----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 1:33 AM Subject: Re: Peaceful change
> Dan, > > In short, he has drawn a line between dictators, > > terrorists and their cronies and everyone else. > > A line he erases by saying "You are either with us > or with the terrorists." That depends on who he thinks is with him and against him. We all know that the Vatican opposed the war in Iraq; which one might consider opposing Bush and thus with the terrorists. But, actions and statements from both the Vatican and from Bush indicates that this is not how either views it. After Gulf War II, the Vatican was asked about continuing fairly warm relationships between itself and the Bush administration...considering the fact that they opposed Gulf War II. The answer was: that was a disagreement about tactics, not goals. From this quote, and the strong praise of the Pope by Bush, one gets the feeling that Bush and the Vatican do not view each other as on different sides with regards to terrorists. At the time he said that publically (soon after 9-11), he also stated it privately in very strong terms to the leader of Pakistan. Pakistan was trying to both support the Taliban and keep friendly relations with the US. I saw that warning as being very applicable to them. Saudi Arabia also comes to mind; paying protection money to AQ. To a lesser extent, France's close working relationship with Hussein (including taking contracts to support his nuclear bomb program) and taking bribes to work against the sanctions, would be brought to mind. > I don't see the line, Dan. Rather than "dictators, > terrorists and their cronies," he named whole > countries the "Axis of Evil." He also stated that he was referring to the governments. If need be, I guess I can go back through speeches where he talks about the people under the brutal thumb of the tyrant in those countries. There is no doubt that Bush is not precise when he talks. His bumbling of post-war Iraq is truely mindblowing. But, as much as I differ with Bush, I have trouble picturing him as bloothirsty for conquest. > I wish what you said was true, but your editing of > the President and my wishes can't change the fact > that this is a guy whose first thought was to call > his program for Iraq a crusade. There is no doubt that it was stupid to use a word that has different connotations in the Arab world than in the West. But, since one of the definitions of crusade is: "A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse", within the US, it is an acceptable use of the word. M.A.D.D was called a crusade, and the Civil Rights movement was called a crusade. While the actual Crusades certainly don't merit this favorable of an interpretation, they aren't quite what the Arab's make them out to be either. The initial Crusade can best be seen as a counter-attack after the Arabs had once again beaten Christian forces. Christendom was at risk of falling to Arab conquest at the time of the first Crusade. One final tangent. I think I have a feel for Bush because he seems quite a bit like a lot of folks I know. Over the last 12 years, I've had a lot of experience dealing with conservative Christians. I've been in multi-year bible studies with both conservatives and fundamentalists (our church has had a great deal of theological diversity). During that time of shared faith, I've been able to achieve a spiritual intimacy one tends to get only in that type of session. We were able to keep our small community going even though we had significant theological differences. As you might guess, I was not shy about expressing my opinions in that forum. Yet, we regarded each other as Christian brothers and sisters whom we happened to disagree with on questions of interpretation and theology. I'll give just one example. I had, in a forum on gay clergy, some very sharp differences with conservative members of the church. We waved our arms and raised our voices. Yet, at the end of it, one of the men who I had the strongest disagreement with gave me a big hug and told me he was happy I came. So, let me ask a question of you and Nick, if I might. Have you had the chance to be in close fellowship that contains both liberals and conservatives, literalists, and non-literalists? I don't see the understanding that comes from such fellowship in your posts. In a sense, my argument is not that Bush was right....it's more that he was mistaken instead of evil. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
