Link Webcam Mt St Helens, gonna erupt.

Here is link to the webcam at Mt St Helens.



Webcam Mt St Helens



Likely you've seen in the news that the mountain is quaking with unusual activities and is expected to blow anytime, with alert level raised. It is expected not to look like the eruption of the 1980's, however. Me, I live in Washington, and well know ol' Mt St Helens power. I tip my hat in learned respect to what she can do when she blows her top.



also can see webcam at



http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/

Read more

Where is the Shepherd?

Speaking for the Lost, Shepherding the Lost



This sermon was prepared with anniversary of 9/11 in mind. Also this sermon was filmed by Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Seattle correspondent, Lee Hochberg.



Liturgical Verses for Sept 12, 2004



Exodus 32: 1, 7-14

1 Timothy 1: 12-17

Luke 15: 1-10



May the words of my mouth, and the meditations of my heart be always acceptable in your sight, O Lord, our strength and our Redeemer.



We always begin our sermons with prayer; May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and today I need to repeat this for my own sake, one more time. I look to the Lord to give inspiration and strength to my words today.



Welcome. This is a somewhat unusual Sunday for us at St John's. We have a few more guests and visitors than usual. It is typical for us at St John's to welcome newcomers and I want to do that before I plunge into the sermon. A welcome to Lee Hochberg and the Newshour crew from Seattle. We thank you for being here today. (Intro to the other guests attending by name)



As a kind of explanation, our worship service is liturgical and we follow a liturgical calendar in the selection of the verses that are used each Sunday. There are 3 verses, called the Lesson, the Epistle, and the Gospel, as well as a reading of the Psalms. The sermon then attempts to pull meaning out of the assigned versus and hopefully tie them together to see how they connect.



Sometimes that is not an easy tasking. It always gives me an opportunity to reflect, ponder and deepen my own understanding, deepen my own personal relationship in a spiritual context. Having said all that, let me get started and a tiny warning; my sermons are just about the right length, today's will be a tad bit longer, so patience please...



Today is Sept 12, which means yesterday was Sept 11, the 3rd anniversary of 9/11. This week the fallen soldiers in Iraq exceeded the 1,000 mark and stands at 1,007, the wounded number 7,000 and the civilians - fathers, mothers, and children that are not being numbered - ranges between 10,000 and 30,000. Let's take a moment in silence in honor and rememberance for all who have made sacrifices with their very lives and bodies.



Silence. Amen



Let's look now at today's verses, and we have in Exodus Moses engaging God himself in direct dialogue advocating for the people and asking God to set aside his wrath, his anger, and his plan to destroy the people. We have in the parable as told by Jesus, a shepherd actively seeking out a lamb lost from the herd, finding the lost lamb and restoring it to the whole. There is also rejoicing at the restoration in this parable. We have a second parable that mimics the first with a woman who has a lost coin and actively seeks to find it, rejoicing also upon finding it at the restoration.



We have 3 instances of different people taking Responsibility, Accountability, and Actively taking action steps to advocate, recover, restore and rejoice that their actions brought about a change. I would say the 3 verses have in common these aspects:



-- an awareness of something lost or about to be lost.



-- and upon that awareness or awakened awareness, taking deliberate and immediate actions to intercede.



The shepherd acted to immediately go and seek out the lost lamb. The woman acted immediately to search for the lost coin. Moses acted immediately to attempt to sway God away from a decision of destruction on the people. Moses continued to lay out his arguments until God changed his mind.



The interesting aspect of the story with Moses, is that he had NO need to intercede on behalf of the people, as God had already said to Moses that he was found favorable in God's sight. It seems God was prepared then to make a new nation our of Moses. Yet Moses did take decisive action to Intercede and pleaded for restoration of the whole.



In the Shepherd parable, there are already a number of popular interpretations as to the meanings: the idea of the sacrificial lamb; the idea of compassion in seeking out the lost lamb; the concept of reconciliation and restoration which is a popular theme in our church; or as some see it one must leave the herd to find their own way -- to be found.



A little word play here; the shepherd must leave the herd to find The One. If that were the end of the story, that might be okay, but the story goes on to show the shepherd finding the one lost sheep and returning to restore it to the whole, then rejoicing in the restoration.



I had to think some on what sheep and herding and the role of the shepherd might have mant to this people of ancient times, the ancient tribes. So I asked my husband, Arthur, who spent some time sheep-herding with his grandfather when Arthur was a young boy. I asked him - what does this look like? - you are herding 100 sheep, take a head-count and find you're down one - what do you do?



He explains - you go out immediately and find out what happened to it, see if it is injured, hurt, damaged or caught up in a ravine or brambles and can't navigate. So I asked him - well why would a sheep stray anyway, what would it be looking for? He said - sheep graze and look for food and a sheep might be following a food trail, and not notice the herd has moved on. The sheep might get caught up, injured or have become prey for a predator.



I asked him - well, it's hard to see it in our modern times, you've got 99 left, why not cut your losses, consider it the cost of doing business, or collateral damage. Why did you leave the rest behind to go look for it? He told me - because his grandfather expected it of him and that he would be accountable to his grandfather, not only for it's where-abouts, but also for the amount of energy and the degree of earnestness young Arthur put into searching for the lost lamb.



If his grandfather ascertained that young Arthur had done all within his power to locate and restore the lost lamb, then grandfather would be satisfied it was a job well done. If young Arthur did a lazy or careless job, then grandfather would ascertain that as well.



So I next asked him - well then back there in ancient times, why was sheep-herding and the role of the shepherd important? So much so as to be used in a parable from Jesus. Arthur explains - it is commerce, the livlihood and well-being of the tribe depends on their wealth and prosperity.



I then conclude that a shepherd who does a poor or lazy job then is not likely very respected by the tribe. There is a relationship here in the tribe to the shepherd, the shepherd to the tribe, and the well-being of all depends on the dynamics of this relationship. An inadequate shepherd is quite likely not given charge of too many herds, likely released from his duties as incapable or unable, and quite likely receives some amount of ostracism from the tribe.



He has not failed just for himself, he has let down the tribe and fallen short of expectations. He has damaged the relationship and dynamics that are inter-dependent on each other.



I'm looking now at the parable and seeing that Sacrifice of the One is not the point, rather responsibility and restoration to the whole is the point. I would suggest to you that a good shepherd, let me say that differently, a person good at the job of shepherding does not sacrifice one lamb, does not accept easily the idea of collateral damage, and acts immediately with earnestness and conscientiously to find that which is lost and restore it to the whole.



Bring this forward now to our own century. Look at the different roles our verses show us today; Shepherd, lost ones, Intercessor, Manager of resources. Look at each story and be reminded that in each story the people took immediate action. They did not wait in prayer or meditation and hope God or someone else would take care of it. They acted and acted in accordance with their sense of accountability to the recovery, and restoration of the whole.



As you well know, in my family, we have 2 young men with families of their own deployed to Iraq, where they spent 15 months. You know this because my sermons make reference to it often and frequently. It is my daily experience, it is never out of my thoughts. They are, as of August 2004, now back to their bases in Germany. Two weeks ago we were finally able to deliver my daughter and her 3 children to the airport to, at last, after 18 long months, fly to Germany to be re-united as a family. You know because we have included these ones in our weekly prayers. But let me tell you now, a different side to that story.



Where was their shepherd in all this? Who shepherded the soldiers while they were in danger? And who shepherded their anquished families at home?



Where was their Moses? Moses willing to advocate and argue with God on their behalf ... even though Moses already had a secured position with God.



My daughter lived 18 months alone with 3 children, in a small-town, civilian community just 30 some miles down the road aways from us. She put up her yellow ribbons and the flags in her yard, on her house and it was pretty clear to see this was a family with a loved one deployed. In 18 months not one person in that town reached out to her. In 18 months not one church - and there are a a good number of churches in that community - not one church or church member reached out to her. Where were the shepherds?



In her own family, some of us did shepherd her, reach out to her and too large a number of her family did nothing; did not phone her, did not check in with her to offer up moral support; did not send cards of encouragement... Aunts, uncles, cousins and even some more direct family abandoned her during an incredibly difficult 18 months. Where were the shepherds?



I don't share this to point fingers of blame, or imply a sense of guilting. I am a military family. I speak out in support of the troops by bringing them home and ending this war that we know is a product of lies. I am a mother now who goes to bed each night with a prayer that our loved ones will live though the night and be alive in the morning. My reality is completely altered by the fact of this war, the fact of loved ones deployed, the fact of young mothers (fathers) with children left alone to fend as best they can while each moment they pray their husbands (partners) will live another day. My reality cannot return to a time before deployment, it is irrevocably altered.



I'm not unfamiliar with military life, military code that is to be followed. I am a military brat, raised in military life. I was young wife to Vietnam veteran who did not choose military enlistment but was drafted into it and sent promptly to war. We raised our 3 children in the shadow of Vietnam.



I know from years of exposure that military families are expected to suck it up and respect that soldiers will follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and in public speak respectfully of their duty and their commanders. I know this and I choose to break with that code, question and challenge the value or need of this war, advocate for soldiers and their families who have little room for their own authentic voices.



I break with the long-held military tradtions to instead take action in calling out for recovery of the lost sheep, whom Jesus does not instruct us to sacrifice; in restoration of the lost to the whole. I take pride for just a moment today that not unlike Moses, I follow an example that teaches us to speak out, to advocate with God himself if need be, for the restoration of the whole.



We must act as the shepherd did, we must act as Moses did as we are shown in these verses that we are indeed charged with a responsibility to act once we become aware that something of value is lost, be that life, commerce and prosperity, cultural values, or whole communities of people about to suffer the destruction of wrath, anger .. unchecked.



God is not an angry, vengeful God, and as we interpret biblical scripture, we cheat ourselves if we view it in literal or even linear terms. We choose then the lazy way, we become a lazy shepherd. The bible taken as God's absolute word leads us to a lazy interpretation that quickly begins to sound like rhetoric; easily borrowed to further a personal agenda or even a popular campaign.



One can look at the example in Exodus today of Moses arguing with God. Was that Moses being persuasive, was that God willing to relent or is there a more subtle teaching to be taken? Did God then perhaps test Moses as a shepherd to his chosen people and discerned from Moses outspoken-ness in advocating for the people that, indeed, Moses was competent in his duties as a shepherd?



Remember God had thrown in there that no harm and, in fact, prosperity would come to Moses. Is this God being so disgruntled, so hot with rage as to reach out and destroy his people or is something else with more nuance going on in this story?



We cannot say on one hand, I am a Christian following a Christian path and say on the other hand war is justified. Jesus did not teach war. Rather much the opposite as when his followers and disciples who were seemingly eager and ready to take up arms, Jesus told them No - his and his Father's ways were not the ways of mankind. It begs us to think and consider our own actions with regard to this war.



A silent voice is implied consent.



St John's has reached out to Cambodian and Laotian refugees who came to our community. St John's has reached out to Hispanics who came to our community. As our President has said these are historic times, and perhaps it's time for St John's and all other churches to act historically and reach out to a new set of refugees - our own war-torn military families.



Families who live with the reality of deployment, the returning soldiers who survive the ordeal but will have ongoing new personal battles for themselves and their families. Perhaps it is a historical time to act not unlike Moses did and advocate for all God's people, and plead not for destruction, but for recovery, restoration of the whole.



Perhaps we can act competently as a good shepherd and seek out the lost ones. Perhaps if we do not see ourselves in the role of the shepherd, we can ask, as Moses did , that the shepherd then who Is tending the flock, act in accord as a good shepherd. Competently, and with regard for all the flock he is charged to attend and perhaps we too can ask that wrath, anger and destruction be laid aside that God's people might live and we are all God's people...



Amen





sermon prepared by Lietta Ruger

Sept 12, 2004

Read more

Our interviews by Newshour piece, Military Families speaking out, to air this week.



As you know, we were filmed and interviewed by Lee Hochberg, Seattle correspondent for Newshour with Jim Lehrer. This morning (Monday, Sept 27) Lee phoned me to give update on when this piece will be aired. He said he hopes to see it aired Thursday or Friday evening..this week. Again, as he explains, their morning meetings and news pertinent to the moment decides the basis for what gets aired that evening. Lee says he is aiming for Thursday, and with Presidential debates, he thinks it is more likely it will air Friday.



Newshour with Jim Lehrer is shown on PBS stations, please check the listings in your area. Here also is url for Newshour features http://www.pbs.org/newshour/home.html



The piece Lee has been working on is military families speaking out, as this is a first in history and a new phenomenom, that military families would come together in commonality to speak in support of the troops by speaking out against the war. citing a misguided administration and Commander-in-Chief. Military families have traditionally been taught to "suck it up", support the troops with public statements of committment for whatever combat theatres where their loved ones as soldiers are deployed, and hold their criticisms of administrative policy as private thoughts not shared in public venue.



Newshour decided to learn more about what compels military families with loved ones deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan to break with the traditions of military families and speak out against the war. Lee Hochberg is compiling the piece and I have no way of knowing what the completed piece will look like until we see it aired. Lee included various events and interviews of Military Families Speak Out.



Lee also included filming me at my church giving a sermon that addresses the wrongness of the war and the President's decision to take us into Iraq. He also filmed an interview with both Arthur and me at our home, my views as a military brat, young wife to Vietnam veteran, and mother and aunt to 2 new Iraq veterans; Arthur's views as a Vietnam era veteran speaking out.



We invite you to watch this piece. We hoped to be able to videotape it at home, but aren't set up to do so. If anyone else is able to do so and can videotape it, perhaps provide a copy for us, we would be appreciative. Thank you. I believe, also we can purchase a videotape of the show from Newshour.



Lietta (and Arthur) Ruger



***********************************************************



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ww/jim_lehrer.html



JIM LEHRER

Executive Editor and Anchor



Jim Lehrer was born in Wichita, Kansas, in 1934. He is a graduate of Victoria College in Texas and the University of Missouri. After three years as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps, he worked for ten years in Dallas as a newspaperman and then as the host of a local experimental news program on public television.



He came to Washington with PBS in 1972, teaming with Robert MacNeil in 1973 to cover the Senate Watergate hearings. They began in 1975 what became The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, and, in 1983, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, the first 60-minute evening news program on television. When MacNeil retired in 1995, the program was renamed The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.



Lehrer has been honored with numerous awards for journalism, including a presidential National Humanities Medal in 1999. In the last four presidential elections, he moderated nine of the nationally televised candidate debates. For the 2004 election, Lehrer will moderate the first presidential debate on Sept. 30 in Miami.



"No Certain Rest" is Lehrer's 13th novel; his 14th, "Flying Crows," was published in May 2004. He also has written two memoirs and three plays. He and his novelist wife Kate have three daughters and six grandchildren.



*************************************************

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ww/hochberg.html



LEE HOCHBERG

Correspondent



Based in Seattle and Portland, Lee Hochberg has been a NewsHour correspondent since 1986, covering events in his region. He provided the NewsHour's ongoing coverage of controversies over the northern spotted owl, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. His numerous awards including a Peabody Award for a NewsHour report on dangerous trucking practices. Lee is married, has three children, and lives on Mercer Island in Washington State.



*********************************************************************



To find what channel in your geographical area the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer is shown, try this url http://www.pbs.org/search/search_programsaz.html



***********To subscribe to Online NewsHour Select, a service that delivers highlights of this Web site to you via e-mail, click here. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/subscriptions.html



**********Transcript provided by and Videos available from:

Strictly Business

P.O. Box 12803

Overland Park, Kansas 66212

(866) 678-NEWS (6397)

Read more

Our interviews by Newshour piece to air this week

Our interviews by Newshour piece, Military Families speaking out, to air this week.



As you know, we were filmed and interviewed by Lee Hochberg, Seattle correspondent for Newshour with Jim Lehrer. This morning (Monday, Sept 27) Lee phoned me to give update on when this piece will be aired. He said he hopes to see it aired Thursday or Friday evening..this week. Again, as he explains, their morning meetings and news pertinent to the moment decides the basis for what gets aired that evening. Lee says he is aiming for Thursday, and with Presidential debates, he thinks it is more likely it will air Friday.



Newshour with Jim Lehrer is shown on PBS stations, please check the listings in your area. Here also is url for Newshour features http://www.pbs.org/newshour/home.html



The piece Lee has been working on is military families speaking out, as this is a first in history and a new phenomenom, that military families would come together in commonality to speak in support of the troops by speaking out against the war. citing a misguided administration and Commander-in-Chief. Military families have traditionally been taught to "suck it up", support the troops with public statements of committment for whatever combat theatres where their loved ones as soldiers are deployed, and hold their criticisms of administrative policy as private thoughts not shared in public venue.



Newshour decided to learn more about what compels military families with loved ones deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan to break with the traditions of military families and speak out against the war. Lee Hochberg is compiling the piece and I have no way of knowing what the completed piece will look like until we see it aired. Lee included various events and interviews of Military Families Speak Out.



Lee also included filming me at my church giving a sermon that addresses the wrongness of the war and the President's decision to take us into Iraq. He also filmed an interview with both Arthur and me at our home, my views as a military brat, young wife to Vietnam veteran, and mother and aunt to 2 new Iraq veterans; Arthur's views as a Vietnam era veteran speaking out.



We invite you to watch this piece. We hoped to be able to videotape it at home, but aren't set up to do so. If anyone else is able to do so and can videotape it, perhaps provide a copy for us, we would be appreciative. Thank you. I believe, also we can purchase a videotape of the show from Newshour.



Lietta (and Arthur) Ruger



***********************************************************





http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ww/jim_lehrer.html



JIM LEHRER

Executive Editor and Anchor



Jim Lehrer was born in Wichita, Kansas, in 1934. He is a graduate of Victoria College in Texas and the University of Missouri. After three years as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps, he worked for ten years in Dallas as a newspaperman and then as the host of a local experimental news program on public television.



He came to Washington with PBS in 1972, teaming with Robert MacNeil in 1973 to cover the Senate Watergate hearings. They began in 1975 what became The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, and, in 1983, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, the first 60-minute evening news program on television. When MacNeil retired in 1995, the program was renamed The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.



Lehrer has been honored with numerous awards for journalism, including a presidential National Humanities Medal in 1999. In the last four presidential elections, he moderated nine of the nationally televised candidate debates. For the 2004 election, Lehrer will moderate the first presidential debate on Sept. 30 in Miami.



"No Certain Rest" is Lehrer's 13th novel; his 14th, "Flying Crows," was published in May 2004. He also has written two memoirs and three plays. He and his novelist wife Kate have three daughters and six grandchildren.



*************************************************



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ww/hochberg.html



LEE HOCHBERG

Correspondent



Based in Seattle and Portland, Lee Hochberg has been a NewsHour correspondent since 1986, covering events in his region. He provided the NewsHour's ongoing coverage of controversies over the northern spotted owl, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. His numerous awards including a Peabody Award for a NewsHour report on dangerous trucking practices. Lee is married, has three children, and lives on Mercer Island in Washington State.

***********************************************************



**********To find what channel in your geographical area the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer is shown, try this url http://www.pbs.org/search/search_programsaz.html







***********To subscribe to Online NewsHour Select, a service that delivers highlights of this Web site to you via e-mail, click here. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/subscriptions.html







**********Transcript provided by andVideos available from:

Strictly Business

P.O. Box 12803

Overland Park, Kansas 66212

(866) 678-NEWS (6397)

Read more

Where is the Shepherd?

Speaking for the Lost, Shepherding the Lost





This sermon was prepared with anniversary of 9/11 in mind. Also this sermon was filmed by Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Seattle correspondent, Lee Hochberg.



Liturgical Verses for Sept 12, 2004



Exodus 32: 1, 7-14

1 Timothy 1: 12-17

Luke 15: 1-10



May the words of my mouth, and the meditations of my heart be always acceptable in your sight, O Lord, our strength and our Redeemer.



We always begin our sermons with prayer; May the words of my mouth and the meditations of my heart be acceptable and today I need to repeat this for my own sake, one more time. I look to the Lord to give inspiration and strength to my words today.



Welcome. This is a somewhat unusual Sunday for us at St John's. We have a few more guests and visitors than usual. It is typical for us at St John's to welcome newcomers and I want to do that before I plunge into the sermon. A welcome to Lee Hochberg and the Newshour crew from Seattle. We thank you for being here today. (Intro to the other guests attending by name)



As a kind of explanation, our worship service is liturgical and we follow a liturgical calendar in the selection of the verses that are used each Sunday. There are 3 verses, called the Lesson, the Epistle, and the Gospel, as well as a reading of the Psalms. The sermon then attempts to pull meaning out of the assigned versus and hopefully tie them together to see how they connect.



Sometimes that is not an easy tasking. It always gives me an opportunity to reflect, ponder and deepen my own understanding, deepen my own personal relationship in a spiritual context. Having said all that, let me get started and a tiny warning; my sermons are just about the right length, today's will be a tad bit longer, so patience please...



Today is Sept 12, which means yesterday was Sept 11, the 3rd anniversary of 9/11. This week the fallen soldiers in Iraq exceeded the 1,000 mark and stands at 1,007, the wounded number 7,000 and the civilians - fathers, mothers, and children that are not being numbered - ranges between 10,000 and 30,000. Let's take a moment in silence in honor and rememberance for all who have made sacrifices with their very lives and bodies.



Silence. Amen



Let's look now at today's verses, and we have in Exodus Moses engaging God himself in direct dialogue advocating for the people and asking God to set aside his wrath, his anger, and his plan to destroy the people. We have in the parable as told by Jesus, a shepherd actively seeking out a lamb lost from the herd, finding the lost lamb and restoring it to the whole. There is also rejoicing at the restoration in this parable. We have a second parable that mimics the first with a woman who has a lost coin and actively seeks to find it, rejoicing also upon finding it at the restoration.



We have 3 instances of different people taking Responsibility, Accountability, and Actively taking action steps to advocate, recover, restore and rejoice that their actions brought about a change. I would say the 3 verses have in common these aspects:



-- an awareness of something lost or about to be lost.



-- and upon that awareness or awakened awareness, taking deliberate and immediate actions to intercede.



The shepherd acted to immediately go and seek out the lost lamb. The woman acted immediately to search for the lost coin. Moses acted immediately to attempt to sway God away from a decision of destruction on the people. Moses continued to lay out his arguments until God changed his mind.



The interesting aspect of the story with Moses, is that he had NO need to intercede on behalf of the people, as God had already said to Moses that he was found favorable in God's sight. It seems God was prepared then to make a new nation our of Moses. Yet Moses did take decisive action to Intercede and pleaded for restoration of the whole.



In the Shepherd parable, there are already a number of popular interpretations as to the meanings: the idea of the sacrificial lamb; the idea of compassion in seeking out the lost lamb; the concept of reconciliation and restoration which is a popular theme in our church; or as some see it one must leave the herd to find their own way -- to be found.



A little word play here; the shepherd must leave the herd to find The One. If that were the end of the story, that might be okay, but the story goes on to show the shepherd finding the one lost sheep and returning to restore it to the whole, then rejoicing in the restoration.



I had to think some on what sheep and herding and the role of the shepherd might have mant to this people of ancient times, the ancient tribes. So I asked my husband, Arthur, who spent some time sheep-herding with his grandfather when Arthur was a young boy. I asked him - what does this look like? - you are herding 100 sheep, take a head-count and find you're down one - what do you do?



He explains - you go out immediately and find out what happened to it, see if it is injured, hurt, damaged or caught up in a ravine or brambles and can't navigate. So I asked him - well why would a sheep stray anyway, what would it be looking for? He said - sheep graze and look for food and a sheep might be following a food trail, and not notice the herd has moved on. The sheep might get caught up, injured or have become prey for a predator.



I asked him - well, it's hard to see it in our modern times, you've got 99 left, why not cut your losses, consider it the cost of doing business, or collateral damage. Why did you leave the rest behind to go look for it? He told me - because his grandfather expected it of him and that he would be accountable to his grandfather, not only for it's where-abouts, but also for the amount of energy and the degree of earnestness young Arthur put into searching for the lost lamb.



If his grandfather ascertained that young Arthur had done all within his power to locate and restore the lost lamb, then grandfather would be satisfied it was a job well done. If young Arthur did a lazy or careless job, then grandfather would ascertain that as well.



So I next asked him - well then back there in ancient times, why was sheep-herding and the role of the shepherd important? So much so as to be used in a parable from Jesus. Arthur explains - it is commerce, the livlihood and well-being of the tribe depends on their wealth and prosperity.



I then conclude that a shepherd who does a poor or lazy job then is not likely very respected by the tribe. There is a relationship here in the tribe to the shepherd, the shepherd to the tribe, and the well-being of all depends on the dynamics of this relationship. An inadequate shepherd is quite likely not given charge of too many herds, likely released from his duties as incapable or unable, and quite likely receives some amount of ostracism from the tribe.



He has not failed just for himself, he has let down the tribe and fallen short of expectations. He has damaged the relationship and dynamics that are inter-dependent on each other.



I'm looking now at the parable and seeing that Sacrifice of the One is not the point, rather responsibility and restoration to the whole is the point. I would suggest to you that a good shepherd, let me say that differently, a person good at the job of shepherding does not sacrifice one lamb, does not accept easily the idea of collateral damage, and acts immediately with earnestness and conscientiously to find that which is lost and restore it to the whole.



Bring this forward now to our own century. Look at the different roles our verses show us today; Shepherd, lost ones, Intercessor, Manager of resources. Look at each story and be reminded that in each story the people took immediate action. They did not wait in prayer or meditation and hope God or someone else would take care of it. They acted and acted in accordance with their sense of accountability to the recovery, and restoration of the whole.



As you well know, in my family, we have 2 young men with families of their own deployed to Iraq, where they spent 15 months. You know this because my sermons make reference to it often and frequently. It is my daily experience, it is never out of my thoughts. They are, as of August 2004, now back to their bases in Germany. Two weeks ago we were finally able to deliver my daughter and her 3 children to the airport to, at last, after 18 long months, fly to Germany to be re-united as a family. You know because we have included these ones in our weekly prayers. But let me tell you now, a different side to that story.



Where was their shepherd in all this? Who shepherded the soldiers while they were in danger? And who shepherded their anquished families at home?



Where was their Moses? Moses willing to advocate and argue with God on their behalf ... even though Moses already had a secured position with God.



My daughter lived 18 months alone with 3 children, in a small-town, civilian community just 30 some miles down the road aways from us. She put up her yellow ribbons and the flags in her yard, on her house and it was pretty clear to see this was a family with a loved one deployed. In 18 months not one person in that town reached out to her. In 18 months not one church - and there are a a good number of churches in that community - not one church or church member reached out to her. Where were the shepherds?



In her own family, some of us did shepherd her, reach out to her and too large a number of her family did nothing; did not phone her, did not check in with her to offer up moral support; did not send cards of encouragement... Aunts, uncles, cousins and even some more direct family abandoned her during an incredibly difficult 18 months. Where were the shepherds?



I don't share this to point fingers of blame, or imply a sense of guilting. I am a military family. I speak out in support of the troops by bringing them home and ending this war that we know is a product of lies. I am a mother now who goes to bed each night with a prayer that our loved ones will live though the night and be alive in the morning. My reality is completely altered by the fact of this war, the fact of loved ones deployed, the fact of young mothers (fathers) with children left alone to fend as best they can while each moment they pray their husbands (partners) will live another day. My reality cannot return to a time before deployment, it is irrevocably altered.



I'm not unfamiliar with military life, military code that is to be followed. I am a military brat, raised in military life. I was young wife to Vietnam veteran who did not choose military enlistment but was drafted into it and sent promptly to war. We raised our 3 children in the shadow of Vietnam.



I know from years of exposure that military families are expected to suck it up and respect that soldiers will follow the orders of the Commander-in-Chief and in public speak respectfully of their duty and their commanders. I know this and I choose to break with that code, question and challenge the value or need of this war, advocate for soldiers and their families who have little room for their own authentic voices.



I break with the long-held military tradtions to instead take action in calling out for recovery of the lost sheep, whom Jesus does not instruct us to sacrifice; in restoration of the lost to the whole. I take pride for just a moment today that not unlike Moses, I follow an example that teaches us to speak out, to advocate with God himself if need be, for the restoration of the whole.



We must act as the shepherd did, we must act as Moses did as we are shown in these verses that we are indeed charged with a responsibility to act once we become aware that something of value is lost, be that life, commerce and prosperity, cultural values, or whole communities of people about to suffer the destruction of wrath, anger .. unchecked.



God is not an angry, vengeful God, and as we interpret biblical scripture, we cheat ourselves if we view it in literal or even linear terms. We choose then the lazy way, we become a lazy shepherd. The bible taken as God's absolute word leads us to a lazy interpretation that quickly begins to sound like rhetoric; easily borrowed to further a personal agenda or even a popular campaign.



One can look at the example in Exodus today of Moses arguing with God. Was that Moses being persuasive, was that God willing to relent or is there a more subtle teaching to be taken? Did God then perhaps test Moses as a shepherd to his chosen people and discerned from Moses outspoken-ness in advocating for the people that, indeed, Moses was competent in his duties as a shepherd?



Remember God had thrown in there that no harm and, in fact, prosperity would come to Moses. Is this God being so disgruntled, so hot with rage as to reach out and destroy his people or is something else with more nuance going on in this story?



We cannot say on one hand, I am a Christian following a Christian path and say on the other hand war is justified. Jesus did not teach war. Rather much the opposite as when his followers and disciples who were seemingly eager and ready to take up arms, Jesus told them No - his and his Father's ways were not the ways of mankind. It begs us to think and consider our own actions with regard to this war.



A silent voice is implied consent.



St John's has reached out to Cambodian and Laotian refugees who came to our community. St John's has reached out to Hispanics who came to our community. As our President has said these are historic times, and perhaps it's time for St John's and all other churches to act historically and reach out to a new set of refugees - our own war-torn military families.



Families who live with the reality of deployment, the returning soldiers who survive the ordeal but will have ongoing new personal battles for themselves and their families. Perhaps it is a historical time to act not unlike Moses did and advocate for all God's people, and plead not for destruction, but for recovery, restoration of the whole.



Perhaps we can act competently as a good shepherd and seek out the lost ones. Perhaps if we do not see ourselves in the role of the shepherd, we can ask, as Moses did , that the shepherd then who Is tending the flock, act in accord as a good shepherd. Competently, and with regard for all the flock he is charged to attend and perhaps we too can ask that wrath, anger and destruction be laid aside that God's people might live and we are all God's people...



Amen





sermon prepared by Lietta Ruger

Sept 12, 2004

Read more

Arlington West Memorial at Santa Monica Beach,
Santa Monica, California

Each and every Sunday since February 15th 2004, this memorial is set up on the sand just north of the pier at Santa Monica Beach.
http://www.addictedtowar.com/mfso.htm
 

Read more

Arlington West Memorial at Santa Monica Beach,
Santa Monica, California

Each and every Sunday since February 15th 2004, this memorial is set up on the sand just north of the pier at Santa Monica Beach.
http://www.addictedtowar.com/mfso.htm 

Read more

A Key Question from a Slain GI's Mother

by Jimmy Breslin



Sue Niederer was standing in the middle of the large audience in the Colonial Volunteer Fire Company house in Hopewell Township, N.J. She was looking up at Laura Bush, who was speaking sweetly to the audience.



Sue wore her new T-shirt, "George Bush You Killed My Son." On January 17, she stood in the Baltimore airport with her son, Army 1st Lt. Seth Dvorin, 24, who was boarding a flight to Iraq. She remembers saying to him, "Do you want to go?" And he said, "No, Mom, I don't want to go back."



"Come on," she said. She said that she would take him anywhere. He said, no, he had 18 men to watch over. So he kissed her and boarded the plane. A month later, Army people came to her house in Pennington, N.J., to tell her he was dead.



"George Bush killed my son," she said.



see rest of the article at

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0919-02.htm



This leaves you with Montaigne, whose words speak for the dead listed below:



"If we recognized the horror and the gravity of lying, we would persecute it with fire more justly than other crimes."



The names are an indictment of a government that put them into Iraq on a cold premeditated lie. The dead American servicemen of just the last several days - maybe you ought to get the number from information and give them a call to let them know that people love them:



Army Spc. Edgar P. Daclan Jr., 24, lst Battalion, 18th Infantry Division, Schweinfurt, Germany. Killed by an explosion Sept. 10 in Balad. Home: Cypress, Calif.



Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class David A. Cedergren, 25, 2nd Marine Division, Fleet Marine Forces Atlantic. Killed Sept. 11 near Iskandariyah. Home: South St. Paul, Minn.



Marine Pfc. Jason T. Poindexter, 20, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment lst Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Killed Sept. 12 in Anbar province. Home: San Angelo, Texas.



Marine lst. Lt. Alexander E. Wetherbee, 27, 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, lst Marine Division, lst Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died Sept. 12 in Anbar province. Home: Fairfax, Va.



Maine Lance Cpl. Dominic C. Brown, 19, Headquarters Battalion, lst Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died in Anbar Province. Home: Austin, Texas.



Marine Lance Cpl. Cesar F. Machado-Olmos, 2nd Combat Engineer Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died in vehicle accident in Anbar Province. Home: Spanish Fork, Utah.



Marine Lance Cpl. Michael J. Halal, 22, 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment 2nd Marine Division, 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Lejeune, N.C. Died Sept. 13 in Anbar province. Home: Glendale, Ariz.



Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew D. Puckett, 19, 3rd Assault Amphibious Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Died Sept. 13 due to enemy action in Al Anbar province. Home: Mason, Texas.



Army Staff Sgt. Guy S. Hagy, Jr., 31, 1st Battalion, 12 Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas. Killed by explosive Sept. 13. in Baghdad. Home: Lodi, Calif.



Army Sgt. Carl Thomas, 29, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Lewis, Wash. Killed by explosive Sept. 13 in Baghdad. Home: Phoenix.



Sgt. Jacob S. Demand, 29, 1st Squadron, 14th Cavalry Regiment, Fort Lewis, Wash. Killed Sept. 13 in Mosul when convoy attacked. Home: Palouse, Wash.



Staff Sgt. David J. Weisenburg, 26, National Guard 2nd Battalion, 162nd Infantry, Corvallis, Ore. Killed Sept. 13 after vehicle attack in Taji, north of Baghdad. Home: Portland, Ore.



Spc. Benjamin W. Isenberg, 27. National Guard 2nd Battalion, 162 Infantry, Corvallis, Ore. Killed Sept. 13 after vehicle attacked at Taji, north of Baghdad. Home, Sheridan, Ore.



Cpl. Adrian V. Soltau, 21, 3rd Assault Amphibian Battalion, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Killed due to enemy action in Anbar Province. Home: Milwaukee.



Maj. Kenneth M. Shea, 35, (died on birthday) 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif. Home: District of Columbia.



Also:

Marine Corps Cpl. JayGee Ngirmidol Meluat died Sept. 14. Home: Guam.



Marine Drew Uhles, 20, died Sept. 15 in field hospital in northern Iraq. He had been assigned to an area between Husaybah and Al Qaim, along Syrian border. Home: DuQuoin, Ill.

Read more

Britain to Cut Troop Levels in Iraq

Britain to Cut Troop Levels in Iraq

By Jason Burke The Observer U.K.

Sunday 19 September 2004



The British Army is to start pulling troops out of Iraq next month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, The Observer has learnt.



The main British combat force in Iraq, about 5,000-strong, will be reduced by around a third by the end of October during a routine rotation of units.



The news came amid another day of mayhem in Iraq, which saw a suicide bomber kill at least 23 people and injure 53 in the northern city of Kirkuk. The victims were queuing to join Iraq's National Guard.



More than 200 people were killed last week in one of the bloodiest weeks since last year's invasion, strengthening impressions that the country is spinning out of control.



Yesterday grim footage apparently showing a British engineer kidnapped from a house in Baghdad last week along with two American colleagues surfaced in a video released in the Iraqi capital. The group holding the three threatened to execute them unless Iraqi women prisoners are released from jail.



And last night it was reported that 10 more staff working for an American-Turkish company had been seized as hostages.



There are now fears that scheduled Iraqi elections in January will have to be delayed because of the growing instability.



Last week Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, said that more troops could be sent to safeguard the polls if necessary, although Whitehall sources said there was no guarantee that they would be British.



The forthcoming 'drawdown' of British troops in Basra has not been made public and is likely to provoke consternation in both Washington and Baghdad. Many in Iraq argue that more, not fewer, troops are needed. Last week British troops in Basra fought fierce battles with Shia militia groups.



The reduction will take place when the First Mechanised Infantry Brigade is replaced by the Fourth Armoured Division, now based in Germany, in a routine rotation over the next few weeks.



Troop numbers are being finalised, but, military sources in Iraq and in Whitehall say, they are likely to be 'substantially less' than the current total in Basra: the new combat brigade will have five or even four battle groups, against its current strength of six battle groups of around 800 men.



A military spokesman in Basra confirmed the scaling back of the British commitment.



Currently there are 8,000 British troops in the 14,000-strong 'multinational division' in southern Iraq, which has responsibility for about 4.5 million people.



The cuts will occur in the combat elements of the deployment - the 5,000-strong infantry and armoured brigade that is committed to the provinces of Basra and Maysan. Four Royal Navy ships will remain in the Gulf.



However, the incoming force will leave its heavy armour, mainly Challenger tanks, behind, but will be equipped with a unit of Warrior armoured troop carriers.



Senior officers say the scaling back of the British commitment in Iraq is a sign of their success in keeping order and helping reconstruction. But both Basra and Maysan have seen heavy combat recently, with some units sustaining up to 35 per cent casualties, and remains restive. The al-Mahdi army, which was responsible for most of the fighting, remains heavily armed.



'Whatever they say, fewer troops mean less capability,' a military expert told The Observer . 'You need as many boots on the ground as you can get for low-intensity warfare and peace-keeping operations.'



Iyad Allawi, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, will hold talks with Tony Blair at Chequers tomorrow on security issues, including elections and the strengthening of border patrols.



News of the troop withdrawal comes at a difficult time for Blair, with the publication yesterday of leaked documents suggesting that he was warned a year before the invasion that it could prompt a meltdown.



However Tessa Jowell, the Culture Secretary and a close ally of Blair, told The Observer that the Prime Minister still believed that Britain's actions would be justified by the restoration of democracy 'however difficult and remote a prospect that seems at the moment, when our headlines are crowded with further attacks by the insurgents'.



In another embarrassment for the Prime Minister, a draft report from the Iraqi Survey Group, set up to investigate Saddam Hussein's weapons programme, has concluded that the former dictator's only chemical or biological armament was a small amount of poison for use in political killings.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/092004C.shtml

Read more

Report: U.S. May Run Out of Guard and

Report: US May Run Out of Guard and Reserve Troops for War on Terrorism



Agence France Presse

Wednesday 15 September 2004



WASHINGTON - The US military may run out of national guard and reserve troops for the war on terrorism because of existing limits on involuntary mobilizations, a congressional watchdog agency warned in a report.



Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the government has considered changing the policy to make members of the 1.2 million-strong guard and reserve subject to repeated involuntary mobilization so long as no single mobilization exceeds 24 consecutive months.



In commenting on the report, however, the Department of Defense (DOD) said it planned to keep its current approach.



"Under DOD's current implementation of the authority, reserve component members can be involuntarily mobilized more than once, but involuntary mobilizations are limited to a cumulative total of 24 months," the report said.



"If DOD's implementation of the partial mobilization authority restricts the cumulative time that reserve component forces can be mobilized, then it is possible that DOD will run out of forces," the report said.



The guard and reserves are crucial to the US war effort because they include specialized units such as military police, intelligence and civil affairs that are in high demand but short supply in the active duty force.



The Pentagon also has turned to guard and reserve to ease the strain on active duty infantry divisions that have had to deploy repeatedly to Iraq.



More than 47,600 members of the guard and reserve were serving in Iraq as of August 1, about a third of the 140,000-member US force there. When those who are deployed in Afghanistan and rear areas are added, the total is in excess of 66,000, according to Pentagon figures.



Since September 11, 2003, more than 335,000 guard and reserves have been involuntarily mobilized for active duty -- 234,000 from the army alone, according to the report.



"The Department of Defense cannot currently meet its global commitments without sizeable participation from its national guard and reserve members," the GAO said in a cover letter to the report.



The GAO said the Pentagon has projected it will continuously have about 100,000 to 150,000 reserve members mobilized over the next three to five years.



The Pentagon considered increasing the pool of available guard and reserve troops by changing its mobilization policy.



"Under such a revised implementation, DOD could have mobilized its reserve component forces for less than 24 consecutive months, sent them home for an unspecified period and then remobilized them, repeating this cycle indefinitely and providing an essentially unlimited flow of forces," the report said.



Piecemeal policy changes already undertaken to increase the pool of available guard and reserve troops have created uncertainties among reservists that could affect retention, recruitment and the long-term viability of the reserves, the report noted.



"There are already indications that some portions of the force are being stressed," it said.



The army national guard, for instance, has failed to meet recruiting goals in 14 of 20 months from October 2002 through May 2004, the report said. It was 7,800 soldiers below its recruiting goal at the end of fiscal 2003.



http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704W.shtml

Read more

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/veterans_9-16.html



VETERANS' VIEWS

a Newshour with Jim Lehrer transcript from airing Sept 16, 2004



September 16, 2004 Many U.S. troops who served in Iraq have returned home to join the campaign fight for either President Bush or Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. Margaret Warner speaks with two Iraq war veterans about which candidate would make a better commander in chief.



MARGARET WARNER: We get those two views from two officers who saw duty in Iraq last year.



Stan Coerr, a major in the marine reserves, was called to active duty last year. He fought in Iraq from March to May of 2003. He's now San Diego co-chair of California Republican Veterans of America.



And Jon Soltz was an army captain who served in Iraq during the occupation, from May to September of 2003. He is now a graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh. He's also Pennsylvania state co- coordinator for the group Veterans for Kerry.



And gentlemen, welcome to you both.



Jon Soltz, let me begin with you. Why are you supporting John Kerry for president?



JON SOLTZ: Well, John Kerry's the only one of the two candidates running for president who understands my war, the war I fought in Iraq, who understands what it's like to be far from your family in a war that... let's be honest, the truth has not been told. John Kerry's the only one of the two candidates who has the ability to put our direction on course.



He's the man who has the leadership and the character that we need. I want a commander-in-chief who knows what it's like to be in combat like I was, who knows what it's like to be far from your family and probably tell them things are okay when they're actually not, and he's the man who since he... I've come back with my experiences outlayed a plan to give us peace in Iraq... or a better opportunity for that.



MARGARET WARNER: All right. And Stan Coerr, you've reached the opposite conclusion. Why?



STAN COERR: I have. Margaret, I went to several different events, including California Veterans for Bush and California Veterans for Kerry.

I wanted to give each man a chance to prove to me he had what it took to lead this country as we head into a further asymmetrical world of the terrorist threat. And what I found was that John Kerry, in my opinion, is someone who needs to be president, not someone who wants to be president.



And that kind of person concerns me very much. I think George Bush has been resolute in his decisions about terrorism, in his decisions about what to do in Iraq and where to go from here. I feel that he will not waiver.

He's made it very clear that he will stay the course until we get the job done we need to have done, and I think the families of those men and women who have been killed in Iraq are deserving of the honor of having the job done properly and finishing what we started before we bring our troops home.



MARGARET WARNER: So you agree, in other words, with the president when he basically implies that John Kerry would waiver in this war on terror and in Iraq?



STAN COERR: Well, I'm not really sure what John Kerry would do, because it's very difficult to pin him down on what he actually believes.

I think all of us can agree that John Kerry served honorably and well in Vietnam. I think that the fact that he volunteered and then volunteered again for a very dangerous duty is commendable. And I think that his heroism is unquestioned.



What I do think is that his public service did not end in 1971. I think that his record in the Senate deserves some scrutiny, and I am questioning what he actually believes.



He has gone back and forth as to whether he supports the war or not, whether he supports a president who acts unilaterally or not. It's difficult to pin him down, and in his speech today at the convention, he made it even more muddled as to what he would actually do as opposed to just saying he's against whatever George Bush is doing.



Debating the war



MARGARET WARNER: All right, Jon Soltz, what would John Kerry actually do, other than criticize what the president's done?



JON SOLTZ: Well, I mean, the first thing we need to note here is that the president is a failed commander- in-chief. President Bush sent soldiers like me to die for weapons that we can't find.



If that doesn't prove that he's failed his last four years as president, frankly, I'm not sure what does. Sen. Kerry is the only one of the two candidates who has the credibility to bring allies to our side.



Our force levels in Iraq are so high that soldiers like myself, who spent, you know, an entire year... or some of them have spent entire years in Iraq, have come home for a year, and are now going back. 43 percent of Operation Iraqi Freedom Three is going to be guard and reserve forces.



This president has broken this military. And John Kerry's the only one of the two who's given us any alternatives or any possibility of hope. He's the one who supports increasing the size of the army by 40,000 soldiers, not President Bush.



He's the one who has the credibility to go back to the world, because let's be honest, the world isn't against the United States; they're against our president.



And I'll tell you what, going it alone hurt soldiers like me. Going it alone burdened our American army to a point where we've had to back draft people in our military.



I went to war because of this backdoor draft. Even though my time was up, I still went, and I did my duty. But the American public has a right to know the truth about this war.



We can talk all day long about what Sen. Kerry said at the National Guard today, but, you know what, he leveled with the national guardsmen. He didn't make any crazy attempts to link al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein. He leveled with the soldiers and said, "you know, you guys are fighting hard."



And I'm going to be honest with you, President Bush continues to mislead our country about the direction of our war. And he hasn't even... this is a guy... this is a president who will not even support mandatory funding for our health care.



It was a dark day for me when I had to return home from the war in Iraq, have some bad dreams, go to my veterans hospital only to find out that the same man who sent me to war has turned his back on me when I came home, and decided that he was going to close our veterans hospital here in Pittsburgh on Highland Drive.



He's turned his back on his veterans and he's led our country in the wrong direction in Iraq.



MARGARET WARNER: All right, let me...



JON SOLTZ: There's only one course you can take, and that's a new direction. Staying the course in Iraq



MARGARET WARNER: Let me get Stan Coerr's view on both of those. First of all, Stan Coerr, a big part of -- I don't know if you heard -- Sen. Kerry's speech today was that the president not only didn't level on why we went into war, but what he was saying today is he isn't leveling today about how bad things are.



I mean, the president said two days ago, "our strategy is working in Iraq, is succeeding in Iraq," and John Kerry said today, "look, Iraq is in serious trouble and the president hasn't told the American people the truth." What is your view of what's happening in Iraq, and is the administration a, leveling, and, b, have a plan to stabilize it?



STAN COERR: Margaret, I think as in most political situations, I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, between what Sen. Kerry is saying and what President Bush is saying.



I don't think all is bread and roses in Iraq. I would be naive to believe that things are going peacefully and beautifully everywhere American soldiers and marines have their boots on the ground.



However, I don't think it's completely coming unraveled either, as John Kerry wants us all to believe right up to the day that he stands for election this November.



MARGARET WARNER: All right, and what about...



STAN COERR: I can...



MARGARET WARNER: Let me ask about the second... oh, go ahead. Did you want to say more on that?



STAN COERR: Yes, ma'am. What I was going to say was that the question of internationalizing this situation, making it more multinational, I think has been answered.



I know this personally because when I was in the war, I was there with the British army, as a liaison officer between the U.S. Marines and British army forces. I also dealt with soldiers of many different countries, including some of the royal Ghurka rifles from Nepal. We now have 30 different nations represented there.



Now they're not in large numbers, and we all understand that. There are two multinational divisions in the southern part of country, one led by the British and one led by the Poles.



And we don't have as multinational a cast on this event as we did in Desert Storm, but I think it shows how resolute this leader is that he nonetheless is willing to put his reputation, his administration on the line, as is Tony Blair and to get the job done properly. How the war has shaped political views



MARGARET WARNER: Jon Soltz, a big point of disagreement between the two is whether the war was properly planned for and whether the troops on the ground have what they need now, have and had and still have what they need now.



What was your experience on the ground there? And I realize you came home last fall, but...



JON SOLTZ: My experience on the ground was that, you know, we had a president who, prior to 9/11, his policies in Europe going against the Kyoto Accords, and deciding he wanted to build super-duper missile defense systems, had no credibility to build a coalition, spent our defense money on, you know, things like missile systems when we needed body armor and tanks.



My unit did not have body armor when we went to Iraq. When we got on the ground, I went from Kuwait to Baghdad in a convoy. Baghdad's very different from the southern part of the country where there's a British contingent.



Baghdad has lost... we've lost more American soldiers in Baghdad than any other place. That's why we're footing 90 percent of the bill for the war and 90 percent of the casualties.



And when we went to Baghdad, I heard my president tell our country that our mission was accomplished, and that same night I had two RPG's flung at my convoy and one of my trucks blown up. He clearly wasn't leveling with the American public. And then when I was in Baghdad, we started losing soldiers every day.



Every day we went out, there was combat. And when one of my soldiers died, I had to hear my commander-in-chief so eloquently entice my enemy with, "Bring it on," a deep sorrow day for me as an officer inside Iraq. Differing opinions on Sen. Kerry's service



MARGARET WARNER: Let me finish up by asking you, Stan Coerr, on this question of both men, both candidates this week made promises and pledges about what they would do for veterans, what they would do for active duty and reserves to ease the strain of all these deployments.



You're out there talking to veterans and military personnel now in advance of the election.



How in general do those promises and pledges resonate? Do veterans and military personnel feel more needs to be done? Is John Kerry making any inroads there?



STAN COERR: Margaret, John Kerry's not making inroads. And let me tell you why. I think most veterans, as I said before, along with the American people, honor what John Kerry did in Vietnam.



What they are unhappy about is what he did when he returned home, using Vietnam as sort of a springboard to political office. His testimony, which we've all seen on television before the Senate, about what he thought about the war, leading an anti- war effort.



I spoke several weeks ago at a convention here in Southern California alongside a retired three-star navy admiral who had been held prisoner in North Vietnam and said that he personally was tortured because of the comments John Kerry made, and the feeling among those being held was John Kerry has left us behind, he's abandoned us. Now, let me move back to the present time.



What I always hear from the Kerry people, and sometimes from Kerry himself, is two sides to the same coin. The first thing I hear is, "we're spending far too much money." There's far too much of our treasuries being looted for this war halfway around the world. The other thing I hear is, "we're not spending enough money. Why don't we have enough body armor? Why aren't we giving more money to our troops?"



I think because of that sort of back-and-forth that Kerry is trying to have both ways, I think veterans are pretty well disgusted with him. I can tell you that I have a photograph of myself meeting Sen. Kerry, and the friends that I sent that photograph to think I'm a traitor.



They can't believe that I would even shake hands with that man, and everyone I know, my peers and those I worked with, are all very strong Republicans and they're Bush supporters in this specific campaign.



MARGARET WARNER: Jon Soltz, your response to that.



JON SOLTZ: If John Kerry is a traitor, then so am I. John Kerry fought for his right to come home and question his war in Vietnam; 12,000 Americans died after he testified in the senate. And I fought for my right to question this president's policies in Iraq.



It was a dark day for me when I had to go to the hospital in Germany to see one of my soldiers who was blown up. For the first time in my life, you know, I cried in uniform. I had to look at this guy and I had to say to him, you know, "I hope that this is worth it."



The fact of the matter is this administration is not being truthful with the war in Iraq. They've continually tried to tie it to al-Qaida. We've committed 85 percent of our ground army. Soldiers like me have died for weapons we can't find.



And they let Osama bin Laden run around in Afghanistan with zero of our ten military divisions not allocated to that. They failed us. They failed our soldiers. They failed our men and women in uniform.



They won't support mandatory funding for veterans health care. They won't support, you know, giving Iraqi veterans more than a two-year claim against the VA system. We know that these soldiers are going to have problems with PTSD. They won't sign a real concurrent receipt. They're closing our veterans hospitals, and they've broken our army to a point where we had to stop loss people in past their time.



It is time for them to level with the American public. Until they level with the American public, we cannot win the war in Iraq.



MARGARET WARNER: All right, Jon Soltz, Stan Coerr, thank you both.

Read more

Report: Soldiers say they are being threatened with Iraq duty

posted by: Dan Viens (Web Producer)

Created: 9/16/04



COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) - Soldiers from a combat unit at Fort Carson say they have been told to re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq, the Rocky Mountain News reported Thursday.



Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last week, two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity told the newspaper.



"They said if you refuse to re-enlist with the 3rd Brigade, we'll send you down to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which is going to Iraq for a year, and you can stay with them, or we'll send you to Korea, or to Fort Riley (in Kansas) where they're going to Iraq," said one of the soldiers, a sergeant.



The second soldier, an enlisted man, echoed that view: "They told us if we don't re-enlist, then we'd have to be reassigned. And where we're most needed is in units that are going back to Iraq in the next couple of months. So if you think you're getting out, you're not."



The sergeant told the News the threat has outraged soldiers who are close to fulfilling their service obligation.



"We have a whole platoon who refuses to sign," he said.



An unidentified Fort Carson spokesman said Wednesday that 3rd Brigade recruitment officers denied threatening the soldiers with more duty in Iraq.

"I can only tell you what the retention officers told us: The soldiers were not being told they will go to Iraq, but they may go to Iraq," said the spokesman, who confirmed the re-enlistment drive is under way.



One of the soldiers provided the form to the News. If signed, it would bind the soldier to the 3rd Brigade until Dec. 31, 2007.



An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Gerard Healy, said sending soldiers to Iraq with less than one year of their enlistment remaining "would not be taken lightly."



"There's probably a lot of places on post where they could put those folks (who don't re-enlist) until their time expires," he said. "But I don't want to rule out the possibility that they could go to a unit that might deploy."



Extending a soldier's active duty is within Army authority, since the enlistment contract carries an eight-year obligation, even if a soldier signs up for shorter terms. Members of Iraq-bound units can be retained for an entire year in Iraq, even if their active-duty enlistment expires.



"I don't want to go back to Iraq," the sergeant told the News. "I went through a lot of things for the Army that weren't necessary and were risky. Iraq has changed a lot of people."



The enlisted soldier said the recruiters' message left him "filled with dread."

"For me, it wasn't about going back to Iraq. It's just the fact that I'm ready to get out of the Army," he said.



(Copyright by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)



http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=084435ac-0abe-421a-0195-7116da61b4e2&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

Read more

Far graver than Vietnam

Far graver than Vietnam



Most senior US military officers now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an unprecedented scale



Sidney Blumenthal

Thursday September 16, 2004

The Guardian



'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon. Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday.



But, according to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too. It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends."



Retired general Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me: "The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of the world. The priorities are just all wrong."



Jeffrey Record, professor of strategy at the Air War College, said: "I see no ray of light on the horizon at all. The worst case has become true. There's no analogy whatsoever between the situation in Iraq and the advantages we had after the second world war in Germany and Japan."



W Andrew Terrill, professor at the Army War College's strategic studies institute - and the top expert on Iraq there - said: "I don't think that you can kill the insurgency". According to Terrill, the anti-US insurgency, centred in the Sunni triangle, and holding several cities and towns - including Fallujah - is expanding and becoming more capable as a consequence of US policy.



"We have a growing, maturing insurgency group," he told me. "We see larger and more coordinated military attacks. They are getting better and they can self-regenerate. The idea there are x number of insurgents, and that when they're all dead we can get out is wrong. The insurgency has shown an ability to regenerate itself because there are people willing to fill the ranks of those who are killed. The political culture is more hostile to the US presence. The longer we stay, the more they are confirmed in that view."



After the killing of four US contractors in Fallujah, the marines besieged the city for three weeks in April - the watershed event for the insurgency. "I think the president ordered the attack on Fallujah," said General Hoare. "I asked a three-star marine general who gave the order to go to Fallujah and he wouldn't tell me. I came to the conclusion that the order came directly from the White House." Then, just as suddenly, the order was rescinded, and Islamist radicals gained control, using the city as a base.



"If you are a Muslim and the community is under occupation by a non-Islamic power it becomes a religious requirement to resist that occupation," Terrill explained. "Most Iraqis consider us occupiers, not liberators." He describes the religious imagery common now in Fallujah and the Sunni triangle: "There's talk of angels and the Prophet Mohammed coming down from heaven to lead the fighting, talk of martyrs whose bodies are glowing and emanating wonderful scents."



"I see no exit," said Record. "We've been down that road before. It's called Vietnamisation. The idea that we're going to have an Iraqi force trained to defeat an enemy we can't defeat stretches the imagination. They will be tainted by their very association with the foreign occupier. In fact, we had more time and money in state building in Vietnam than in Iraq."



General Odom said: "This is far graver than Vietnam. There wasn't as much at stake strategically, though in both cases we mindlessly went ahead with the war that was not constructive for US aims. But now we're in a region far more volatile, and we're in much worse shape with our allies."



Terrill believes that any sustained US military offensive against the no-go areas "could become so controversial that members of the Iraqi government would feel compelled to resign". Thus, an attempted military solution would destroy the slightest remaining political legitimacy. "If we leave and there's no civil war, that's a victory."



General Hoare believes from the information he has received that "a decision has been made" to attack Fallujah "after the first Tuesday in November. That's the cynical part of it - after the election. The signs are all there."



He compares any such planned attack to the late Syrian dictator Hafez al-Asad's razing of the rebel city of Hama. "You could flatten it," said Hoare. "US military forces would prevail, casualties would be high, there would be inconclusive results with respect to the bad guys, their leadership would escape, and civilians would be caught in the middle. I hate that phrase collateral damage. And they talked about dancing in the street, a beacon for democracy."



General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever seen with any previous government, including Vietnam. "I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defence and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster. The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaida. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."



· Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Clinton, is Washington bureau chief of salon.com

sidney_blumenthal@ yahoo.com



Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Read more

The Faces of 1,000 Soldiers

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091004W.shtml



The Faces of 1,000 Soldiers

t r u t h o u t Statement

Thursday 09 September 2004



Michael Allred and Richard Torres. Kenneth Souslin and Gregory Sanders. Brandon Rowe and Alyssa Peterson and Nathan Brown. The list goes ever onward. One thousand names, one thousand faces, one thousand folded American flags.



The editors and staff of t r u t h o u t offer our deepest and most profound condolences to the families of the men and women who have fallen in Iraq. We offer to our readers the names and faces of these men and women, with deepest respect, so that all within the reach of our arm know who they were, how they smiled, and what they did in the service of our country.



We believe George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and the members of this administration have much to answer for. Defenders of this invasion point to the casualty rate of Operation Iraqi Freedom and compare it to the casualty rates in other wars. "1,000 deaths is nothing" compared to Normandy, we hear.



To be sure, this is true. But the invasion of Normandy, for one example, was undertaken to destroy a regime that had ravaged much of Europe, slaughtered millions of innocent people, and was determined to spread its darkness across as much of the globe as they could reach. The threat was as real as the bricks that formed the gas chambers at Dachau and the steel of the tanks that had roared into Poland. The men who died putting and end to that gave their lives in a cause that guaranteed the liberty of millions.



Iraq was not a threat to the United States, or to any of their neighbors. The sanctions put into effect after the first Gulf War had turned that regime's conventional military into a large collection of paperweights. There are no weapons of mass destruction of any kind in Iraq. There were no connections whatsoever between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and the attacks of September 11.



The men and women whose faces fill the page below were not told this. They were, in fact, told the exact opposite. They raised their hands and took the oath, they donned their uniform and picked up their weapon, they boarded a plane and flew far from home, and they died. They were doing their duty, and they believed their President.



George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell and the members of this administration have much to answer for.



Please visit http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091004W.shtml to view the actual photos of the faces of 1000 soldiers

Read more

Families to Confront Bush on Use of Guard

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guard14sep14,1,104900.story



Families to Confront Bush on Use of Guard



Protesters gather in Las Vegas, where president will speak today to National Guardsmen.

By Maria L. LaGanga Times Staff Writer

September 14, 2004



When President Bush arrives in Las Vegas today to address a convention of National Guardsmen, a group of families will be there as well, intent on protesting the Iraq war and a president who they say used his Guard service to avoid combat.



The protest comes a week after a controversial report on "60 Minutes II" that renewed questions about Bush's National Guard record during the Vietnam era.



The demonstrators said they were not supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, but were trying to look after the interests of the country's guardsmen.



"We think the real issue now is the Iraq war, it's not the Vietnam War," said Charley Richardson, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, which organized the protest. "But we can't help notice the irony that a person who managed to avoid going to combat by joining the National Guard is now sending the National Guard into combat in a war based on lies."



Bush and his representatives have defended both his service during Vietnam and his rationale in sending the military into Iraq 18 months ago. They note that Bush received strong reviews during much of his time in the Texas Air National Guard, before being honorably discharged in 1973.



Bush has justified the war by arguing that Iraq was a threat to the United States, even though the weapons of mass destruction that he said were possessed by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have not been found.



Some political observers have challenged the relevance to the current campaign of questions raised about Bush's service more than 30 years ago, but the Guard families said the issue was pertinent.



The Richardsons are among those who argue that Bush sought to avoid the dangers recently faced by their son, Joe, 26, in Iraq. Joe Richardson was an Arab linguist with the Marines, serving in the Arabian Sea and then for about six months in Iraq. He has finished his active-duty service but could be called back.



Charley Richardson and his wife, who live in Boston, helped found Military Families Speak Out in November 2002, shortly after their son was deployed. The group now has a membership of about 1,700 families nationwide.



The half a dozen families attending today's news conference in Las Vegas have relatives who have either died in Iraq or are currently serving there. The National Guard and reserves will soon account for nearly half of the 140,000 service personnel in Iraq.



Dante Zappala, 28, traveled to Las Vegas from Venice, Calif., because his 30-year-old brother, Sherwood Baker, was killed in an explosion in Baghdad on April 26.



"My brother was the first National Guard from Pennsylvania to die since 1945," Zappala said. "He reminded us of it before he left — that members of the National Guard don't die in combat. But it's a different world, according to our president. Our National Guard are on the front lines."Zappala said he believed his brother's death exemplified the missteps in the administration's handling of the war.



Baker spent seven years in the National Guard training stateside as a forward observer, someone who goes ahead of tank and troop lines to scope out missile strikes and help realign troop movements, Zappala said. But when he was deployed to Iraq, he was sent as convoy security — "nothing he was familiar with," his brother said — after being retrained for two months at Ft. Dix, N.J.



"Before my brother left, they suggested he buy his own flak jacket," Zappala said. "Many were wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets."The families will be making their case as the National Guard Assn. of the United States meets for its 126th conference and exhibition. Kerry is to speak to the group Thursday.

end article





See Military Families Speak Out website at http://www.mfso.org/

Read more