Raging Rapturists In Sunday's Pulpit: "What's This Nonsense About Diplomacy?"

Prayers For Armaggedon May Increase
By A Thousandfold This Weekend!

"DIPLOMACY?! We never supported Bush for anything like THAT!"

All Rapture Reverends and Pulpit Pimps will be on a rampage this Sunday, so watch out! The mosques in this country might have to hire armed guards! Bush has just yanked the Armaggedon rug out from underneath them! George W. Bush, the President who said "God wants me to be President," is diverging from their wishes and actually talking about taking diplomatic measures with Iran! Has he gone mad? Does he need more spiritual guidance to lead him down the path of righteousness, to destroy Islam, restore all of Israel and hasten the Rapture?

Pat Robertson must be seething! Rod Parsley must be turning green! John Hagee must be in shock!


I've combed the net for two hours trying to find statements by the Religious Right as to reactions, but have come up with absolutely nothing. They may all be in shock or they may be working extra-hard on their Sunday sermons. Think of it: Armaggedon postponed! They've campaigned so hard for war, that it seemed within their grasp. "Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran" - McCain's faux pas became a kind of hip hymn, quietly sung, of course, and in the presence of a select few. The following clips of articles indicate just how longingly they prayed for war:

Rod Parsley
(from Unastronaut May 16, 2008...2:37 pm)

McCain’s ’spiritual guide’ Rod Parsley: “We get off on warfare!”...Rod Parsley, on the other hand, is literally trying to start a religious war and crusade. He believes somehow that America was created to destroy Islam, ignoring the language of the 1st Amendment. It is clear that the government shall stay out of the way, and the affairs of religion. If his extremist church believes there’s a call to arms against Islam, it has nothing to do with the American government. It really has nothing to do with reality. His conception is perverse and incites violence, but by the very Constitution he ignores, his voice is protected.

Pat Robertson:

On the May 2 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson claimed that Iran "now has atomic weapons," even though, the U.S. intelligence community, as well as independent experts, agree that Iran is years away from having the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

"It's amazing that Iran has come to the fore as it has with a president who says Israel should be wiped off the map, who ... now has atomic weapons," adding that "[a] year ago, the Lord told me ... that Israel was entering into the most dangerous time in its existence," and "confirmed this again in January."

From Prisonplanet.com, Jan, 2007)

Televangelist Pat Robertson, an influential sage of the Neo-Con war machine and an icon of its radical ideological underpinnings, has predicted turmoil in 2007 after he claimed God had told him in a conversation that major U.S. cities would suffer mass terror attacks after September that would potentially kill millions of people.

John Hagee: (from Media Matters Aug. 16, 2006) During the interview, Hagee argued that "the moment they feel that Iran has a nuclear device, [the United States and Israel] need to take out the nuclear capabilities of that country." Hagee also predicted that Israel "will bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran" if they acquire nuclear capabilities and even asserted that "Iran will use nuclear weapons against Israel and ... against the United States of America."
James Dobson A quote from his radio show:

"The world looked at Hitler and just didn't believe him and tried to appease him the way we're hearing in Washington today. You know, the President seems to me does understand this."

And to sum up, this piece says it nicely:
(Perrspectives, May 16, 2007)

As I wrote in here, President Bush is seeking counsel from people who are trying to stoke the fires with Iran to accelerate a conflict they believe will bring the Second Coming of Christ. From protesting the removal of Israeli settlements in Gaza and the West Bank to actually trying to breed the mysterious "red heifer" which will signal the Second Coming, Falwell, Hagee, Dobson, Bauer and their ilk hope to foment war in the Middle East to fulfill biblical destiny.

Yes, the apocalypticists, Armaggedon freaks, and end-times advocates may have to wait a little longer and keep fomenting hatred in people's minds and hearts like some eternal flame.

The Rosetta Stone: Portal of the Past, Key to the Future

I almost forgot to post this photo.

To me, the discovery of the Rosetta Stone was one of THE most important finds in history because it opened up a whole ancient culture to the rest of the world.

And even though it was an accidental find, it focuses on the importance of the SCIENCE of archeology. Yes, it is a science. Some religionists don't think so since it has come up with some contradictory evidence against the inerrancy of the Bible. But this science has also come up with artifacts and writings that have supported the Bible as well.

With discoveries like the Rosetta Stone, we discover more about ...ourselves.

Nancy Pelosi's "Failure" Statement WAS HARSH

Unfortunately, it was still not HARSH ENOUGH!

Yes, Nancy Pelosi will be thoroughly gutted by the time you read this. I really pity her. The avalanche of ugly criticism and mockery might bury her politically. But people should take into consideration that the statement was more courageous than foolhardy. Probably the only foolhardiness in her diatribe was in the timing: either she's beating a dead horse, or she's encouraging Bush's (few) supporters to do what America loves doing: rooting for the underdog. In either case, she was trying to be honest and not vicious in what she said. Her statement implied that George was incompetent.

There is a difference, however, between incompetence and villainy. The Bush administration has become a conspiracy theorist's wet dream: the secrecy and lust for more powers make it extremely suspect. A small rundown: Cheney's secret conversations with energy companies; executive "privilege" invoked too many times; the transparent WMD statements; warrant-less wiretapping; Downing Street memos; refusal to testify for an fact-finding 9/11 Commission; extreme cronyism; secrecy in war fatality situations; ignoring the Geneva Conventions; connections with the Saudi Royal family; no-bid contracts; cummuting the criminal sentence of an administrative aide without proper reason.

And then there is the theory of prior knowledge of 9/11. Yes, I've seen the seven minute video of Bush in the school listening to the story of My Pet Goat. His demeanor is not just calm, but almost - resolved: "Well, this is it, there's no turning back. Saddam will be sorry." But there is another disturbing fact: three months after 9/11, he told a school (video-taped) that he had seen flight #11 hit the first tower on a TV before he went in to the classroom. That would have been impossible: there was no live coverage of the plane crashing into the first tower - that footage was provided by a French documentary film crew THE NEXT DAY.

I'm not happy thinking about these things. They make me angry and depressed. And sad. Americans place their trust in people. Yes, they know that public officials can be downright crooked, but they place their trust in them anyway. In a sense, they have no other choice: they cannot elect someone to the high office of President, then monitor his/her every move. The Presidents of the 21st century will be hampered by Bush's secrecy: either they will be scrutinized and harassed mercilessly from the moment they take office, or they will be forced to use "executive privilege" and look to be even more secret than Bush.

Whatever Bush's legacy may be in future generations, it will not be "Honesty."

Just a thought. Oh, and I thought you might want to see this:

THE WAR IS OVER!! John McCain Says So!

Talk About Spin! Are You Dizzy Yet?

From The Washington Independent:

I repeat my statement that we have succeeded in Iraq. Not we are succeeding. We have succeeded in Iraq. The strategy has worked and we now have the Iraqi government and military in charge in the major cities in Iraq. Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run, but the success that we have achieved is still fragile and could be reversed, and it’s still – if we do what Sen. Obama wants to do, then all of that could be reversed and we could face again the chaos, increased Iranian influence and American loss and defeat.

WTF!?! Sorry, it's just that I can't conceive of such a statement coming from this person. I really can't. He's either putting a bizarre spin on his "100 years" statement or he's lost it completely.

And we'd better hope that it's not just a "senior moment."

"Al Qaeda is on their heels and on the run" - sure, to Afghanistan. And if we pull out, where's the "American loss"? This is unreal. Please, someone, tell me that we are not dealing with this.

Would McCain be as big a diplomatic dimwit as Bush? That's not possible, but it may be McCain's real goal. Who knows?

Now Nancy, He's Not THAT Bad!

O.K., He's Worse

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer 51 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - President Bush has been a "total failure" in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill.

Pelosi shot back in unusually personal terms.

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi replied. She then tsk-tsked Bush for "challenging Congress when we are trying to sweep up after his mess over and over and over again."

The Republican arsenal of caustic and malicious rhetoric will be entirely ransacked by people who normally just hate Nancy Pelosi. Her words were strong, but theirs will be stronger. Neocon bloggers will be inventing words. Ann Coulter(geist) will call Pelosi's statement every variant on treason ( including obscure Olde English ones). Michelle Malkin will start screaming at the top of her lungs. Rush Limbaugh will dig up every off-color remark along with a few chosen conservative pieces of Limbaugh Logic. Conservatives everywhere will be burning her in effigy. There may even be rioting in the streets of Crawford, Tex.

Advice to Nancy Pelosi: take some deep breaths, calm yourself, hire more bodyguards, take up martial arts. I thank you for being honest, but many in the conservative half of the country will be sticking pins in their home-made voodoo dolls. In other words, be afraid, Nancy, be very afraid.

Is George's Administration Looking Forward to The Future With Anxiety, Anticipation...Or Just Relief?

What's In Store For Them After January 20?

It's interesting how some research can lead to more research, to more, and more...

(from wikipedia.com)

The International Criminal Court (ICC or ICCt) was established in 2002 as a permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

As of July 2008, 106 states are members of the Court; Suriname will become the 107^th state party on 1 October 2008. A further 40 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.However, a number of states, including China, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.

And the above gave way to this:

(from: Human Rights Watch)

The Bush administration's hostility to the ICC has increased dramatically in 2002. The crux of the U.S. concern relates to the prospect that the ICC may exercise its jurisdiction to conduct politically motivated investigations and prosecutions of U.S. military and political officials and personnel. The U.S. opposition to the ICC is in stark contrast to the strong support for the Court by most of America's closest allies.

In an unprecedented diplomatic maneuver on 6 May, the Bush administration effectively withdrew the U.S. signature on the treaty. At the time, the Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes Issues Pierre-Richard Prosper stated that the administration was "not going to war" with the Court. This has proved false; the renunciation of the treaty has paved the way for a comprehensive U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC.

Hmmmm. I wonder why? And that bit gave way to:

(From FAIR - Fairness In Accuracy And Reporting)

CBS, NBC Clean Up Bush's 'Happy' Talk 8/24/06 During his August 21 press conference, George W. Bush responded to a question about the Iraq War by saying that "sometimes I'm happy" about the conflict. But many readers and TV viewers never heard the remark, since journalists edited the statement to save Bush any possible embarrassment.

Then to:

(From Anti-War.com)

August 29, 2006

Bush Goes Retro to Avoid Prosecution

by Paul Craig Roberts

Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The U.S. Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crimes charges under both the U.S. War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.

President Bush and his attorney general agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to U.S. treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

I'm going to deviate a bit here and ask the question: What do YOU think will happen to them after January 20th? About 90% of you will say "They'll get off scott free and they won't be prosecuted in any way." Think hard: IF they get off without even a slight rumble of repentance, WHAT WILL THEY BE GOING TO? Wouldn't it be interesting (if not fun) to dig deep into their futures and see who's nest is being feathered by whom?

Contracts: Bush refuses to sign an International Criminal Court ratification, but has he refused to sign any contracts involving "advisory capacity" positions? Just how many Boards of Directors will he be on? And whose? Shell? Exxon? And Cheney. What will Halliburton give him after he leaves office? Stock options? His name on oil leases? We shouldn't be distracted by the new administration so much that we don't pay attention to what the old administration is doing.

"What If" is a useless game, but once in a while it hits home the value of foresight. What if the next President were to ratify the contract with the International Criminal Court? What brave souls at the ICC would indict the Bush administration under charges of criminal aggression?

Just a thought.

Again, there always impeachment...

On July 15th, 2008 a vote took place to send a resolution to impeach president George W. Bush to the judiciary committee. The resolution was introduced by congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and lays out impeachment charges against president Bush on one count for allegedly manufacturing evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to sway the American people's opinions in favor of military action in Iraq. The resolution was successfully sent to the judiciary committee by a vote of 218 in favor and 183 opposed. The associated press reports that the democrats are planning on holding a hearing on this resolution which will be televised, and that this televised hearing will include testimony from a number of people including experts, congressmen and military personnel.

Who Put a Fire Under The Diplomatic Dimwit?

Whatever the Situation - Hypocrisy Reigns Supreme!

Then Again, Maybe Halliburton Needs New Clients

There are some people besides Bush who must desperately want him to have a "legacy". But who?

U.S. to establish presence in Tehran: report

Wed Jul 16, 7:05 PM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - The United States will announce in the next month that it plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a British newspaper said on Thursday.

In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a U.S. interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy.

The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a U.S. interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy.

"The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country."

The Guardian said the development was "a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office."

On Sunday, President Amhmoud Ahmadinejad suggested Iran would consider any proposal by the United States for a U.S. interests section in the Islamic Republic, should one be forthcoming.

U.S. media have reported that the State Department is considering opening an interests section that could mean U.S. diplomats returning to Tehran but operating under another country's flag.

Will Bush send Wilson and Plame? Hey, that's one way of getting rid of people: send them to Iran as diplomats! Then again, the Iranians might die... of laughter.

This story has to go down in history as one of America's craziest turnabouts. Was it Obama's statement that he would be willing to meet with Iran? Hey, Obama had the idea first! Nyah nyah! What does McCain think of having to be nicey-nice with a part of "The Axis of Evil"?

OMG! What will Rev. Rod Parsley think? After all, America was founded to destroy Islam, not be (eeeeew!) diplomatic with it. If the Democrats had any political saavy at all, they'd come right out and say, "Why wasn't this done before? Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria and invokes a Republican outcry. You stupid hypocrites!"

But they won't. Damn. It HAD to be someone else's idea: Bush can't turn around that fast. Is that diabolical Karl Rove in on it for some reason?

What would an American Embassy in Iran look like?

We'd have to impress Iran with our own inimitable style:

Then , of course, there's our tasteful holiday decorations: