Since 9/11 we've liberated 50 million people from the grip of murderous tyrannies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we've sacrificed American blood to do it, Prof. O'Rourke. In a tiny way we've reflected Jesus' sacrifice – we shed blood to save others.

Let's not forget the 8-10k civilians in Iraq and the, what, ~5k civilians in Afghanistan that were "sacrificed" as well.

Yes. And how many women in Afghanistan have the Taliban beat and executed today? How many Iraqis has Saddam tossed into his mass graves today? How many Kurds have been gassed? How many Shia have been starved and oppressed and shot by the Ba'athists?

Please, Chris, tell us. You seem to have the numbers.

Oooooof. Nicely done.

The point is everyone should read O'Rourke's op-ed in its entirety. Not just excerpts taken out of context.

As for Steve Martin--he's a comedian. Comedians have been known, from time to time, to poke fun at things.

Frankly, Gibson's movie--and that's all it is--is a technically proficient, even artistic, ode to sado-masochism.

Trust me--Mel Gibson could care less what your beliefs are when you buy a ticket.

JG: I didn't take anything out of contect - heck, I reprinted about 85 percent of the column verbatim and in order. The writer equated Jesus with Mohammed Atta.

And how many women in Afghanistan have the Taliban beat and executed today

I'd like to know how many women you think were executed under Taliban rule.

Disclaimer: The Taliban were a repressive regime, particularly toward women. However, women didn't fare particularly well before or after the Taliban.

KABUL (CP) - Afghan President Hamid Karzai offered Afghan men a trade today in an attempt to convince them to let their women vote in upcoming elections.
"Please, my dear brothers, let your wives and sisters go to the voter registration process," Karzai told a gathering to mark International Women's Day. "Later, you can control who she votes for, but please, let her go."

JG and CW: Even if everything good isn't accomplished at once, the small steps still have value. The ideal is the enemy of the good, and by repudating everything we've accomplished, so are you.

Mr. Williams:

Could you enlighten me as to what was accomplished? And are you suggesting putting servicemen into harm's way--on the basis of a lie or exaggeration--is acceptable?

Wow. So JadeGold doesn't think that anything was accomplished by consigning two of the most murderous regimes in the world into the dustbin of history. This is an all-too-common view into how the hatred of Bush and conservatives has warped the moral worldview of liberalism.

As for any purported "lie or exaggeration", if you were truly interested in facts rather than Bush-bashing, you could go back and read (a) what the exact reasons Bush cited for invading Iraq (hint--Google his 2003 State of the Union speech--especially the part about "imminent threat") and (b) Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Chirac, Schroeder and many, many others talk about Iraq's weapons program.

Give up Matt.....JadeGold is a perfect example of someone who has it all worked out in their mind, facts be damed.

When the intelligence units of the UN, Great Britain, France, Germany, and countless other nations all agreed that there WERE weapons, why is it that is now ignored or conveniently forgotten?

And notice how JadeGold thought nothing was accomplished except endangering troops? No mention at all about mass graves, children found in prisons, torture centers, and the other crimes committed.

A typical liberal mind: ignore anything that clashes with you world view, and ridicule anyone who doesn't agree with you.

What a waste.

Mr. Thullen: Since you purport to know what I think, I'll tell you instead of allowing you to create strawmen.

If Bush wanted to make the argument that Saddam had to go because he was a brutal despot---fine. He should have made that argument to the American people.

But he did not. Why? He knew full well the American people wouldn't support that notion. His own advisor, Paul Wolfowitz said:

"'There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there’s the most disagreement within the bureaucracy.'” (9 May 2003)

My emphasis added.

I'd also remind Mr. Thullen that the period of time in Iraq's history when Saddam was most brutal to his people--the US supported him. There's a very famous picture of Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam--remember?

As a matter of fact, when news of the gassing of the Kurds at Halabja began to creep out of Iraq in 1986--the US administration denied it or soft-pedalled it as Iranian propaganda.

Mr. O'Rourke is another great example of a "Catholic" who seem to have "risen above" the need to actually believe the faith in general or the bible in particular.

I am embarrassed to say that I have found more Catholics who are ignorant of what the Church believes and teaches or consider themselves above it.

This abandonment of the tennents of the faith have a lot to do with the Crisis of self-inflicted wounds that the church has recieved lately.

My own pastor is very left wing on the GOP and WMD and there is nothing wrong with that but this does NOT prevent him from knowing, believing and following chruch teaching.

As for Gibson, he can't win for losing, wasn't it just a few months ago that everyone was laughing at the amount of money he was going to lose? This didn't stop him from his vision. Now that the conventional wisdom is wrong we must attack him for making money.

Nothing in my memory has got people talking about Christ as this film has and churchmen are complaining. Amazing!

I see that JG has received the latest talking points memo, calling "The Passion" an ode to sado-masochism, apparently unaware that true SM is supposed to be sexual. I've not heard too many stories of people leaving "The Passion" in some sort of state of arousal, so it would appear that, for JG to be correct, Mel Gibson failed miserably.

I'd also remind Mr. Thullen that the period of time in Iraq's history when Saddam was most brutal to his people--the US supported him.

And I would like to remind you of the following: Russia supplied Iraq with 56% of it's arms, the US - 1%. Man that's some heavy United States support for Saddam.

There's a very famous picture of Donny Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam--remember?

And there's also a very famous picture of Chirac shaking hands with Saddam as well, funny how people like JadeGold never bring that one up.

I think this has been a very interesting couple of weeks. In my mind this movie has done more to emphasize the absolute dychotomy in worldviews in America than any other event in recent memory.

On the one hand Christians who view this film come out moved beyond words. I have a police officer friend who has spent 18 years working gangs and homicides in LA. He usally make other people cry but he blubbered like a baby all the way through the film.

On the otherhand we have the materialist/naturalist of this world like The good Professor and Jade Gold who's comments on this film must be what its like to listen to two 10 year old virgins talk about sex. They just don't quite get it. But they will, seconds before they are plunged into the depth of hell. (There I go again telling people they are going to hell. Geesh, I wish I could write just one post without condeming someone to hell.)

I believe that Mel Gibson was very sincere in putting this movie together. I also believe his singular motivation was to get the dialog going, to get people talking about Jesus in ways they never considered. The fact that it has done as well as it has, In my mind, is testimony to how God must also feel about this film. Remember it wasn't 2 months ago everyone was saying this thing is a turd, it aint going to go anywhere.

Umm, Jade? Have you read the War Resolution?

The Whereas' cover weapons, but:

Can you tell me where exactly they specified them as a reason in the actual authorization from October 2002?

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq'.

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized 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.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001....

Timing is everything.

How utterly messed up does someone's head have to be to equate a terrorist killer with Jesus?

Well, somebody already mentioned it, but it bears repeating... everyone thought this movie would ruin Gibson, and that he was a relgious net. Then, it comes out and makes millions, and suddenly he's a profiteering, false Christian.

I mean, what a wacky idea. Making a movie about the Passion of Jesus. There's no one in America who's interested in stuff like that...

Well, somebody already mentioned it, but it bears repeating... everyone thought this movie would ruin Gibson, and that he was a relgious net. Then, it comes out and makes millions, and suddenly he's a profiteering, false Christian.

I mean, what a wacky idea. Making a movie about the Passion of Jesus. There's no one in America who's interested in stuff like that...

And I would like to remind you of the following: Russia supplied Iraq with 56% of it's arms, the US - 1%. Man that's some heavy United States support for Saddam.

Absolutely--if we're talking solely in terms of hardware.

But if we're talking about the stuff Saddam really wanted, the dual-use technologies -- computers, armored ambulances, helicopters, chemicals, biological agents and the like, with potential civilian uses as well as military applications--he got them from the US.

We also gave Saddam money and ways to channel that cash to arms suppliers.

A good source on this is:

NSA Archives Iraqgate

Further, the CIA clearly facilitated a number of the arms sales from other countries:

Teicher Affadvit

Tell me little Jade, have you even seen the movie that is the topic of this thread? Or do you just attempt to derail every thread since you have to coherant argument against it?

have NO coherant argument. Preview is my friend.

Coherent, Raging David, coherent.

It seems you have no friends.

So you haven't seen the movie then, all you can do is read the DU memos and do your best to attack the movie out of sheer partisan hatred. Bravo.

"rural and church-going"- He forgot easily led. I hope the students are smarter than the "professor".

'How utterly messed up does someone's head have to be to equate a terrorist killer with Jesus?'

the writer is not equating jesus to a terrorist killer. that is clear spin.

he is saying jesus gave up his life for what he thought was good,
and the terrorists gave up their lives for what they THOUGHT was good.

clearly in your view jesus was correct, and the terrorists were wrong. which i am not arguing with.