Could it be that Jimmy Carter's voice in this NYTimes article Just War -- or a Just War? will be the mandatory nudge that gets the democratic process functioning again?

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

There. Someone said it. Not just anyone. Now, had he gone just a little further and explained just how the Southern Baptist Convention spokesmen are playing Israel as a pawn to the end in a self-fulfilling prophecy, we might be getting somewhere.

Other news from the Washington Post:
For Bush, War Defines Presidency
"In the coming weeks, all signs indicate, President Bush will launch the first war without direct provocation in the nation's history.

The consequences of invading Iraq, supporters and opponents agree, will extend far beyond the Tigris and Euphrates. Repercussions of the war are likely to define not just the Bush presidency, but also the U.S. role in the world and even the course of domestic policy for years to come.
It is the largest of gambles -- except that Bush, in rhetoric and in temperament, sees it not as a gamble but as a historical inevitability." more

Since day one it's been clear to me that Bush was interested in making history, it doesn't matter what he's know for, simple history will do.

Other attention grabbers in the Washington Post:

A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated

Democrats Bemoan U.S. Image

GOP Leader Challenges Bush Statements

House Minority Leader Opposes War Now
posted by Cyndy | link | | |
Home