blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



weapons inspector turns up dead in london

this one's more'n a little creepy...

Police searching for Dr David Kelly, the Ministry of Defence official quizzed this week over the government's Iraq dossier, have found a man's body.
Officers have confirmed that the body matches Dr Kelly's description...

...Dr Kelly, who volunteered to give evidence to the foreign affairs select committee (FAC), admitted to MPs last week he had met the BBC defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, on three occasions since September 2002.

With two MoD police sitting behind him, Dr Kelly confirmed he met Mr Gilligan in a central London hotel on the same day that the reporter said he met his sole source at a central London hotel.

But Dr Kelly said he did not believe he could be the primary source of the report at the centre of a bitter row between the BBC and No 10...

find the rest here.

this guy seems a little too high profile to believe that anyone in the blair administration would have had him offed--he'd already been officially reprimanded as the center of that whole brouhaha between blair and the bbc. still, i gotta admit, it's one helluva co-inky-dink.

locdog doesn't like co-inky-dinks

p.s. how long do you think it will be before we start hearing vince foster comparisons? as a pre-emptive counterstrike, let me point out that 1) foster was anonymous whereas kelly was something like blair's monica lewinsky (don't take that analogy too far...) and 2) all the damage that foster could have done was in the future, whereas for kelly, it was in the past. so why off him? no rational motive.



who cares about uranium cakes?

urinal cakes are more interesting than this story. and fresher smelling, too.

what, exactly, is the story? that bush lied? he didn't. his SOTU address included intel that was ok'd at the time by the CIA and MI6, this despite the fact that tenet later had second thoughts. tenet has admitted as much and the brits still stand by their evidence, for whatever that's worth.

that the war was unjustified in light of these revelations? how in the blue hell could anyone who was not opposed to the the war to start with possibly believe this? when at no time was the case for war based on what was an otherwise-forgettable anecdote; one swamped by clear, present, and real threats to american interests--not to mention the brutal human rights atrocities committed by the former iraqi dictator. african uranium cakes specifically or the nuclear threat in general was never placed higher than fourth behind chem/bio weapons, terror, and human rights atrocities.

are we even discussing, in the abstract, as a matter of academic import, out of pure idle curiosity, whether or not hussein had nuclear ambitions? well for one thing, who cares. he was bad enough without them. but for another, yes, he did. they're well documented. we can question this particular nuclear anecdote, but the fact that saddam wanted The Bomb is not up for debate, meaning that one way or another, the nuclear spectre was a real, if distant, threat.

all in all, i'd have to say that the uranium tempest is over a rather routine intel snafu of remarkably little consequence. clinton blowing up the chinese embassy following a similar occurrence had far more tangible results, and a far shorter (surprise, surprise) media half-life. the people who care about this are mostly the same ones who were chanting "no blood for oil" in the spring and complaining about the supreme court stealing the election a few years back. if you people are so damned desperate to discredit bush over something then why don't you try discrediting him over a real intel snafu, one with meaningful consequences that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians, one presided over by that self-same george tenet who was then, as he is now, given a free pass by that self-same george w. bush. that one was no more bush's fault than this one as far as i'm concerned, but for goodness' sake, why hasn't tenet been axed?

locdog is mystified by the left's inability to mount a viable criticism of the bush administration when they're so readily available



dear Lord, please make ruth bader ginsburg retire

if you frequent matt drudge's site, you may have noticed a link to an article on pat robertson's prayer for the supreme court. (note: i linked directly to the prayer, not to the drudge story.)

the gist of it is that three justices, according to robertson, are on the verge of retiring and we need to pray that God sways them to do just that. after all, as robertson argues, they're all suffering from various physical ailments, couldn't it be that God would "put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire"? and so we are asked to pledge our prayers and take part in a "massive prayer offensive" known as operation supreme court freedom where we petition the Almighty into prevailing upon the hearts of three troublesome, liberal, and unnamed judges, get them to retire, and get three good conservative justices in their stead.

if you are at all familiar with my opinions, you are no doubt aware that nothing would delight me more than to see robertson's prayer answered. three conservative supreme court justices would do more good in this country than ten republican presidents and GOP-controlled legislatures combined--which is a sad commentary on the state of the separation of powers, but hey, to quote billy joel, we didn't start the fire.

but there's something that creeps me out about robertson's proposal, something in it that i'm just not theologically comfortable with. it's not that i particularly disagree with his premise, that crusading liberal judges have kicked God out of our culture and are inviting divine wrath--i mean, if one believed that, say, abortion was murder, one could hardly maintain a conception of a just God without some expectation of imminent retribution. but asking God to make a given supreme court justice to retire? i mean, ought we to micromanage Deity like that?

i can't remember any instances of Christ asking God to get some decent government in judea--and they really needed it. the closest He ever came was asking that God's kingdom come, His will be done down here as it is Up There. seems that He just tried to align Himself with the Father's broadest goals, His Mission Statement, if you will, and stay out of the details. does God, for instance, need justice breyer to retire to achieve His goals on earth? if the constitution of the supreme court is not what robertson (and i) think it ought to be, does that mean the Divine Purpose will be thwarted? do i need to tell God that He needs to reshuffle the deck before babies can be saved?

i don't think so. and other than general pleas for peace on earth, wisdom for our rulers, etc., there's nothing in the Bible that says otherwise. as a matter of fact, the Bible explicitly states that God appoints rulers--even the hitlers and husseins--and tears them down again as it suits His plan. that's His prerogative, and believe me, He doesn't need our advice on how best to execute it.

robertson's prayer smacks of personal politicking, but worse, it speaks of a broad trap that politically-minded Christians often fall into: the tendency to see the other side in a political debate as the Enemy. i don't care if your earthly opponent is a gay, atheistic, abortion practicing supreme court chief justice. he isn't your enemy. in fact, you're supposed to pray for him, not against him. should you pray for his political success? no, but i don't think you should pray for anyone's political success, even the nice, conservative Christian, pro-life pastor, Bible-toting southern boy with the neat haircut. rather, ask that God's will would be done, that you would be given the wisdom to play your part in it, and leave the rest to God.

locdog's $0.02