Sunday, December 2, 2007

Four men arrested over NFL murder

Four people have been arrested over the murder of NFL star Sean Taylor, who died on Tuesday after being shot by intruders in his Florida home.

Miami police say they have more than one confession from the group - all males aged between 17 and 20 years old.

Detectives say Mr Taylor, a defensive player for the Washington Redskins, was killed in what appeared to have been a robbery which went wrong.

Mr Taylor, aged 24, was shot in the groin, severing his femoral artery.

Police arrested Eric Rivera, 17, Charles Wardlow, 18, Jason Mitchell, 19, and Venjahk Hunte, 20, in south-west Florida, about 160km (100 miles) from Miami.

Police Director Robert Parker said detectives are confident that the case against the four arrested was strong.

"We do have more than one confession," he said. "We're pretty certain we do have the gun."

Previous burglary

Mr Parker said the suspects had broken into the house in the belief that it would be empty, but Mr Taylor was off work with an injured knee and at home with his girlfriend Jackie Garcia and 18-month daughter.

"They were certainly not looking to go there and kill anyone. They were expecting a residence that was not occupied. So murder or shooting someone was not their initial motive," Mr Parker said.

"Their motive was to go there and steal the contents of the house."

Police are trying to establish if the burglary was linked to another break-in on 17 November at Mr Taylor's home and if more individuals are involved.

"We're looking into whether or not one or more of the individuals had been at the residence before," Mr Parker said.

Successful season

Mr Taylor, a college star with the University of Miami, was the fifth pick of the 2004 NFL Draft and was enjoying a successful season until a knee injury sidelined him for the past two games.

Mr Taylor, who played as a safety for Washington, had a reputation as one of the hardest hitters in the league.

"I just take this job very seriously," he said in an interview during training camp.

"It's almost like, you play a kid's game for a king's ransom. And if you don't take it serious enough, eventually one day you're going to say, 'Oh, I could have done this, I could have done that'."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7122468.stm

Venezuelans vote on constitution

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is facing his toughest challenge in years as voters decide whether to approve constitutional changes in a referendum.

The raft of reforms includes allowing abolishing presidential term limits and ending the Central Bank's autonomy.

Mr Chavez says the proposed changes would return power to the people, but opponents accuse him of a power grab.

On Saturday, President Chavez repeated a threat to stop oil supplies to the US if it tried to disrupt the ballot.

Mr Chavez has warned that his opponents could try to sabotage the vote, with backing from Washington, through violent protests.

At a news conference, he said: "In the case of an aggression by the US government, we wouldn't send any more oil to that country. Forget about our oil."

Opec member Venezuela currently exports about 60% of its oil to the United States - a trade worth an estimated $37bn (£18.5bn) a year.

Mr Chavez has accused Washington of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. US officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

On Sunday, voters will decide whether they agree with a package of constitutional reforms, which Mr Chavez says are necessary to "construct a new socialist economy".

Mr Chavez has proposed 33 changes, and the National Assembly, which is composed of his supporters, put forward a further 36 amendments.

His opponents have called for close monitoring of the ballot. Opinion polls have suggested that the result could be close, although surveys in the past have tended to underestimate the level of support Mr Chavez enjoys.

The BBC's Americas editor, Emilio San Pedro, says the elections are expected to be as free and fair as all previous ones since Mr Chavez came to power in 1998.

Working week

One proposal is to allow the president to stand for re-election an indefinite number of times.

An opposition campaigner shouts slogans at a rally on 29 November
The opposition camp has mounted a vocal campaign
Speaking on Friday, Mr Chavez said: "If God gives me life and help, I will be at the head of the government until 2050." He would be 95 years old.

Under the current constitution, Mr Chavez would have to stand down when his term expires at the end of 2012.

Other changes up for approval include giving the president control over the central bank, the creation of new provinces governed by centrally-appointed officials, and a reduction in the voting age from 18 to 16.

There are also proposals to expand presidential powers during natural disasters or political "emergencies".

On the social front, changes include establishing a maximum six-hour working day and 36-hour working week, and widening social security benefit to workers in the informal economy.

A number of defections from the president's camp have encouraged opponents, but Mr Chavez has dismissed these one-time allies as traitors.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7123365.stm

Surprise! Jesus is Coming

Can you recall a time when you were surprised? Perhaps by something totally unexpected? Were you caught completely off guard? Maybe you thought afterward, "if only I had known," or "I wish I had been prepared!"

Getting ready... being prepared. Well, the Advent season is your chance! Advent starts a new year in the life of the church! A time to get ready for God's wonderful surprise - the birth of the Savior, God's beloved Son. The word "advent" is derived from a Latin term that means "coming" and the Advent season begins four Sundays before Christmas. It is a time that invites us to wait for the coming of Jesus and to prepare for the celebration of Jesus' birth. It is truly a time of hopeful expectation.

As we wait with hope, Matthew 24:36-44 reminds us of Jesus' coming in power and glory at the close of the age. While many may wonder when that will be, Jesus tells us that "no one knows the day or hour... only the Father knows" (Matthew 24:36, CEV). And we are admonished by Jesus to "be ready" since we don't know when he will come (verse 44).

All around us it seems that the commercial world is urging us, with increased intensity, to get ready for Christmas - window decorations begin appearing as early as October; our mailboxes are flooded with holiday circulars and catalogs; stores open the day after Thanksgiving at 4:00 and 5:00 a.m., seeking to lure buyers with special sales and other shopping incentives. How easy, and perhaps tempting, to get caught up in the frenzied pace of the pre-Christmas season. Are we any different from the unprepared people in Noah's day who "were eating, drinking, and getting married right up to the day that the flood came" (Matthew 24:38, CEV)? Think how surprised they must have been when God acted! To be so preoccupied can cause us to lose sight of and miss what God has in store.

Yes, the Advent season bids us pause, reflect, and prepare for God's amazing surprise. We are invited to prepare our hearts so that we will be ready to receive God's gift of love, God's own Son. When Jesus was born, no one expected the Messiah to come as a baby. Surprise...! God's gift of love came to us in an unexpected and joyful way. With the birth of Jesus, God broke into human history to dwell among us. God's sending the Holy Spirit empowers us to be prepared for the unexpected hour when Christ will come again. The apostle Paul warns us to "wake up" and to "live properly" because "the day when we will be saved is nearer now" (Romans 13:11, CEV) than ever before.

Living "in between Advents," we prepare for the birth of Jesus - Emmanuel, God with us - and we joyfully await his coming again. In the days of Advent, be open to God's surprises in your life as you prepare your heart to welcome and receive the Savior. As in Noah's time, God will act when we least expect it. Are you ready?

This Reflection is drawn from the Bible Resource Center's e-Bulletin Series - an online ministry of the American Bible Society. The Bible Resource Center houses a rich collection of Advent and Christmas Resources for Churches.



Barbara Bernstengel

Hermeneutics - A Primer On Bible Study Methods

Primer On the Historical-Grammatical Bible Interpretation Method
How to become proficient in Bible Interpretation
(EVEN IF YOU DON'T KNOW HEBREW OR GREEK)

This is an article about the history of Bible Interpretation. It will be primarily for the average person who may or may not have the responsibility of teaching a class or instructing others in the Scriptures but who has a desire to be proficient in Bible Interpretation for himself/herself. It is written on the premise that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, commonly known as the Bible, are the very words of God. I believe that in the original manuscripts, the words of God were recorded exactly as God would have them written, and the human authors were kept from all error.

To the young preacher Timothy the Apostle Paul said these words:

"But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." KJV 2 Timothy 3:14

In the phrase "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..." the word "inspiration" literally means "God breathed." God actually exhaled all Scripture. That is the biblical claim and I accept that at face value. I say that so there will be no mis-understanding as we learn how to interpret the Bible.

Bible Interpretation has been a mystery for most laymen for a many years. This is so even though there are many good books available on the subject. I think there are several reasons for this situation. Through the years a professional church mentality has tended to leave the understanding of the Bible up to those who are seen as professional teachers. The seminaries and Bible schools cater to those whose life calling is teaching and preaching the Bible (and so they should). There also seems to be the mentality among some "professionals" that they are the only ones who should be trained in Scripture interpretation. I beg to differ. It is obvious to me that a biblically astute laity is needed if there are to be godly homes and spiritual churches. Godly men and women grow spiritually as they learn to feed on the Scriptures. It is my prayer that many who have been mystified by much of what the Bible says will read the words in this little article, and be invigorated to study the Bible anew, and will be equipped to do it with a great degree of satisfaction.

An important part of Bible interpretation is understanding a little about the history of the discipline.

The first professional masters of Bible Interpretation were Jewish scribes. They arose in the days of Ezra and were determined to give the truth of the Scriptures they had. They gave the sense of the written Scriptures so that the common people could understand their meaning.1 A document called The Midrash housed the interpretations of the rabbis, the teachers to Israel. The scribes put the first Misrash together in the 4th century B.C.2 The term 'midrash' comes from a Hebrew root which means 'to explain, deduce, ferret out.'3

Some of the early scribes and rabbis thought that the Scriptures had a deeper meaning that was not obvious on the surface. It was a deeper and mystical meaning. One writer quotes Rabbi Akiba, who was a leader of a school for rabbis at Jaffa, Palestine as saying , ". . . every repetition, figure, parallelism, synonyme [sic], word, letter, particle, pleonasm, na, the very shape of a letter, had a recondite meaning, just as every fiber of fly's wing or an ant's foot has its particular significance."4

This philosophy carried over into the early Christian church. According to Roy Zuck, Origen, an early church father, believed that "Noah's ark pictured the church and Noah represented Christ. Rebekah's drawing water at the well for Abraham's servant means we must daily come to the Scriptures to meet Christ. In Jesus triumphal entry the donkey represented the Old Testament, its colt depicted the New Testament and the two apostles pictured the moral and mystical senses of the Scriptures."5 This kind of interpretation nearly ignored the literal meaning the authors of Scripture had in mind. Because of this disregard for the literal meaning of the Scriptures in Alexandrian Church Fathers, several leaders in Antioch of Syria put their emphasis on the historical, literal interpretation. "They stressed the study of the Bible's original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and they wrote commentaries on the Scriptures." " For them, literal interpretation included figurative language."6

The trend to allegorize and give fanciful meanings to the Scripture continued in the Western church however. Interpreters left the historical, literal and contextual meanings of the Scriptures and developed all kinds of unwarranted interpretations. McQuay says: "Collections of allegorical interpretations showed, for example that the word sea could mean a gathering of water, Scripture, the present age, the human heart, the active life, heathen or baptism.7 For a thousand years the allegorical method of interpretation of the Bible held sway. I do not think it is a coincidence that this is the period of time dubbed the dark ages by the historians.

The Protestant Reformation beginning in the 16th century saw the move back to the literal interpretation of Scripture. The Reformation established two main principles that led in this return. The first one was called "the analogy of Scripture" and simply said that all Scripture must be interpreted by other Scripture. It denied the right of the Catholic Church, the pope or any other human institution to lock in any particular Scripture interpretation. The second principle was the principle of literal sense. The Bible was to be interpreted literally where possible. This eliminated the whole system of allegorical interpretation that had held sway during the dark ages. Men began to exegete the Scriptures on a new plane and the original languages were used to find the first author's literal meaning.8 This method of interpretation came to be known as the Grammatical-Historical method of interpretation.

A group of critics that were very destructive appeared in the 19th century. These men were controlled by naturalistic pre-suppositions that denied anything that could not be empirically proven. The super-natural was simply dis-believed. This has led to much confusion concerning true biblical interpretation. My answer is that we need to go back to the simple principles of the analogy of faith and a literal interpretation. If God is super-natural then we should not limit Him to acting in only natural, humanly explainable ways.

Neo-orthodoxy arose in the latter 19th century to combat the liberalism spawned by the higher critics mentioned above. It was a way of trying to interpret the Scriptures as God's word while holding on to the naturalistic pre-suppositions of the liberal higher critics. It failed miserably.

In the early 20th century a movement arose that was known as "Fundamentalism." It was characterized by men who believed the Bible, super-natural events and all, and who said that the Scriptures should be interpreted literally and in their historical context. Conservatism, the step-child of fundamentalism holds, for the most part, to the position of a literal interpretation of the Scriptures but does not embrace the legalistic tendencies of many of the early fundamentalist leaders. The Pentecostal and Charismatic movements seem to hold to a literal and historical interpretation of Scripture but with the danger of going beyond Scripture and confusing the teaching of certain men with the teaching of Scripture. We will deal with this phenomenon more at length later.

That is a very abbreviated overview of the history of Bible interpretation. If the student is interested whole books have been written on each aspect of that history and it would be well worth the work to investigate each period in depth. In our next article we will go on to an explanation of the Grammatical- Historical approach to Bible interpretation.

1 1Norman Geisler and William Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1975), 52.

2 2James I. Packer. Merrill C. Tenny, and William White, Jr. Eds., The Bible Almanac (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), 502

3 3Concept Midrash Internet Source (USA Jewish Theological Seminary of America 1997), 1.

4Roy B. Zuck. Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1991), 28.

5Zuck, 36.

6Zuck. 37.

7Earl P. McQuay. Keys To Understanding the Bible, (Nashville: Broadman, 1993)18.

8J. Barton Payne. The Theology of the Older Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962), 26.



Michael Morrow has been pastor of the Union Baptist Church since June of 2000. He has preached and taught in Bible conferences and revival efforts across thirteen different states and five countries, including six trips to Romania. His ministry includes adjunct professor at Mid-Continent College in Mayfield, Kentucky for six years. He presently teaches Comparative Religions for Madisonville Community College. Dr. Morrow is a 1999 graduate of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary. He is married to Susan and they have three children. He has recently become a proud grandfather. His desire is to live out the rest of his life serving Christ in every way possible. To check out his new book "How To Study The Bible (Even though you don't know Hebrew or Greek)" go to http://www.The-Christian-Resource-Page.Com

Letters To Mankind - Us And Them

My Dear Fellowman

Today I am writing you about our differences. They are many. Nature seems to have a gift for variety. We all adapt to our respective climates, both social and environmental. There appears to be a gradation of talents and deficits distributed between us to varying degrees, as well as the natural resources at our disposal. We all fall somewhere along the spectrum of enlightenment, evolution, and progress. Our points of origin are spattered, giving rise to many often conflicting vantage points. Tension and competition exists between all living things, even those of the same species, same family. I think it is unrealistic, naive perhaps, to believe that complete harmony is achievable as long as nature sees fit to use conflict as a means of improving upon her creation.

Though your unique experience is largely foreign to me, and mine to you, I have grown to respect your will to live, your tenacious hold on your values, your devotion to your family, and your passion for self expression. Though I have the deepest disdain for some of your beliefs and customs, I have the utmost respect for your right to believe as you wish. Though the means by which we govern our own is mutually exclusive, it is incumbent upon all to protect human life and dignity everywhere. And though I lay claim to the land in which I dwell and all it's resources, as do you with yours, surely there is something we can barter, buy and sell to our mutual benefit. And sooner or later we will be compelled to relax our borders and explore the world together. We both realize that our greatest resource is knowledge, which is also our greatest defense and offense when necessary, but belongs to no one and everyone. With that in mind, we have only our mutual promise not to harm each other without provocation or withhold from each other the knowledge necessary to survive.

It has become clear to me that as we both evolve and expand our horizons and strive to meet our respective needs, we cannot ignore each other, nor extinguish each other's rights. So in the interest of self-preservation and well-being, our least common denominator, the best way to protect our rights, our property, our loved ones, and our posterity, is to be invested in each other's preservation and well being. We do that by relying on each other's word, integrating our communities, and helping to solve each other's problems. For there is no benefit in malice.

Yours Truly
Sef

Sef is publisher and writer of the blog The Velvet Spot: http://www.velvetspot.com This article and a variety of others can be found on the blog.

Pornography, Dietary Supplements and the First Amendment

"...in 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that large sections of the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, including the depiction of virtual child porn, were overly broad and unconstitutional. Free speech advocates and pornographers had challenged the legality of the act, and six of the nine justices sided with them..."

Today pornographers have free reign. The federal courts routinely strike down any attempt to stop even the most vial pornography sites under the auspices of free speech.

The intent of this short article is to contrast the unrestricted free speech of pornographers shown by the above quote with the lack of free speech of millions of Americans are now denied because of the pharmaceutical medical monopoly that exists which aggressively restricts the right of Americans to have access to knowledge about the benefits of nutritional supplements.

On one hand, pornographers have unlimited free speech and on the other hand, millions of Americans and entrepreneurs have suffered the loss of basic 1st Amendment freedom and even physical raids by armed "jack booted thugs" from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).This is egregious state of affairs should make the average American's blood boil.

Just who supports the FDA in their ongoing attack against Americans 1st Amendment freedom? The Pharmaceutical companies, medical associations, doctors, medical journals, hospitals and numerous corrupt Congress creatures do so by supporting the FDA's blatant disregard for federal court decisions and the 1st Amendment. They condone the use of terrorism against the American people and, ultimately, support the continued use of police state tactics against innocent Americans who simply want truthful information about dietary supplement and the freedom to use supplements if they do desire.

A little history:

One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence was, Dr. Benjamin Rush, a doctor, educator and politician. Dr. Rush was a member of the Continental Congress and was a member of the Pennsylvania Convention that ratified the US Constitution. He became a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and was a founder of the first American Antislavery society. Rush Medical College in Chicago is named after him.

In addition to Dr. Rush's amazing career in medicine he had one very significant idea that he wanted added to the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Dr. Rush believed that the right to Medical Freedom should be imprinted into the Bill of Rights and was just as important as the right to Freedom of Speech and Religion. His thoughts were incredibly accurate given today's political climate. The following is a quote from Dr. Rush's argument before the American Continental Congress:

"Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship....to restrict the art of healing to one class of men, and deny equal privilege to others, will be to constitute the Bastille of Medical Science. All such laws are un-American and despotic, and have no place in a Republic...The Constitution of this Republic should make special privilege for Medical Freedom as well as Religious Freedom."

Unfortunately, the right to medical freedom was not added to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution, and now we have the government, medical and pharmaceutical groups working together to limit our health choices. In short, we have a monstrous medical monopoly enforced by the increasingly compromised and corrupt FDA along with the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) which routinely censors truthful health claims.

Free Speech and Dietary Supplements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Health Freedom Protection Act. This bill restores the First Amendment rights of consumers to receive truthful information regarding the benefits of foods and dietary supplements by codifying the First Amendment standards used by federal courts to strike down the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) efforts to censor truthful health claims. The Health Freedom Protection Act also stops the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) from censoring truthful health care claims.

The American people have made it clear they do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to dietary supplements, yet the FDA and the FTC continue to engage in heavy-handed attempts to restrict such access. The FDA continues to frustrate consumers' efforts to learn how they can improve their health even after Congress, responding to a record number of constituents' comments, passed the Dietary Supplement and Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA). FDA bureaucrats are so determined to frustrate consumer access to truthful information that they are even evading their duty to comply with four federal court decisions vindicating consumers' First Amendment rights to discover the health benefits of foods and dietary supplements.

FDA bureaucrats have even refused to abide by the DSHEA section allowing the public to have access to scientific articles and publications regarding the role of nutrients in protecting against diseases by claiming that every article concerning this topic is evidence of intent to sell a drug..... This edited version is from the speech of the HON. Ron Paul of Texas before the US House of Representatives in 2005.

Collusion and Corruption at the FDA

"According to a USA Today study, more than half of the experts hired to advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of medicine have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies that will be helped or hurt by their decisions. These experts are hired to advise the Food and Drug Administration on which medicines should be approved for sale, what the warning labels should say and how studies of drugs should be designed. The experts are supposed to be independent, but USA TODAY found that 54% of the time, they have a direct financial interest in the drug or topic they are asked to evaluate. These conflicts include helping a pharmaceutical company develop a medicine, then serving on an FDA advisory committee that judges the drug.

The conflicts typically include stock ownership, consulting fees or research grants. Federal law generally prohibits the FDA from using experts with financial conflicts of interest, but according to the article, the FDA has waived the restriction more than 800 times since 1998." Note: An article by Dennis Cauchon, the USA TODAY Newspaper, Sept. 25, 2000 More heavy handed tactics and outrages, brought to you by the FDA

When it comes to health freedom, a new FDA document recently published on the FDA's website reveals plans to reclassify virtually all vitamins, supplements, herbs and even vegetable juices as regulated drugs. Who gave these unelected tyrannical bureaucrats the mandate to do this? How can they justify their efforts when in reality they are misleading and directly harming the public by refusing us our 1st Amendment freedom of speech related to dietary supplements that even Congress has stated in DSHEA that there is scientific evidence of a correlation between ingesting certain dietary supplement and improved health? How many millions of Americans have suffered from being kept in the dark about dietary supplements that could possibly improve someone's quality of life?

In addition, the FDA is protecting their pals at Big Pharma by the new preemption policy that bans private lawsuits against drug companies in state courts once a drug and its label have been approved by the FDA. This looks like a protection racket for their financiers at big Parma! This is simply outrageous!

The Solution

The HON. Ron Paul of Texas has said: Americans are justifiably concerned over the government's escalating intervention into their freedom to choose what they eat and how they take care of their health.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN's World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.

I have been the national leader in preserving Health Freedom.

I have introduced the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117, to ensure Americans can receive truthful health information about supplements and natural remedies.

I support the Access to Medical Treatment Act, H.R. 2717, which expands the ability of Americans to use alternative medicine and new treatments.

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA's legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

I also opposed the Homeland Security Bill, H.R. 5005, which, in section 304, authorizes the forced vaccination of American citizens against small pox. The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations.

In Conclusion:

Who has more freedom of speech, pornographers or everyday Americans who want to access scientific knowledge about the benefits of dietary supplements? This outrage cannot continue to stand. Congress should immediately de-fund the FDA leviathan.

On the one hand, dietary supplements have millions of advocates who claim to have had an improved quality of life, while on the other hand, millions of Americans have been damaged by pornography along with the thousands of documented cases of rapes and murder tied to the use of pornography.

Congress creatures do not see the light until they feel the heat. Let's raise our collective voices and demand the passage of the Health Freedom Protection Act, HR 2117.

If follows from what has been said above that consumers of dietary supplements and the manufactures of supplements should have the same free speech protections that the pornographers have. Demand it!

See my article titled the Pharmaceutical Drug Cartel and the FDA for more information.



Mr. Kettler is an ordained Presbyterian Elder and the owner of Undergroundnotes.com where his theological, philosophical and political articles can be read. He has worked in corporate America for over 25 years and is now realizing his dreams as a successful home business entrepreneur. Mr. Kettler can be reached through his business site at: http://www.internationalhomebusinessonline.com Permission is hereby granted to reprint this article as long as my web site is retained in the biographical information.

Have We Achieved Our Objectives in Iraq?

Exactly where are we in this conflict? It's difficult to cut through to the truth with so much hot air coming from all sides. I decided to go back and read the Joint Resolution approved October 2002 by the President and the Senate authorizing the invasion or liberation (take your pick) of Iraq.

It begins with a bunch of whereas clauses summarizing the then current situation: Iraq had been kicked out of Kuwait and had agreed not to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and Iraq would not support terrorism; weapons inspectors had been forced to withdraw in 1998 and Congress had declared that Iraq's continued development of weapons of mass destruction threatened world peace; the Iraqi regime continued to brutalize its civilian population; Iraq showed its hostility toward the United States by attempting to assassinate Bush 41 and shoot at US planes enforcing the no-fly zone; members of al Qaida are known to be in Iraq; the regime continues to harbor other terrorist organizations; Iraq might launch a surprise attack on the US or provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Therefore, the Joint Resolution authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to: (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

A review of this document indicates the US had several objectives, at least initially, in the war against the Iraqi regime.

+ To eliminate weapons of mass destruction stockpiled or under development by Iraq as called for by various UN resolutions.
+ To implement democracy within Iraq and eventually throughout much of the Middle East.
+ To free the people of Iraq from a brutal dictatorship.
+ To eliminate a dangerous enemy.
+ To prevent Saddam Hussein from working with international terrorist groups that might threaten the US.

Although not specified in the Iraq War Resolution, it seems clear to me that the US was intent on making sure that control of Iraqi oil was taken from Saddam and turned over to a friendly Iraqi government. Removing Saddam also eliminated his threat to Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other oil rich Middle East nations.

As everyone knows, we did not discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Although there are rumors that these weapons were shipped out of Iraq shortly before the invasion, no hard evidence supports this theory. Therefore, we must conclude that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq during the days leading up to the war. It appears there was a massive intelligence failure not only in the US, but in many other nations as well. Some have claimed that the Bush administration knew all along that there were no such weapons in Iraq, but this claim isn't justified with evidence. Basically, it was a screw-up of massive proportions.

Iraq does have a democratic government, a parliamentary system where the people vote for their representatives, who join together in political parties and elect a Prime Minister. As described in Wikipedia, a permanent 275-member Iraqi National Assembly was selected in a general election in December 2005, initiating the formation of a new government. The Prime Minister of Iraq is Nouri al-Maliki, who holds most of the executive authority and appoints the cabinet. The current President of Iraq is Jalal Talabani, who serves largely as a figurehead, with few powers. The vice presidents are Tariq al-Hashimi and Adel Abdul Mehdi, deputy leader of SCIRI, the largest party in the Iraqi National Assembly.

Although the government at times seems ineffective, it is an honest democracy. It remains to be seen if additional democracies will be established across the Middel East.

The US-led coalition has freed the people of Iraq from Saddam's brutal dictatorship, and the new government is not oppressive. However, a violent Sunni/al Qaida insurgency has continued to murder thousands in an effort to plunge the nation into chaos and civil war. The US-led Surge, actually an increase in troops and a change in strategy, has splintered the insurgency and reduced the violence. Although the war is moving in the right direction, Iraq is still a dangerous country, both for the Iraqis and US troops.

The elimination of Saddam's regime removed a dangerous enemy without question. However, the insurgency is equally dangerous. If our enemies are able to win in Iraq, they may be able to spread their hatred of the US beyond the borders of Iraq and across the region.

There is no hard evidence that Saddam was working with international terrorist groups. There appears to be some contact between al Qaida and Saddam's regime, but no evidence of any type of alliance. It may be that the US was concerned about the potential for an alliance, given that both Saddam and al Qaida hate us.

Iraqi oil production is about 2.5 million bpd, about where it was before the war. However, the oil is being sold by a friendly government, so we don't have to worry it will be used as a weapon.

To summarize, we have removed the yoke of dictatorship from the people of Iraq and implemented a democratic, if somewhat ineffective, national government. After years of warfare with extremists, the Surge seems to be leading to a better life for Iraqis. We have also removed an enemy from Iraq, and secured a supply of oil. All good things, clearly. On the other hand, no weapons of mass destruction were found, and the ties between Saddam and terrorists were not threatening. And we paid a heavy price in blood and national treasure.

Was it worth it? Each of us will have to make that assessment.

If you would like to learn more about my ideas, please visit my website. It's informative and entertaining. Order Unholy Domain or PeaceMaker at Amazon.



Dan Ronco is a writer of technology thrillers and near future science fiction. PeaceMaker, his first novel, was published in 2004 and his second, Unholy Domain, will be released March, 2008. Learn more about Dan at http://www.danronco.com