Big Jon Powers piece in the Christian Science Monitor
The Christian Science Monitor (which, despite its name, is the one of the best newspapers in the country) has a lengthy profile of Jon Powers today. It tells the remarkable story of how Power went back to Iraq after his tour of duty to start the War Kids Relief charity:
Powers returned to Iraq in August 2005, a little more than a year after he’d left, to run his new charity to help Iraqi orphans. With only a contract from Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation to help fund it, and his Army Reservist ID in hand, “I literally talked my way into the green zone,” he says.
Over several weeks he met with high-ranking Iraqi ministers to drum up support for the project. He sent discreet delegations of Iraqis to meet with the directors of two orphanages in Adhamiyah. He outlined a bigger vision – a Baghdad network of work-study centers for the older kids – that has not yet obtained funding, though the Iraqi government now has the blueprint for setting up such a program. And War Kids Relief continues to advocate US engagement with Iraqi youths.
“He had a lot of passion for the project,” says Donahue, who overlapped with Powers in Baghdad for a time while doing his own work on land mines. Though foreigners were not permitted to visit the kids, Powers “got goods flowing to those orphanages…,” says Donahue. “He was very good at building sources of support he could rely on.”
Related posts:
“…all the way to Washington Jon!”
http://www.powersforcongress.com
Exile - was that a bigoted remark about Christians?
No, Christian science is a branch of the religion that rejects modern all modern medicine. People who just know that find it hard to believe they could put out a good paper.
It’s an excellent paper, but you’re right about people not being able to get past the name.
OK - my bad - how anyone could watch a parent or child suffer and not give them medicine is beyond me.
That’s a good question to ask the Bush Administration and the GOP Elmer. Not only did Jon Powers see that the children were NOT given medicine in Iraq, but their parents were killed, their families gone, no food, no electricity, no schools, no clothes, no hope, no future - unless you consider joining the Al Qaeda an option worth pursuing, but after our own U.S. Government refused to help, he came back as a soldier from Iraq, and went back as a citizen, and continues to this day to make a difference.
Join me Elmer in supporting REAL leaderhship in Washington.
ALL THE WAY TO WASHINGTON - powersforcongress.com
jiminy, I think Elmer was referring to those in this country who believe that modern medicine is interfering with God’s will. Is that right, Elmer?
That is correct - I can’t understand it
Jiminy - I know you are hung up on Iraq - but what do you propose we do about Darfur. I’m sure if we asked Sudan nicely they would stop the killing, feed the people and open an abortion clinic in every village
Personally, I would support some kind of mission to Sudan, in principle. Obviously, I’d have to know the details before deciding what I thought of it. But I think it cries out some kind of intervention. What I don’t know is how feasible that would be.
I do know that from what I’ve read, it’s a terrible tragedy that the US and the UN didn’t get involved in Rwanda.
I don’t think either of those situations is much like Iraq, though. So I hope that the Iraq debacle doesn’t dissuade the west from undertaking important humanitarian missions in the future. I have friends from Croatia who tell me that US/Nato intervention in Bosnia might have saved half a million lives of more.
So when do you use force, when not? And it would help if the rest of western civilization would stop being wimpy about human rights and turn some of their talk into action.
To me Iraq is a puzzle. What would have happened if we hadn’t invaded? What did Sadaam have in mind for the future of Iraq. Would there have been WMD? Would he have invaded another small country?
If we would have invaded Germany in 1938, everyone would have complained about the loss of life in a war that we didn’t need to fight, but millions and millions of lives would have been saved.
Any sane person realizes that you use force on case by case basis. It’s like surgery. If someone comes in with sore throat and I refuse to operate, do you yell “WHY DID YOU OPERATE ON THE GUY WITH THE RUPTURED DISC, WHAT ARE THE STANDARDS, IF YOU HADN’T OPERATED ON THE GUY WHO NEEDED BYPASS SURGERY, HE’D BE DEAD!”
It’s silly to look at two completely unrelated situations, like Rwanda and Iraq, or German in 1938 and Iraq, and demand that I have the same reaction to both situations.
What if there were WMD? What if I had wheels? Then I’d be a bus.
Well since your Prezident created Iraq, we should probably start there, since we are now responsible for the mess.
And about 80% of this country glue are hung up on Iraq.
And once we control the country, the state and you, you’ll be responsible for fixing Darfur. Your human compassion and caring ways should not be overlooked.
Start packing and planning now. Like Rumsfeld, we’ll expect you to be “in and out” in no time flat. “Mission Accomplished”…
Excellent comment.
I hate to remind you but he is your president too (I know that bothers you) - and I worry that a Democrat president will never find any situation that is worth fighting for. The world is full of evil people and someone has to do something. I spent my time in the military during Vietnam - am a little too old to go again
Elmer, which party led the country into WWII and which party opposed involvement in WWII?
And as for finding a situation worth fighting for let me use the medical analogy again. Say I go to a doctor, a Democratic doctor, for years and my health is generally pretty good. Occasionally he prescribes some kind of medicine for something I have but nothing too major. Then I go to a new doctor, a Republican doctor named Doctor W, who insists that I have cancerous cells in some part of my body. He goes in, takes that part of my body out, nearly kills me, and costs me hundreds of thousands dollars. After the surgery, he discovers there were no cancer cells after all. And it turns out he never did a test that convincingly shows that there was before the operation. I can’t figure out why he operated — I’m torn between thinking it was to get money for his practice or because it he thought it might be the same cancer that tried to kill his father Doctor H.W. But my doctor tells me that if I talk about this, it will only embolden any other cancer cells that I might have.
Would I say “I didn’t like that Democratic doctor, my body is full of germs and I’m not sure he ever would have found something worth cutting me open for”?
It was the Supreme Court that made the decision. That makes him “yours” and Jim Baker’s.
It really isn’t the parties, it is the people that lead them. Democrats also got us involved in Korea (36,000 US Deaths) and Vietnam (58,000 US Deaths). That’s 94,000 deaths versus 4,000 for this war - and Republicans got us out of both Korea (Eisenhower) and Vietnam (Nixon) - so if you figure the 94,000 dead versus the 4,000 dead, I would assume that Republicans are the party of peace and the Democrats are war-mongers. But again, it was the individuals involved (Truman, Kennedy, Johnson and Bush) not the parties
Oh - the Supreme Court only counts when it issues liberal rulings? Does that mean that abortion is still illegal if you don’t believe it was the right decision?
It really isn’t the parties, it is the people that lead them.
Previously you wrote:
I worry that a Democrat president will never find any situation that is worth fighting for.
Are you trying to rebut your own argument?
Go eat something - your blood sugar must be low - you’re’ making no sense anymore, and simply grasping at straws in an attempt to make a point - a point that is being missed.
Funny you mention that - I am diabetic - and talk about making no sense - Bush is still your President no matter what you think.
No - I am trying to make a point that it is the individual person who has to start a war - and I don’t think either Obama or Clinton would do it under any circumstances -
What war would you like them to start? Is there a particular country that needs invading right now?
And if you say the Sudan, Clinton and Obama are much more likely to get involved than McCain. Involvement in the Sudan would require international support, something Obama or Clinton can deliver. At this point, McCain can’t. That’s a shame and I take no pleasure in saying it.
Think about it: there’s no way the rest of the world will get behind something like the Bosnian mission if it’s led by the US and the US president is viewed as disciple of Bush/Cheney (as McCain is). That’s how much Bush has destroyed our stature in the world. I’m very sorry to say this. And I wish it weren’t true. But it is true.
I love this analogy with the doctor and cancer cells, Exile!
Another very good point. Our world political capital has been spent—Bush has not only caused us an economic recession but also an international goodwill recession, and he’s created an international trust deficit.
You pledge allegiance to “the flag…of the United States of America”
It doesn’t say Shrub anywhere in that entire statement. That dud belongs to the Supreme Court.
Clinton and Obama have spent the entire election trying to prove who is most against war - the evil people in the world will know that with either of them in the White House they would practically have to invade Rochester before there is a military response.
There are a lot of problems with McCain, but he will keep other countries honest
There’s no way you can believe this stuff you’re writing.
You’re just trying to tee me off. Well, Mission Accomplished.
Congratulations Ex - you’re now a bus
I too liked the Christian Science Monitor’s piece on Jon Powers. It’s amazing what one person with a good heart and a load of courage can do!
May I respectfully add my two cents about Christian Science in general? For me, as a parent and a Christian Scientist I would never let my child suffer. Most Christian Science parents I know are intelligent, loving, and responsible. We want the best possible care for our families.
The reason we use Christian Science treatment, a kind of prayer, as our first resort for health and healing, is not out of blind faith or religious zeal, but because it actually works. I’ve had many years of effective healing with it. That may seem incredulous, but it’s true.
But I would never withhold any effective treatment from a child or loved one, when necessary.
Respectfully,
- John
I in no way meant to disrespect your religious beliefs.