Click here for more recent postings.

For earlier stories:

We have been warned often enough lately that pointing to the lies by our President and his administration is tantamount to treason. Well, one recent letter to the editor in the St. Cloud (MN) Times, said that those who claim that the President has lied to us "are bordering on treason." But Witherspoon Issues Analyst Gene TeSelle, undeterred by the threats of the Patriot Acts present and yet to come, offers a glimpse of five recent books that explore what they all view as the lies propagated and perpetuated by our current administration. To quote no less a patriot than Patrick Henry, "If this be treason, make the most of it."

We recently posted a note about an article by James Carroll, published in the Boston Globe, observing that it "gives one of the best commentaries we've seen on the much-lamented (and praised) statement by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who is commanding U.S. efforts to capture the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."

That brought a strong reaction from Jim Berkley, Director of the Issues Ministry of Presbyterians for Renewal.

James Carroll, writing in the Boston Globe, gives one of the best commentaries we've seen on the much-lamented (and praised) statement by Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, who is commanding U.S. efforts to capture the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. He acknowledges that this "my God is bigger than your God" mentality seems inherent in the monotheistic religions of revelation, with their exclusivist claims.

But, he continues, "there can be such a thing as an inclusivist religious faith that rejects this way of thinking. Instead of polarity, this other way of being religious assumes unity -- unity between God and God's creation, which serves in turn as a source of unity among God's creatures. This reconciling truth is what all the great religions -- certainly the three Abrahamic religions -- assert when they identify God, most basically, not with conflict but with love." This "respectful religious pluralism," he asserts, is desperately needed in today's world, if we're to avoid religious wars on a whole new scale.

"The question of whether we were misled into the war in Iraq isn't a liberal or conservative or Republican or Democratic question, it's an American one. Protecting the democracy that we ask our sons and daughters to die for is our responsibility and our trust. Demanding accountability from our leaders is our job as citizens. It's the American way. So may the truth win out."

- Bruce Springsteen

There's no shortage of commentary on President Bush's address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, September 23.

But if you're looking for a sharp analysis putting the speech in a wider context, take a look at an essay by William Rivers Pitt, the Managing Editor of truthout.org.

For starters, he begins with this quote:

In the midst of all today's appeals (or demands?) for "patriotism," you might want to share a few moments with some of the families of those who died on September 11^th, 2001. They offer sorrow, and even more, they offer hope.

September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows have issued a "Statement On the Second Anniversary of 9/11," which begins:

Two years ago today our loved ones were tragically murdered in an act of terror that shook the United States and the world. In the time since their deaths, as we continue our personal paths of grieving, we are comforted by the thoughtful and compassionate response of people all over the world who have offered sympathy and support to the victims of these terrible attacks. But much about the US government's approach to responding to our loved ones' deaths stands in stark contrast to the common sense words and comforting actions of ordinary people. On this two-year anniversary, we stop to reflect on the dangerous course of current policies and to call for a new approach to 9/11 that is focused on bringing about true security and justice.

Read the rest of their statement.

Stephen Zunes, an associate professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco, has published a detailed examination of Pres. Bush's Sept. 7^th speech telling us how well things are going in Iraq.

For example, the President claimed that "Our coalition enforced ... international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history." Zunes responds:

First of all, the initial invasion was almost exclusively an American military operation with the exception of British leadership in some southern parts of the country. It could therefore hardly be referred to as a "coalition."

More importantly, the invasion of Iraq was not an enforcement of these "international demands." The United Nations Charter clearly states that only the UN Security Council itself has the ability to authorize military enforcement of its resolutions. The Security Council, however, refused to authorize the United States to enforce these resolutions through military means despite enormous pressure by U.S. officials to do so.

Finally, it was hardly a humane military campaign. More than 5000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the U.S.-led assault, far surpassing the number of American civilians killed in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Originally posted by Foreign Policy in Focus

"Count the cost," said Jesus. Charles Henderson, Presbyterian minister and manager of the Christianity section of about.com, reflects on the high costs of the administration's "100 billion dollar error" in counting the costs of its war in Iraq.

He notes that "in his speech explaining the need for the extra billions for Iraq, Bush called upon the American people to make 'sacrifices.' But exactly who is being asked to sacrifice? AIDS victims in Africa? US school children studying in crumbling, overcrowded classrooms? Tens of thousands who will not have the job training they desperately need in this jobless recovery?"

Henderson concludes with this call:

Here's a critical but thoughtful look at the objectives and the limitations of the Bush administration's decision to seek UN participation in the US occupation of Iraq.

Phylllis Bennis, writing in Foreign Policy in Focus, points out what may be pretty obvious by now:

A soldier on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq, writes to his home-town paper about his growing disenchantment with the war he is required to fight.

He concludes:

I once believed that I served for a cause: "to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Now, I no longer believe; I have lost my conviction, my determination. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies. My time is done as well as that of many others with whom I serve. We have all faced death here without reason or justification.

Thanks to the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

President Bush recently proclaimed this past weekend, Friday, September 5 through Sunday, September 7, 2003, as National Days of Prayer and Remembrance. We are invited to "remember all that we lost as Americans and recognize all that we have witnessed about the character of America."

A call to prayer such as this is a reminder that the God to whom we pray is sovereign, that the world and its unfolding are not in our control. Yet the President reveals his deepest religious convictions, perhaps, with the concluding line of his proclamation: "This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others. It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

You'd think the last few months might have helped him learn otherwise. Not yet, apparently.

"We Stand Our Ground"

The Bush administration is working to resist nuclear proliferation by developing more nuclear weapons. The government's Strategic Command, meeting in Omaha last week, probably considering possibilities such as the development of low-yield nuclear earth-penetrating weapons, also referred to as nuclear bunker busters. Such steps would open a new round of weapons development in other nations. And the "bunker busters,' being relatively small weapons, would probably blur the line between conventional and nuclear warfare. Further, those weapons would likely generate large quantities of nuclear fallout - acting as the "dirty bombs" the President so fervently condemns as a threat from terrorists.

"Do as I say, not as I do" takes on new meaning.

A report in the Asia Times gives the details.

Thanks to Arch Taylor and the organization Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

Radical historian Howard Zinn looks at the "victory" of the new American Empire, and sees the seeds of its own collapse beginning to appear: the lies revealed, the growing resistance to our "liberation" among the people of Iraq, the likely shift in public opinion as the war drags on and casualties continue.

In a long-term perspective, he says:

There is a long history of imperial powers, gloating over victories, becoming over-extended and overconfident, as their citizens begin to get uneasy because their day-to-day fundamental needs are being sacrificed for military glory while their young are sent to die in wars. The uneasiness grows and grows, and the citizenry gather in resistance in larger and larger numbers, and become too much to control, and one day the top-heavy empire falls over.

The Lutheran Peace Fellowship has posted on their website what sounds like a great "game" to help people learn about the real costs of the war - by using beans to show the number of billions of dollars spent on the military in comparison to development aid, UN peacekeeping, other forms of conflict resolution, and the Peace Corps.

The resource contains helpful ideas for action, once people get an ideas of where their money is going - including contacting Congress.

The Independent (in the United Kingdom) provides a handy little list of "20 Lies About the War." The authors say that "falsehoods ranging from exaggeration to plain untruth were used to make the case for war. More lies are being used in the aftermath."

A few examples (each of which is followed by evidence of its falsehood):

1) Iraq was responsible for the 11 September attacks
2) Iraq and al-Qa'ida were working together
3) Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa for a "reconstituted" nuclear weapons programme
8) US and British claims were supported by the inspectors
10) Iraq was obstructing the inspectors
13) War would be easy
16) The "rescue" of Private Jessica Lynch
17) Troops would face chemical and biological weapons
19) Iraq's oil money would go to Iraqis
20) WMD were found

Just for fun:

For a little message about the war, try check out the following search before google fixes it:

1. go to www.google.com
2. type in the search field: weapons of mass destruction
3. don't hit return, instead, hit the "i'm feeling lucky" button
4. read the error message

    These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed. The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors' mandate.

But you should really see the whole thing!

Is there anything left that matters?
[6-10-03]

Sister Joan Chittister, a long-time worker for justice, peace, and equality for women in the Church and in society, listens to the Administration claiming that while we haven't caught Osama bin Laden, it doesn't matter. And we haven't found Saddam Hussein, but that doesn't matter either. And the "weapons of mass destruction" for which President Bush led us so boldly into war? They don't seem to be there. But that doesn't matter either.

But, she says, the suffering we have caused to the people of Iraq; the cost to people in the United States whose support is being cut supposedly because of the cost of the war; the Americans who have lost loved ones in the fighting or the accidents; the systematic undermining of the integrity and authority of the UN - these matter.

"The unspoken truth is that either as a people we were misled, or we were lied to, about the real reason for this war. Either we made a huge ---- and unforgivable ---- mistake, an arrogant or ignorant mistake, or we are swaggering around the world like a blind giant, flailing in all directions while the rest of the world watches in horror or in ridicule."