Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Abramoff - Lobbyist, Criminal...Psychic?

Posted by codemorse

From DailyKos:

Newly-disclosed e-mails from the Minority Chair of the House Government Reform Committee Henry Waxman provide new areas of insight into Jack Abramoff's closeness to the Bush administration. Most shocking of all (at least of those I've been able to read so far) is that Abramoff off-handedly mentions "the upcoming war in Iraq." The date--March, 2002:

"I was sitting yesterday with Karl Rove, Bush's top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when this email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have to come out negatively regarding Israel, but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq."


As is pointed out in the linked article, this email was sent just about a year before there was a war in Iraq - seven months before Congress authorized the President to go to war.

This email was written four days before the "Downing Street Memo," while President Bush was still claiming that we wanted to pursue a variety of options to war.

This is significant, because in March of 2002, many citizens already believed that the U.S. was committed to the Iraq invasion, and were opposed to the invasion on a number of substantially-factual, reasonable grounds.

When we expressed our concern over the apparent craving for war, we were called unpatriotic and anti-American. We were accused of aiding the enemy.

And we were, apparently, right.

Which begs the question, considering that our war has increased the global threat of terrorism...Just who was aiding the enemy again?

6 Comments:

At 4:45 PM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

What do you think about this?
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-2679

 
At 9:44 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

I think it's largely harmless, if we assume that the symbols and public buildings it protects under the government aegis remain as they are now.

I've never been one to openly or aggressively protest something like "In God We Trust" being on our money.

But I'm also an enormous critic of the government insulating itself from private claims. It's bad enough that the government can take away our property on a whim, and that bringing suit against them on so many things is practically impossible - now we have further insulation?

What this "tells" me is that America has no intention of entertaining the idea of removing Bibles from the courts, or God from our money. The government is tired of pretending to care what an outspoken atheist thinks of the separation of church and state.

What do you think?

 
At 11:10 AM, Blogger Scott Roche said...

I think that the government is trying to have it both ways. They want folks to be free to worship however they please (as long as it doesn't involve drugs or killing chickens). They also want to be able to put the ten commandments outside gov't buildings and inside schools. They want to have God's name on our money and out front where everyone can see how cool we are, but they don't want to live up to His standards. They want to be able to sponsor boy scout troops as long as the gays aren't involved in any visible way in spite of the fact that if they involved them at least the uniforms would look better.

I say if they want to keep the trappings of Judeo-Christianity around then they should be willing to let those atheists fight to have them tken down and pay for it if it turns out that the atheists are right. Mostly I think we should just take the trappings off. Especially in light of the last thirty-odd years of insanely dirty politics. It's like a hooker wearing a white wedding dress or the white washed tombs full of dead men's bones that Jesus talks about.

 
At 4:06 PM, Blogger Wesley said...

what happened to sunday sermonizing?

 
At 11:35 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

It was put on hold while I tried not to lose my mind in September, Wes.

I'm going to get it back up and running soon.

Good thoughts, Scott - I'd like to answer them in depth but it's late and I need sleep. In the morning, I'll throw my thoughts your way.

 
At 9:52 AM, Blogger codemorse said...

They want to have God's name on our money and out front where everyone can see how cool we are, but they don't want to live up to His standards.

That's a problem each of us wrestles with - regardless of faith. We all want to be percieved as "good" and living a "good" life without necessarily wanting to put in the sometimes-terrifying work that involves real spiritual evolution.

Given that government is simply people, I'd say that it suffers from the same malaise. It always has. It would rather appear to do something than do it.

I say if they want to keep the trappings of Judeo-Christianity around then they should be willing to let those atheists fight to have them tken down and pay for it if it turns out that the atheists are right.

I say you're right. But the government disagrees. Like it or not, we live in an era where a majority of Americans want government to make their decisions for them. They want a Daddy.

And to get that omnipotent father figure we've surrendered our ability to make a dent in an increasingly-unwieldy and impregnable beast.

I'd argue that a sort of ecstatic, evangelical Nationalism has largely replaced "religion" for many people in this country. We don't simply respect or love our country - many worship it.

And the appearance of godliness requires the symbols to match. Which is really why these things remain on our money, et al. It's a conscious effort to associate our country and our "cause" with the divine.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home