocate "cut and run" as a good idea. What we do need, urgently, is contractor fraud investigation, oversight and a change of tactics and strategy. A phased withdrawal from Iraq could very well take years, if that's the right way to go. But "stay the course" as we know it creates more jihadism than it dissuades, and, frankly, is unaffordable. I don't know where you think we're going to get 5 billion a week from, but that's the current burn rate and we aren't getting much for our money.

21

Raven,

No, Matthew, no Democratic candidates I'm aware of advocate "cut and run" as a good idea.

How about Jack "let's go to Okinawa" Murtha?

But "stay the course" as we know it creates more jihadism than it dissuades ...

Perhaps it does, while we are still fighting.

But "stay the course" won't create jihadism if we finally prevail. Just the opposite. If we prevail, the jihadi balloon will lose quite a bit of air.

But "stay the course" as we know it ... frankly, is unaffordable. I don't know where you think we're going to get 5 billion a week from ...

We're currently spending less than 4% of our GDP on defense. Another 9/11 style attack would cost at least several hundred billion dollars.

We can't afford to not spend money fighting jihadism. If we're going to balk at spending what we need, we're going to end up paying a lot more and in a much more painful manner.

Raven, Islamo-fascism is similar in some ways to the fascist movements of the 20's and 30's. Because of the senseless, horrible carnage of World War I, many intelligent people advocated a reactive-passive-appeasing course towards Hitler-Mussolini-Franco. It didn't work then, and it won't work now.

Peace,
Matthew

22

But "stay the course" as we know it creates more jihadism than it dissuades

Substitute a few words, here: kamikaze instead of jihadists.

Yeah, our relentless attacks on Japan created a lot of kamikazes, and the only solution was not to retreat back to California but to crush both the source of and mentality that created kamikazes.

23

> No, Matthew, no Democratic candidates I'm aware of advocate "cut and run" as a good idea.

Guess John Murtha isn't a democrat?

24

Cheese--Demoralized!? Are you kidding? I voted twice!. Common' Mummy, bring on the shackels..

25

Kaffinator, if you didn't know who Ted Haggard was, you must not be very familiar with the evangelical movement. He was the head of the 30 million member NAE and named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the US. Earlier this year, Joe had an article on the 50 most important Christians in America that mentioned Haggard. I am not suggesting that the Haggard scandal should affect your vote, I was just thanking Joe for finally acknowledging one of the most important pieces of news of the year in the evangelical world. He has been rather silent on the issue since last Thursday, an odd stance for a blog named "The Evangelical Outpost."

Tom, there are many differences between the kamikazes of WWII and the jihadists of today. Although Bush consistently tries to compare his "War on Terror" to World War II, there are a great number of differences in the dynamics at work. For one, once the Japanese emperor accepted surrender, the Japanese people immediately ceased all resistance. I can't see that happening in the current conflict, can you? While Japanese militarism was confined almost entirely to Japan itself, Muslim fundamentalism is a worldwide phenomenon.

Do you really think that our current strategy has reduced the number of jihadists? I think you and I would agree that jihadism is a bad thing, but we must be a little smarter in how we defang and defuse the dynamics that create such intense hatred of us. Even Bush seems to have acknowledged that "staying the course" is not working. Whatever the outcome of today's election, I predict that Bush will announce some dramatically different approach soon after the election is over. At least, I hope so. The impending Baker-Hamilton report should provide the cover he needs to try something very different.

26

the elder & tom:

Re: SARS, the US was at the mercy of the public health systems of Vietnam, Thailand, China, and Taiwan.

In fact the screening procedures for SARS are woefully inadequate even in those places but at least there travelers arriving from other countries are subjected to infra-red temperature measurements.

Regarding influenza, it's actually worse than that: we do not, despite the warnings from last year have any capability to withstand a flu attack of the order of the 1968/57 varieties, let alone an attack of avian flu.

And avian flu is already endemic in wild ducks and geese. Worldwide.

I know, you didn't hear it from Rush Limbaugh or whoever else you get your talking points from, but this really is a "ticking time bomb."

And we have no precautions.

And the number of potential casualties in the US alone would be something like 300 World Trade Centers.

And yes, Bush is responsible. SARS happened on his watch. The flu vaccine crisis happened on his watch. And there has been no increases in public health spending to deal with a potential flu pandemic. Which we know will happen. Which we won't have time to produce enough vaccine, because we haven't started. Which we won't have stockpiled enough Tamiflu for. Which will wreak utter havoc on our economy - just like it did in 1918/19.

And when it does happen, and when some Republican says "nobody could have forseen that..." remember my words.

Because anybody could have forseen it.

Just like anybody who read the Aug. 6 2001 presidential daily briefing could have forseen 9/11.

Just like anybody who got the reports from FEMA would have known the levees would break.

Just like every other bit of incompetence covered up by really bad lies has been promulaged by this regime.

And cut and run is better than stay the course and die, I might add: it is better to live on one's feet than to die on one's knees. And the latter is Bush's policy.

27

Ex-preacher and Mumon,

In a way, it's hard to argue with you, since we agree on so much.

We all agree that we should win. We all agree that we should prudently avoid inflaming jihadi sentiment when possible. We all agree that we should hand off Iraq to the Iraqis as soon as possible (although we seem to disagree about what circumstances would allow us to do that).

We're not about to change each other's minds, and I acknowledge that it is possible that I am wrong about some of these things, or even most things. So I'm glad you'll be going out to vote. I hope you continue to vigorously debate and help us figure all these things out. Hopefully the truth will emerge one way or another.

Hopefully we will end up doing the right thing by the Iraqis and for our own security, and for civilization in general.

Cheers,
Matthew

28

ex-preacher Kaffinator, if you didn't know who Ted Haggard was, you must not be very familiar with the evangelical movement.

Not true. I think I’m rather well-versed on the evangelical movement and I had never heard of Ted Haggard until two years ago. (Even after I met him in person I wasn't too impressed by him.)

He was the head of the 30 million member NAE…

Let’s be clear. The NAE does not have “30 million members.” The NAE has denominations as members and counts every member of those churches as people they “represent.” So let’s say you go to a church such as, oh let’s say, the Assemblies of God. You may (most likely) have never heard of the NAE yet they claim to represent you. I guarantee that 75%+ of the people the NAE claims to “represent” have never heard of the organization.

…and named by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the US.

Uh, yeah, they named Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on that list too. This may come as a surprise but what Time considers “influential” and what the people in the pews consider influential are two different things.

Earlier this year, Joe had an article on the 50 most important Christians in America that mentioned Haggard.

Yeah, Dr. Phil was on that list too. As you’ll recall, I was making fun of such a silly idea that people like Haggard, Robert Schuller, and T.D. Jakes are the “most important” Christians in America.

I am not suggesting that the Haggard scandal should affect your vote, I was just thanking Joe for finally acknowledging one of the most important pieces of news of the year in the evangelical world.

You can’t be serious? Do you really think this is “one of the most important pieces of news of the year in the evangelical world”? If so then you don’t know too many evangelicals. Most evangelicals had never heard of Ted Haggard. Most won’t think about him after this story churns through the news cycle. The only reason this story is important is because it is deemed, whether true or not, to be symptomatic of the mega-church movement.

He has been rather silent on the issue since last Thursday, an odd stance for a blog named "The Evangelical Outpost."

Shouldn’t that have told you something? Why would an evangelical blogger not write about “one of the most important pieces of news of the year in the evangelical world”? Did it never occur to you that I --and my evangelical readers -- might not consider it to be particularly newsworthy?

29

Cheesehead:

I'm still reeling at the snub!

30

Matthew:
If we fail, then the Islamo-fascists will have scored a substantial victory against the Great Satan.

I'd hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that ship sailed a long time ago. The Islamo-fascists have a strong foothold in Iraq right now, and this is precisely because of our invasion (and, more importantly, our failure to plan for its aftermath), not in spite of it.

It's difficult to imagine a greater favor we could have done for al-Qaeda than what we actually did: Turned our back on Afghanistan and got ourselves distracted in Iraq.

I'm not sure how much better the Democrats could do, but it's difficult to imagine that they could do worse.

Of course, the GOP apologists are aptly summarized on the matter in this comic.

31

Joe,

Did it never occur to you that I --and my evangelical readers -- might not consider [the Ted Haggard story] to be particularly newsworthy?

This seems to fall, with all due respect, under the category of "wanting to eat your cake and have it, too".

One of the biggest themes of bloggers on the right-side of the political spectrum, such as Hugh Hewitt, is how the not-so-hidden agendas of the mainstream media affects their news coverage. The New York Times and CNN and the Associated Press and others are guilty of manipulating their audience by manipulating what gets covered and how.

It is only fair such bloggers apply the same standards to themselves. In particular, it is bogus that Hugh Hewitt has not even mentioned Ted Haggard -- this is manipulation by omission in my view. If Mr. Hewitt is going to promote people like Mr. Haggard, he has a responsibility to report on the more egregious of their shortcomings when they happen to become public.

If such silence on Mr. Hewitt's part is not dishonest, then it is pretty darn close to being dishonest.

32

Tgirsch,

Hello, old friend.

The short answer to your point is that we (the U.S. coalition, the Republicans, President Bush) did not break Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Baathists supporters broke Iraq.

The long answer is that Iraq is not a distraction. Osama bin Laden is just one aspect of a much broader Islamo-fascist movement. We might want to duck fights that don't seem strictly necessary, but that is just sticking our heads in the ground.

Good to hear from you, amigo!

33

Trying to understand evangelicals by reading Time magazine is akin to trying to understand African-Americans by listening to Amos and Andy.

34

Matthew It is only fair such bloggers apply the same standards to themselves. In particular, it is bogus that Hugh Hewitt has not even mentioned Ted Haggard -- this is manipulation by omission in my view. If Mr. Hewitt is going to promote people like Mr. Haggard, he has a responsibility to report on the more egregious of their shortcomings when they happen to become public.

I completely agree. And if Hugh Hewitt had ever mentioned Haggard on his show before than he should mention him now. But I don't think Hugh even knew about Haggard prior to this scandal.

35

Joe: "Why would an evangelical blogger not write about “one of the most important pieces of news of the year in the evangelical world”? Did it never occur to you that I --and my evangelical readers -- might not consider it to be particularly newsworthy?"

You have got to be kidding me. Haggard got meetings with Bush. Best pals with Dobson. Ran around with Chuck "Cowboy" Colson. And when his peccadilloes came to light, it was front-page news across the nation, the subject of TV broadcasts, fodder for all the late night comics and Stewart and Colbert, and the word "Evangelical" was front and center for the whole thing.

If you guys ever got up in front of the American people, you did this week. And what a story! Positively Elmer-Gantrian in scope, with a man at the peak of a church and basking in the glow of absolute and total moral authority, crashing to the depths of ignominy and dissolution. We have greed, lust, betrayal (at multiple levels), adultery, gluttony, sin up the yin-yang and out the wazoo, why, this was epic.

Hewitt? Crickets. Dobson? Chirp. Nobody on the Freaky Far Right wanted to touch this thing. It was oozing and festering and too horrible to contemplate - like one of those cases where a passenger slips between the subway train and the platform and gets twisted around and is still alive and conscious. The queas-o-meter was pegged in the red, church matrons were fainting, dogs howled in the night.

So yeah, we figured that you would probably have something to say about it. Did you? No, but we got treated to yet more dithering about Kerry's botched joke, which was a one-trick pony to begin with. No, it's pretty clear that you and Hewitt and Malkin and Ingraham all take your cues from the same places, marching in lockstep, reinforcing the message - less akin to journalists than masons laying bricks of fabricated faux reality.

This was your chance to do something interesting, noteworthy, vital and original. When your brethren were hurting and looking for some words of guidance and succor, you could have stepped forward and risen to the occasion, Joe. Your instincts should have told you that much.

36

I'll grant that most evangelicals in the pew hadn't heard of Haggard before last week, but I still maintain that people (whether evangelical or not) who follow the movement and read the news did know who he was. I heard about him about 2 years ago, too.

Okay, so you want to distance yourself from Time. How about Christianity Today? A quick search on "Haggard" turned up 491 hits. ASAIK he's the only Haggard they would write about. CT has also been giving extensive (and well-researched) coverage to the recent scandal.

I think I know why you haven't been talking about the scandal, and it's not because you don't think it's newsworthy. But I could be wrong.

37

Ex-p>I'll grant that most evangelicals in the pew hadn't heard of Haggard before last week, but I still maintain that people (whether evangelical or not) who follow the movement and read the news did know who he was. I heard about him about 2 years ago, too.

I'm happy to admit, then, that you follow the "evangelical movement" more closely than I do. Guess I'm too busy just being a part of it :-) This is a movement, by the way, that doesn't really depend on the moral authority of Ted Haggard. If it did, it would be big news. But what this is, is a simple story of sin overtaking someone's life. It is tragic, and painful. But if anything, it validates the premises upon which our movement is based.

Raven>Dobson? Chirp.

Now, I know you don't normally permit facts to interrupt your ranting, but you might want to note that Dr. Dobson discussed this controversy on his radio program the Monday after the story broke. It has also come up on a number of Christian blogs. Perhaps "The Ostrich" would make for a better moniker?

38

"...evangelicals are only impeded by inclement weather of biblical proportions."

I've always liked frogs; hope they arrive "bufo" it's too late.

"The U.S. is currently in a long, hard slog against Islamist terror and fascism."

Made longer and harder by stupid foreign policy. Hi Matthew!

Tgirsch: You should show up more often.

Neil Patrick: See? I told you you'd feel better. Now I will send you the Judy Garland collection you have coveted.

39

Raven Haggard got meetings with Bush.

Q This Reverend Haggard out in Colorado, is he someone who is close to the White House? There had been reports that he was on the weekly call with evangelicals. Is that true?

MR. FRATTO: I'm actually told that that's not true, that he has -- in terms of a weekly call that he has? He had been on a couple of calls, but was not a weekly participant in those calls. I believe he's been to the White House one or two times.

And when his peccadilloes came to light, it was front-page news across the nation, the subject of TV broadcasts, fodder for all the late night comics and Stewart and Colbert, and the word "Evangelical" was front and center for the whole thing.

And what was the justification for making it front page news? Take a look at that Time headline again: “Why the Haggard Scandal Could Hurt Evangelical Turnout.” Some morons in the media actually believed this could affect the election and so made it a national political—rather than a regional religious—story.

Dobson? Chirp.

Perhaps you missed the press release that Dobson sent out to the media
(http://insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5115986,00.html) or the story about Dobson and Haggard that ran in the Washington Post (“Dobson to Aid in Counseling Haggard”) or the time he dedicated to the story on his nationally syndicated radio show or…

You didn’t even bother to check before you made that claim, did you?

This was your chance to do something interesting, noteworthy, vital and original. When your brethren were hurting and looking for some words of guidance and succor, you could have stepped forward and risen to the occasion, Joe. Your instincts should have told you that much.

[eyes rolling] Yeah, Raven. That’s what you wanted to see. You wanted me to write something thoughtful like many other Christian bloggers have done. How many of those posts did you read?

I'll grant that most evangelicals in the pew hadn't heard of Haggard before last week, but I still maintain that people (whether evangelical or not) who follow the movement and read the news did know who he was. I heard about him about 2 years ago, too.

ex-preacher I think I know why you haven't been talking about the scandal, and it's not because you don't think it's newsworthy. But I could be wrong.

The story is a mega-church issue. That’s just not my “beat.” I don’t often write about Rick Warren, or Bill Hybels or any of the other megachurches. Many other bloggers cover those stories better than I ever could.

40

Rob,

Hello Mr. Ryan,

[a fight made] longer and harder by stupid foreign policy.

President Bush's foreign policy has almost always seemed very intelligent to me.

Does that make me stupid, too?

I hope you don't lead discussions in your English class with the same level of sensitivity :)

41

The Raven:

This "we never knew Haggard" nonsense is the height of absurdity, as you point out.

All Catholics know who the pope is, all Episcopalians know who their head archbishop is, and anybody who seriously follows the religious right know who the heads of various groups are.

So we're supposed to believe that Evangelicals don't know and aren't concerned about the head guy who represents "the" National Association of Evangelicals?

A quick search of Crosswalk.com and Christianity today.com yield dozens of hits on Haggard.

And, yeah Dobson discussed it: 4 days after the story broke, and attacked those who told the truth when the story first came out.

Dobson has some apologizing to do.

A lot.

And not just for the Haggard affair.

Kaffinator:

This is a movement, by the way, that doesn't really depend on the moral authority of Ted Haggard. If it did, it would be big news.

I know, and the Communist movement is bigger than Comrade Lenin.

Look this is a guy - like John Hagee, like D. James Kennedy, who purports to stand in the place of Almighty God and tell you what God is saying - he acts (blasphemously) as though he's God's mouthpiece.

And you don't think the "movement" depends on him?

I know, and Stalin deviated from True Communism.

Riiight.

42

Mummy proves again and again that he has never spoken with an evangelical Christian. "Know your enemy..."

43

Mumon,

heres a shock, I'm not a Republican. I'm a centrist Independent. Which means I am not so blinded by hate and bias to believe that one party is "criminal" and the other is not. Neither party is perfect or even close to it. If you were being honest with yourself and others you would recognize and admit that both parties often do very bad things. The Dems have a long history of corruption and sleaze and criminal behavior that is well documented. Some of it very disturbing. Read the Donkey Cons book if your truly open minded. The Dems have been a criminal enterprise since at least the Civil War. This was the party of slavery, the party of vested Southern special interest, the party of union/Mafia funding, and more recently the party in the paid pocket of China. Get real.

And your preaching to the wrong crowd anyway. Nobody here cares one whit about your constant "criminal" claims. Sorry, but we really DO NOT CARE. Your wasting your time and your bile and repetitive carping is just boring.

The hard fact as far as the war goes is that we are fighting a near impossible fight. Prior to 911 I read an interesting article on a Pentagon training exercise that had involved military analysts and strategy experts from the US and Europe in which they tried to fight a theoretical asymmetric war against a global enemy like Al-Qaeda. Despite repeated runs of the exercise they lost every single time regardless of the strategy used. The whole thing was theoretical of course, but still disturbing. They concluded that there may not be a way to defeat such an enemy using legal and conventional means. Thats the hard fact. Al-Qaeda and similar groups will not be defeated by playing nice and observing human rights and worrying about getting rough with prisoners who have info we need and caring about international law or even the Constitution. And anyone who has spent a little time actually finding out what the long term global intentions of such Islamic terror groups are should be very very afraid.

Sure Bush and the current Admin have made some mistakes. I'm not a fan of Rummy's minimalist military ideas. I think his downgrading of our conventional forces and heavy armor is putting us at risk in any future conflict with the China/Russia/Iran axis that is developing. But if you really believe that Al Gore or John Kerry or the Dems as a whole would have done or would be doing any better then your just blinded by partisan delusion.

I'll tell you what really burns me about all of this as far as politics goes. This should NOT be a partisan issue. This SHOULD be a time when the country is united and working together to solve the problems we are faced with. Instead its been turned into a partisan issue, and before you say "Bush" again the truth is that it has been turned into one by both sides. Both could not see beyond petty politics and short term gain and if you think the Dems have not done so every bit as much as the Republicans then you not being honest with yourself. The extremists on both sides, the netroot nuts, the Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan haters, AND the neocons at the Weekly Standard are all equally to blame for playing brainless, morally bankrupt and childish political games at a time of national crisis.

Now, having said all that I owe you an apology. My previous post was unfair and to harsh. I'm sorry.

Peace to you.

44

"So we're supposed to believe that Evangelicals don't know and aren't concerned about the head guy who represents "the" National Association of Evangelicals?"

Nope. Never heard of him prior to this. Heres another shock, my church, which is Evangelical, is not even in the NAE. Nor are many others. And even if I had known who the guy was, so what? All of us are sinners. All of us fall. Big deal. Welcome to the real world. Are you a perfect person Mumon? Then get that stone handy.

The only "leader" my church has ever had was John Wimber, who had centrist to center left political views and did not think much of getting involved in politics at all.

Evangelicalism is a far more diverse movement than the mainstream media would have you believe. And we don't have national leaders. Almost nobody in my church cares what Pat Robertson thinks and most that do care think hes a nutjob.

About the only guy who has the serious respect of most Evangelicals is Billy Graham, and he's a lifelong Democrat.

Another guy you would never have heard of who has a lot of respect and gravitas for many Evangelicals, especially in my church, is Stanley Hauerwas, who is apolitical and a pacifist.

Seriously Mumon, your ignorance and bigotry is showing.

45

Hi Mumon,

To Raven’s inadequate fact checking you have added incomprehensible logic.

>All Catholics know who the pope is, all Episcopalians know who their head archbishop is, and anybody who seriously follows the religious right know who the heads of various groups are.

Haggard is suddenly the Evangelical pope? That is rich. Look, I’m telling you the truth: I had no idea who this guy was. And I can guarantee I’m with 95% of my evangelical brethren on this one. It’s not that we’re ignorant, it’s just that there are a lot of people who wield some kind of influence, and call themselves evangelical or fancy themselves some sort of evangelical leader. There are thousands of growing churches out there with their pastors. Do you seriously expect us to be familiar with every single one of these? Sheesh.

Personally, I try to follow a less time-constrained set of folks. If I had to pick, I'd rather learn at the feet of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Wesley, Spurgeon, and Lewis than any six modern contemporaries you might select (not that they don't have their place).

>And you don't think the "movement" depends on him?

Nope. It doesn’t. What makes you think it does? I propose a test. In your universe, Haggard is the evangelical pope whose moral compromise strikes at the very heart of everything we evangelicals hold dear. As a result the entire edifice will go down flaming in despair. Churches will close, people will wail in the streets, but ultimately we will all become nice docile philanthropic atheists worshipping at the church of Dawkins.

In my universe, Haggard has only a passing influence on anything besides his home church, which will take a while to deal with the controversy, but will manage to pull through. Other churches will remain largely unaffected, as will any political movements related to the evangelical church.

Care to bet which universe is the real one?

46

From where I sit Joe is right. I'm probably more of a fundamentalist but I suppose I could fit under a big tent with evangelical on it. I never heard of Haggard until the accusations hit the news. I do know the names of a few mega-church leaders are but he wasn't one of them and none of them interest me very much. While I am and I would guess that Joe is also saddened by this, if a few of you who think you know what evangelicals are all about actually knew a few and asked them you would find most of them feel as I do.

47

Joe,

And if Hugh Hewitt had ever mentioned Haggard on his show before then he should mention him now. But I don't think Hugh even knew about Haggard prior to this scandal.

Mr. Hewitt knew about Ted Haggard back in August. He mentioned him as a religious/political authority in this post about Colorado politician Jeff Crank.

Joe, think about Mr. Hewitt's reaction to the picture of Amy Guttman, president of U Penn, posing with a student dressed up as a Halloween suicide bomber (you can see the picture here; you can read the transcript of Hugh Hewitt discussing the picture with Victor Davis Hanson here).

Mr. Hewitt had a strong, visceral reaction to something that was really kind of trivial. To Mr. Hewitt, the unfortunate picture was symbolic of a certain kind of moral confusion in academia about the Middle East and jihadism.

The Ted Haggard scandal, as you point out, is primarily the story of one unfortunate sinner and the mega-church movement. However, the symbolism here, especially after the Mark Foley scandal, is at least as potent as the symbolism of the Amy Guttman picture. If nothing else, it is a cautionary tale that reminds us that the most respected authority figures may in fact have feet of clay.

For Mr. Hewitt to not even mention the story is very lame, and perhaps dishonest.

48

I had to take the links out from my last post to get the post past Joe's spam filter.

I can't even list them without them getting blocked.

49

THIS JUST IN!!!

Britney Spears is filing for divorce. As everyone knows, Spears in 2005 admitted to interest in Kabbalah, a form of Jewish mysticism. Judaism is the precursor and foundation of Christianity. This pretty much makes Spears the Queen of Evangelicalism. Therefore Joe would be shamefully incomplete in his coverage if he didn't discuss the impact that this momentous breakup is going to have on the church and the evangelical political sphere.

Oh and almost forgot, Hewitt is just a bastard.

50

Just saw that 1/3 of Evangelicals voted democratic! God Bless them.

51

Joe wrote: "Uh, yeah, they named Fr. Richard John Neuhaus on that list too. This may come as a surprise but what Time considers “influential” and what the people in the pews consider influential are two different things."

And I just looked at your post from yesterday. Guess whose name caught my eye at the very top? Yep, Father Neuhaus. I'm not sure how carefully you read the Time article, Joe, but they explained that they listed several non-evangelicals who are highly influential in the evangelical world. Another one on the list was Catholic Rick Santorum. Based on the latest reports out of Pennsylvania, though, I wouldn't be surprised if you can't remember who he is either. I recall the list being very accurate and the article surprisingly sympathetic to evangelicals.

I disagree completely about the Haggard saga being merely a "mega-church story." With any other other mega-church pastor (excluding other national figures such as Warren, Hybels, Osteen or TD Jakes) this would have been just a local story. What made the story national news is Haggard's high profile in the fight against same-sex marriage. He was even a featured speaker at one of the "Justice Sunday" events, which I believe are sponsored by your organization. Correct? This is a culture wars/political/evangelical story. If that's not your bailiwick, I don't know what is.

52

I think the conservatives on this thread need to cut Mumon and Raven some slack. While we think they are being intentionally obtuse, they are just being consistent with their politico-worldview.

The reason that they assume that Haggard is our "leader" is because they can't imagine not having someone to tell them how to think and how to act. They assume that since they subscribe to a herd mentality where everyone has to think alike that the same must be true for us as well.
Sure, we recognize that their are about 44 million of us in America and Haggard led a church of about 14,000. But anyone who has a triple digit following looks like a demi-god to them. That's why when they hear us say that we don't know who Haggard is they assume we must be lying.

When they refer to "talking points" and Rovian plots its because that is the way they operate and so assume we must do exactly the same. Why do you think Mumon sounds like a broken record? Because Markos gives him the script from which he can present his "perspective." When we do weird stuff (like thinking for ourselves) it throws him off and he doesn't know how to respond. He just turns up the goofy conspiracy minded rhetoric to eleven and hits the "Post" button.

So let's go easy on them. They've had a rough few years. In fact, they're probably feeling a bit giddy thinking that they may retake Congress and turn it into the D.C. office of the Daily Kos. They'll be positively unbearable for the next few weeks. Eventually, though, they'll realize that Karl Rove controls those with D's behind their name just as he does the GOP. (C'mon, nobody really thought Kerry came up with that gaffe on their own, did they?) Let them have their fun before their next delusions start kicking in.

53

And may I add a plea to fellow non-evangelicals. Let's go easy on Joe, you guys. Clearly, this is a difficult time for him. He is now slipping from paranoia to full-blown delusional despair. Those of us in the reality-based community must give the faith-based folks a little time to breathe. Though they will never be able to accept reality, they will construct a new elaborate script, ideally involving the end-times, to help explain away what's happening and somehow turn it into God's will. (But God wants Pelosi in charge? Does not compute. Danger, danger. Will self-destruct!)

Let us be magnanimous in victory. Don't worry, Joe, I'm sure Pelosi will welcome your crowd to the table in much the same way that DeLay and Hastert have welcomed our side in the last few years.

54

MG: "Does that make me stupid, too?"

No, it doesn't even make Bush stupid. The policy is stupid. Smart people sometimes do stupid things.

So does Bush ;-)

"I hope you don't lead discussions in your English class with the same level of sensitivity :)"

Different audience, different purpose, different material. My role in class is "the guide on the side", not "the sage on the stage". We work on critical thinking skills, reading, writing, presenting, etc. Where it leads the student is up to him or her. The focus is on universal themes, not current political issues.

The feelings of adolescents are easily hurt by adults. I lose part of my constituency when I get the sensitivity thing wrong.

You guys are big kids, and I think you can take my opinions with a grain of salt, a shot of whiskey, or whatever.

55

Rob,

You guys are big kids, and I think you can take my opinions with a grain of salt, a shot of whiskey, or whatever.

Well, I'm certainly more likely to take your views with a grain of salt when you dismiss a foreign policy that has resulted in the liberation of 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis as "stupid".

But the important thing is how you conduct your classes -- so I ain't got no complaints.

Take care,
Matthew

56

Speaker of the House Pelosi.

Why did you people think this was the worst of all possible worlds? Get ready for something you have never seen. Responible government.

57

Many Evangelicals complained when the Supreme court struck down Texas' sodomy laws. But I haven't heard much from them on this since, as the focus has shifted to gay marriage. So do Christians think homosexuality should be legal? Why is there no campaign to ban homosexuality? Political expediency? Is political expediency the basis for choosing issues Christians "must" support?

Allow me to be provocative and suggest that it is inconsistent to allow homosexuality but not gay marriage. Or at least its bad public policy. If two people enter a relationship, we should encourage them to formalize it in marriage -- this is better for the kids, the economy etc. In fact just about every argument for heterosexual marriage over cohabitation, can be made for homosexual marriage over 2 gay people living together (with kids). Yes, gay marriage has not been legal historically in most societies, but neither has homosexuality.

So either Christians should campaign (with these constitutional ammendments) for banning homosexuality AND gay marriage, or they should support both.

58

I think God must have answered Ted Haggard's prayer from his last sermon on October 29. Mr. Haggard was praying for the upcoming elections-that "lies...and deceptions would be revealed", so the electorate would have clarity.

John W.

59

Nat,

I am a christian (I might be considered evangelical, but I don't like this label anymore). Anyway, I just want to say this. In terms of the government, homosexuals should be allowed to enter into a marriage, or civil union or whatever you want to call it. In fact, maybe it should be encouraged. Despite what Mr. Tony Perkins, James Dobson, et. al. say, the government is not going to force churches to perform marriage cermonies they don't approve.

Let the gays and lesbians have whatever civil arrangements they want-I thought America was a free country. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing these preachers focusing on homosexuality, and ignoring important issues such as the Iraq war, Torture, Contempt for our civil liberties, and the corporate takeover of our government. I'm sorry to say this but, I think Tony Perkins and James Dobson are doing more harm than good with their political agendas.

John W.

60

MG: "Well, I'm certainly more likely to take your views with a grain of salt when you dismiss a foreign policy that has resulted in the liberation of 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis as "stupid"."

I hope you are not a CPA, Matthew, because you seem to have forgotten the other half of the balance sheet. Using your accounting methods, I could mount a spirited defense of drunk driving.

Looking at the positive results while ignoring the negative results and the costs makes it hard to characterize anything as stupid. Look at the big picture and the stupid comes into sharp focus.

61

"reality-based community"?

We'll see...

62

Rob Ryan,

I hope you're not a general, because you're trying to run a cost/benefit analysis of the War on Terror on the assumption that we've lost in Iraq, when the fight is far from over.

A cost/benefit analysis of the war against Hitler wouldn't have looked too hot either, before June 6 1944. Especially if you assumed we were going to lose.

63

I'm talking about the ill-conceived Iraq project, not the broader war on terror. Really, Matthew, self-serving strawman assumptions of my willingness to surrender are beneath you.

Comparing Iraq to Nazi Germany is proposterous; Iraq lacks the expansionary ambition and economic, industrial, and military power to support it even if they had it. For crying out loud, the country is too divided to even provide a counterweight to Iran. And guess who is to blame.

Even if one were to grant noble intentions, we've made a bad investment.

64

have you ever thought for yourselves?

65

Rob,

I'm talking about the ill-conceived Iraq project, not the broader war on terror. Really, Matthew, self-serving strawman assumptions of my willingness to surrender are beneath you.

Rob, seeing how you're a very intelligent and articulate person, I'm surprised you don't seem to realize how obnoxious your "self-serving strawman assumptions" accusation is.

We're were talking about President Bush's "stupid" foreign policy, not just the war in Iraq. But you can substitute "war in Iraq" for "War on Terror" in my last post if you wish. My point still stands: you are decrying the cost and the expense of a war (in Iraq) based on an assumption that we are going to lose, when it is not clear that losing is the most likely outcome.

Saddam's Iraq was like Nazi Germany in many ways. Since you don't believe me, allow me to assign you a homework assignment: Find three ways Saddam's Iraq was similar to Nazi Germany; find three ways it was different; discuss.

If you choose to do this, I'll respond and discuss it with you in turn.

Ciao.

66

Matthew:
The short answer to your point is that we (the U.S. coalition, the Republicans, President Bush) did not break Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Baathists supporters broke Iraq.

Even if true, Saddam Hussein in his Ba'athists came to power in no small part because of US intervention. After all, he was our "friend" when he was fighting the evil Iran. To argue that Hussein was not a problem of our own making is to be ignorant of the history of the region.

But in any case, your assertion is not true. Iraq was doubtless far from a perfect place with Hussein in power, but it was decidedly not a haven for anti-American terrorists (which it is now, because of our invasion); it was decidedly not friendly to al-Qaeda (which it is now, because of our invasion); it was decidedly not a friend to (the arguably more dangerous Iran (which it is now, because of our invasion); and it was decidedly not rules by Sharia law (which it soon will be, thanks to our invasion).

Prior to invasion, Hussein was indeed a threat to his own people, but not much else. Iraq probably wasn't even in the top ten list of countries which posed legitimate threats to the United States. Certainly not in the top five. And people in government knew this at the time. Their dissenting opinions (long since proven correct) were rewarded with reassignments and often requests to resign. And now we're stuck in a situation that's undeniably worse, and more dangerous to America, than pre-war Iraq ever was, and with no viable way out.

If you want to know what's really going on in Iraq, and in the "global war on terror" or "global struggle against extremism" or whatever they're calling it this week, with a minimum of spin, you really ought to watch this, and this, and this, and this, and especially this. They talk to people in and out of the military, conservative and liberal, people in the know. And the picture becomes very clear: things are now far worse precisely because of American missteps at nearly every turn.

I will say this, though. You ought to consider selling those rose-colored glasses through which you view Iraq. I bet a lot of people could use them.

you dismiss a foreign policy that has resulted in the liberation of 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis as "stupid".

...except that the typical Iraqi doesn't view the Americans as liberators; we're mainly viewed as occupiers. And thanks to the power vacuum we've created, we've replaced a tyrannical government with mob rule. Not exactly any better, and probably even worse for the typical Iraqi.

And it's funny that you should mention Afghanistan, given that this country has slipped perilously close to falling right back into Taliban hands, thanks in large part to our decision to ignore them in favor of our little Iraq side trip.

So I'm going to side with Rob on this one. The foreign policy is "stupid" because it pretends that it liberated two nations when in fact it didn't liberate either in any lasting way, and when in both cases, what is left when we leave is likely to be far worse than what we found when we got there.

A cost/benefit analysis of the war against Hitler

Oh, please, not again with the comparisons to World War II. The war against the Axis bears absolutely zero resemblance to our current conflict. For one thing, Germany had invaded several neighbors, was threatening to invade more, and Hitler's ambition of conquering Europe was clear. Iraq hadn't invaded anyone or even threatened to do so in over a decade. And he was actively hostile to the people who attacked us. Your analogy would be like trying to use Hitler's movements in Europe as an excuse to invade Mexico, and then dismissing those who opposed the Mexican invasion as short-sighted appeasers.

when it is not clear that losing is the most likely outcome.

Again with the rose-colored glasses. Your refusal to acknowledge that Iraq is beyond our ability to save does not make it not so. The decision to disband the Iraqi military and police created a situation in which literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had weapons and ammunition and suddenly no job. The decision to eliminate all the Ba'athists from power would up alienating scads of people who were Ba'athists in name only, no friends of Hussein, and could have helped keep order and stability. Those critical mistakes can't be unmade.

Find three ways Saddam's Iraq was similar to Nazi Germany; find three ways it was different

Similar to Nazi Germany:
1) Megalomaniacal leader
2) No friend to (and probably hostile to) Islamic extremists
3) Hatred of the Jews

Iraq dissimilar because:
1) Hadn't invaded anyone or threatened to in over a decade
2) No air power whatsoever
3) Not viewed as a threat by most of Europe
4) No significant military-industrial complex
5) Largely secular government
6) Can't get a decent beer
7) Religious minority were the oppressors rather than the oppressed
8) Did I mention they hadn't invaded anyone in a long time, and hadn't threatened to do so?

Rob:
You should show up more often.

Yeah, I know, I've been busy. :)

Joe:
...The reason that they assume that Haggard is our "leader" blah blah blah ...

While it's certainly overstating the case to say that Haggard is "your leader," it's coy to the point of absurdity to pretend, as you seem to be doing, that he was some obscure guy with little or no influence. He ain't James Dobson, but he ain't Joe Shmoe, either.

67

(Posting modified linkless comment until Joe approves the link-filled version)

Matthew:
The short answer to your point is that we (the U.S. coalition, the Republicans, President Bush) did not break Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his Baathists supporters broke Iraq.

Even if true, Saddam Hussein in his Ba'athists came to power in no small part because of US intervention. After all, he was our "friend" when he was fighting the evil Iran. To argue that Hussein was not a problem of our own making is to be ignorant of the history of the region.

But in any case, your assertion is not true. Iraq was doubtless far from a perfect place with Hussein in power, but it was decidedly not a haven for anti-American terrorists (which it is now, because of our invasion); it was decidedly not friendly to al-Qaeda (which it is now, because of our invasion); it was decidedly not a friend to (the arguably more dangerous Iran (which it is now, because of our invasion); and it was decidedly not rules by Sharia law (which it soon will be, thanks to our invasion).

Prior to invasion, Hussein was indeed a threat to his own people, but not much else. Iraq probably wasn't even in the top ten list of countries which posed legitimate threats to the United States. Certainly not in the top five. And people in government knew this at the time. Their dissenting opinions (long since proven correct) were rewarded with reassignments and often requests to resign. And now we're stuck in a situation that's undeniably worse, and more dangerous to America, than pre-war Iraq ever was, and with no viable way out.

If you want to know what's really going on in Iraq, and in the "global war on terror" or "global struggle against extremism" or whatever they're calling it this week, with a minimum of spin, you really ought to watch Frontline: Rumsfeld's War, and Frontline: The Insurgency, and Frontline: Return of the Taliban, and Frontline: The Lost Year In Iraq, and especially Frontline: The Dark Side (all available at the Frontline website). They talk to people in and out of the military, conservative and liberal, people in the know. And the picture becomes very clear: things are now far worse precisely because of American missteps at nearly every turn.

I will say this, though. You ought to consider selling those rose-colored glasses through which you view Iraq. I bet a lot of people could use them.

you dismiss a foreign policy that has resulted in the liberation of 50 million Iraqis and Afghanis as "stupid".

...except that the typical Iraqi doesn't view the Americans as liberators; we're mainly viewed as occupiers. And thanks to the power vacuum we've created, we've replaced a tyrannical government with mob rule. Not exactly any better, and probably even worse for the typical Iraqi.

And it's funny that you should mention Afghanistan, given that this country has slipped perilously close to falling right back into Taliban hands, thanks in large part to our decision to ignore them in favor of our little Iraq side trip.

So I'm going to side with Rob on this one. The foreign policy is "stupid" because it pretends that it liberated two nations when in fact it didn't liberate either in any lasting way, and when in both cases, what is left when we leave is likely to be far worse than what we found when we got there.

A cost/benefit analysis of the war against Hitler

Oh, please, not again with the comparisons to World War II. The war against the Axis bears absolutely zero resemblance to our current conflict. For one thing, Germany had invaded several neighbors, was threatening to invade more, and Hitler's ambition of conquering Europe was clear. Iraq hadn't invaded anyone or even threatened to do so in over a decade. And he was actively hostile to the people who attacked us. Your analogy would be like trying to use Hitler's movements in Europe as an excuse to invade Mexico, and then dismissing those who opposed the Mexican invasion as short-sighted appeasers.

when it is not clear that losing is the most likely outcome.

Again with the rose-colored glasses. Your refusal to acknowledge that Iraq is beyond our ability to save does not make it not so. The decision to disband the Iraqi military and police created a situation in which literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had weapons and ammunition and suddenly no job. The decision to eliminate all the Ba'athists from power would up alienating scads of people who were Ba'athists in name only, no friends of Hussein, and could have helped keep order and stability. Those critical mistakes can't be unmade.

Find three ways Saddam's Iraq was similar to Nazi Germany; find three ways it was different

Similar to Nazi Germany:
1) Megalomaniacal leader
2) No friend to (and probably hostile to) Islamic extremists
3) Hatred of the Jews

Iraq dissimilar because:
1) Hadn't invaded anyone or threatened to in over a decade
2) No air power whatsoever
3) Not viewed as a threat by most of Europe
4) No significant military-industrial complex
5) Largely secular government
6) Can't get a decent beer
7) Religious minority were the oppressors rather than the oppressed
8) Did I mention they hadn't invaded anyone in a long time, and hadn't threatened to do so?

Rob:
You should show up more often.

Yeah, I know, I've been busy. :)

Joe:
...The reason that they assume that Haggard is our "leader" blah blah blah ...

While it's certainly overstating the case to say that Haggard is "your leader," it's coy to the point of absurdity to pretend, as you seem to be doing, that he was some obscure guy with little or no influence. He ain't James Dobson, but he ain't Joe Shmoe, either.

68

Whoops, I see my comment was quickly approved. Sorry Joe, go ahead and delete the second comment (11:27 PM) as well as this one.

69

Tgirsch,

You state that Saddam was "decidedly not friendly" to Al Qaeda.

Not true. In fact, so not true, it undermines the credibility of your, "Listen to me, Matthew, I know the real deal on Iraq" act.

Even worse, you claim that Iraq "[is friendly to Al Qaeda now], because of our invasion." This is so untrue, it undermines your credibility squared. The problem in Iraq now is not an Al Qaeda-led campaign of terror, it is bitter and uncontrolled sectarian violence that threatens to spiral into civil war.

Al-Qaeda is the party in Iraq with the least friends.

As for your whole, Saddam-is-not-Hitler line of argument because he hadn't invaded anyone in a dozen years, I think you need to think that one through a little more.

Here's your homework assignment: figure out why Saddam's policy of non-invasion of other countries from 1992 to 2003 is not entirely probative of his not being a regional threat; discuss.

70

Matthew:

I'm sorry, but given that my stances here actually match the conventional wisdom much more closely than yours do, I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's your credibility that's questionable. Every purported link between Iraq and al-Qaeda has been soundly debunked. And if there's any evidence whatsoever that Hussein constituted anything more than a minor threat to any other country, especially any that didn't share a border with Iraq, I haven't seen it. Certainly nothing that would convince a neutral observer (a qualification for which neither of us qualifies).

Again, it puzzles me that you're so emotionally vested in this particular issue. You seem completely reasonable (and sane) on anything else, but here it seems that you're so drunk off the Kool-Aid, there's absolutely nothing that could convince you that you were wrong.

There was plenty that could have convinced me I was wrong about Iraq, but none of it materialized: no meaningful ties to al-Qaeda, as alluded to by the administration; no massive stockpiles of WMDs, as claimed by the administration; nothing even remotely approaching nuclear capability, as claimed by the administration. Any two of those three and I would have had some humble pie to consume. But the administration is 0-for-3 in that regard.

I'm sorry, but you seem awfully eager to pass all the homework assignments off onto others, and seem to have no interest in actually defending your own positions. I'm taking that as a sign of weakness in your positions. Feel free to prove me wrong, at whatever lengths you feel are necessary.

You want homework of your own? Go back to the 2003 SOTU speech, and score it for how much of the Iraq rhetoric there turned out to be true versus false.

71

Tgirsch,

No links to Al Qaeda, no nuclear program -- yes, I agree with you, you and I do appear to be living in alternative universes.

The reason I ask you to do some homework is because I have gone over all this with you several times, and nothing I say or link to gets you to budge. Yet I am hopeful that if you do your own research, you may actually understand a little better where I am coming from.

One thing I can tell you, since you won't be able to do any research on it yourself, is that I most definitely have not been drinking any kool-aid about Iraq or the War on Terror. My views are based on first-hand reports from the frontlines and from declassified intelligence. Maybe my judgement is off, but it isn't from putting on any rose-colored glasses, it's not from ignorance of the problems.

Peace, amigo.

72

Matthew:

Nothing you say or link gets me to budge because nothing you say or link is remotely close to compelling. When you have linked evidence in the past, it has generally been to cherry-picked, heavily-spun, less-than-neutral sources.

That there was simply no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda pre-invasion is simply beyond dispute. Even the administration has abandoned this position as a loser.

And Iraq had a nuclear program in the same way that I have a million dollars -- they wanted it to exist, but that didn't make it so. The difference between Iraq's pie-in-the-sky nuclear ambitions and a legitimate nuclear threat should have been illustrated quite clearly by North Korea's recent tests.

Of course, you can't prove a negative, and shouldn't have to, so the onus ought not be on me to prove that Iraq didn't have anything like an advanced nuclear program, or anything like a meaningful, collaborative relationship with al-Qaeda. The onus is on you (and like-minded individuals) to demonstrate that Iraq did. On both of these counts, the evidence has been so meager as to be laughable. And almost all of the few scraps of "evidence" that have been repeatedly tossed out there (cf., Atta in Prague) have been roundly debunked.

Understanding that it's entirely possible that I suffer from the same problem, I think that your view of the first-hand reports and declassified intelligence suffers from tunnel-vision and confirmation bias. This is simply human nature. Cold-readers (fake "psychics") rely on the human tendency to "remember the hits and forget the misses" in plying their craft. I think this is a similar case here, where you're overemphasizing the "hits" -- the stuff that confirms your worldview -- while de-emphasizing or ignoring the "misses."

As I said, it's possible that I suffer from the same thing (in some cases, it's probable); but I remain quite confident that a neutral observer, upon viewing all the evidence, would tend to agree with me on this. Does that make me right and you wrong? Not necessarily. It speaks only to the probabilities thereof.

73

Tgirsch,

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I've gone back over our comment-exchange on this thread to try to pick out why we disagree so strongly, even though we have access to the same basic facts, even though we are both familiar with the various arguments and analyses.

What I've come up with is this bit from your comment made 11/13 at 2:05 pm:

And if there's any evidence whatsoever that Hussein constituted anything more than a minor threat to any other country, especially any that didn't share a border with Iraq, I haven't seen it.

I think this is where you've lost a firm grip of reality.

How was Saddam like Hitler?

He had evil intentions. He wanted to be a megalomaniacal dictator who would unite the Arab world under his leadership, either through force of arms or the threat of force of arms.

You dismiss the threat. After all, he collapsed after a 3-week invasion, and the stockpiles of WMDs that Hans Blix and George Tenet and Hillary Clinton thought he had have never been found.

And it is true that he is not much of a threat now, after we liberated his country and pulled him out of a hole in the ground.

But he did have a nuclear program, he did send his ambassador to Niger in search of uranium, he did refuse to cooperate with the U.N. inspectors and document the fate of his stockpiles. Why would a chastened man, with no extra-territorial ambitions choose such a suicidal course? Why didn't he follow the path of Libya's Kaddaffi and co-operate with the U.N. and the U.S.?

Because he and his sons owned Iraq, they owned the oil wealth of Iraq, and they were damned if they were going to forgo what they wanted.

Saddam was a Stalinistic bully, he was never going to change his stripes, and if we were going to take him out, there was no better time to do it than early 2003.

We could have waited five or ten more years for more proof, but who would it have satisfied -- you, the Quaker pacifist groups who march with ANSWER, Ramsey Clark? I don't know, maybe five years later you would have approved an invasion. But I'm thinking that by the time you would have been ready to agree that Saddam really was a threat, it would already have been too late to do something about it.

Anyhow, that's enough for now. Let me know what you think, sir.

74

Matthew:
[Saddam] had evil intentions. He wanted to be a megalomaniacal dictator who would unite the Arab world under his leadership, either through force of arms or the threat of force of arms.

Congratulations. You've just described most of the leaders in the Middle East. Shall we pre-emptively invade each and every one of them. Look out, Tajikistan! I guess we're going to have our work cut out for us...

And it is true that he is not much of a threat now

No, but his country is more of one now. Because of its instability (owed almost entirely to our intervention), it destabilizes the entire region, and increases the regional power of the likes of Iran and Syria. Good thing Iran and Syria don't have "megalomaniacal" leaders who would "unite the Arab world" under their leadership...

But he did have a nuclear program...

He had nuclear ambitions. That's not even close to the same thing as a nuclear program. Iran and North Korea have nuclear programs. Saddam had a dream. By the way, even if the Niger claims weren't highly suspect -- and they are -- does trying, and failing, to obtain uranium constitute "having a nuclear program?" It seems to me that this sets the bar far too low.

Why would a chastened man, with no extra-territorial ambitions choose such a suicidal course?

Because, like most megalomaniacs, he had delusions about his own power and influence, and because openly defying the US unquestionably inflated his stature.

[I]f we were going to take him out, there was no better time to do it than early 2003.

Baloney. To the extent that the operation diverted manpower, resources, and attention from Afghanistan (which was arguably the top threat to US security, and which was involved in the 9/11 attacks), it's difficult to imagine a worse time to engage in a such a side-trip, having nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qaeda or anti-American terrorism.

You also assume that the only way to remove Hussein was by force, through preemptive invasion. This, too, is patently false. Just prior to our invasion, talks were underway to arrange exile, which would have removed Hussein from power without a single shot fired. Admittedly, the threat of invasion enabled these talks, but the best threats are the ones you never have to follow up on. And a solution such as this, properly implemented, would not have left the power vacuum and chaos that our actual course of action has given us.

But it seems that we're talking past each other here. The question isn't whether or not Hussein was a bad guy with delusions of grandeur and a lust for power. It's whether or not Hussein posed a major, imminent threat to the United States (as the administration claimed he did), and whether or not he provided weapons and support to al-Qaeda (as the administration claimed he did, or at the very least was likely to do so). In those cases, the answer is "no, he didn't."

I've said repeatedly that Iraq was not even in the top five in terms of threats to the US at the time of our invasion, and probably not even in the top ten. I stand by that assertion.

75

One more thing:

But I'm thinking that by the time you would have been ready to agree that Saddam really was a threat, it would already have been too late to do something about it.

This again assumes (incorrectly) that the only meaningful way to "do something about it" was to preemptively invade and forcibly remove him from power, as we did. But if we've learned anything in the three-plus years since our invasion, it's that the threat Hussein posed was minor, and that this is precisely because of the actions the world had collectively taken to keep him in check.

In other words, despite UN corruption and imperfect sanctions, the containment of Hussein was working. According to the Kay Report (and Kay himself, after his resignation), Hussein's WMD ambitions never moved past the "ambition" stage because of the sanctions and occasional air strikes. These were enough to mitigate the threat.

But now we're in a situation where no number of air strikes and no amount of sanctions will bring order to the nation now, and no amount of this will defuse the powder keg we've created by our actions there.

Frankly, this is an area where I sincerely hope I'm wrong. Nothing would make me happier than to learn that our invasion of Iraq was not a counterproductive waste of life, and did not further destabilize an already-unstable region of the world, and did not further fan the flames of anti-Americanism and Islamism. If standing on a mountaintop and proclaiming "Hitchens was right, I was wrong!" made it so, and made the sacrifices worthwhile, and made the more winnable, I would do it in a heartbeat. But that's looking more and more like wishful thinking.

76

Argh

"made the more winnable" should be "made the war winnable..."

77

Tgirsch,

I disagree with just about everything in your latest comments.

Rather than re-hash that, I want to explain that we are not going to lose the War on (Islamist) Terror, although we might end up losing the battle-front in Iraq.

The War on Terror (WOT), against global jihad, is something we have to win one way or another, or perish.

It's impossible to predict the future with any accuracy. The farther into the future that one tries to predict, then the impossibility grows exponentially greater. But here is my best guess as to how the WOT will play out:

If we win in Iraq, then the WOT might take another 20 or 30 years. If we lose in Iraq, then the WOT might take a lot longer, 50 to 100 years or even more. It would also be much bloodier and much, much more expensive in every way.

So maybe we will end up packing our tents up in Iraq in two years when a new president comes in and decides to pull the plug. But if that happens, it would be a long-term catastrophe for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

I don't think that will happen, but it is a possibility. But Iraq is just one campaign in a much longer and harder slog. Since our jihadi enemies are determined to fight us, we won't be able to duck that fight, since surrendering isn't even an option.

78

Visit my webpage!!

79

You very site very nice. Thanks owneros. Best.

80

You best site very nices. Thanks owneri. Bet.

81

Visit my webpage!!

82

Visit my webpage!!

83

Visit my webpage!!

84

Visit my webpage!!

85

Visit my webpage!!

86

Visit my webpage!!

87

Visit my webpage!!

88

Visit my webpage!!

89

Visit my webpage!!

90

Visit my webpage!!

91

Visit my webpage!!

92

Visit my webpage!!

93

Visit my webpage!!