A friend recently got back from a trip to the south of France and emails the following:

"I watched the news on French and British television, including CNN International. CNN International's coverage of what was going on in Iraq presented a far different war than the one we're being shown here in the U.S. Disturbing images of bloodied and mangled women and children -- not just the usual angry Iraqi insurgents waving guns and shouting -- but innocent civilians; weeping, devastated men and women wondering when will it stop. These are the real images of this war and everyone in the civilized world is seeing them...except us."

She also sent this article from the Guardian:

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."

[snip]

General Odom remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the senior military officers over Iraq 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."

Coincidental joke currently zipping around the internet (thanks, A): Q: "What's the difference between the war in Iraq and the war in Viet Nam?" A: "George Bush had a plan for getting out of Viet Nam."

The Moral Urgency of Electing John Kerry --
Beliefnet has a column by Rev. James Forbes, "The Moral Urgency of Electing John Kerry." He argues that a vote for Kerry stands for more than a vote against Bush; he shows how Kerry's positions and behavior align more truthfully with what he calls Prophetic Justice Principles.

But another good reason to go to that page is to rock the vote: A sidebar poll asks "Which candidate best exemplifies Christian values?" and when I voted, Bush was polling at 64% and Kerry at 36%. I don't have time to rant, but this is appalling. I guess it's too much to hope that a few fundamentalists and right-leaning evangelicals will read that Ayelish McGarvey article I pointed to yesterday?

The Bigs begin to realize there's such a thing as a "liberal Christian" --
WaPo's EJ Dionne:

Thus may some good come out of this often rancid campaign: The myth that religion lives only on the political right is being exploded, and honest debate among believers will again be a normal part of the nation's public life. That's a benefit to democracy and to faith communities, too.

And the New York Times:

"No one says these Christians are as well organized, well financed or politically formidable as conservative Christians. But they are rousing people, mainly in areas that lean Democratic, around issues of social justice like the environment, the war and, most often, poverty."

(After the elections, we'll concentrate on changing that first sentence.)

I'm certainly no fan of Pat Robertson --
but I have to wonder if the Rovians are off their game a little this week -- if they've been worrying about those missing 4 million evangelicals, is implying that Robertson lied about his conversation with Bush going to win them over? (Funny: Digsby asks "Can this marriage be saved?")

Ah, that Liberal Media Bias --
Where Kerry-up-3 points on Bush is described as a "dead heat," but Bush-up-1 is "opening a lead."

Ok, they're not ALL bad --
Republicans for Kerry. (Update: former KY Senator Marlow Cook is on that list, but you really must read his terrific editorial.) (Thanks for pointing it out, A.)

The Civil Rights President --
"This report finds that President Bush has neither exhibited leadership on pressing civil rights issues, nor taken actions that matched his words." Blumenthal on Bush's Civil Rights record and a notably underreported report, "Redefining Rights in America-The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration, 2001-2004."

Stolen Air Time --
Sinclair is beginning to buckle (but that's no reason to let up on the pressure) From the WaPo:

"Under mounting political, legal and financial pressure, Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc. yesterday backed away from its plan to carry a film attacking John F. Kerry's Vietnam War record, saying it would air only portions of the movie in an hour-long special scheduled for Friday."

We won't get fooled again --
Democrats are leading the early voting in Nevada.

(And for the record, I'm a "proud member of the reality-based community" too!)