. . . is up at Peaktalk.

Two small nations, both with non-legitimately elected leaders who oppress their citizens and violate human rights. In one case the Bush administration is stepping up economic sanctions, in the other the administration is stepping up diplomatic relations.
What’s a key difference between the two? (See comments for answer).

More developments in the unending church/state debate. On the local front there was good news yesterday as Knox County commissioners voted to affirm First Amendment principles by rejecting the so-called God resolution, which “called on all citizens to recognize God as the foundation of American heritage and government.”
The story is different on the national level. Predictably, political missionaries, roused to action by Justice Moore’s dismissal for judicial misconduct, are stampeding to the federal government to rescue them from their perceived persecution. Yesterday, Vision America, in conjunction with several other political/religious groups, held a press conference to announce a petition drive campaign called “Save the Ten Commandments–God’s Contract with America.”
Vision America says its campaign

“seeks to restore our Judeo-Christian heritage, check the secularist onslaught, defend public display of the Ten Commandments and other religious symbols, oppose judicial tyranny, and support the confirmation of federal judges committed to…judicial restraint.”

Secularist onslaught? Judicial tyranny? You’d think we were in the old Soviet empire.
Let’s clear something up–despite the “secularist onslaught,” there are plenty of places to display the Ten Commandments. You can post as many replicas in your home or church as you like. Depending on where you live, you can probably display them in your front yard. Heck, you might even be able to post them at your private sector job if your employer is accomodating. The only thing the judicial tyrants have done is attempted to do is maintain publicly-owned buildings as a religiously-neutral, evangelism-free zone.
The ironic part of this all is that many of the proponents of this type of campaign are the ones who typically rail against the power of government. Yet now they act as if the very existence of their faith hinges on their ability to get the same ineffectual government to give God its stamp of approval.
One quote to illustrate the confused mindset of this effort. Here’s what Vision America President Rick Scarborough offered in the press conference:

“God often does his best work right after a crucifixion. What we saw with justice Roy Moore was a crucifixion. God will vindicate this man.”

Let me get this straight: Justice Moore, a man who snuck a two-ton monument into a building in the middle of the night and used it as a prop in a self-aggrandizing campaign, is now being likened to the crucified Jesus?
I rest my case.

Another great stroke by our “free trade” administration:

The Bush administration has decided to set new quotas on imports of Chinese clothing to stop a surge of shipments, U.S. Commerce Undersecretary Grant Aldonas announced on Tuesday.
Aldonas said that under trade rules with China, the United States can cap China’s exports of brassieres, knit fabrics and dressing gowns at 7.5 percent above shipments over the past year or so. During that time, China’s exports of the textile products have surged.

This is a rather interesting method of promoting free trade agreements, isn’t it?

The long, hard slog continues:

U.S. fighter jets pounded suspected insurgent positions Tuesday in the largest bombardment of guerrillas in central Iraq since President Bush declared the end of major combat in May, the U.S. military said. And in Baghdad, dozens of loud explosions were heard after sundown Tuesday in what appeared to be a U.S. operation against Iraqi insurgents.

Meanwhile, back the domestic front, government allies fight the propaganda war. Take a look at this purported transcript from General Wesley Clark’s appearance on Fox News (I believe the accompanying video is here). It illustrates what we’ve come to expect:

I: Now one thing you must be sick of by now, but I gotta play the game too is ehh bringing up statements that you made in the past. You’re not a pope-politician at heart. Therefore you’ve made some more mistakes than other people have, so people throw them back at you. One of them was just yesterday. Maybe it wasn’t a mistake but it caught our attention. On the “Meet the Press” you said something about Iraq. You said “President Bush has said (the war in Iraq) is the centerpiece for the war on terror. It isn’t. It’s a sideshow. It’s simply their easiest means of access to attack American soldiers. That’s all it is.” You really think that Iraq is only a sideshow?
C: For the war on terror it’s a terrible distraction and we should have gone directly after Osama Bin Laden. Let’s be clear about what happened. This administration decided to go to war against Saddam Hussein, or at least to set all the plans in motion, while we were still bombing Afghanistan and when Tommy Franks should have been challenged to come up with the plans to finish the job against Osama Bin Laden. He was apparently preparing plans to preparing plans to brief the president and secretary of defense on Iraq. We let Osama bin Laden get away. He’s there in the mountains of Western Pakistan. Newsweek magazine can find him. I don’t know why we can’t. And I propose we have a joint US-Saudi force to go after Osama bin Laden. Let’s finish this job on terrorism.
I: Well let me just ask you, Do you… Do you know that Newsweek knows where Osama bin Laden is and isn’t telling the world?
C: Well I’ve seen the articles in Newsweek. I’m sure you have. And so I think we should start by talking to Newsweek. I think our US Government should start. And I think we should be putting a full court effort on Osama Bin Laden. As for Iraq: We’re in a mess. It was a war we didn’t have to fight. We’re there. Now we’ve got to have a success strategy. This administration hasn’t had one. It called Jerry Bremer back from Baghdad in an effort to cobble one together. It still doesn’t go far enough. We need a success strategy for our foreign policy. We need a success strategy in Iraq. But don’t ever make the mistake of believing that what we did in Iraq was related to the war on terrorism. It was related only tangentially and it distracted us from what we needed to be doing . . .
I: [interrupting] But to call it while our . . .
C: [continuing] Unfortunately now we have to finish it.
I: [interrupting] But General, while our men . . .
C: [continuing] Now just wait a minute.
I: [interrupting] while our men . . . yeah . . .
C: [continuing] You just wait a minute.
I: [interrupting] Scuse me just one minute. . . I just want to add onto that. While our men and women are dying in Iraq is it proper to call it a sideshow?
C: Our men and women in Iraq are doing a fabulous job. They’re doing a great job. I love them. I respect them and I honor them and. My problem is with the President of the United States. He’s the one responsible for this. As he told us. He was going to make the decision when to go to war. He did. Our men and women are doing everything their country has asked them to do. But for the war on terror it’s not the right thing that we should ask them to do. Don’t you dare twist words into disrespect for the men and women in uniform. I love those men and women. I gave 34 years of my life to them. You better take my words the right way. . .
I: [interrupting] General I’m just repeating your own words to you.
C: [continuing]. . . This is about the President of the United States and [unintelligible] leadership.
I: [interrupting] Didn’t you say that Iraq was a sideshow?
C: No sir, you are not. You are playing politics.
I: [interrupting] [unintelligible]
C: [continuing] No, sir. No, sir. You are plaing politics with the men and women in uniform. You are sir.
I: [interrupting] I just read back your own statement. General…
C: [continuing] Take it straight. You take it straight.
I: [interrupting] Didn’t you say it was a sideshow?
C: [continuing] Straight…
I: [interrupting] General, I just read back your own statements… your own words.
C: [continuing] No sir, you are playing politics with the men and women
I: One thing our military advisors have assured us is that there is nothing but respect that one should have for your military career and for your respect for those who are now in the military. As a father of a marine, we both share that respect for men and women in the military. So don’t get me wrong on that. I just wanted to make clear what you mean by that statement which you made. I just quoted your own statement.
C: I think you’re trying to distort my meaning. I want to make it very clear, and I think you’ve said I made it clear. The sideshow is not the men and women in uniform. It is the leadership of the President of the United States who would get us into this. And I think we need to be very straight in covering this. I’m not afraid to say what’s right and wrong in this country. And I’m speaking out, David. And I’m telling you this. That war in Iraq is a war that did not have to be fought.

Ahhh, yes. The old you-can’t-criticize-the-president-when-troops-are-dying card. Because we’ve got to “support the troops,” right?
Here’s a thought: instead of repeating RNC talking points, maybe Fox News should be asking why our troops are dying, and what they’re dying for.
When it comes to supporting the troops, I think Kos summed things up quite succinctly:

There is no better way to support our soldiers than to wish them alive. Not dead. And the best way to keep them alive is to keep them out of war.

Indeed. Particularly when it comes to optional wars.