Blogging is a Moving Meditation.

BLOGGING as a MOVING MEDITATION: Liminality's thin passage untangles as it weaves, fits in the ineffable nooks and crannies of my heart's prayer wall, like the cracks in pavement, mile markers on the road, windblown whimsical napkin poems written in eyeliner.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Emergent Church movement PBS Religion and Ethics News Weekly

hmmmmm looks like things are getting noticed... take a gander....
my hand is over my mouth.... (well sorta)

1 comment:

  1. The Herald-Tribune then quotes Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying that, if Iran would give up its uranium enrichment program, she would meet with Iranian officials "any place, any time, anywhere to talk about anything."

    Well we agree. Giving up its uranium enrichment program is a "precondition" to any talks. However, talks between the Secretary of State and Iran. Not the President. Get it?

    Senator Obama when asked if he would meet unconditionally and without preconditions in the first year of his Presidency in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela he said, "I would."

    Sound like Neville Chamberlain?

    Since this CNN debate Senator Obama's campaign said he would not meet with Iran's President until they give up their nuclear weapons program. “Let’s not confuse precondition with preparation,” said [Obama Communications Director Robert] Gibbs of any talks with Iran. “Obviously these meetings would be full of preparation. But we’re not going to sit down and engage Iran, unless or until they give up their nuclear weapons program."

    If Obama now says he won’t meet with Iran until they surrender their nuclear-weapons program, how exactly does that differ from President Bush? And how does that fit with his previous statements about having talks “without preconditions”?

    What the Herald-Tribune fails to tell you is that the Bush administration has been engaged in talks with Iran. There are frequent direct talks between Ambassador Crocker and Iranian officials in Iraq about their support of the terrorist Mahdi militias. There are ongoing talks between Iran, the EU with U.S. involvement. The U.S. has also engaged the U.N. Security Council in toughening sanctions against Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program.

    If Iran gave up its nuclear weapons program today, President Bush would open diplomatic contacts with Iran and might even consider a summit. He’s made that very clear over the last few years, holding out WTO sponsorship and normalized relations in exchange for just that concession.

    So does Senator Obama agree with these efforts to engage in talks with Iran or not? Apparently not because he dismisses anything Bush.

    However, Senator Obama recently said, "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us . . . . Iran, they spend 1/100th of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

    Senator Obama is clearly sending a signal to Iran, Cuba and Venezuela that he does not consider them a "serious threat". He uses the simplistic standard of size of a countries defense budget to determine who in the world is worthy of being considered a threat. Al Qaeda spent a total of $500,000 to conduct the attack on 9/11. This simplistic vision of Iran's capabilities is dangerous.

    So, meeting with Iran unconditionally, without preconditions and Iran does not pose a "serious threat".

    There you have the Obama foreign policy on Iran and other enemies of the U.S. in a nut shell.

    We also get a feel from Senator Obama on how he would deal with terrorism and terrorists at home. In his memoir Audacity of Hope is the following quote on page 261: "In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the [Democratic President Roosevelt's] Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

    "That I will stand with them [Muslims] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

    Clearly Senator Obama and the Sarasota Herald-Tribune are standing with "them". Who is standing with U.S.?