Logo

Cry of the Poor
"How can it be that even today there are still people dying of hunger? Condemned to illiteracy? Lacking the most basic medical care? Without a roof over their heads? . . .


"Christians must learn to make their act of faith in Christ by discerning His voice in the cry for help that rises from this world of poverty."
-- Pope John Paul II
Novo Millennio Ineunte, no. 50

Upcoming events

Why register?
All Christians and people of all faiths are welcome here!
If you want to post in forums without moderator approval, or submit blog entries, you will need to CREATE AN ACCOUNT BELOW by simply entering a username and email address. Trouble registering? We'll help: info[at]catholicsfordemocracy.org

User login
· Create new account
· Request new password

Essential Links
USCCB Faithful Citizenship
NETWORK Catholic Lobby
Democrats for Life
Bread for the World
Catholic Charities USA
Pax Christi USA
Franciscans International -- a United Nations NGO
Voting Catholic

Provided by NETWORK:


Democracy for America
Join Democracy for America!
Follow the Webby Award People's Choice: Blog for America

Government Websites
The White House
U.S. Senate
U.S. House of Representatives
U.S. Supreme Court

Catholic Political & News Sites
Catholics for Kerry 04
Kerry Catholics
Catholics for Kerry Yahoo!
In Today's News

The Nation Weblogs
· Capital Games: DEBATE: Preparing for the End
· The Online Beat: DEBATE: Bush goes MIA
· The Daily Outrage: The Halperin Hit
· The Online Beat: The Race Right Now
· The Daily Outrage: Apocalypse Now
· The Daily Outrage: Piling on Pork
· ActNow!: Just One Vote
· Editor's Cut: A Woman of Firsts
· The Daily Outrage: Sinful Sinclair
· The Online Beat: Cheney's Lamest Excuse Yet

Prince of Peace

Have Mercy On Us
and on the
Whole World


 Round 4: Peace - Bush v. Kerry  
Blog submitted by hugetim on Fri 1 Oct 2004 - 14:51 h  
In the spirit of respectful dialogue, we continue our issue-by-issue debate between the two major candidates for president. This is not a discussion of who to vote for, on the balance of issues, but a discussion of who is better on this one issue. Certain hot-button issues often drown out all others, often for good reason, but the issues that get left out are important in their own right.

So, what do you think of Bush's and Kerry's records on peace? What of their various proposals for the future that will lead the world either toward wider peace or toward increasing violence and war? How do they square with Catholic teaching in their words, actions, and emphasis? (Check out Voting Catholics' comparison of Bush and Kerry with the U.S. Bishops on the Arms Trade and other peace issues.)

With reference to my prior plans, off-topic comments and attacks will not be tolerated in this thread. They will be deleted.

Please contribute what you know and help us all learn together.

(In case you missed them:
Round 1 on Education
Round 2 on Health Care
Round 3 on Abortion)
 
  hugetim's blog · add new comment · 345 reads
Catholic Teaching · Iraq war · Kerry · Bush

Comment viewing options:
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to submit your changes.

If the President lied, then the Dems must be the biggest suckers 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 9 Oct 2004 - 04:56 h  
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."


- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction
and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR NOTHING

If the President is such a masterful liar, none of these Democrats should be re-elected for being the biggest suckers in town. That is the argument that you are giving about the President, so then that would hold true for all these people too. (Some are no longer in political office) 
reply to this comment

 
Let's be clear here 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 18:37 h  
I have serious problems with the Democrats, and they are certainly not limited to abortion. In the case of the Iraq war, I'm certainly not going to disagree that many of them failed to stand up to the administration, largely for political reasons. However, that doesn't change the fact that the Bush administration distorted the facts about Iraq (think WMDs, 9/11, al Quaeda ties, "greeted as liberators"; all of which involved drowning out dissenting voices the State Department, DOD, and intelligence community, refusing to even acknowledge those voices or the possibility of uncertainty). Bush created the political climate in which it was considered unpatriotic to question the war, and he could do this with the bully pulpit of the presidency. He also had more access to intelligence than Congress and more power to control what questions the CIA pursued (not to mention the "Office of Special Plans" he created in the DOD specifically for the purpose of selectively perceiving Iraq evidence and outshouting dissenting voices). That is the reason he must be held accountable and removed from this powerful post. Arguing that he is somehow excused by the Dems' lesser offenses is like arguing for Hitler to remain in power because no replacement candidates were strong enough to stand up to him. NO, get rid of the central cause of the horror and the bad influence he caused will follow him! (By the way, I strongly supported Howard Dean in the primaries precisely because he had the backbone to stand up to Bush, but he is sadly not an option this election.) 
reply to this comment

Notice the comment in the title "progressive" 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 9 Oct 2004 - 04:50 h  
Progressive is another word for liberal. Liberals use that word because they don't want anyone to know they are liberal. This is the same term that many reform Catholics, and apologetic Catholics use to justify their stance on issues of the church that they don't want to follow. This is so biased Tim, try again. Again, what government report, papers, etc show that the President was lying and deceiving us on purpose. After all there have been commissions on this, and guess what Tim, there were both democrats and republicans in those commitees, NO ONE said that the President was lying on purpose. If anything, they all felt like they had egg on their face because they were misled. Try this instead:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html 
reply to this comment

 
Sources 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 18:52 h  
Actually, the commission looking at Iraq intelligence is postponing the part of their report on the administration's use or misuse of intelligence until after the election. (The 9/11 commission's mandate explicitly precluded assigning blame and straying from the question of what happened on 9/11 and what institutional changes to make--it is outrageous to argue that something is not true b/c they didn't say it. Several commissioners have commented on how relectant the Administration was to cooperate with them, not to mention their sustained opposition to having an independent commission at all!) That is exactly why your cries about only trusting commissions or factcheck.org are so misguided. Some things are established facts, agreed to by more or less all, and some truths are desperately denied and every stop pulled out to hide them. You want me to pretend that the latter do not exist, and that's just a ridiculous way to answer the charge that Bush is a systematic deceiver. Look, there is very solid evidence that past administrations have outright lied about military and other operations because after 30 years or so records get declassified. There is also plenty of evidence that this administration has gone much farther than previous ones in hiding the truth about what they are doing. We will indeed find out for sure in 30 years, but we need to make a decision now.

Now, the task of discerning the truth when it is not so clear cut is a difficult one--it requires looking at a wide range of sources, cross-checking and considering their relative credibility. The one thing it is clear you cannot do is assume outright the credibility of the subject of investigation. You seem to imply that a court, when the suspect denies the charges on the stand, should just declare innocence right then and there. Sure, you may not have yet learned to trust some of the sources that I have found reliable through experience, and I understand that. But your repetitive criticism seems to be that no sources can be trusted or even consulted except the absolute most reliable ones (which I would point out certainly have their own biases, in addition to their obvious limitations described above), and that does not make sense.

p.s. Terms have different meanings in different contexts, so your comment about "progressive" borders on incoherent. As for the bias of a politically progressive publication, this is another way in which you misunderstand bias. Someone who wants to show Bush is deceptive is going to seek out instances of lies. If the evidence he finds is true and convincing, the "bias" that went into finding this evidence does not make it false. Don't tell me you would rather he took a random sample of Bush statements and concluded that he is truthful "most of the time." No, you find the lies and report them.

In Bush's case they are clear to see, they are concerning critical matters of war and peace, and they are despicable. No cries of bias can change this fact. If, however, you disagree with the accuracy of the quotes in an article, or the accuracy of the evidence used to declare them lies, please do explain why. But whining about bias is just ducking the question. 
reply to this comment

whoops 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 14:33 h  
I forgot about my rules for off-topic comments, but I've just cleaned them up... (mine included!) 
reply to this comment

heart of the matter 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 7 Oct 2004 - 19:14 h  
What does it mean when the most powerful leaders in the world are willing to use deceit (or stretching the truth at the least, as well as proclaiming certainty when their intelligence advisors were shouting uncertainty) to push a nation to war? There's no "feeling" about this, for the love of truth! You can't change the record, no matter how hard you try...

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=17813 
reply to this comment

 
and why 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 14:50 h  
Why didn't it bother you if you think that President Bush is a liar, that PResident Clinton may have been lying about the same thing then? 
reply to this comment

 
still guessing 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 10:49 h  
I am still guessing you haven't read - "Plan of Attack". I think Bob Woodward did a really fair job about the reasoning for going to war. And seeing his interviews afterwards, I don't think he is "Pro Bush"

I just want to know where are the Canadians, French and Germans in Sudan? We are busy with Iraq at least they could do is step up their humanitarian aid to the Dafur region. The US is supplying 70% of the aid?! If I understand it correctly China and Pakistan are resisting sanctions because of Oil interests. 
reply to this comment

 
I want to know 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 10:57 h  
When do the failures of other nations justify our own? The fact is that Sudan is a prime example of the consequences of Iraq. Our moral authority is gone so we are unable to put pressure on misfits like China and Pakistan. We have made unilateral watching-out-for-my-own-narrow-(oil)-interests the norm rather than international cooperation and accountability. Look, the only building we guarded after conquering Baghdad was the Oil Ministry, and that's a fact.

(Do you really think they would let Bob Woodward know anything too damaging? I'm sure he did a good job of reporting what he could find, but it is odd to claim his account as final.) 
reply to this comment

 
France 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 11:09 h  
Again, I repeat where are France, Germany and Canada? I thik according you they still have the "moral authority"
Secondly, I am trying to point you to as "un-biased" source as I could find. If you don't trust Bob Woodward - Then read the Senate Intelligance reports. A bit more dry. 
reply to this comment

 
moral authority 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 18:56 h  
No, none of those countries have moral authority, in my view. We used to be perceived as a moral authority but no longer are. Now no one is, excepting the Pope, perhaps. Now, the UN is not a country or an authority, but it is respected as the closest thing to a democracy that exists internationally, which is why it commands respect of the sort that the U.S. government commands even when we disagree with it, by virtue of the fact that it is elected.

See my comments above regarding "unbiased sources." 
reply to this comment

 
Then you will also have to fault President Clinton and John Kerr 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 09:09 h  
President George W Bush was not DECIEVING you on purpose Tim. I just can't believe that you are accusing this President of being a mass murderer. That is absurd, for the love of GOD. Instead, why not consider this; President Clinton too believed that we were doing the right thing, and in fact he had the SAME information as the current administration. John Kerry believed we were doing the right thing too, until he changed his mind. Are they also deceivers? Liars? Mass Murderers? I refuse to allow our country to be like a Madrid and run away. I refuse to let France and Russia who are in cahoots with the Oil for Food program disgrace tell us we can't defend ourselves. They clearly DON"T want us to find out what they have done there. This is a huge disgusting thing they did and it shows WHY the UN should not be a world wide lead in our countries issues. France and Russia are responsible because of this for the mass murder of millions of people that were not able to get the medical aid they needed. Consider this as well, if they weren't trying to hide their disgusting escapades, and came to Iraq with us, do you realize how fast the thing would have been over? Do you realize that it would have had the WORLD on our side. They sabatoged this effort on purpose to hide their evil deeds. They knew that the President would be blamed and you are playing right into their hands. If you want to be that type of America, it is more likely that it will be YOUR children that suffer the consequences of those actions, not mine. My grandchildren might instead. I want to stop it NOW. 
reply to this comment

 
Patronizing 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 10:33 h  
A multitude of public figures and especially intelligence experts knew full well the extent of Bush's deceptions and exaggerations during his war drum period. Bush is far more culpable than Clinton or Kerry because he was the one asking the questions of the CIA, the one who set up a special division in the Defense Department to gather every shred of intelligence that supported the war effort and suppress evidence that contradicted it. (And whereas Kerry gave the authorization--wrongly in my opinion--which could have been used as an effective threat to back up inspections, Bush is responsible for the premature use of that authorization, for ignoring the fact that the threat was effective and full-scale invasion was hardly necessary to contain Saddam.) Bush is also the one with the responsibility to ask tougher questions of the CIA, and for goodness sake, to avoid overstating what they did tell him. Frankly, he is responsible for thousands of deaths, and he's not the first president to be so.

(The Oil for Food scandal is indeed just that, but are you trying to imply that it justifies the war in some convoluted way? Let's hope not...) 
reply to this comment

 
OFF 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 11:02 h  
No, I don't think any of us are saying that it justified the war. However, it does shed some light on why French and Russia were so reluctant to join the war. It also shows that Saddam was using the money to undermine sanctions with possible intent of restarting his weapons program. He did retain the intellectual base and it was shown he had every intention of restarting it as soon as he could. 
reply to this comment

 
Unbelievable 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 19:07 h  
Let's invade every country that has the "intention" of doing something bad, even if there is a much better way of preventing them from doing so. Wow... 
reply to this comment

 
helpful article 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 10:52 h  
This helps explain more articulately how Bush's foreign policy is a radical departure: http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/daalder/20040926.htm 
reply to this comment

 
This is unbiased??? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 11:59 h  
Give me a break!! 
reply to this comment

 
being silly 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 13:47 h  
Does unbiased, to you, mean accurate or neutral in tone? I'll agree with you regarding the article I linked to on the latter. But as far as accuracy, you're going to have to do more than whine to respond... 
reply to this comment

Lies from President Bush eh? 
Comment added by Unregistered on Thu 7 Oct 2004 - 05:15 h  
According to the Deuffler Report, just published (you could watch it on Cspan yesterday 10-6-04) there had been no weapons of mass destruction being devised since 1991. Who was in office then? Not President Bush. Why couldn't Clinton figure it out in the next four yrs of his Presidency? Why did he leave it to President Bush to figure it out?
Next why was it that France, Russia and China would not help us with Iraq? Because they were all involved, including the Democrats precious UN with the Oil for Food program. Not only were key members of the UN council involved in this scandal, but they were also supplying arms to Iraq to fight their so called ally.
If you think that Kerry would be able to build a coalition far better than President Bush, that isn't true either, because since France is listed in this report as making millions from the Oil For Food program, they have already stated they will NOT help us. Russia has other problems, not only were they involved in the Oil for Food program, but they have terrorist problems of their own in their country. They do need the help of a coalition to help them, however how can they ask us, or Poland or the other 33 countries that are supporting the Iraqi War, when they refused to be involved with it.

Was Sadam a threat? It depends on how you look at things, if you think that when he is hiding things, and that our CIA and other allies had intelligence that stated he was, then do you sit back and wait another 12 yrs to find out what he is going to do to us, or do you go in? Here are the weapons that were found in Iraq during our current war:

—A single artillery shell filled with two chemicals that, when mixed while the shell was in flight, would have created sarin. U.S. forces learned of it only when insurgents, apparently believing it was filled with conventional explosives, tried to detonate it as a roadside bomb in May in Baghdad. Two U.S. soldiers suffered from symptoms of low-level exposure to the nerve agent. The shell was from Saddam's pre-1991 stockpile.

—Another old artillery shell, also rigged as a bomb and found in May, showed signs it once contained mustard agent.

—Two small rocket warheads, turned over to Polish troops by an informer, that showed signs they once were filled with sarin.

—Centrifuge parts buried in a former nuclear scientist's garden in Baghdad. These were part of Saddam's pre-1991 nuclear program, which was dismantled after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The scientist also had centrifuge design documents.

—A vial of live botulinum toxin, which can be used as a biological weapon, in another scientist's refrigerator. The scientist said it had been there since 1993.

—Evidence of advanced design work on a liquid-propellant missile with ranges of up to 620 miles. Since the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq had been prohibited from having missiles with ranges longer than 93 miles.

Another article regarding Sadam's interrogation:

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/041006/ap/d85i8c002.html

Article about Oil for Food:
http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Report+links+U.N.+to+Iraq+bribes+-+Oct+6%2C+2004&expire=11%2F5%2F2004&urlID=11876766&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fedition.cnn.com%2F2004%2FWORLD%2Fmeast%2F10%2F06%2Firaq.wmd.un.vouchers.ap%2Findex.html&partnerID=2006 
reply to this comment

 
real nerve 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 7 Oct 2004 - 19:10 h  
The sarin they found was out of date and deteriorated, as intelligence experts knew it would be... hence the "low-level" effects.

Do you wait in uncertainty or do you "go in"?!?!! Since when is there a presumption of unprovoked invasion until proven unnecessary in U.S. foreign policy? much less international standards working prevent world war since 1945? much less in Catholic theology?!? 
reply to this comment

 
Just because 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 09:34 h  
Just because they had outdated sarin, does that mean that there was not MORE, or that they could not produce more? All it showed was that they had it, intended to use it and possibly were planning more. What the heck are you talking about, what was Viet Nam? What was the Korean WAr? What was Bosnia? Kuwait? We don't need world wide approval to go to war. We never have. We are not part of the Europe, we are America. We are seperate, and I am glad we are. 
reply to this comment

 
Sarin and global solidarity 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 14:51 h  
Sorry, though, intelligence experts knew that old sarin was there b/c the U.S. provided it to him back when we set him up against Iran. It simply does not follow that there is any newer sarin--there has never been any evidence of that, and old sarin that we knew was there is hardly the evidence you're yearning for. Also, I feel it says something that you are unable to discuss this war on it's own merits, on the basis of Catholic teaching. It makes no sense to use questionable former wars or Republican soundbites to justify a gravely mistaken policy. Actually, after the second world war in 30 years, we did agree along with the rest of the world to a new framework for preventing world-wide war. I hope you will at least acknowledge that there are consequences to abandoning that framework. If you are familiar with Church teaching, you will find exhortation after pleading to strenthen the framework of international law which keeps individual nations in check. You will also find it plainly stated over and over that the whole world is one human family. The only place you will find your unilateralist "with us or die," "we'll do what we want" fanaticism is in Republican literature. These rhetorical excesses are made necessary by the plain fact that Iraq was not anything close to an immediate threat, so our war was not self-defense. 
reply to this comment

 
We will have to agree to disagree on this 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 15:50 h  
I don't agree with you. I don't think the American Bishops are right in what they state. I don't think this is a policy that is written in stone, and I think that they don't realize that what they are promoting is socialism and communism. It hasn't been the first time that they have been nieve enough to believe that if we all just could sit down and talk everything will be ok. It just doesn't work that way. A crazy person is a crazy person and he doesn't have a brain that reacts the same way to reason. Clearly, we tried to go to the UN. We tried very hard to get Sadam to do something about his weapons program. He refused. My guess is that we already had an inkling as to what was going on with the Oil for Food program and so if that is the case then we would have nothing from France and trust them.. why? same with the other countries. We can all be brothers and sisters, but even our bible states that there will always be wars. The Bishops are trying to change the bible even. I don't believe they have more knowledge than Christ did. To me the Christlike way then would be to be a Ghandian. If you can do that, more power to you, but we all know what happened to him. 
reply to this comment

 
Are you a Christian, or not? 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 14 Oct 2004 - 19:17 h  
There is a fundamental tension in life between power and love. You can have absolute (unilateral) power over the whole world, and that might be safer (if it didn't turn everyone against you). But that is simply not Christian. It is imperialistic, social darwinian, self-interested, but not Christian.

When the Church asks a young woman to give up her reputation and nine months of her life (after either a mistake or a rape), we are asking her to make a serious sacrifice. When we ask a young gay man to forget the idea of ever acting on his unchosen, rather powerful sexual desires, we are asking quite a sacrifice. When Christ asks us to give our extra coat to someone who has none and to visit those in frightening, depressing prisons, He is asking serious sacrifices.

The Bishops are not pacifists--they recognize the right to self-defense. But they do ask us to refrain from unprovoked wars and from provoking nuclear arms races for the sake of world peace. They do ask us to give up a reasonable amount of our unparalleled power and privilege for the sake of those who are hungry and for the sake of peace. If we cannot accept this very reasonable request, we are quite simply not a Christian nation, and we should at least be honest about that. 
reply to this comment

Here is another reason that Tim should have egg on his face 
Comment added by Unregistered on Wed 6 Oct 2004 - 05:15 h  
From CNSNews.com:

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere. 
reply to this comment

I'm nuetral on this 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sat 2 Oct 2004 - 21:16 h  
I guess I see both of these candidates as having different ideas about what will serve peace. John Kerry thinks he can sit down and have a chat with these guys and that they will not do anything behind their backs. His back ground on Iraq and the weapons treaties that they had with the UN is evidence of this. Sadam had 12 yrs of broken written agreements that were never followed up on. What is too long of a time to wait? To me, it is a lot shorter than 12 yrs. If Iran says that they won't build a nuclear bomb, do I believe them.. NO. Would Kerry, I am not sure, because he wanted to give Sadam more time, and claims we went to war too fast, even though we had given him all this time to get rid of things. I don't like Kerry's ideas on peace.

President Bush has taken more of the President Reagan approach to things and I believe that is safer for us. I think he is more realistic about things. I don't believe that President Bush is a war monger as many have portrayed him. I give credit to President Reagan for ending the cold war. I know that many think it would have happened anyway, but look at things now in Russia. I t is very fragile there. Many of their freedoms have already been taken away all over again. I support President Bush's form of leadership. Leading by strength of power. 
reply to this comment

 
funny... 
Comment added by hugetim on Tue 5 Oct 2004 - 13:45 h  
"Leading by strength of power" - the Christian way!

Bush exaggerated and distorted pre-war intelligence about WMDs and terrorist ties. Frankly, breaking UN resolutions in itself does not even make sense as a reason for war. But even if it did, do you consider it honorable for Bush to work our country into a fearful frenzy about a mushroom cloud smoking gun when his real motivation (according to you) was merely to enforce UN resolutions and liberate the people of Iraq from Saddam? The undeniable issue here is the complete breach of trust with the American people.

Anyhow, Kerry's foreign policy credentials are among the most impressive on his resume. Speaking of Reagan, Kerry played a leading role in exposing the Iran-Contra scandal. By the way, Reagan was also the guy who financially supported both Osama bin Laden and Saddam during the 80's (whoops) while those crazy U.S. Bishops (not to mention the Pope) were naively demanding that we dramatically reduce the arms trade. Good thing Reagan didn't listen to those idiots and led "by strength of power." You see, what goes around comes around, and Bush has done unprecedentedly well at making sure there's a lot going around.

Bush's foreign policy credentials were zero when he entered the White House, and that is why he has been pushed around so easily by his neo-conservative advisors into doing such harmful things. Sen. Kerry has a 20-year record of focusing on foreign policy issues and you portray him outrageously as some kind of foreign policy rookie. Oh, by the way, I'm sure Sen. Kerry learned in Vietnam how to "sit down and have a chat" with dangerous enemies while he was being shot at... Sorry, but I think your comment is completely misinformed. 
reply to this comment

 
Well my mom doesn't and she was in the service during WWII 
Comment added by Unregistered on Tue 5 Oct 2004 - 20:11 h  
According to factcheck.org Kerry exagerated the cost of the war, from 120 billion the actual cost to what Kerry says the cost is, 200 billion. Should I call him a deliberate liar? A deliberate deceiver that just wishes to confuse the voters so they don't like President Bush? or as a Catholic do I give him the benefit of the doubt, and realize that he has just made an error in math. How about Texans for Truth are they just "smearing" President Bush deliberately for the Democrats. Are all of them evil, because now as we know all of this has turned into a bunch of junk? I guess I will leave that up to God to figure out.
Instead of talking about inuendo here why not discuss John Kerrys record in the senate? For example John Kerry was absent for 76 percent of the Senate Intelligence Committee's public hearings during the time he served there. Kerry is listed as attending only 11 of those hearings.
Kerry's apparent absence from 38 of the hearings actually figures out to an absentee rate of 77.6%.

Finally, according to Factcheck.org, President Bush was NOT lying when he said that he believed that Iraq had uranium. Those are the sixteen words that everyone uses to describe President Bush as a liar. “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.

The "16 Words"

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The Butler Report

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

Wilson: Bush's Words "The Lie"

(From a web chat sponsored by Kerry for President Oct. 29, 2003)

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:24:53 AM)
I would remind you that had Mr.. Cheney taken into consideration my report as well as 2 others submitted on this subject, rather than the forgeries

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:06 AM)
the lie would never have been in President Bush's State of the Union address

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:14 AM)
so when they ask, "Who betrayed the President?"

*** Joe Wilson (Oct 29, 2003 11:25:30 AM)
They need to point the finger at the person who inserted the 16 words, not at the person who found the truth of the matter

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."

The subject of uranium sales never actually came up in the meeting, according to what Wilson later told the Senate Intelligence Committee staff. He quoted Mayaki as saying that when he met with the Iraqis he was wary of discussing any trade issues at all because Iraq remained under United Nations sanctions. According to Wilson, Mayaki steered the conversation away from any discussion of trade.

For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004:

Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date.

But that's not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:

Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

"Reasonable to Assess"

At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."

Reasonable, that is, until documents from an Italian magazine journalist showed up that seemed to prove an Iraq-Niger deal had actually been signed. The Intelligence Committee said the CIA should have been quicker to investigate the authenticity of those documents, which had "obvious problems" and were soon exposed as fakes by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

"We No Longer Believe"

Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.

Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign.

On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing :

Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British.

The Senate report doesn't make clear why discovery of the forged documents changed the CIA's thinking. Logically, that discovery should have made little difference since the documents weren't the basis for the CIA's original belief that Saddam was seeking uranium. However, the Senate report did note that even within the CIA the comments and assessments were "inconsistent and at times contradictory" on the Niger story.

Even after Tenet tried to take the blame, Bush's critics persisted in saying he lied with his 16 words -- for example, in an opinion column July 16, 2003 by Michael Kinsley in the Washington Post :

Kinsley: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? . . .Linguists note that the question "Who lied in George Bush's State of the Union speech" bears a certain resemblance to the famous conundrum "Who is buried in Grant's Tomb?"

However, the Senate report confirmed that the CIA had reviewed Bush's State of the Union address, and -- whatever doubts it may have harbored -- cleared it for him.

Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.


Sources

President George W. Bush, “ State of the Union ,” 28 January 2003.

Chairman Lord Butler of Brockwell, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” 14 July 2004.

“Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,” Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate, 7 July 2004.

Walter Pincus, “ CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid ,” Washington Post, 12 June 2003.

Mohamed ElBaradei, “ The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update ,” Statement to the United Nations Security Council by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, 7 March 2003.

Joseph Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” New York Times, 6 July 2003.

Joseph Wilson,The Official Kerry-Edwards BLOG: "Transcript of Chat with Ambassador Joe Wilson," 29 Oct 2003.

Michael Kinsley, "...Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects?," Washington Post, 16 July 2003: A23.

Ari Fleischer, “ Press Gaggle ,” 7 July 2003.

Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleeza Rice, “ Press Gaggle ,” 11 July 2003.

George Tenet, "Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence," Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 11 July 2003.

Related Articles
Bush Contradicted On Iraq & al Qaeda? Or not?
Even the 9-11 comissioners don't agree about whether their staff contradicted the Bush administration.

What Bush Left Unsaid in State of the Union Address
Forget Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now its “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.” 
reply to this comment

 
sorry 
Comment added by hugetim on Thu 7 Oct 2004 - 19:17 h  
The facts are available in innumerable places. If you don't agree Bush has stretched the truth in the most grave issue possible, you ought to be ashamed. It's called selective perception, willful, culpable ignorance... 
reply to this comment

 
Osama Bin Laden 
Comment added by Unregistered on Sun 10 Oct 2004 - 09:36 h  
I find it truly amazing that the American people have been suckered by the Presidnet and Republicans into believing that Osama could not be captured before now. I dare to suggest that a deal was made between the Bush family and the Bin Laden Family to leave Osama alone. In return, Osama promised not to do anymore terrorism on American soil until after the election. This is the answer to the question that was asked in the last debate as to why no terrorism has taken place in America since 9-1-1.

Gut guess what? Americans are still being beheaded abroad. This president has simply made the threat of terrorism far worse than it has ever been. 
reply to this comment

 
Find some legitimate proof then 
Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 11 Oct 2004 - 06:06 h  
You find some legitimate proof then of your gossip and innuendo. So far, no one has. Of course Americans are still being beheaded, along with terrorism in Eygpt a country with huge amounts of Muslims. What do you think is happening here? They want to scare people in not supporting the Worlds role against terrorism. It is so obvious. If we do not do something now, we are like the poor Jews during WWII. They will hunt us down, and kill us. We must stand up to them, they are evil, and we don't want to be ruled by them. Do you really believe that people are being beheaded because George Bush is in the "wrong war, wrong time". Come on!! 
reply to this comment

 
Vatican more "Hawkish" on the War 
Comment added by Unregistered on Mon 11 Oct 2004 - 12:23 h  
Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq
By Julian Coman and Bruce Johnston in Rome
(Filed: 10/10/2004)

Senior Vatican officials have decided to put aside their differences with Tony Blair over the war in Iraq, calling for multinational troop reinforcements to secure the country's fledgling democracy.

In February last year, both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, offered some of the fiercest denunciations of Mr Blair and President George W Bush for their strike on Saddam Hussein.


Cardinal Angelo Sodano
Their private criticism of Mr Blair was made embarrassingly public by Vatican officials, who revealed at a press conference that the Pope had urged him to "make use of all the resources offered by international law to avoid the tragedy of war".

Now, in light of the post-war chaos, Cardinal Sodano has announced a newly hawkish line on Iraq from Rome. "The child has been born," he declared recently on behalf of the Vatican. "It may be illegitimate, but it's here, and it must be reared and educated."

Despite the Vatican's vociferous opposition to the war, the bloody terrorist attacks and the continuing insurgency have convinced the Pope that only an increased military presence, including Nato troops, can secure peace.

"There is a feeling that there really is no going back," said a Vatican adviser.

In a trenchant interview in the Italian newspaper, La Stampa, Cardinal Sodano said that as the crisis in Iraq deepened, the time had come to forget past differences over the decision to invade.

His comments appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign to galvanise military and financial support for a democratic Iraq among critics of the war such as France and Germany.

Both countries have refused to contribute troops to Iraq, while American and British occupation forces remain in the country.

A subsequent front page editorial in Avvenire, an influential Roman Catholic magazine which boasts Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the Pope's own vicar, as a board member, calls for "tens of thousands of Nato troops" to be sent to Iraq to assist the interim government and ensure free elections.

The prominent theologian, Vittorio Parsi, criticises the "laziness" of countries that have refused to commit troops to Iraq unless all occupation soldiers are removed. The Telegraph has learnt that the editorial was almost certainly commissioned by Cardinal Ruini.

"Even the European countries that opposed the American decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime know well that an Iraq in the hands of the worst terrorists and criminals goes against the interests of all," wrote Mr Parsi.

The Vatican's new stance will hearten Mr Blair and President Bush, whose campaign for re-election has been overshadowed by the crisis. Senator John Kerry, his Democratic opponent, has repeatedly criticised the president for failing to garner sufficient international support for the invasion of Iraq. 
reply to this comment

 
Whenever you quote something 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 14:12 h  
Whenever you quote someothing you only quote things that point to your opinion from the MOST biased sources I have ever seen. Find some sources that try to see both sides of things, and perhaps you will get further. Try not to insist that you are the only one that knows what you are talking about and that we are seeing ghosts. 
reply to this comment

 
apology 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 15:02 h  
I apologize for being a bit testy lately and not a considerate conversationalist. I haven't had a lot of time to respond, so I've just been posting short, combative things without contributing much substance, I admit. However, your claims of "biased" sources are a bit frustrating because you call everything biased or opinion without supporting those claims by, say, pointing out inaccuracies or half-truths. Please do help me understand what you mean by bias by pointing out one or two specific examples in the relevant article or post. Sincerely yours in Christ, Tim 
reply to this comment

 
None of us are experts 
Comment added by Unregistered on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 19:21 h  
Let's face facts, none of us are experts here. You believe that Kerry is your man, I believe that President Bush is mine. The thing is that we both are trying to follow the church's teachings in the way that we think is best. I am an optimist, and I believe that the President is a good man, doing the best he can. I do not believe he is a liar. I am not a niave person, in fact during the Viet Nam War, I saw many of these same arguments. I don't trust Kerry, because of his 20 yr voting record that is a fact, is a public record. You choose to believe him anyway. I use the Government agencies, and Catholic doctrine, factcheck.org for material that I believe is more unbiased. I try to stay away from news agencies because most of their items are opinion. In fact there is an article in the Catholic Spirit newspaper this week that states opinons of a mulititude of Bishops and lay people about the Razinger memo. It is opinion only. I requested that we perhaps come to agreement as to what is reliable fact and what is opinion , gossip and innuendo, and we can't seem to do that. I ask again, what do you think constitutes opinion vs fact? I think we can have a better discussion if we do that. 
reply to this comment

 
Lies 
Comment added by hugetim on Fri 8 Oct 2004 - 13:40 h  
I apologize for my curt previous comment. (I was short on time.)

The charge of deception is a serious one, so I do want to provide the evidence. Please go here, which will direct you to a well-documented article. 
reply to this comment

Post new comment
Your name:
Unregistered
Subject:
Comment:

Theodore Roosevelt

"To announce that there should be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American people."


CfD News
· Re-Igniting the Religious Left
· Eroding Respect for America Seen as Major Problem
· Forbidden City
· Marchers Denounce Bush as They Pass G.O.P. Convention Hall
· RNC Displaces NYC's Homeless
· RNC Displace NYC's Homeless
· Pro-Life Democrats Are Not So Naive
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health in trade deal
· UN human rights expert urges Peru, US to protect health trade deal
· John Kerry Picks Running Mate

Blogs
· Apology
· A Prayer for our National Elections
· Round 4: Peace - Bush v. Kerry
· A real foreign policy debate
· Round 3: Abortion - Bush v. Kerry
· Why Americans Support the War
· Round 2: Health Care- Bush v. Kerry
· Catholics for Bush answers hugetim
· Voting Catholic website rocks non-partisanly!
· Catholics for Bush distortions

Catholics for Bush
· Catholics for Bush answers hugetim
· Bush is not pro-life? What!?
· Catholics for Bush Respond

Most popular
Todays top:
· Round 4: Peace - Bush v. Kerry
· Round 3: Abortion - Bush v. Kerry
· Still We Rise March & Rally for Justice
· A Prayer for our National Elections
· Catholics for Bush distortions

CfD Books
CfD Bookstore
Book Reviews

Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 12 guests online.

Who's new
· google163
· Anne Varberg
· awrite
· graaandma
· faithfulfireman

Comment Posting Rules
Statement about posting blog statements or responses at CfD.

Queen of Peace

Pray for Us

Syndicate