I couldn't agree more.>

Posted by: Will H. | January 11, 2007 4:44 PM

In two more years I hope that the culture of DENIAL changes in the Administration - I just don't know if we can afford to wwait that long.>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 11, 2007 5:25 PM

Who told us there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq? I don't remember that.>

Posted by: timks | January 11, 2007 5:38 PM

Timks - please see

">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUViiggTuEk>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 11, 2007 5:46 PM

LIE #4: "[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a written statement released Oct. 7, 2002 and echoed in that evening's speech by President Bush.

FACT: Intelligence agencies knew of tentative contacts between Saddam and al-Qaeda in the early '90s, but found no proof of a continuing relationship. In other words, by tweaking language, Tenet and Bush spun the intelligence180 degrees to say exactly the opposite of what it suggested.

LIE #5: "We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints." -- President Bush, Oct. 7.

FACT: No evidence of this has ever been leaked or produced. Colin Powell told the U.N. this alleged training took place in a camp in northern Iraq. To his great embarrassment, the area he indicated was later revealed to be outside Iraq's control and patrolled by Allied war planes.
.>

Posted by: truthsquad | January 11, 2007 5:51 PM

Excellent representation of practically all Christians feel about the war in Irak in Argentina. How good to hear it from an American!
My question: Do you continue thinking that Bush is a Christian, when he pays no attention whatsoever to fellow Christians and has no concern over the wanton destruction of lives and families he continues to cause, without a hint of repentance? "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them". If we meet in heaven, I'll try to move as far from his mansion (or hut) as possible...>

Posted by: Alejandro Field | January 11, 2007 6:01 PM

Timonymous,

What do you think is the truth - did Bush claim there was a connection - or not - in his speech of October 7, 2002?
.>

Posted by: truthsquad | January 11, 2007 6:17 PM

justin,
Anonymous | 01.11.07 - 1:10 pm |

was not me.>

Posted by: timks | January 11, 2007 6:24 PM

Sorry, Jim, but hyperventilation is not prophecy.

I'm not saying there isn't much to criticize about Iraq. Clearly the attempt to "democratize" Iraq was naive, but your article just keeps going over the top:

Bush stubbornly believes that military solutions are always the best answer and consistently chooses war over politics.

Yeah, and if you thought the Iraq war was bad, you should see how our occupation of North Korea's been going. We really should be working diplomacy there too. Oh wait. We are.

Instead we bombed the children of Baghdad.

No, we bombed Baghdad. Our targets within the city were almost entirely military. You make it sound as if we targeted children.

Now I don't think you want to accuse the administration of intentionally pointing cruise missiles directly at toddlers, but that's how it reads.

There was never adequate "authority" to wage this war (another criterion) the United Nations, NATO, and the vast majority of the world's people and nations were against it.

Just War theory never holds that the approval of international bodies is necessary, nor does it call for "majority" support of the nations of the world.

As an aside, one of these days it would be nice if you could direct some of your prophetic rage at the corrupted UN officials on the take in the "Oil for Food" program, or UN "Peacekeepers" who rape local women. Or are you okay with that?

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | January 11, 2007 6:28 PM

Here's one link:

Bush Defends Assertions of Iraq-Al Qaeda Relationship

">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html>

Posted by: Alejandro Field | January 11, 2007 6:30 PM

Now do you believe Wolvie is an idiot?
.>

Posted by: anonymouse | January 11, 2007 6:34 PM

As I've stated in earlier posts, invading Iraq under the pretense of fighting terrorism was so clearly wrong...clearly wrong before we did it, and obviously after we did it.

In case it's not evident by now, we didn't invade Iraq to fight terrorism. We invaded it because neo-conservatives within the administration felt it was necessary to fulfill its agenda. Fighting terrorism was the rallying cry. Creating idealogical change within the region was the true goal, however. Based upon the fallout, it's clear that the Bush administration failed miserably.

Iraq is a very "modern" war, at least for America...a war where the military was used as a tool of the super-rich and super-powerful (and possibly super-arrogant) to effect economic, political and idealogical change in a region of the world where the neoconservatives felt it necessary to preserve American "access" to resources and supply chains beneficial to American interests, as well as establish a strong foothold in the heart of the Arab world (one conveniently located next door to Iran). To achieve these ends, they had to sell the American people on an unnecessary war by appealing to our deepest fears, rather than simply being honest with us. In their rush to arms, they overlooked sound but contrary intelligence, built their case on shaky and unsubstantiated intelligence, and saw terrorists behind every palm tree where others saw nothing at all.

Rather than openly admit a failed agenda, Bush is now pushing ahead and plunging us deeper into a civil war coupled with sectarian violence. It's no accident that America is no longer viewed as a "problem solver," but as a threat to stability within the region.

When will he wake up?>

Posted by: S. Heriger | January 11, 2007 6:46 PM

John,

Yes, we're at the stage of desperate solutions.
Too bad they already executed Saddam.
.>

Posted by: Niccolo Machiavelli | January 11, 2007 6:48 PM

Alejandro,

Thanks for the link. President Bush is quoted in the article denying that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by Iraq.

There is quite a bit of discussion in the article regarding whether or not and how much contact there was between al-Qaeda and Iraq. There are quotes from different folks putting their version of "spin" on the Commission's findings.

VP Cheney is quoted as "implying" there were links. His quotes make it clear he believed there were stronger contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda than the administration's opponents believed there were. The only link between the actual attacks and Iraq he is allegedly implying were: that Iraq and al-Qaeda had contacts --> al-Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 --> therefore Iraq was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

I've read this article twice and I'm not sure it is Cheney implying that or Dana Milbank inferring that connection from Cheney's strongly worded statements.>

Posted by: timks | January 11, 2007 6:53 PM

Amen!>

Posted by: Dale Hess | January 11, 2007 6:55 PM

Matt,

Thanks for the note. I thought that rationale for the invasion was pretty weak myself.

However, I think many people could be forgiven for believing Iraq had WMD since Saddam had used them in the past, he threatened to use them if we invaded, and Tariq Aziz offered a bribe to a Swedish weapons inspector (not Blix) to report they had no WMD.

That doesn't excuse the CIA's deplorable incompetence. If anyone should have known, they should have. Bozos.

However, that doesn't address my question to Jim Wallis as to whether or not Bush actually said Iraq was responsible for 9/11. So far I don't believe Bush did.

Some irrational people may think that makes me a Bush apologist, but since we are talking about war-related policy, I think it is important to have the facts in front of us. Wouldn't it be about time?>

Posted by: timks | January 11, 2007 7:03 PM

While I agree a troop surge is not the answer, simply picking up our marbles and leaving doesn't is just as bad. Mr. Wallis's condemnation of the justification for the war has some merit, but like the current Bush plan it is too little, too late.

An immediate withdrawl from Iraq will only serve to embolden both Sunni and Shia extremists and will be perceived as an American defeat. The only hope hope America has to salvage some sort of victory out of this mess is to either build some sort of Middle East peace agreement (which may include Iran's nuclear program) or to dissolve Iraq into three separate autonomous nations. These were bothg things I expected the Bush admin to be working on 4 years ago, while they kept bleating "stay the course".

Unfortunately, it appears they weren't that smart.>

Posted by: Kris Weinschenker | January 11, 2007 7:11 PM

"I suggest that power struggles in Iraq are not about democracy, but about which tribal group or clan will rule."

Yes, this is true in a sense, but I don't believe we are gonna "crush" either side of this battle so easily. The split between Shii'ites and Sunnis hearkens back centuries, and is a deep-seated argument about who is the rightful successor of Muhammed as caliph or leader. We must remember, that Islam does not make the same distinctions between political rule and religous rule; even "secular" leaders (as Sadaam would be generally characterized) have deeply engrained understandings of who is the rightful successor of power based on these two factions within Islam.

I wonder if we really understand who we are labelling the 'enemy' and how divergent the worldviews between us and them truly are. We shudder at the idea of considering this a 'religious' war, but in Islam, there is no separation of public and sacred life; it is all the same and ruled under the same principles. We cannot discount that; and I believe we have.

This, of course, does not directly address the issue of whether we should increase our presence or not (I personally believe this is a grave mistake that will only make matter worse). But it gives background to the conflict that is sorely lacking in the information we are given in the media or from our government. We have to consider this, because we are seeing the world through two different sets of lenses. If we truly understood the culture we have encroached upon, we might be in a better position to find the solution, or at least get ourselves out without destroying both us and them at the same time...>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 7:14 PM

Tim,

Most reasonably intelligent, well informed Americans could see through the WMD claims before Bush/Cheney invaded.
In spite of the Iraq war cheerleading mainstream media, there was plenty of evidence out there to know Bush/Cheney was lying.
We think you're reasonably intelligent, Tim.
But you were too lazy to do the diligence on the lies leading us into the Iraq war.
So we can't forgive you for not informing yourself about Bush/Cheney long ago.
Unless you 'fess up right now.
.>

Posted by: truthsquad. | January 11, 2007 7:20 PM

jerry is an idiot following another idiot.>

Posted by: anonymouse | January 11, 2007 7:23 PM

I don't know if this link will work, but if it does, it sure offers some food for thought. If we don't think for ourselves, listen to guidance from God, and test what we hear, we could easily be swayed into thinking whatever the corporations and government want us to think. If the antichrist exists in our times, those who use brainwashing would compose it.

">http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-brainwash-nation.html>

Posted by: Esther | January 11, 2007 7:27 PM

I'm an avid C-span watcher. That's how I found Soujourner's and this blog. It has been interesting listening to relatives call in and explain the build up in the waters of our navy off of North Korea and close to Iran. Many have questioned the motive of these escalations of Navy in these areas and the additional troops that had been rumored about prior to Pres. Bush making the formal announcement last night.

Oned feared that the Pres. was setting up to invade Iran. Another feared he was placing these additional tropps to cause either Iran or N. Korea to stike and so have reason to escalate the war.

Considering that troops and bombings have just happened recently in Somalia and our military has gone into the Iranian embassy in Iraq within the last 24 hours - employees are being held and papers have been confiscated. I can understand these military relatives fears.

It has not been my desire to waste money on impeaching the President but if the only way to keep him from continuing on in this way of what I consider our self destruction, then maybe it needs to be done.

For me our President is not a reflection or a light to the world of who Jesus was. Or even begins to come close to having a walk that in any way reflects who Jesus is.>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 7:45 PM

I knew you were an idiot.
You just proved me right.>

Posted by: anonymouse | January 11, 2007 7:59 PM

Thanks,Esther, the link works OK.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-to-brainwash-nation.html

Watch this clip on how America was brainwashed back in the 50's and 60's.
I remember being brainwashed back then.
We were trained to dive under our desks to survive a nuclear attack.

This is a great short documentary on how America was brainwashed to think a 'communist dictator' was overthrown in Guatemala and replaced by a 'free enterprise' president.
I remember believing this story at the time.
Actually the CIA got rid of democratically elected Arbenz because he was about to nationalize the United Fruit Company banana plantation for the citizens of Guatemala.
Both America and Guatemala were brainwashed.
American taxpayers paid for this illegal intervention of another sovereign nation, all for the benefit of the United Fruit Company.

Don't be so sure you aren't brainwashed right now.
Have a banana and think about that.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 8:08 PM

Tim, If the comments on this thread are any indication, Wallis is surrounded by children.>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 11, 2007 8:17 PM

Jim,
This was a thoughtful post, as usual, and I think that this is a good time to step back and think about the big picture of this war, as the theory of just war helps us to do. I've been thinking a good bit recently about how just war criteria apply to this war and what our obligations are if we accept (as I believe we must) that this was an unjust war from the start.

Classical just war thought, in fact, is perfectly clear about the primary obligation of a country that realizes it has resorted to war unjustly: it must concede defeat and make restitution for the wrongs it has caused. But what does this mean in the concrete, today, for the US? We can concede defeat--which is of course a politically charged proposition here at home and anathema especially to the present administration--but to whom do we concede? In a classical war between two parties, the aggressor can withdraw and negotiate a peace, and the sovereign authority of the victim country can resume the status quo ante. But the status quo ante in Iraq has been dismantled. To whom do we entrust Iraq? To a government that does not represent (nor even have de facto control over) the whole of its population? Or do we leave the contenders for power to vie for political control by (perhaps genocidal) violence?

This brings us to restitution. What does the US owe to the Iraqi people? A huge monetary sum, to be sure, for the property, infrastructure and lives destroyed. But the US is already spending a huge sum--the real questions is: can we convert the hundreds of billions in military spending to an Iraqi peace deficit? But the invasion also destroyed security for Iraqis. I do not know how one compares the insecurity of living under an oppressive regime to the insecurity of living in the midst of a civil war, but it is certain that Iraqis are more vulnerable today to violation of their person and property than they were prior to the mess this war has created. How to make restitution for that? We could restore the status quo ante: back a repressive regime that at least provides security (without justice)... but we already know the costs of the US backing tyrants. Then what?

I believe this moral desire to make just restitution for our wrongs is the reason why even some people who believe that the war has always been unjust from the start are now reluctant to withdraw. (Perhaps it is a more thoughtful and sensitive version of the "Pottery Barn rule", except we are increasingly realizing that we didn't just break a vase, we took out the Lamborghini for a test drive and totaled it -- now how are we going to pay for that?)

These are the tough questions that the just war tradition forces us to ask, and I long to find conscionable answers. I share the reluctance about a simple withdrawal, as well as the desire to make restitution, but I do not ultimately see our continued military operations in Iraq as a means to repay our enormous debt. What I hope we can hear from the new Congress as well as from those citizens who oppose the escalation is some other means for making amends. We need to face our own injustices responsibly. How else can we begin to regain the values that some among us are so eager to disgrace?>

Posted by: Andrew | January 11, 2007 8:20 PM

It is not the Critic who Counts

"It is not the critic who counts,
not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled,
or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena;
whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood;
who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again;
who knows the great enthusiasms,
the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course;
who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement,
and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly;
so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls
who know neither victory or defeat."

Theodore Roosevelt>

Posted by: Paul | January 11, 2007 8:21 PM

Different tim,

Bush is surrounded by smart people but he ignores their advice.

He's only listening to puppetmaster Cheney, Frederick Kagan of the "American Enterprise Institute" and his 'gut'.

Bush's gut told him it was time to surge.
So Kagan cooked up the brilliant surge strategy.
Cheney is working on the Iran attack.

God help America.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 8:29 PM

I wonder if timks has any comments to offer on the subject of this post -
"A Criminal Escalation of An Unjust War".

I haven't seen any.

Is timks just making a childish nuisance of himself?
Wasting his time because he's bored in his Bushbubble?

Just asking.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 8:38 PM

Whether the war was unjust or not in the first place is a legitimate question. Calling an escalation of troops criminal is ignorant, even if the original question of the war being just is affirmative.

To suggest that this strategy was opposed by commanders on the ground in Iraq in the first place is also flat out wrong. The reason things got so bad was because Rumsfeld insisted on a smaller force in direct opposition to the commanders on the ground.

The only legitimate questions now are whether 20,00 troops are enough, whether they would have been enough in the first place if it had been done right (and in agreement with military commanders), and perhaps most importantly, whether it is too late to have any solution.

The insistence by Mr. Wallis on purely diplomatic and political means is idealistic, but not effective. Diplomatic and political solutions will not be achieved until security is in place on the ground in Iraq. I believe most of the Iraqi leaders have said as much.>

Posted by: kj | January 11, 2007 8:52 PM

Jim Wallis apparently has a direct line to Jesus. He even knows what our Savior wants us to do in Iraq. I wonder if he has a little red phone on his desk with a direct line to Heaven.

I am sick of the Iraq war, its hapless prosecution and the complete lack of realistic planning for victory. I even have real questions about whether the war was justified and if our soldiers have not died in vain. But I DO NOT know what the Almighty wants us to do. I can pray and consider the various ways forward, but the hubris of Wallis and his 'God's Blog' are trully breathtaking. He has the pride of a Pharisee. Expect for the fact that Wallis is a leftie and not a rightie, how is he much different than Pat Robertson? I wonder.
A little less certainty would do us all some good.>

Posted by: Jim C | January 11, 2007 8:56 PM

Are we ready to see a bloodbath after we leave? Will we then ask for a humanitarian intervention? We broke it now we have to clean it up and pay for it.>

Posted by: amazona | January 11, 2007 8:59 PM

kj,

Virtually all leading military experts are opposed to an escalation of the war.
Most of them say that 20,000 is too little, too late and won't have a practical effect on the security situation.
The Iraq Study Group said there is no military solution in Iraq.
But Bush/Cheney refuse to try a diplomatic solution which would require talking to Iran and Syria.
Bush/Cheney plan to attack Iran and Syria.
This would ignite a regional war and mass disaster.
We need to press Bush/Cheney to talk, talk, talk,
instead of fight and die for no good reason.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 9:04 PM

Jim,

Thought provoking article but missed one thought which may be helpful.

A call to prayer>

Posted by: Matt | January 11, 2007 9:07 PM

GW Bush may not have specifically stated word for word that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. He just suggested a connection on several occasions to bolster his approval for the war. He just did things like mention 9/11 at every opportunity in justifying action against Iraq. Which was completely irresponsible and frankly, manipulation of public opinion for his own goal. We all know what that goal was...

Bush (Jan. 28, 2003): "Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."

He basically suggested that Saddam was in bed with Al Qaeda and 9/11 in the same breath. He wasn't in bed with Al Qaeda.

What he HAS stated is that Iraq is the battleground for the war on terror. Which is a complete and utter joke. Iraq has become a justification for MORE terror and a training ground for more terrorism recruits. All on our dime, by our hand.>

Posted by: knoxy | January 11, 2007 9:08 PM

Once again Jim Wallis has eloquently stated what so many of us are feeling. Thank you, Jim, for your leadership and continual push to get us to act on behalf of peace. I'm joining in on a group tonight, as I did over almost four years ago when this totally unjust war started. We all need to show that a "surge" is not only bad policy but immoral and unjust to the American forces and their families, not to mention the Iraqi people.>

Posted by: Carol Bergmann | January 11, 2007 9:15 PM

Gary,

It's already happening.
I know some churches who are doing this.
It's not publicized, but there's an AWOL rate as high as during the later days of Vietnam.
Canada is providing a sanctuary, as was the case during the Vietnam War.

Marine Lt. Ehren Watada is refusing orders to Iraq and is facing court martial.
Send him a letter of support:
http://72.22.89.219/thankyoult/wordpress/?p=12
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 11, 2007 9:18 PM

I don't know if Timks read the following quote in Dana Milbanks article but I am including a specific set of quotes from Bush linking 9/11 with Iraq.

This is from Dana Milbank's article in the WP on 9/6/03.

Bush, in his speeches, did not say directly that Hussein was culpable in the Sept. 11 attacks. But he frequently juxtaposed Iraq and al Qaeda in ways that hinted at a link. In a March speech about Iraq's "weapons of terror," Bush said: "If the world fails to confront the threat posed by the Iraqi regime, refusing to use force, even as a last resort, free nations would assume immense and unacceptable risks. The attacks of September the 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction."

Then, in declaring the end of major combat in Iraq on May 1, Bush linked Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks: "The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions."

Moments later, Bush added: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more. In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got."

Of course, the right-wing media did its best to plant the idea in the public's mind.

Also from Milbank's article - A number of nongovernment officials close to the Bush administration have made the link more directly. Richard N. Perle, who until recently was chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board, long argued that there was Iraqi involvement, calling the evidence "overwhelming.">

Posted by: Nuttshelle | January 11, 2007 9:18 PM

Thanks Jim,
You have millions of Europeans with you. Jonas>

Posted by: Jonas Jonson | January 11, 2007 9:22 PM

A Systems Thinking Approach to Iraq

In The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge outlines various common systems of problems and solutions that arise in human thinking, problems that our human minds react to fairly consistently. Peter goes on to suggest ways of dealing with these problems so as to avoid making it worse. I believe the Iraq war fits his system "Fixes that Fail." From his book, pages 388-389:

Fixes That Fail

Description: A fix, effective in the short term, has unforeseen long-term consequences which may require even more use of the same fix.

Early Warning Symptom: "It always seemed to work before; why isn't it working now?

Management Principle: Maintain focus on the long term. Disregard short-term 'fix,' if feasible, or use it only to 'buy time' while working on long-term remedy.

So the implication for Iraq would be that doing more of this fix that ultimately failed - sending in the troops - is at best a short-term delay so we can do something else. The long-term solution has to be an Iraqi government that can establish rule of law. Rather than defining Iraq as a win or loss situation for the US military, we need to recast it as an international crisis that will require sustained international support for the democratic government. Then we should immediately make this admission public and seek the aid of the international community in switching this from an accupation to a rebuilding.

Just my opinion, oughta be yours.... :-D>

Posted by: Daniel | January 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Jim C,

My comment was directed at Jim Wallis. Sorry 'bout that!>

Posted by: Daniel | January 11, 2007 9:24 PM

Jim C,

But now that I read your post above I wouldn't mind engaging you. I don't see that Jim Wallis has said that God told him what we are supposed to do in Iraq. He's set his response firmly and squarely in the long tradition that Christianity produced in order to tyest whether a war is consistent with the will of God. It failed the test, simple as that.

See Jimmy Carter's op/ed "Just War - or a Just War?" http://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1249.html

.>

Posted by: Daniel | January 11, 2007 9:29 PM

R. Weinhagen,

Pacifists don't volunteer for the military. Many of the people opposed to this particular war are not opposed to war in all circumstances, rather they are opposed to this war in particular. My dad was a former Army officer who happened to die 2 days after we invaded. My dad was as patriotic as the next guy but he did not approve of this military action. Same as Vietnam. He decided to finish his commission rather than participate in Vietnam.>

Posted by: Nuttshell | January 11, 2007 9:35 PM

I can't attest to Mr. Bush's faith but I wonder why many Christians are unwilling to consider that a Christian president could be mistaken. Aren't we all fallible? I work in the technical field. If one of my Christian brethern makes a mistake, I don't overlook their mistake just because they are Christian. That's ridiculous and not helpful to our organization nor to my brother or sister.>

Posted by: Nuttshell | January 11, 2007 9:39 PM

Timks: However, I think many people could be forgiven for believing Iraq had WMD since Saddam had used them in the past, he threatened to use them if we invaded, and Tariq Aziz offered a bribe to a Swedish weapons inspector (not Blix) to report they had no WMD.

We won't forgive Iraq war supporters unless they admit a failure to inform themselves and promise to exercise due diligence next time the President lies to us.
.>

Posted by: truthsquad | January 11, 2007 9:39 PM

who says 'due' the job, instead of 'do?'

Wow, forgive me.>

Posted by: kj | January 11, 2007 9:41 PM

I think your article is irresponsible. I don't like Bush. I don't like that we are in Iraq, but we are. We started something there and we have to finish. I didn't vote totally Democrat this election to get out of Iraq. I voted that way for a whole lot of reasons:
a different approach in Iraq
more approaches to Iraq and terrorism
to vote pro-choice
to vote against fundamentalist religions, including Christian fundamentalist.
to vote pro-environment
to vote against tax cuts
to vote for work on Social Security and Healthcare
Proactive reduction in our oil use and energy alternative research to deployment
Etc.

Please don't intepret my vote for me.

When we went into Iraq (whether we should have or not is another question), if you didn't know it would be bloody and long, you were pretty stupid. Oil is the basis of our economy and not to have a position in the Middle East is to hand the oil to China who are aligning with the worst regimes.

Besides our own best interest with oil, allowing the slaughter that would occur if we left now would be on our conscious forever and we would be the laughing stock of the Middle East and the world. Sometimes no matter how distasteful, we have to stick with a thing. I can't stand Bush for putting us there, for his anti-women positions, his anti-environment decisions, etc., but he has no alternative in Iraq other than increasing force and pushing the Iraqis. I think we should look at the big mistakes we made in Afghanistan in that we didn't really get a government in place and let tribal leaders take over.

We have to stop the violence through the Iraqis for them to have a chance. The terrorists (who are just warriors, with only terrorist acts at their disposal to wage war)will try to make this as bad as possible.

We have to believe in the average Iraqi. We can't give up on them like we did in the war for Kuwait where we let so many Sunnis be slaughtered.

Although not the reason we went into Iraq (no matter what Bush says), there is something to be said for stopping genocide which we did nothing for in Rwanda, now Somalia. Unfortunately, one of the reasons we went into WW II was not to stop genocide. Thank heavens it was one of the results.>

Posted by: Debbie D. | January 11, 2007 9:50 PM

Debbie D - I have to say that's the most honest and thoughtful post I've ever read on this blog. I have my disagreements with some of your positions on Iraq and our economy but, this is much food for thought. Thank you!>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 11, 2007 10:06 PM

[URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/mano[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/italiano[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/amalfi[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/paola[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/testi[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/giovanni[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/culo[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/cavalli[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/rossi[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/rossa[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/giro[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/natale[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/liberi[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/egipto[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/offerte[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/napoli[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/buca[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/sicilia[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/taxi[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/firewall[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/museo[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/lesbo[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/mani[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/messina[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/medici[/URL] [URL]http://www.pokemonporcan76.org/destra[/URL] [URL]http://www.fqga99.org/telefono[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/fuoco[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/serie-a[/URL] [URL]http://www.1upereva2.org/gelato[/URL]>

Posted by: Pronto | January 11, 2007 10:11 PM

"Bush said two things that didn't make me furious last night: "Good evening," and "Thank you and good night."

Actually I am VERY surprised he did not add, and God bless America. Perhaps he has given up on that idea and thinks he is the only one that can do that.>

Posted by: Steve G | January 11, 2007 10:25 PM

Timks - I'm at work so I'm not able to find the youtube file of the Olbermann excerpt where he clearly shows Bush contradciting what he said earlier. This is what the transcript of the show says -

Today in [Bush s] speech in Cleveland:

Bush: First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don t think we ever said, at least I know I didn t say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein.

In days gone by-SOTU-three years ago:

Bush: Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda.

Olbermann: Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in the same sentence separated by seven words. Sept. 11th and Saddam Hussein -two sentences later, separated by six words... Who does the President think he s F n kidding?>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 11, 2007 10:29 PM

Bush's expansion of a war that is clearly unjust...after his own generals have said we can't win...after our volunteer army is stretched beyond capacity and our wallets drained...and after we voted his party out of majority to say NO! to the neo-con agenda... calls for every person of faith or sound mind in this country to take action. Real action.

The only vote we *really* have left is the one we cast daily with our wallets. Sure, I'll keep voting in November, too, AND: Those we elected must stop funding their wars, and we must stop buying things from companies that make money from war and who bankroll the neo-con agenda (see http://warprofiteers.com ). The power of the purse connects us all. Let's use it!

This expansion is more about psychological warfare on the US public than anything that will change the situation in Iraq. Bush's speech was full of clues that he thinks we will be tricked into expansion of the war the same way we were tricked into supporting the first expansion in Iraq five years ago. "There's an old saying in Tennessee I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again." --G. W. Bush, 2002

Let's not be shamed again. Let's not be tricked into believing that more violence in Somalia, a nuclear attack on Iran, or bombing of Syria are in our interests. I pray we see clearly now that the quagmire they forecast if we don't allocate more troops and funds is upon us now. The civil war in Iraq is here and our continued presence there is only making it worse.

If Bush supported democracy as he claims, why won't he listen to the majority of both Americans and Iraqis who want us to BRING THE US TROOPS HOME NOW? What would have happened if every dollar we spent on this war was instead invested in America's energy independence? There are alternative ways to meet our energy needs besides US Hegemony. We are fanning flames of hatred and resentment against us in many places throughout the world--not just Iraq. The only prayer we have at stopping this trend is to abandon this agenda and focus on learning to be good global citizens who take care of their internal needs without interfering with sovereignty of other nations.>

Posted by: Stacey | January 11, 2007 10:33 PM

timks,

whether bush or cheney ever said literally (or believed!) that iraq was involved in 9/11 is hardly important. what's important is that they floated visions of mushroom clouds upon an america still reeling from that horrible day. and it would be naive to suggest that 9/11 wasn't used to justify a war that the neocons were planning well before 9/11/01.

and a general point (not for timks but for some others): people who follow islam are muslim or islamist, NOT "islams". who's ignorant, us or them?>

Posted by: mingus | January 11, 2007 10:36 PM

I meant

point 2: CARELESS TALK COSTS LIVES

(as opposed to just TALK ! - afterall negotiated settlements save lives!)>

Posted by: ekranoplan | January 11, 2007 11:01 PM

It seems like we freed the people from Saddam's murderous regime and they have used their new freedom to go about murdering each other. That is perplexing to us.
Bush's intentions were to grant freedom to the people - now they have it and are using it to brutalize each other. Perplexing.
Yet, a righteous war is still better than an unrighteous peace.>

Posted by: Greg | January 11, 2007 11:05 PM

"Tony Blair on the war we would rather not see"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20961868-7583,00.html

Have any of you read this. Does it make so sense to you at all?>

Posted by: acs | January 11, 2007 11:28 PM

OK Jim...so we leave...and then Iran can just take it over..remember them...How does that sound...is that a better alternative?

Your article seems to forget about 14 UN Security Council Resolutions...Oh and the UN Oil for food went well...

Jim, no one wants a war...but we need to win or at least tie this one.

Oh and I think your partisism and Bush hating is showing!

And isn't it you that is trying to get us to send troops to Sudan...another civil war and another magnet for Islamfacists.

All I can pray for is that the majority of the people see through your very weak arguments.

Peace,

Jon>

Posted by: Jon B | January 12, 2007 12:05 AM

Before the elections, Bush went after Al Sadr in Sadr City (on the north side of Baghdad), but he had to pull the troops out for fear of an election disaster. Al Sadr and his army can't be left intact in Baghdad or he will become the despot of Iraq and ally with Iran. That would give the alliance more oil clout than Saudi Arabia. Opec would immediately become extortionate, to give the OPEC countries influence over the world.

The pseudo-Christian Humanists would love that result because it is easy for them to change religions over to Islam; they weren't really Christians to begin with. However, the Muslims will destroy Humanism. They already did that in Indonesia.

"All we are saying is give peace a chance," as the Viet Nam era song went. Millions of people were killed by the "peace-loving" Communists. The same thing would happen if America pulled out Iraq right now. The Shiite majority would attack the Sunni and Kurdish minority. Syria would haul out the WMD's Saddam sent them and start counterattacking the Sadr/Iran alliance. If Iran has any nukes by that time, those would be used against the Baathist/Syria alliance. Meanwhile, no oil would be pumped. The world economy would sink. The global standard of living would drop. Millions of people would die of hunger, disease and other wars.

The liberals (CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, CBS, etc.) would blame Bush for not intervening before there was a full scale war.>

Posted by: Timbo | January 12, 2007 12:10 AM

"Christians should be opposed to the war simply because of the horrible toll in innocent human lives."

As a Christian, I believe that generally speaking, we do oppose war because of the terrible loss of life.

"Only when we begin to value all human lives, and not just American lives, will we be able to reach a fast, sensible solution to this unjust war."

We do value all lives, but the trouble is there are many out there who don't, and won't reason, for example, AQ terrorists, Saddam Hussein etc etc. When these people go on killing spress, what are we to do?

"The obscene unbalance between actual terrorist threat and the documented deaths of many tens of thousands of innocent people should be completely unacceptable to anyone who calls themself a Christian."

Did you miss all those Islamist bombings in many nations around the world prior to the Iraq war? Did you miss the one in Bali in 2002 in my part of the world, where 200 Australians and many others were killed by Islamist terrorists? The terrorist threats have been brewing for many years.

Please don't tell me what I "should" think because I am a Christian.

Religious fundamentalism doens't only come from the right.>

Posted by: acs | January 12, 2007 12:21 AM

I think the initial war was not right to go in without world support and a plan. But, now that we are in this situation. What is the option that will not leave Iraq in worse situation if we just leave. It will be worse violence??

I want the war to end but dont really see a solution?>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 12:52 AM

Presidenty Bush carries a heavy cross;

the loss of over 3,000 American lives, hundreds of thousands of injured and traumatized and their families who suffer alongside of unknown thousands of innocent Iraqis caught in the crossfire of violence.

I pray President Bush would be guided by wisdom and truth and we the people of the USA will wake up to the root of why there are
the likes of Al Qaeda and Hezbollah;
why some people in the world hate us and it is not because we are free-it is undemocratic USA foreign policy and hypocricy; such as invading Iraq looking for WMD, but never demanding Israel open up their underground WMD facility.



President Bush spoke of liberty and justice and Middle East democracies that uphold the rule of law.

I was grateful to again hear him say what he has said before:

"In the long run, there is no justice without FREEDOM. There can be no human rights without LIBERTY. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we stand with you."-President George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address

When I first heard him say that, as when I heard him last night, I wondered if he gave a thought that this is the 40th year of the occupation of Palestine.

I have and "Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American 'Girl' in Occupied Territory" will be released in a few weeks.


I will be one of we the people for peace and justice in the streets of DC on January 27th
http://unitedforpeace.org/
To keep the heat on Congress and
END THE WAR NOW!

Hope to see some of you there,
eileen fleming,
Author, Reporter and Editor:
http://www.wearewideawake.org
and a central florida coordinator for
unitedforpeace.org>

Posted by: eileen fleming | January 12, 2007 1:13 AM

So Timbo, are you saying that the end justifies the means? That is a very slippery slope. I would say that in this case, the end pre-exists in the means. You paint a bleak scenario regarding what would happen if we were to phase ourselves out of Iraq. There are many plausible scenarios. None of us has a crystal ball. We do know some things however. Our grand scheme has not worked, and it could be argued that we have exacerbated the problems. Assumptions can be dangerous as has been shown throughout history, and things rarely come to pass as we envision them. Things are never as dire as imagined through the lens of our self-interest. There are always alternatives and consequences to our choices. We must have the will and faith that right will prevail if our actions are honest and not merely self-motivated. Isn't that afterall, the message of Jesus?>

Posted by: Kevin K. | January 12, 2007 1:23 AM

We couldn't agree more about this insane war. Why do Christians who are supposed to be peace-loving, insist on continuing to support this mad president? He needs our prayers for sanity, not more troops!!>

Posted by: Doris Foley | January 12, 2007 1:28 AM

We keep hearing Tim asking about whether Bush has changed his story after saying that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11. The change in Bush's story was that statement. Previous to that Cheney had flat out said that there was a link and may still be saying that. When asked about Cheney's statement, Bush would not repudiate it. While he may never have actually said in so many words that there was a link, he did in fact imply on numerous occasions that there was while still maintaining deniability. "A half truth is the blackest lie." And Mr. Bush is a master of the half-truth.

As far as "targeting" children in Baghdad, there are children everywhere in a city and military targets no where. Bombing a city and claiming that civilians are just collateral damage is even worse than deliberately killing them. Fallujah was specifically targeted as a demonstration of collective revenge, the kind of viciousness that the Nazis indulged in during WWII.>

Posted by: dan | January 12, 2007 1:49 AM

Ooops. Sorry. That last link should have been -

">http://www.quadrant.org.au/php/article_view.php?article_id=410>

Posted by: acs of Australia | January 12, 2007 1:56 AM

Anyway: what I am is anti-myth. There are too many myths on all sides of this issue. If we are to come up with a policy that actually will work we need to deal with facts, not myths. I think nearly everyone but truthsquad believes this.

C'mon timks, you must think we're stupid.
If you're such a great myth buster, why haven't you busted the Bush/Cheney myths on your own?
All you do is flyspeck everything Jim Wallis says.
You try to hook someone on the board, and then challenge them to provide you with more and more evidence to overcome your phony skepticism.
You've contributed less than nothing to the topic of this thread.
You should find another hobby.
.>

Posted by: truthsquad | January 12, 2007 2:25 AM

dan, I believed Bill Clinton when he initially said he had not had relations with "that woman" until events proved otherwise. Now I know he lied and many other things he said before and since are therefore now suspect.

I have already shown I am willing to admit when I make a mistake. I will have absolutely have no problem acknowledging Bush lied about there being a direct link between Iraq and 9/11, as soon as you or someone can show me that he did, in fact, say it. You admitted he didn't say so, it is only the fact you consider him a liar that leads you to assume that is what he meant.

It really bothers me that I actually have to keep explaining this on a Christian blog. Why is it so hard for so many to realize that sometimes our own presuppositions blind us?

It doesn't make sense that I should have to prove Bush didn't say what Jim Wallis accused him of.>

Posted by: timks | January 12, 2007 2:47 AM

Timks:
I believed Bill Clinton when he initially said he had not had relations with "that woman" until events proved otherwise. Now I know he lied and many other things he said before and since are therefore now suspect.

Timks plays his Clinton card.
But Clinton cards are not accepted here, Tim.
They've been so overused by the right wingers, they're worthless now.
They won't get you anywhere in a debate.

Tim is too lazy to find out the truth on his own.
He wants you to do it for him.
Pay no attention to this troll.
Don't let him hook you.
He's wasting your time.
Leave Tim in the Bushbubble.
.>

Posted by: truthsquad | January 12, 2007 3:01 AM

This is a response to Rev. Wallis' article, where he said that most churches initially opposed the war, except for American Southern Baptists. If this was true, sir, where were the churches when I was marching in opposition of America attacking Iraq in the first place, in 2002? Except for Unitarians and Friends (Quakers), I have seen silence from the churches in terms of protest against this war, and it continues to this day. Various church leaders speak out, surely (God bless you, sir, and those like you who are voices of Reason and Christ-likeness in this madness), but -- where are the congregations? Where are the people?

I was standing outside tonight at a busy intersection in my hometown, protesting the "more troops" Bush speech with six other people, holding candles and "no more troops" signs. We stood across the street from an Episcopalian church, as we always do when we do our protests. The church was dark, as usual. Tonight was a fairly good night, except for the turnout -- we usually have more people, but the cold must have kept some away. Except for the folks in the SUV who called us "F---ing terrorists," response was mostly neutral or positive. In my group, to my knowledge, only two of us were there because we are Christian. The rest were there because they are Progressive Democrats.

There were no other protests in my hometown tonight, despite the fact that this was a national day for protest. There were no protests at any church in my hometown. There were no protests at any church in the nearby, much larger town, with the possible exception of the Unitarian Church (I haven't checked with them yet). My homeown is not small, and the nearby town is one of the largest in the state.

I have yet to see one church, other than one Quaker church in the nearby town, and two Unitarian churches, hold
a single demonstration against this war, or make a single congregational statement denouncing this war.

Where are the Christians, Rev. Wallis? At the beginning of the Iraq war, they treated me like I was their enemy, and shouted at me for daring to suggest that Jesus would not have been in favor of invading Iraq. I'm talking about Christians from a variety of denominations and educational backgrounds. When I was in early protests against the war, and talked to other protesters, they were surprised to find out I was a Christian -- they were used to being attacked by Christians. Not just Southern Baptists. Episcopalians, Catholics (no matter what the Pope said), Methodists, you name it. After all, peace activists are "helping the terrorists."

Now, Christians are just silent. They say Iraq wasn't a good idea. But they still do nothing.

Church leaders do not speak for their church members. Church leaders do not do the work of Christ, while church memebers sit at home and nod approval, or disagree, or remain mildly puzzled, or snooze. It is for each Christian to do the work of Christ.

So where are the congregations, Rev. Wallis? They certainly aren't opposing this war in my town, or anywhere near me, no matter what the church leaders are saying.>

Posted by: Linda | January 12, 2007 3:20 AM

Christians only seem to be able to mobilize against abortion and gay marriage.
They trust Bush is doing the right thing in his 'War on Terror'.
But war is clearly against the teachings of Christ.
Is it unpatriotic to talk about war in church?
Is it a touchy subject to bring up with church members because the big contributors might get offended.
Are churches worried about losing their tax exempt status?>

Posted by: liberal atheist | January 12, 2007 3:36 AM

I haven't heard one comment seriously suggesting that the new strategy might work--only endless, repetitious defaming our President (except for timks and maybe one or two other more balanced bloggers) and negativism. How about trying to really listen to what the President said last night and realizing the new strategy is not just "more of the same." And if you do, you will see it is designed to deescalate, not escalate, the killings and destruction. Get a grip, folks!!>

Posted by: annie | January 12, 2007 3:45 AM

Linda is doing something about this war.

Kudos to Linda and her stalwart group of war protestors.
Let's get off our butts and give 'em some support, folks.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 12, 2007 3:55 AM

Wendy,

A recent poll of Iraqi citizens showed that nearly 80% of them want the US to leave their country.
They must think there will be less violence without us.
We should take their advice.
After all, they have to put up with the violence.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 12, 2007 4:01 AM

Annie how much worse could it be?>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 12, 2007 4:16 AM

Chuck Hagel: Bush speech worst blunder since Vietnam

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) -- U.S. Sen. Chuck Hagel offered Thursday what might have been the harshest criticism to date of President Bush's plan to commit more troops to Iraq, calling the president's Wednesday night speech "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder carried out since Vietnam."
Hagel's comment drew applause in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in which members questioned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over the plan to commit 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq.
The commotion prompted Committee Chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., to call for order.
The remarks by Hagel, a Republican, followed his scathing rebuke Wednesday night of the Iraq plan. He called it a "dangerously wrongheaded strategy that will drive America deeper into an unwinnable swamp at great cost."

Chuck Hagel ought to know, he was in Vietnam.
Republicans are jumping off of the Bush/Cheney war bandwagon
Ultra conservative Senator Sam Brownback (kevin's favorite Presidential candidate)is against Bush's escalation of the war.
.>

Posted by: Country Joe | January 12, 2007 4:41 AM

I'd like to tackle Tim, since he seems to be such a stickler for exact literalism---and since he brought up the greatest myth of all, namely the big lie about Clinton, the original mendacious aggression from the right-wing regressives about a trivial peccadillo that started the avalanche of REAL lies that we've since had to suffer through, lies that have shed innocent blood on an unprecedented worldwide scale---it is this, Tim: go back and listen to Clinton again, on that fateful finger-waving occasion...what he said was "I did not have SEXUAL RELATIONS with that woman. Now go to your dictionary and learn that "sexual relations" means SEXUAL INTERCOURSE. Subsequent "events' as you say cannot change the fact that, technically, at least in his own mind, what he said was absolutely accurate, factually correct. Why the literal precision when it comes to Bush, and the sloppy ambiguity when you listen to Clinton? You let the cat out of the bag here, Tim. You are one of THEM, the fuzzy math Bushies.Too bad if you're a Christian. marshmallow>

Posted by: Marshall R Motz | January 12, 2007 7:15 AM

Linda, just a few posts above, makes several salient observations and questions--

This is a response to Rev. Wallis' article, where he said that most churches initially opposed the war, except for American Southern Baptists. If this was true, sir, where were the churches when I was marching in opposition of America attacking Iraq in the first place, in 2002?
...Church leaders do not speak for their church members. Church leaders do not do the work of Christ, while church memebers sit at home and nod approval, or disagree, or remain mildly puzzled, or snooze. It is for each Christian to do the work of Christ.

So where are the congregations, Rev. Wallis? They certainly aren't opposing this war in my town, or anywhere near me, no matter what the church leaders are saying.

From my observations, most church members, like most Americans, no matter what they may think of the war, simply do not believe that the understandings of Jim Wallis ( and the similar thinking of most all mainline church leadership) concerning the war, the President's statements, the realities of terrorism, or the role and threat of militant extremist Islamism offer either an accurate understanding or any useful response or alternative.

The leaders of Americas mainline churches have fallen under the spell of their own overblown rhetoric and the confusion of wishful utopian thinking about peace with the message of the Gospel.

If anyone has failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, it is America's mainline church leaders. If anyone has failed to consider an exit strategy from Iraq, it is America's mainline church leaders. Having trained and led sit-ins and civil disobedience myself in opposition to the Cambodian bombings, I was quite pleased-initially- to see the US pull out of Vietnam.



Perhaps the biggest lesson to be learned from the Vietnam War-and one the Church failed to even ask about it's own efforts was collatteral damage.

The collateral damage back then as the result of "Peace Now- US Out NOW" was over two million dead in Cambodia alone.

Collatteral damage from the "Peace movement." Imagine that!


If the Church is called to be peace-makers,and there is no peace-- who failed at their given task?

Skip wasting time with all the talk about George Bush- he is President of the USA, not the Quakers. He has an obligation to protect the US and its interests- not to spread the Gospel or forswear the use of force.
If you want to think he's a terrible person and a terrible Christian, go right ahead. But don't waste time.

Want peace in Iraq? -- Well, go ahead . Go there and make peace. Go talk to Al Qaeda, talk to the Shia and Sunni Militias. Go dialogue with the Iranian mullahs and the Syrians. Preach the gospel. Preach peace.

If they aren't interested, explain to the Iraqi people why they shouldn't use any force to defend themselves.

Repent for militant US colonial imperialism if you like. Tell them they should repent for hanging Saddam. Preach the Gospel. Preach peace.

George Bush wants 20,000 more troops for Iraq.

Every last soldier, sailor, airman, and marine over there, and everyone to follow is a volunteer- risking their life.

Where's Jim Wallis' plan,where's the Church's plan for peace in Iraq?

Where's all the thousands of volunters ready to head over there and risk their lives to make it happen?>

Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 12, 2007 7:30 AM

Yes I just saw Chuck Hagel on Charlie Rose. What he said so elequently about the way we escaped from the roof tops of our embacy in Saigon ought to give the Bush/Cheney government pause.,

Good grief. Talk about missing a lesson. If anyone is concerned about a repeat of last minute escapes from rooftops, - (and, hopefully, some concern for those who won't have any opportunity at all to escape) -its the opponents to Bush and Cheney that better pause and think again.

Condemnation of George Bush is not an exit strategy for a war, not a plan at all, and has nothing to do with either the Gospel or peace.>

Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 12, 2007 8:48 AM

Your hypocrisy Mr. Wallis, is far more than just that.

Your join in with the slaughter of innocent people without a moments thought.

MUSLIMS are slaughtering the innocent children in Iraq AND, AND, elsehwere on this planet. You leftists do nothing to stop it.

All you Leftists can do is support them.

WHAT'S YOUR PLAN PAL?

Everyone on earth speak Arabic or be beheaded? That's the goal of YOUR Iraqi and Islamic heroes.

Take your gutless Progressive religion to the Islamic world Mr. Wallis. But buy a burial plan in the cemetary of your choice before you do.

You rant hysterically against President Bush and curse the soldiers of the United States, thinking that you have everyone in America hypnotized by your politics.

Your petty adversarial position is as easy to see as the results of a lifetime spent whoring.

What's more difficult is to get the youth sold into your slavery, before they garner a mature mind, to see what's behind your calm mask.>

Posted by: Islam is war | January 12, 2007 12:38 PM

Mingus,

First of all, there are military experts who do believe that the new strategy could work. To be sure, there are no guarantees, but the President is changing tactics as well as bringing in more troops.

Your scepticism is understandable and may prove right, but could you at least wait until the US actually has implemented it's new plan before you declare it a failure? Patience is a virtue, you know.

As for our protests that the left doesn't have a solution. Well, as a general rule, you don't, and you don't show any interest in developing one.

Look, we're not expecting you to fix all the problems in the Middle East in one fell swoop, but it would be nice to see more thoughtful discussion of how to minimize the damage.

Finally, here's a hypothetical for you to consider: What if it does work. What if the plan turns out to be sound, or the insurgency finally runs out of gas.

Why do I have the feeling that a lot of posters here would be disappointed if, at the end of all this, Iraq emerged stable and democratic, and American gained stature in the process?

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | January 12, 2007 2:37 PM

Linda,

We had very different experiences of churches during the time before, during, and since the war.

The Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion forcefully condemned the war as unjust and called on its members to withdraw support. That did not happen - people did not obey their leadership. For example, the United Methodists also opposed the war explicitly - Geroge Bush is a Methodist and his daddy's an Anglican.

All that said, I witnessed and was part of several protests in Nashville, TN. My involvement was through the church's Social Action committee that promotes the social policies of the Episcopal Church USA. I participated not because I am a Christian but because I felt it was right. Most of the protests happen near Vanderbilt University's campus, where we can draw out a good throng of progressive students and teachers as well as yuppies and musicians that live near Music Row.

Sometimes an SUV drives by and gives the finger. Sometimes they yell "cowards" or some other insult. We do not yell back, though if they stop at the intersection traffic light we're more than willing to engage them for the minute they are with us.

At any rate, I just wanted to share that I found the mainline and Catholic churches to be very active in opposing the war.>

Posted by: Daniel | January 12, 2007 2:46 PM

Islam is war,

I'd like to hear your substantive thoughts you but when I hear you saying that Jim wants his "Islamic heroes" to win, that he wants everyone on earth to speak Arabic or die, that his progressive religion is "gutless," that he's spent a lifetime "whoring," that his position is "petty," and that he's enslaving youth I feel fearful, sad, and angry. I feel this way because I value the safety of others, I value civility, I value treating everyone as you want to be treated, I value Jim Wallis, I value myself, and I value you. You are clearly not ignorant, I can only assume you are blinded by white hot rage.

Right now the only one seething hatred and violence is YOU.If I were the moderator of the blog I would have deleted your post immediately. It has no place here.

I would like to invite you to act as mature and awesome as you think you are. Failing that. I would like to invite you to leave at once. (My suggestion would be that you enlist in the military so you can put your money where your mouth is and go try to kill all the brown people.)

Daniel>

Posted by: Daniel | January 12, 2007 3:00 PM

jkjorg,

Does anyone out there realise the problem of attempting to dialogue with an enemy that hates everyting about western civilization but it's wealth?

There is a certain truth to this. No one is advocating doing nothing to combat terrorism. But this is a short-term solution. the very action of killing a terrorist can create another one out of his orphaned son, ad nauseam. The only long-term solution will involve dialogue as a central ingredient.

If we don't put fear in the minds of these animals we will lose the war on terrorism.

The specific problem with deterrence against this enemy is that you can't selectively deter - we can't get aggressive and strike fear into the terrorists hiding among innocent people without striking fear into the innocent people as well. Fear of us will turn those innocent people into our enemies.

The universal problem with deterrence is that there will be no lasting security for us until our potential enemies get lasting security for themselves. Terrorists need to be made safe, whether that means killing, capturing, or changing them. But we have to realize that most people are not terrorists and we don't want to use an approach that will make them into new terrorists.>

Posted by: Daniel | January 12, 2007 3:14 PM

Casey Freswick,

Welcome to the Sojourner's crowd. Your criticisms are very lucid and I appreciate your sharing them in such a civil and accessible way. I'd like to engage those with you, if you're willing.

On "lies."

Jim does not merely set the claim out there with no content. He says, "There was never an "imminent threat" from Saddam, there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 (as we were told), and Bush's war in Iraq was not a central front in the international campaign against terrorism, but rather has turned out to be a serious distraction from it (though the war itself has now transformed Iraq into a haven and school for terrorism)."

I agree with this statement. Tim Russert had Dick Cheney on after no WMD were found and evidence was revealed that they knew there was a good chance there never were any. Tim asked him why he said the threat was imminent, which Cheney denied saying. When Russert played video footage of Cheney saying this (on Meet the Press, no less!) Cheney still denied ever presenting the threat as imminent! [This is important - the threat has to be imminent to consider a preemptive war.]

The connection sold between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 is well-documented. There are a gazillion websites that spell these out and Jim does so in his book. Turns out that the administration already knew that Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were at odds. So, then, Iraq could not be a front in the war on terror.

The administration knew some things it withheld and deliberately created the impression that Saddam and Osama were linked somehow. That's a lie where I come from. (Wallis applied the same standards to Bill Clinton, I hoe you are willing to also be consistent.)

On Prophecy and predicting the future.

Jim understands the world in a certain way - violence begets violence, for example. When someone interacts with that world he can often predict what will happen based on his understanding. To say, "If you walk off that cliff you will fall" is not controversial because we all agree that gravity is an objective reality. You do not agree that violence begets violence and other rules that Jim [and I] see at work in the world. But for me to qualify my statements with, "Accroding to my worldview, which I know is only one among others, I really think this might go badly." I don't think and speak that way - I just say, "Spending all your money on drugs will leave you destitute." Is that for certain? Not necessarily - you could dumpster dive, for example :-) - but it's what my experience tells me will happen. I can only live according to what I know, not according to what I don't know or know to be false.>

Posted by: Daniel | January 12, 2007 3:36 PM

Pastor Macari,

I have followed Buchanan's writings since 2000 and I often find him very convincing. It's particularly instructive to see how quickly neocons resort to the "Anti-Semitic" charge. But I think you're missing some important things....

I admire your certainty but we've had different experiences with government and politics. I do not experience taxes as stealing, for one thing. I pay my taxes - even taxes that bankroll the Iraq war, which I opposed all along. I do so because I have faith in We the People, faith in America.

But the greater faith, one we share in common, is that in Jesus Christ. And if there is one lesson we learn from Jesus and from Paul, it is that people can be wrong and people can change. You and I need to leave a safe place for people to change, don't we?

Jim's ideas about Iran and Islam at the time might have been wrong in hindsight. Over time, Jim has gone from being pacifist to supporting Just War and Stanley Hauerwas' idea of protective force. He is not suggesting there is no crisis to address and nothing to be done. He is critiquing the Iraq war in very specific ways. Would you be willing to explain if you see it otherwise?

Is Jim selling out to Democrats? Certainly they have embraced his criticisms far more readily than Republicans. But if we think Jim is currying favor just because people are listening to him and he keeps talking, I think we're setting a standard that, ironically, prevents and dejustifies your office - Pastoring.

It pains me that we disagree so widely - I appreciate your participation, wisdom, and civility and I hope and pray that we might be able to find common ground.>

Posted by: Daniel | January 12, 2007 3:52 PM

I agree with almost everything Jim say with some exceptions. WE BROKE and DESTROYED Iraq and it's infrastructure. SO, WE HAVE a RESPONSIBILITY to fix and restore what we broke before we leave. It will be a while before we can do that. Saddam was able to rule Iraq and have equilibrium there because he was a dictator with an iron fist. When Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz started the war they had no clue and didn't know a damn thing about the religious factions and culture of the country or Islamic fanaticism. We were so intent on showing off to Israel and AIPAC ( Joe Lieberman's friends)that we walked into a stable though opressed country and created chaos. The state we have created in Iraq is definitely worse than what it was before we went in!
As one who wasn't born In America, I'm also fascinated at the stupid outrage in the country and media about the video of Saddam's hanging. Where was the rage at the fact that he was hanged. Why didn't enough people think that there was something terrible about putting him to death, rather than imprisoning him for life and making him think about what he did till his dying day? If we say we are pro-life (Hello Congressman Mike Pence), we have to be consistent. As the giver of life only God can take it away. Where was the outrage?
Who will make sure and speak up now for the imprisonment and impeachment of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and Wolfowitz ( or should they also be hanged?) for the carpet bombing of Baghdad ("collateral damage") and the loss of hundreds of thousand Innocent Iraqui men women and children. WHY are the lives of innocent American servicemen more precious than those of innocent Iraquis? Do we believe that we are ALL children of God, or are the Iraquis "children of a lesser God"?>

Posted by: Derek | January 12, 2007 5:10 PM

There is no such thing as a just war in this day and age, if ever there was. Just war theories should be discarded. They do not serve. War, like slavery, should be abolished.>

Posted by: Jim Dette | January 12, 2007 5:52 PM

Jim Dette said, War, like slavery, should be abolished.

Jim, I think your view is too idealistic, even though it is attractive to many. Did it occur to you that in the United States it took a war to abolish slavery?

What if those in this day and age who practice slavery don't share your idealistic view and think there is nothing wrong with slavery, and are willing to go to war to preserve it?>

Posted by: timks | January 12, 2007 6:17 PM

I, too, will be joining the many thousands who will be protesting this so-called "ideological conflict of our time".

I recall the 60's and 70's when the country was in a losing military engagement and the same arguments for that war are being used for this one, just updated rhetoric that "this war is different". Many on this blog were probably not even a warm thought in their parents' minds at that time, so cannot see the parallels. It appears we still have not learned much over the centuries regarding conflict and the body count just keeps rising. This should be unacceptable to all Americans and certainly all Christians.>

Posted by: Kevin K. | January 12, 2007 6:46 PM

We have a stink bomb presidency, led by the most demented man ever, GWB.
He's the Great Non-communicator, and he's obsessed with his war based on lies, greed and oil fields---and hell-bent on making things worse there!
I don't support this creep at all.>

Posted by: Lyn Henri | January 12, 2007 7:47 PM

www.ImpeachBush.org>

Posted by: Impeach Now | January 12, 2007 8:40 PM

Daniel,

How about this?

Bush/Cheney is the most secretive, authoritarian, negligent, incompetent, malevolent, vindictive and murderous presidency in American history.
.>

Posted by: truthsquad | January 12, 2007 9:04 PM

Jim Wallis is lying when writes that "by the classic criteria of a "just war," Iraq was not, and is not, one." Saddam violated the agreement that ended the Gulf War. Jim Wallis is a Neo-Marxist.>

Posted by: Gary | January 12, 2007 9:57 PM

Jayson,

I wish I knew what to tell you. I came to Sojourners hoping to have my worldview challenged. I want to know what the other side thinks, and as much as I am proud to consider myself a conservative, I've never confused my ideology for gospel.

I won't say it's been a total waste, otherwise I wouldn't be here, but I'm disappointed by the anger and the inability of so many posters to really think through the arguments.

There are exceptions of course, but I'm more likely to see insults than enlightenment, and what's worse, the put-downs aren't even clever.

One more observation: it seems to me that Sojourners has a very limited view of who is in the Christian right: there's Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson. It seems nobody here (that goes all the way to Jim Wallis) ever bothers to read Ramesh Ponnuru or Fred Barnes or Bill Buckley or any of the other real Christian intellectual leaders of the right. Certainly I don't see them commenting on anything these people have written.

Daniel is right about one thing: the over-the-top rhetoric of the left in general is a big reason I remain a supporter of this President. Bush has made some huge mistakes, but I shudder when I consider the alternative -- and these are supposed to be fellow Christians!

I sincerely hope that this isn't all there is to the Christian left.

Wolverine>

Posted by: Wolverine | January 12, 2007 10:41 PM

What about a national outcry for more volunteers to join the service and go to Iraq because they support George Bush's policy.

Good Grief.
There isn't anybody in the armed services who didn't volunteer.

How about a Sojourners outcry, calling for people who oppose George Bush's policy to volunteer to go to the midle east and have dialogue with Al Qaeda, the Sunni and Shia militias, the Syrian govt. and the Iranian mullahs?

Since Islam means peace,this should work real good.>

Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 12, 2007 11:12 PM

Casey Freswick

BRAVO!!!

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 12, 2007 11:42 PM

"As far as "targeting" children in Baghdad, there are children everywhere in a city and military targets no where. Bombing a city and claiming that civilians are just collateral damage is even worse than deliberately killing them. Fallujah was specifically targeted as a demonstration of collective revenge, the kind of viciousness that the Nazis indulged in during WWII."

really dan ? Are you an expert on military insallations? Did Hitler have a bunker in Berlin?

Why did Israel just bomb Lebanon? FACT: Justified or not Hezbolla had bunkers under civialian buildings.

Come on wake up!>

Posted by: ekranoplan | January 13, 2007 12:27 AM

"Every last soldier, sailor, airman, and marine over there, and everyone to follow is a volunteer- risking their life.

Where's Jim Wallis' plan,where's the Church's plan for peace in Iraq?

Where's all the thousands of volunters ready to head over there and risk their lives to make it happen?"
R. Weinhagen


Well said! Some Christians have done just that since before 2003 - and many are still there living amongst ordinary iraqis - actions louder than words - living the gospel.>

Posted by: ekranoplan | January 13, 2007 12:42 AM

Derek: "the carpet bombing of Baghdad ("collateral damage") "

More nonsense. The US and her allies carpet bombed Dresden in WW2. Back then only 30% of bombs hit theior intended targets. Many tens of thousands were killed in that city alone in just one night.

Baghdad was never subjected to such terror and stood largely intact after the 2003 "shock and awe" episode. Indeed some in the media mocked this attack as a fire work show because there was so little apparent damage (over 90% accuracy on targets).

A close friend of mine involved in emergency relief work in Iran and Pakistan earthquakes was there after the bombing and remarked on how few casualites were caused by it. But now the city is slowly falling apart with continuous and indescriminate insurgency attacks.>

Posted by: ekranoplan | January 13, 2007 1:07 AM

Kevin K: what are your views on R Weinhagen's analysis of the US pull out from Vietnam?

"If anyone has failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam, it is America's mainline church leaders. If anyone has failed to consider an exit strategy from Iraq, it is America's mainline church leaders. Having trained and led sit-ins and civil disobedience myself in opposition to the Cambodian bombings, I was quite pleased-initially- to see the US pull out of Vietnam.



Perhaps the biggest lesson to be learned from the Vietnam War-and one the Church failed to even ask about it's own efforts was collatteral damage.

The collateral damage back then as the result of "Peace Now- US Out NOW" was over two million dead in Cambodia alone.

Collatteral damage from the "Peace movement." Imagine that!">

Posted by: ekranoplan | January 13, 2007 1:21 AM

ekranoplan

I am trying to track down the Weinhagen source as I would like to read more of his stuff. For some reason google searches are turning up nothing, could you please help me out with some references?

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 13, 2007 4:31 AM

It seems to me that God has the liberty and even the right to use leaders and nations as He sees fit as He has throughout history. Our vision is limited, and you can certainly tell it by the comments on this blog. You cannot expect a secular nation to act in the same way as the kingdom of God... a kingdom without borders that includes every tongue and nation. If we are expecting the US to act as the kingdom of God... we are just fooling ourselves. A secular nation will do what it does to preserve itself and God will use it to accomplish what He chooses. Pray for the leaders of the world and do not mock what God has ordained. The only just war is a spiritual war. The posturing needs to stop and our focus needs to be our prayers and our lives. If this is the best commentary our faith has to offer, I'm a bit concerned. It is well-known throughout history and even today that more Christians are converted through persecution than by any other means. Only God knows what is in store for us. Whatever it is, all the glory be to Him and not to any eloquence we may possess... or, in this case lack.>

Posted by: Noeo | January 13, 2007 5:31 AM

Andrew Bostom is an associate professor of medicine at Brown University and amateur scholar of Islamic studies.
His bias is anti-Muslim and his writings are characterized by meticulous referral to primary sources and extensive documentation to prove that Islam is bent on conquering the world.
Bostom has been interviewed by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
He publishes in the 'American Thinker' magazine (where Rush Limbaugh gets a lot of his material) and FrontPageMag.com, a neoconservative site.
This should give you an idea of Bostom's audience.
He's kind of like the hack scientists who deny climate change.
Respected scholars of Islamic studies consider Bostom's work as dangerous propaganda.
The right wing likes to refer to Bostom's scholarship to generate fear of muslims.>

Posted by: anonymous | January 13, 2007 6:12 AM

Paul- stay tuned. My reply just got lost in the ether and it's now 3:30 AM so the rewrite will have to wait.

Basically, the "source" for the quote given by Ekranoplan was simply my own experience and observation during and after the Viet Nam war.
( I'm assumimg you realize the source where Ekranoplan found the quote was right here- or - actually- maybe it was in a different thread.

I'd sure like to know what on earth Jim Wallis and many of his supporters here are using for sources- other than an apparently inexhaustible supply of adjectives.>

Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 13, 2007 8:41 AM

Raul says:

I have long known, but not articulated, that the socalled "peace" movement has the blood of millions on it's hands. From Ghandi who was a tacit acomplice to genocide with his "neutrality" toward Hitler, through the era's you mention. I look forward to hearing more from you.

It's so heartening to see that two right wing nutjobs - Paul and R. Weinhagen - have found each other.
Let's listen to them explain how they have arrived at their peculiar conclusions about the peace movement.
.>

Posted by: anonymous | January 13, 2007 6:58 PM

Al Gore is a hack non-scientist.>

Posted by: Aldrichii | January 13, 2007 8:30 PM

Aldrich, do you think Al Gore is wrong about his 'inconvenient truth'?

wanna bet?
.>

Posted by: Nick the Greek | January 13, 2007 9:16 PM

sockpuppet, Huh?
You're right. Sorry about my fractured syntax.

What does Clinton have to do with the topic of the post, "A Criminal Escalation of An Unjust War".
Very little if anything. It was an attempt at an illustration in a conversation with Marshall.

Why won't conservatives take responsibility for putting the Bush/Cheney regime in power and tolerating this disasterous administration for 6 years?
Beats me, why don't you ask some of them? Why don't you stop obsessing over every mention of Clinton, Rainman?>

Posted by: timks | January 13, 2007 11:20 PM

Raul says: It's so heartening to see that two right wing nutjobs - Paul and R. Weinhagen - have found each other.
Let's listen to them explain how they have arrived at their peculiar conclusions about the peace movement.

It's heartening,and all the more so owing to the rarity of it, to find a left-wing nut job who is actually willing to listen to anyone.

So, with heart-felt thanks for Raul's encouragement,I'll continue with the explanation.

As I suggested just above,experience and observation form the basis- and then, of course- based on the experience and observations, asking questions. It was one and the same process- asking questions- that led me into the anti-war movement in the early 70's-- and then, as I continued to ask questions, back out again. Like Raul, most found it "peculiar" that anyone would actually think it appropriate,let alone necessary, to question the ideas presented.

One of those questions had to do with collateral damage- a question which I learned, oddly enough,the US Military devoted great effort to being accountable for-- asking and answering, and with the willingness to risk the lives of its own men in order to lessen risks to civilians.

In virtually every occasion I raised the issue with antiwar groups ( then and now)the very question and any sense of responsibility and accountability for their own actions was simply rejected.

------

Here's an example of asking questions applied to the McGovern article cited just above--
The Way out of War,


http://www.harpers.org/TheWayOutOfWar.html

Many Americans who were among the most eager to invade Iraq now urge that we find a way out. These Americans include not only civilian strategists and other hawks but also senior military commanders and, perhaps most fervently, combat soldiers. Even some of those Iraqis regarded by our senior officials as the most pro-American are determined now to see American military personnel leave their country. Polls show that as few as 2 percent of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators. This is the reality of the situation in Iraq.

No it isn't. This is not the reality of the situation in Iraq. It's simply the opinion of an author and some he found who share it. How does that become reality? It is a report by the author of how some senior military commanders, some Iraqis,and some combat soldiers feel. It is how the author interprets one poll which purported to show that 2% of Iraqis consider Americans to be liberators.

This is not any method for determining reality.
It certainly doesn't lead to this conclusion:

We must acknowledge the Iraqis right to ask us to leave, and we should set a firm date by which to do so.


This is a basic problem with the anti-war movement- the presumption that evidence of someone else's agreement with a shared conclusion somehow becomes incontrovertible evidence that the conclusion is and must be correct. It doesn't. Anymore than believing the Wright brother's plane wouldn't fly makes it false that I have flown to California.

Of course we should acknowledge the Iraqi's right to ask us to leave- but that is no reason at all to set any firm date for anything,let alone leaving.

What happened to the need to acknowledge the need for ackowledging the rights of Iraqis who ask us to stay? There are such Iraqis. More than a few. They don't disappear whenever someone in the ant-war movement discovers the opposite view. Anymore than the many American's who were"eager" to invade Iraq have disappeared or can simply be dismissed- to say nothing of the many who were opposed to the invasion and yet still caution against a precipitous withdrawal.

The article goes on to simply invent it's own solutions. - primary among them being the invention of some kind of international Muslim police-which,of course, does not and never has existed.The idea that the Iraqi people would consider this somehow not to qualify as an "occupying army" and respond accordingly is left unexplained- other than by the unspoken assumption that well--they are, of course, Muslim and the linguistic charade of calling it a police force rather than an army.

Current events,of course,make it quite clear that in addition to not liking occupying international western armies, neither Al Qaeda,or a variety of Shia and Sunni militias care much even for other Iraqi Muslims. The author simply ignores the reality of the international forces of Muslims already in Iraq-Al Qaeda and a host of Sunni and Shia Muslims from around the globe- all not simply opposed to an American occupation, but opposed to anything but an occupation carrying out there own dreams of empire.

I grew up inthe 60's. George McGovern,the author of the article, was the first candidate I voted for in the first election I was eligible to vote in

But, as I've said, I grew up in the 60's. I didn't suffer the arrested development that afflicted so many of my generation and remain stuck there.

P.S.
I'm not a right-wing nut. I'm an independent nut.I used to be a liberal and a democrat until the party was taken over by an occupying force of just plain absolute nuts.>

Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 13, 2007 11:37 PM

R. Weinhagen,

Thanks very much.

Estimates range between 2.75 and 4 million people killed subsequent to the US pullout from Vietnam.

I continue to be amazed when people keep pointing to Ghandi as an exemplar. His advise to Buber that the Jew's response to Hitler should be to commit mass suicide, is nothing short of obscene. (He later confirmed this view to his biographer) I find it interesting that those who continue to use him as a model are not being honest enough to publicly admit that his response to the current situation would be for all westerners to commit suicide in response to Bin Ladin. . .

In 1942, George Orwell wrote, in Partisan Review:

``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, `he that is not with me is against me.'''

Thanks again for your time.

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 14, 2007 12:54 AM

I continue to be amazed when people keep pointing to Ghandi as an exemplar. His advise to Buber that the Jew's response to Hitler should be to commit mass suicide,

Prove that one too.
.>

Posted by: anonymous | January 14, 2007 1:48 AM

Paul,

What is your position on Bush's invasion of Iraq?
Do you think we should escalate?
Attack Iran and Syria?
.>

Posted by: anonymous | January 14, 2007 1:57 AM

I'm pretty sure if Orwell were alive today, he would be opposed to the Iraq invasion and would probably be demonstrating against it.

Maybe he would be going oin camping trips and boat rides to Cuba with Cindy Sheehan too. But I doubt it.

Pretty sure?
How come- because you wish he was?
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't. Not because I wish it, but because I read what he said,and comprehend his reasoning.

I can read historical accounts and hear with my own ears the same absolute refusal by contemporary absolutist pacifists to consider any accountability for the death and suffering that results not simply from their refusal to confront evil, but their objection to and obstruction of those who do.>

Posted by: R. Weinhagen | January 14, 2007 3:53 AM

Did not Romfeld say civil strife was part of freedom?>

Posted by: Joel Kretzmann | January 14, 2007 5:58 AM

Nick the Greek: I haven't seen teh movie so I dot know if he's right or not.

Do you think he is a scientist?>

Posted by: Aldrichii | January 14, 2007 8:26 AM

"There is a time to kill, and a time to heal..." Those who say that war is never the answer are just as wrong as those who say it is always the answer. Outside a context of justice, mercy becomes sheer sementalism, and criminal enablement.

Larry, Attacking those who are not your emenies shows no evidence of the gospel. Simple name calling does no service to the one you claim to serve.
By attacking those who seek to minimize the loss of innocent life and tacitly supporting those to try to maximize the loss of inocent life you show that you have no idea what justice is.

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 14, 2007 12:47 PM

Aldchili: Gore does not have to be a scientist is be a reporter. Better than Republicans using a novel as proof agst claims of global warming.
Thanks Brenda for pointing out alternative Dem plans.
Dick: No the Dem will not fail for Bush's gambit, they will voice disapproval & let new plan fail on its own. It is about time security is a priority. Bush's running an unnecessary war on the cheap to minimize political costs & max hopeful gain is shameful.
Timbo: Shiites have no need to attack Kurds.
Wolverine: Cia was only incompetent to letting Bush get away with his cheery picking, or whatever. Or was it Cheney??? Letting Tenet take the fall was ...
Casey: Legally, misled or lying are often indistinguishable. Letting Cheney lie for him was ...
Acs: Lets hope the west standing up agst terrorism how stupidly does make some impression. How long do we do the stupid part is the question?
Ekr: 78% Iraqis did state they wanted US out. Large % also wanted more security.
Tinks: some of your facts are irrelevant. One officials trying to bribe someone to say there were no WDMs, does not prove there were. First thing law students learn is that facts are a good place to hide, if they are indeed facts. Intent is the issue.
The essay did seem somewhat tired.
Gary: jeepers.>

Posted by: Joel Kretzmann | January 14, 2007 6:26 PM

Tinks: Make the issue go away. It is somewhat clear, Saddam was in a contrary position. He needed WMDs to make an invasion more painful, disproving a negative is impossible, appearing to have them strengthened him agst domestic & regional enemies.>

Posted by: Joel Kretzmann | January 14, 2007 10:09 PM

Hi Larry,

Say hi to John for me. I had the pleasure of hostiing him in my home many years ago. You misrepresent my position, but it seems obvious that really understanding is not your intent. Good luck with your retoric.

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 15, 2007 2:56 AM

I'll tell you why, Tim. It's because so many were so very very OFFENSIVE about Clinton for so many long weary months....that we're finally getting defensive, a reaction long overdue. EVERYBODY on the so-called right jumped on the bandwagon, the whole country piled on, Clinton was CRUCIFIED by liars and hypocrites, way out of proportion to reality, for ten years, Tim. It was the biggest crime against God in the history of our country, and we still owe Bill Clinton a huge apology for the whole sorry witch hunt and ridiculous "impeachment." And you know what? Hardly anybody has bothered to fight back for this egregious crusade against the man, until now. Even the democrats have been remarkably patient with the cretins who want to STILL blame Clinton for the mess THEY have made of things, worldwide. It's just that now, because we have a crime family running the goverenment in the name of Jesus, with millions of so-called Christians STILL supporting him, we're tired of this Clinton nonsense. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Since they won't apologize to the man or even now forgive him as genuine Christians would do, the least they can do now at this late date is shut up about Clinton. ..especially in connection with lies and lying. ARE YOU KIDDING? Forgive me for getting so excited, but HOLY COW TIM, START CLEARING YOUR HEAD! You sound like a nice guy who's not too bright, that's why I thought you were one of those regressives from the right, 'cause that's the way they are. You still can't figure out who are the bad guys in all this? WOW. That isn't fair and balanced, that's thick-headed...

MM>

Posted by: Marshmallow | January 15, 2007 7:36 AM

""Andrew Bostom is an associate professor of medicine at Brown University and amateur scholar of Islamic studies.""

Yes, and this is the point he makes in the opening of his book. Why have other professors of history not done the painstaking translation of the primary sources from Islamic historians and warriors. Why are the historians not openly discussing the reality of dhimmitude and violent takeover of many societies by Islam?

"His bias is anti-Muslim....."

The point of his book was to expose the reality of Islamic jihad at various points of history to the general public.

"..... and his writings are characterized by meticulous referral to primary sources and extensive documentation....."

Er, you mean he followed first class principles for good and accurate writing??

"...... to prove that Islam is bent on conquering the world."

To expose the history of the times when Islam was indeed attempting the conquer the world for Islam.

"Bostom has been interviewed by Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.
He publishes in the 'American Thinker' magazine (where Rush Limbaugh gets a lot of his material) and FrontPageMag.com, a neoconservative site.
This should give you an idea of Bostom's audience."

Again, another point behind the writing of his book. Due to multiculturalism and political correctness, acadamia is not talking about the history of Islam as openly as it should, and it seems they don't want to listen either. Now, if it was the Crusades, then yes, there is plenty of free and open criticism.

"He's kind of like the hack scientists who deny climate change."

The so-called hack scientists who deny climate change are asking genuine questions and are not convinced that this is a completely abnormal cycle of climate change. Good on them for demanding the best answers, because, as with most things of great controvery, the truth is probably somewhere between the extremes.

"Respected scholars of Islamic studies consider Bostom's work as dangerous propaganda."

Why is meticulous translation of primary sources be dangerous progaganda?

"The right wing likes to refer to Bostom's scholarship to generate fear of muslims."

Actually, no, the Muslim terrorists are doing a good enough job of that themselves. Some of us just want to understand a bit more about its history, and are hard pressed to find scholars who will freely speak out.>

Posted by: acs of Australia | January 15, 2007 12:06 PM

Correction to my last comment.

"This, I'm sure, is what Bush would have been referring to." should read -

"This, I'm sure, is what Bush would have been referring to when suggesting a "link" between Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein.">

Posted by: acs of Australia | January 15, 2007 2:44 PM

Joel - I agree with you, but I certainly can see why it would therefore indicate to many people that it meant Iraq had WMDs and didn't want it exposed. Can't you?>

Posted by: timks | January 15, 2007 3:01 PM

So as to divert attntion (if that's possible) Cheney/Bush may well begin an attack against Iran. Impeachment anyone?>

Posted by: Bristol566 | January 15, 2007 5:01 PM

acs of Australia wrote -

I believe that the Qur an came from God, that it is Divinely inspired. Muhammad could not have caused the great upsurge in religion that he did without God s blessing. [2]" (from Wikipedia)

But there are many that believe that the God of Islam is not the same God as that of Judaism and Christianity.
I am one of those people.

The Qur'an has nothing to do with the Bible. Even though these three religions are refered to as the Three Abrahamic Faiths - Islam is not part of the One Ture God. (Rev. 22: 18 to the end of the chapter)

Have a great day
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 15, 2007 6:19 PM

Wow, just reading the slew of comments
I see some very misinformed people saying some pretty ridiculous things. I also see pro-war advocates saying that anyone who disagrees with them (the ubiquitous "Left") has no legitimacy, because it has now plan.

Well here's the plan:

Step (1) GETTING OUR HOUSE IN ORDER - fire the incompetents who got us into this mess and order investigations into the conflicts of interest and corruption that has taken place there. This will go a long way into ridding us of the sources of mismanagement that got us into this mess.

Step (2) HAVE AN OPENDELIBERATION about the future of our involvement in Iraq. This deliberation must involve people in the various departments (State, Defence) at home and also international stakeholders. While we have, especially over the last 6 years, scoffed at these other stakeholders, the reality is that multilateral diplomacy has great potential to achieve results. The overworked comparisons to Europe in 1930 are totally irrelevant because the situation in Iraq is not yet intractable - let's act while there is time before we get a situation like Palestine.

Once we have accomplished these two steps - better leadership at home and a strong commitment abroad towards a healthy transition in Iraq, we will be in a better position to look ahead towards an eventual withdrawal. Our responsible withdrawal from Iraq is the single most important step we can take towards creating a more stable environment there.

A sudden withdrawal is not an option -we've created too much of a mess. However, allowing the miscreants who got us into this mess to lead us further into is is not an option that we should be forced to make either.

There is truly only ONE political party--you only vote for which group who want to steal your money and ruin American... values

Right on!>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 15, 2007 7:28 PM

I'l just add that something akin to impeachment is necessary to root out the very deep underlying problems that got us into this mess. Even if the upcoming elections have a new administration in place (Democract or Republican) the influence of political neocons and corporate interests will remain if they are not held to account now.>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 15, 2007 7:52 PM

Joseph T,

You do realize that your portrayal of the early church is simplistic to the point of falsehood. While some early church fathers objected to military service on what we might call pacafist grounds, others objections were; to pagan religious vows which served as military oaths, the guarding of pagan temples, and the emperor-worship which was required of soldiers at certain times. However, even those who objected recognized that some christians do participate. In fact Clement of Alexandria said with regard to soldiers that each man should abide in the calling to which he is called.

I have seen noone here defending war criminals (although I assume you mean that all who participate in war are criminals) or torture. Your hyperboly is not particularly helpful.

I seek to follow Jesus' example of nonresistance (as opposed to "non-violent" resistance which is neither biblical or moral as it often seeks to provoke others to do evil) where doing so would not lead to greater evil, because that is how I understand Jesus intended it to be used.

I have a cousin who was a conscientious objector who volunteered to go to Vietnam as a medic, and I have the utmost respect for him. Those who stridently claim to be pacafists while hiding behind the protection of others on the otherhand...

The suicide rate among Vietnam veterans it truely tragic (although the number you cite are at best suspect) but a major contributing factor was their treatment when they came home by those against the war.

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 15, 2007 8:42 PM

Paul
No I don't mean all who participate in war are criminals, though the book of James says that wars come from lust and greed. I do not judge those who defend their countries from invaders, or themselves from criminals. I am talking specifically about the Bushites direct violation of treatiesthe US has signed and which have , according to the constitution, the binding force of law.

Your contention that the suicide of Vets was the result of anti-war protestors is utter nonsense with no historic or sociological evidence. I have found great bitterness toward the US government and Vets AD. Hospitals from Viet Vets and very little toward antiwar people. I was part of the VietNam war resistance and we made a concerted effort to welcome vets home. I never saw a single instance of treating a vet spitefully.

I know enough of church history to say the church was fundamentally a pacifist community for the first 300 years.

We of the progressive community understand the resentment and anger that are the natural response to the crime of the 9/11 attacks.But the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with this crime. It was itself a crime which took far more innocent lives than the 9/11 attack. It was a delusional neo-con plan to get control of the middle east and become impervious to Oil dependence. It has failed miserably and produced the inevitable consequences of wars fought because as Jame says you lust and desire to have and have not.>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 15, 2007 9:37 PM

Dave
Your depiction of the US military role in Iraq is naive, and idealized. You need to read the firsthand accounts of soldiers who have been disillusioned by the bad behavior of the US military in Iraq. One way is to see the movie "the ground truth". You should also look at the scientifically conducted statistical studies published by the Lancet.
I too want to be proud of my country and its behavior and will continue to work honestly toward that end.>

Posted by: Joseph T | January 15, 2007 9:51 PM

Joseph T,

I am glad you made efforts to welcome Vietnam vets home. I have known too many who were spit on and accused of being "baby killers" to accept your false generalization.

Your knowledge of "church history" is limited and suspect as you only accept that which supports your preconceptions.

Again, good luck with your rhetoric, I see no evidence of Jesus there.

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 15, 2007 10:28 PM

Timks - I'm at work now so I'll have to do this research at home regarding the Lancet article (I believe the authors have responded to specific criticisms) but it's interesting to note the conclusing sentence -

In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. >

Posted by: splinterlog | January 15, 2007 10:43 PM

In case anyone is interested:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/05/who_spat_on_who.html

cheers, Paul>

Posted by: Paul | January 15, 2007 10:59 PM

robstur | 01.15.07 - 1:24 pm |

Hello there Robstur,
Greetings from Australia!!

I wholeheatedly agree with you.
From what I can gather about the history of Mohammed, I believe his faith in "one true God" was genuine as he was influenced by some Christians at the time, plus he was also heavily influenced by the worship of the moon god in the cultures around him at the time.

That statement was a quote from William Montgomery Watt- someone from the list of people who apparently believe Andrew Bostom's writings about Jihad are rubbish, given to me above from "Anonymous. I'm still working through that list, but so far I haven't found highly qualified PH D's in History in the list.

The reason I raise the writings about Jihad in this forum, is because Christian really need to understand who/what the enemy is in this war in Iraq and in this era of Islamic terrorism. If we don't understand their religion and and political ideology then we will make very poor decisions about how to protect ourselves and others. Most in the west have absolutely no idea of the beliefs and history of Islam, which shows that it is usually not separated from politics and conquest.>

Posted by: acs of Australia | January 16, 2007 12:41 AM

acs of Australia | 01.15.07 - 7:46 pm |

Preach it my Australian Christian Brother!

I have been saying this for a couple of years now. We are dealing with finatical people that are willing to die for their cause and we are not willing to kill for our safety.

My Our God grant us wisdom and understanding in dealing with these people in the future.

Be Blessed and safe
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 16, 2007 2:52 AM

Yes, we are dealing with such people but what percentage of the 2,000,000,000 muslims are jihadist?
If we start killing a bunch of people we think are jihadist, how many more will become jihadist?>

Posted by: Butch | January 16, 2007 3:27 AM

SYDNEY, Aug. 9 Kyodo

Australian soldiers pulled out of the Vietnam War in 1973, but their families continue to struggle with the conflict's devastating legacy, the author of a new report on suicide among the children of veterans said Wednesday.

The children of Australian Vietnam War veterans are committing suicide at alarming rates, which could increase over the next decade, said Paul Jelfs of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW).

Jelfs co-authored a report by the AIHW called ''Suicide in Vietnam Veterans' Children,'' which was released this week.

Between 1988 and 1997, Vietnam veterans' offspring had suicide rates three times higher than the rest of the Australian population, he said.

That rate could rise even further in the next 10 years as the average age of the children moves further into the 20-29 age bracket, which is the highest suicide risk group in Australia.>

Posted by: Joseph T | January 16, 2007 5:44 AM

">http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/washpost/vietvets.htm>

Posted by: Anonymous | January 16, 2007 6:51 AM

"Yes, we are dealing with such people but what percentage of the 2,000,000,000 muslims are jihadist?
If we start killing a bunch of people we think are jihadist, how many more will become jihadist?"

Terrorist numbers grow when their actions are ""succesful"".

Therefore if we can prevent the terrorists from achieving their political goals, then there is no reward for them to take this road.

See the arguments from "Why Terrorism Works"
http://dir.salon.com/story/books/int/2002/09/12/dershowitz/index.html

No one said there were simple options to achieve this, and sometimes the lesser of two evils must be chosen.>

Posted by: acs of Australia | January 16, 2007 8:48 AM

Butch | 01.15.07 - 10:32 pm |

Break it down a little. We are not fighting against all 2-billion Muslims, just a small radical fragment that is killing people all over the world - including other Muslims.

I believe that humans love peace more than war, it is more our nature. When dealing with a fraction (whatever their religious or political affiliation) and you continue to take the leader of the group out, whatever that is. The pool of candidates shrinks as they see that the guy at the top does not stay in that position very long. Only then you might be able to find someone to step up to the plate that is willing to come to terms and agree to coexist.

Have a great day.
.>

Posted by: robstur | January 16, 2007 1:45 PM

Gotta love liberal flame wars..

Where's the tolerance and love in thier words.

Warmonger, Criminal, Hate Hate Hate

Anymouse's belief: If you dont believe as I do, your obviously an idiot.

My question to those who decry "unjust War!" What is JUST about letting a people suffer at the hand of butcher and tyrant, because your afraid to get your hands bloodied or soiled? That makes you no different then those that past by the Samaritan in the road!>

Posted by: Bedwyr | January 17, 2007 4:27 PM

I couldn't disagree more. I like the blog title. As if Wallis speaks for God. What hubris.>

Posted by: Tom | January 17, 2007 4:55 PM

Eric P. - Which Nobel-winning economist are you referring to?

Do you have a link or citation?

Also, your math is suspect.>

Posted by: timks | January 17, 2007 6:36 PM

TImks - I believe it was Joe Stiglitz. The article is available here:

">http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/22/ING9UGPROS1.DTL>

Posted by: splinterlog | January 18, 2007 5:17 AM

BBC report on IBC v lancet v Iraqi Health Ministry figures on deaths in Iraq since 2003 invasion/liberation:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456995/html/default.stm

and here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6045112.stm

Whatever the figure the situation is very very bad for Iraqi civilians.

But what is the best way to stop the killing (the vast majority of it caused by road side/marketplace/mosque/job queue bomings)?

How did the UN fare in Baghdad? Did they persevere after the UN mission was bombed? Cut and run like in Rwanda? Who is taking at least some responsibilty for security in Iraq? The Russians? The French?

Security is the number 1 issue in Baghdad. Cut and run may only lower immediate/short term US deaths. Nobody can forecast a reduction in terrorism against the USA from AQ if there was a pullout from Iraq.

The "war" will just move elsewhere - maybe Palestine, maybe European and US transport systems, clubs, pubs or maybe churches in Pakistan. Meantime the Iraqi civilians will likely suffer further bloodshed as feuds escalate between rival "armies" and external insurgents.

Deal with the terror and society will return to something approaching human sanity. This is what Jim Wallis would have us believe in Darfur. So why the opposite in Iraq?

We in the West have made mistakes and we will make more but let's at least try to fix those errors.

I've never heard "can do" N America so negative as in recent years. Focusing on the negative all the time leads to serious depression and drags everybody else down.

Nobody who knows me would call me an optimist and I am not saying ignore the awful issues. Rather, let's focus on both the bad and the good things and have some balance in our thinking.

Come on Media - report the truth fairly with accuracy and in a thinking manner with regard to the consequences. After all wars have a habit of being started by false reports.>

Posted by: ekranoplan | January 18, 2007 11:22 PM

Your just war analysis is weak and ignores key facts. I admire the fact that you tried--most in your camp don't even bother--but your reliance on inaccuracies and distortion is fatal in creating a persuasive just war analysis. What you have is a muddled attempt to vent your frustration at war and violence in general. I don't blame you really. Unfortunately it is the current transparency brought to Iraq by our presence that allows the entire world to see the violence and evil that has gripped that country for many years before the U.S. got involved. To label the war in Iraq a mistake is to label Saddam Hussein and his rule of terror (against his own people and his neighbors) just. I don't think you want to make that argument.>

Posted by: So Cal Free Methodist | January 23, 2007 5:51 PM

O.K. - Jim Wallis has gone on at great length regarding his opposition to the administrations policies in Iraq. Perhaps, someday (may I live so long!) he will actually propose a CONCRETE alternative! (GASP!). What SPECIFIC course of action does he propose going forward (THUNDEROUS SILENCE!). I have three questions for Jim Wallis....

1. Why is he so silent about the U.S. role in Afghanistan? (Does, he, or does he NOT, support our efforta against the Taliban there? Yes, or no?).

2. Will he finally renounce his role as the former head of SDS at Michigan State University during the 1960s - or does he still secretly hold to those radical "New Left" views, but doesn't want us to know it?

3. Will he finally apologize for his condemnation of the Vietnamese "boat people" who fled Vietnam after the fall of South Vietnam in 1975? At that time he publically denounced those who fled Vietnam as corrupt individuals (including the women and children apparently) who were addicted to Western extravagances! Never mind those whose attempted escape proved unsuccessful- and who were consequently the victims of a horrible and bloodthirsty regime!

Not all of us, have forgotten Jim Wallis past!. As for his present "theology", it can all be summarized in the following dictum- "The Lord loves Big Government"!

Or Alternatively, "God is not a Democrat or a Republican; He is Rather, A Socialist (and presumably, a pacifist)".

Sorry - I am NOT impressed!!!!>

Posted by: John Dupont | February 5, 2007 4:25 AM