Iraqi Christians gone or dead

Oh, the irony.

From the time of Jesus, there have been Christians in what is now Iraq. The Christian community took root there after the Apostle Thomas headed east.

But now, after nearly 2,000 years, Iraqi Christians are being hunted, murdered and forced to flee -- persecuted on a biblical scale in Iraq's religious civil war. You'd have to be mad to hold a Christian service in Iraq today.

[...]

"You were here during Saddam’s reign. And now after. Which was better? Which was worse?" Pelley asked.

"The situation now is clearly worse" than under Saddam, White replied.

"There’s no comparison between Iraq now and then," he told Pelley. "Things are the most difficult they have ever been for Christians. Probably ever in history. They’ve never known it like now."

"Wait a minute, Christians have been here for 2,000 years," Pelley remarked.

"Yes," White said.

"And it’s now the worst it has ever been," Pelley replied.

To understand the history of Iraqi Christianity, start with the Last Supper. One saint to the right of Jesus is the Apostle Thomas, who took the gospel and headed east after the death of Christ.

In modern times, under Saddam, Christians were treated much the same as Muslims; Saddam's right hand man, Tariq Aziz, was Christian.

Before the war, it's estimated there were about a million Christians in Iraq. They were a small minority, but free to worship, free to build churches, and free to speak the ancient language of Jesus, Aramaic. But, after the invasion, Muslim militants launched a war on each other and the cross.

On Sunday, Aug. 1, 2004, five churches were bombed. The Iraqi Christian community, which had survived invasions by Mongols and Turks, was driven out under American occupation. No one can be sure, but Canon White estimates most of Iraq's Christians have fled or been killed. Those still here are too old, too ill or too poor to run.

Ahh, torture -- can you smell the testosterone?

As has been noted in the past, conservative Republicans, especially Catholic ones, love the idea of torturing people. It must make them feel manly to think about going all Old Testament on people who aren't white conservative Christians. This was once again in evidence during the last Republican debate when a focus group of undecided Republicans registered their responses to answers by each of the candidates electronically.

When John McCain started talking about torture--specifically, about waterboarding--the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. "I don't have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11," said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.

Fox's "24" certainly appears to have had the desired effect. Naturally, these same Republicans who sport wood and drool uncontrollably at the thought of crushing a man's testicles in a vice believe that us dirty libruls who oppose torture are a bunch of pussies and terrorist lovers.

Americans are supposed to be better than this. In a previous era, enemy soldiers tried to find Americans when they wanted to surrender because they knew they would be treated humanely. Given that the military now regularly recruits white supremacists and individuals with criminal records so they can meet their recruitment goals because nobody with a conscience (or a functioning brain) is signing up to be IED fodder for the Bush war machine these days, we now have some soldiers who actively seek to torture and kill innocent civilians. Granted they are a very small minority, but it's still happening. And they're doing it in our name.

It's sad and shocking, though not surprising, to see the effect that some of our knuckle-dragging leaders have had on the populace. It's past high time for people of character to take charge again and call these Neanderthals out on their disgusting beliefs.

Roy Blunt is an idiot

My three-year-old can see through this argument.

"With one of the Democrats' leading war critics now saying the surge in Iraq is working, it's difficult to understand why the majority continues to push an irresponsible withdrawal plan that jeopardizes critical support funding for our troops," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said.

Tell us, Roy, how would withdrawing troops from Iraq to the safety of the United States jeopardize critical support funding for the troops? The House already passed a bill giving Dubya another $50 billion to play army, but Senate Republicans voted against it. And it's about time a Democrat of standing finally said this:

"We have provided every penny that is currently necessary to fund Defense Department operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world," Pelosi said. "It is President Bush and his Republican allies in the Senate who are preventing extra funds from reaching our troops."

Democrats need to wrap this war around the neck of every Republican who has supported it since day one.

Religious lunacy

Two stories this morning highlighting the idiocy and narrow-mindedness of religious fundamentalists:

In Sudan, protesters are calling for the execution of the British teacher, who allowed her Muslim students to name their class mascot, a teddy bear, "Muhammed". And Muslims swear that Islam is a religion of peace. Yeah, right.

Not to be outdone, in the great state of Texas, the director of the state's science curriculum has resigned "after being accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent design." Let me get this straight. The director of the science curriculum shouldn't be biased in favor of teaching actual science in science classes? Applying that logic consistently, astrology and alchemy should be legitimate topics for science class too. The moral of the story: check the background of the people you vote for. Too many of these morons are getting elected to positions of power.

Why is it that so many religious people think that the 10th century was the golden age of man?

Are you on the list?

The "terror watch list" has grown to more than 755,000 names. Are you on it? While a large number of people who are on "the list" are undoubtedly actual terrorists or suspected terrorists, how many people are on it simply because they've voiced discontent for the actions of the Bush administration? Author and activist Naomi Wolf is on it. I wonder how many people who will be marching in the upcoming "Constitution Days" rallies will be added to the list? Maybe those events will drive it past the 1 million mark.

Democrat quickly loses newfound spine

(Updated below)

Democratic Congressman Pete Stark from California surprised and excited Democrats everywhere last week when he provided indications of being a vertebrate during the S-CHIP debate in Congress when he said,

"You don't have money to fund the war or children, but you're going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Smelling salts were subsequently disbursed to revive fallen Republican Congressmen from their fainting couches after bearing witness to Stark's harsh, untoward, and ungentlemanly language. When pressed by dismayed Republicans for an apology, Stark went on to say,

"I have nothing but respect for our brave men and women in uniform and wish them the very best, but I respect neither the commander in chief who keeps them in harm's way nor the chickenhawks in Congress who vote to deny children healthcare."

Coming as it did on the heels of last month's irresponsible and ghastly criticism by MoveOn.org of General David Petraeus, otherwise known as The Man Whose Opinion Cannot Be Questioned, Republicans saw this as an opportunity to divert public attention away from both their opposition to the popular S-CHIP program and the president's failed occupation of Iraq by introducing a resolution to censure Rep. Stark. Though the censure resolution ultimately failed, Rep. Stark's newfound spine melted into a puddle of gelatinous goo at the threat, and he groveled before Congress and President Bush, begging to be allowed to return to the dark pit of irrelevance from whence he came. Another "Mission Accomplished" for our brave Republican Congressmen.

So to summarize, a Democrat spoke the truth, but was later "forced" to apologize for offending the delicate sensibilities of Congressional Republicans.

How rich. We're talking about the Republican Party here. These are the same people whose champions are Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Ann Coulter. This is the party of "Mean" Jean Schmidt, who had the nerve to call true life war hero John Murtha a coward. This is the party of George W. Bush, who won reelection by employing phony "values" and fear mongering, and by trashing the military service of another actual war hero, John Kerry. And they have the unmitigated gall to complain when someone points out their hypocrisy? Boo frickin' hoo, cry me a river. For some reason, though, Democrats tremble in fear at this phony sanctimony and keep allowing themselves to get punked.

The LA Times article linked above goes on to state:

The move to censure Stark marked the second time Republicans have taken to the House floor to chastise Democrats for statements the GOP deemed offensive to the U.S. military.

Someone please explain to me how Stark's words were offensive to the military? What should be offensive to the military is that their commander in chief used his daddy's political connections so he could avoid combat during the Vietnam war by getting a cushy assignment to the Texas Air National Guard from which he went AWOL to advance his political career so he can now pretend to be Winston Churchill.

Here's another question: Why do Democrats always feel the need to preface anything having to do with the occupation of Iraq with some statement espousing their everlasting love for the military? Disparaging the president in no way insults the military especially since the president had every opportunity to serve his country in a time of war, yet chose to weasel out of it. Republicans are the ones who have been screwing our soldiers every chance they get, from extending their tours of duty, to not providing them adequate equipment and training, to providing substandard care when they are wounded in action. Republicans and their minions are the ones who attack soldiers whenever they criticize the president's Glorious War on Islam. Yet Democrats are the ones who sound apologetic every single time they talk about any subject that involves the military! What gives?

What will it take for the Democrats to understand that their low approval ratings are entirely due to not living up to their promises to stand up to the president? We're sick and tired of being represented by wimps, Republican lites, and proxies for corporate interests. The hole they have helped President Bush dig this country into can only get so deep before we will be unable to get ourselves out.

Update: Digby wrote about this same issue in a post titled, The Art of the Hissy Fit. Give it a read.

Haven't we heard this song before?

From CNN:

The Bush administration on Monday asked for an additional $42.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing the 2008 request for total war funding to $189.3 billion.

The request comes on top of $147 billion already sought for in the wars. Most of the money goes to Iraq, which is costing the Pentagon an estimated $2 billion a week.

"Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not -- and that is that America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people," President Bush said in an appearance with members of veterans groups at the White House.

[...]

Minutes after Bush spoke, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, warned the president not to expect Congress to "rubber-stamp" the latest request.

"In the coming weeks, we will hold it up to the light of day and fight for the change of strategy and redeployment of troops that is long overdue," Reid said.

He said the new request means the overall cost of the widely unpopular war now approaches $650 billion since the March 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"The entire war in Iraq is being paid for with borrowed money," Reid said.

Blah, blah, blah...no blank check...blah, blah, blah...change course in Iraq...blah, blah, blah. Where have we heard this before? Oh, yeah. Nancy Pelosi said it when she took over as Speaker of the House back in January, and Harry Reid repeated it this past April. And what did they do? They wrote Bush another blank check to stay the course in Iraq. So what's changed between then and now besides a lot more death and destruction, and the federal deficit growing by a few hundred billion dollars? Why should we think the outcome will be any different this time around? I mean, it's not like Congress is trying to pass bills to provide retroactive immunity to Big Telecoms for illegally assisting the Bush administration in its warrantless spying program or anything. And they spent all that time and effort to restore Habeas Corpus. No, wait...that's not right.

I'm sorry, but I've totally lost faith in the current Democratic party and will not believe anything they say until they show some actual results. Why the hell are they wasting time on a non-binding resolution to condemn something that happened in a foreign country almost 100 years ago while ignoring the huge problems we're facing today? The fact that Democrats can't pass popular legislation like S-CHIP despite overwhelming support from the people indicates a serious leadership problem. I will continue to vote for Democratic candidates until the Republican party is a footnote in the history books (or the United States is, whichever comes first), but the Democrats I will vote for will be the ones who stand up for the people.

Tristero nail it

Valerie Plame Wilson will be down at the Lake tomorrow to discuss her new book, "Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House". This undoubtedly has something to do with the timing of Tristero's newest post at Hullabaloo today.

There is a widely-held myth that liberals have no place in their worldview for serious consideration of national security issues. Two seconds of thought should be enough for anyone to realize that is an insane myth. Of course we care deeply about keeping our families and communities secure. Who wouldn't?

[...]

All of this is by way of introduction to the notorious Plame affair, notorious only because Novak and members of the Bush administration colluded in betraying their...No. Let's not talk about something as "abstract" as an entire country, where you see an ocean of faces, rather than individuals. Let's talk about that betrayal in the personal terms in which it should be discussed.

These unspeakable bastards - Novak, especially - betrayed your parents, your friends, and all your neighbors. Through their criminally irresponsible behavior, they quite literally made my daughter's life far more precarious than it had to be. And these scumbags are walking the streets, unpunished, unrepentant. And they dare to lecture me on my values, my patriotism, and my seriousness in protecting what I love.

This is something that the traditional media just can't seem to grasp. Suspending habeas corpus; kidnapping people and sending them to foreign countries to be tortured in secret prisons; illegally spying on citizens; starting preemptive wars based on lies against countries that pose no threat; and exposing critical top secret espionage operations for political payback do not make us more safe. How can 30 percent of the population not understand this?

We on the Angry Left are angry because we expect our elected officials to live up to their oath to defend and protect the Constitution. This is not tantamount to supporting terrorism by any definition. Each and every one of us Dirty F'in Libruls cares deeply about our country. This is why we are all so outraged to see the Bush administration doing everything in its power to turn it into the new Soviet Union.

Gonzales may be prosecuted?!?

It looks like former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' little problem with the truth may be coming back to haunt him. According to the Spokesman Review,

The U.S. Inspector General may recommend criminal prosecution of departed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at the conclusion of an investigation, possibly as early as next month, the fired former U.S. attorney for Western Washington, [John McKay], told a Spokane audience Friday.

[...]

Gonzales “lied about” reasons for the firings when questioned under oath in July by the Senate Judiciary Committee and now has hired a lawyer and is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, McKay said.

The White House said McKay was fired for poor performance ratings of his office, but the ex-U.S. attorney said he and his office got exemplary reviews just three months before he was fired.

“The chief law enforcement officer for the United States should not lie under oath,’’ McKay told the bar association.

It was reported last week that Gonzales has now retained a high-profile defense lawyer, and apparently is refusing to answer questions from the Inspector General, which could signify the investigation is nearly complete, McKay said.

“When it lands … it is going to be an extremely negative report on President Bush’s Justice Department,’’ McKay told the packed conference room, which included federal prosecutors and judges.

I was wondering if anything would ever come of the investigations into Gonzales. Most third graders are better liars than he is. Better stock up on popcorn, things could get interesting soon. Assuming that the fired US Attorneys are speaking the truth about the reasons they were fired, one has to wonder what the remaining 80+ did in order to keep their jobs.

Money well spent?

I was introduced to a cool site today. OpenSecrets.org tracks political contributions. A little browsing yields some interesting results. Take a look at where some of your favorite politicians get their money.

The site provides different ways to slice and dice the data. One view allows you to see what some individual corporations have spent. For instance, AT&T "contributed" more than $38 million to political campaigns between 1990 and 2006. In the same period, Verizon "contributed" more than $15 million, and BellSouth more than $14 million. In total, Telephone utilities have contributed over $106 million to political campaigns between 1990 and 2006.

Look through some of the aggregations and notice how some industries, like tobacco and pharmaceutical manufacturing, contribute to mostly Republican candidates while others, like labor unions, contribute almost exclusively to Democrats. The amount of money given to political campaigns by special interests is simply staggering. Just what do you suppose all that money buys? (Yes, I know that's a rhetorical question.)