"We have not at all assimilated with the coalition forces. We have nothing to do with them, nor indeed do we have anything to do with the West. We are Christians; we are citizens like everyone else."

- Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk, Iraq, speaking out against proposals by U.S. officials to create "safe havens" for Christians experiencing persecution there. (Source: The Catholic Herald)

This quote is especially interesting if looked at in the light of Bush Admin officials stating before the war, that soldiers would be "greeted as liberators."


On March 16, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press" Vice President Cheney said, "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators." It was then he predicted that the regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle," and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside." Asked if Americans are prepared for a "long, costly and bloody battle," Cheney replied: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." (Read: Article on language used by Bush officials before the war)

Even the Christian Church in Iraq seemingly desires to distance itself from American agenda or action.

While the ultimate effects of the war in Iraq remain to be seen, it is obvious very little good has transpired as a result of American military action. The region is ultimately more chaotic and lawless, there is no clear leadership and a seeming power struggle has brimmed on eruption.

What's outcome? Do troops need to start leaving? Do more troops need to come in as support? Both have been proposed recently.

Two sides to this argument: If American troops leave, it protects from suffering more American loss (in troops and in funds) and to some extent, admits, that indeed the Iraq War effort and motivation was lost. The region remains in mass chaos, suffering the damages of sectarian violence and a lack of real political power. America has to admit defeat and as long as violence and chaos reign in the region, the more America will be held responsible for their action and the lack of respect for international cooperation. Even more concerning is that Iraq may indeed be worse off (Read: UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's take). If future Iraqi government becomes closely aligned with Iran, or a brutal regime evolves as a result of sectarian violence and terror, America will look even more foolish and be held responsible for incompetence.

If American troops stay and bolster military support, it will undoubtedly continue to harm the image of the West in the Middle East, there will continue to be losses of American lives and simultaneously continue to fuel the recruitment and advances of terrorist activity, not just in Iraq, but around the globe. As exemplified since the beginning of the war, America has no effective course of action and no way to control guerilla and terrorist action. Not only does America's tarnished image suffer from further ineffectiveness, but it will also serve to similar groups as to what America can and cannot deal with.

America is in a tough spot. There seems to be no path or direction which will be helpful to the situation, or the country's image. So where does Bush go from here? He starts apologizing and admitting that "staying the course" isn't always viable. He makes amends with the United Nations and Kofi Annan. He meets with local and national figure heads in the Middle East and seeks to cooperate with them in achieving some stability in the region, bolstered by a combination of aid incentives and "eating crow". The American people were told that Iraq was a threat to national security. The American president however, has caused even more damage to the security through illegitimate action of unilateral war and preemptive strikes. It seems the only way to start to remedy these abuses and violations is to start by apologizing.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why is this such a big issue? What do we know?

This issue is not as complicated as it may seem. In my researching the ins-&-outs of this whole debate, I've actually been struck by the simplicity of the arguments.

First, stem cell research (both adult stem cell & embryo stem cell) has yielded results to problems that excite the medical community. The difference between the capabilities of the two is easy to grasp....adult stem cells can lead to progress, but are somewhat limited in their capacity for wide-range effectiveness, while embryonic stem cells seem to have limiteless potential in what can be achieved. Adult stem cells have been productive, however only capable of achieving success in a small amount of medical breakthroughs. This is due to the cells being more "mature" and less capable of "change". It is the embryonic stem cells that offer the most extraordinary scientific breakthroughs, as they are seemingly capable of forming into ANY cells that a body may need.

Can you (can anyone) imagine walking into a room, where several hearts are beating, having been composed and nurtured from embryonic stem cells? Are you aware of the incredible capabilities this could allow if research is given a green light and more testing and understanding is grasped?

So we know that stem cell research can be a viable option for curing disease (evidenced by success of adult stem cells). True, however, that researchers have not unlocked all the mystery of what the embryonic stem cell is capable of, or if they can control the power of these cells to yield the necessary results. Imagine if they could? What is stopping them?

What is stopping continued research in finding ways to cure

A Take On Election Results
by Jim Wallis
BeliefNet.Com

Perhaps most interesting in this campaign were some of the negative Democratic ads. They simply assert that the Republican candidate agrees with George W. Bush. That’s all they tried to prove and trotted out the percentage of times the candidate has voted for President Bush’s agenda. That was extraordinary. Just to attach a Republican to the record of their own President was negative enough in this election, and Republicans were running away from their President.

In the final week of the campaign, the President himself weighed in with his own negative campaigning when he told an audience in Texas (one of the few places who still wanted him to visit) that “the terrorists win and America loses” if the Democrats won this election. His problem is that more and more Americans think statements like that are ridiculous. And that Bush’s continual assertions about winning the war in Iraq (despite the obvious facts) are also ridiculous, and that the opposite is now true—that America is losing around the world and the terrorists are winning BECAUSE of George Bush’s complete disaster in Iraq.

Iraq is one of the biggest reasons that the Republicans are losing tonight. With a unique combination of arrogance and incompetence Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are proudly going full speed ahead in their deadly war in Iraq, despite the growing opposition from all sides of the political spectrum and even from the military. It must now be said that George Bush and his partners in the crime of Iraq are unnecessarily killing lots of people—both Americans and Iraqis—with no plan to stop the killing. So they must now be stopped, and that is a big part of tonight’s message.

It’s the reason that both Republican and Democratic candidates are promising to find new ways of trying to resolve the war in Iraq rather than simply repeating, “stay the course.” The Bush/Rumsfeld/Cheney course must now be stopped. Whatever the outcome of the election, Iraq must be the first item on the agenda of the next Congress.