The Wolf Barack Obama Feeds



Pt 1 – National Cathedral Message – Story of The Two Wolves

copyright © 2009 Betsy L. Angert.  BeThink.org

It was 11:22 Ante Meridian, on January 21, 2009.  I did as I rarely do.  I stood silently and watched television.  As one who listens to what is aired, and does so from another room, this was an unusual occurrence.  However, the Cherokee wisdom of wolves, an illustration that represents the internal strife within every human being beckoned me.  

Then, at the very same hour on the very next day, again I was compelled to do what is odd for me.  I did not say a word as I glared at humanitarian actions took place on the screen.  President Barack Obama proclaimed, by Executive Order, the United States would not torture.  Nor would we, as a nation, detain presumed “combatants” without a just trial.  On each occasion, I was in awe as I gazed upon what I had not imagined would come to pass.  Upon reflection, the two events seem to be related.

On Wednesday, the voice of the speaker was unfamiliar to me.  The narrative, she share was extremely familiar.  Perchance that is why I was drawn into the calm drama as it unfolded before me.  Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins, in her candid manner, in the Inaugural Prayer, brought the Chief Executive of the United States to task.  With knowledge of The Obama Administration’s agenda, a plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan, Doctor   Reverend Sharon E. Watkins shared a allegory and directly addressed the analogy.  The President of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) spoke to the President of the United States with intent.  Her prayer was meant to be more than a homily, easily left in the home of the Lord.  The passionate cleric conceded, the circumstances that exist today are dire.

What you are entering now, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President, will tend to draw you away from your ethical center.  But we, the nation that you serve, need you to hold the ground of your deepest values, of our deepest values.

Beyond this moment of high hopes, we need you to stay focused on our shared hopes, so that

we can continue to hope, too.

We will follow your lead.

There is a story attributed to Cherokee wisdom:

One evening a grandfather was teaching his young grandson about the internal battle that each person faces.

“There are two wolves struggling inside each of us,” the old man said.

“One wolf is vengefulness, anger, resentment, self?pity, fear . . .

“The other wolf is compassion, faithfulness, hope, truth, love . . .”

The grandson sat, thinking, then asked: “Which wolf wins, Grandfather?”

His grandfather replied, “The one you feed.”

The congregation was spellbound.  The camera showed a meditative Barack Obama.  The President, with his head in his hand, seemed to consider the parable.  He looked as if he might ponder the parallel.  Minister Watkins continued.

The frank Theologian furthered the thought when she said, “There are crises banging on the door right now, pawing at us, trying to draw us off our ethical center – crises that tempt us to feed the wolf of vengefulness and fear.”  

President Obama, from his facial expressions, understood.  He knew the weight placed on his shoulders.  As he oft expressed, the decision to serve the public was his, and he would do so to the best of abilities.  Yet, Barack Obama often proclaimed, he could not do the nation’s work alone.  Indeed, he would need help from the public.  The Reverend was ready to lend a hand to the Commander-In-Chief.  In service to her country, and perchance, more significantly to the Almighty and the people, planet-wide Sharon E. Watkins submitted.

We need you, Mr. President, to hold your ground.  We need you, leaders of this nation, to stay centered on the values that have guided us in the past; values that empowered to move us through the perils of earlier times and can guide us now into a future of renewed promise.

We need you to feed the good wolf within you, to listen to the better angels of your nature, and by your example encourage us to do the same.

In the hours before the erudite religious leader spoke, much laid in the balance.  Doctor Watkins likely heard the whispers; President Obama might not close Guantanamo Bay Prison as quickly as he had promised.  When asked of the possible release of detainees Barack Obama was hesitant.  He discussed what logistically would be difficult.  

Doctor Sharon E. Watkins seemed to inquire as an ABC News interviewer had not.  Mister President; which path will you choose?  How will ethical principles shape your policies President Obama?  

She too may have marveled at the statement a pious man offered just prior to the inauguration.  On “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos, Barack Obama stated, homeland security is his top priority.  The “need” to fight back when terrorists threaten would be prominent features in an Obama Administration.  “We are going to have to stay vigilant, and that’s something that doesn’t change from administration to administration,” the then President Elect said.

Hence, in her homily Sharon E. Watkins invited the newly installed President Obama to obey the sacred principles he had oft professed to believe.

On Thursday, perhaps he did honor the ethical traditions.  As I again, listened to the television from afar, the baritone sounds that echoed in the next room were recognizable.  Barack Obama addressed a small audience of onlookers, each anxious to see him sign three Executive Orders.  Indeed, Commander-In-Chief Obama decreed that this country act on the “some” of the ethical standards the Minister spoke of only twenty-four hours earlier.

President Obama signed directives that authorize a Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.  A Review of Detention Policy Options, and he approved an order that would Ensure Lawful Interrogations.

However, what the President has yet to act on the poignant matters that affect every American, in truth all human beings every day.  War.  As I situated myself before the screen to watch the invocation, I saw a pensive man.  Barack Obama, unlike most in the National Cathedral congregation seemed to study Reverend Doctor Sharon E. Watkins’ every word.  

The Commander-In-Chief appeared to recognize the depth of the sermon Reverend Watkins delivered. Indeed, that is what captured my attention.  While Doctor Watkins had command of her language, she commanded the person who is perhaps, the most powerful human being in the world.  This articulate Minister stood before the President, and eloquently presented parables and scriptures that spoke to the less than honorable and moral issue of vengeance.  

This uncommon; yet commoner, cleric addressed a reverent Barack Obama.  She welcomed reflections on stark realities in a manner that few might.  Doctor Reverend Sharon E. Watkins essentially confronted the new Commander and asked him to evaluate his ethics.  

Solemnly she said, “In international hard times, our instinct is to fight – to pick up the sword, to seek out enemies, to build walls against the other and why not?  They just might be out to get us.  We’ve got plenty of evidence to that effect.  Someone has to keep watch and be ready to defend, and Mr. President – Tag!  You’re it!”

The congregation laughed.  The air for them was light.  However, for Doctor Sharon E. Watkins, there was no humor in her words.  

G-d’s representative spoke of the change she, and I could, believe in.

While most Americans delighted in the news of today’s Executive Orders, I wonder if Reverend Doctor Watkins worried as I do.  Later, on Thursday afternoon, at 3:10 Post Meridian, when once again, I stood frozen in front of the “tube.”  I felt the futility of fight would be America’s fate.

The baritone, Barack Obama boomed, as if defiant of the deities.  “The world needs to understand that America will be unyielding in its protection of its security and relentless in its pursuit of those who would carry out terrorism or threaten the United States.”

I wondered.  Had Reverend Doctor Watkins heard the statement?  Does she now know as I do, which wolf Barack Obama will feed.

Update . . .

Two U.S. missile strikes kill 17 in Pakistan, sources say,

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) — Seventeen people were killed Friday evening in two U.S. missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal region, said one government and two military officials.

They are the first such strikes since President Obama took office Tuesday.

Both hits were near the Afghan border, said local political official Nasim Dawar. The Pakistani military sources asked not to be named because they are not authorized to release such information.

The first strike, which killed 10 people, occurred about 5:15 p.m. (7:15 a.m. ET) in a village near Mir Ali in North Waziristan, the officials said. Seven people died in the second hit at 7:30 p.m. (9:30 a.m. ET) near Wana, the major town in South Waziristan, 17 miles (27 kilometers) from Afghanistan, they said.

References for realities, real, and those imagined by vengeful, fearful, humans . . .

The Horror of War

copyright © 2008. Jerry Northington.  campaign website or on the campaign blog.

Today’s New York Times magazine section has a firsthand story about the horror of fighting in Afghanistan.  Entitled “Battle Company is Out There” the author, Elizabeth Rubin, relates the tale of Capt. Dan Kearney and his troops as the effort is made to occupy and pacify a bit of the Korengal Valley.  Many previous stories tell of the dangers inherent in the valley and in surrounding territory.  This account offers a personal and stirring account of one platoon and their adventures in a very short period of time.

The Korengal Outpost, nicknamed the KOP, was built in April 2006 on the site of a former timber mill and motel.

Relating some of Capt. Kearney’s thoughts the story goes on.

But as hard as Iraq was, he said, nothing was as tough as the Korengal.  Unlike in Iraq, where the captains and lieutenants could let down their guard in a relatively safe, fortified operating base, swapping stories and ideas, here they had no one to talk to and were almost as vulnerable to enemy fire inside the wire as out.  Last summer, insurgents stormed one of the bases in a nearby valley and wounded 16.

The danger of a place like the Korengal Valley is increased by the presence of civilian populations.

As Kearney put it to me one day at the KOP, the Korengal is like a tough Los Angeles neighborhood, “and we’re the L.A.P.D. kicking in the door, arresting guys, demanding information about the gangs, and slowly the people say, ‘No, we don’t know anything, because that guy in the gang, he’s with my sister, and that other guy, he’s my uncle’s cousin.’  Now we’ve angered them for so many years that they’ve decided: ‘I’m gonna stick with the A.C.M.’ ” – anticoalition militants – ” ‘who are my brothers and I’m not gonna rat them out.’ “

How can soldiers be expected to make peace of any sort in a situation like this?  

Years of American and NATO bombing and killing of civilians have led to an ingrained resistance which leads many tribes to seek revenge.

Whom do you want to side with: your brothers in God’s world or the infidel thieves?

The troops are pushed to the limits of human endurance.

The soldiers were on a 15-month tour that included just 18 days off. Many of them were “stop-lossed,” meaning their contracts were extended because the army is stretched so thin. You are not allowed to refuse these extensions.

One mission of the group called Rock Avalanche was typical of the missions the troops undertook.  The goal was the securing of a village, Yaka China, to slow or stop the flow of insurgents across the Pakistan border.  In early fighting decisions had to be made about the use of air power.

The tally was bad – 5 killed and 11 wounded, all of them women, girls and boys.

Meetings the next day with tribal and village leaders were marked by the usual

miscommunication and deception

on both sides that made those interactions more of a performance than a real discussion.  A day after the meeting the tribal leaders had apparently decided the time had come to fight rather than to cooperate.  The story continues with reports of an attack on a hill held by American troops.  The continuing death and destruction is described in vivid detail.

I followed Piosa through the brush toward the ridge. We came upon Rice and Specialist Carl Vandenberge behind some trees. Vandenberge was drenched in blood. The shot to his arm had hit an artery. Rice was shot in the stomach. A soldier was using the heating chemicals from a Meal Ready to Eat to warm Vandenberge and keep him from going into shock.

Kearney lost seven of his men in the Valley up to the end of the reporter’s time.

But the dialogue with the Korengalis was pretty much the same as it had been. Only the winter snows have brought some minor respite to the valley.

The misery that war brings to both sides is beyond the ability of words to convey in adequate terms.  Yet stories like this one bring some measures of reality to the outside world.  How much longer will we stay in Afghanistan?  Can we win against a resistance built on local and family ties?  What will our nation need to look for other alternatives to replace military efforts to instill “peace”?

Until and unless we as a nation and as a global society come to recognize the futility of war we are in trouble as a species.  We must come to recognize the greater good comes from peaceful coexistence and cooperation with one another.  We are all in this together as human beings.  We will stand together or we will fall apart.

Peace.

Bhutto Died; Cable News Network [CNN] Made Clinton President



Hillary calls for investigation into Bhutto’s assassination

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert

Often a King, a Queen, a Prime Minister, or even a President is anointed for they have what it takes.  A bloodline qualifies a person for a position of authority.  An individual may have married well.  A network of acquaintances often secures an honorable appointment.   After all, people profess, “It is not what you know, but who you know.”  A court may declare an individual all-powerful, or a media mogul, with monetary ties to those who “count” may commit him or herself to a candidate, or to a campaign.  

The reasons for a selection may not be obvious, or at least a naïve public would not fathom the possible influences.  Yet, we observe the obscure rendezvous daily.   The so-called objective press tells us what to think and whom we must consider a credible source.  On Friday, December 28, 2007, America was reminded that Hillary Clinton was the chose one.  She alone is more than qualified to be Commander-In-Chief.  

Less than a week before the Iowa caucus, Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, was invited to speak to a global audience, to an expectant nation, to the American people.  She did so with conviction.  Cable News Network featured the former First Lady in an exclusive interview.  The presumed future occupant of the Oval Office appeared Presidential indeed.  

Definitively, Clinton discussed the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.  As she assessed the nations’ next necessary move, the New York State Senator was treated as though she was Commander-In-Chief, President of the United States of America.

One might ask, “Who died and left Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office?”  Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was slain, or accidentally, she took her last breath, or insert the theory of your choice.  Hence, “The Most Trusted Name in News” chose to select our next President, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Regardless of Hillary Clinton’s recent slip in national polls and the possible cancellation of the previously planned coronation, Wolf Blitzer, Ted Turner, or parent company Time Warner thought the former First Lady was the best person to advise Americans on the crisis in Pakistan. In truth, there has long been an alliance between the Cable News Network and the Clinton clan.  

Some might recall another discussion during the most recent New York Senatorial campaign.  In a cover story, Time Magazine the crown jewel periodical in the Time Warner media kingdom, explained to “uninformed” voters, Senator Clinton had “virtually nonexistent opposition for her senate seat.”  Hence, Time Warner’s NY1 TV news channel [“the CNN of New York”] vehemently refused to host a Democratic New York Senate race debate stating there was no need.  Clinton did not have a viable opponent.

Notwithstanding numerous protests, and cries of foul, the New York Cable News Network claimed her antiwar challenger, union leader Jonathan Tasini, has not raised enough money to be considered creditable.  The station capriciously stated, a candidate must raise a half-million dollars before they are worthy of note, or are granted an opportunity to speak to the television audience.  Apparently, actual money buys airtime that support from the electorate cannot.

Ironically, NY1 has already hosted and televised a Democratic New York gubernatorial debate between frontrunner Eliot Spitzer and a Democratic challenger who was at only 10% in the polls.  But that candidate had raised about $6 million.  So spending millions to get just 10% in popular support was rewarded by Time Warner’s channel, while building a more effective grassroots campaign, largely of volunteers, was punished.  (One wonders how much of the money went to NY1.)

Did I mention that Time Warner’s Political Action Committee [PAC] is one of the many corporate PACs that underwrites Hillary Clinton’s reelection campaign against the “virtually nonexistent opposition”?

While Hillary Clinton does face a field of qualified opponents in this national Presidential campaign, according to Cable News Network she is still classified as the presumed winner again and again, at least in CNN polls.  

The American public may never have a chance to ask “Which came first, the media’s preference or the people’s opinion?”  A Clinton victory may have been cinched before the public campaign began.

In an earlier era, Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, the candidate with “experience,” lived in the White House for eight long years.  While she may not be George W. Bush, the man who, current Chief Executive Officer of Time Warner, Richard Parsons has long supported; nor is she John McCain, a Republican nominee that Parsons now backs, of those considered electable, Clinton may be the best Bush clone.  That alone may be important enough to an elite entrepreneur who wishes to ensure his interests will be protected.  Hillary Clinton has corporate connections more meaty than all other contenders.  

A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm–the Glover Park Group–that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch. Her fundraiser in chief, Terry McAuliffe, has the priciest Rolodex in Washington, luring high-rolling contributors to Clinton’s campaign. Her husband, since leaving the presidency, has made millions giving speeches and counsel to investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. They house, in addition to other Wall Street firms, the Clintons’ closest economic advisers, such as Bob Rubin and Roger Altman, whose DC brain trust, the Hamilton Project, is Clinton’s economic team in waiting.

Even the liberal in her camp, former deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, has lobbied for the telecom and healthcare industries, including a for-profit nursing home association indicted in Texas for improperly funneling money to disgraced former House majority leader Tom DeLay. “She’s got a deeper bench of big money and corporate supporters than her competitors,” says Eli Attie, a former speechwriter to Vice President Al Gore. Not only is Hillary more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists.

For Richards Parsons, the list of Clinton’s top contributors establishes Hillary Clinton is an attractive aspirant.  She is solidly in the Conservative Camp.  This is likely the reason that Parsons, the individual, also invested in her Senate campaign in 2006.  Now, in 2007, he and his network can further assist the candidate in her endeavors . . . and they are.

After the death of Benazir Bhutto, Americans were invited into the Situation Room, not the one located in the White House.  We, the viewing public entered the halls of the  Cable News Network.  There we discovered who died, and who was made President.  As the Time Warner, Cable News Network broadcast began Journalist Wolf Blitzer announced right from the outset who was in charge of the nation and foreign policy.  Blitzer proudly declared  . . .

Hillary Clinton’s get-tough approach to Pakistan — in our exclusive interview, she has some harsh words for President Musharraf and for the Bush administration . . .

The television audience then saw the presumed “future” President of the United States. Her face filled the screen.  The United States flag was visible over her shoulder.   A golden ambiance set the tone; then the words of our “leader” echoed through the air.  Former First Lady, soon to be Madame President Clinton proclaimed her beliefs.  She shared her policy and offered instructions to  the world at large.

I don’t think the Pakistani government, at this time, under President Musharraf, has any credibility at all.  They have disbanded an independent judiciary.  They have oppressed a free press.? ?Therefore, I’m calling for a full independent international investigation, perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations has been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon.

I think it’s critically important that we get answers.  And, really, those answers are due, first and foremost, to the people of Pakistan, not only those who were supportive of Benazir Bhutto and her party, but every Pakistani, because we cannot expect to move towards stability without some reckoning as to who was responsible for this assassination.

And, therefore, I call on President Musharraf and the Pakistani government to realize that this is in the interests of Pakistan to understand whether or not it was al Qaeda or some other offshoot extremist group that is attempting to further destabilize and even overthrow the Pakistani government, or whether it came from within, either explicitly or implicitly the security forces or the military in Pakistan.

You know, the thing I have not been able to understand, Wolf — I have met with President Musharraf — I obviously knew Benazir Bhutto and admired her leadership — is that President Musharraf, in every meeting I have had with him, the elites in Pakistan, who still wield tremendous power, plus the leadership of the military, act as though they can destabilize Pakistan and retain their positions, their positions of privilege, their positions of authority. . .

That is not the way it will work.

Or is it Senator Clinton.  It seems if you and your cronies, your contributors wish to retain positions of privilege, and positions of authority a destabilizing death may be to your advantage.  Perchance, it already was.  You certainly appeared to be in control, as a Commander-In-Chief addressing the nation in our time of need.  Americans awaited an explanation after the Bhutto assassination, and before we could blink, we had the answer.  “Who Died and made you President?”

Sources of Authority . . .

Benazir Bhutto Rests In Peace. Will We?

copyright © 2007 Betsy L. Angert

Millions of Americans awoke to the news; Benazir Bhutto was killed in an attack.  The daughter of a former Prime Minister, and twice Prime Minister herself, Bhutto, months ago returned to her homeland, after a self-imposed eight  year exile.

The Harvard graduate ventured forth with a hope and a dream that she might unite her mother country.  The scion and scholar arrived in Pakistan amidst much fanfare and furor.

Benazir Bhutto was a deeply controversial figure.

Western-educated and charismatic, she presented herself as a moderate, democratic force. As such she was widely courted in the West. The United States hoped she could restore popular legitimacy to President Musharraf’s failing war against Islamist militants.

But she was widely seen as having misused her office for her own financial gain and faced a number of court cases, both inside Pakistan and outside the country. Islamist militants hated her for her pro-American views.

Earlier this year, Ms Bhutto and Mr Musharraf had been working on a power-sharing agreement. The talks failed, leaving Ms Bhutto as the biggest political threat to President Musharraf, rather than an ally.

Therein lies the question many citizens of the United States ask.  Who, among the leaders in Pakistan is a friend to America and who is the foe.  Benazir Bhutto was our lover, devotee, and we her enthusiast.  Yet, for years the White House has happily courted the current President of Pakistan.

Despite talk of terrorist encampments and anti-American sentiment within Pakistan, the Bush Administration spoke of General Musharraf as a friend of the States.  Oh, the President of the United States and President, General Pervez Musharraf had their differences.  There was a time when the leaders aired their angst aloud.  However, ultimately, the two kissed and made-up as couples often do.  The world powers then walked off into the sunset, hand-in-hand.  Each, revels in the joint venture to fight against Islamic insurgents.

Granted, there were other rifts.  Commander-In-Chief, the American military commandant demanded that the General take off his uniform.  After Pakistani President, General Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law and suspended that nation’s Constitution, there was fear within the White House.  Federal officials stated our ally had gone too far. His decision to wear military garb exacerbated the situation.  An elected official cannot be considered militaristic.  During a telephone conference with the Middle Eastern Head of State, President and Commander George W. Bush expressed his distress with the man who supported the United States in its endeavor to spread democracy.

“You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time,” Bush said. “I had a very frank discussion with him.” . . .

“My message was that we believe strongly in elections, and that you ought to have elections soon, and you need to take off your uniform,” Bush said.

Perhaps this derision was the last straw.  It was time to move on, move forward, or stay the course with a new face at the helm.  Certainly, there is no need to imagine; were Benazir Bhutto Prime Minister of Pakistan, she too would have joined US in combat against “terrorists.”

The U.S. has long supported a return to power by Bhutto, who was perceived to be a moderate willing to work with Washington on the war on terror. She was also seen as a democratic leader who would serve as a counter to the plummeting popularity of Musharraf, who took power in a 1999 military coup. It was thought that a power-sharing deal between the two, in which Musharraf stayed on as president while Bhutto lead as prime minister, would promote stability in this nuclear armed nation of 165 million. But from the day of her arrival in Pakistan after eight years in exile, Bhutto’s return has been marred by violence.

We can only surmise that the hostile environment did not worry the Americans, the Bush Administration much.  After all, aggression is the way of this White House.  It matters not who leads or lends a hand as we go into battle.  As long as the war continues, a surge strategy is maintained, and fear is sustained.  Then, the hawks win.  All must inquire; is that not the most important aspect of this New World Strategy.

We can peruse the Pakistani papers.  We can read the rhetoric of the Right and the Left in America.  Candidates can recount their experience of Benazir Bhutto.  Still, there is reason to believe we know nothing of what really happened and why.  The common folk are not even certain they understand how to care for a tragic event that has now become a campaign battle cry.  Americans listen to the words of woe, and the warnings.  Again we are told, in the name of democracy, we are at war . . . and do not forget it!

“The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy,” Bush said. “Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice.” . . .

With the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses just a week away, U.S. presidential candidates also swiftly condemned the killing and stressed the need to fight terrorism.

The assassins who killed Bhutto “must be brought to justice,” Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Thursday.

“Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred and violence,” said Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who is trailing fellow Democrats Clinton and Barack Obama in polls, said a leader has died in Pakistan “but democracy must live.”

“It is in the interests of the U.S. that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists,” Richardson said in a statement.

Campaigning in Florida, current Iowa-caucus Republican frontrunner Mike Huckabee said he is “deeply troubled” by the news of Bhutto’s killing. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, said the U.S. must stand with moderate forces across the Islamic world “and together face the defining challenge of our generation — the struggle against violent, radical jihadists.”

“For those who think Iraq is the sole front in the war on terror, one must look no further than what has happened today,” said Romney, a Republican. . . .

Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack that brought down the World Trade Center, said Bhutto’s death is a reminder that terrorism anywhere “is an enemy of freedom.”

“We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists’ war on us,” Giuliani said in a statement.

“This is devastating news for the people of Pakistan, and my prayers go out to them as we follow developments regarding this dire situation,” Huckabee said in a statement.

Once again, Americans must acknowledge that purposely, we are not fully informed.  As long as war remains in the wind, we cannot and will not speak of peace.  In an era where faux-Progressives stress the need for global tranquility, as they plan to wage war for at least another term, we must remember that when conflict is the cause of strife, it will also be the effect.

Americans and citizen worldwide can only hope that we, as  a world will decide not to focus on assignations and the aggressive demeanors that lead to these.  We might dream of the impossible, harmony, and create it.  

Together let us take a moment and rest in peace.  Perchance, we might listen to the words of the one Presidential hopeful from either nation, Pakistan or the United states, who wishes only for serenity planet-wide.  The aspirant that believes we can achieve the impossible, what same think absurd offers his words of wisdom.

U.S. Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) issued the following statement after learning of the death of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto was killed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in a suicide attack following a campaign rally.

“This is a very dangerous moment for the world,” Kucinich said. . . .

“The United States must change its policy direction in the region. It must stop adding fuel to the fire.”

If we truly wish to establish world unity, Americans and Pakistanis alike cannot condone combat, in any form, on foreign or domestic shores.  If we are to authentically invite and work for peace, we, as a nation, as individual people must live  our lives in harmony.  We must be calm when in the company of our neighbors, strangers and genuinely care for our selves.

Peace, Pax. Hasiti. Amniat.

Source of Serenity or Strife . . .