Sayonara Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Just a reminder that this thread is on suicide watch and arguments don't help in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Okay, look. It's clear that neither of you will win and this thread will descend down into the crapper. So can we please rewind to post 84 or so, when the conversation was actually decent, and continue with posts that actually discuss the topic rather than tell each other what would constitute an acceptable reply? ...and a nice simulpost there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 An interesting article on the subject, which makes the case that there were several levels/phases involved in choosing these quotations, and also that there was a final "editorial review" from the Secretary of Defense before the ultimately landed on the Presidents desk. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/bo_obama/2009/05/rumsfelds-bible-citations-mirr.php?ref=reccafe Rumsfeld bible citations show there were multiple people involved, and this is important when understanding how OSD assigned tasks. The bible citations were selectively cherry picked, as the US government did with intelligence information from POWs or gleaned through FISA violations. <...> Also, the quotes in Rumsfeld's briefing do not trace back to a single, consitent version of the bible. This suggests there were multiple people providing inputs. Also, the way the bible quotes are punctuated and capitalized, it suggests there were subsequent administrative review by people who were not familiar with, or did not review, the original source material. There appear to have been several phases to this bible quote Phase 1 appears to have been direction on a bible theme The Rumsfeld bible quotes do not consistently quote from one English translation. Rather, there are multiple bibles used, suggesting Rumsfeld was working with a group of people who were using different biblical sources. This suggests that there was, as sub-elements to this phase: A. a tasking for a theme in the bible; B. there was subsequent research; C. a later discussion of those inputs; then D. a final presentment to Rumsfeld related to that bible theme. Phase 2: Briefing Presentation Formatting This part of the presentation appears to have been the post-decision fact checking and final preparation for publication. We know this because the bible quotes are not consistently traceable to a consistent set of punctuation or capitalization. Someone, who was not part of Phase I, likely made minor "administrative" changes, but did not fact check the quote to a single source. Is impossible, using some of the SecDef bible quotes to determine which version of the bible he originally used; and how he changed the capitalization of key words. The above suggests that there were multiple people involved with the briefing review, and the legal compliance review would likely have included the DoD General Counsel. <...> The bible quotations establish there were multiple people involved, and at least two phases to prepare the presentation. The Congressional committees should use the bible quotes to ask witnesses about the internal deliberations related to the selective parsing of the key passages from the bible. The differences in how the bible quotations are cited in different version of the bible illustrates the scope of the number of people involved: More than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 (edited) Rewinding a bit... These cover pages do not endorse one religion over another. Would you even be making these statements if they included a phrase from the Talmud? I think they're overly dramatic, but I don't see how they can even be viewed as prosyletization in any way. But things have contexts. A quote from the Talmund (or The Art of War, for example, which also has some religious underpinnings), is academic, even poetic. A quote from the Bible, on cover slides on briefings about a war already venturing dangerously close to "crusade," has an entirely different meaning attendant to it. These slides look like they belong on Baptist church bulletins. I don't think that there's any constitutional issue, but it's inappropriate and potentially dangerous, as Mokele pointed out. It seems that the argument so far has gotten caught up in this issue of constitutionality, which denies gray areas. I think this is quite validly a gray area, but one in which the Department of Defense or whoever was responsible for those files was, indeed, wrong. Just read some of these. "Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans shall succeed." Is that the way to run a war, now? Edited May 25, 2009 by CDarwin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Interesting post, CDarwin. A quote from the Talmund (or The Art of War, for example, which also has some religious underpinnings), is academic, even poetic. A quote from the Bible, on cover slides on briefings about a war already venturing dangerously close to "crusade," has an entirely different meaning attendant to it. Ah, so you feel that because the war was already "venturing dangerously close to 'crusade'", that we have sufficient context to determine that these quotes are intended to support that position, rather than a simple motivational thing. iNow made a similar point earlier, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. I'm sure eventually we'll find out if that was the case or not. These slides look like they belong on Baptist church bulletins. I don't think that there's any constitutional issue, but it's inappropriate and potentially dangerous, as Mokele pointed out. I agree that there doesn't seem to be a constitutional issue, and I agree that it might not be appropriate. For me that would depend on the atmosphere -- if those reports suggesting an atmosphere of religious requirements in the military are true. It seems that the argument so far has gotten caught up in this issue of constitutionality, which denies gray areas. I think this is quite validly a gray area, but one in which the Department of Defense or whoever was responsible for those files was, indeed, wrong. Just read some of these. "Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans shall succeed." Is that the way to run a war, now? Not in my view. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDarwin Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Ah, so you feel that because the war was already "venturing dangerously close to 'crusade'", that we have sufficient context to determine that these quotes are intended to support that position, rather than a simple motivational thing. The context is more a societal one. Bible quotes mean something in our society, and to the Muslim world, that quotes from, say the Talmund, don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 I think some posts got lost with the move. I could have sworn that someone asked if the Biblical quotes were the only ones used. Looking at the lower left hand side of each slide we see the dates that Biblical quotes were used on "Daily" reports. Since this is the case, then the Biblical quotes were used on reports dated; 17 March 03 19 March 03 20 March 03 31 March 03 01 April 03 03 April 03 07 April 03 08 April 03 09 April 03 10 April 03 11 April 03 This would mean that over a period of 26 days, 11 Biblical quotes were used. iNow, I've come to agree with your position if only Biblical quotes were used. If only Biblical quotes were used on the covers of the reports, then I think your interpretation of the SCOTUS would be most probable. However, if other quotes were used as well as Biblical ones, I don't think that the separation would be an issue because the Bible simply becomes one of a number of source quotes. I'm smelling "Media Beat up" here. The other sources were not contraversial and are being ignored in the hunt for a good "story". The tpmcafe story is interesting but why suppose some wide group of people vetting the quotes and using different Bibles etc when the it's quite possible that someone picked them by using, Oh I don't know, Google? I would also like to point out that Donald Rumsfelt has been copping the heat over this, but reading the actual article we see; These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. iNow, I don't know where this leaves your "Separation" argument. It had teeth when it appeared to be Government documents, but I don't know if it applies now. These were documents prepared by the Military for their Civillian (Government) boss. I won't pretend to know how it works in the US, but down here the Military is not part of the Government. Government documents are one thing and Military documents are another. I think a very messy grey area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 iNow, I've come to agree with your position if only Biblical quotes were used. If only Biblical quotes were used on the covers of the reports, then I think your interpretation of the SCOTUS would be most probable. However, if other quotes were used as well as Biblical ones, I don't think that the separation would be an issue because the Bible simply becomes one of a number of source quotes. Probability factor that quotes other than the christian bible were used... in my estimation... is a fractional number approaching zero. That's just a WAG, though. I did, however, quite like your point about the differing texts from which the quotes were drawn, and how it's likely they could have just been using google. Nice estimation on your part, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangloss Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 The context is more a societal one. Bible quotes mean something in our society, and to the Muslim world, that quotes from, say the Talmund, don't. These memos were not intended for public release, either in the US or in the Muslim world. Still, I think it's a reasonable point -- such documents should be constructed in a proper manner and with the understanding that they would likely become public information at some point even if there's no hype or reporting on them whatsoever. JohnB makes some good points above as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 An article supporting more forcefully some of the points already raised in this thread. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/05/25/war_room_is_no_place_for_bible_study/ THAT Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld supplied President Bush with Bible-laced Pentagon intelligence briefings might only seem like more Bush-era loopiness, but wait a minute. The deeper, and still current, question is: What in heaven (or, what the hell) is going on inside the US military? A Robert Draper article in Gentleman's Quarterly revealed that some of the top-secret "World Wide Intelligence Briefings" that Rumsfeld provided to Bush were covered with photographs of Americans at war, and captions taken from Scripture. In one, above a huddle of GIs apparently at prayer, is the question famously put by God, "Whom shall I send and who will go for Us?" Over the soldiers is the answer from Isaiah: "Here I am, Lord. Send me." Above a trooper hunched over a machine gun is this promise from Proverbs: "Commit to the Lord, whatever you do, and your plans will succeed." Another cover shows Isaiah-inspired US tanks: "Open the gates that the righteous nation may enter." Sent by God. Protected by God. Sure to succeed. The righteous nation. A war defined not merely as just, but as holy. Such manifestations are one thing from eccentric religious groups operating on the fringe of the US military, in space guaranteed by freedom of religion. It is another when they show up at the peak of the chain of command - and from inside the intelligence community, which is charged with nothing less than defining the character of America's wars. Those downplaying the significance of Draper's revelations suggest the wily Rumsfeld was just indulging the born-again commander-in-chief. Others merely blame the Bible-thumping Air Force general who prepared the briefing documents for the secretary of defense. (Once, that general would have been my father, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. A convinced Catholic, yet he would be appalled and alarmed by this business.) No matter what the down-players say, Draper's revelation is only the latest of many that show a US military unduly influenced by an extreme kind of Christian evangelicalism. Why should that appall and alarm? Let me suggest a biblical seven reasons: Single-minded religious zealotry bedevils critical thinking, and not just about religion. Military and political thinking suffers when the righteousness of born-again faith leads to self-righteousness. Critical thinking includes a self-criticism of which the "saved" know little. Military proselytizers use Jesus to build up "unit cohesion" by eradicating doubt about the mission, the command, and the self. But doubt - the capacity for second thought - is a military leader's best friend. Commanders, especially, need the skill of skepticism - the opposite of true belief. Otherworldly religion defining the afterlife as ultimate can undervalue the present life. Religion that looks forward to apocalypse, God's kingdom established by cosmic violence, can help ignite such violence. Armageddon, no mere metaphor now, is the nuclear arsenal. Religious fundamentalism affirms ideas apart from the context that produced them, reading the Bible literally or dogma ahistorically. Such a mindset can sponsor military fundamentalism, denying the context from which threats arise - refusing to ask, for example, what prompts so many insurgents to become willing suicides? Missing this, we keep producing more. A military that sees itself as divinely commissioned can all too readily act like God in battle - using mortal force from afar, without personal involvement. An Olympian aloofness makes America's new drone weapon the perfect slayer of civilians. A bifurcated religious imagination, dividing the world between good and evil, can misread the real character of an "enemy" population, many of whom want no part of war with us. The Middle East is the worst place in which to set loose a military force even partly informed by Christian Zionism, seeing the state of Israel as God's instrument for ushering in the Messianic Age - damning Muslims, while defending Jews for the sake of their eventual destruction. The Pentagon is the wrong place for unbound Christian zealotry, not just because it violates the separation of church and state (and the rights of non-believers in the chain of command), but even more because it is inimical to the prudent use of force. When the history of America's failures in Iraq, and now Afghanistan, is written, expect to find that US military decision-making was made blind by faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mokele Posted May 25, 2009 Share Posted May 25, 2009 Ok, since nothing really new has come up, I'm closing this thread in accordance with the 24-hour suicide watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts