I'm surprised you allow yourself to be used by him to cover for his rather opportunistic and shallow explanations for why he has not taken a more active, not to mention public, role in anti-war mobilisations, particularly the most recent one against Bush 2's invasion of Iraq. He did indeed make a barely noticed public and banal statement against the use of violence in general to respond to 911, and that was, I would acknowledge, positive compared to more rabid right wing church leaders.
Yet, I wonder, does his tepid statements for peace come close to those of Martin Luther King the 3rd or Archbishop Gumbleton? Can you imagine these two figures being invited by George Bush to give comments on the "war on terror"? If they were invited, would they do as the Dali Lama during that meeting and state that they had not fully formulated an opinion on the Iraq invasion? Would they be welcome again to the White House, as the Dali Lama is on almost any occasion? Why not, as a reporter, press the Dali Lama on why he wouldn't, like the Pope say, deliver a clear anti-war message to Bush? You have to recognise that he avoided doing this, even at this time when the consequences of that devestating invasion are only clearer with every passing day.
I found the Dali Lama's explanation for why he didn't take up suggestions that he visit Baghdad to be very unconvincing, and in fact a mere cover for the fact that he wouldn't show up at any protests against the US led invasion of Iraq. Had he done so, one wonders if he would have been invited to visit the White House a few days ago. A critical left reporter would press him on this matter, no?. Just what is the point of vague calls for "non-violence" when no political sacrifice is required on his part make them. This stands in utter contrast to Martin Luther King's stances on Vietnam or Daniel Berrigan etc.
As a leftist, are you comfortable with the easy pass he gives to Bush for the invasion of Afghanistan? I've never heard Gubmbleton or King the 3rd talk in such a way, "it's understandable in light of 911"...
Finally, while you believe the Times distorted the significance of his meeting with Bush, I'm not so sure at all. There are considerable problems that a leftist could raise with the Dali Lama regarding his putative stance of non-violence. How can an advocate of non-violence state publicly that the Korean War was 'justified'? This is one of the statements he made that was recorded by the media in the aftermath of his meeting with Mr. Bush. When you hear a non-violence advocate state that such a bloody war of aggression (we bombed until there were no more targets!) is justified, does that not give you pause about just what this character is up to? Should we as critical leftists not press him on such contradictions?
Sincerely,
Stephen Philion Minneapolis, MN