I watched some MSNBC early this morning, LA time............Mike Allen of POLITICO was discussing his interview with Dick Cheney....please click on Mr. Cheney's name and read the piece. It'll scare you, but maybe that's what we need......Here is the quote I'm writing this piece for: "Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”
Contessa Brewer, the 'journalist' interviewing him had this response (I paraphrase, but you'll get the picture): "You mean we shouldn't show Christian morality?"
My response? "Yes, Contessa...we should. We should turn our cheeks and bend over backwards....after all islamist terror is just a figment of the Republican imagination, as witnessed on 9/11. Thanks, Contessa....now go to dinner with Keith Olbermann again...you're learning well."
oy
45 comments:
Yeah slow to anger, proportionate response, just war concept, non violence ... all crazy ideas that go by the boards when the right wing gets frightened and wants revenge and starts to behave like the school bully.
Yeah, thanks, z. Thanks for the lesson in Christian morality.
and PLEASE don't tell me I shouldn't watch MSNBC. That it's biased! I KNOW THAT! (I just got that from an acquaintance who I'd sent this information to...MAN) I DO FEEL IT"S IMPORTANT TO WATCH A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING and I'M NOT going to stop!
So...fire away at the content, at LA CONTESSA!.....and don't watch MSNBC if you don't want to! LOL!!!
xxx
Ducky....tell me, what's this got to do with Christian morality? Is it Christian to risk our country for islamists?
or do you HONESTLY feel that there is no threat and Mr. Cheney having been privvy to intel every morning is just full of it, anyhow? Just curious.
I had NO idea that Christian morality was about proportionate response. Maybe you think Israel ought to start counting the Hamas rockets (still coming in, by the way...I'm sure that's Israel's fault, too, right?) and respond with ONLY that amount..right? Oh, I KNOW.."an eye for an eye:".. "a missile for a missile" Risk the Judeo Christian world because we have to be nice.
Or, maybe there IS no threat...the war was invented by the Bush admin so they could personally get rich and also get the economy going, right? Sure worked, huh? Sometimes it hurts to protect yourselves...YOUR side's the one pushing for SACRIFICE and we are doing it! ...but your idea of protecting ourselves would not include erring on OUR side.
You think we should risk EVERYTHING and be 'nonviolent' and "just". I don't. I think you try everything and then stop...16 UN sanctions were enough.
GIVE PREEMPTION A CHANCE, Ducky.
It's interesting when the same general group decries Christianity and a perceived erosion of church-state separation then goes ahead and criticizes Cheney for not putting a supposed Christian idea in practice.
Ducky: The only unjust thing here is to not respond properly to the aggression by the only bullies, the actual bullies: the terrorists.
Revenge? Kind of pointless. But Cheney never mentioned it, did he? Stopping further aggression from the terrorists? Now that should be job one.
Ducky: Also, to address "Yeah slow to anger, proportionate response, just war concept, non violence"
Slow to anger? Check. Afghanistan was given a very long time to turn over the 9/11 aggressors, and they refused. And Iraq was given plenty of time (years in fact) to comply with simple cease fire requirements. And they refused.
Proportionate response? That has been adhered to also. A proportionate response is when the aggressor is stopped. An example of an non-proportionate response is bombing a terrorist base after it has been completely obliterated.
Just war concept? Adhered to during the past 8 years. In two wars that the US never started, in fact.
Non-violence? Well, that only goes so far. The ideals of Martin Luther King and Gandhi mean nothing to the likes of Bin Laden who would kill both men without a thought because they belong to the wrong religion. Look to WW2. See how far non-violence (Chamberlain) got us.
I guess if the media wants to bring in Christian Morality as it pertains to the governments response; then here's what the government can say to that... The scriptures speak of the fact that,"...if a man provides not for his household then he is worse than an infidel."
So, it would only be right for the government to respond to terroristic threats in a strong way, because the government's job is to "provide" protection for it's citizens and to do that is shameful.
I do not advocate violence, but I promise anyone this... if my family is threatened then it's best they start praying. Peace doesn't come from the absence of war, it comes with the understanding of the ability to go to war, i.e. a bully won't stop bullying until you SHOW him it's best that he does.
I grew up with this saying being espoused by all the mom's in the community, "I can show you better than I can tell you."
Blessings.
DMarks..thanks...great job. Good thinking, as usual.
I.H.S....WOW. Very well said. I don't know how you DO it!!
Ducky...I hope you at least consider these guys' input...
I watched MSNBC this morning. I considered their thinking.
I hope you find the info here more beneficial than I DID, TRUST me.
...and those who target and kill innocent civilians are not?
Ducky, you besmirch our military and that's not going to happen here. You don't use the word COWARD in this context here at geeeeZ. It's not cowards who are risking to go to war to further the American cause.
Americans know rough tactics could get US HIT again....and some of us are willing to take that chance.
Fj, thanks. exactly right.
They're righteous, they're the underdogs, THEY do things RIGHT, apparently? They are cautious and proportionate... Ask Daniel Pearl.
Also note that Cheney is using his stock in trade -- promoting fear. He's talking about an assumed future attack and I imagine he's proposing a preemptive strike on someone, probably Iran.
This is consistent with the use of fear that has been predominant in the culture throughout the last eight dark years.
Skeletor Cheney hasn't got any other cards to play... and he can't accept that he failed miserably and it's time to leave.
How have I besmirched the military, z?
Are you unable to separate the ethics of the mission from the forces involved?
I don't think Cheny is promoting fear; you don't do that by forming intellectual assessments and then sharing that information with people. Making the people aware of real and present danger seems "responsible" to me.
I fail to see how the US has bullied anyone, but then I'm not over-medicated, either. In my view, superficial servings of duck soup promotes stupidity.
Sam
Ducky you clearly have a warped view of Christian morality. It is not un-Christian to defend the world against terrorism, and despite liberal spin, Saddam Hussein was a terrorist. He terrorized his own people and the entire middle east for a very long time.
"Just war? The previous Pope was quite clear that Iraq was not a just war. Quite clear."
The previous pope is not the authority on what is/isn't a just war. Also, your assertion that we're a nation of "cowards" because we actually fought terrorism instead of capturing them and letting them go multiple times so they can kill again, is simply laughable. Get out of Phil Donahue's ass.
Highboy, the idea of "just war" is primarily a Catholic doctrine so the Holy Father did have some gravitas.
Your anti-Catholicism is showing.
Now go give Rush a big kiss.
It is clear that people who come up with sentences like this:
"We need to bomb a few countries because they have WMD's. What do we know about chemical weapons and capabilities?"
have actually no idea what they are talking about. They have no idea about the concept that a small suitcase full of this stuff can wipe out NYC. If this gets into the wrong hands (i.e. terrorists) that would result into a catastrophe. This "suitcase" is still hidden somewhere in Iraq or Syria, or possibly both. Believe me, if they could hide a MIG in the sand, they could certainly hide a suitcase. Been there, seen that.
As to the possible effect of bio or chemical weapons: I have been involved in the defense against such. There is no possibility to overstate the danger. Anyone of our military friends will confirm that.
One should be very careful before one makes statements about a subject about which one has no knowledge.
Facit: Cheney is absolutely right. He understands.
Mr.Z
Turning the other cheek is a command for individuals, not nations. Those who say such things are usually "liberal" Christians or Catholics. They also protest the death penalty.
Wait til a suitcase nuc goes off in San Franciso and listen to the left squall when it does.
Boo Hoo! How could this happen? Why didn't the intelligence community prevent it? Ask, and ye shall receive. They're asking for it.
It's also not a command for nonChristians. It would be stupid for a nonChristian who doesn't have Christ and doesn't have the Holy Spirit to turn the other cheek.
CJ, you are absolutely correct.
Blessings.
Thanks, IHS. I have to admit I'm not 100% absolutely sure about whether a nonChristian shouldn't turn the other cheek. If they're going to learn what Christ said and try to obey it, perhaps it's the right thing for them too.
But this isn't the place for such musings I guess.
But I am very sure that nations can't turn the other cheek. Governments have the obligation to protect their citizens.
Woops, woops, woops. I just realized there's more involved here. Turning the other cheek is about accepting insults, not murder and violence.
If it has anything to do with violence, then you can't turn the other cheek on behalf of other people, which the government is doing by turning criminals loose to do us harm.
DUCKY! "Your anti Catholicism is showing!"?? ARE YOU KIDDING?
Do I HAVE to go dig out your myriad of anti Protestant digs? Oh, Ducky...I hate to be unkind, but that was REALLY something!!!
Mr. Z...atta boy, honey!
CJ and I.H.S...Amen. And yes, you KNOW..I would love you both to 'muse' on that subject..muse away, dear friends.
Highboy...hilarious!
Hermit.."ask and ye shall receive...My, you are a clever man.
Another day when I know WHY I BLOG....this is so satisfying and so informative. Thanks, everybody!
KEEP IT UP!
CJ..Mr. Z says your argument about NATIONS shouldn't turn the other cheek "kills every other argument right there" Bravo, kiddo.
Ducky..I'm curious..What was anti Catholic in Highboy's comment?
And, I don't want any bashing of ANY denominations here..thanks. Good conversation, yes..no bashing.
CJ, I think the non-Christain or as would like to say the non-saint, because I think christian is too watered down from the original, anyway I think they learn Christ as they see us exibit Christ. So, there cheeks won't turn unitl they see ours turn and once they accept Christ then they;ll begin the process of turning theirs as well.
Nations, I agree 100% that their job is to protect the citizendry. If there was to be some type of cheek turning on the part of the government it would have to be for something that doesn't jeopardize the lives of it's citizens.
Blessings.
Aw shucks, thanks, Mr. Z.
it's simply bad hermeneutics to take a verse meant for personal persecution and turn it into a national foreign policy
sort of like using I Cor. 13 to justify tolerance for homosexual marriage
Or bartending from John 2:9
just adding some humor.
The previous pope is not the authority on what is/isn't a just war.
----------------------------
Well, z, the pope should be respected as an authority on doctrine.
sort of like using I Cor. 13 to justify tolerance for homosexual marriage...
------------------------
Yeah, look at this big lonely world and decide that it's godly to block two people who want to stay together in a committed civil union.
Some place to pitch your damn war tent isn't it.
Yeah, look at this big lonely world and decide that it's godly to block two people who want to stay together in a committed civil union.
Straw man Duhhhhhkkkky.
Never said that I was against civil unions only that it's a really bad interpretaion to try and justify it with the Bible.
Focus.
Ducky:
Huh. Imagine that. One of Obama's first jobs was to increase troop strength to Afghanistan. Oh, and to, concurrently, cut Tricare for our soldiers and vets. Compassionate dude, very compassionate. That Obama. Wotta guy. Eh, Ducky?
Oh, and BTW Ducks, give us all your address and hometown, we'll make sure some lovely Islamic clerics settle in nice and peaceful-like then start to take over your town. Ah, Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance!
Huh, Ducks?
And dude, by your photo, you oughta start growing your beard.
BZ
P.S.
Yeah, ya know, we ARE cowards. So why dont'cha sign up and fight FOR us cowards in Afghanistan? After all, that's Obama's War Of Choice now, eh?
BZ
The advantage the President and VP Cheney had, as Z said, was intelligence briefings. Now Ducky you can pretend it's all an illusion if you want, but the fact is, you have simply chosen to believe what you want based on your skewed bias against the Bush Administration.
When you are told something that is to be feared, it is not propaganda if it's true. It's not campaign rhetoric or a political tactic. It's real.
Dick Cheney is a serious, measured thinker not an hysteric. Anyone who has the information he was privy to, cannot delude himself. If he does, he's risking untold thousands of lives.
When Cheney says he's worried, he has reason to be. This is no time to experiment with the left's persistent demand that we capitulate.
You have no idea about what we're dealing with. There is evidence that there will be a future attack. There was evidence of a future attack before 9-11! Only an idiot would merely sit by and hope the evidence is wrong.
And what is our new President doing? The only cut in spending he has called for, is a 10% cut for the Dept. of Defense. He is deluding himself, and rolling the dice, gambling with our lives.
If you think that's moral, you are deluded as well. You listen to people who are ignorant, and not privy to the facts.
They are guided by political ideology not the reality of life and death or the survival of nations.
Pris
I guess Duhkkky wants to ignore the fact that Jumpin' Joe Biden warned of an imminent attack also.
"Also note that Cheney is using his stock in trade -- promoting fear. He's talking about an assumed future attack and I imagine he's proposing a preemptive strike on someone, probably Iran." (Lame DICK)
<
<
If the U.S invades Iran or another country NOW, it's ALL on the Obama administration. They will GET and DESERVE every bit of the blame and all the hate the anti-war Left can heap upon them!
Cheney has no standing to propose a military strike.
So, even if Cheney was able to fly out of his bedroom window in the middle of the night, gin up some false, incriminating evidence against Iran or Pakistan, fly back to the states (hopefully, for his sake, avoiding the strong wind currents of the north Atlantic), fly into the Oval Office window (third form the right wall), dropping that evidence on President Obama's desk, before hitting "Dead Eye Dick's Sports Bar" back in Wyoming, for a quick night-cap before heading home...even THEN, IF this administration used that falsified evidence to "unjustly and unprovoked" invade another country, the Obama administration would be solely responsible for those actions.
How DARE they not properly vet that information!
But NONE of that is going to happen.
Dick Cheney (who donated 78% of his income last year to charities) is an extremely cautious man...and though he CAN fly and DOES have the powers of teleportation, he rarely uses those powers during the Winter months, as he's prone to cough due to cold and sinus infections.
BUT, would the Obama/Emanuel administration invade Iran, should they actually, say, threaten Israel (America's sattelite in the Mideast)?
Well, considering how quickly Obama signed ONTO re-authorizing those NSA wiretaps WITH the telecom company immunities, how they've actually ratcheted UP the rendition program, sending prisoners we want information from to places like Yemen and Egypt for a little "softening up," I'm betting the answer to that is a resounding YES.
And, by the by, an appropriate response is "whatever response is needed to bring the attacker down."
For instance, if someone breaks into a home in America, that person is subject to being shot by said homeowner as that's the "appropriate amount of force needed to bring that attacker down."
In a tragic case that proved this point - in Colorado last week, when a man came back to his neighborhood drunk (a 0.23 alcohol level, nearly 3X the legal limit) pounded on the wrong home's door (apparently thinking it was his house), cursed the people inside it when they wouldn't "open up and let him in," then went around to the back of the home (apparently while the homeowner was busying himself getting his gun), broke a pane of glass out of the rear door, turned the dead-bolt to let himself in....and was promptly shot four times in the chest (dead)...ironically enough, while the homeowner's wife was on the phone to 911.
No charges were filed....BECAUSE???
Because that Colorado homeowner did nothing wrong...he used "the appropriate amount of force necessary to bring that attacker down."
Come on Lame Dick and join the pro-American "good guys" for a change!
Hey Duhkkky what's the pope's view on abortion?
bwahahaha...looooser
CJ: "Turning the other cheek is a command for individuals, not nations. Those who say such things are usually "liberal" Christians or Catholics. They also protest the death penalty."
--------------------
Ducky: " Yup, that's us. And then there are those darn Quakers."
Bad hermeneutics are to be expected from the Catholic Church.
Quakers= Liberal Christians, why bother mentioning them?
====================
"Yeah, look at this big lonely world and decide that it's godly to block two people who want to stay together in a committed civil union.
Some place to pitch your damn war tent isn't it."
That's nonsense. Nobody's stopping any two people from living together at whatever level of commitment they choose.
The safest place to pitch one's war tent is on the side of God's laws. I'm surprised a Catholic doesn't know such things. No I'm not.
Thanks, everybody; I had to leave for a while today; you take better care of things around here than I CAN!!
Ducky..ONE FREAKIN' CHANNEL is 50% Conservative and you point THAT OUT? Ever watch it yourself? See Shepherd Smith sometime and tell me he's a Conservative. Then count the panels with ALL sides represented. Then do the same at CNN. thanks.
Proportionate or disproportionate military response is a canard. When the military is deployed their duty is to destroy the enemy. Bombs aren't dropped on open fields to scare the enemy with the noise. Bombs break things and kill people.
If the enemy hides among the population some civilians will be killed. If you don't want that to happen, don't use the military.
Proportionate response can however, be stimulative to job creation. If the response has to be proportionate it will bring about a need for thousands of missile and bomb counters. One for you, one for me. Downside, it will never end.
Then the missile counters' union will move in and demand pay hikes, pension, medical benefits, paid lunch, etc. Then the question becomes, does a multi-stage missile count as more than one missile thereby necessitating overtime for the missile counter?
My, my, where does it all end?
duhkkky's problem is he equates God's love with indulgence.
Post a Comment