I arrived just as Windows 2000 was being released to manufacturing and just in time for Y2K. It was also right before the dot-com bubble burst in early 2000. Indeed, in the two years I worked there, I saw the glory days of the late ’90s — a time when working at Microsoft meant swimming in lucrative company stock options and bonuses and work was something you did between foosball tournaments — give way to the harsh realities of the falling stock market, before regaining a sense of hopeful optimism with the impending release of Windows XP.

It was from my cubicle that I watched the presidential debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore in which Gore touted his infamous “lockbox” and where I watched the ugliness of the 2000 election drag on with all its “hanging chads”. And it was from my cubicle where I witnessed the horror of September 11th. But it was also a place where I made numerous friendships and countless memories.

It was a stressful job, and I can’t say I fully miss it. But I learned more there than I have at any other job I’ve ever had. It provided invaluable experience that I’ve taken with me in the years since leaving, and I’m grateful for the time I was given there.

Zelaya’s removal from office was prompted by his pushing of a referendum which would’ve allowed him to serve a second term in office, something not allowed under Honduras’s constitution. Supporters of the coup argue they were only siding with the rule of law. But the international community, including the Organization of American States (OAS) and the Obama administration, have sided with Zelaya, ordering that he be restored to power.

Who’s right?

Roger Noriega, a former assistant secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs during the George W. Bush administration, argues that the Honduran government acted correctly in removing Zelaya, a “capricious blowhard” whose friends include Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Raul Castro.

Zelaya’s self-serving lawlessness was ignored completely by OAS leadership and, as far as one can tell, by every government in the region that now dares to pass judgment on Honduras’ constitutional order. The feckless regional diplomats who have failed to confront undemocratic caudillos in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Honduras are complicit in their abuses. Today, they have neither the credibility nor moral authority to pass judgment on those desperate patriots who act to defend their freedom, in Honduras or anywhere else.

Noriega’s position shouldn’t come as a surprise. He is an ardent supporter of free market oil and energy investments in Latin America by American companies, a vision of a U.S.-backed “corporatocracy” that reads straight out of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Such a vision requires fairly weak but stable Central and South American governments who are friendly to the United States, exactly the opposite of those led by Chavez and Castro. By backing Zelaya’s attempt at extending his power beyond constitutional limits, U.S. corporate interests in Honduras could be greatly damaged.

Corporate interests aside, however, the reality is that the Honduran Congress and military acted within constitutional guidelines by removing Zelaya, an act also backed by that nation’s Supreme Court. Therefore, the call to return Zelaya to power makes absolutely no sense.

Imagine if this had happened in the United States. Imagine if George W. Bush had tried to push through a referendum that would’ve allowed him to serve unlimited presidential terms, something disallowed by the 22nd Amendment. Had he then been impeached and ultimately removed from office, would the international community still expect him to be returned to the Oval Office until his term expired? Of course not! So why is it demanding that of Zelaya?

President Obama called the removal of Zelaya a step backward from the “enormous progress of the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Latin America.” Yet it was actually the democratically-elected Congress that was following the constitution, not Zelaya. If Obama really believed in upholding Latin America’s “democratic traditions”, then he would be siding with the Honduran Congress, not with the likes of Hugo Chavez.

As the Wall Street Journal points out, supporting Zelaya is “one more act of appeasement toward an ambitious and increasingly dangerous dictator.” At some point, that appeasement must end. It may be too late for Venezuela and Cuba, but it’s not too late for Honduras.

Update:
This editorial explains that while removing Zelaya wasn’t the government’s only choice, it was by far the best one:

The Honduran institutions had only three options. The first was do nothing and let things follow their course leading to an irreversible situation of an established regime administered in perpetuity by Chavez and Zelaya. The second was to try to get rid of the president for willingly, which would have allowed sufficient time Zelaya to request support for the Venezuelan military, making Honduras the scene of a bloody war. They opted for the third option, an unexpected and bloodless military coup to prevent Zelaya to consummate his plans to remain in power.

Prior to George W. Bush, most presidents honored the day with proclamations or other low-key events. But President Bush went further during his administration, inviting Christian and Jewish leaders to the White House for a more formal observance. President Obama, however, is not continuing his predecessor’s tradition, instead opting for a proclamation and nothing more.

Does that matter?

Surely this nation needs strong Christian leadership in the White House and Congress. But should we as Christians be depending on the president to be our spiritual leader? Even with the strongest of Christians in office, I would say no.

As I wrote shortly after the election in November:

But Barack Obama is not the Messiah, and as Christians we understand that real hope doesn’t come from a politician. Real change — eternal change — doesn’t come from a political party or a presidential election. It can only come from the grace of God through the death and resurrection of His Son.

And so regardless of the outcome of this election or any other, our mission is the same as it has been for 2000 years: to share the good news of “hope” and “change” that can only be found through Jesus Christ.

And part of that mission obviously includes prayer, not just on the first Thursday of May, but every day.

Whether our elected officials join with us or not.

Previously:
The election is meaningless

With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the “war on terror,” as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. …

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military’s Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration’s lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

Marc Thiessen, a former speechwriter for George W. Bush, points out:

The CIA program he is effectively shutting down is the reason why America has not been attacked again after 9/11. He has removed the tool that is singularly responsible for stopping al-Qaeda from flying planes into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, Heathrow Airport, and London’s Canary Warf, and blowing up apartment buildings in Chicago, among other plots.

Nice. While we’re busy digging a nice, big hole in the sand to stick our heads back in, Osama bin Laden is laughing his off in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.

You know, I seem to recall something Obama said in his inauguration speech:

[F]or those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us….

Oops. Guess he was wrong.

Previously:
How history will judge the Iraq War

Mr. Bush’s disfavor in Washington owes more to his greatest success. Simply put, there are those who will never forgive Mr. Bush for not losing a war they had all declared unwinnable.

In other words, many people expected Iraq to be a complete and total failure, yet President Bush stubbornly proved them wrong, much to their dismay.

The article goes on to explain how this expectation of defeat is clearly rooted in “Vietnam thinking,” which begs the question: When everything is said and done, how will history ultimately judge the Iraq War?

Will we look back on it 30 years from now as another Vietnam, a long and drawn-out military campaign with no clear metrics for victory and one which ended only because our collective will finally gave out? Or will we see it as a turning point, not only in the war on Islamic terrorism and not only for the people of Iraq, but for America as a whole, a sound rebuttal to our past inadequacies?

From the outset, I disagreed with President Bush’s decision to go into Iraq, yet once there, it became crystal clear we had to finish what we had started. Leaving prematurely because we weren’t winning fast enough simply wasn’t an option. To his credit, Mr. Bush understood that, even when his critics did not. And now because of his steadfast commitment, we have a real opportunity to walk out of Iraq with our heads held high.

Michael Goldfarb points out in the Weekly Standard blog, “The result is that Obama has inherited victory in Iraq.” And there’s the answer to the question.

If we ultimately win in Iraq, President Obama will most certainly get the credit; if we lose, President Bush will most certainly get the blame.

History, as they say, is written by the victors.

Previously:
President Bush: the exit interview

Wouldn’t it be weird to see him in the elevator in the morning? Or would he and his Secret Service agents get their own elevator? Yeah, I can see it now. You’re running late for work, trying to catch the elevator doors before they close, and just as you get close, two Secret Service agents pull their guns on you as the 43rd President of the United States waves goodbye. Awkward.

But here’s my complaint. Dubya’s office is about three miles from his home. Three miles! What kind of commute is that?! I don’t think you’re even legally allowed to live in the Metroplex if you don’t sit through at least two traffic jams a day!

The part of the interview that seems to be getting the most attention is when McFadden asks the President about his faith. While some of the answers are pretty good, there are a few that I disagree with.

Below are some of his responses and my comments on them. (And by the way, I’m sorry for the extremely long post here.)

Bush said he is often asked if he thinks he was chosen by God to be president.

“I just, I can’t go there,” he said. “I’m not that confident in knowing, you know, the Almighty, to be able to say, ‘Yeah, God wanted me of all the other people.’ My relationship [with God] is on a personal basis trying to become as closer to the Almighty as I possibly can get. And I’ve got a lot of problems. I mean, I got, you know, the ego … all the things that prevent me from being closer to the Almighty. So, I don’t analyze my relationship with the good Lord in terms of, well, you know, God has plucked you out or God wants you to do this. I know this: I know that the call is to better understand and live out your life according to the will of God.”

Me: I like his answer here, especially the last sentence. But it bothers me that he constantly refers to God as “the Almighty”. Just seems very politically correct to me.

“People say, ‘But how do you know that it’s because of prayer?’ And I guess the answer is because of faith is how I know — I can’t prove it for you. People, you know, say it’s just a crutch. For me, it’s not a crutch, for me it’s the realization of a power of a universal God and recognition that the God came manifested in human and then died for sins. Now, all of this was hard for me to understand for a period of time and I am still trying to understand as best as my human mind can possibly do so. But in the understanding and in the search and in the quest, I find comfort and strength.”

Me: Well said.

When asked if he thinks that he prays to the same God as those with different beliefs, Bush said, “I do.”

“I do believe there is an Almighty that is broad and big enough and loving enough that can encompass a lot of people…”

Me: Incorrect. The Muslim God (Allah) is not considered by Muslims to be the same as the Judeo-Christian God (Yahweh). Therefore, Muslims do not pray to the same God that Jews and Christians do. And Buddhists and Hindus likewise do not pray to God. Further, because Jews do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, then it’s fair to say they don’t pray to the same God (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) that Christians do.

Jesus was very clear that He is the “way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”  (John 14:6).

Interviewer Cynthia McFadden asked Bush if the Bible was literally true.

“You know. Probably not. … No, I’m not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament for example is … has got … You know, the important lesson is ‘God sent a son,’” Bush said.

(Quote taken from here.)

Me: OK, I’m going to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here. As he alluded to here, there is a difference between a biblical literalist (i.e. one who accepts every single word of the Bible as true, including that the universe and mankind were created in six 24-hour days) and a biblical fundamentalist (i.e. one who maintains that the Bible is God’s Holy Word but who can also accept that it contains some allegory or symbolism).

President Bush is presumably saying here that he’s more of a fundamentalist, although most viewers would not understand that distinction.

Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said, “I think you can have both. I think evolution can — you’re getting me way out of my lane here. I’m just a simple president. But it’s, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don’t think it’s incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution.”

He added: “I happen to believe that evolution doesn’t fully explain the mystery of life.”

Me: I agree and I disagree.

Christianity can be summed up in four basic truths: (1) God created the universe and everything in it, and humans were created distinctly in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27). (2) Mankind disobeyed God, causing us to be separated from Him.  Romans 6:23 says that the punishment for that disobedience is death, meaning Hell. (3) God sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to earth to pay that penalty for us by dying on the cross. Three days after His death, Jesus was resurrected and now sits at God’s right hand in Heaven. (4) By repenting of our sin and acknowledging that Jesus is Lord of our lives, we can be forgiven of our sins and reborn spiritually in order that we can live eternally in Heaven.

If you remove any of those truths from the equation, then it’s no longer consistent with the Bible. Therefore, you can’t as a Christian believe that humans evolved from another organism or species.

However, that is not to say that evolution cannot co-exist with Creation. Evolution, if you define it as plants and animals adapting over time to their environment, is not inconsistent with the Bible (at least as I see it). So I can allow for the existence of evolution up to a point. But again, if you take out that first biblical truth, then all other aspects of Christianity don’t make any sense.

So what is President Bush saying here exactly? It’s not 100% clear. But I suspect, based on the way he framed the answer, that he’s acknowledging the limited version of evolution I just described.

Again, with a lot of these answers, it’s difficult to know exactly where he stands on a lot of these things. Certainly, many Christians will disagree with him, and I’m sure others will misunderstand him. As I’ve said before, though, our faith should never be in any politician, but in God Himself.

Here are a few of the more interesting ones, but it’s worth reading the whole thing.

On the troop surge in Iraq:

“And I can’t remember the moment, but I know full well [National Security Adviser] Steve [Hadley] and I said, ‘We’re going to figure out and get to the bottom of this thing . . .’ And you’ve got to understand: With me, I’m thinking victory the whole time. And I fully understood the consequences of defeat — which are easier to explain, by the way, than the consequences of victory. And so we started to assess, and the different options started bubbling up, I guess, toward the end of the summer [’06] . . .

“The way it should work for a president on a decision this big is to make sure everybody has a chance to express themselves. I guess you could try to hastily make a decision of this magnitude and say, ‘This is the way it is.’ On the other hand, when you’re implementing a decision of this magnitude, where people’s lives would be at stake, it is important to give a lot of different stakeholders a chance to express their opinion. The president says, ‘It’s not working, we must assess, and what is it going to take to win?’

“And there were a lot of opinions during this period of time — a lot. Which is good for the president. You really don’t want homogenized decision-making. And opinions ranged from Get out, to Get out of Baghdad, step back, and hope the violence which will occur as a result of the vacuum doesn’t spill out.” Some people said, “Okay, some troops” — and eventually, “as a result of a lot of interagency working,” there were 30,000 additional troops: the surge. “Why? Because that’s what it would take to win, or to achieve the objective.”

On abortion:

“One of the principles by which I have conducted my presidency is, all life is precious, and a society, a whole society, is one that treats the most vulnerable with respect and care. And I believe the most vulnerable — one of the most vulnerable is the unborn person, unborn child.”

He also felt the need to say, “I fully understand the importance of science.”

On a “culture of life,” he said, “I’ve always said laws change once hearts change. I think there’s [now] a better appreciation of the importance of protecting life; that the debate has somewhat shifted from one of civil rights to one group of people to civil rights to the unborn.”

On popularity with other nations:

“You can get short-term popularity in the Middle East if you want, by blaming all problems on Israel. That’ll make you popular. You can be popular in certain salons of Europe if you say, ‘Okay, we’ll join the International Criminal Court.’ I could have been popular if I’d said, ‘Oh, Kyoto is the way to deal with the environmental problem.’ That would have made me liked. It would have made me wrong, however. And, ultimately, you earn people’s respect by articulating a set of principles and standing by them.

“You know, popularity comes and goes. It just does. It comes and goes for an individual or a nation. But principles are enduring.”

On principles:

“I’m comfortable that I have made principled decisions for eight years — that I was unwilling to sacrifice those principles for the sake of short-term approbation, approval, or whatever you want to call it.”

It’s refreshing to hear President Bush speak so freely without the filter of a biased media.

I must say I’ve disagreed with him on a number of things over the course of his presidency, but I’ve always respected him for acting on his principles. One of his greatest strengths (and possibly his weaknesses) is that he always fought for what he believed in, whether it was popular or not. Quite a difference from Bill Clinton, who never had a genuine conviction in his life.

“Government intervention is not a cure-all,” Bush was to say in New York, according to prepared remarks released in advance by the White House. …

“The crisis was not a failure of the free market system,” Bush said. “And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system.” …

“History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market but too much,” Bush said. “It would a terrible mistake to allow a few months of crisis to undermine 60 years of success.”

I couldn’t agree more. In fact, I made a similar point, although not as explicitly, a few weeks ago:

Yes, tighter regulation of U.S. financial markets is necessary, especially in the short term. But the government is not the best decider of supply and demand; just ask the Soviet Union. So in that regard, we need to give the market plenty of room to sort itself out.

For all the polls and statistics, though, something occurred to me as I was driving home from work yesterday. Where have all the patriotic “Support Our Troops” yellow ribbon magnets gone? It used to be not so long ago that maybe every fourth or fifth car you saw had some variant of these magnets on them, either the traditional yellow variety or maybe the red, white, and blue version, perhaps even a camouflage version. There were also a lot patriotic bumper stickers or other stickers on car windows. Today? Very few.

Yesterday I began watching other cars (in addition to watching the road), looking for a patriotic sticker or magnet on the back of cars. Out of the maybe couple thousand cars I saw during my hour-plus drive home, I saw two cars with a “Support Our Troops” magnet. Two.

Now, I know that’s nowhere near a scientific survey, and that’s not to say that a driver without a patriotic sticker isn’t patriotic. (Full disclosure: My car’s only external decoration is a UT Longhorns emblem.) But I can tell you for a fact that the number of patriotic magnets a year ago was way higher.

So what’s the deal? Are people really expressing their frustration and exhaustion with the war? Are we, in fact, as “bitter” as Barack Obama says we are? Or has the obnoxious car magnet fad just played itself out, as the Livestong bracelets did and as Crocs will surely do? I don’t know. But I should also point out that I also didn’t see any political bumper stickers during the same trek home, which seems odd being a presidential election year. Maybe that fad has played itself out, too.