God's Politics

God's Politics


Ryan Rodrick Beiler: Reality Check

posted by God's Politics

Reading about the Republican Party’s crumbling support for the Iraq war (a few years late and many billion dollars short), two quotes jumped out at me:

“I fully understand that when you watch the violence on TV every night, people are saying, ‘Is it worth it, can we accomplish an objective?'” Bush told a Cleveland business group. …
“I’ve seen this movie before from the liberal left in America, who share no responsibility for what happened in Cambodia when we said no,” said McCain, whose campaign has lost support partly because of his advocacy of the war.

It reminded me of yesterday’s post by Gareth Higgins, and the connection between violence of TV and movies and the real violence of terrorist acts and war. It was the juxtaposition of the quotes that caught my attention, for certainly a veteran like McCain understands how far from a movie is the violence of war. But why do Bush’s comments on the war so often reference the “violence on TV”—as opposed to violence in Iraq? You can do your own Google search—but here are a few examples:

From the same Cleveland speech: “”They know we’re kindhearted, decent people who value human life, and they understand that Americans will recoil from the violence on our TV screens.”
Feb. 14, 2007: “And I can understand why people are concerned when they turn on the TV screens and see this violence. It’s disturbing to people, and it’s disturbing to the Iraqi people.”
April 19, 2007: “Americans, rightly so, are concerned about whether or not we can succeed in Iraq. Nobody wants to be there if we can’t succeed, especially me. And these—violence on our TV screens affects our frame of mind….”
June 14, 2006: “I understand how tough it is for the American people to reconcile death on their TV screens when the president’s saying we’re making incremental progress toward an important goal.”

One possible criticism could be that Bush is trying to create some subtle distance between his policy and the reality of Iraq’s violence by so often referring to it in relation to TV coverage. Is the conservative response that Bush is correctly identifying part of the problem as the media’s negative coverage of Iraq’s carnage? Neither of these satisfy my curiosity regarding the consistency of this mantra, so seriously, can somebody explain Bush’s fixation with our TV screens?
Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the web editor for Sojourners/Call to Renewal.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(85)
post a comment
Anonymous

posted July 11, 2007 at 3:20 pm


“But why do Bush’s comments on the war so often reference the “violence on TV”—as opposed to violence in Iraq”
Whether you agree or not, one of the primary themes (and this is echoed by our military personnel) of this war has been that the media only covers the bad news. That’s where this comes from.



report abuse
 

M North

posted July 11, 2007 at 3:31 pm


Just what could be the “good” news about war that one could cover instead of the bad?
The word “war” can’t be redefined from other than violent destruction when it’s waged with bombs. It’s hard to see that outside of outright lying and censorship how there could be coverage of the “good news” of war.
The unvarnished truth is that trying to solve violence with even more violence leads to nothing more permanent than the embers burning for yet the next one.



report abuse
 

Paul C. Quillman

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:14 pm


Bush correctly realizes that the press have an agenda. There is no such thing as unbiased journalism. THe “good news” out of Iraq is tha tan evil dictator is gone, schools are being built (www.csmedes.com), people are starting to take responsobility for their own governance. War is an unly reality of the here and now, and will eventually be done away with only when the Kingdom is fully established.



report abuse
 

jesse

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:45 pm


The reason Bush says this is because war is ugly and is unpleasant for people to see on tv day after day. Bush is trying to remind people that they shouldn’t judge the validity of our being in Iraq just based on the discomfort that is provoked by what they see on tv. He’s asking us to judge the war based on reason and our values rather than our fickle emotions.



report abuse
 

Blake

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:45 pm


Ryan,
Most Americans watch TV. That’s where they see images of the war. That may have something to do with it.
Blake



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:51 pm


I would think seeing the daily reality on war would cause anyone to relate a negative thought with Iraq . If the media was around during the Civil War with pictures , wow , Lincoln already was unpopular, and he did feel the guilts about th violence .
I think any President , regardless conservative or liberal would have their inner being having some deep ouches because of the obvious violnce and death , innocent death .. that their decisions were part of . , The writer tends to see everything in black and white there fore this is a conservative problem . Bush a conservative , I guess if that makes a soundbite . But to me it is just part of the human condition , no one wants to believe there decisions are being looked upon negatively .
Must be a slow week for this writer .



report abuse
 

Blake

posted July 11, 2007 at 4:52 pm


And Ryan, the assertion that McCain is losing support because of his support of the war is completely off base. Using that line of thinking, the other Republican candidates would all have to be losing support (because they all support the war effort). But it’s not happening. Giuliani is leading on the right, and he’s very vocal about his support of the war.
I’m not fond of any of the Repub candidates, so your McCain characterization doesn’t necessarily bother me. But, you’ve shown your left-leaning cards.
Blake



report abuse
 

jesse

posted July 11, 2007 at 5:14 pm


Blake,
I think a more accurate statement re: McCain is that his “campaign has lost support partly because the media has abandoned him because of his advocacy of the war.”



report abuse
 

Brand

posted July 11, 2007 at 5:47 pm


It is interesting to note that the President implicitly blames the loss of support for our military adventure in Iraq on negative TV coverage, when TV journalists were invited and welcomed to be “imbedded” among the troops at the war’s outset. I wonder what was the “agenda” of the administration for imbedding journalists with the troops during the lightning invasion of Saddam’s Iraq?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 11, 2007 at 6:42 pm


I would think seeing the daily reality on war would cause anyone to relate a negative thought with Iraq. If the media was around during the Civil War with pictures, wow, Lincoln already was unpopular, and he did feel the guilts about the violence.
You forget one thing. Lincoln never promised that war would be a breeze and sent troops reluctantly down South the quash the “rebellion”; when it did end he was quick to start to heal the divisions by having the Army band play “Dixie.”
On the other hand, Bush and Cheney said that the war would be quick and easy — all we had to do, according to their thinking, was to take out Saddam and Western-style democracy would bloom. But they never considered the history or culture of that region, which suggested otherwise. That results from an ideology that believes that everyone is like them except for a few “leaders” that need to be “disposed of.” Because of this difference in thinking, Lincoln knew to call for sacrifice, while the current administration refuses to do.



report abuse
 

neuro_nurse

posted July 11, 2007 at 6:50 pm


I don’t watch much TV – usually just what I see when I’m in a patient’s room, which is more than I can tolerate anyway.
I’m old enough to remember the Vietnam War, and in comparison to the reporting on that war, the coverage of the Iraq War has been a gloss.
The people of this country need to know the ugly truth about this war. We need to see the suffering of the Iraqi people so that this war is real to us. All we hear are numbers. Numbers are not faces. Numbers do not speak to our hearts.
The Vietnam War became very unpopular when the American people began to see the reality of it.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted July 11, 2007 at 7:18 pm


when 50-60-100 people (often civilians) a day getting blown to smithereens is consistently relegated to page 8 or 9 of a daily’s front section, I’d say it’s time for cooler/wiser heads to step in and stop the nonsense
Too bad you Americans don’t have the luxury of a non-confidence vote in the House; 18 more months of this? God help us!



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:29 pm


You forget one thing. Lincoln never promised that war would be a breeze and sent troops reluctantly down South the quash the “rebellion”;
ME
Rick you do remind me of a brother I have , who argues sometimes to just argue . The Civil War in the beginning had many thinking it was going to over in 90 days . The First Battle of Bull Run was seen as a social affair to some reporters , even had people coming out to watch for “entertainment”
Recommend seeing Burns Documentary , pBS aired it a couple of times . It is fascinating .
YOU
On the other hand, Bush and Cheney said that the war would be quick and easy —
ME
Now thats not all true , I recall Bush always saying this was going to be a long haul on the war on terrorism . He did say mission accomplished , what 4 years ago ? Your right he had no clue , nor our intelligence either of what we walked into .
YOU
But they never considered the history or culture of that region, which suggested otherwise.
ME
Good point , and I think everyone would agree now with you , or I hope everyone will . That culture is so off from how we value people and life .
YOU
That results from an ideology that believes that everyone is like them except for a few “leaders” that need to be “disposed of.” Because of this difference in thinking, Lincoln knew to call for sacrifice, while the current administration refuses to do.
ME
Need to read your history Rick , if it was not for Vicksburg , Gettysburg , and other victories out west , Lincoln had a good chance of loosing his second election . McCellean was a favorite among the troops , even though Lincoln got rid of him for failing to engage the enemy , their were riots in NY , first time their was a draft , and many people did not like it . MCCellean had a good chance of winning that election till “military victories” showed some light at the end of the tunnel , Also the Constitution took a nose dive with regards to our rights , history is kind to Lincoln for the most part , as it should be , I happen to have read more books about him then any other American , history proves his stands correct , at the time he was often ridiculed . War is never popular . Sometimes I do believe it is neccesary, your right this one In Iraq was not .



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:41 pm


P.S
The Democrats were accused of treason because their platform called for a cease fire , and McClellans war record was ridiculed by the republicans . The democrats accused the republicans of being liars .
Sound familiar ? I know the variables are different , but sometimes looking at history helps I think trying to figure out what the heck is going on during our present .



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 11, 2007 at 8:55 pm


“can somebody explain Bush’s fixation with our TV screens?”
He can’t read?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 11, 2007 at 9:56 pm


The Civil War in the beginning had many thinking it was going to over in 90 days.
I’m well-versed in Southern history, BTW. Some years ago I gave my roommate a book, “Born Fighting,” which gave part of the Southern view of that conflict. (It was written by Jim Webb, now a U. S. Senator from Virginia.)
Now thats not all true, I recall Bush always saying this was going to be a long haul on the war on terrorism.
Terrorists weren’t even in Iraq until we took Saddam out. Osama bin Laden hated him as much as Bush did.
As for your comments on the Civil War, they still don’t change my point. Normal people don’t want war — but then, I don’t think GWB is normal.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 11, 2007 at 11:22 pm


I’m well-versed in Southern history, BTW. Some years ago I gave my roommate a book, “Born Fighting,” which gave part of the Southern view of that conflict. (It was written by Jim Webb, now a U. S. Senator from Virginia.)
Have not read it , sounds interesting .
Agree about Iraq was a mistake , not about no terrorists in Iraq though . Sadam was one , his brothers , he was even giving money to terrorist families who had a member in their family do a suicide bombing . ETC ETC Sometimes leaving out all the points that were used to promote a war allow them to made again for the same reason . The war was a mistake . Colin Powell stated himself the WMD was the only real reason we had going in . Even then, hopefully we learned never to put American boots in a nation where the culture of death rules over life.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 12, 2007 at 9:49 am


“Americans will recoil from the violence on our TV screens”
Say WHAT???
Americans EMBRACE violence – on TV screens, in the movies, in their video games. They seem to LOVE it. Why would Bush ‘think’ they’d recoil from this particular type of fiolence?



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 12, 2007 at 10:14 am


Agree about Iraq was a mistake, not about no terrorists in Iraq though. Saddam was one, his brothers, he was even giving money to terrorist families who had a member in their family do a suicide bombing.
Well, we’ve supported terrorists in the past, all over the world, so that strikes me as an excuse and a poor one at that. Some, on the other hand, had tried to link Saddam with al-Qaeda, one of which was an article in the Weekly Standard four years ago but turned out to be false.



report abuse
 

Eillenna

posted July 12, 2007 at 10:55 am


It seems all the quotes in the article in question point to one thing: mixing TV news about the war with TV fiction,thus blurring reality and fiction so that TV news about the war become discredited as true.
I remember the “friendly” fire of US soldiers on a tank,in Iraq, against an hotel where journalists were at the time. The pictures were broadcasted because some survived and published the facts. Mistakes?
Is it necessary to kill thousands of people to teach someone something?
Are people to be called stupid in this way, losing lives for lies and mistakes? Meanwhile someone is getting richer selling weapons,etc.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 12, 2007 at 11:28 am


“Just what could be the “good” news about war that one could cover instead of the bad?”
That you don’t know proves my point.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 12, 2007 at 11:39 am


That you don’t know proves my point. Posted by: kevin s.
Educate us oh ye purveyor of neo-conservative “wisdom.”



report abuse
 

Lyle

posted July 12, 2007 at 3:52 pm


Someone said “live by the sword, die by the sword”. Bush has lived for six years by the sword, now for two years of death!



report abuse
 

Mary

posted July 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm


I remember the coverage of the Vietnam war. There were casualties and body bags on the screen at dinner time every night. In this war, we are not allowed to see the body bags. Bush is trying to conflate the mock violence shown on television with the real violence in Iraq in order to pacify people.



report abuse
 

James

posted July 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm


I think Bush’s reference to television screens is designed to both distance Americans from the violence and call attention to where this violence is coming from. By referencing violence on television screens, and NOT violence on the ground, he is not directly implicated in the violence; the strategy seems to be that although the violence is occurring, he (and the White House policy) has nothing to do with it. This way, in any speech, he won’t have to be the one giving the bad news. The second strategy is calling attention to the media, which he’s implicating as the source of the violence. This is something the Republican Party has been especially adept at (which is why they’re in the White House): when the news is bad, call attention to the messenger, the liberal media. In this way, no matter what the news, Rep. supporters can always hold the media outlets responsible (without addressing the claims themselves). It’s kind of curious that when the news is good for the Rep. party, no one asks about the source, or calls attention to the media’s bias. What would good news from Iraq be? Schools being built, electricity being provided, people going out socially? and would it be ok for the media to include this and omit the suicide bombings, sectarian deaths, and U.S. soldier casualties that occur? from what I’ve read, we have only gotten half of the story in terms of every murders. If what was happening in Baghdad was going on in an American city, would we still be asking why the media only gives the bad news about that city?



report abuse
 

Bill

posted July 12, 2007 at 4:23 pm


Lyle
“Someone said “live by the sword, die by the sword”. Bush has lived for six years by the sword, now for two years of death!”
Is this a threat?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 12, 2007 at 5:15 pm


Saying the President has lived by the sword is a bit much. He did not rise to power through violence, but rather through the Democratic process.
Let’s do a hypothetical. Say Saddam had WMDs, and that he had the means to provide them to Al Qaeda. Would Bush be living by the sword had he invaded? Would the terrorists still be attacking our troops in Iraq now? Would anybody’s opinion about the war be all that different?
It seems that the line between living by the sword or not is a largely political question, which is not how Christ intended it (rather, it was an admonishment for Peter not to get in the way of God’s directive).
“If what was happening in Baghdad was going on in an American city, would we still be asking why the media only gives the bad news about that city?”
City leaders often complain that the news focuses on the bad news. In this case, I don’t think it is political bias so much as it is the tendency of news to focus on the loss of life. Perhaps this is reasonable. Our soldiers are securing streets, building bridges, handing out food and toys and etc… But compared to death, these things seem immaterial.
However, if people saw these actions, would that change their perspective of the war? If they saw troops doing their able best to secure a region that is plagued by the violent impulses of a psychotic wing of a false religion, would that change the calculation? I think so, whether that is right or not.
In general, though, I think it is a rhetorical device. Those opposed to the war have commented on the violence we see on our television screens as well.



report abuse
 

mark

posted July 12, 2007 at 5:33 pm


Kevin:
“Saying the President has lived by the sword is a bit much.”
No, it would be more accurate to say that he has lived by the cluster bomb and the depleted uranium shell (and, before he got his present job, he lived by the electric chair, or the lethal injection, or whatever other barbarity it is that the state uses in Texas).
And I like the nifty way you limit the meaning of scripture to suit your purposes…
Mark



report abuse
 

Frank C.

posted July 12, 2007 at 6:22 pm


The issue of the media and what it reports bothers me now! The media, no matter its ilk, has failed us on any number of accounts. But its most grievous “sin” as everyone knows was its lack of investigation into the causes of the current Iraq war. That said, what our they not not reporting now or over reporting, etc. Who or what is ithe media turning a blind eye toward now? Where do we find the truth in our common life?



report abuse
 

Jeff

posted July 12, 2007 at 6:47 pm


“And I like the nifty way you limit the meaning of scripture to suit your purposes…”
Kevin,
Please don’t tack the bait. Stay above these types of comments and be the better man.
Jeff



report abuse
 

Ahaz bar-Jotham

posted July 12, 2007 at 7:53 pm


“That you don’t know proves my point.” Is everyone as sick of this guy as I am?



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 12, 2007 at 9:43 pm


You know – Harry or Nancy would have called WWII a failure and asked for a vote to pull out straight away 3 days after D-Day.
Nancy needs to understand that she is only the Spk of the House and not Sect of State. This is why I am praying for the quick end to this conflict and a stable Iraq. (I personally believe that Nancy wants us to loose big time because she believes it will help the Liberals win bigger in the next election – let play that line of thought out on others issues and see what happens…)
I will never support the US going into armed conflict EVER AGAIN based on Nancy and Harry. I care about what others in the world are going through and believe that we should do whatever it takes to win them the ability to live and prosper in their country like we do in the US.
From now on we can talk with anyone around the world about what needs to be changed. We can beg and plead with dictators and tyrants about what they are doing to their people and country that is wrong. We can send all the UN deligations we want to take care of the situation – they have done so well in the past with Africa – NOT!
NO ARMED CONFLICT! Only talk, chatter, sitting on our lilly white backsides while the other side murders at will anyone they desire. BUT – we will be save and secure, happy and carefree in our easy chairs.
Stay home chaps – let the rest of the world go to %^&*(. We are only our brothers keeper when they live next door to us and don’t bother us.
Even so Lord Jesus – quickly come!
.



report abuse
 

Shawn

posted July 12, 2007 at 10:37 pm


FACT:
If we leave Iraq and Afghanistan millions of people will die in civil wars and humanitarian disasters
FACT:
America left Vietnam and millions were killed in related wars and humanitarian disasters
FACT:
America stayed until the job was done in World War II, the American Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and World War I among others.
FACT:
By the end of nearly all of these wars, public support was crumbling.
FACT:
AND they didn’t have televisions with the free press. In fact information was usually tightly controlled coming from the front.
TRUTH:
Wars are always unpopular, and it’s not at all difficult to see that it was Walter Cronkite, more than any other American, coming from the TV set each night, telling us how awful things were in Vietnam that caused the war to end badly.
Bush is wise to attack TV, if you ask me. Lies and propaganda from the enemy become even more powerful when they are on TV.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 12, 2007 at 11:14 pm


Bush is wise to attack TV, if you ask me. Lies and propaganda from the enemy become even more powerful when they are on TV.
me:
Especially since our president keeps making them up.
Fact millions of Iraqi’s are already displaced.
Thousands are dead and thousands more will die because of poor management from our leaders. Nothing good can come of us staying there like this.
p



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 12, 2007 at 11:18 pm


You know – Harry or Nancy would have called WWII a failure and asked for a vote to pull out straight away 3 days after D-Day.
Doubt that. For openers, one of Germany’s allies actually attacked us.
This is why I am praying for the quick end to this conflict and a stable Iraq.
That would be a miracle, and I don’t see that happening.
I care about what others in the world are going through and believe that we should do whatever it takes to win them the ability to live and prosper in their country like we do in the US.
No, you don’t, really — because then we’d actually be poorer. How do you think we got so rich? By exploiting their resources. That’s one reason we’re so hated in the Middle East in the first place.



report abuse
 

moderalelad

posted July 12, 2007 at 11:36 pm


Posted by: Shawn | July 12, 2007 10:37 PM
‘Wars are always unpopular…’
I don’t know of a popular war – if you find one, let me know. I am sure that those who are going to die would rather die in a popular war than an unpopular one.
Have a ‘popular’ whatever.
.



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted July 13, 2007 at 12:32 am


Sarasota – YOU’VE MALIGNED FRANK BURNS! An apology would be in order!



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 13, 2007 at 6:36 am


Unlike you who speaks up anomously on blogs for all the suffering folks . Posted by: Mick Sheldon
You’re funny, Mick! Some of your previous posts talked about taking the “higher ground” then you engage in these attacks. Welcome to the blog where we really get on each others’ nerves.



report abuse
 

Shawn

posted July 13, 2007 at 9:13 am


Payshun & Rick, you guys make this too easy.
“”Fact millions of Iraqi’s are already displaced.
Thousands are dead and thousands more will die because of poor management from our leaders. Nothing good can come of us staying there like this.””
No one can credibly argue that the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan would improve if we left right now. It just can’t be done. Millions displaced? That MAY be true at this moment. Those millions who may now be displaced and vulnerable now will certainly be dead if we cut and run, to say nothing of the Kurds or the larger portion of Iraqis, whose lives have improved immensely since we invaded. What about half the population of each country in the racial category called WOMEN? Would they be better off if we left? Don’t think so.
“”No, you don’t, really — because then we’d actually be poorer. How do you think we got so rich? By exploiting their resources. That’s one reason we’re so hated in the Middle East in the first place.””
For the record, America never bought Middle Eastern oil until the mid-twentieth century. We were rich, relative to the rest of the world, well before then. They hate us because we support Israel, and they hate us because we are free and good, and our very existence countermands the orders of fundamentalism and tyrannies everywhere. The above quote, starting with “No” and ending with “place,” are the rantings of ignorance. The US and other countries steal or exploit, WE BUY. Part of the problem is not us exploiting, but them. A few mind-numbed fundamental weird-beards use our dollars to arm against us. THAT’S exploiting OUR resources!



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 13, 2007 at 9:23 am


” …they hate us because we are free and good…”
Be careful, Shawn! “Nobody is good except God alone.” “[God] resiststs the proud and gives grace to the humble.”
Thinking we are “good” will put us under God’s judgment faster than just about anything–so beware! We need to take the log out of our eyes before we try to “correct” anyone else’s behavior. This is something we have lost as a post-Christian society.
Again, beware!
Peace,



report abuse
 

moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 9:34 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 12, 2007 11:18 PM
Yes there was an alliance between Germany and Japan but they were never allies. By that I mean on the field of battle – together. Your referencing the agreement between Germany and Japan sounds alot like the agreement(s) coordination of efforts between the Radicals of Islam. Harry and Nancy would have worked for a vote to stop the war in 1943 if they had been in office at that time – a Zebra does not change their strips.
By exploiting their resources.
I don’t know – Germany and Japan seem to be doing well and we assisted in their rebuilding. Japan seems to be beating us in the car industry. Even after the mideast countries nationalized the oil companies decaeds ago – we still buy oil from them. If they could control their religious radical leaders and work together – there would be more than enough money for everyone to do whatever their heart desires.
Here is my prediction. I believe that it is very likely that the Dems will win the White House and both houses of congress. When that happens – regardless of who is in the Oval Office – they will relax the policies of Homeland Security and we will be attacked again. Only this time instead of a few thousand killed and billions of dollors – it will be hundreds of thousands and untold dollors in damage and our ecconomy will tank and we will become the second rate nation in the world that Harry and Nancy are focusing on.
Until that day – may it never come –
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 13, 2007 at 10:16 am


They hate us because we support Israel, and they hate us because we are free and good, and our very existence countermands the orders of fundamentalism and tyrannies everywhere.
Oh, puh-leeze! We have a LONG tradition of supporting dictatorships, especially in Latin America, when doing so has supported our foreign policy aims. And do you know where Iran’s hatred for us began? When we overthrew its democratically-elected government and re-installed the shah. So much for “free and good.”
Harry and Nancy would have worked for a vote to stop the war in 1943 if they had been in office at that time – a Zebra does not change their strips.
You have absolutely ZERO BASIS for making that statement — as far as I’m concerned, it represents sheer slander. Only because they’re Democrats who oppose the current war do you say this, and that’s shameful.
The facts remain: Bush started this war under false pretenses, never committed enough troops to do the job correctly and silenced anyone, including the press, who dared question him about it. End of story.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 11:17 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 13, 2007 10:16 AM
I stand by ny statement and I do not see it as slander – just observation. There are many things that are going well in Iraq. They voted, the markets are open again, schools are functioning and girls are being educated as well as boys. So many on this site can tell us what should have been done weeks after it happened and they had time to assess all factors. The leadership has to make decisions as it is happening and they make the best decision based on the evidence at that time. It is not because they are Dems. It is based on their past efforts to thwart anything that conservatives might try to do to make things better as Nancy will never allow a conservative to succeed when a liberal might have a chance to do the same thing at a later date.
Nancy does not give a hoot about the ‘Nancys’ in Iraq that would like to have the opportunity to do what she can do everyday here in the US. I really question if Nancy or Harry believe that somethings might be world fighting for and maybe even dying for so that the situation can be nullified and the world can be a better place. I don’t think they do.
Blessings –
.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 13, 2007 at 12:19 pm


Well considering conservatives have screwed up foriegn policy decisions for the last 6 years I really would not use their political ideas as a sign of what an intelligent administration looks like.
p



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 13, 2007 at 1:10 pm


Posted by: Payshun | July 13, 2007 12:19 PM
Unlike the previous adm. where Ms. ‘Halfbright’ let out secret info. to another country that foiled our getting UBL – right…
Have a great weekend –
.



report abuse
 

Don

posted July 13, 2007 at 2:05 pm


I don’t think foreign policy has ever been America’s strong point, in any administration, of either party. We have a long history of not understanding the world, of not really wanting to understand it actually, and of wishing we could just crawl back into our own world and be isolationists again.
But I agree with Payshun that the current admin. has been particularly incompetent in this area. Previous administrations have all made serious mistakes, but I don’t think any of them were so systematically befuddled as the current one.
I really don’t think Nancy and Harry could possibly do any worse.
Later,



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 13, 2007 at 2:42 pm


I stand by ny statement and I do not see it as slander – just observation. There are many things that are going well in Iraq. They voted, the markets are open again, schools are functioning and girls are being educated as well as boys. Moderatelad
Hey if things are going so well over there, Mod, I for one would be willing to chip in $100 for you to take a vacation over there and then you can come back and give us a firsthand report on how God’s President did a good thing over there and really cleaned it up! You know, you can walk the streets, mingle with the locals, get down in the clubs and bring back dozens and dozens of roses that will be tossed at you as the liberating American.
I’m sure that there are a number of us, lax security minded, Peloci [SIC] Reed [SIC] loving liberal commies who would be willing to bankroll your trip over there. Let us know if you want to take us up on the offer!



report abuse
 

James

posted July 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm


Strange, how the issue of Bush’s reference to the media and violence brings up discussion of Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s national defense record (they have one?)… Judging by the news today, maybe the real issue isn’t about the media’s focus on bad news, but just how the media can’t seem to stay out of the bad news itself. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6897678.stm
Two Reuters reporters were killed earlier this week, and a NY Times reporter earlier today. All three were Iraqis working for the news agencies. Now, to those who cry foul and say this is just more liberal attempts to spin the war as bad — by actually becoming part of the statistics — I think we all have to agree that at least Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have nothing to do with this. For liberals claiming this as evidence of a war gone wrong, Republicans might respond: sure, the liberal media only provides the news about reporters that die. What about all the positive stories of reporters who are alive in Iraq? Also, maybe the blame lies in the reporters themselves, who perhaps should have been reporting on all those positive things like schools and roads that Republicans seem so pleased with. Then again, the NY Times guy was simply on his way to work.



report abuse
 

Mick Sheldon

posted July 13, 2007 at 4:59 pm


You’re funny, Mick! Some of your previous posts talked about taking the “higher ground” then you engage in these attacks. Welcome to the blog where we really get on each others’ nerves.
Posted by: Sarasotakid
Good point , your right . I’m sorry .



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 13, 2007 at 7:50 pm


Good point , your right . I’m sorry . Mick Sheldon
Apology accepted, my friend. Please accept mine too. Sometimes we’ll go at it pretty fast and furious but at the end of the day it is nothing but rhetoric.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 13, 2007 at 9:56 pm


Mod said:
Unlike the previous adm. where Ms. ‘Halfbright’ let out secret info. to another country that foiled our getting UBL – right…
Have a great weekend –
Me:
You too. You are making this really too easy. So I won’t rise to the bait. Let’s not get into a debate about who is the smarter president. Believe me Bush will loose.
p



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 13, 2007 at 11:12 pm


It is based on their past efforts to thwart anything that conservatives might try to do to make things better as Nancy will never allow a conservative to succeed when a liberal might have a chance to do the same thing at a later date.
That comment is based on your erroneous assumption that liberals think just like conservatives, only on the opposite side. In fact, since the Reagan years liberals have bent over backwards to include conservatives in the decision-making process, only to be rolled over in the end. Well, we all know where that’s gone, and if the Democrats had any real cojones they’d tell Bush to get the troops out ASAP.
I really question if Nancy or Harry believe that somethings might be world fighting for and maybe even dying for so that the situation can be nullified and the world can be a better place. I don’t think they do.
Again, false assumption simply because they have a different view from you. In fact, that’s the problem I see with conservatism in general — “my way or the highway.” What brought us into the war in the first place is pride, pure and simple, that “we can’t make a mistake.” From what I see, Bush can’t do that.
Rick you need to stay on task. First you state Iraq had no terrorists, then it appears you concede there were? I never said I supported the war even if their were terrorists. What are you doing?
If you reread carefully, I never directly said anything about terrorists in Iraq. What I was and am saying is that we have the gall to complain about rooting out terrorists in Iraq while we’ve supported terrorists over the years in other countries. And, as you mentioned, we tried to recruit Saddam as an ally when Reagan was president. But, really, terrorists such as al-Qaeda weren’t in Iraq until Saddam was taken out; he and bin Laden hated each other’s guts. (Al-Qaeda was supposedly in northern Iraq, which Saddam didn’t control.)



report abuse
 

canucklehead

posted July 14, 2007 at 1:16 am


Hey, Mod, can you make some of that stuff yer growing in yer garden available at a discount to us regulars on this blog? I’m sitting out on my back deck at midnight and I think I caught a whiff of it floating north. That’s good shhhhtuff, man!



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 14, 2007 at 6:34 am


Hey, Mod, can you make some of that stuff yer growing in yer garden available at a discount to us regulars on this blog? I’m sitting out on my back deck at midnight and I think I caught a whiff of it floating north. That’s good shhhhtuff, man! canucklehead
Based on his past posts, we can safely assume that it is Army issue delievered to his home by a color guard.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 14, 2007 at 9:32 am


The drive by media continues to distort what is going in iraq. Honestly why would they report the truth about Iraq when everything they else put in the papers is a lie as well. If the media would report the truth about abortions, homosexuals, and all the other evils in this world like they should maybe people’s minds would be changed. The print media is responsible for calling good evil and evil good. What is amazing to me is how many christians on this site continue to support such evil which God clearly condems.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 14, 2007 at 9:41 am


Hi Donny thanks for that previous post. I see you got a weekend pass from the asylum. And Donny, those little slots with “Name” and “Email Address” are made to be filled out so that we can properly greet you when you come to bestow your wisdom on us.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 14, 2007 at 11:42 am


The print media is responsible for calling good evil and evil good. What is amazing to me is how many christians on this site continue to support such evil which God clearly condems.
I’m in the print media, and as far as I’m concerned what you just wrote is completely irresponsible, not to mention false. Just because we don’t promote your narrow agenda is no reason to slam us gratituously the way you just did.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 14, 2007 at 1:03 pm


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 14, 2007 11:42 AM
I’m in the print media, and as far as I’m concerned what you just wrote is completely irresponsible, not to mention false.
You don’t read the minneapolis Star and Cycle.
Our Senator’s son is arrested for drunk dirving and it is on page one, section A below the fold. Former VP Gore’s son does the same, sections D, page 5 below the fold.
It is so common place here in MN that if I hear about something simular and know the party of the parent – I know where to start looking – sad.
Have a great day
.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 14, 2007 at 1:17 pm


Posted by: canucklehead | July 14, 2007 1:16 AM
Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 14, 2007 6:34 AM
Some of you get so undone when I take public figures to task – by name. When was the last time I made some snyde remark about what you do or your character? Seems to be a double standard here? Public figures are fair game. If I could have a dollor for everytime Bush or his Adm. are bashed on this site by the authors – I could retire comfortably. I think the only thing that Wallis and Sojo hate more than poverty is G W Bush.
So I an not going to blast your character nor am I going to ask you not to do mine. I think we all know the answer.
Have a great weekend – do whatever allows you to have fun –
.
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 14, 2007 at 5:59 pm


The Star Tribune is exceedingly biased, and generally an example of horrendous journalism. The editorial board has produced some very irresponsible op-eds, including one which essentially excused the acceptance of bribes by a Minneapolis city councilman.
Their willingness to look past the corruption of our city government is one reason why it continues to flourish. They also have very problematic past w/r/t communism and anti-Semitism.
So if you live in Minneapolis, it is not entirely irresponsible to say that the media call bad good, though the paper is generally regarded as a joke in most media circles (and, frankly, by some of their writers).
However, television and radio news sources in our area have a much better track record, and the “Star and Sickle” is an anomaly even amongst a medium that tends to be very liberal.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 15, 2007 at 12:08 am


Whatever. True liberal bias doesn’t really exist in the way conservatives think. NPR is not liberal. It just doesn’t favor America above everything else. For you more conservative folks that makes it liberal. It doesn’t openly bash Bush and Mod this site doesn’t bash bush but they do critique his policies. That’s not bashing. I on the other hand bash Bush the man because he is stupid. I don’t mean that in the academic sense of the word. Personally the man doesn’t learn from his mistakes. Is that judgemental, yah but then thousands are dead because of his refusal to learn anything. I have a problem w/ that.
p



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 1:07 am


Posted by: Payshun | July 15, 2007 12:08 AM
NPR is not liberal.
Define liberal. They praise almost anything that the Dem Party has to say and denagrade what the Rep Party says. I can not remember that last time I heard them say anything positive about a Rep in office or running for office.
It doesn’t openly bash Bush and Mod this site doesn’t bash bush but they do critique his policies. That’s not bashing.
Really? You must have missed the video with the country singer and the lyrics were “Does God listen to George Bush’s Bull Shit?” OH YEH – that is a fair and balanced critique – NOT! I asked if they would run simular songs about Clinton – no answer. No appology from this site either, so save me the platitudes about critiquing Bush – they hate him – period.
Sojo has had people with articles questioning Bush and assessing that he only went to war to make his buddies rich etc. I never thought for a moment that Clinton attacked something to keep Monica off the front page or ‘whatever’. But if authors here can put together something like that when there are NO FACTS – maybe I was wrong about Bill. (I personally do not think that he did)
So – you have a problem with that?
.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 15, 2007 at 3:54 am


Have you ever listened to NPR? They don’t praise democratic leaders. They do offer a lot of coverage of things that would appeal to the leftist base, like stories of peace activists… But then I have listened to stories about soldiers doing their jobs, the water reclimation projects in Los Angeles and a whole host of other stories that the majors don’t carry.
They actually do something that many of the other news outlets don’t do. They actually give news. They actually cover the news from around the world.I can offer a few links to stories they covered if you doubt that. NPR is not Air America. They praise most of the democratic party line to some extint but NPR does something Fox news, CNN, MSNBC and other corporate owned news agencies don’t. How often do you hear stories about Africa on or other parts of the world on any of corporate owned stations?
Not often I wager.
Here just so you can hear for yourself:
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1012
Oh and please show where Sojourners “hate” Bush or is that more of your paranoid fantasy life? Provide links or something. I have a problem w/ delusional ramblings about Clinton and Monica or bringing up wag the dog scenarios when the Bush administration has a mysterious history of always raising the terror alert when things look bad for them. Was Clinton a liar? Yah he was. Is Bush a liar? Yah he is currently. Both men lied, one about a blowjob, the other about how he is protecting us… So I guess my point is that you want Bush to have some type of immunity when critique is more necessary. You want Bush to be given grace when if he had his way we would be at war w/ Iran. I don’t know what to say about that.
p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 15, 2007 at 4:03 am


Please show the link to the song. I would love to hear it.
p



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 15, 2007 at 9:24 am


Have you ever listened to NPR? P
Payshun, I fear you’re wasting you key strokes in trying to convince Modlad that NPR isn’t liberal. I think he’s probably a FOX viewer.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 9:44 am


Posted by: Sarasotakid | July 15, 2007 9:24 AM
I am sure that you are a CNN viewer “New You Can Trust.” – NOT! Yes I have listened to NPR and being true MN we even have MPR which is just a weaker sister to NPR.
Yes I listen to FOX and my favorite program is Hannity and Combs. I really like Allen! He makes me think and has asked some compelling questions of their guests. Where will you find a show like Sean and Allen? Not on NPR, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC!
Why is it the of all the Cable News Networks – FOX has most of the top 10 slots? It is because they are good and attract an audience. Air America – that was a commercial venture that failed big time. The O’Franklin Factor – please. I listened to him and he is soft on the issues but very good at attacking the person. Al is an uninspiring twit and I am sure the people of MN will elect to the senate and everyone will hail it as a great victory. What has he done that really makes him qualified and if this was a Rep. dong the same thing, NPR and MPR would be all over it claiming that they have no experience.
You gotta love the DFL Machine in MN. The 1st Islamic Congressperson with ties to radical groups and more than likely the 1st avg entertainer / radio personality with a C- career in the senate.
Have a great Sunday –
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 15, 2007 at 12:03 pm


“Payshun, I fear you’re wasting you key strokes in trying to convince Modlad that NPR isn’t liberal. I think he’s probably a FOX viewer.”
NPR isn’t liberal Minnesota Public Radio is indisputably liberal. To say that they are liberal does not mean that they openly endorse Democratic candidates during their broadcast. But when you consistenty profile people who are activists for left-leaning causes, without covering conservative activists, then you become a left-leaning news station.
Nationally, public radio has rated as the most moderate news source, with CBS and Fox News at either end of the spectrum (equidistant, from the center, I would note).



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 1:10 pm


Posted by: kevin s. | July 15, 2007 12:03 PM
I have never said that NPR was radical in the liberalism. But they are left of center to the point that Helen Keller could see that. Back in the day I did listen to some of their programs – informative. But they will error on the side of the Dem Party over the Rep Party if given a choice.
Have a great day –
.



report abuse
 

Sarasotakid

posted July 15, 2007 at 2:25 pm


I am sure that you are a CNN viewer “New You Can Trust.” – NOT! Moderatlad
No, they lie too. They did not look critically at the news in the lead up to the war.
Nationally, public radio has rated as the most moderate news source, with CBS and Fox News at either end of the spectrum (equidistant, from the center, I would note).kevin s. |
Thanks for the tip on CBS. I will be sure to watch it more often.
But they are left of center to the point that Helen Keller could see that.Modlad
That is pretty funny, Modlad! She probably could see it but never heard about it!
But they will error on the side of the Dem Party over the Rep Party if given a choice. Moderatelad
You keep giving me more reasons to like NPR. Where do I send the check to make sure it gets to them!



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm


Our Senator’s son is arrested for drunk dirving and it is on page one, section A below the fold. Former VP Gore’s son does the same, sections D, page 5 below the fold.
Well, I would hope so — the local connection is far more important. (Did you ever think that people are more interested in their own state than in D. C.?)
I think the only thing that Wallis and Sojo hate more than poverty is G. W. Bush.
Well, considering that his policies helped to create poverty and made the wealthy even more so at the expense of everyone else, I would hope so. And remember that Bush himself — not the media, not liberal activists, not “America-haters” — engendered almost all of that hatred.



report abuse
 

Anonymous

posted July 15, 2007 at 6:21 pm


“Whatever. True liberal bias doesn’t really exist in the way conservatives think. ”
In your view, how do conservatives perceive liberal bias?



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 15, 2007 at 6:28 pm


“I have never said that NPR was radical in the liberalism. But they are left of center to the point that Helen Keller could see that.”
The most recent empirical data (from a study conducted by UCLA) concluded that they are not. Keep in mind that state leadership has enormous autonomy over what does and does not air on public radio, even choosing amongst NPR stories (they incorporate their own version of the wire, from which local producers can grab stories). In Minnesota, that gives it a liberal bent, but in North Dakota (for example) that is not the case (though good luck getting an anti-farm bill story on the air).



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 15, 2007 at 6:35 pm


Mod said:
I have never said that NPR was radical in the liberalism. But they are left of center to the point that Helen Keller could see that. Back in the day I did listen to some of their programs – informative. But they will error on the side of the Dem Party over the Rep Party if given a choice.
Have a great day –
Me:
Believing in something like that doesn’t make it true.
p



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 15, 2007 at 10:25 pm


Oh and I am still waiting for where this site or Sojourners magazine has explicity stated they “hated Bush.”
You must have missed the ‘hat act’ country boy singing his origional song about “do God listen to GWB Bull-shit”. That was one of the nicer phrases in his song. Sojo put a link so that all could watch it in color. ‘Can you feel that love with that song?’ No one appologized for the link – yep, that is the way Wallis is trying to bring us all together so that we can come to concensous on issues of the day. Can you think that this site would put the same type of song on here about former Pres. Clinton? Allow me to answer that one – NOT!
Have a great week!
.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 15, 2007 at 10:41 pm


In your view, how do conservatives perceive liberal bias?
Let me answer that — at my paper, the first thing people think about is the editorial page (which by definition is biased). Then, consider the flap about John Kerry’s “stuck in Iraq” quote, which we had on the back page — conservatives complained we were protecting Kerry and insisted that he was denouncing the troops when, from the context of his remarks (mentioned in the story we ran), he was clearly taking a jab at Bush. Anything that even sounds critical of a conservative political figure will set them off, and you can’t reason with them.
Can you think that this site would put the same type of song on here about former Pres. Clinton? Allow me to answer that one – NOT!
In fairness, however, Wallis did challenge Clinton on welfare reform — and was not invited back to the White House.



report abuse
 

Moderatelad

posted July 16, 2007 at 12:00 am


Posted by: Rick Nowlin | July 15, 2007 10:41 PM
In fairness, however, Wallis did challenge Clinton on welfare reform — and was not invited back to the White House.
What – the Lincoln Bedroom was not available? That compairson was so lame.
Challenge that persons policies – anaylsis – vision – whatever. But what you hear most from the posters and some of the authors is that Bush is stupid – immoral – deranged etc. I take issues with some of what Bush has done – that is our right. Rush L. takes issue with several peoples policies and shows the short fall in their logic. Al “O” Franklin writes a book ‘Rush L. is a big fat laier’ Challenge the issues and thinking but to always attack the person – whatever. (yes I know I take on Gore – but please…father of the internet – inspiration for Love Story, how dumb does he think we are anyway?)
Off to bed some of us have to work tomorrow –
.



report abuse
 

kevin s.

posted July 16, 2007 at 12:42 am


“Let me answer that”
Well, I wanted Payshun to answer it, but okay. The editorial page is a reasonable enough example. However, the content of stories and the way things are phrased have quite a bit more to do with the perception of liberal bias. That is where the more substantive criticisms lie.



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 16, 2007 at 1:03 am


What exactly are those criticisms?
p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 16, 2007 at 1:04 am


Mod,
when you get a chance could you provide a link to that song?
p



report abuse
 

Payshun

posted July 16, 2007 at 1:23 am


Yah the opinion page is so liberal. That was sarcasm folks.
http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1057
Please read what’s available. There is nowhere on the opening page that attacks Bush. My point is that NPR actually gives news and stories. I have heard really spirited discussions about zionist christians and their blind support and theology about Israel and the last days to water reclimation. I honestly think the right likes to be the opposition to percieved bias and mistreatment. Oh and I am not saying that many of you are not slandered, some of you deserve it. But then I could say the same for some of my friends on the left aswell.
p



report abuse
 

moderaterlad

posted July 16, 2007 at 8:25 am


Posted by: Payshun | July 16, 2007 1:04 AM
It was so long ago – I don’t think I could find a link. He was on Jay Leno and I will see if I can.
Have a blessed day!
.



report abuse
 

Jeremy

posted July 16, 2007 at 9:47 am


Would you be more comfortable with… “And I can understand why people are concerned when they open Sojourners and read about this violence in Iraq.” Most Americans will not be able to know firsthand about the state of violence in Iraq other than the meida options available to us. It seems obvious why he would continually refer to, “the violence as seen on t.v.”.



report abuse
 

Jeremy

posted July 16, 2007 at 9:48 am


Would you be more comfortable with… “And I can understand why people are concerned when they open Sojourners and read about this violence in Iraq.” Most Americans will not be able to know firsthand about the state of violence in Iraq other than the media options available to us. It seems obvious why he would continually refer to, “the violence as seen on t.v.”.



report abuse
 

Rick Nowlin

posted July 16, 2007 at 11:21 am


However, the content of stories and the way things are phrased have quite a bit more to do with the perception of liberal bias. That is where the more substantive criticisms lie.
The truth be told, that usually reflects the readers’ own bias rather than the stories’. One of my colleagues in the business news department received and posted two nasty notes concerning a story she wrote recently, one basically calling her a socialist and the other a lackey for the Bush Administration. In a book I read a few months ago, there was a story about commentator Bill Russell calling a playoff game between the Lakers and Knicks, and he received a nasty letter from a fan of each team asking why he hated their respective teams. So he sent the letter from the Knicks fan to the Lakers fan and vice versa. Such incidents reflect the reason I have a hard time hearing us in the “mainstream media” being slammed as slanted.



report abuse
 

loss food plan

posted November 18, 2014 at 10:15 pm


You’re so awesome! I don’t think I have read through something
like this before. So good to find somebody with
some unique thoughts on this subject matter.
Really.. many thanks for starting this up. This site is something that’s
needed on the internet, someone with a bit of originality!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting God's Politics. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:14:07am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Why I Work for Immigration Reform (by Patty Kupfer)
When I tell people that I work on immigration reform, they usually laugh or say, "way to pick an easy topic." Everyday it feels like there is more fear, more hate. Raids are picking up in Nevada, California, and New York. A number of senators who supported comprehensive reform only a few months ago

posted 12:30:52pm Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Audio: Jim Wallis on "Value Voters" on The Tavis Smiley Show
Last week Jim was on The Tavis Smiley Show and talked about how the changing political landscape will affect the upcoming '08 election. Jim and Ken Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state, debated and discussed both the impact of "value voters" on the election and what those values entail. + Down

posted 10:11:56am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Verse of the Day: 'peace to the far and the near'
I have seen their ways, but I will heal them; I will lead them and repay them with comfort, creating for their mourners the fruit of the lips. Peace, peace, to the far and the near, says the Lord; and I will heal them. But the wicked are like the tossing sea that cannot keep still; its waters toss u

posted 9:35:01am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »

Daily News Digest (by Duane Shank)
the latest news on Mideast, Iran, Romney-Religious right, Blog action day, Turkey, SCHIP, Iran, Aids-Africa, India, Budget, Brownback-slavery apology, Canada, and selected op-eds. Sign up to receive our daily news summary via e-mail » Blog action day. Thousands of bloggers unite in blitz of green

posted 9:31:25am Oct. 16, 2007 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.