The Inaugural Purpose

"Some folks have questioned the privately raised $40 million cost of the inaugural ceremonies, but it's a small price to pay to honor our military."

---Some how I feel our troops might have seen this money better spent on other things....say maybe armor for humvees.

http://alternet.org/story/21038/

So many Humvees, so little time.

Can you imagine the goodwill (and the improved legacy) that would have resulted had W. Bush said, "A huge inaugural is such a waste of money that could help the troops. Instead, we're going to ask donors to donate it for armor." Or something like that. That would be character.

'so many humvees..'
right on, ladd, as usual.
bring the troops home. like now.
bring the troops home.

there are finally getting to be lots of calls for bring the troops home , hurray.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0126-17.htm

and for bible scholars out there, and I know there might be some
because I run into them everydamnwhere, , this progressive analysis
of gw's speech is pretty cool (was also on democracynow) -

http://www.progressive.org/webex05/wx012105.html

Remember Vietnam? It's what Sen. Ted Kennedy compares Iraq to. He fails to mention however that his brother is the one who got us in Vietnam in the first place. (To save the French once again) Anyhoo, something people don't like to talk about is the 2 Million Cambodians, not to mention all the S. Vietnamese, who were slaughtered immediately following our withdrawal from Vietnam. If we bring our troops out of Iraq in the same fashion, mass murders and genocide WILL occur. We got ourselves into this mess, now let's be responsible enough to clean it up before we move ALL our troops out. Hopefully troops will start coming home soon... gradually. While a mass withdrawal sounds like a nice idea, it would surely be disasterous.

from the direction of "sunshine" I did give a look to the article posted in the "progressive" magazine. With all due respect, it is an extremely absurd article. The connections made from George W. Bush's to scripture are a stretch to say the least. "good measure" = "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure. . . .î For even the most astute of biblical scholars, i'm not sure if "good measure" is firing off as an allusion. And even if there were subtle allusions to scritpture, why would this necessarily be a bad thing? As for the issue of George W. Bush's faith, why would it be bad for George W. Bush to believe his actions are in line with what God would have him do? Most people think their actions are in line with some "right" standard. Wouldn't it be more dangerous for someone to make decisions based purely upon what they thought. Now perhaps Bush is doing that, that's up to you to decide, but at least can't we say that basing ones actions upon God's will as revealed in scripture something to aim for? (for a case for the ethics of war against terror see "Just war against terror: the burden of american power in a violent world" by Jean Bethke)... also on the issue of money raised for the event. (1) is this amount comporable to most presidential inaugurations? if so, perhaps this is bad, but let's keep our criticisms consistent. (2) if it is more than an average inauguration, then I concede this is surely not desirable.

from the direction of "sunshine" I did give a look to the article posted in the "progressive" magazine. With all due respect, it is an extremely absurd article. The connections made from George W. Bush's to scripture are a stretch to say the least. "good measure" = "Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure. . . .î For even the most astute of biblical scholars, i'm not sure if "good measure" is firing off as an allusion. And even if there were subtle allusions to scritpture, why would this necessarily be a bad thing? As for the issue of George W. Bush's faith, why would it be bad for George W. Bush to believe his actions are in line with what God would have him do? Most people think their actions are in line with some "right" standard. Wouldn't it be more dangerous for someone to make decisions based purely upon what they thought. Now perhaps Bush is doing that, that's up to you to decide, but at least can't we say that basing ones actions upon God's will as revealed in scripture something to aim for? (for a case for the ethics of war against terror see "Just war against terror: the burden of american power in a violent world" by Jean Bethke)... also on the issue of money raised for the event. (1) is this amount comporable to most presidential inaugurations? if so, perhaps this is bad, but let's keep our criticisms consistent. (2) if it is more than an average inauguration, then I concede this is surely not desirable.