Considerations of whether Bush is genuinely born-again are both futile and insubstantial. If folks must go down the road of religion, faith and public policy, consideration of the new bridge built between church and state is germane under this president. The flow of tax dollars into religious charities is bad policy and imo unconstitutional. It is harmful both to our constitutional mode of government, and to the recipient religious institutions as well.

I'm using the above solely as an example of serious and worthwhile considerations regarding religion and secular government that can be had. But the personal religious beliefs of the president have got to be among the least important and least productive topics that could be examined.

Anon sed: "The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information."

-- Henry Wallace

How timely. I'd suggest that poisoning isn't the only method. Some channels can simply be dried up.

WASHINGTON — The White House said Friday that, like Vice President Dick Cheney's office, President Bush's office is not allowing an independent federal watchdog to oversee its handling of classified national security information.

An executive order that Bush issued in March 2003 — amending an existing order — requires all government agencies that are part of the executive branch to submit to oversight. Although it doesn't specifically say so, Bush's order was not meant to apply to the vice president's office or the president's office, a White House spokesman said.

"Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their government," the executive order said.

But from the start, Bush considered his office and Cheney's exempt from the reporting requirements, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said in an interview Friday.

Cheney's office filed the reports in 2001 and 2002 but stopped in 2003."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cheney23jun23,0,863839.story

The Mighty Wurlitzer plays a constantly shifting tune. Confused, the congregation passes the bloody offering-plate from pew to pew. Some hear the waltz, some the tango, some the battle hymn of the republic. Some hear "A Mighty Fortress is Our God", some the Monty Python Theme Song.

What does this Iraqi occupation mean, you pray, and who are we fighting? To which the Sacred Practitioner smiles patiently and explains kindly: "Well, it means whatever you want it to mean, and we're fighting them." But who are them, you ask? And the answer comes, "The ones being helped by Iran". And then the Wurlitzer Roars into the familiar chorus, and the whole choir sings:

"WASHINGTON - The U.S. may be able to reduce combat forces in Iraq,

by next spring if Iraq's own security forces continue to grow and improve,

a senior American commander said Friday.

He denied reports the U.S. is arming Sunni insurgent groups to help in the fight against al-Qaida.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top day-to-day commander of U.S. forces in Iraq,

did not predict any reductions in U.S. forces but said such redeployments may be feasible by spring."

And you look at your calendar, and see that spring is 6 months following september, and you then know that the time signature of this piece is 4/4 time, measured one stately Friedman Unit after another.

During Sen. Lieberman's questioning of [war czar] Gen. Lute (I believe the date was 6/7), Lieberman carefully crafted a question to Lute for which the answer was that al Qaeda was the primary enemy in Iraq. It was one of those questions, commonly heard at hearings, in which a Senator sets up a context, and simply wants an affirmative from the witness.

At the time, I simply thought this was Lieberman being himself, and I was much more concerned with other aspects of that hearing. But it now appears to be part of an orchestrated marketing campaign. June 8 is quite a bit earlier than the news stories quoted in GG's post (except for Lieberman's quote to Russert in Jan.).

It is frustrating that transcripts of open hearings before our senate and house committees are not available to the public. If they were, I could post up the text in which Lieberman crafted Lute's answer (Sen. Armed Svcs. Comm). However, there is this piece at Defense News.com, dated 6/11:

War Czar Nominee Takes A Regional View on Iraq

Lute Calls Stopping al-Qaida Key to Success

By WILLIAM H. McMICHAEL

The general nominated to head U.S. President George W. Bush’s war effort — an officer once skeptical of the current surge of troops as a last-ditch effort to stabilize terrorism-stricken Iraq — told the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 7 that the United States must prevail in Iraq to deny al-Qaida the safe haven it lost in Afghanistan.

Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute also agreed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., that al-Qaida “is our main enemy in Iraq.”

Just a couple of days after the hearing, once Lieberman had placed these words in Lute's mouth, Lieberman said the following to Schieffer on Face the Nation (June 10):

What we're involved in here, as General Lute said to our committee last week, is the--Iraq is now the main front in the long war we are fighting against the Islamist terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. In fact, 90 percent of the suicide bombers in Iraq today killing Iraqis and American soldiers are foreign al-Qaeda fighters. Iran is training and equipping soldiers, Iraqis to come in and kill American soldiers and Iraqis. So we--we've got to see that larger context, and that's why we're committed to helping the Iraqis to stability and victory.