The case for keeping Adam Dunn

Hail To The Veep

By JONATHAN KARL
July 27, 2007; Page W3

Few people confuse the Washington establishment more than Dick Cheney. Before becoming vice president, he had always been the kind of low-key, pragmatic Republican that Democrats and the press liked. When he served in Congress, he had been a protégé of moderate Republican leader Bob Michel and a member of a group of centrist Republicans known as "the Wednesday group." He was tight with James Baker and Brent Scowcroft, pillars of the realist school of Republican foreign policy. Heck, he had been Gerald Ford's chief of staff. How did this sane, sober voice on foreign policy turn into the Darth Vader of the Bush White House?

Today Mr. Cheney has become the personification of virtually everything people don't like about the Bush administration. He is a war-monger, puppet-master, advocate of torture, manipulator of intelligence and the center of an endless supply of conspiracy theories. As Gen. Scowcroft, his old friend, lamented: "I've known Dick Cheney for thirty years. But I don't know Dick Cheney anymore."

Not long ago, a prominent foreign-policy expert in Washington who has also known Dick Cheney for years told me -- seriously -- that he thought the change could be chemical, that, somehow, when Mr. Cheney had his pacemaker installed in June 2001, it triggered a reaction that affected his brain and drained him of his common sense.

Stephen Hayes doesn't explore the pacemaker theory, but "Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President" is the most serious effort yet to understand the Cheney enigma. Mr. Hayes has an advantage over others who have struggled with this subject: Mr. Cheney actually talked to him, and so did many of his usually tight-lipped advisers. The result is a detailed and sympathetic portrait, but one that will leave Mr. Cheney's erstwhile friends still confused.

'Warm and Fuzzy'

Mr. Hayes finds more consistency than change in Mr. Cheney's positions and style over the years. For one thing, Mr. Cheney's temperament was moderate but his politics never were. "I had a very conservative voting record, more conservative than most people realized," Mr. Cheney says. "The press never looked at my voting record. They thought I was all warm and fuzzy and they never looked to see."

There is one important theme on which Mr. Cheney has been especially consistent, a matter that has animated much of his work as vice president: preserving, if not expanding, the power of the presidency. This has been something of an obsession for Mr. Cheney going back to his early days in the Ford administration. He urged President Ford to fight proposed reforms to the CIA coming out of the Church Committee because they amounted to "legislative encroachment on executive power." It was an argument he would make over and over again during the course of his career. In the early 1990s, when he was defense secretary during the first Gulf War, he argued, unsuccessfully, that the president should not seek congressional authorization to use force. The president, he said, is the commander in chief and Congress "a great debating society."

And he has never been shy about threatening military force. In 1980, while he was just a freshman member of the House, Mr. Cheney criticized President Carter's handling of the Iranian hostage crisis with words that seem to perfectly reflect his approach to the current stand-off over Iran's nuclear program. "My major criticism is [President Carter's] repeated public statements that he will not use force to resolve the situation," Mr. Cheney told a local paper in Wyoming. "Although he might decide not to use force, he should not make his decision known. Once you remove the threat of force you remove any incentive for the Iranians to free the hostages."

Vice President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld brief President Gerald R. Ford in the Oval Office.

Still, Mr. Cheney's old friends can't understand how the longtime realist could become a central player in a foreign policy dedicated to the idea of promoting democracy. In the past, Mr. Cheney took a realpolitik approach to dealing with tyrants in the Middle East, emphasizing stability and access to oil, not human rights and democracy. He opposed overthrowing Saddam Hussein in 1991, for example, saying: "The question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many."

Mr. Cheney tells Mr. Hayes why his views on Saddam in particular, and the Middle East in general, have shifted so dramatically. "Americans weren't going to die based on who was governing in Iraq or most other places over there," he says. "That changed on 9/11." But Mr. Hayes also suggests that Mr. Cheney's support for the "reform process" in the Middle East falls short of President Bush's notion that the U.S. can or should spread democracy around the world. "Cheney is a cautionary voice on the prospects for democratic reforms," he writes.

Mr. Hayes put the question directly to President Bush: Is Mr. Cheney as "passionate" about democratic reform as you are? "There's no question that he brings a kind of -- a caution about -- of being unrealistic about how fast democracy can take hold in certain societies," Mr. Bush replied. He stammered on for a bit more and then gave up, telling Mr. Hayes: "I'm not sure how to answer the question of how he stands relative to me."

Donald Rumsfeld looms large in the book's early chapters. Without him, it seems, there would be no Dick Cheney. After a rocky first encounter on Capitol Hill when Mr. Cheney was little more than a congressional intern ("I thought he was an arrogant, abrasive young Congressman," Mr. Cheney remembers), Mr. Rumsfeld becomes directly responsible for all Mr. Cheney's big breaks: He hires him for two different jobs in the Nixon administration; when Mr. Rumsfeld becomes President Ford's chief of staff, he makes Mr. Cheney his deputy; later, when Mr. Rumsfeld is named defense secretary, he persuades President Ford to name the 34-year-old Cheney as his replacement. In 10 years, Mr. Cheney goes from being a Yale dropout who is twice arrested for drunk driving to the youngest White House chief of staff in history. It's during these years, as Mr. Rumsfeld's protégé, that Mr. Cheney's political ideology takes form. He becomes like Mr. Rumsfeld, minus the arrogance and abrasiveness.

Mr. Cheney poking fun at his media image in January 2006.

But Mr. Rumsfeld nearly vanishes from Mr. Hayes's narrative during the Iraq war. As the insurgency gained strength in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Hayes suggests, Mr. Cheney became frustrated with a Pentagon war strategy that he believed was too timid. At the time, Mr. Rumsfeld was arguing against sending more troops, saying that we should "take the hand off the bicycle seat" and force the Iraqis to take more responsibility. In the White House, though, Mr. Cheney was pushing for an early "surge." As President Bush tells Mr. Hayes: "Cheney was a more-troops man."

Comic Stories

But did Mr. Cheney ever talk about more troops with Mr. Rumsfeld? Unfortunately, Mr. Hayes doesn't ask him. Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't reappear in his narrative until Mr. Bush decides to fire him in November 2006. It's one of the few Bush decisions that Mr. Cheney is prepared to admit publicly he strongly disagreed with. If Mr. Cheney had any disagreements with Mr. Rumsfeld, they were apparently trumped by personal loyalty. Mr. Cheney calls his long-time mentor "the greatest Defense Secretary in history."

The one area where Mr. Cheney has indisputably changed is in his relations with the press. Mr. Hayes tells some comic stories about the practical jokes that Mr. Cheney used to play on the White House press corps during the Ford years. The reporters liked him, he seemed to get along with them and he received good press -- as chief of staff, congressman and defense secretary. Now Mr. Cheney has cut himself off almost completely from the Washington press corps.

During the 2004 campaign, for example, he refused to give the New York Times a seat on his plane (reporters from major news organizations routinely travel with the president and vice president). The banishment of the Times was not an isolated incident. Mr. Hayes reveals that Mr. Cheney had also ordered his staff to kick AP reporter Laura Meckler off his plane -- in the middle of a trip. Ms. Meckler's transgression was writing a single story that Mr. Cheney felt had twisted his words. The staff gently suggested that it would be a bad idea to leave an Associated Press reporter stranded at a campaign stop. Mr. Cheney agreed to allow her to stay on the plane until he returned to Washington but added: "I don't have time for this s -- t. I don't want her on the plane again."

Mr. Hayes's biography is not entirely uncritical. He portrays Mr. Cheney as "a fanatic for secrecy" and writes that, in the wake of the Valerie Plame case, the vice president's office became "a seedbed of paranoia." Mr. Cheney has never been more isolated. Mr. Hayes quotes former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, a longtime Cheney admirer, lamenting that Mr. Cheney, who was once widely respected by both parties, rarely talks to Democrats anymore.

Some people dislike Mr. Cheney because he has been effective in pushing policies they disagree with. But even Mr. Hayes's positive portrayal makes it clear that Mr. Cheney's image problem is about more than politics. Secrecy and isolation have come with a price. Conspiracy theorists have filled the void. And that goes a long way toward explaining how a soft-spoken pragmatist, a man once so well-liked, has come to be seen as the Darth Vader of the White House.

Mr. Karl is senior national security correspondent for ABC News.

Dick Cheney in close-up.

It’s historic. It’s unprecedented. Vice President Dick Cheney spoke to Stephen F. Hayes for Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President for 30 hours of interviews. (Who knew he talked that much?) Hayes’s Cheney is a refreshingly fair, unexpectedly candid telling of the life so far of a man who came to conservatism through service; one who serves long after he ever expected to.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: First things first: What’s with this decaf-latte stuff you report? I’d figure Vice President Cheney for black coffee and scotch kinda guy.

Stephen F. Hayes: Me, too. By all accounts, he’s not a big drinker, but he does drink an occasional Scotch (Johnny Walker Red, at least when he’s with his fishing buddies). As surprising as the decaf latte? He likes a glass of white wine and used to be an avid tennis player.


Lopez: Cheney became a conservative by working in government. How did that happen?

Hayes: He saw the federal bureaucracy from the inside. Cheney was the director of operations for Richard Nixon’s Cost of Living Council, the body that drafted the Nixon Administration’s wage-and-price control rules. (Cheney was the typist at the all-night session where the specifics of those regulations were written.) There’s an irony here. I think many people, especially his critics, think of Cheney as “an ideologue.” While he obviously has strong views — and a long voting record as a conservative — it seems to me that he’s more an experiential conservative than an ideological one. Cheney had studied for his PhD in political science and brought to Washington a sort of detached, analytical approach to issues. My sense is that many college graduates or grad students come to Washington to change the world. Cheney, who had co-written an academic article on congressional voting patterns with one of his professors, came to see how things work. And in his early experiences, he saw that more often than not, they didn’t.


Lopez: We know there’s at least one big issue Cheney differs with many conservatives on (a federal marriage amendment). What kind of conservative did he wind up?

Hayes: He’s a pretty traditional western conservative. The government should do very few things, do them well, and otherwise stay out of the way. In a profile written when he became chief of staff in the Ford White House, Washington Post reporter Lou Cannon wrote that Cheney was regarded as a practical conservative “rather than as an ideologue.” Cheney summarized his emerging political philosophy this way: “Basically, I am skeptical about the ability of government to solve problems, and I have a healthy respect for the ability of people to solve problems on their own.”


Lopez: Everyone’s a “Reaganite,” as Cheney himself has said. What does he mean by that?

Hayes: We talked about that in the context of his work in the Ford administration and the elections of 1976 and 1980. Cheney was deputy chief of staff and then chief of staff to Gerald Ford, a moderate. When Ronald Reagan challenged Ford in the Republican primary in 1976, many of Ford’s campaign aides dismissed Reagan as “too extreme.” Ford himself would later say that Reagan was “unelectable” because of his conservative views. Cheney was intensely loyal to Ford, but never shared the disdain many of his colleagues felt toward Reagan and especially toward Reagan’s ideas. At one point shortly before the 1976 GOP convention, Cheney took a secret trip to Camp David with pollster Bob Teeter in an attempt to convince Ford to pick Reagan as his runningmate. And in the campaign brochure he produced for his first run for Congress in 1978, Cheney made Reaganesque arguments for tax cuts and for a leave-us-alone federal government. Despite this gradual turn, many of his colleagues still considered him a “Ford man.” Bob Michel, who was elected the House Republican leader in 1980, encouraged Cheney to run for a leadership position in the House because he thought Cheney was a moderate. “I just thought we were collectively — as a group — we were really so conservative that we needed a moderate.” Michel thought Cheney could “provide a voice of moderation to what was really a right-wing conservative leadership group.” (The news media said the same thing.) But Cheney was already well on his way to being a Reaganite.


Lopez: You quote Cheney having wanted to leave D.C. in 1976. He obviously didn’t. What kept him there? What was most compelling?

Hayes: Ford’s loss in the 1976 election really bothered him. Ford and his campaign team nearly erased a deficit of some 30 points in the final three months before losing a close race. Cheney made a list of all of the things they could have done differently to win and then tore it up. He told me that the experience made him want to run on his own.


Lopez: Richard Bruce Cheney was deputy press secretary for Ted Kennedy?!?

Hayes: Hard to believe, isn’t it? Cheney came to Washington as a congressional fellow and spent the first half of his fellowship working for Representative Bill Steiger, a young Republican from Wisconsin. The fellows were encouraged to work for a new member — in a different chamber — for the second half. Cheney drew an assignment in Kennedy’s office, where he was told he’d be working as deputy press secretary. Although he did not have any ideological objections to working for Kennedy, Steiger had given him a lot of responsibility and Cheney wanted to stay in his office. As it happened, Cheney was friends with Bob Bates, the congressional fellow who worked for Kennedy during the first half of the program and who wanted to stay with the Massachusetts senator. So Cheney paid a visit to Kennedy — just so that he could say he’d done so — and went back to work for Steiger. “I don’t think Kennedy realizes it to this day,” Cheney says.


Lopez: Why is former Congressman Cheney so fond of the House?

Hayes: It was somewhat liberating for him because he was his own man. He was also able to influence debates in the House early, having been elected to leadership after just one term. I think he remembers it as a collegial place, a place where he not only got along with members from both parties, but in some cases became close friends with Democrats. And although his job as vice president makes him president of the Senate, my sense is that he regards of that body as institutionally arrogant and overly stuffy. I think he prefers the less-polished characters that populate the House to the haughtiness of the Senate.


Lopez: Had George Bush decided pretty early on in the campaign that Cheney would be his veep?

Hayes: I’m not sure he decided early, but he certainly had it in his mind. They had a conversation in November 1999 — before the Republican primaries — in which Bush asked Cheney if he’d consider joining the ticket. Bush had been impressed with Cheney during meetings of his campaign’s foreign policy and national security advisers, taking note of the fact that the other big-thinkers in the room seemed to defer to Cheney with some regularity. Later, when Cheney would come in to brief Bush on the vice presidential search in the spring and summer of 2000, Bush would often joke at the end of the sessions that Cheney was the answer to his problems, and the president told me that he had his eye on Cheney throughout that entire process.


Lopez: Is it a co-presidency? Is Cheney the evil genius behind the buffoon Bush?

Hayes: That’s a myth. Without exception, everyone who has worked with the two men say that it’s clear who is in charge. There’s little question that Bush takes Cheney’s advice seriously, but at the end of the day it’s just advice. Cheney is a lot more conservative than Bush. If there had been anything close to a co-presidency I think we would not have seen, for instance, the explosion in spending that the Bush presidency has given us.


Lopez: Dick Cheney was an ardent Rumsfeld loyalist. Was that all loyalty to a guy who brought him along in the political world with him? Or did he really truly think he was the best defense secretary we ever had?

Hayes: Good question. There is no question that Cheney is filled with intense loyalty to Rumsfeld. After all, Rumsfeld was not only his political mentor (and later a good friend), he may have saved Cheney’s career when the FBI raised concerns with President Ford about Cheney’s two DUIs. But the two men were not always in lockstep on issues. Condoleezza Rice told me that Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed on policy far more often than one might suspect reading news accounts of the administration. “They don’t always see eye to eye on things,” she said. “Not by any means.”


Lopez: You wrote The Connection. Dick Cheney has probably made the best case for the war — explaining how Afghanistan and Iraq are both fronts in the war on terror — of anyone in the administration. Why wasn’t he out there more making the case? Or why wasn’t someone using his talking points?

Hayes: That’s a question that could only come from a conservative. Most of our colleagues in the news media believe that Cheney made the worst case for war. The same people believe that there were no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, too. One person who had interesting views on both of those subjects was L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in postwar Iraq. Bremer, who is not a Cheney acolyte, was baffled that the White House didn’t use the vice president more. “He’s one of the people in the administration who probably best understands the relationship of what we’re doing in Iraq to the war on terrorism. At least judging from his public statements he understands it very well. Says it, articulates it better than anybody else — than Powell or Rumsfeld or Rice. He really gets it.” I asked Bremer about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. “I don’t think there’s any question about that…This idea that there was no relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam is just wrong. Flat wrong on the record.”


Lopez: On the “16 Words” controversy: You write, in explaining a Nick Kristof article that contended that the Bush administration lied: “But the truth was considerably more complicated and would take years to unravel entirely.” Has it been?

Hayes: We’re getting there, thanks in no small part to Byron York’s excellent reporting. But those complicated truths are a bit too much to hope for at this point when even the simplest truths have been buried or ignored. For example, most reporters still believe that Joseph Wilson went to Niger and returned to debunk forged documents about an Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. They’re wrong. That didn’t happen. Wilson went to Niger in February 2002 and the U.S. government didn’t receive the forged documents until October 2002. Despite his numerous claims to the contrary, Wilson did not debunk the documents because doing so would have been impossible. And to CIA the analysts who paid attention to what Wilson said upon returning, his report strengthened early intelligence suggesting Iraq’s interest in uranium from Niger. Wilson changed his story only after he was confronted by a keen-eyed investigator from the Senate Intelligence Committee, who understood that his claims could not have been true.

Another example: Senator Carl Levin wrote to the CIA the day after Bush spoke the 16 words in his 2002 State of the Union, asking whether the Agency supported the claim. The CIA responded one month later by defending the intelligence in Bush’s speech, telling Levin “reporting suggest[s] Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger.” And not only did the CIA back Bush’s claim, it did so in part by pointing to a document based on the “intelligence report on the former Ambassador’s trip to Niger.”

All of which makes much more understandable the eagerness of Cheney and his staff to correct the misimpressions Wilson was sowing in a friendly media.


Lopez: Had he had his way, would Cheney have done Iraq differently?

Hayes: It’s hard to tell. So much of what he thought about how to do Iraq remains a mystery even to those people who served with him at the highest levels of the Bush administration. But there are hints that he would have done some things differently. He told me that he thought establishing the Coalition Provisional Authority was a mistake and that we should have immediately put in place a government of Iraqis.


Lopez: Are there issues you weren’t able to get into in the book that the vice president has a lot of influence over?

Hayes: I was surprised by how candid he was with me on a wide range of subjects, on personal issues as well as his political life and his views on policy. But there were several times he simply cut off conversation on a subject. He wouldn’t discuss the Libby prosecution and anytime I pressed on issues that could have taken us into anything classified he refused to answer.


Lopez: Was it hard to get a man who likes to be behind the scenes to talk to you for thirty-some hours of interviews?

Hayes: I heard probably a dozen times from his friends and colleagues that they were surprised he had agreed to talk to me for the book. And I’m not sure he was eager to do it when I first proposed the idea. But once we got started, he was very easy to talk to. At the beginning of the first book-specific interview, I asked him about his family and what it was like to grow up in Nebraska during the 1940s. I had thought long and hard about starting with such a personal subject because he is so famously private about his family. I think he talked for nearly 30 minutes without interruption, which has to be some kind of Dick Cheney record.


Lopez: The commutation is something, but do you have any indication that the vice president is ticked Scooter Libby has not been given a full pardon?

Hayes: No, I don’t. But I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by speculating — and it is just speculation — that Cheney would like a pardon for Scooter Libby.


Lopez: Some of us wanted Lynne Cheney to be the new senator from Wyoming when there was that opening recently. Why didn’t she ever run for anything? The man hold her back? (I like to sound like a feminist sometimes to throw people off.)

Hayes: Good question, and I don’t know the answer. She has some experience as a candidate. Sort of. When Cheney first ran for Congress, he had a heart attack the summer before the election. His doctor told him to take it easy for several weeks and by all accounts Lynne filled in quite capably.


Lopez: If Dick Cheney could have really been president for a day on Saturday during W’s colonoscopy — and he could have really done whatever the heck he wanted — what do you imagine he might have done?

Hayes: Maybe fly-fishing as president?


Lopez: The vice president really likes his fly fishing, doesn’t he? Did you ever fly fish with Dick Cheney? I assume it’s safer than going hunting with Dick Cheney. (Sorry, Mr. Vice President.)

Hayes: He does. His library at the vice president’s residence is filled with books like Minor Tactics of the Chalk Stream and Nymph Fishing for Larger Trout, and I’m reliably informed that he actually reads stuff like that.

Alas, I never got an invitation to fish with him. (And I would have been clueless if I had.)


Lopez: Newt Gingrich and Dick Cheney have some colorful history, don’t they? Can we start a Cheney-Gingrich 2008 late-entering ticket rumor right now? How might that go?

Hayes: There would be some pretty intense disagreements over executive power.


Lopez: Is Liz Cheney working for Fred Thompson a sign of whom the vice president may support?

Hayes: I think Liz and her father have very similar views on foreign policy and national security. But I don’t think he’ll support anyone before the Republican nomination is decided.


Lopez: What’s your favorite Cheney story?

Hayes: There are so many interesting stories to choose from. The day after Cheney was sworn in as Secretary of Defense was a Saturday. Cheney was in early. He had important things to do — “you know, figuring out where the restroom was and all that stuff” — and wanted to get a head start on the coming paperwork deluge that would greet him Monday morning. But shortly after he arrived, he was summoned to the White House for a meeting with the president. It was urgent.

Cheney made his way to the elevator located directly in his new office. He punched the button for the garage and waited as he was delivered to his limousine. He stepped out of the elevator. There was no car, there were no people. He was alone in the basement — not where he was supposed to be. He turned to board the elevator to try another floor and faced another problem. There was no call button — a reasonable security measure to keep would-be troublemakers from riding directly from the basement into the secretary’s office — but real trouble for Cheney. He grew impatient as he thought about his dilemma. “It’s a Saturday morning, nobody’s around and the president is waiting for me over in the Oval Office.” After a quick search, he found the stairs that would take him upstairs. He burst through the doors into the garage and through a set of glass doors he took in the chaotic scene outside his limousine: Agents from his security detail were barking out questions to one another — “Where the hell is he? What happened to the secretary?” — and trying to locate the man they were supposed to protect with their lives.

Cheney, amused, wanted to project calm. “I tied my tie and opened the door and walked out like I knew exactly what I was doing,” he says. “And I got in the car and nobody ever had the nerve to ask me, ‘Hey, where the hell were you?’”

“That was my first day on the job. Lost in the basement of the Pentagon.”

Why Vote When You Can Bet?

The Iowa Electronic Markets, the big daddy of the political prediction markets, is consistently better at forecasting winners than pre-election polls. (Read a 2003 Slate "Explainer" about prediction markets here.)
...From now until Election Day 2008, we'll publish regular updates of the key data from Iowa Electronic Markets, Intrade.com, Newsfutures.com, and Casualobserver.net. (Casualobserver has not yet launched its 2008 political prediction market, but we will add it as soon as it goes up.) In these early days of the campaign, we are tracking four markets: 1) Democratic nominee for president, 2) Republican nominee for president, 3) presidential victor, and 4) party control of the presidency. We'll add Senate and House races as they heat up next year.

The Boom Beyond Our Borders: Can China and India maintain their sizzling growth rates?

She's in charge of the Tigers' turf

Heather Nabozny: The first female head groundskeeper (right) in Major League Baseball, gets help preparing the infield for last year's World Series at Comerica Park, home of the Detroit Tigers.

The Fascination With Hell's Fury

Hell Has Played a Role Across Cultures and History, but What Does It Mean Today?

How Madison Avenue Is Wasting Millions on a Deserted Second Life

The Best Dangerous Science Jobs: Hurricane Hunter, Volcanologist

Smog and Mirrors: China's Plan for a Green Olympics

Photograph by Tony Law

Hillary Who? Is there a Clinton in the 2008 race?

...I count a total of 36 references to "Hillary" or its possessive form in a memo of about 1,800 words. When Penn cues up the poll results against her Democratic rivals or the frontrunning Republicans, they are "Obama" and "Edwards" and "Giuliani"; she is "HRC."

Number of times the name "Clinton" appears in the memo: zero.

...the "Clinton" problem is this: the set of associations the name brings to mind when people are reminded of it. I think the extent to which animus toward Bill is a drag on Hillary is seriously overstated: People who can't stand him tend to have a well-formed and free-standing negative impression of her as well. The real problem is the impression of dependence.

Mrs. Clinton is where she is today not incidentally because she married Bill Clinton, but for that reason essentially. It is no disparagement of her skills as a politician to say so. He merely opened the doors; she had to walk through them. But open them he did. The Clinton campaign has every reason to avoid reminding people of the extent to which her political career and prospects derive from his.

The decision to adopt "Hillary" and drop "Clinton" has nothing whatsoever casual to it. It is part of a solution to, or at least an attempt to ameliorate, a genuine problem. Before her, the last person to face a problem along these lines was none other than the current occupant of the White House. The family nickname of the son of George Herbert Walker Bush was not "W" but, ahem, "Junior." That would not do. It took the political skill of Karl Rove to insinuate "Dubya" into public consciousness. (That's what the real insiders call him, don't you know.) People bought it. Penn is betting that they will buy "Hillary," and my guess is that everybody will be calling her that (and nothing else) in colloquial speech by November 2008.

The 9/11 Generation: Better Than The Boomers

In the 1960s, history called the Baby Boomers. They didn't answer the phone.

Confronted with a generation-defining conflict, the cold war, the Boomers--those, at any rate, who came to be emblematic of their generation--took the opposite path from their parents during World War II. Sadly, the excesses of Woodstock became the face of the Boomers' response to their moment of challenge. War protests where agitated youths derided American soldiers as baby-killers added no luster to their image.

Few of the leading lights of that generation joined the military. Most calculated how they could avoid military service, and their attitude rippled through the rest of the century. In the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, military service didn't occur to most young people as an option, let alone a duty.

But now, once again, history is calling. Fortunately, the present generation appears more reminiscent of their grandparents than their parents.

I've spent much of the past two weeks speaking with young people (and a few not-so-young) who have made the decision to serve their country by volunteering for the military. Some of these men have Ivy League degrees; all of them are talented and intelligent individuals who--contrary to John Kerry's infamous "botched joke" ("Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq")--could have chosen to do anything with their lives. Having signed up, they have either gone to Iraq orlook forward to doing so. Not surprisingly, the mainstream media have underreported their stories.

New Tallest Building: Dubai Tower Becomes Building In the World

Previous Top 10

In 1996 this resulted in the completion of the Petronas Twin Towers in Kuala Lumpur. From that moment on a sort of media clash was unleashed. All over the world people debated about the question wich one was the tallest; Sears or Petronas. Now the answer to this question seems so easy. Just measure both buildings from bottom to top, and the tallest one gets the title. Question answered, case closed, no more debate needed? Forget it! As usual, life is not that simple. One could consider how to measure these buildings. For example, do we take in account spires and antennas? To end this discussion, the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat made a compromise. They defined 4 categories for measuring tall buildings;

- Height to the structural or architectural top.
- Height to the highest occupied floor.
- Height to the top of the roof.
- Height to the top of antenna.

Their War: Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population serves in our military. In a time of war, what should that mean to the rest of us?

Huge Dust Plumes From China Cause Changes in Climate

Courtesy SeaWiFS Project, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center and ORBIMAGE

A satellite view from 2001 shows dust arriving in California from Asian deserts. Concentrations of dust are visible to the south, near the coastline (lower right); To the west the dust is mixed with clouds over open ocean. This dust event caused a persistent haze in places like Death Valley, California, where skies are usually crystal clear.

Does It Matter What Others Think?

Abortion: You Desire and Do Not Have, So You Kill

Three questions with regard to abortion:

1. What is happening?
2. Why is it happening?
3. What should our response be?

Terror Estimate: Safer than we were, but not safe yet.

John Piper's "Romans Audio

John Piper packs 35 of his Romans sermons into about 6 hours in these audio messages that we've recently posted. They're from a four-part lecture series that he did on Romans 9-11 which also included some Q & A.

Towards the beginning of session 3 he unpacks the main argument of his book The Justification of God, giving us approximately "250 pages in five minutes" as he describes it.

Listen here:

• Session 1
• Session 2
• Session 3
• Session 4
• Q & A

Al Qaeda’s Iranian Connection

Bush Would Rather Fight Than Switch: The president stands by the surge.

The Iran-Contra Minority Redux

N A RECENT New York Times op-ed, "Mr. Cheney's Minority Report" (July 19), historian Sean Wilentz claimed that there was a direct connection between Oliver North, the Iran-Contra Committee's Republican minority led by then-Rep. Richard B. Cheney, and the current Administration's view of executive power. Wilentz correctly named me as principal drafter of the 1987 committee's minority report. Unfortunately, that's about all he got right.

Keep on Surgin': Bush is beating them back.

Leadership: A Biblical Approach to the Military Officer's Core Skill

by VADM John Scott Redd, US Navy, Retired
available in PDF format
VECTOR = Vision, Excellence, Character, Teamwork, Organization, Respect

Cheney Speaks: On Clinton's pardons, 9/11 as seen from the White House bunker, mistakes made in Iraq, and more.

Buy Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President, by Stephen F. Hayes.

When it comes to gays, 'What would Luther do?'

Given the way he dealt with issues of his day, the father of the Protestant Reformation very well may have seen the same-sex arguments in a more accepting light.

Jesus Is 'Like an Energy': An Interview with Sinead O'Connor

Most people remember Sinéad O'Connor one of two ways: as that angelic, lovelorn figure in the video of her smash "Nothing Compares 2 U," or for tearing up a picture of the pope on Saturday Night Live. Her 20-year career has been marked with pop stardom and accolades, but also with controversy and misunderstanding. Even as she takes the stage at Joe's Pub in New York, one can sense the polarity. The venue only seats 150, enough to house a handful of fans and some of the biggest papers in town. But O'Connor, 40, isn't there to impress anyone. Her priority is her new album Theology (Koch), a two-disc set inspired by the Old Testament—and a project that is, interestingly, being pitched to the Christian market by publicists (one of whom arranged this interview). At the show, O'Connor plays none of her hits; it's just her and another guitarist, performing Theology in its entirety. In a flowing red dress, O'Connor looks almost motherly—serene, radiant, self-assured. Her voice is still powerful, and, combined with the ancient text, it's nearly prophetic. But just as the audience begins to heed her admonition, O'Connor, between songs, makes a crude joke about the female anatomy. By show's end and a few f-bombs later, we're all convinced: old Sinéad hasn't gone anywhere.

Sinéad O'Connor's Theology and 'Theology'

Why you shouldn't be surprised that her new album is mostly passages from the Old Testament.

Forfeited Glory: R.I.P., Antioch College

Antioch College

Why Bush Will Be A Winner

In Europe, God Is (Not) Dead

Desiring God YouTube Channels

• Don’t Waste Your Life YouTube Channel
• Desiring God Conferences YouTube Channel

India vs. China, 2

I'm back after a whirlwind trip that lasted 4.5 days.

Cows -- You'll see them on the street tied to street signs, etc. They aren't particularly fit looking which is something I asked one of my Indian (non-Hindu) colleagues. "If female cows are gods, why are they so thin? Shouldn't they be fatter to show that they're needs are being met? Also, why aren't these gods free to roam? Why must they be tied to a sign or post? Shouldn't a god be free to roam wherever it chooses?" My colleague responded that these were good questions and he wasn't sure why the "idols" were treated this way.

Airport security -- When I arrived at the airport in Delhi to depart for the US, we were met by a soldier with a machine gun. If you do not have your updated itinerary showing the flight you plan to leave on, you can't enter the airport. I had moved my flight back to the U.S. up one day so I didn't have mine. I also wasn't aware I needed it to enter the airport. An American Airlines rep tried to sneak me by the man with the machine gun, but I was stopped. The rep very graciously went to the desk and got my e-ticket while the soldier pointed his machine gun at me across his lap to keep me in place.

Driving in India -- It's chaotic but less so than China. We didn't drive on the berm or in the wrong lanes. However, the lane stripes are mainly decoration. You'll usually stay with the solid lines but lanes on the road matter litter.

Water for many is still distributed from wells on the side of the road. You see lots of women drawing water into cisterns and carrying it home or wherever on their heads.

It's quite dusty and dry despite the very high humidity in Delhi. It was 106 Friday and 90+ percent humidity. Felt great in a suit. You'd walk out of tepid air conditioning and hit a wall of hot air that almost knocked your breath away.

The food was wonderful if you like Indian. I do. If not, there's TGI Friday's, Domino's, Pizza Hut and numerous hotels. The Hyatt we stayed at in Delhi is noted for India's best Italian food. It was quite good.

Hotel rooms and conference rooms at the hotels have service buttons. If you push them, a butler will arrive a few seconds later looking to help you. I thought mine was a light and couldn't understand why a butler had arrived at my door.

Bollywood - India's version of Hollywood. They care about entertainment and celebs almost as much as American's. The Times of India, a national daily, has a whole section about celeb gossip, photos, etc. Doesn't matter what nationality the celeb is, they cover it. It's verys ad to see the American influence on their culture, sexual attitudes, dress, etc. India is typically pretty conservative but as Western industries and $$ flow into the country, the society changes dramatically.

Keep on Surgin'

Over the last few months, the United States (finally) surged in Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq has now surged against the surge. Iran is surging against the surge. We're pushing them back. Now the Democrats in Congress, the mainstream media, and the foreign policy establishment have mounted their own surges against the surge. So far, Bush is beating them back. If Bush can hang tough, and General Petraeus can keep on surging, the Defeatists will fail. And the United States will have a good chance to succeed in Iraq.

Yes, We Do Have a Clue, By John Scott Redd

In her recent Outlook article, Amy Zegart asserts that the United States' counterterrorism intelligence community is as ill-prepared to defend the nation as it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Although it is heartening to see Zegart address an issue as important as our ability to detect, deter and disrupt terrorists' plots, it is disappointing to see how out-of-date someone of her stature remains. Although the intelligence community faces continuing challenges, our progress since 9/11 has been nothing short of revolutionary. Today we collect, analyze and share counterterrorism intelligence within and among agencies vastly more effectively than Zegart claims.

Rather than addressing each of Zegart's arguments, I will instead focus on those areas into which, as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), I have the clearest insight -- particularly her assertion that the U.S intelligence community continues to suffer from the "organizational deficiencies" that hampered "the CIA and the FBI and prevented all 15 U.S intelligence agencies from working as a unified team" before 9/11.

The very existence of my organization, the NCTC, is testament to how the intelligence community no longer views terrorism as it did before 9/11, when it was separated into foreign (the CIA) and domestic (the FBI) realms that were distinct from one another. Today, as a result of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004, there is one place -- the NCTC -- where all terrorism information comes together. Here we have insight into the most sensitive of CIA and FBI intelligence. Put simply, it is one team and one fight. And it goes to the heart of a changing organizational culture.

This interagency cooperation is further highlighted by NCTC's composition. Within our ranks sit counterterrorism experts from every part of the U.S. counterterrorism community -- most notably the CIA and the FBI. Sitting side by side, our specialists ensure that terrorism information, regardless of its source, gets to those who need it. And when they return to their "home agency" they will espouse an organizational view that promotes the very unity of effort which we once arguably lacked.

But these changes are not just about organizational theory; they are about the daily grind of counterterrorism intelligence. Three times a day, every day, the NCTC chairs a video teleconference at which more than 17 intelligence and operations offices within the government come together to discuss breaking intelligence. Whether events occur in Kansas or Cairo, the information is shared so it can be analyzed and, most importantly, acted upon. Thus not only is Zegart's assessment that the FBI's culture won't vigorously pursue critical terrorism leads flatly inconsistent with what I see every day, but the larger interagency counterterrorism community is organized to avoid this potential flaw -- whether domestically or overseas.

So what of Zegart's specific examples of pre-9/11 "screw-ups" and her claim that the same deficiencies still plague us? Her first example is well known: that the CIA, FBI, and others didn't communicate in a way that might have allowed for the "watchlisting" of a 9/11 hijacker, Khalid Almihdhar.

Regrettably, this observation fails to recognize the radical change in U.S. watchlisting procedures since the attacks. Prior to 9/11, the U.S. government indeed maintained six or more "watchlists" to identify suspicious actors. Today, there is a single list for all those suspected of associations with terrorists. Thus whether it is a consular officer in a U.S. embassy, a border patrol agent or a police officer in the United States, all of their work is supported by a single database of suspected terrorist-related individuals. And while I make no claim that this system is perfect, any argument that serious and material flaws have not been corrected belies reality.

Finally, Zegart notes that "even our successes aren't cause for celebration," citing the recent disruption of plots to attack Fort Dix and New York's John F. Kennedy Airport, among others. On this point, we can at least partially agree. We should not -- and cannot -- celebrate these successes because the larger challenge continues. The terrorist threat the United States faces includes both al-Qaeda-directed plotting as well as al-Qaeda-inspired, "homegrown" terrorists. Both are tangible and dangerous, and both require government-wide cooperation. What Zegart fails to recognize is that this is just what occurs today. And the recent events in London and Glasgow remind us that, contrary to the implied arguments of some critics, there is no magic organizational bullet (such as replacing the FBI with a domestic security service like Britain's MI5) that will make us safe.

Over the past almost six years, the U.S. intelligence community and the counterterrorism community have taken significant strides to remedy past failures and better protect our country. I believe it is no accident that the United States has not been attacked since 9/11. And while there is no guarantee of perfection, our aspirations are closer to reality than many of our critics suggest. Less focus on theory and more on fact makes this readily apparent.

John Scott Redd, a retired U.S. Navy vice admiral, is director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

Iraq Report V: The Real Surge: Preparing for Operation Phantom Thunder.

On June 15, 2007, Generals David Petraeus and Ray Odierno launched the largest coordinated military operation in Iraq since the initial U.S. invasion. The campaign, called Operation Phantom Thunder, aims to expel al Qaeda from its sanctuaries just outside of Baghdad. Denying al Qaeda the ability to fabricate car bombs and transport fighters through the rural terrain around Baghdad is a necessary prerequisite for securing the capital city, the overarching military goal for Iraq in 2007.

Phantom Thunder consists of simultaneous offensives by U.S. forces throughout central Iraq. The Division north of Baghdad cleared the long-festering city of Baqubah and its outlying areas. The Division east and southeast of Baghdad is clearing the critical al Qaeda stronghold in Arab Jabour, immediately south of the capital. It is also destroying al Qaeda's ability to transport weapons along the Tigris River and to send reinforcements from the Euphrates to the Tigris. The Division west of Baghdad is clearing al Qaeda's sanctuaries between Fallujah and Baghdad, all the way to the shores of Lake Tharthar northwest of the capital. Meanwhile, the Division in Baghdad continues to clear important areas of the city and areas to its immediate north and west.

Phantom Thunder is not a new strategy or a new plan. U.S. commanders have been preparing Phantom Thunder since the effort to secure Baghdad began in February. General Odierno, who commands Coalition combat forces in Iraq, has been carefully positioning the additional brigades that the President sent to Iraq. General Odierno has, brigade by brigade, encircledBaghdad. U.S. troops have not, literally, cordoned off the city. Rather, General Odierno has stationed Coalition forces on every major supply line, river, or road in a circle around Baghdad. Much of the fighting outside of Baghdad between February 15 and June 15 has aimed at positioning U.S. troops in these areas and reconnoitering them. Many of these areas received little or no attention from U.S. combat forces in 2006.

Coalition and Iraqi forces have also been securing Baghdad's vital and unstable neighborhoods before and during Phantom Thunder. General Odierno's careful disposition of forces inside of Baghdad from February to June has restricted insurgent movement within the city, and has squeezed the enemy into ever smaller operating areas within the capital. As the offensive outside the city continues, it is increasingly difficult for the enemy inside the city to receive supplies or reinforcements..

Editor's note: The Iraq Report will be published at www.weeklystandard.com approximately every two weeks and will chronicle and analyze ongoing coalition military operations both in Baghdad and throughout Iraq. To read the full report in pdf click here

Previous Iraq Reports:

Iraq Report I: From "New Way Forward" to New Commander, March 1, 2007

Iraq Report II: The Baghdad Security Plan begins., March 15, 2007

Iraq Report III: The Anbar Awakening., April 5, 2007

Iraq Report IV: The Battle for Diyala, May 7,2007

Iraq round-up

Of Senators and Soldiers
The soldiers think they can win. Some Senators lose their nerve.
by William Kristol

The Crisis of the Wahhabi Regime
Surprising developments in Saudi Arabia.
by Stephen Schwartz and Irfan al-Alawi

The New Strategy in Iraq
General Petraeus learns from past U.S. mistakes.
by Frederick W. Kagan & Kimberly Kagan

Orderly Humiliation
The moderates think they've found a 'responsible' way out of Iraq.
by Tom Donnelly

Richard Lugar,
Meet David Kilcullen
Thoughtful analysis of the war is in short supply in Washington.
by William Kristol

Rudy at Regent
Giuliani gets a standing ovation at Pat Robertson's university.
by Matthew Continetti

Tax Cuts for Kids
A pro-family agenda for 2008.
by Cesar Conda & Robert Stein

Live Earth is a win for global yawning

"the inconvenient truth of Live Earth is that it was a soulless telethon, with no clarity or drive."

Delhi

Introduction Places of Interest Eating Places Special Festivals

Bangalore

Introduction Places of Interest Eating Places Special Festivals

India vs. China

Greetings from Bangalore. Got into Delhi last night after a 15 hour flight non-stop from Chicago. I'll be spending the next five days between here and Delhi before heading back to the U.S. Should be fun.

I'll try to share some observations from the trip and maybe post a link later this week to some photos.

Lots of flies in the Delhi airport. Not as modern as China. Neither is well air conditioned but the facilities are better in China.

The military is out en masse at airport with rifles and check points with sand bags.

Westerners look more rugged here - backpacks, jungle gear, etc. Westerners in China were dressed for business.

Lots of turbans and forehead dots.

Cell phones just as important here as China. Everyone has one. Mine works great. My blackberry worked in Delhi but there's only a GSM signal in Bangalore.

No snake charmers yet but did see a cow walking the main drag of Bangalore. India has cleaner air and it's easier to get around because so many speak English. Also is a lot more "green." Great trees, gardens, flowers, etc.

It's almost not fair to compare India and China. They are very different. India strikes me as more Middle Eastern or like the Caribbean than anything Asian.

China's larger cities are definitely more modern looking. The American fare here vs. China is pretty similar. We didn't have Dominoes though, just Papa John's and Pizza Hut. Traffic is bad in India and only slightly more orderly than China. Motorcycles here vs. scooters in China.

Doormen are a real treat in the way they dress. It's all about the outfit, headdress and beard.



I can't wait to try the Indian food. I had two vegetable samosas for breakfast. Yum.

It's monsoon season right now and it's pretty cloudy. We'll see how that affects the week.

Leave Iraq and Brace for a Bigger Bloodbath, by Natan Sharansky

What Bono doesn't say about Africa

The real Africa also has seen cellphone and Internet use double every year for the last seven years. Foreign private capital inflows into Africa hit $38 billion in 2006 — more than foreign aid. Africans are saving a higher percentage of their incomes than Americans are (so much for the "poverty trap" of being "too poor to save" endlessly repeated in aid reports). I agree that it's too soon to conclude that Africa is on a stable growth track, but why not celebrate what Africans have already achieved?

...Why do aid organizations and their celebrity backers want to make African successes look like failures? One can only speculate, but it certainly helps aid agencies get more publicity and more money if problems seem greater than they are. As for the stars — well, could Africa be saving celebrity careers more than celebrities are saving Africa?

In truth, Africans are and will be escaping poverty the same way everybody else did: through the efforts of resourceful entrepreneurs, democratic reformers and ordinary citizens at home, not through PR extravaganzas of ill-informed outsiders.

The real Africa needs increased trade from the West more than it needs more aid handouts. A respected Ugandan journalist, Andrew Mwenda, made this point at a recent African conference despite the fact that the world's most famous celebrity activist — Bono — was attempting to shout him down. Mwenda was suffering from too much reality for Bono's taste: "What man or nation has ever become rich by holding out a begging bowl?" asked Mwenda.

Racial Harmony and the Gospel

In the first half of this message, John Piper talks about the racial diversity of Minneapolis. Then in the second half, about 20 minutes in, he begins to deal with the text and issues more broadly.

Previous messages in this series

Road map for Terrorism

In his meeting with [the Wall Street Journal], Mr. Giuliani said something else unexpected: "George Bush's speech on September 20, 2001 is still the best road map for what to do about terrorism."

It's Not the Economy, Stupid

No matter how low George Bush falls, terror remains the No. 1. issue.

Marriage, Christ, and Covenant: One Flesh for the Glory of God

Staying Married Is Not About Staying in Love, Part 1

Genesis 2:18-25

Read

Staying Married Is Not About Staying in Love, Part 2

Genesis 2:18-25

Read

Marriage: God’s Showcase of Covenant-Keeping Grace

Colossians 2:13-15, 3:12-19

Read

Marriage: Forgiving and Forbearing

Colossians 3:12-19

Read

Marriage: Pursuing Conformity to Christ in the Covenant

Ephesians 5:21-33

Read

Lionhearted and Lamblike: The Christian Husband as Head, Part 1

Ephesians 5:21-33

Read

Lionhearted and Lamblike: The Christian Husband as Head, Part 2

What Does It Mean to Lead

Ephesians 5:21-33

Read

The Beautiful Faith of Fearless Submission

1 Peter 3:1-7

Read

Single in Christ: A Name Better Than Sons and Daughters

Isaiah 56:1-7

Read

Marriage, Singleness, and the Christian Virtue of Hospitality

1 Peter 4:7-11

Read

Marriage Is Meant for Making Children...Disciples of Jesus

Ephesians 6:1-4

Read

Marriage Is Meant for Making Children...Disciples of Jesus, Part 2

A Father’s Conquest of Anger in Himself and in His Children

Ephesians 6:1-4

Read

What God Has Joined Together, Let Not Man Separate, Part 1

Mark 10:1-12

Read

What God Has Joined Together, Let Not Man Separate, Part 2

Matthew 19:3-12

Read

Secret Document: U.S. Fears Terror 'Spectacular' Planned

Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny

Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper, by John Piper

Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper

A Statement on Divorce & Remarriage in the Life of Bethlehem Baptist Church

Fighter Verses

Fighter Verses are short passages of Scripture to memorize each week. The Scripture, day after day, reveals to us the greatness of all that God is for us in Christ so that by the power of the Spirit we find our joy in him and the ways of sin become distasteful -- indeed ugly and repugnant.

Set A
Set B - for 2007
Set C
Set D
Set E

An audio recording of the Fighter Verses is available via podcast. The podcast is updated weekly. To subscribe to the podcast using Apple iTunes or any podcasting program that accepts xml, copy http://www.wezmn.com/podcasts/fv/default.xml into your podcasting program.

Why Memorize the Bible?
For many reasons! Here are a few. It is one of the most effective ways to "meditate" on the Word of God "day and night" (Joshua 1:8); to treasure it in our hearts that we might not sin against the Lord (Psalm 119:11); and to meditate on the Lord in the "night watches" (Psalm 63:6) so that we can regard all his ways (Psalm 119:15). Since "faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17), the memorized Word helps us in evangelism making the Word of truth readily available to build our own and others' faiths. It works on our hearts to cultivate Christ-like character. It helps us to resist temptation, and enhances prayer and worship.

Pelagianism, by Michael Horton

"We possess neither the ability, free will, power, nor the righteousness to repair ourselves and escape the wrath of God. It must all be God's work, Christ's work, or there is no salvation."

Grace: : How Strange the Sound, by Michael S. Horton

"Only when we actually encounter God as he truly is do we finally know ourselves as we truly are-and only then can grace be truly grace."

China insists its exports are safe

Hamilton's grab

Cincinnati Reds center fielder Josh Hamilton reaches to catch a fly ball from Seattle Mariners' Adrian Beltre as his shadow is cast on the outfield wall in the first inning of a baseball game, Friday, June 22, 2007, in Seattle. Beltre was out on the play.

Bill Hybels interviews Bono, 7

Bill Hybels interviews Bono, 6

Bill Hybels interviews Bono, 5

Bill Hybels interviews Bono, 4

Bill Hybels interviews Bono, 3

Bill Hybels interviews Bono, 2

Bill Hybels interviews Bono

The Toxic Toy Train: One thing U.S. can't outsource is standards

John Piper on Racial Harmony

1. Why Even Deal with Racial Issues?
2. Implications of Being Made in the Image of God
3. The Meaning and Significance of Race, Pt. 1
   
4. The Meaning and Significance of Race, Pt. 2
5. The Ethics Of Interracial Marriage
   

Biblical Reasons to Deal with Racial Issues

1. God is absolute reality. Race cannot be properly understood without God.
2. Man is in the image of God. The meaning of human personhood is rooted first in who we are as images of God. Physical differences are secondary compared to the rational, volitional, spiritual aspects of being persons. Race is profoundly non-essential to personhood.
3. Sin dishonors God and depraves humanity. Sin’s irony is that it is the reason we are hurtful to each other and it is one of the reasons we should not hurt each other. We are all equal because we are all sinful. We’re all as bad as each other and equally worthy of disrespect.
4. Jesus is the example of perfect humanity. He never treated anyone disrespectfully. His focus on reaching Israel was a strategy to reach all nations.
5. Jesus is the revelation of sacrificial love. Jesus died to show us how to love each other.
6. Jesus is the universal savior. Christ died to buy people of every color and pull us together.
7. Jesus is the ground of our justification by faith alone. Jesus is the one righteousness that will commend any human being to God. There is one way to get united to Jesus and it has zero to do with race and everything to do with faith.
8. The Holy Spirit was poured out on all races at Pentecost.
9. In the end times all peoples will be gathered together to worship one God. For no people group will this be someone else's god. Every tribe and tongue will say, “He is our God.” Church, today, on Sunday mornings, should be a rehearsal for that.
10. Jesus’ and the apostles’ commands forbid disrespect on the basis of race—or anything. Even if you consider another race your enemy, you have no right not to love them—if you’re a Christian.

Experiential Reasons to Deal with Racial Issues

1. Racial struggles are an ever-present issue.
2. There is confusion about the value of diversity because of male-female and homosexual issues.
3. There is inadvertent discrimination.
4. There is significant disagreement about the value of affirmative action.
5. Our church is in a diverse neighborhood.
6. Worship style issues need to be addressed.

Pardon Libby

Hitchens Book Debunking The Deity Is Surprise Hit

Looking for a Few Good Men: Can big sisters persuade them to become big brothers?

What's Not to Like

The soft side, and the underside, of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

A Tale of Two Prosecutors

Mike Nifong is punished, but Patrick Fitzgerald isn't.

Gatekeepers of Hillaryland

The Candidate's Coterie From Her White House Days Is Back Together, All for One and One for All

No to McCain-Kennedy, Yes to Border Security - Newt Gingrich

The Boston Red Sox's Sultan of Statistical Analysis

Advancing the Kingdom / He Gave Us Prophets

Advancing The Kingdom

The Lord's Prayer, Part 1
mp3-16

The Lord's Prayer, Part 2
mp3-16

The Lord's Prayer, Part 3
mp3-16

All Things to All Men
mp3-16

How Beautiful
mp3-16


He Gave Us Prophets

Essential Hermeneutical Perspectives
rm-16 mp3-16 mp3-8

A Prophet's Job
rm-16 mp3-16 mp3-8

People of the Covenant
rm-16 mp3-16 mp3-8

Dynamics of the Covenant
rm-16 mp3-16 mp3-8

Historical Analysis of Prophecy
rm-16 mp3-16 mp3-8

The Purpose of Predictions
rm-16 mp3-16 mp3-8

Letters from Scooter Libby's friends and admirers.

Gries also wrote of Libby's pro bono representation of former government officials. Libby once represented an individual who was being considered for secretary of the Army. Opponents alleged that the individual, a distinguished Vietnam veteran, had been engaged in shady business dealings in Vietnam. Libby defended him without sending him a bill. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz highlighted the same case. "I also remember how Mr. Libby offered his services pro bono or at reduced cost--after he had returned to private law practice--to help former colleagues and friends with legal issues. In one case, he helped a public official defend himself successfully against libelous accusations, something that it is extremely difficult to do for anyone in public office," Wolfowitz wrote.

"The official in question was Richard Armitage. . . . "

U2's Pilgrimage to Riad in Fez

The CIA Follies (Cont'd.)

The Value of Learning History

Beyond the Cloister, by Gen. David h. Petraeus

Father absence "decimates" black community in U.S.

The Speechmaker: How Bill Gates Got Ready for Harvard

http://andylark.blogs.com/andylark/2007/06/the_speechmaker.html

W Sings Sunday Bloody Sunday

Bono and Friends are Wrong on African Development Aid

What I Saw in Iraq. by Joe Liebermann

Iran remains a problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.

On Forgetting The Obvious, by Robert Kaplan

China arming terrorists

America prepares for 'cyber war' with China

Efforts by China set it apart. "They're the only nation that has been quite that blatant about saying 'we're looking to do that'," said Gen Elder in Washington.

Brian Regan on politics

Freedom, not climate, is at risk

"As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism.... The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment.... The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature" -- Czech President Vaclav Klaus, writing in the Financial Times.

Freedom, not climate, is at risk

By Vaclav Klaus

Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following:
■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures
■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided
■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants
■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority
■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour
■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction
■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

The writer is President of the Czech Republic

Kiss Me, Katie

Fairy tales can come true. Why, they can even win you an award from Dallas' less-than-vigilant press club.

Hall of Shame: New press club President Tom Stewart is entrusted with cleaning up the mess left behind by Elizabeth Albanese

Free Speech for People Who Think Like Me

Al Gore: besserwisser chicken hypnotist

Vanity Fair & Bono

Rice Talks With Journal's Editorial Board

Apple extends Web browser to Windows

iPhone ads

ONE Campaign jumps into 2008 politics

1968 Redux: Echoes of Vietnam in Iraq--especially from the press.

Hitting the Wall: Reagan's prophetic Berlin speech, 20 years later.

Dennis Miller on Sen. Harry Reid

Speaking in tongues: Faith's language barrier?

Bono to receive Liberty Medal