A pretty fair summary of how I feel about Bush. I began having doubts about Bush’s sincerity about a year and half into his second term and have now lost pretty much all confidence in him as a leader. The situation is somewhat analogous to what happened with Clinton. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in the Lewinsky Scandal untill he wagged his finger at the American people in a bald-faced lie.>

Diana Butler Bass wrote: George Bush is willing to sacrifice other people’s children to secure his place in history. This reminds me of the old crack about FDR just before WWII, his agricultural plan was supposedly to plow under every fourth American boy. These kinds of cheap shots are easy to make any time there’s a war. Even with all the criticism and defeats, he seems doggedly committed to his vision for the world. This sentence jumps off the page for sheer arrogance and inanity. Has Ms. Bass ever heard of history? It seems to me that Winston Churchill had his time alone, stung by rejection, committed to waging a war everyone else wanted to avoid. He persevered, and those around him also thought him a fool for it. Neville Chamberlain promised “Peace in our time” while Churchill called for “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” Naturally Chamberlain was popular. For a while. But it wasn’t long before Chamberlain was revealed to be a naive dupe, and Churchill, for his “dogged commitment to his vision of the world.” would eventually be known as a hero and a visionary. I can’t guarantee that the same will happen with George W. Bush, but dogged determination in the face of criticism is a virtue sometimes. What of the rest of us? What of God’s dream of shalom? And who has the humility to lead America in this painful and dangerous time? Shalom is not a dream, God will bring it about when he is ready to. As for who has humility, I see little indication of it among the prophetic bomb-throwers at Sojourners.>

Kris — The difference is that the “right-wing scandal machine” had set its sights on Clinton from the day he announced and was willing to lie in order to destroy him. No such liberal groups went after Bush, at least not then.>

Ms. Bass highlights why many of us are disappointed and underwhelmed by Bush’s presidency. I want to like Bush, but it has been difficult to trust his leadership. This war will inform his legacy. But it will be more of setting Americans on a path that will take an entire lifetime to untangle. Where I disagree with Ms. Bass is this–I don’t trust any conservative or liberal or anyone to usher God’s shalom. Maybe I’m jaded. God’s shalom is too important to be used as a guide in choosing our leaders.>

Diana has it right, and the comparison Wolverine makes to Churchill is ludicrous, though Churchill was equally short sighted in his Colonial spite for the Iraqi people. As far as the comparison to Fascism, we are the aggressors in Iraq. This presents a rather difficult kink in your comparison. Bush was too proud to listen to the real intelligence, too proud to listen to the best military leaders , too proud to allow Iraqis to rebuild their country, too proud to change the internationally shameful policy of torture, too proud to follow the constitution when it came to spying on Americans, too proud to admit the horrible toll of the War on Iraqi civilians and American soldiers not prepared as a peacekeeping force, too proud to admit that his policies had led to a civil war, and now he is too proud to admit what is obvious to 70% of the people of the country, that escalation is not the answer. We are not safer because of this. Occupation breeds hatred and violence. Wars breed damaged lives. Pride, fear, lies,and violence are the seeds sown, and we are seeing the harvest of misery. This war was supposed to bring about a society that would be a model for the region. How many countries’ will volunteer to follow in Iraq’s footsteps, to be similarly “liberated”.>

Eddy E says; I want to like Bush, but it has been difficult to trust his leadership.” I neither want to like him or trust him I want to watch and analysis and verify and ask questions about when where what. Bush suffered because the religious right anointed him and the Republican Congress gave him a free pass on anything he wanted to do. Who do think might be big enough to overcome those 2 handicap?>

I love the movie The Hiding Place. There are so many good lessons in it for all Christians. The line ‘There is no pit so deep that He is not deeper still’ is most likely the most memorable of the movie. Corrie also with the help of her sister Betsy listen to the radio and collected the coded messages that assisted the Dutch underground to fight the war against the Nazis. She did question what they would be like after all of this was over – but still was a part of the process in the fight against such evil. I wish (should I say pray) that we would have more Corries that may not be able to pull the trigger on the gun or set the bomb to explode. But the will in some way supply those that are on the front lines with what they need to get the job done. Be blessed – .>

I wish someone would give Bush a bj in the oval office.>

anonymous wrote – I wish someone would give Bush a bj in the oval office. WOW – that was profound. But I think that George and his wife have a healthy relationship so he doesn’t have to grope poor defenseless females. .>

I read in the national enquirer Laura wants to get a divorce when this is all over with.>

Yeah, well I heard that that beliefnet is actually a front for moveon.org….. And that Brittany Spears is really an agent for Mossad…. And that Rosie O’ Donnell is really a man…. And that Arnold Schwareneger REALLY IS a robot from the future…. You people need to adjust your tin-foil hats.>

Star magazine said Bush is drinking again. I hope it’s not true.>

Diana Butler attempts to make a contrast between President Bush and Martin Luther King Jr. “On January 15, the nation will celebrate a remarkable Christian political leader, Martin Luther King Jr.” It is common knowledge within the black community that King was a fornicator. In the hours before he was shot he was with two different women and had a fight with a third. And none of them was his beloved wife. Remarkable Christian political leader? I don’t think so.>

So, basically the Sojourners crowd has come up with two concrete action items for dealing with the war: 1. Terminate war funding after a year. 2. Arrange for the President to receive a sexual favor. In spite of the uneven quality of the proposals put forward, it’s good to see that the Sojourners crowd is finally developing some constructive ideas for dealing with the Iraq War. Wolverine>

So, since comparing Bush to Churchill is ridiculous, then contrasting him with King is equally ridiculous. King’s mission was to change the social fabric of America. Bush’s mission is to prevent terrorism. The black community was being assaulted and continued to be assaulted up to and beyond King’s assassination, including those who weren’t involved in the movement. Would you be on board if Bush pursued a course of action that resulted in repeated attacks on American soil into the next presidency before resolution? And that wouldn’t even lead to resolution. The radicals in the Islamic community have shown that if you show any weakness, they will exploit it. Give them an inch and they will take a mile. The situation is completely different. Also, there’s a reason that the people of Israel were originally led by Judges and prophets. It’s because popular opinion is not always right. The leaders had to do unpopular things, and they weren’t all loved for them at the time. I’m not calling Bush a prophet, but you can’t decide what’s the right thing to do by having a vote. It’s the right thing because it’s the right thing.>

Joseph T “Bush was too proud to listen to the real intelligence…” Never attribute to malice what can be explained by simple incompetence. The main problem is that our President has never been a “Curious George”. Recall that his presidency was firmly embedded in the directionless doldrums prior to 9/11 (…he managed to surround himself with terrifically bad advisers too).>

Joseph T wrote: Diana has it right, and the comparison Wolverine makes to Churchill is ludicrous, though Churchill was equally short sighted in his Colonial spite for the Iraqi people. As far as the comparison to Fascism, we are the aggressors in Iraq. This presents a rather difficult kink in your comparison. I’ll concede there’s a bit of a “kink” but it isn’t quite as big a deal as you imagine. You might recall, after all, that Britain entered the war after the invasion of Poland. Up to that point Hitler had not directly threatened England. The Battle of Britain came later. But certainly Hitler’s Germany was a longer-term threat to England, and that was what motivated Churchill. Strictly speaking, England was the aggressor against Germany in WWII. But nobody that I’m aware of, not even hard-core pacifists, considers Churchill a war criminal. Wolverine>

A lot of people comment about Bush being arrogant because he supposedly never admits to making mistakes (though he has admitted to some of them). I interpret a lot of Bush’s confidence about the Iraq war in light of the fact that he meets with soldiers and victim’s families all the time. He wants them to have confidence in him and he wants them to believe that their children did not die for nothing. I have grace for that. Sojo does not. Two questions: 1) when did Clinton ever admit to making a mistake? (besides the whole intern thing, of course) 2) when has Wallis ever admitted to making a mistake? when has he ever shown anything less than complete certainty about his positions on political issues? If Ms. Bass is calling for humble leadership, it would be good for everyone to heed this call.>

When has Jesse ever admitted her mistakes?>

When will conservatives ever take responsibility for putting these warmongers in office?>

When will anonymous commenters ever take responsibility for what they say?>

A “truthiness” award to Wolverine for… “… Churchill, for his “dogged commitment to his vision of the world.” would eventually be known as a hero and a visionary. I can’t guarantee that the same will happen with George W. Bush, but dogged determination in the face of criticism is a virtue sometimes…”.>

Wow, this must be my day to win awards. First I’m declared “Favorite Pedantic Idiot”, and now the “Truthiness Award” You like me! You really like me! Wolverine>

Let me see if I have the complete list King, Clinton, Churchell? Be sure to include everyone possible to take the current problem off of Bush. Republi-Nazi apologist at work again.>

Given that Diana Butler Bass introduced King into the discussion, are you trying to suggest that she’s a Republi-Nazi?>

Remember all of the horrific acts committed by Sadam? Isn’t it worth anything that that Iraq has at least a chance to govern themselves in the future without a cruel dictator? Isn’t it possible that we would have had more 9-11′s if we hadn’t gone into Iraq? Will they perceive us as weak and start attacking us again if we pull out now? It seems so very unfair and un-Christian to characterize our President as someone who carelessly sacrifices other peoples children.>

Godwin, do you understand what I’m saying? anon, Jesus called a spade a spade. And, I am accusing Bush of doing exactly that.>

You’re accusing Bush of calling a spade a spade?>

And you are paid to interrupt Judas!>

Sorry, didn’t know Judas was speaking.>

To: Supporters of the values in “God;s Politics” Subject: Acknowledging some positive accomplishments of the last session of congress http://actioncenter.crs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ac_homepage is an opportunity provided by Catholic Relief Services to thank members of congress for several positive measures that passed during the 109th congress.>

Anon, you sick pup people are dying and you think this is a game.>

We should all take some time on ML King Day to read some of his speeches or sermons, they are balm for troubled souls. However, as much as I respect Dr. King, the civil rights leader I most admired was Dr. Ralph Abernathy. During his days as Dr. King’s right-hand man in the SCLC, I believe he displayed the true humility and spirit of a servant. Dr. Abernathy, while he lacked the far-reaching vision and charisma of Dr. King, was still an important part of Dr. King’s life and work. I highly recommend his autobiography “And the Walls Came Tumbling Down”.>

Robstur, reading your “Hiding Place” message of about 24 hrs ago. The people who were fighting the Nazi occupation were considered terrorists by the occupying forces. Your analogy can only lead to the assumption that you are advocating terrorist attacks against the American occupying forces. Remember, about 60% of Iraqis want the US forces out now. Please clarify. Kim M>

Kim as Cheney says you are dealing in the dark matters?>

“Will they perceive us as weak and start attacking us again if we pull out now?” – anon I am by no means a military strategist, but this sounds like an aweful way to bring about peace. It mostly sounds like the perspective of the Roman gov’t.>

Kim wrote: The people who were fighting the Nazi occupation were considered terrorists by the occupying forces. Kim, National Socialism was a unique evil in human history, rarely to be matched in its bloodthirstyness. Do you seriously want to argue that the US is the equivalent of National Socialist Germany? Please do us all a favor and think before you answer that question. Wolverine>

I can not judge Bush’s humility based on what the media shows us. I feel that in judging his humility, I may be sacrificing my own. All I can do is pray that he is consulting the scriptures and relying on the Holy Sprit to guide his decisions. PS. Great points Wolverine, despite the alias.>

Christian, what do you mean “sounds like the perspective of the Roman Government” What is a good way to bring about peace with those who are taught from youth to hate us and equiped to kill us “infidels” at an early age. Weren’t we sort of living peacefully on 9-11? What unpeaceful thing did we do to warrant that attack. If they don’t like us or don’t like what we stand for or what we do, why don’t they use peaceful means and just talk to us instead of blowing us to bits?>

Buckeye: All I can do is pray that he is consulting the scriptures and relying on the Holy Sprit to guide his decisions. Boy, that could lead practically anywhere… I worry that he has already. Maybe he should try a Ouiji board. Myself, I’d prefer he consult some books and listen to better advisers. He’s got enough ‘spirit’. Now he needs good ideas and the ability to recognize them.>

Anon, I quote you “If they don’t like us or don’t like what we stand for or what we do, why don’t they use peaceful means and just talk to us instead of blowing us to bits?” Can you define who “they” are?>

Butch–”They” are the jihadist or Muslim who are involved in jihad. A Muslim is an individual who believes or follows Islam. Jihad is “holy war.” According to Daniel Pipes, “the purpose of jihad is not directly to spread the Islamic faith, but to extend sovereign Muslim power. Jihad is Thus unabashedly offensive in nature, with the eventual goal of achieving Muslim dominion over the entire globe.”>

Were these jihadist in Iraq or are they there now?>

Kim M wrote – Robstur, reading your “Hiding Place” message of about 24 hrs ago. The people who were fighting the Nazi occupation were considered terrorists by the occupying forces. Your analogy can only lead to the assumption that you are advocating terrorist attacks against the American occupying forces. Remember, about 60% of Iraqis want the US forces out now. Please clarify. Hardly – many of the posting up to that one were equating christianity to what I see as passivity. I was merly pointing out that historically – Christians have been involved with fighting great evil, even to the point of assisting in their demise. Praying that more people will see that we need to assist in ending this war with the defeat of the ememy rather than doing nothing or even helping the enemy even to the point of causing allied forces lives and their deaths. 60% of the Iraqi’s… I believe in WWII that more than 60% of the Germans wanted us out of their country too when the Allied Forces were there – your point is…? Be Blessed. .>

Kim, I told you that you were dealing with dark matters.>

“What is a good way to bring about peace with those who are taught from youth to hate us and equiped to kill us “infidels” at an early age. Weren’t we sort of living peacefully on 9-11? What unpeaceful thing did we do to warrant that attack. If they don’t like us or don’t like what we stand for or what we do, why don’t they use peaceful means and just talk to us instead of blowing us to bits?” Do you think this is a religious war? Muslims vs. Christians? If so, how do you suppose that we as Christians handle the situation? If not, why do you think that “these muslims” attacked “us”? I am scared when I hear perspectives like this. Christian>

Christian-your perspective scares me too! Why don’t you answer your own question of “how do you think that we as Christians handle the situation?” I’d love to hear it. Of course I don’t see it as a religious war! It is an all-out effort of the Islamic Jihadists toward world domination. Jihadist flew airplanes into the buildings on 9-11. The word Jihad means holy war. Their holy war. Not the American, or Briton or Spainish war. Why do you think the persons flying the planes into the buildings did that?>

Butch-read the news papers, listen to the news and find out for yourself where the jihadists are. That subject is covered daily from just about any media source.>

Somewhere along the line an intervention is needed. Someone with the courage and common sense to stand up and say “enough is enough”. It has to come from someone high up in the administration who loves God more than the power of the White House.>

I don’t find anyone finding their faith until they leave the White House, go back as far as you like. If you find one I’ll find 10!>

The seat of power will never give up that power willingly, it must be taken away by outside forces. In our case we have Congress and the Supreme Court or public demonstration. Asking for it to appear from within is completely inconsistant with the lessons of the Bible!>

Wolverine’s last post Kim wrote: The people who were fighting the Nazi occupation were considered terrorists by the occupying forces. Kim, National Socialism was a unique evil in human history, rarely to be matched in its bloodthirstyness. Do you seriously want to argue that the US is the equivalent of National Socialist Germany? Please do us all a favor and think before you answer that question. Wolverine Wolverine, I find Kim’s observation to be very thoughtful and relevant to your awkward analogy. Your attempt to put words in her mouth that she is arguing that the “U.S. is the equivalent of National Socialist Germany” is completely unjustified. Your tendency to use Nazi Germany as the standard for “evil” is not biblical and is historically limited in its usefulness, since aggressive militarism, while displaying many common historic traits is never repeated exactly. I think one of the underlying questions here is do you think America has historically committed murderous war crimes as a matter of national policy? Is it now able to commit war crimes? The next question: Should there be international standards like the UN conventions or the Geneva accords? Are these appropriate standards? If not , why not? (Note I am not asking whether the UN is the ideal arbiter, but whether or not the standards are good.)>

Anyone quoting Daniel Pipes must be horribly misinformed. Throughout his career, Pipes has been wrong about almost every important issues he has addressed. As late as 1989 he was arguing that the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and perestroika by Gorbavhev were probably Commie ruses designed to lull the West to sleep.>

Joseph T. wrote: I find Kim’s observation to be very thoughtful and relevant to your awkward analogy. Your attempt to put words in her mouth that she is arguing that the “U.S. is the equivalent of National Socialist Germany” is completely unjustified. That’s why I asked a question, as opposed to simply assuming the worst. She raised the Hitler comparison, I wanted to know how far she wanted to take it. Certainly you are aware that others have made that comparison. Your tendency to use Nazi Germany as the standard for “evil” is not biblical and is historically limited in its usefulness, since aggressive militarism, while displaying many common historic traits is never repeated exactly. A fair point, but it was Kim who tried to draw a parallel between the US occupation of Iraq and the Nazi occupation of Europe. Quoting Kim: The people who were fighting the Nazi occupation were considered terrorists by the occupying forces. Your analogy can only lead to the assumption that you are advocating terrorist attacks against the American occupying forces.” This was an inappropriate comparison any way you slice it, not least of all because Kim was responding to a post from Robstur about the example of Corrie Ten Boom. The Ten Boom family hid Jewish refugees in their home and may have helped the Dutch resistance in other ways, but as far as I know never took up arms against the Nazi occupiers. Wolverine>

Wolv, every time has its despot, they appear different on the surface. Bush is today’s tryant without comparing any specifics.>

Butch | 01.15.07 – 12:42 am | Please – I consider myself a light in the darkness – a rather big light at that. If I was a oil lamp – I could hold a 55 gal drum. Have a great day .>

Kim and Joseph T, I agree with you in your response to “Wolverine”. This blog does give us an opportunity to see how opponents of the values in “God’s Politics” think, but we have no way to then coordinate our contacts with our members of congress and members of our respective state legislatures. Are you aware of any? My email address is hayesmike@InsightBB.com>

Mike Hayes, You say you agree with Kim and Joseph T. Could you please tell me what it is you agree about? Is it that comparisons can be made between the National Socialists and the current administrations? If so, what are they and how far do they go? Or is it simply a matter of pointing out that a lot of moral judgments are made based on whose ox is being gored? Look, someone said that the Nazis viewed those who resisted their occupations as terrorists. I’d like to know what conclusions we are to draw from this and how that applies to the current situation. Wolverine>

Rob what are you shining your light on?>

Wolverine said “Look, someone said that the Nazis viewed those who resisted their occupations as terrorists. I’d like to know what conclusions we are to draw from this and how that applies to the current situation.” The reason I regard your question to Kim as inappropriate is your use of the word equivalent. The point is that we are the occupiers and we decide who are terrorists. Not any kind of absolute equivalency btween thUS and Nazui Germany. That said, I think it is quite clear that the US has historically engaged in many atrocities and certain kinds of atrocities, specifically torture and arrest without due process have expanded dramatically under the Bushites. I think it is fair that you should respond to some of the questions I asked, if this is truly an exchange.I will repeat them. I think one of the underlying questions here is do you think America has historically committed murderous war crimes as a matter of national policy? Are you willing to admit that it is possible for America to commit war crimes? The next question: Should there be international standards like the UN conventions or the Geneva accords? Are these appropriate standards? If not , why not? (Note I am not asking whether the UN is the ideal arbiter, but whether or not the standards are good.)>

That was me not anonymous. Don’t know why it sometimes automatically fills in my name and sometimes not, but i gotta check the boxes first.>

Good grief. Christians want an “aw shucks regular guy kind of leader” Oh– it’s January 15th – that reminds us of Martin Luther King! The author blithely assumes that because she doubts Bush’s leadership and has found a venue that will gladly publish criticism of him, she has somehow offered something useful to the worldin this little essay. She makes no reference at all to a single idea addressed in the President’s speech. She gives not a single example of how anything Martin Luther King said or did can be applied to curent political realities. What does the author believe the Rev. Dr.King would have thought regarding hate-filled religious zealots who chop off the heads of those they disagree with and murder women for seeking education or leaving the houise without proper escort? She gives no insight that she even comprehends the difference between being a Christian ninister and being the President of the United States. Bashing the President is not an example of spiritual leadership and has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever taught.>

“Bashing the President is not an example of spiritual leadership and has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever taught.” Except when he turned over the money tables?>

Wolverine, I think your statement “…Please do us all a favor and think before you answer that question…” was insulting to Kim and offensive to any of us who try to avoid attacking others and who succeed, most of the time. Also, I’m not aware of any conservative group (say, Focus on the Family, for example) that allows liberals to attack conservatives in the way the opposite occurs on this blog. If this format would allow me to tell you that offline I would have preferred to do that. Now, please just drop it and let’s not have another long exchange of the type that goes on and on, here…>

Joseph T, Yes, in spite of the conclusion by the Attorney General of the US (perhaps that was prior to his appointment) that the Geneva conventions became outmoded after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, the Geneva accords are relevant, always. “War on terror” frames the rush to set aside much of what has guided our society for decades. You see that, I see that, but conservatives do not see that and we might as well focus on trying to balance the messages they send to DC through groups like “Focus on the Family” instead of trying to convince “strict father” thinkers to see these issues in terms that “nurturing parent” adherents see as fact. Neither side can see the “facts” that the other side holds true. It does help to see the viewpoint of the opposing side, but we need a forum where we can coordinate our messages to DC as effectively as they can. Otherwise, there will be no “change (of) the wind” and the president will continue on the course he and his advisors have set.>

“Christian-your perspective scares me too! Why don’t you answer your own question of “how do you think that we as Christians handle the situation?” I’d love to hear it. Of course I don’t see it as a religious war! It is an all-out effort of the Islamic Jihadists toward world domination. Jihadist flew airplanes into the buildings on 9-11. The word Jihad means holy war. Their holy war. Not the American, or Briton or Spainish war. Why do you think the persons flying the planes into the buildings did that?”– anonomous I don’t answer the question, because we still haven’t come to agreement on what “the situation” is in the first place. Are you asking me what we as Christians shuld do about the war, or about the terrorists who flew into the WYC? Or are you asking me what i think America (the U.S.) should do about the war, or what the U.S. should do about the terrorists that flew the planes into the WTC? Probably what I would suggest is that we contact the Islamic Jihadist Hall of Justice and ask for a members list and then go arrest them. If that doesn’t work maybe we should just go attack Iraq. (I apologize for my sarcastic and passive aggresive tone, but my poiint is that you and I have a totally different idea of what’s going on in the world). Christian>

“Bashing the President is not an example of spiritual leadership and has nothing to do with anything Jesus ever taught.” Except when he turned over the money tables? —- Especially not when he turned over the money tables– which had to do with the corruption of practices in relation to the temple and what was being done to “God’s house” Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the political world and political leadership– which in any event was led by Rome. This is what happens when religious leaders and educators fail at their task. When they know nothing at all about the world of political governance and leadership, they cannot teach anything, and people are left to deal with the wishful thinking and simplistic character bashing that gets passed off as “prophetic witness.”>

Oops, what is it that scares you about my perspective? I haven’t really given one yet. What scares me about your perspective is that I can envision hundreds of thousands of American Soldiers with red crosses on their uniforms going to take back the holy land or trying to eradicate all Muslims. Maybe I’m reading too much into your perspective? I think that this proves that the majority of America (maybe me included) doesn’t understand why we are over there and what our objective is. What is success? (I’m stunned because I’m posting here. I know so little about war and politics and am just trying to educate myself).>

Joseph T. asked: I think one of the underlying questions here is do you think America has historically committed murderous war crimes as a matter of national policy? I acknowledge that American forces have, at times, committed war crimes. As a general rule these are not the product of American policy, however. War crimes committed by American forces tend to be the acts of individual servicemen who, for whatever reason, fail to work within the applicable laws and rules of engagement. The US has a better record than most nations of prosecuting war criminals. Are you willing to admit that it is possible for America to commit war crimes? Yes, of course it’s possible. The next question: Should there be international standards like the UN conventions or the Geneva accords? Are these appropriate standards? If not , why not? Yes, I accept the Geneva Acccords. but I question their application to terrorists who refuse to abide by the terms of the Geneva Convention themselves by refusing to wear a uniform or ensignia that would allow them to be distinguished from the civilian population, and who sometimes use civilians themselves as cover. I have grave reservations about the UN, owing to the extent of corruption within that organization. Wolverine>

Butch | 01.15.07 – 11:32 pm | Rob what are you shining your light on? Anything that walks close to me. The other cool thing that happens is when I am standing next to a liberal friend of mine with their light – we are brighter than you can imagine. We attract many others to ourselves and they stay and linger in the warmth because we don’t ‘burn’ them if they express something that we don’t agree with. We will poke fun at them – put the joke is about the topic not their character. I have a great group of liberal friends that I would go to the matt for in defense of their ideas and views – and they would for me. .>

Mike Hayes wrote: I think your statement “…Please do us all a favor and think before you answer that question…” was insulting to Kim and offensive to any of us who try to avoid attacking others and who succeed, most of the time. I think that casual comparisons between this administration and the Nazi regime are insulting and inflammatory. I urged Kim to “think before you answer” because this is a delicate area where a certain amount of thought and precision is called for. I don’t want to go into the details, but it might help you understand where I’m coming from if I mentioned that half of my family immigrated to the states from Poland after WWII. No they weren’t Jewish, my folks survived okay, but to hear my grandmother tell it things did get dicey on more than one occasion. There’s a lot of people out there throwing around Nazi references who don’t have a clue what they’re talking about. I have strong personal reasons for not wanting this stuff to go unchallenged, and I don’t think its terribly unfair or insulting for me to ask Kim just what she was trying to say. Wolverine>

Wolverine, Fair enough, considering the experiences your family had and communicated to you. I do fear the way that the present administration is operating as “strict father”, who sees what is best, here and abroad, and sets out to impose its will, here and abroad. They were wrong about the invasion of Iraq and about the numbers of troops for the follow up. Now the US “broke it and owns it and it can’t be fixed”… not by the US. I don’t know what to compare their singlemindedness to, except to the decision to invade South Vietnam. In each case, the US has ended up with attempting to bring order out of chaos, and military means is not the solution now nor was it in Vietnam. In my view.>

Sorry, I don’t have the time right now to read all 72 comments above at the moment, but I did want to comment on this passage from Diana’s post: I suspect that many Americans, especially the Christians who voted for him, hoped that President Bush would be a humble leader…. This has not proven accurate in my experiences. On the contrary, most of the people I know that voted for the President did not and still do not want him to show even an ounce of humility. Showing humility concedes that we are not cosmic Good agaist cosmic Evil, that we are human, that we can be wrong. Such a view is usually branded as giving aid and comfort to the enemies, letting terrorists win, etc – as a nation I believe we’re getting exactly what we paid for and paying dearly for what we didn’t get.>

I have always been amazed that Bush has had anyone back him,he is creepy and just not manly.The only surprise to me is how long it is taking the American people to catch on to this snake oil salesman.>

Daniel, I think you are right that there are many voters here in the US who don’t want to admit the mistakes that have been made. On the other habd, I know two staunch republican conservatives who are deeply concerned about the decision to invade Iraq without adequate numbers of troops and the subsequent mistakes to disband the police and military and to disqualify even lower level government officials from participation in the government. They wonder why the US ever put itself in a position of sole responsibility for the operation of the society of Iraq.>

wolverine, you are right that people should read what they typed before clicking on publish. i respectfully ask that you would do the same – some of your generalizations and remarks about “the sojourners crowd” and “the left” and “their rhetoric” are offensive to some of us believers who fall politically to the left, who are energized by the voice that sojourners has given us, who are trying to have a discussion without the rhetoric. rhetoric comes from both sides, and all of it should be ignored – there is no reason for any of us to respond to it at all, especially in a way that generalizes. we can all get along here if we all think before we publish.>

Mike Hayes, Thank you for sharing your experiences with this – I wonder if I might know some people who are of that opinion but are avoiding conversations about it [at least with me]….>

“Especially not when he turned over the money tables– which had to do with the corruption of practices in relation to the temple and what was being done to “God’s house” Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the political world and political leadership– which in any event was led by Rome.” The Pharisse’s were right in the middle of the politics of the time. The Temple was the seat of political power for the Jews, not the Romans which actually controlled everything but not without the political help of the Temple.>

The simplest comparison of Nazi’s and Republi-Nazi’s is the control of the message. No group has managed the message better than the Neo-cons. This occurred just at the time when the major news media came under the control of just a few and the news staff was reduced to reporting on whatever came out of White House news briefings and strategic leaks to favored “news people”.>

daniel/mike hayes, i agree with daniel that people generally liked and voted for the black and white simplicity in bush’s message. but i also suspect that deep in their hearts, most of those people expected that, truth be told, bush knows things aren’t that simple and will weigh the appropriate factors in major decisions. i think many conservatives were surprised and troubled that bush *actually* turned out to see things (at the very least wrt iraq and the “war on terror”) more or less in black and white terms, and showed no hint of humility until only very recently acknowledging that things aren’t so good in iraq. had the administration’s policies actually turned out to change iraq and the world for the better, then i suspect that those same people would have been glad to have a stick-to-your-guns, black-and-white-world leader.>

The Pharisse’s were right in the middle of the politics of the time. For sure. Right after turning over the tables of the money changers, Jesus lead a march to the Roman Senate with a big sign saying bring the Legions Home, Rome Out of Africa. Then he gave a speech about how not all Visigoths were barbarians. And sang Kumbaya.>

mingus, I’m not sure what would give anyone the impression that the President is physically able to perceive nuances. His message during his campaign was that perceiving nuances is flip-flopping – it was the biggest push for black-and-white I’ve ever witnessed. I’d be interested to hear from some people about why they might have perceived this differently.>

Among other reasons why I perceive George Bush differently is that he never gave any such message during his campaign that said perceiving nuances was flip-flopping. On the other hand, claiming that either the President or those who voted for him view the war as cosmic Good agaist cosmic Evil doesn’t show much ability to perceive reality at all.>

Christian–how do you sum up what is going on in the world?>

Also, Christian please explain your remark about “hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, etc. and taking back the holyland etc. With all of the extensive news coverage, how can you possibly not know why we are over there and what our objective is.>

actually, r., bush said *exactly* that. don’t you remember the throngs at the republican convention jeering “flip-flop” because of john kerry’s nuanced statements? i was never a huge fan of john kerry as presidential candidate, but hearing the republicans tear apart his every statement as “flip-flopping” simply because he knows the world isn’t black and white and was not afraid to say so was among the most disgusting display of partisan politics in recent years. our candidates should not be demonized for viewing the issues as the complex topics they most certainly are. i suspect that the bush administration also knows that the world is not black and white, but as daniel points out, clearly made it a sin to admit as much. funny thing is, shouldn’t conservatives be angrier than anyone that bush has reduced the world and in effect, *their message* to such simplistic terms?>

.don’t you remember the throngs at the republican convention jeering “flip-flop” because of john kerry’s nuanced statements? No. I remember the throngs jeering Kerry because he flip-flopped, not because he knows things aren’t black and white. Can you comprehend that the President and the world might be quite a bit more nuanced than your black and white view ?>

r., i hardly think there’s any reason to attack my comprehension. we’re trying to be respectful of each other here.>

in fact, i’m not even sure what “black and white view” of mine you’re referring to.>

I’m referring to your black and white view of George Bush and Republicans and your several posts trying to project this onto others, claimimg- with out presenting any evic=dence at all that George Bush and Republicans views are black and white. bush *actually* turned out to see things (at the very least wrt iraq and the “war on terror”) more or less in black and white terms, and showed no hint of humility until only very recently acknowledging that things aren’t so good in iraq. As I said in a previous thread, the most disturbing thing about Jim Wallis’ and most all the guest writers at Sojo -a belief apparently shared by many posters- is the belief that simply citing someone else who shares the same belief is somehow equivalent to evidence. No one demonstrates any need at all to actually have evidence and any kind of argument to make any negative claimat at all about George Bush, Republicans, or anyone who supports the war. Bashing the President, bashing Republicans, talking about non-existant International Muslim Police Forces, wailing about “arrogance”, complaining about other peoples black and white views, complaining about lack of respect when none is offered in return– none of this has anything to do with the Gospels or anything to do with making peace in a troubled world. If you think that challenging your claims is disrepectful than you’ll find most all of my comments extremely disrespectful. Just skip over them.>

“Also, Christian please explain your remark about “hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, etc. and taking back the holyland etc. With all of the extensive news coverage, how can you possibly not know why we are over there and what our objective is”. — anonomous It was a reference to your perception of Christian’s vs. Muslims in the next Crusade. This is my exact point about motive. I thought we were over there to get back at the bastards who flew a plane into the WTC. Imean, to stop Iraq from using their WMD. I mean to help the Iraqi people… We were lied to about the intel. and now that we’re “all in”, we’re screwed. Can you stop signing it anonomous please. What is your perception of what we are trying to accomplish? Will 20,000 more tropps help us do that? — Christian.>

“What is your perception of what we are trying to accomplish?” Regardless can we accomplish anything? Show me a victor in a sectarian conflict? If you show me one I ll show you 10 that those attempting to impose a solution have been able to do so.>

Show me a victor in a sectarian conflict? Revolutionary forces vs. British Empire US North vs Southern Confederacy US, England,Free French and Poles VS. Germany, Italy, Japan Western World vs Soviet Union>

The British were not trying to force Americans to settle an internal settlement. The Americans were in conflict with GB. US North v South had no one trying to force a settlement from the outside that had any effect. All of your references were the fighters within a country fighting outside influence. Western World V USSR was not within a country. The French were kicked out of Algeria and Vietnam as we were kicked out of Vietnam.>

“All of your references were the fighters within a country fighting outside influence.” Sorry your references were mixed up with out a common thread.>

“your references were mixed up with out a common thread. The common thread is that all my references were a response to your request to show you victors in sectarian conflicts.>

you don’t understand what sectarian means>

r. said: “I’m referring to your black and white view of George Bush and Republicans and your several posts trying to project this onto others, claimimg- with out presenting any evic=dence at all that George Bush and Republicans views are black and white” r., either you did not read my posts completely or you did not understand them. either way, your antagonistic tone towards your brothers and sisters in Christ is offensive, not your point of view or the fact that you disagree with me. if you want people to listen to you and not just dismiss you, try a nicer approach. what i *actually* said was that i suspect that most republicans do *NOT* see things in black and white and should be offended that the bush administration has reduced many complex issues to black and white, “with us or against us” logic. if you don’t believe this is true, go back and read some of bush’s pre-2000 and pre-2004 speeches.>

“complaining about lack of respect when none is offered in return” r., please show me where i disrespected you and i will offer a humble apology.>

R. Weinhagen, Hello, sorry I missed several posts of yours, I hope it’s not too late to continue. Frankly, I’m confused how anyone that followed the 2004 election cycle can think that the President’s campaign did not explicitly tear down the idea of seeing complexity in favor of a black-and-white viewpoint. The evidence is the entire campaign, but here’s a pretty thoughtful treatemnt from the time: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/06/politics/campaign/06KERR.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5007&en=b6a00accc93a4fe2&ex=1393909200&partner=USERLAND [I might note that seeing John Kerry's explanations of nuance as invalid excuses for a flip-flop is itself evidence of a black and white viewpoint.] The cosmic Good and cosmic Evil thing is rhetorical in nature but it is obvious if you watch for it. Jim Wallis nails it down in God’s Politics with a whole chapter stocked full of scary quotations from our jihadist President about how we are God’s chosen nation tasked with bringing Good to the world in the face of pure Evil, etc. This is a story I see repeated over and over in countless conversations. Combine the black and white view and the good and evil ideas and you get the original statement that ended the 9/11 love-in: “Either your with us or you’re against us.” Either with the US or with the terrorists. [Note that responding to this statement by thinknig it is true and you'd be a fool to deny the reality also is itself evidence of a black/white and good/evil perspective.] Most conservatives are proud of this fact, by the way. You are the only one I’ve ever come across who has tried to hide it in any way. I recall a debate I had with a good friend whom I repsect greatly during the 2006 Tennessee primary race that included Harold Ford Jr. and Ed Bryant. Harold said he was both pro-life and pro-choice – he doesn’t believe government should be involved in family reproduction decisions and he believes abortion is wrong and should be eliminated as a practice. My friend replied taht Harold was “wishy-washy, just like Bill Clinton.” I said, “I think harold sees the complexities that come up in situations where you have a scared women, conflicting rights claims, and a culture that supports death. I like him because he sees nuances.” To which my friend replied, “People are not interested in a Senator who sees nuances.” And guess what? He was right – we got Bob Corker instead of Harold. Bob’s main criticism of Harold (aside from bashing his family and friends) was that he supports the war but opposes the president’s strategies. This is not a black and white world To be alive I said the colors must be swirled And I believe that maybe today We will all get to appreciate The beauty of grey. – Ed Kowalczyk of Live>

[Note that responding to this statement by thinking it is true and you'd be a fool to deny the reality also is itself evidence of a black/white and good/evil perspective.] I get it now. You think disagreeeing with your black and white views is evidence that someone is a fool and denies reality. You might consider the flip side of Norman Mailer– Nuances are nothing without their facts. Most conservatives are proud of this fact, by the way. You are the only one I’ve ever come across who has tried to hide it in any way. Your nuance and fact detectors both need a tune-up. I’m not a conservative– or a Republican. I’m a nuanced liberal.>

daniel, i see what you’re saying and to some extent i think you’re right. especially in a post-9/11 world, it’s somewhat comforting to think of things in a good versus evil, right versus wrong mindset. and the bushes played that card very well. but i still think that many of those who voted for bush, at least the first time, were surprised at the extent to which he actually stuck to that mindset. and i think that many of the republicans who stood by the president did so not necessarily because they believed the “good versus evil” rhetoric, but because they didn’t want to go against a powerful part of their party. now that the neocons have lost at least a little ground in the republican party, there are more and more republicans willing to speak out against some of the bush administrations’ iraq and “war on terror” policies.>

the word “jihad” is actually defined to mean “struggle.” Just as I, a Baptist, hate to be defined by quotes from either Jerry Falwell or Al Mohler, I believe that most Muslims hate to be defined by the worst versions of their faith. To lump all Muslims together as terrorists or as those out to conquer the world is ludicrous and is propaganda designed to keep an “US and THEM” mentality alive. Why do so many think they have to demonize another’s views or faith in order to preserve and protect their own? Amazing?! God is truly bigger than that!>

R, [Note that responding to this statement by thinking it is true and you'd be a fool to deny the reality also is itself evidence of a black/white and good/evil perspective.] I get it now. You think disagreeeing with your black and white views is evidence that someone is a fool and denies reality. Uh, you’ve inserted punctuation that isn’t there. My point is that IF you think there is no other option but to choose one side (good) or another (evil) and that people like me are fools to deny this fact THEN you have taken a black-and-white view of reality. Your nuance and fact detectors both need a tune-up. I’m not a conservative– or a Republican. I’m a nuanced liberal. Your 12:14 post above is far from the contribution of a nuanced liberal. More to the point, what makes you think liberals and conservatives are not divided roughly along lines of simplicity and complexity in their views of reality? What makes you think that taking a complex view invalidates moral judgments of all kinds and statements of objective truth? I’m truly confused about where you are coming from and where you’ve gone.>

?r., please show me where I disrespected you and i will offer a humble apology. You keep talking about wanting respectful dialogue but you keep confusing disagreement with you as being disrespectful.>

Right, wrong, black, white, conservative, liberal all stop thinking in its tracks. I’m opposed to the “war on terror” and all that entails because it’s wrong thinking. I can give a lot of reasons, having done so there always seems to come someone calling me liberal. I would like to see a moderated forum that forced us to stay on point and I don’t care what the point is, if I don’t like it I can leave or not participate.>

Someone said: “You keep talking about wanting respectful dialogue but you keep confusing disagreement with you as being disrespectful.” this is simply not true – i accept and expect that people will disagree with me. i don’t have all the answers, and i’ll hazard a guess to say that you don’t either. my problem was with r.’s response to my attempt at a dialogue with him: “Can you comprehend that the President and the world might be quite a bit more nuanced than your black and white view ?” this is unnecessarily antagonistic. if he wants to be antagonistic, fine – but don’t expect me to take his disagreement seriously if he can’t make his points in a civil, thought-out manner, rather than just spitting out his emotions. i have never accused anyone of disrespecting me simply by disagreeing with me. show me otherwise, anonymous.>

Uh, you’ve inserted punctuation that isn’t there No I haven’t. I’m truly confused about where you are coming from and where you’ve gone. I’d say you’re confused about a lot of things- like thinking that the divide between conservatives and liberals is the divide between simplicity and complexity, and thinking that anyone here – least of all me- ever said that “taking a complex view invalidates moral judgement of all kinds and statements of objective truth. Maybe you have friends who think that way, then change your friends. Maybe you heard someone who thinks that way- talk to them. Uh, you’ve inserted punctuation that isn’t there No I haven’t. I’m truly confused about where you are coming from and where you’ve gone. I’d say you’re confused about a lot of things- like thinking that the divide between conservatives and liberals is the divide between simplicity and complexity, and thinking that anyone here – least of all me- ever said that “taking a complex view invalidates moral judgement of all kinds and statements of objective truth. If you have friends who think that way, then change your friends. Maybe you heard someone who thinks that way- talk to them.>

I wonder… If President Bush were assassinated, would he then have sacrificed himself too? Is this what it would take for Ms. Bass to see the great sacrifices he has already made for our country — not to mention having to put up with demeaning comments such as her own? I believe she, and others like her, would do well to take the log from her own eye before pointing out the speck in someone else’s.>

R, You’vebeen diagnosing me as confused and unable to distinguish facts and nuances, as well as insulting you when I haven’t. Whatever led you to offer me what sounds like sincere advice for how I treat my friends? We live in very different worlds, mate. Best of luck in yours.>

Wolverine, I would and convincingly argue that there were points in US history where we did even worse than socialist Gemany. Anyone remember the trail of tears? Anyone remember the Middle Passage? Anyone remember… The truth is we the United States are no different than any other empire in recorded history. We kill of the natives, steal their land, rape their women and then sanitize the history to make us feel better about ourselves. When I look at Kings’ legacy and for that matter any aspect of our history I can’t help but deal w/ the truth that this country is great. It is the greatest nation on the face of the planet. But it is also built off of inequality, greed, rape and destruction. Unfortunitely that makes some of its greatness a little hollow, but I would say the same thing about ancient Egypt, Kush, Rome, Greece, Babylon and any other empire. p>

Christians who voted for him, hoped that President Bush would be a humble leader an “aw shucks” regular guy, “the uniter, not divider” Not all of us ‘christians’ who voted for Bush were looking for the “aw shucks” guy in the Oval Office. We saw a leader and a person whose integrity both public and private were refreshing. One who would not lead by the polls but with a vision or dare I say ‘dream’. Someone who could bring credibility back to the Oval Office. Something that had been missing for several years prior. Yes – Bush was only a governor but so was the previous occupant. Let’s compare the two states and see how industry is doing as well as education. Be blessed! .>

“Yes – Bush was only a governor” And now a governor is making decisions effecting the entire world in opposition to the American will?>

Butch | 01.18.07 – 10:37 am | “…opposition to the American will?” To the opposition of some americans will? only governor – please, he won the election – period! Governor Bush – Texas was in the top 50% of states in education. It was some of his reforms that improved their standings in education. Governor Clinton – Arkansas was 49 out of 50 states in education. (thank goodness to Alabama) It was a little higher when he first came into office as governor. You know – it would be more interesting to respond to you if every one of your answers did include “$%^&* Bush”.>

Rob you are a simple liar, you wrap a bible around yourself saying things like you are progressive etc. You are simply a Republi-nazi apoligist! Remember you will go to hell as much for lying as stealing!>

Butch | 01.18.07 – 1:41 pm | Rob you are a simple liar… whatever – my prayer is that you will not go to hell. The stats on AK are true – look it up. I have more respect for you as a liberal than you have shown anyone as a conservative – attack my character it that is what makes you feel good, I don’t give a rip. (guess if I am that good of a liar – I should become a liberal and I would be good presidential material)>

butch and robstur, you are both acting ridiculous. is this really how you want to treat your brother in Christ? is this how Christ would have you treat anyone? both of you have gotten in your cheap shots at conservatives or liberals, bush or clinton, etc. – how about having a respectful conversation now?>

We are losing lives almost daily. We have lost our respect and position in the world. We are wasting our fortune. And fools like Rob give this crazy adminstration a free ride. I’m convinced the boy has a good heart but cannot think and is a dupe for the Republi-nazi’s. Republicans have offices that crank out mis-information and feed these types of fools just like the Nazi’s did with their propaganda programs. This is serious business, I mean really serious. It is personal to me only in the sense that it is my country, let him go to the sites that believe the crap. Jesus is coming, in the mean time let’s kill as few as possible and let him pass judgement on the living, he has dealt with the dead.>

Butch | 01.18.07 – 3:54 pm | And fools like Rob let him go to the sites that believe the crap. %^&* what you think about my heart – I have had it with your glib labeling me as a NAZI. That was an awful time in the history of the world and I personally would not label anyone like that – regardless weather I disagreed with them. Your wholesale arrogance with on par with a Teddy K. I AM NOT A LIAR – you may not agree with me but no one calls me a liar. I blew you off once for your labeling and thought I’d give you another chance. A mistake that I will not do again. Send me a sympathy message – you are dead to me and I will not respond to you again. Have a great long life. .>

mingus | 01.18.07 – 3:44 pm | Sorry – Seems like bashing the pres. it common fodder on this sight. Just not some pres. I just have a hard time with the Nazi and Liar comments. Something that I have not done to others – labeling them. This will not happen in the future as I am not replying to some postings anymore. Should make for a kinder – gentler site. (tee hee) Again – I am sorry. .>