But it would be an American Theocracy, so it would be ok

I see the Christianists are showing their usual respect for our constitutional rights again:

Christian activists disrupt Hindu prayer in US Senate

WASHINGTON: Christian activists briefly disrupted a Hindu invocation in the U.S Senate on Thursday, marring a historic first for the chamber and showing that fundamentalism is present and shouting in the U.S too.

Invited by the Senate to offer Hindu prayers in place of the usual Christian invocation, Rajan Zed, a Hindu priest from Reno, Nevada, had just stepped up to the podium for the landmark occasion when three protesters, said to belong to the Christian Right anti-abortion group Operation Save America, interrupted him by loudly asking for God's forgiveness for allowing the ''false prayer'' of a Hindu in the Senate chamber.

"Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight," the first protester shouted. "This is an abomination. We shall have no other gods before You."

Democratic Senator Bob Casey, who was serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately asked the sergeant-at-arms to restore order. But they continued to protest as they were headed out the door by the marshals, shouting, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

Zed, sporting a saffron robe, a rudraksh mala round his neck, and a prominent tilak on his forehead, then nervously went through the invocation chosen from the Rig Veda and Bhagavad Gita.

"Let us pray," he began, "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the deity supreme, who is inside the heart of the earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of heaven. May he stimulate and illuminate our minds.

"Lead us from the unreal to real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening."

This was from "Operation Save America," an anti-abortion group. From their press release:

Theology Moved to the Senate and was Arrested

Theology has moved from the church house onto the floor of the United States Senate, and has been arrested.

Ante Pavkovic, Kathy Pavkovic, and Kristen Sugar were all arrested in the chambers of the United States Senate as that chamber was violated by a false Hindu god. The Senate was opened with a Hindu prayer placing the false god of Hinduism on a level playing field with the One True God, Jesus Christ. This would never have been allowed by our Founding Fathers.

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! There were three in the audience with the courage to stand and proclaim, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me.' They were immediately removed from the chambers, arrested, and are in jail now. God bless those who stand for Jesus as we know that He stands for them." Rev. Flip Benham, Director, Operation Save America/Operation Rescue

Well, at least they're not trying to be subtle or clever about establishing a theocracy. Too bad there is this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

You'll note there is no asterisk there. No special "this does not count for non-Christian religions clause." No "except for atheists" addendum. Nope. It just exressly prohibits establishing a state religion, and prohibits others, including religious people, from preventing others from practicing theirs.

I know there will be caterwauling on the right wing and amongst the Christianists about their poor martyrs being hauled off to jail. Whatever. No one is going to try to stop them from being Christians. No one is forcing their religion on them in the form of specific laws designed to render them into second class citizens. They wish to do that. That's their thing. And in that vein, they tried to stop a ceremony not to their liking, as they would regularly do if their religion were the state one. How that isn't an attempt at a Christian Taliban I don't rightly know.

And of course, let's not forget which party scratches their back.

With people like this working for him we would definitely be in good hands

I see from Rick Perlstein's blog that Wisconsin hero Robert Kasten has joined Rudy's campaign team. He is racking up quite a crew of miscreants, isn't he?

Bourbon Bob in action:

Relates Badger State blogger Bill Christofferson, author of a biography of Gaylord Nelson, the great liberal senator and Earth Day founder Kasten knocked off on Reagan's coattails in 1980: "Kasten reportedly celebrated his victory over Nelson so hard that he was barely able to speak an intelligible word - or stand up - when it finally became clear he had won. He went on to distinguish himself as a drunk driver and, after losing to Russ Feingold in 1992, reportedly found work as an arms dealer."

Truth and Responsibility

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based on the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

These are the handwritten words of Dwight Eisenhower, to be read to the world in case the D-Day invasion failed. As the Iraq war drags interminably on, it becomes clearer and clearer that victory, always a vaguely sketched concept with the Bush administration, is not to be. Our army is stretched thin, leaving us vulnerable; the costs are mounting, well beyond what we were first told; sectarian civil war has long since thrown the country into chaos; none of the goals of the latest surge have been met. No democracy. No stability. No WMDs. Al Qaeda in Iraq, where before the invasion they were not a presence, despite some high profile claims to the contrary. This brief sketch can't do justice to the damage done. With our military withering, we simply can't stay there forever. Our continued presence hurts both Iraq and the US, and sets us up for potential intractable conflicts of a different kind down the road. And the prospects for withdrawal look no less grim. Civil war will almost certainly intensify. Iran could become a hegemonic power in the region. Al Qaeda will claim victory. Instability will reign, for a potentially long time. It's not that I think withdrawal will bring rainbows and unicorns to Iraq. It's just that I think that we have no choice (and I am especially disinterested in any claims of "victory" Al Qaeda might make). A full withdrawal is going to have to happen, sooner rather than later. The longer we stay, the worse our position becomes.

In this entire fiasco, I think it is important to remember that the Bush administration and the Republican party have had no serious opposition to any of their Iraq policies at any point. Even after the 2006 elections, the victorious Democrats capitulated on war funding. Before that, Congress was a rubber stamp for whatever the Bush administration wanted to do. The Republicans beat the drums for this war, with the help of the press; they planned it, every step of the way; they executed it in every regard; there was, at no time, a constituency that diverted their plans in any way whatsoever. Every result of this war, and the GWOT generally, is their responsibility alone. Every decision, every one up to this point, has been theirs. This is their war. So, as it becomes clear that their war is the most egregious fiasco since Vietnam, who do conservatives blame?

The Defeatocrats! Of course.

Which brings me back to Eisenhower's letter. Eisenhower was well aware of the risks involved in the D-Day invasion. He considered it his decision to invade, and thus considered it his responsibility if it failed. I'll quote the last two lines again:

"...The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

The consequences of failure would have altered world history for the worse (worst), yet he considered it his duty to shoulder the blame in that event, because he made the decision to do it. Try, try to imagine anyone in the Bush administration, at any level, taking on that kind of responsibility for their decision to launch this imperial war we have now. I can't do it.

I'm not a pacifist. I know America will have to fight wars in the future. We'll face threats, and we'll have to deal with them. I get that. But in the future, if some fool wants to puff up his chest and rattle sabers about how we have to go to war in some far off place (that he will probably never see), he had better be brutally honest about the consequences of potential defeat. And he had better be ready to shoulder the blame, unconditionally and completely, if we are defeated. If he (or she) is not willing to meet that standard, or talks of cakewalks and shows of power, then I simply will not support that war at all, immediately, because I will know that beneath all of the puffery and tough talk lies the heart of a coward.

140,000 Troops

I hestitated yesterday to jump on with a post about this:

140,000 Turkish Troops on Iraq Border

(BAGHDAD) — Turkey has massed 140,000 soldiers on its border with northern Iraq, Iraq's foreign minister said Monday, calling the neighboring country's fears of Kurdish rebels based there "legitimate" but better resolved through negotiation.

Largely because when read the first reports it seemed implausible. And the sources seem dubious:

In Washington, a Pentagon official disputed the claim by Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd from northern Iraq, and said satellite photos indicated no such troop buildup.

It was unclear where Zebari got the figures. If accurate, Turkey would have nearly as many soldiers along its border with Iraq as the 155,000 troops which the U.S. has in the country...

...But in Washington, a Pentagon official disputed Zebari's assertion that troops were massing, saying no such movement has been picked up by U.S. satellites gathering intelligence there. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not allowed to speak on the record about the subject.

140,000 troops would nearly match our own. I would think that would be worrisome, to say the least, if it were true, even to the Bush administration. I suppose it could be true-after all, I am not there to see any of this, so I only know what I can read-but that would cause a pretty major reaction in Washington, as Turkish troops might come into conflict with our own. Seeing no such reaction, I just don't believe the claims.

Fantasy Debate

This comes as no particular surprise:

Official: Report will say none of Iraq’s goals met

WASHINGTON - A progress report on Iraq will conclude that the U.S.-backed government in Baghdad has not met any of its targets for political, economic and other reform, speeding up the Bush administration's reckoning on what to do next, a U.S. official said Monday.

This was, of course, utterly predictable, as is the next paragraph:

One likely result of the report will be a vastly accelerated debate among President Bush's top aides on withdrawing troops and scaling back the U.S. presence in Iraq.

Oh yes. Of course, there will be blistering debate about what to do next. The decision to draw down is just around the corner. Just like all of the other times before.

So the myth that "debate" over what to do in Iraq continues, even at this late hour. When a change in direction actually occurs, I'll believe it. Until then, I assume things stay the same because 1) the Bush administration is so tied to this war politically and "historically" they will never change course unless forced at gunpoint and 2) they know if they can simply limp to the end of this term, they can blame the failure on "Defeatocrats" and the press. Much easier to point fingers after they are gone than to admit that the single most important political decision of our time was a failure based on lies. So, despite the press' latest attempt to portray the Bush administration as though they are regular human beings, I loudly predict that this will change nothing, and that the war will drag on unless Congress can force the issue.

UPDATE: Of course, the context of "debate" in that paragraph could be between Bush and Democrats in Congress. If that is what the paragraph meant, then great. Although I am not sure that will lead to anything more concrete than the last Congressional challenge to Bush's war. In terms of internal debate within the Bush White House, that would all be for show, of course.