WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

A decade after the Iraq invasion: Have we learned anything?

Difficult to believe: It's been a decade since the United States invaded Iraq.

139 U.S. soldiers killed during the initial invasion; 4,485 by the time the United States officially withdrew. 218 British and other coalition forces killed. More than 100,000 Iraqis. 3 Trillion dollars expended.

All that to create a government now alligned with Iran (more or less).

Was it worth it?

Something many people forget a decade later: Opponents of the Iraq war - Right & Left - were, for the most part, marginalized. In major media, it was rah-rah-rah. Indeed, it was a lonely time for those opposed to the war. On the Left, if the brilliant secular polemicist - the late Christopher Hitchens - could offer unbridled enthusiastic support for an Iraq intervention, which Hitchens predicted would be a "short war" - who could question? Of course, a few did. Conservative Pat Buchanan was one of the few "talking heads" to warn against intervention in Iraq.

But as I was setting up interviews in the months before the way, I found something interesting: Longtime Middle-East experts and journalists - who typically didn't make the "talking heads" shows on our networks - urged caution: It would not be a short war. The United States would not be able to create a new democratic Iraq friendly to Israel. Wouldn't happen. That was simply a pipe dream of the so-called, neo-cons.

The late General Bill Odom - former director of the National Security Agency of the United States of America and a "hawk" with regard to the old Soviet Union - was telling me the same thing, both on and off the air. However, others dismissed Odom - and Zbigniew Brzezinski - as outside the pro-Israel mainstream.

Of course, for a while, none of this mattered. We all watched as the statue of Saddam Hussein came toppling down. Americans were mesmerized by "Shock and Awe". Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld developed something of a cult following for his Defense Department briefings aired on FOX.

From Richard Sanders in Britain's DAILY TELEGRAPH:

"The myth of 'shock & awe': Why the Iraqi invasion was a disaster"...


Posted at 7:55am on March 19, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 8:06am
The media need to examine "the beam in its own eye" on this one. From Dan Rather, who notoriously went on Letterman to justify his cheerleading, to local outlets, coverage of the Iraq invasion was one-sided, uncritical, and unabashedly rah-rah.

The media like every kind of examination except self-examination.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 8:10am
Bush lied by saying Iraq had WMD's and would be using them against the United States.

On this big lie, the news media never challenged it, never asked any questions about whether this was true. The media never did their job, which is to be a watchdog of our government. Instead, the media simply parroted what Bush says, and acts as a propaganda arm of the White House.

The lesson learned is that the news media isn't doing their job by asking the obvious questions.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 8:29am
In addition to what Billsmith and Teatime said, UN observer Hans Blitz told us they'd not found any WMD's and weren't finished looking. Bush Jr. couldn't wait to go in and start a war with Saddam. He started a needless war that cost thousands of lives, both American/British/Iraqi, and wasted 3 Trillion dollars, mostly American tax dollars.

Why didn't Congress stop Little Bush from doing this reckless thing?

The balance of power, somehow, is no longer balanced. We see that today too, with Obama with all the executive orders he issues, far more than ANY other President. Both Bush Jr and Obama think they're kings, not the President.

It is funny to hear about the "evil liberal lame stream media" (to us a Sarah Palin expression) as they didn't appear to ever challenge neocon Bush Jr. on this issue (that I remember) during that time prior to us going in to Iraq when it would have been very helpful if they had. Their questioning this move might have helped motivate the Congress to earn their paychecks for once by telling the Prez NO you can't invade Iraq.

We'd not have the debt we now have, we might even be getting along with the Arab world far better than we currently are, maybe even Iran wouldn't have started messing around with "Nuke power". Over 100K people would still be alive. Yep George W. Bush was a real genius while Prez.

This needless Iraq War, from where I sit, IS George W. Bush's legacy.

Allan Loudell
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 10:31am
I think part of the problem was "liberal" East Coast media were afraid to perpetuate the stereotype when the Bush Administration made the case for going to war.

And that, in turn, goes back to local affiliates in "Middle America" complaining to the network.

Remember the controversy - in conservative media outlets - over network news anchors who wouldn't wear U.S. flags in their lapels?

Actually, some media people DID challenge the Bush Administration's claims of WMD's, but I agree... the majority of the coverage was rah-rah.

Allan Loudell

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 11:04am
"We see that today too, with Obama with all the executive orders he issues, far more than ANY other President. Both Bush Jr and Obama think they're kings, not the President." --Mike from Delaware

No, that's an anti-Obama talking point myth. Obama is on track to be on par with Bush Jr., but they're not the worst. The worst in recent history was Ronald Reagan. Here's a list of presidents with the number of executive orders they issued:


Tue, Mar 19, 2013 12:48pm
Allan Loudell: It would have been refreshing to have had you take some responsible for your own role in the "rah-rah" coverage. All I remember hearing locally then was "support the (local) troops" stories on both local news stations. Outside of one or two bloggers, no hard questions were raised; no local anti-war voices were heard.

Nobody in the MSM challenged the administration line about WMDs until later. We can never have any real debate in this country when no one will stand up to the right when they start waving the flag, including and especially the media.

Allan Loudell
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 1:07pm
I dispute that my coverage was "rah-rah".

To the contrary, for that and other interventions (Bill Clinton in the former Yugoslavia), I received complaints that my interviews were often too critical of the U.S. "line".

Of course, local stations aired news stories about supporting the troops as they covered various events. That's not the same as questioning the very suppositions for a U.S. military intervention. (And my interviews then and now consume much more airtime that a quick story from a reporter covering a rally!)

And, on this blog and on-the-air I've been raising questions about the blowback from possible (or likely) U.S. military action against Iran. I've done so repeatedly. I'm not sure many Americans grasp the consequences.

P.S. Welcome back, Mark Rice, aka Bill Smith.

Allan Loudell

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 1:25pm
There's also something to be said for the American public's unwillingness to hear certain news. As Allan pointed out, the whole flag lapel pin thing. I would also remind you of the Dixie Chicks incident...

"Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.
-- Natalie Maines, March 10, 2003

What happened after that? Oh, not much... country music radio stopped playing them, and organized bonfires of their music. Death threats. Protests. Only one album since.

Obviously I'm not comparing Natalie's opinion with an actual well-sourced and researched piece of journalism on the topic. But if one had been done... would we have been listening?

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 1:29pm
Shawn: Every time flag-wavers intimidate those who don't agree with them into silence, Satan hands Joe McCarthy a big glass of ice water.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 1:34pm

The Iraq War had nothing to do with WMD and everything to do with a personal vendetta by Bush Jr. against Saddam.

Remember, that in 1992, Bush Sr. was in Kuwait and survived an assassination attempt by surrogates of Saddam. It was at that point that Bush Jr. pledged revenge for his daddy. Even in the days after 9/11, Bush Jr. told his national security people to pin the blame for 9/11 on Saddam, even though Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Bush Jr. killed hundreds of thousands of people by starting a war to settle a petty grudge match for his daddy.

Allan Loudell
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 1:45pm

The Dixie Chicks had the big misfortune of being country music stars when the base for country music is Middle America and the South.

The fallout would obviously have been far less (if at all) for a pop, rock, r & b, or rap artist!

I agree with Bill Smith on the Joe McCarthy/Satan reference.

teatime---The alternative explanation is that "W" was duped by the neo-conservatives. He honestly bought the line that U.S. intervention could produce a "democratic" Iraq which could become a source for peace and stability in the Middle-East -- and ties to Israel. Neo-con columns at the time were full of analysis of the "demographic time-bomb" of the Middle-East, and how Israel was imperiled with despotic regimes using Israel as a scapegoat for their own shortcomings. I could see "W" buying into that.

Despite being the son of a former President and C.I.A. Director, I don't imagine "W" read a lot of foreign policy articles as Governor of Texas.

To this day, though, what was Colin Powell thinking? Was he duped too by the WMD "evidence"?

Allan Loudell

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 2:42pm
We need to remember that Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and the Dictator himself were duped. They all believed there really were WMDs. It seems that only George H. W. Bush strongly urged against the war. Did he know something?

I firmly believe the weapons really did/do exist. If we further engage the Middle Eastern countries, we find out to our horror that I am correct. However, invading Iraq was an action we never should have undertaken.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 3:20pm
I agree that if the Dixie Chicks had been a rock/rap/pop group they'd not had the problems as bad as they had. However, Linda Ronstat did too when she made political statements at one of her concerts.

I don't know why performers can't keep their political views to themselves when performing. People paid good money to hear their MUSIC, not their opinions. Music cuts across political, religious, and ethic boundaries. So why ruin the experience for some of your paying fans by saying something like that puts down THEIR views, beliefs, etc. That just seems like a poor way to run a business and yes the music performer is running a business. The Dixie Chick company, or the Linda Ronstat brand, etc.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 3:37pm
TeaTime: I agree with you about Dubya and his Daddy issues. Although it seemed to me Dubya was trying to prove he was more of a man than daddy. Maybe some sort of weird Yalie oedipal thing. Maybe he wanted to make up for the fact that Daddy actually played baseball (first base) at Yale and Dubya handed out equipment and picked up towels. Maybe he though that if he outdid Daddy, mommie Barbara would love him best.

Alan Loudell: I don't imagine Dubya ever read much of anything. Maybe comic books. He had an excuse much of his life: It's hard to focus on print when you're drunk.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 3:54pm
"Of course, local stations aired news stories about supporting the troops as they covered various events. That's not the same as questioning the very suppositions for a U.S. military intervention. (And my interviews then and now consume much more airtime that a quick story from a reporter covering a rally!)"

I can't agree with this assumption. Support the troops coverage, especially repeated support the troops coverage is a tacit endorsement of military intervention. If the war is wrong, then what "the troops" are doing is wrong. We hold and have held those on the other side who served their countries and followed orders culpable and responsible for their actions, so US troops in an immoral or illegal war are also morally accountable. Making troops heroes in news coverage is very much "rah-rah."

Mostly live interviews are heard only once while a support the troops story is heard throughout a news cycle giving it more attention and impact.

Somehow, after Viet Nam, the Pentagon PR machine was able to re-frame war coverage so it became uncritical support the troops stories. Since nobody was being drafted, a lot of people were willing to go along with whatever the Pentagon said and join all the rah-rah without thinking.

And there is a reason the Pentagon and local military bases work so hard at pushing this "hometown" news coverage.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 4:18pm
Disagree, billsmith. The best phrasing I ever heard on the subject, although i don't remember who it was to give proper credit... Person 1 was very much against the war. Person 2 accused Person 1 of not supporting our troops. Person 1 said, "Oh, I full-heartedly support the troops. I support them so strongly, I don't want a single one to die for a senseless, unnecessary war." That's pretty much my view on it... I support the troops' rights to not have to fight in an unjust war.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 4:25pm
Actually, Shawn, I think we agree.

Mike from Delaware
Tue, Mar 19, 2013 7:56pm
Having served in the military during Viet Nam, I remember how fellow Americans treated those of us who were in the military. None of us who were serving appreciated people calling us baby killers, or asking us when the next Greyhound bus leaves, or having some war protestor throw animal blood or red food coloring at us, etc, etc. Hate the war, the troops don't get a choice in where they serve, especially when there's a draft going on. It's not like a civilian job where you can quit if you don't like it.

Thankfully our nation learned something from Viet Nam and its a better situation today for the troops. People may hate the wars we're in now, but they thank the troops for their service. You want to hold someone accountable, then hold the government especially the Commander in Chief - the Prez, remember the buck stops there.

Tue, Mar 19, 2013 8:13pm
I still stand by my original statement that the weapons of mass destruction did in fact exist and were transferred to Syria during the 9-month run-up to the invasion. Based on what's been happening in Syria the last couple of years, I have reason to believe the weapons are still there.

Just a hunch.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 1:08am
Ten years. We forget a lot. I see no mention of the largest demonstrations since the 60's in San Fran and Washington to protest the war. I think half the nation at that time thought this was was a mistake. Only after the summit at the Canary Islands between Juan Carlos of Spain, Tony Blair, and George W. Bush, where a claim was made that with operatives in place, and with known atrocities against his own people, that the choice to go in, was better than the choice to stand down, did I finally buy into the argument....

And, the first hundred days were amazing. Everyone who was against the war, just shut up because it was hard to criticize something that was being handled so excellently. The soldiers were doing so well that it did feel wrong to criticize the war.. After Baghdad fell, I remember thinking, gee, I was wrong to have criticized the war. Looks like it was a good thing after all. Now the Iraqis can become part of the world again....

However there were no plans made on how to govern Iraq after it was conquered. Don't forget the importation of $12 billion in cash, of which.. $9 billion was never found. Don't forget the week of rioting, until it was decided that yes, the Americans were the police and should put down order. Don't forget, the Shiite's suddenly without warning turning on their fellow Sunni's and massacring them....

However it was relatively quiet for months. Even at the USS Lincoln speech, it looked like America had pulled it off. Muammar Qaddafi saw Baghdad fall, and came over to our side real quick....

We sent the neocon Brennan in. In an interview, when questioned about the oil... he said... unh, unh. The US was getting the profits off the oil until it had paid down the billions it spent on the invasion... The split would be 80% US... 20% Iraq... Two days later the very first IED went off killing American servicemen... After that the resistance began...

Had we said, we'll help rebuild the oil and leave, Iraq could have possibly gone a completely different route... But I really can't blame the Iraqis. If a foreign power came into to Sussex County, and said, we get all the chickens and will pay you 20 cents a pound, I expect Sussex County would revolt rather quickly...

Most of this we did not know, until the 2006 elections allowed the Democratic Congress to begin holding hearings on the war, and then, we all realized that Cheney and Rumsfeld had only planned for the attack. And not the running of a defeated country...

Had we done better, perhaps the majority of Americans who died or were injured... after the initial invasion.... would be leading very successful lives...

I think it will be a while before America makes another pre-emptive war of conquest.

And of course... there were no WMD's. It was about the oil. In fact, in Basra, one of our shady security companies staged an attack on the Iraqi Union over rights to a refinery. An American Oil Company wanted to take it over; the Iraqi engineers said no. The private company was told to take it by force. The incident was leaked over here in the US, and the attack was called off.

Also illegally, pipes were stretched across hundreds of miles into the Iraqi desert bordering Saudi Arabia, and billions of barrels of sweet Iraqi crude were shunted into Saudi Arabia, and sold on the market as Saudi oil. (All of these incidents are listed in the public domain.)

And ten years ago, it would be also wise to remember that on the World stage, the Guinness records for the largest demonstrations still stand, from international opposition to the US arbitrarily invading Iraq...

And, it was all charged to our children.. No revenue was raised to pay for any of it. Even the tax cuts which were creating record deficits, were allowed to remain in place...

When you add up the liabilities and compare them to the assets, as you would in any corporate acquisition... Going to Iraq was a bad investment.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 4:59am
"I don't know why performers can't keep their political views to themselves when performing."

MikeFromDelaware: Does this include preachers? A singer makes a political statement and there is no suggestion it's anything other than her opinion. Clergy imply their opinion comes from god. Clergy take positions in their clerical capacities and endorse candidates, putting them in violation of the tax rules regarding their tax-exempt status.

And what about owners of businesses who mouth off about politics? Chick-Fil-A. Hobby Lobby. Whole Foods.

Why such special scorn for those in the performing arts?

And troops in Viet Nam did kill babies and slaughter who villages. More than half a century after the fact, they drag some old retired guy out and put him on trial for being drafted into the Wehrmacht and following orders. But you say literal baby killers and people who torched villages in Viet Nam or who tortured people in Iraq deserve a pat on the back. Sounds like an extreme double-standard.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 8:22am
I didn't know "who's" lived in Viet Nam. You mentioned "who" villages. I thought they only occurred in Dr. Seuss books... :)

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 8:25am
Yes and Horton hears them.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 8:27am
Mr. Smith. It doubt from your statement that you ever were in war. Congratulations if so. That said, there is a difference between atrocities committed in combat, versus those committed representing ethnic cleansing by a state which include collecting, hoarding, and exterminating wide swaths of the population.....

A person never in combat may possibly be unable to grasp such a distinction. Anyone who has, gets it right away.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Mar 20, 2013 8:50am
Billsmith: you make a valid point about some of the evil things that did happen during Viet Nam, the Mi Lai Massacre comes to mind, and Lt Calley (sp)[seems like an eternity ago]. However, blaming all the troops is just as wrong as ignoring what happened. So sure protest against those who did that evil and press for their capture, trial, and eventual jail time for their crimes, totally agree with that. We didn't line up all the German, Italian, and Japanese soldiers and punish them, no we went after their political leaders and military leaders.

I've never been to a church where the pastor preaches a "political" sermon, but I've been to a church years ago (non-denominational) that did have "voting guides on the issues" and yes that too, in my opinion was and is wrong for them to distribute (one of the reasons we didn't stay at that church).

When not in the pulpit and just conversing the pastor is allowed to voice their opinions on issues just as any of us are. I've never actually heard a pastor ever endorse a particular candidate, they'll just discuss an issue and have an opinion that way. I guess that's so no one can ever come back and say he told me to vote for so and so.
But to be clear, I've never heard ANY pastor preach politics or discuss "political issues" from the pulpit, but I've heard that it happens in some churches. That is wrong, be it in a white suburban church or a black inner city church. Politics from the pulpit is wrong [Rev Jerimaiah Wright comes to mind yet he gets a pass - that also is a double standard].

The owner of Chick-fil-a was being interviewed and was asked specifically his view, so that's not the same thing as having him show up at your local Chick and start telling the customers his views. He was on a Christian radio station being interviewed on an Evangelical Christian radio show, but even if he were being interviewed on NBC's Today Show or CBS's 60 Minutes and was asked that question, sure they asked the question they deserve his honest answer.

The musical performers though weren't being interviewed, they were doing their job for which the audience paid to see and hear, THEIR music, NOT their political opinions.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 12:09pm
Btw the owner of Chik Fil A backed off his anti-gay stance and dropped all support for the anti-gay groups. He also developed a personal relationship with the the head of a Gay Lesbian sponsor group and invited him as his honored guest at the Chik Fil A Fiesta bowl...

Said he misunderstood before and was thankful the controversy had opened his eyes...

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Mar 20, 2013 3:24pm
Kavips: do you have a link for that story. I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything on this latest development. The only stuff I could find is from last year when Mr. Cathey made the original statements.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 6:15pm
If Truitt Cathey really did that, then he's sunk lower than the Republicans have with the immigration issue.

Wed, Mar 20, 2013 8:09pm
Welcome back? I've been right here. Just listening.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 2:48pm
Mike. here is the link. Lucky I remembered reading it, because it wasn't in normal search parameters. But I was able to find the right details to pull it up.....


Mike from Delaware
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 6:06pm
Kavips: thanks for the link. Excellent article. Both Shane Windmeyer and Dan Cathy are class acts. They showed how two people with different beliefs, etc, CAN co-exist together. Respect the other person and treat the other as Jesus would.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 8:37pm

Not sure what you consider a "political sermon." Maybe it's less common for pastors in neighborhood parishes to feel the need to become "god's pundits." The new Pope urged Argentinians to vote against same sex marriage and many clergy have done the same thing in the US. Many clerics have pushed for restrictions on abortion and contraception. Many clerics spoke against health care reform. When these issues are on the ballot or being debated in Congress or state legislatures, they are political issues. Clerics were not talking about personal conduct; they were advocating pending legislation and that makes their statements political.

And clerics have also directly endorsed political candidates and candidates have actively sought those endorsements. This is more common among mega-church preachers, like W.A. Criswell and Pat Robertson, than traditional pastors. But it happens regularly.

Unfortunately, politicians lack the backbone to enforce the tax code and revoke the tax-exempt status of churches which mix in politics, and preacher organizations have been known to "circle the wagons" to protect political preachers.

Thu, Mar 21, 2013 10:20pm

Dan Cathey did not change his beliefs about gay marriage but he did treat Mr. Windmeyer (author of the huffpo article) with respect and civility.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Mar 21, 2013 10:39pm
The only time I've heard any mention about gay/lesbian marriage in a sermon was in an ELCA Lutheran Church where that pastor was not in agreement with their denominations decision to allow ordination of gay/lesbians or marriage of gay/lesbians, because the ELCA had decided to ignore over 2000 years of Church teaching and about 4000 years of Jewish teaching. But he was speaking about church laws, not government laws.

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 7:53am
This blog was supposed to be about the Iraq War, not about gay rights.

Fri, Mar 22, 2013 11:12am
MikeFromDelaware: Just because you personally didn't hear it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. News accounts of preachers weighing in on this subject (and others) are common.

Christians can be selective on which verses of scripture they decide are relevant. Remember that the next time you have bacon, a cheeseburger, or a shrimp cocktail.

Technically, Muslims and Fundamentalist Mormons are the only ones following Biblical teaching on marriage.

Times change. Christians do not allow for change. The ELCA also ordains women; unlike the LCMS and the Catholic Church (among others). Christianity seems to think primitive people must have been right about everything. Carried to its logic conclusion you have the Amish with their horses and buggies and no electric lights.

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 7:53am
billsmith: That's right. Real Christians do not allow for change, because God doesn't change. Scripture tells us that Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He also told us there would be folks like you trying to trip us up with their own convoluted twistings of scripture. Well, the pharisees were always trying to trip Jesus up, so just keep on trippin' Mr. Smith.

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 8:02am
markrice: Are you denying that you and billsmith are the same person? Let's come clean here, now.

Mike from Delaware
Sun, Mar 24, 2013 4:11pm
Billsmith: we can go around and around on this, but as you know, all Christian denominations have the bedrock beliefs [virgin birth, miracles of Jesus, paid price for our sins on cross, resurrected on Easter , etc., etc]. Then each Christian denomination has its spin on many issues as they've interpreted the Word of God [infant baptism, sprinkle vs. dunking, holy communion is symbolic (the Baptist/Assy of God view) vs. being the real body and blood of Jesus is present, but where the bread/wine do not change is still bread/wine (the Lutheran view) vs. the Catholic view of Transubstantiation, and all sorts of other issues, etc., etc,].

I'm not a theologian, but I've been studying Lutheranism (both ELCA and LCMS) and have decided on the LCMS and am not focused on it; as I prepare to become a member of the LCMS. I've found a lot of good info about the LCMS on their website and especially their FAQ page, so I refer you to their excellent web site for better explanations of their beliefs. I've spent hours reading, it is interesting, well written and they do a good job explaining their spin on their faith in Christ.


Mike from Delaware
Sun, Mar 24, 2013 4:12pm
should have read: have decided on the LCMS and am now focused on it;

Sun, Mar 24, 2013 4:26pm
MikeFromDelaware: I am glad you did not decide to join Michelle Bachmann in the Wisconsin Synod. I did look at the synod website after you mentioned it before. I was raised in the Missouri Synod and attended their parochial schools, so my feelings about them are probably similar to your feelings about the Roman Catholic Church. I started checking out around third grade when they told us in Sunday School that dogs don't go to heaven. After that, I became skeptical of everything they said. However, after all this time, only the Lutheran service seems like real church (and I've probably attended almost as many different denominations as you have).

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 2:48am
I don't know if dogs go to heaven or not, but I sure hope cats do.

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 7:37am
Cats are not mentioned in the Bible. Not once. Not anywhere. So, I guess the Amish aren't allowed to have cats like they aren't allowed to powered vehicles or electricity. They must have a problem with mice in their barns.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 8:15am
Billsmith: I totally understand your point about our childhood experiences in the church, mine Catholic and yours Lutheran.

There is a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran church here near Newark on Old Balt. Pike near Rt. 273. I visited it once and the pastor seemed a bit stiff and I just didn't care for it (this was before I had ever heard of Michelle Bachmann).

I may have some good news for you though, I found in the FAQ section of the LCMS web site, the other day, someone asked if animals go to heaven and you might be surprised at their answer. I believe it was found in the FAQ, LCMS views, then within that section there is a section on the Bible of the FAQ pages.

Essentially he says a cautionary MAYBE. He offers scriptures that lead him to that position. I'd like to think our dog would be there too.

Mon, Mar 25, 2013 3:53pm
For whatever it's worth...
The night my mother died, I got a call from the nursing home that my mother was slipping fast. I got the last plane out and when I arrived at her place in Florida, the nursing home told me she had just died. I made arrangements for the funeral home to pick her up. It was very late, I was exhausted and I fell asleep almost immediately after that. Then I saw my mother moving toward the tunnel of white light you hear about. I could see that there were people at the far end of the tunnel waiting. And all of a sudden I saw the dog I had as kid - the dog she didn't want; the dog she always complained about - excitedly running and jumping through the tunnel towards her. Then I was immediately wide awake.

Mike from Delaware
Mon, Mar 25, 2013 6:44pm
Billsmith: Thank you for sharing that bit of your personal life about your mom's passing and your dream.

Who knows? Pets bring most of us much happiness. Dogs more than cats totally understand Godly love. They love us unconditionally and have no problem showing it. You walk through the door after a long tough day at work, and who's there wagging their tail excited you are home? So how cool would that be to be greeted by a family pet or pets as we enter heaven?

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach