Bishop Desmond Tutu, with whom I don't entirely agree, nevertheless impressed me when he said that he is amazed by the patience of the people. I understood that perfectly. The higher one goes, the more one realizes how deep the pit is. When one realizes that enlightenment is infinite, one realizes that so too is depravity.
Desmond thanks God that Desmond didn't turn wholly and knowingly to the dark side, because Desmond knows the depth to which he would then have gone for worldly power—stopping at nothing, just as he really wants to think he is stopping at nothing in pursuing righteousness.
What Desmond meant was that were he evil, well, I will leave it to you to contemplate. Neither he nor I will tell anyone what we know evil could do. We don't want to give anyone any ideas that have not already and will not occur to him or her. I say this with the Iraqis in mind, but it really could apply anywhere. Desmond and I and others like us, even though we don't see eye to eye on everything, know and appreciate that we don't fight for the dark side, for if we did, the wrath would already be here.
Now, Dick Cheney is a different story from the Iraqis and from Osama bin Laden. Dick truly does give himself his head in conjuring up Empire and his place in it. You know, there isn't a President now in the sense that there had been. Cheney is and has been from the start, more powerful than George W. Bush. Cheney has called the shots from behind the scenes. It has been more his agenda than George's.
George has mixed emotions about this. He likes to imagine that he could fire Dick anytime. However, without Dick, he'd lose his most sinister ally, the one in his circle who is most capable of being consistently seriously sinister for the sake of raw power. Cheney is trance-like in his fixation on power. He conjures. George has a flash here or there, but he's not the detail man to pull off his strategy. It's why he needed Karl Rove. Cheney can do both jobs. Too bad he's on the wrong side. We don't mean, too bad he's not with Osama bin Laden. We mean Jesus.
As for Osama, well, thank God he isn't as good at war-making as Desmond is at peacemaking. Bishop Tutu had a huge impact upon reconciliation in South Africa, and had South Africa gone as far as Tutu wanted, there would be no poor there. But, being who he is, he didn't coerce his way to power to dictate those terms. He couldn't.
Now, if he will only be one hundred percent consistent and see that all harm is evil and know what constitutes harm....
I wrote this before reading Scott Horton's article, "The Roll-Out Presses On," Harper's Magazine. October 22, 2007.
Cheney Lays the Foundation for War
This weekend the roll-out for the Next War continues. The most remarkable item is a speech delivered by the man who, by all accounts, has aggressively pushed for war against Iran for at least two years: Vice President Dick Cheney. Here are a few take-outs from his speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, up now at the White House web site:
Operating largely in the shadows, Iran attempts to hide its hands through the use of militants who target and kill coalition and Iraqi security forces. Iran's real agenda appears to include promoting violence against the coalition. Fearful of a strong, independent, Arab Shia community emerging in Iraq, one that seeks religious guidance not in Qom, Iran, but from traditional sources of Shia authority in Najaf and Karbala, the Iranian regime also aims to keep Iraq in a state of weakness that prevents Baghdad from presenting a threat to Tehran.
Perhaps the greatest strategic threat that Iraq's Shiites face today in — is — in consolidating their rightful role in Iraq's new democracy is the subversive activities of the Iranian regime. The Quds Force, a branch of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is the defender of the theocracy. The regime has used the Quds Force to provide weapons, money, and training to terrorists and Islamic militant groups abroad, including Hamas; Palestinian Islamic Jihad; militants in the Balkans; the Taliban and other anti-Afghanistan militants; and Hezbollah terrorists trying to destabilize Lebanon's democratic government.
The Iranian regime's efforts to destabilize the Middle East and to gain hegemonic power is a matter of record. And now, of course, we have the inescapable reality of Iran's nuclear program; a program they claim is strictly for energy purposes, but which they have worked hard to conceal; a program carried out in complete defiance of the international community and resolutions of the U.N. Security Council. Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this. The Security Council has twice imposed sanctions on Iran and called on the regime to cease enriching uranium. Yet the regime continues to do so, and continues to practice delay and deception in an obvious attempt to buy time.
Given the nature of Iran's rulers, the declarations of the Iranian President, and the trouble the regime is causing throughout the region — including direct involvement in the killing of Americans — our country and the entire international community cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its most aggressive ambitions. (Applause.)
The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose serious consequences. The United States joins other nations in sending a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)
Is Cheney threatening war against Iran? Yes, that's exactly what he is doing. As Greg Djerejian reminds us, in the lead-up to the war against Iraq, Cheney gave a number of speeches making clear the intention to resort to arms against Saddam Hussein. And he used exactly the same language, including specifically the key phrase "serious consequences." And note the focus on the Quds unit of the Revolutionary Guard. This is an exercise in target-practicing. As several sources have noted, Cheney has advocated targeting the Quds unit in the first bombing raids. He and his chief of staff David Addington have also advocated putting the Quds unit on the scheduled list of terrorist organizations, presumably for prior Congressional authorizations for the use of military force can be drawn upon to justify the attack without the need to go back to Congress.
And while I pulled out the passages of the speech that constitute the most undisguised saber-rattling against Iran, the entire speech is worthy of careful study. It shows a man who has disintegrated into a moral sewer. He regales his audience with the need to use torture techniques, which he tells us elsewhere he learned of from "our friends" in the Middle East (a phrase which, I am told, describes the brutal techniques used by the Egyptians.) And he then proceeds to cite a positively insane op-ed by Bernard Lewis, the subject of one of my prior columns, in which the Soviet Union is held up as a wonderful model for the United States. So there you have Dick Cheney wonderfully summed up: traditional U.S. values are for sissies. Real international strongmen torture their own citizens like the Egyptians and bully the neighborhood like the Soviets. Yep, those policies served the Soviet Union very well, as I recall. The country collapsed and its entire southern underbelly was peeled away. It's enough to make you wonder whether Cheney is on hallucinogens. But this man is at the driver's wheel of the nation's national security establishment; he is the most powerful vice president in the nation's history. And he has a president who knows nothing about the issues, doesn't care to learn, and follows Cheney's advice blindly.
Kristol: Iran Threatens Victory in Iraq
The first fifteen minutes of Cheney's Iran speech started with a discussion of Iraq, and made the case that the foe Americans were facing in Iraq was already Iran. This contention is nonsense, of course, a pure fable cooked up to push the war cause. The claim that Iranian explosives are being used by insurgents in Iraq is certainly true. But it has to be considered alongside the fact that the insurgents are fueled much more heavily by weapons and money out of Saudi Arabia, a fact that Cheney would rather not mention. However, on Fox News, William Kristol was out there making the same point.
We're winning in Iraq. That is the absolute crucial precondition to having success in the broader fight against Islamic jihadism. ... And I think we are going to have to be serious about dealing with both their intervention in Iraq — which is now the only real threat, I think, incidentally, to relative success in Iraq — and their nuclear program.
Got it? We would win in Iraq, but for the Iranians. Therefore the way to insure victory in Iraq is to wage war on Iran. Who could challenge that logic? And, of course, on Fox News, no one does.
Let's look at that. Cheney said, "...could be used to develop nuclear weapons." You will notice that he didn't say, "will be."
He also said, "Given the nature of Iran's rulers...." What is that nature? They have done nothing to indicate that they would attack anyone.
Cheney also referred to Ahmadinejad's comments. Cheney was referring to the allegations that Ahmadinejad has militarily threatened Israel, which he has not.
Just because Cheney, if he were in Iran's position, would be scheming as he, Cheney, does in the U.S. doesn't mean that everyone he feels like assigning those same powerful scheming tendencies has them. Doing that, assigning that way, is how belligerents ratchet up war for Empire. It's a technique. They simply ask themselves the question, what would I do if I were in their shoes and wanted power the way I do.
Cheney also said, "...direct involvement in the killing of Americans...." This is repeated over and over as the big lie. No proof is ever offered. No Iranian has ever been captured transporting weapons across the border. Yet, the big lie technique is working, just as it worked concerning Iraq. Even Scott Horton wrote above, "The claim that Iranian explosives are being used by insurgents in Iraq is certainly true."
Scott, where's your proof? Is it "certainly true," because they could be doing it? Maybe they are being much smarter than that and not doing it so that the U.S. won't have any evidence against them to use in the U.N., since computer graphics of the type Colin Powell used against Iraq would be laughed out of the building this time. Are they going to cover the Picasso again with a huge curtain?
What does Cheney want, a violent revolution to break out in the U.S.? We certainly don't. He's so fixated on growing Empire in the Middle East that he's completely out of touch domestically, especially with the anti-government youth. There are people in the U.S. who will fight and die rather than surrender to a dictatorship, you know. All that violent-video-game training could easily turn around to bite the neocons. They really are playing with fire they don't understand. This isn't the peace-loving late 1960's and early 1970's. The kids are heavily armed at home, their tempers are shorter, their moral training has been lax to say the least, and many are already suicidal. Rather than confining themselves to school shootings, they could go on the rampage against the government. Look at the riots that happened in France. Just think if they had had the fire power of American households.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
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.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)