All Things Through Love

Amen!

Well, you might say Pres. Bush was trying to allow the people of Iraq to live in a free society and not under a tyrant who condoned mass killing, torture and wholesale rape before families. The war did not go right and he has admitted that. I don't believe the President is an evil man but he and his advisers are not good planners.

Perhaps the "plan" went wrong because it tried to kill evil by killing. Dr. King's way wasn't easy or quick, but there was less violence in the long run.

From CNN::
White House: We will send more troops to Iraq
President Bush, facing opposition from both parties over his plan to send more troops to Iraq, said he has the authority to act no matter what Congress wants. "I've made my decision, and we're going forward," Bush told CBS' "60 Minutes. Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that lawmakers' criticism will not influence Bush's plans and dismissed any effort to "run a war by committee."

Maybe what the president means is he prefers running the war by dictatorship? I'm having a hard time looking at it any other way. Sure, let us talk of mass killing... our hands are certainly not free of bloodshed either.

One does not solve violence with more violence, and although I totally "get" the idea the president and his neo-con advisors truly believed the only solution was to go in and bomb the living daylights out of Iraq to expedite a democracy, I think they are victims of misguided logic. Democracy cannot be dictated. I see Bush's approach similar to metaphorical chemotherapy: douse Iraq with a treatment that causes a lot of pain and suffering... which results in a huge amount of collateral damage, if that's what it takes to "heal" the problem. Problem is, chemotherapy doesn't always work. It's poison. Often, it ends up killing the patient. There's a point where a reasonable man ~ a nation guided by reason and love ~ comes to the conclusion that war is an archaic idea in a world filled with too many nuclear solutions to its problems. Bush loves to dictate, which is most likely why he felt so compelled to eradicate Saddam... we all strive to destroy the people who remind us of the darkness within ourselves.

To make excuses for Bush's motivation in this war, and his seeming addiction to it, is to reject Martin Luther King's words above. The two approaches cannot co-exist, can they? Can violence and non-violence tolerate one another? I choose to wager my bets on non-violence which is derived from love, as opposed to fear. Love casts out all fear. One could argue the president has no fear, which is why he "stays the course"... only problem is war, by its very nature is fear-based, isn't it?

I do not presume to really know what is going on in GW's heart, but I can assess the fruits of his labor, which are blood-spattered and spoiled. At best, he is simply naive and stubborn ~ at worst, he is an arrogant, tunnel-visioned man with a messiah complex. I honestly belive the man is not well.

Ditto