Bombing Pakistan would make al Qaeda stronger

Pakistan is a real pickle.  I agree that brute force is not the answer; it would only drive more of these remote villages into al Qaeda's camp.  But something must be done.  Some kind of "soft" power is called for, whether it's increased aid to these
villages, or simple bribes, I don't know.   But they don't have much to destroy, and they're ensconced in rugged, isolated, mountainous terrain, making for no good targets for U.S. bombers.

And sending in U.S. troops would be a nightmare.  Even our best soldiers would get destroyed if they stayed there more than a few hours. Afghanistan and Iraq would be real cakewalks compared to fighting the natives in Pakistan.

Musharraf is not a democrat, he came to power after a military coup; and as long as we need his help fighting al Qaeda's influence in Pakistan, there is not much room for America to criticize the lack of liberty there.

Kasuri: U.S. military strikes would be 'completely counterproductive'
Sun July 22, 2007  |  CNN

 

It would be "completely counterproductive" for the United States to launch military strikes in the Pakistani tribal regions where al Qaeda and Taliban militants have created safe havens, Pakistan's foreign minister said Sunday.

 

Khurshid Kasuri further told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that 85,000 Pakistani troops were already in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, a mountainous and notoriously dangerous region at the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"The Pakistani military is already there in the tribal area," Kasuri said. "Pakistan's commitment cannot be doubted by anybody."

 

If the United States were to take unilateral military action in the area, Kasuri said, "you will lose the war -- the battle for hearts and minds."

 

"Our commitment is total, but this war -- or whatever you would like to call it -- can only be won if we have hearts and minds on our side," he said.

 

Kasuri also said using Pakistani rather than U.S. troops will result in "far, far less collateral damage."

 

"Look at the ratio of casualties between your troops and Iraqi civilians," he said. "The difference is that we cannot afford what is conveniently called 'collateral damage.' "

 

White House Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend has praised Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror. However, she also has told Fox News and CNN that President Bush is leaving all options open as he considers how to handle the resurgent terrorist organizations thought to be hiding out along the border and in the Tribal areas.

 

"Job No. 1 is to protect the American people, and there are no options that are off the table," Townsend said on "Fox News Sunday." He added that Bush is "committed to the most effective action that we can possibly take in the FATA to deny them the safe haven."

 

The Bush administration has been fielding new questions about Pakistan since the National Intelligence Estimate claimed last week that al Qaeda is operating freely inside the tribal region.

 

The intelligence report stoked criticism of President Pervez Musharraf, who cut a deal with tribal chiefs and removed Pakistani troops from North Waziristan, an alleged hub of al Qaeda and Taliban. The chiefs, in return, promised they would not harbor militants.

 

Townsend and other U.S. officials have said the agreement was a failure.

 

Though the agreement recently was scrapped, Pakistan bristled at a White House assertion that the United States would be willing to strike "actionable targets" in Pakistan. Islamabad has called the White House remarks "irresponsible and dangerous."

 

Kasuri suggested Sunday that the 9/11 Commission's report -- issued in 2004 -- offered a better picture of the situation in Pakistan than did the National Intelligence Estimate.

 

"It took stock of the entire situation, and it came to a conclusion that it would be completely counterproductive [to carry out] attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan by the United States," Kasuri said.

 

Kasuri called on Washington to provide Pakistan with "actionable intelligence, and you will find that Pakistan will never be lacking."

 

"So if you have superiority in technical intelligence, please share that with us."

Why Americans don't vacation like the French

Why We Don't Vacation Like the French

How come Americans don't take a month off every summer, even though we'd like to? Blame it on individualism.

Ezra Klein | July 19, 2007 | The American Prospect

The most astonishing revelations in Michael Moore's Sicko have nothing to do with healthcare. They're about vacation time. French vacation time, to be precise.

Sitting at a restaurant table with a bunch of American ex-pats in Paris, Moore is treated to a jaw-dropping recitation of the perks of social democracy: 30 days of vacation time, unlimited sick days, full child care, social workers who come to help new parents adjust to the strains and challenges of child-rearing. Walking out of the theater, I heard more envious mutterings about this scene than any other.

"Why can't we have that?" my fellow moviegoers asked.

The first possibility is that we already do. Maybe that perfidious Michael Moore is just lying in service of his French paymasters. But sadly, no. A recent report by Rebecca Ray and John Schmitt of the Center for Economic and Policy Research suggests that Moore is, if anything, understating his case. "The United States," they write, "is the only advanced economy in the world that does not guarantee its workers paid vacation." Take notice of that word "only." Every other advanced economy offers a government guarantee of paid vacation to its workforce. Britain assures its workforce of 20 days of guaranteed, compensated leave. Germany gives 24. And France gives, yes, 30.

We guarantee zero. Absolutely none. That's why one out of 10 full-time American employees, and more than six out of 10 part-time employees, get no vacation. And even among workers with paid vacation benefits, the average number of days enjoyed is a mere 12. In other words, even those of us who are lucky enough to get some vacation typically receive just over a third of what the French are guaranteed.

This is strange. Of all these countries, the United States is, by far, the richest. And you would think that, as our wealth grew and our productivity increased, a certain amount of our resources would go into, well, us. Into leisure. Into time off. You would think that we'd take advantage of the fact that we can create more wealth in less time to wrest back some of those hours for ourselves and our families.

But instead, the exact opposite has happened. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American man today works 100 more hours a year than he did in the 1970s, according to Cornell University economist Robert Frank. That's 2 1/2 weeks of added labor. The average woman works 200 more hours -- that's five added weeks. And those hours are coming from somewhere: from time with our kids, our friends, our spouses, even our bed. The typical American sleeps one to two hours less a night than his or her parents did.

This would all be fine if it were what we wanted. But that doesn't seem to be the case. One famous 1996 study asked associates at major law firms which world they'd prefer: The one they resided in, or one in which they took a 10% pay cut in return for a 10% reduction in hours worked. They overwhelmingly preferred the latter. Elsewhere, economists have given individuals sets of choices pitting leisure against goods. Leisure doesn't always win out, but it is certainly competitive. Yet we're pumping ever more hours into work, seeking ever-higher incomes to fund ever-greater consumption. Why?

A possible answer can be found in Frank's work. He argues that the U.S. economy has set its incentives up so as to systematically underemphasize leisure and overemphasize consumption. Much of what we purchase are called "positional goods" -- goods whose value is measured in relation to the purchases of others. Take housing. Would you rather live in a land where you had a 4,000-square-foot house and everyone else had a 6,000-square-foot house, or one in which you had a 3,000-square-foot house and everyone else had a 2,000-square-foot house? Given this choice, studies show that most respondents pick the latter. They'd rather have less home in absolute terms if it means more home in relative terms. That makes housing a positional good.

Being concerned with one's relative position rather than one's absolute position is not irrational or merely motivated by envy. In order to retain your relative standard of living, you need to keep up with the purchases of others in your income bracket. Housing works as an example here, too: Part of the use of an expensive home is the nice neighborhood, which gets your child into good schools – what matters, again, is not your square footage, but your relative affluence. Good schools, of course, are also a positional good – your education largely matters in terms of how much better it is than everyone else's. Retaining your relative position also ensures that you don't send the wrong signals when a client comes over for dinner. Houses, cars, clothing -- they all help send those signals. And because the rich in this country keep getting richer, we're caught in what Frank calls "expenditure cascades" in an effort to keep up with them. Their purchases raise the bar for the group right below them, which in turn increases the needs of the next income set, and so on. To retain our position, we're constantly needing to increase our incomes and affluence.

This makes the purchase of positional goods more pressing and urgent than non-positional goods. And so they "crowd out" their less context-contingent cousins. People want to spend less time at work, but they also want to retain and improve their standard of living relative to their neighbors -- and the latter triumphs, time and again.

This isn't because people are stupid, or irrational, or don't know what they want. Rather, it's because the incentives are all fouled up. Frank calls it a "smart for one, dumb for all" problem, but it's really just a classic failure of collective action. An individual would be made worse off were he to unilaterally opt out of the positional competition. But we would all be better off if we decided collectively to ratchet down the economic one-upmanship and instead devote a bit more time and resources to the leisure goods we claim to desire.

Here in the sweltering D.C. summer, there's nothing worse than wearing a necktie when the thermometer reads 95 and the humidity is so thick you could swim laps. But on your own, there's not much you can do about this state of affairs. If you're the only one who shows up dressed down, you'll look bad for it. But if your office, or meeting, were to collectively decide to ease the dress code, all would be better off.

This is what the European Union just did, imposing new regulations on its bureaucrats barring ties in the summer. Cutting down on air-conditioning costs was the rationale, but centralized action was the only way to end the practice. Otherwise, every individual would still have had the incentive to show his commitment by dressing in a tie. Only the collective could remove that spur.

So too with vacations. Very few individual workers in the United States can ask for four weeks of vacation. It is not only outside the benefits of their job but far outside the culture of our workplace. The incentives for most every individual, particularly if they want to keep their position and amass a reputation as a good employee, is to abide by those norms.

But if the crowd outside Sicko was any indication, most people would love a substantial increase in vacation time. This is what other advanced nations have pursued, using the government's role as an enforcer of collective sentiment to legislate the preferences that individuals could not, on their own, enact.

In this country, we've left it to the individuals, and thus the average American worker only takes 12 days of vacation a year, and many get none. We could do better, but that would require sidestepping American individualism for a moment and engaging in some American collectivism.

Why the "Lib'rul Media" fears Michael Moore

The MSM's Michael Moore Inferiority Complex

In a world full of political provocateurs and public hotheads, why is it that only Michael Moore triggers the media's all-too-absent obsession with factual accuracy? Because he scares them.

Ezra Klein | July 12, 2007 | The American Prospect

"Facts," Ronald Reagan famously said, "are stupid things." But that may be too harsh. They can just be made to do stupid things. For instance, if I told you that the American economy had grown by a robust 3.2 percent in 2004 and 2005, you'd think it had done pretty well. If I told you that the bottom 90 percent of American workers actually lost income over that same period because so much went to the very rich, you might think differently. Both facts are true. They just need context.

And context is what facts so rarely get. Here at The American Prospect, the economist Dean Baker writes a blog dedicated to providing some of that sorely needed context in the media's reportage of economic and social policy data. It's a big job, because he's one of the few people doing it. Except when a new Michael Moore movie comes out. Then, suddenly, the press becomes obsessed with facts and context and the relevance of omissions.

Take CNN. A few days after the release of Sicko, they set a whole team on fact checking the provocateur's documentary. "We found," they said, "that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film."

So Moore was on solid ground. But that wasn't enough for CNN. This week, Moore was set to appear on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room. Before he came on, though, Blitzer had CNN's medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, offer a "reality check" on the film:

As Dean Baker pointed out, the "reality check" needed a reality check of its own. But never mind that. It's more important to ask, what accounts for this unrelenting obsession with Moore's accuracy? As a certified health care wonk who loves nothing more than posting comparative spending graphs, I'm all for rapidly increasing the complexity and accuracy with which these issues are debated. But the media rarely indulges such passions. Apparently Michael Moore has a peculiar effect on them.

To wit, Moore is a documentary filmmaker. Fred Thompson is a likely Republican candidate for president. Thompson recently released a radio commentary on the Moore's movie that mixed outright falsehoods with deceptive omissions. There was no media outcry, no Wolf Blitzer follow-up, no CNN truth squad. Nothing. Silence.

Or forget Thompson. Recently, the entire field of announced Republican candidates debated, live on national television. Mitt Romney, one of the frontrunners, took the opportunity to claim that Saddam Hussein never let the inspectors into Iraq, and if he had, we wouldn't have gone to war. This is untrue. The media did not collapse into paroxysms over the inaccuracy. Indeed, they hardly seemed to notice it.

So what accounts for their peculiar obsession with the truth of Moore's films? It's not that these media outlets relentlessly examine the veracity of other public figures, or that Moore is somehow greater in stature than leading presidential candidates. It's a mystery.

Here's a guess, though: Michael Moore elicits a very specific type of status anxiety in mainstream journalists. Moore's product -- passionate, provocative political commentary -- is a close cousin of the media's product -- bloodless, boring political commentary. And Moore is a former journalist, an editor at papers in Flint, Michigan and Mother Jones. What he does is, broadly speaking, in the same realm as what they do. But there are differences between the product he puts out, and what the media offers. A major one is that Moore's releases strike massive emotional chords with the American people, setting off weeks of heated discussion every time he unveils a film. Additionally, he is paid in the tens of million for the production of his documentaries and invited to Cannes when they're released. Nice as the occasional invitation to the White House Correspondents Dinner may be, the two just don't compare.

So there's an acute desire on the part of the press to separate what Moore does from what they do, both in order to explain away his successes and to underscore their own assumed strengths (objectivity, rationality, etc). His failings may be manifold, but that hardly renders him unique. His treatment, however, is unique. The world is full of political provocateurs and public hotheads, but only Moore triggers the media's all-too-absent obsession with factual accuracy. Ann Coulter doesn't, and Al Franken doesn't, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't, and Mitt Romney doesn't. Only Moore. Because he scares them.

Here's a radical thought, though: Maybe if these mainstream media types were as incredulous towards the powerful as they are to Moore, his productions wouldn't pose a threat. After all, there's nothing wrong with fact-checking, and asking hard questions, and raising an oppositional eyebrow towards pabulum and propaganda. The problem isn't that the media is so quick to doubt Moore. It's that they're so trusting the rest of the time.

Christian Zionists flock to DC to lobby for Israel

Meet your fellow Republicans. You may scoff at them or dismiss them, but they are a 50-state organization, and they are disciplined, motivated, and well funded. They have more influence over Bush, the Republican party, and Congress than you or I do, or probably any lobbying group which you may support, with the exception of AARP and the NRA.

Lobbying is nothing new; but what's worrisome and bizarre about CUFI is that there is no apparent self-interest motivating their lobbying. They're not trying to keep their guns, or their Social Security checks, or their race-based employment preferences, like the NRA, AARP, and NAACP, respectively. You could say there's really nothing in it for them to advocate an increase in the $2.4 billion America gives Israel each year, or condemn any land-for-peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians. When you look at it from that point of view, they really are nutjobs. Who flies to Washington at his own expense to spout somebody else's talking points in order to get nothing in return?

On the other hand, you could say they're true altruists doing what they consider to be God's will.

But you know and I know that's bullshit. No, they really are kooks, AND they're self-interested: they're so kooky, they believe that putting Israel's interest before America's will ensure them a cozy, VIP spot in Heaven. If you read their nutty End Times prophecy, they think most of the Jews will be fried by the devil anyway (only 144,000 will be spared by God). No, these wacky Christian Zionists are just looking out for themselves, consistent with their insane religious worldview.

Hagee, Israel backers push a get-tough policy
Web Posted: 07/22/2007 01:32 AM CDT
Abe Levy | San Antonio Express-News

WASHINGTON — Inside a reserved Senate room, several hundred evangelical activists who came by plane and bus Wednesday waited for the arrival of Texas' two senators.

As their leader, Pastor John Hagee, entered the room, they erupted in cheers, snapping photos of the face of modern Christian Zionism, a movement that promotes Israel as a biblical mandate.

The room turned silent as Hagee greeted Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn near the stage. Hagee looked the senators in the eye and said: "These people are from Texas — and they are voters."

That message came through loud and clear last week as Hagee and 4,500 like-minded Christians visited the Capitol to lobby for Israel and a get-tough policy against Iran. Motivating them is their belief that Israel's fate is tied to that of the free world.

"We didn't come to Washington to figure out what Washington thinks," Hagee said. "We came to Washington to express our views, and we came as people. People hold the power in America."

Pastor of the 18,000-member Cornerstone Church in San Antonio and a world-reknowned TV evangelist, Hagee organized the lobbying blitz (the second in two years) to try to exert political power in Middle East policy, including consideration of a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

He founded a non-profit organization, Christians United for Israel, 18 months ago, to give a louder voice to Christian Zionists, who are among the 60 million to 100 million evangelicals in the U.S. Many of them believe they are living in the final days described in prophetic books of the Bible and that standing with Israel assures them of being on God's side when it is all said and done.

Known for his fiery apocalyptic sermons and books, such as "Jerusalem Countdown," Hagee, 67, is no stranger to conservative Republican politics and mobilizing Christians to vote.

Last week, along with the visit to Congress, CUFI conducted a three-day summit for 4,500 delegates that included seminars on the evils of militant Islamic groups, lessons on effective lobbying, the showing of pro-Israel documentaries, banquets for donors and its signature event, Night to Honor Israel, which was broadcast on Israeli TV.

The ceremony drew nearly 5,000 participants inside the Washington Convention Center and 15 protesters outside.

The dissenters, part of "Project Straight Gate," based in Phoenix, held signs that read "Hagee's apostacy kills Palestinians" and "Blessed are the peacemakers." The group, representing six states, started five years ago to counter the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

To them, Hagee is the next Rev. Jerry Falwell, who they say misrepresented Christian faith through his political activities.

"The whole Christian Zionism movement is causing Christianity to be a laughing stock all over the world," said Charles Carlson, the group's founder and director. "It's bringing (Hagee) fame and fortune by putting Israel on the throne right beside Christ."

Inside the convention center, high-profile Israeli and U.S. government leaders revved up the audience with impassioned speeches by, among others, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay also attended.

At a banquet for $1,000-plus donors the night before, Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent and practicing Jew, praised CUFI and likened Hagee to Moses as a "leader of a multitude."

"The support of Christian Zionists is critical to Israel's security and strength," he said, "and to America's security and strength."

The average delegate found in the seminars the material they would need for lobbying and later grassroots activism. Panelists, both Jewish and Christian, promoted the use of alternative fuels as a way to wean America from Arab oil and deeper study of pro-Israel arguments to clarify biased media reports, win converts in their neighborhoods and vote pro-Israel candidates into office. There was particular emphasis on one core belief that Israel must not give up any land to Palestinians for peace, a view that comes from the Bible and history.

They also detailed the threat of militant Islamic groups who incite children to hate Jews and teach that being suicide bombers would give them the glory of martyrdom.

"It is a sick philosophy that goes by many names, but I haven't found a better name for this than islamofascism," Gary Bauer, a former presidential candidate who served in the Reagan administration and current CUFI board member, said during a workshop.

Pressing their points

Armed with talking points, CUFI delegates brought their message to a Congress largely in agreement, given that Israel was created by the United Nations in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

They reported meeting with 279 lawmakers, including 57 senators, and according to CUFI leaders, were generally well received.

Still, the suggestion of threatening Iran with a pre-emptive strike before exhausting diplomacy and the dismissal of a two-state solution in the Holy Land were not met with support from all lawmakers.

Some were skeptical that an American public growing weary of the U.S. presence in Iraq could stomach an attack on Iran. They would rather try to persuade other powerful nations in Europe and Asia to end trade with Iran and enact other economic and diplomatic sanctions.

"I've found that diplomacy sure does a lot of good," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who didn't meet with CUFI members but was asked about them while en route to the Senate chambers. "Ronald Reagan proved that in the Cold War. He sent emissaries to the Soviet Union. We can never take the military option off the table as a world power, but we need to exhaust all diplomatic ways first."

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., made time to meet briefly with 85 CUFI members who waited for him on the Capitol steps. State directors Mike and Jean Ann McNally stuck to four talking points as instructed during CUFI workshops: opposition to a two-state solution, support for sanctions on Iran, a U.N. crackdown on the terrorist group Hezbollah and continuing and increasing the $2.4 billion in yearly U.S. aid to Israel.

"One of their great strengths is their succinct message," Corker said after the visit, noting he took a first-ever trip to Israel during his election campaign last year. "The clarity of that message has endeared them to many people."

Several CUFI members lingered after the visit, holding hands in a circle and whispering prayers.

"We know we'll get blessed because we're blessing Israel," said Jean Ann McNally, the co-state director for Tennessee. "We're not here to lose."

In contrast, fundamental disagreements emerged during his meeting with seven CUFI members, said Bill Harper, chief of staff for Congresswoman Betty McCollum, D-St. Paul.

McCollum earlier this year was invited to attend a Night to Honor Israel in her home state. She declined in an April 25 letter, citing "repugnant" publicized statements by Hagee, including his calling Hurricane Katrina God's judgment on a sinful city and saying those who live by the Koran have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews.

After the meeting, Harper said he couldn't agree with CUFI's assertion that a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians would hurt progress in the Middle East.

He pointed to Israel's freeing of 250 Palestinian prisoners Friday and Bush's release of a multimillion-dollar aid package for the Palestinian Authority Cabinet.

"This is really frankly a radical leadership," Harper said of CUFI. "They are dangerous to any prospects of ending the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians."

Texas' two Republican senators were more welcoming of CUFI's message.

"I think this is a group that gets it from the standpoint of the threat to not only our nation but also to the Iraqis and Afghans and to Israel," said Cornyn. "And that is the threat of Islamic extremism that justifies the murder of innocent civilians in pursuit of its ideological agenda."

Hutchison described CUFI as the Christian equivalent to the Jewish lobbying group AIPAC, and credible.

But she parts company with it over, for example, her preference for a two-state solution to bring "long-standing peace and economic development."

Challenges ahead

Hagee's meeting with Texas lawmakers was one of the few public appearances he made during the week. Instead, during 12-hour, tightly scheduled days, he was immersed in private CUFI strategy meetings with pastors and lawmakers.

CUFI claims about 50,000 members from churches representing 2 million people and has directors in each state and representatives in 10 countries.

Even with Congress' strong pro-Israel leanings, Hagee and CUFI have to gain traction at a time when one presidency is nearing an end and the next is a big unknown.

As CUFI met in Washington last week, President Bush, who banked on the same evangelical base as CUFI's, announced plans to pursue a two-state solution for the Holy Land.

Also last week, the State Department appeared headed to diplomatic talks with Iran to discuss charges that it is arming Iraqi militias. Such a move runs contrary to one of CUFI's strongest convictions — that Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities by its president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is part of a ploy to wipe out Israel and establish an Islamic world order.

Hagee also has to convince an increasingly fragmented evangelical community that Israel should be its top agenda item, despite competing issues such as global warming, poverty, abortion and homosexuality.

Perhaps one of Hagee's biggest hurdles will be his status as a controversial end-time theologian who, with great certainty, purports to understand future events based on his reading of the Book of Revelation and Old Testament prophecies.

Israel, he says, will come under attack from Arab enemies led by the Antichrist, pitting the forces of good and evil in the Battle of Armageddon. The Jews in Israel will be killed, except for 144,000 who are spared and foretold to convert to the Christian faith before Jesus' return.

Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, Jewish leaders with CUFI have said the only difference between them and their Christian counterparts is whether the Messiah's future arrival will be his first or second time on Earth.

This end-time theology was intentionally left out of the CUFI trip last week and in all other related events, Hagee said.

"We come here and make it very clear that end-time theology has absolutely nothing to do with our support for Israel," he said. "We're supporting Israel because Israel is threatened like no other time in all of her history."

[Mm-hm. Right. Your whacky apocalyptic theology, which centers on the end times in Israel, has nothing to do with your support for Israel. Sure. – J]

But for others, his end-time views cause them to question his motives, especially since he's outspoken about his desire to affect U.S. foreign policy.

"As a Christian, I continue to be concerned about this militant crusader projected into the world that's categorically the opposite of the message of Jesus as I understand it," said Don Wagner, a founder of the Institute for the Study of Christian Zionism.

This issue deeply divides Jews, some of whom, while they praise Hagee's work to eradicate anti-Semitism, see him as using them as pawns to fulfill Christian prophecy, including the annihilation of most Jews.

David Brog, CUFI's executive director and a practicing Jew, said Christian Zionists are not motivated by end-time prophecy, despite their belief in it. Instead, Brog said, Jews who partner with CUFI are recognizing their shared dedication to moral lifestyles, the same sacred texts and the same God and a common goal of peace by combating the modern threat of global terrorism.

"If (Hagee) wanted a war, then he'd want to let Iran get the bombs," he said. "I think (Hagee's critics) are misunderstanding Christian theology. God has no set time for the Second Coming. And there's nothing you or I can do about it."

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq thru July 2007

Do you support the troops? Then you should support getting them the fuck out of Iraq ASAP.