Jim says, "I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was and is clueless about being the President of the United States."

Jim finally gets it.
Even George Will gets it.
What was the first clue, I wonder now?

Jim again, "But I don't favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration..."

As I've said here before, America should get behind impeachment.
The longer this crime syndicate stays in power, the more looting and destruction they will do.
Not to mention that impeachment just might save us from World War III.
...

On a related topic, I just finished reading 'The Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism', by Naomi Klein.

I highly recommend this book for those who want to find out why poverty is epidemic around planet earth.
Kevin will be astonished to find out that his beloved Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys were behind it all.

Posted by: justintime | November 5, 2007 8:13 PM

Yeah I knew who you meant justintime... :)

What's interesting is the charges of "partisanship" leveled at Wallis. Get this: George F. Will & Jim wallis both decry the way we got into this war that our leaders are clueless of how to get out of. Of course, they both focus on different angles: GW calls Bush an abuser of Constitutional Power, JW calls Bush a liar. But they come from two different places on ther political spectrum and are in general agreement.

So guess what? When tow people form tow different political ideologies agree on something that by definition makes it non partisan!

So who is the only ones being partisan here? The ones who stick by Bush no matter what evidences are levelled against him. That would be in this case- *ta-ta-ta-TA-ta-dahhhh!* The Pro Bush Conservatives! ;-)

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 5, 2007 9:22 PM

"I believe that Dick Cheney is a liar; that Donald Rumsfeld is also a liar; and that George W. Bush was and is clueless about being the President of the United States."
--Jim, I really think you should have waited a day before sitting down to write this highly partisan rant. I know you try to avoid the "liberal Democrat" label, but this really reads like something off the comments section of a liberal Daily Kos-type blog. You're not thinking clearly, and you're letting your anger blind you.

Posted by: jesse | November 5, 2007 9:56 PM

"Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."

I am sorry, where did the Gospel go Jim? Who made you the judge of the unpardonable sin?

Posted by: david | November 5, 2007 10:12 PM

The decision to go to war was based on an accumulation of evidence, of which the Curveball was a part. Some of this intelligence came from the CIA, some came from other parts of the world (including the UK). All of those who voted for the war (including Hillary) had access to this intelligence. Most believed Saddam possessed WMDs. Jim only sees evil in the hearts of conservatives, however, so he cannot allow himself to believe they had anything other than evil intentions behind the decision to invade.

I am wondering why Jim is charitable towards Colin Powell, whom he said was reasonable for believing the CIA's intelligence, and then he lets loose on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. for their lying and/or incompetence?? He's not making sense.

And I should reiterate my earlier point...this column is the reason why you shouldn't email someone when you're feeling angry. Give yourself some time to relax, and then speak when you're thinking clearly.

Posted by: jesse | November 5, 2007 10:33 PM

Jim Wallis: "Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."

I always enjoy reading the posts on this site and think about the topic but I stopped appreciating your thoughts when I read your final sentence.

I think if we stand for the love of Christ and seek to bring Him glory we should be careful to make statements that reveal our heart about specific people. The above quote seems to tell me more about a man and his willingness to a worldly cause instead of following Christ and forgiving his enemy. (And remember we are called to pray for those that are our enemies - not saying you don't...just reminding the readers).

Posted by: JG | November 5, 2007 11:26 PM

letjusticerolldown,

Well said commentary about a very complex issue.

Jim,

Accusatory statements without proof are dangerous, even though I too think there's something very suspect about Rummy. The certainty with which you call these men liars astounds me, for you can't possibly know the whole truth about the matter. While the war has undeniably gone terribly wrong, there's also no denying that the United States has not been attacked since 9/11/01 under this administration's watch. The hatefulness which you display towards these individuals is unbecoming.

Posted by: Cads | November 5, 2007 11:51 PM

Jim Wallis: "Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."

Thanks Jim. You're human! I have a hard time about this war too and am so glad that God is the ultimate forgiver when I continually fall short of the glory of God because of my own humanness to forgive GWB (and others) as of now. I would like to know someone who does everything in the bible perfectly anyway- forgiveness is something what we should and are called to do, but is easier said (and read) than done in this particular Administration's situation.

Do you know what this article tells me about your heart Jim Wallis - you're openly honest frustration and anger, and unability to forgive and stand for what the current Administration has done is good (in my opinion). And where we are as a nation (and world) because of this war is a shame. Not to mention the Iraqi people and how they have suffered.

And those are thoughts worth appreciating Jim.

Blessings to all of course,
angry, mad, and mildly pissed off
that's biblical too!

Posted by: Anonymous | November 6, 2007 12:03 AM

You know what, Im going to take that even further. Fooey on this "the US hasnt been attacked since 911 crappola. THEY DONT NEED TO SINCE WE KEEP SENDING PEOPLE OVERSEAS FOR THEM TO ATTACK" 0.o

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 6, 2007 12:12 AM

That was brilliant, Kevin Wayne, but there's only one "p" in crapola. However, I don't know what's absurd or nonsensical (both synonyms for crapola if you don't know) about pointing out a fact.

Posted by: Cads | November 6, 2007 1:35 AM

You know - this site has become something that I now understand today more than I did several months ago. Poverty - hunger - climate change - healthcare. Wallis just uses these as the carrot on a stick so that he can promote his real agenda - advancement of the Liberal/Dem agenda. There are more articles on this site that have really nothing to do with what he talks about on screen or radio. The answer to most the problems that Wallis talks about is 'it is Bush's fault'. I can't wait till the next election and Bush is finally out of the White House and someone else is in there. If it is a Dem - Wallis will have access to the Lincoln Bedroom with no problem. (he won't even have to pay) If it is a Rep - I give him 3 months till Wallis start recycling old articles about the Bush Adm and just changes the names and situations to fit the moment.

It use to be more thought provoking here - it's not now.

So - with the play that I am working with the tech crew on opening this weekend and a monther with Alzheimers - I believe I will be taking a vacation from 'godspolitics' for awhile. (and the liberals are thanking God for His devine guidance)

So Rick - I'm taking your advise and leaving the site - not for good as you requested. (sorry)
Teacher - yes, I do believe that the earth is warming - not sold on what the 'evangelist Gore' says the causes is. But then again as liberals - that depends what your definition of 'is' is.
Many of you I have enjoyed exchanging comments and 'barbs' with and I will miss that but then again - I might be back.
As always - I will post on Monday that prayers were offered for our service personnel. For those who don't believe that my prays make it above the ceiling as some have said. Thats your opinion.

I truly pray that God will add His 'Blessings' to all that you do.

Later - ?? -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | November 6, 2007 7:59 AM

Uh, does Kevin really think FEMA is responsible for preventing terrorist attacks?

Posted by: Eric | November 6, 2007 9:28 AM

Wolverine is a member of Bush's hard core supporters, no doubt.
Bush's approval rating has now shrunk to 24%.
And 24% of the American public believes Elvis Presley is still alive.
What's wrong with these folks?

Posted by: justintime | November 6, 2007 10:35 AM

"Wolverine is a member of Bush's hard core supporters, no doubt.
Bush's approval rating has now shrunk to 24%."

Um, no. That would be the approval rating for the Democratic (big D) Congress that Wallis wanted so badly. Bush is at 34% in the latest composite of major polls.

"Still in denial I see Wolverine."

He isn't denying anything. Those are the facts of the case. The CIA presented bad evidence, and Powell and Bush believed the CIA.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 6, 2007 11:11 AM

Moreover, if Wallis's policies weren't so tragic in and of themselves, his whole person might make for great farse and comedy. But, alas, as with the influence that his personal rock star Bono wields over those who're driven by emotion, not thought, Wallis surely has an effect on the shallow and gullible, and that is contemptible.

Posted by: Bob | November 6, 2007 11:18 AM

I hear those here who long earnestly for a change in government, and seem to believe that change will make things, somehow, better. And I hear some here who defend the current administration in almost everything they do.

There is another way to live in this world as children of God. It is to recognize the following, and then build your life based on this recognition: It makes no difference whether it is Truman, who authorized the use of the first nuclear weapons in a time of declared war, or Eisenhower, who planned and led the most horrific military invasion in human history, or Kennedy, who could not seem to keep his pants up when there was a good-looking woman around, or LBJ, who presided over the debacle of Vietnam, or Nixon, identified as a felon and who resigned in disgrace, or Ford, who pardoned the first shamed and felonious president in the history of the republic, or Carter, a great guy to have as your neighbor but one of the worst presidents ever (remember the misery index?), or Reagan, who spent the USSR into oblivion on the backs of our grandchildren, or Bush I, who invaded Iraq through Kuwait, or Clinton (see Kennedy, above, and then say "ditto"), or Bush II, whom many on this blog love to hate, and who often displays incompetence at the best, and callous indifference at the worst-- it simply makes no difference. Secular power corrupts. Period.
Jesus knew this. And He calls His people to know this, and live accordingly. Some of His people already make their best effort to do so - - the Amish do, some conservative Mennonites and Brethren do - they see the innate corruption that secular government inevitably brings out in humans, and they choose to avoid it, at the ballot box, and everywhere else they possibly can.
Hating Bush is no answer. Hating any president is no answer. Praying for them as individuals is an answer. And living our lives as members of another kingdom, that is certainly an answer. Better than expecting governments of humans to change, that's for sure!!

Posted by: joekc | November 6, 2007 11:46 AM

I'm pretty sure his opposition to war is genuine even if it leads him to a pretty shallow understanding (IMHO) of international affairs. Wolverine

I'm sure that Jim was taken aback that you, the authority on "IMHO", would call his understanding shallow. Will Jim ever recover? I'm sure that his confidence is shattered and he is crying somewhere in a corner just waiting for the coup de grace of that other intellectual giant Kevin S.

To Moderatelad: Bye! Take your time in coming back. And please add in some innocent Iraqi victims to your Monday morning prayers for the troops.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 6, 2007 12:22 PM

Another thought on Wallis:

If your goal is to see the US "tough it out" in Iraq, I'm not so sure that Wallis has done all that much damage. George Will's questions about the rationale behind the Iraq war are hardly new or unique to him. Will never was a war supporter, and Bill Buckley has expressed the opinion that the Iraq invasion was a mistake. Nearly every conservative I know of, including most of us neocons, has expressed reservations about the assumptions behind the decision to invade.

But by insisting on the most sinister interpretation of events (Halliburton, oil, neocons/Israel) the left, Wallis included, has pretty much closed off all opportunities for Iraq War supporters to back off and save face. As a consequence the pro-war coalition has held together quite well in spite of the failure to find WMDs and the unexpected difficulties (at least among many in Bush's inner circle) of occupying Iraq and establishing democratic government in a country with no civil society to speak of.

If Wallis had encouraged the Christian left to extend Bush some benefit of the reasonable doubt with regards to intentions, while continuing to criticize the war itself, Sojo might have picked up more friends among Christian conservatives and Wallis would have been closer to achieving his goals. But it would appear that when push comes to shove Wallis considers it more important to punish Bush than to end the war.

Which is terribly ironic, because both Christians and liberals are supposed to be more into peace than punishment.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | November 6, 2007 12:24 PM

The CIA presented bad evidence, and Powell and Bush believed the CIA

I know that this is what you want to believe, but the facts (according to several former adminstration officials who have written about this since) are that the administration pressured the CIA to produce "evidence" they could use as a justification for war. So no, there was no tragic mistake there.

Look it's not rocket science. Bush's supporters number very large in the oil and oil services industry. These are the same folks who have made absurd profits from this war - and in many instances through highly corrupt practices. For me that's more than enough to suggest what this war was really about.

You know all this, and yet choose not to accept it. That's fine. Your side has had almost 5 years now to produce the WMDs - no cigar. After this administration goes, I want to see these cronies pay - and believe me, unlike the WMD's, the proof will be forthcoming.

Posted by: splinterlog | November 6, 2007 2:59 PM

That was brilliant, Kevin Wayne, but there's only one "p" in crapola. However, I don't know what's absurd or nonsensical (both synonyms for crapola if you don't know) about pointing out a fact.

Posted by: Cads | November 6, 2007 1:35 AM

Because it doesn't mean anything. The WTC was attacked only 1 time during Clinton's tenure, too. Whom do you credit for that?

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 6, 2007 4:17 PM

Uh, does Kevin really think FEMA is responsible for preventing terrorist attacks?

Posted by: Eric | November 6, 2007 9:28 AM

No.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 6, 2007 4:31 PM

I believe, that the never should be forgiven part is laying it on thick but there is a definite odor of dishonesty around the whole lead up to the war. When someone says Bush or the administration should be given credit for the country not suffering an attack since 9/11. I disagree. Just because there hasn't been an attack here doesn't mean that Bush or his administration did anything special. This seems like an argument from absence, which proves little. I have the feeling that if Bush had managed to stop such a catastrophic attack from occurring, he would be shouting it from the top of the White House. If everyone remembers correctly, 9/11 happened on his watch too. No attack since Pearl Harbor had anything of this magnitude happened. Are you going to give credit to the past couple presidents as well. These fanatics didn't suddenly come out of the woodwork recently.

Posted by: ragnarok_13 | November 6, 2007 4:41 PM

"Shallow world view?" What could be more shallow than "The axis of evil?" Us good, anybody who doesn't agree bad... There are a few things in the original post with which I disagree though. First, I don't think Colin Powell should be excused for simply mistakenly trusting the CIA. If you saw the satellite feed prior to his infamous press conference, you could have seen him asking who wrote this, and saying that he wasn't going to read this "crap." Just before he went on air and read that "crap." He also knew that the yellow cake story was bogus. I believe that he felt that he had to "obey orders" and got out as soon as he could rather than continuing to go against his conscience.

Also, the death toll is far off. We will never get a true representation of American deaths as the figures are only for US service personnel. The many "contractor" deaths are not included. How many Blackwater soldiers have been killed? How many Iraqi citizens have they killed?

I don't believe that a change in regime will affect the great sweeping change that many hope for. The Military-Industrial complex that Eisenhower warned of has too much influence. Just don't be surprised if the next administration is the same administration. What is happening in Pakistan right now could happen here. There could be four more, more years...

Posted by: dlowen | November 6, 2007 4:59 PM

As always - I will post on Monday that prayers were offered for our service personnel.

Thank you so much for faithfully doing this . Take heart , this is just a political rah rah site . I learned quite quickly that your valued by a pro or con view , pro Wallis is genious
and open minded , pro conservative is ignorant and closed minded . Unless its a conservative agreeing with a liberal view , then he is suddenly regarded as a voice to be valued .

Amazing on every issue the left supports it works out this way , every issue , its a miracle . ;0)
Folks here value you for the most part by agreeing with them. and to promote their "opinions" and not how God values us .

Thank God for you ! My son was just put on mobilization for our state , I don't agree with this war , but I agree with those of us who call out to the Lord , God Bless !

Mick

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 6, 2007 5:12 PM

Only one problem: the Right-wingers on here reject the Sermon on the Mount in favor fo the Just War theory on every other count

Posted by: Kevin Wayne

All of which just shows you for the sad, ignorant, ill-informed partisan that you really are. Have a nice vacation. Please consider making it permanent. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne

Kevin , giving lectures about the Sermon on the Mount and in the same time make these kind of comments makes one wonder if you even bother reading all the red lettering you have narrowed your view to . You going to kiss your Grand Kids with that mouth ?

But as far as partsianship , why is Wallis using a media report wehen their is an WMD Commission Report (aka "the Silbermann-Robb Commission Report). Out there easily accessible ? The view point of Drumheller is just one part of all this , and its not that easy to conclude , and yeah I tend to hope the people who support my views on abortion , lower taxes , and Mom and Apple Pie are telling the truth .

This report came out in 2005 , you do realize the previous adminsitration also believed their were WMDs , you do realize this right ? So they went somewhere , or they were wrong too . So is Bill a liar , and those folks ? Just wondering you help us here with your non partsian view . Why does one adminsistration having information that says there are WMD/s not lying , and one is . Because after 9/11 he used that info for a war , that you and I believe was wrong . For different reasons , but we agree on that . I just miss the liar liar aspect , why one is lying and one is not in your non partsian world ?

Also the 60 minutes report leaves out many of the agencies that were involved in this information gathering that proved so off the mark .

The WMD Commission Report looks at the total picture , not that Wallis would not want you to have that ? It's not like the report is hard to read or that it whitewashes anything that Drumheller decries.

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 6, 2007 5:28 PM

Jim says:
But I don't favor impeachment, as some have suggested. I would wait until after the election, when they are out of office, and then I would favor investigations of the top officials of the Bush administration on official deception, war crimes, and corruption charges.

The problem is, what if they shred all the evidence on their way out?

The other problem is, will Hillary permit a thorough investigation if by then she's contemplating her own war in Iran?

Posted by: mark | November 6, 2007 5:39 PM

"Conservatives on here support the Just War Theory."

Um, I'm not at all convinced they are conservatives, and the Just War Theory doesn't even enter into any of the cheerleading I've seen - no one can fit the facts on the ground to satisfy actual Just War criteria so no one even tries.

Perhaps it could be called jingoism - even Holy War would be stretching it to try to put an undeserved religious sheen on Manifest Destiny.

It's basically arguing from a realpolitik, worldly interpretation of unalloyed national self-interest
of the sort that's been indifferent to era or place over millenia.

Nothing to do with Jesus.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 6, 2007 5:46 PM

jw. the one who judges. now we know the unforgivable sin. calm down jim. this is old news. vengence is jim's. do we hang them or shoot them?? what now jim??

Posted by: jerry | November 6, 2007 6:04 PM

Kevin S: 'And no, impeaching the president isn't going to make Congress any more popular, which is why they aren't initiating the process.'

If and when Congress impeaches the Bush administration, their Zogby poll ratings will finally begin to take off.
America elected a Democratic Congress to reverse the destruction and looting enabled by the Bush administration.

Americans are expecting Congress to do something about the Iraq occupation, corruption in government, the seizure of extralegal powers by the Bush junta and the general incompetence and corruption of corporate fascism.
But Republican Bushites in Congress have so far been successful in blocking appropriate legislation to end America's nightmare ride on the Bush bandwagon.

Posted by: justintime | November 6, 2007 6:19 PM

that finds it easy to believe there is clear evidence that confirms ideological prejudices that may not be fully rooted in reality.

Posted by: N.M. Rod

Yeah reality ? Ideological prejudices or just basic honesty and integrity . If they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction... Lets see the first quote is from 1998 ? Reality says Bush was in Texas then ? Ideology says he was the one who lied .

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 6, 2007 6:25 PM

Only someone with very little practical political experience - or perhaps too much, being willing to dupe naive "Values Voters" - would not be aware that deceit and bad faith are very much front and center in an arena where the stakes for gaining power and money are so great.

There are wholly justifiable and irrefutable reasons for the popular perception that most politicians are not truthful individuals.

The only question that remains to be settled is, "Were they lying then, or are they lying now?"

It might be, contrary to your assertion that "we're not at a revival," hence morality has nothing to contribute to politics - that having a little "come to Jesus meeting" really is in order.

Personally, I really hate being lied to. A mind is a terrible thing to lay to waste. Feeding another person deception is an ultimate kind of violation of another person's autonomy, the ability to make their own free moral choices. It's a kind of rape. And there's another ruder phrase for that.

Anyone knowingly doing it, while in a position of leadership, is guilty of subverting democracy.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 6, 2007 6:51 PM

I guess I didn't realize it- but the post I made where I reprinted the George F. Will column seems to be gone. Guess I can't point to that as proof of non-partisanship & fairness. Oops. But several of you saw it, as evidenced by the fact that justintime brought up George Will.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 6, 2007 7:20 PM

"Yeah I tend to hope the people who support my views on abortion, lower taxes, and Mom and Apple Pie are telling the truth."

This is what, to my shame, had me looking askance and considering the source rather than the actual facts, too.

I've come to realize that in order to gain our support, the corporate side of the Republican Party paid lip serviced to adopting our agenda as their own. In reality, they have little intention of fulfilling any of our aims, because they simply aren't part of their own. They are useful, though, as long as they remain unresolved, in energizing us to continue to turn out to vote for them - and thereafter, they serve their own interests, not ours. If they were ever resolved, we might start bringing up some of those other pesky issues important to us that they really don't like.

Corporate and country-club Republicans - I've personally heard it over and over - see abortion as a cheap alternative to the expenses of controlling and keeping a permanent underclass. This does fit in with their goal of lowering taxation - on themselves - as well as maximizing tax support for their own cost-plus industries.

As for Mom and Apple Pie, all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, are for those. Mind you, Jesus warned against making too much of family and a full belly, so Jesus isn't all Mom and Apple Pie, either - nor the flag and that mighty expensive tax-sucking sound of world military domination.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 6, 2007 7:30 PM

Laugh all you want, Mick, but impeachment won't go away.

Posted by: justintime

Are you kidding ?

When Clinton was impeached his ratings went up about ten percentage points . Impeachement could only help Bush with the time he has left . His policies sure haven't .

You really think Congress has the nerve to do what their liberal fringe wants ?
Not laughing , well I guess I am a little .

Posted by: Mick | November 6, 2007 7:47 PM

Honest political mistakes don't cut much ice with an unforgiving world, because of their dire consequences.

Neville Chamberlain honestly did what he thought best. Jimmy Carter was honest, perhaps the most honest we've had since Washington.

Commentators have heaped unforgiving and judgmental contempt on both these figures for their honest errors.

That calculating pragmatic diplomatic rascal Talleyrand observed, "This is worse than a crime. It's a mistake."

The cynical perception he was restating is that the most unforgivable consequence about trying to make the end justify the means, is when the bad means flops and there's no just end available to cover up for it.

A crime is often glossed over when there is victory - any war crime you care to cite by any prevailing side. But when crime doesn't bring victory it is judged a mistake, fatal to political leaders.

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 6, 2007 8:05 PM

Precisely. Those who live by such things shouldn't complain about having to die by them.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 6, 2007 8:36 PM

BREAKING NEWS!

The Kucinich Bill to impeach Cheney survived a motion to table discussion (kill the bill).
The Dem leadership (Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer) tried to kill the bill but the Republicans switched sides and joined 79 progressive Democrats in favor of debate.
Apparently, the Repubs think like Mick Sheldon.
They think debate over impeachment will embarrass the Dems.
Are they in for a surprise!
Cheney has a single digit approval rating.
Next the House voted to refer the Kucinich Bill to the Judiciary committee, where John Conyers will prepare articles of impeachment.

Eat your hat, Mick.

Posted by: justintime | November 6, 2007 9:34 PM

To Jim Wallis:

Thank you for this excellent post. I can only hope and pray that one day justice will be done and that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and Superstar Rice will be called to give an account for their lies and deception- whether it be in a human tribunal or in a divine tribunal. I can only hope that they will be given due process- something that they did not hesitate to deny others. And I can only hope that the shame of their acts will be cast upon their ardent defenders on this blog.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 6, 2007 9:53 PM

"I've come to realize that in order to gain our support, the corporate side of the Republican Party paid lip serviced to adopting our agenda as their own"

Well that has been the real issue inside the GOP for years , much more since 2006 . The over spending , tax breaks for corporations , corruption , etc .

The thing is the left is seen as worse by conservatives , especially religious ones . Which does not say too much for today's liberalism or their recruitment techiques .

Wallis partsian comments here would have been plastered all over the media if they really took him as a serious Evangelical leader .

One thing I believe , in 2009 whoever is president will be facing hugh oil prices , five bucks a gallon or more , and trying to deal with the reprecussions to the loan mortgage forclosures . A Recession , stock market owies , baby boomers retiring , and a Middle East that will take more then reaching out in love to deal with .

And the political climate that organizations like this promote will only reach out
in blame and smear , or praise god because liberals won a certain political fight .
But the poor , all the effects of a recession hurt the poor the hardest , always have .

That President , like all of the ones before him or her , will need our prayers .

If that causes you to be concerned about loving America enough to pray for God's support for either political represntative that happens to be President , I am guilty of that .

Your unfair portrayal of any one who supports America for being the best chance this world
has for promoting opportunity and freedom as someone who is in denial or in love with the American flag only carrys weight in the anti American fringe , ,
Those who live in worlds that use smear to win , live in a world that already has lost .

god's politics , nope . not here

Posted by: Mick | November 6, 2007 10:05 PM

Read the full Articles of Impeachment of Richard B. Cheney here:

http://kucinich.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=3750

Looks pretty solid to me.

Posted by: justintime | November 6, 2007 10:30 PM

I would encourage everyone who loves our Lord and Saviormore than President Bush to keep up a free and open discussion about how best to translate our beliefs to action. I do not believe, however,

Posted by: specialist g | November 7, 2007 12:21 AM

Clinton's approval ratings went up during his impeachment because the majority of Americans didn't like their president subjected to a hypocritical witch hunt over a private peccadillo.

I actually think it has with the sympathy we Americans have for any looser. Clinton was a liar , he lied to the judicial system , during an investigation about him mis treating women . I guess it depends what is means .

Posted by: Mick | November 7, 2007 12:52 AM

The apologists for this administration who post here, for the most part, are not Christians but authoritarians.

At least they use their names , and are not cowards .

Posted by: Mick | November 7, 2007 1:00 AM

"Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."

I agree completely that Bush et al must be held accountable for their actions. They have used power in a way that has resulted in many unnecessary deaths and ruined lives. Obviously that is not acceptable and steps must be taken to prevent them from being able to take similar action in the future (I would consider impeachment and life imprisonment viable options).
That said, their punishment should derive from the fact that they have violated the social contract. In other words, they have shown that if they have agency within society, they may harm others. Thus, agency must be taken away from them for the good of society.
Forgiveness, however, is a different issue. "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." There is no exception made there, we aren't meant only to forgive some, we are asked to forgive all. Forgiveness doesn't always come easily, especially when the crimes are as heinous as those committed by the Bush administration, but I believe we are called to try to forgive even them.
Again, this doesn't mean that they should not be punished. But it means that they should be punished as a way of protecting society, not out of vindictiveness, anger, or revenge. In our hearts we must strive to forgive.

Posted by: April | November 7, 2007 1:31 AM

A long leave of absence would be a welcome change for me as well. At least a month. But why destroy my Christmas season. Make it two months. To Jim Wallis: Thanks for the excellent posts. I will continue to read them. You have gone a long way in renewing my hope for a Christianity that is Christ-like and you have counter-acted the ill effects of the neo-conservive reactionaries and nationalistic nation worshipers who are Christian in name only.

Peace.

Posted by: JamesMartin | November 7, 2007 9:14 AM

JEH says, "What constitutes a crime against humanity?
Idealy, I guess one should wait until after the election, then work to get the world community to request that the 'International Criminal Court' to review the activities of the Bush administration if there is no reasonable activity in the USA.
The only problem is how to get the process started."
...

Well the process has already started.

October 26, 2007, Paris, France – Today, the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights filed a complaint with the Paris Prosecutor before the “Court of First Instance” (Tribunal de Grande Instance) charging former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld with ordering and authorizing torture. Rumsfeld was in Paris for a talk sponsored by Foreign Policy magazine, and left through a door connecting to the U.S. embassy to avoid journalists and human rights attorneys outside.

And yesterday, the Kucinich bill to impeach Richard B. Cheney passed the House and was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Let's get behind this.

Posted by: justintime | November 7, 2007 10:54 AM

"Forgiveness"

Mr. Wallis is being pilloried because he has said that certain actions are unforgivable in public officials.

If an employer finds an employee in a position of trust who grossly betrays that trust, should his employment be terminated, or should he be "forgiven"?

If a teacher at a school falsely grades certain pupils, sometimes beats others, should he continue to be allowed to teach at that school?

In one sense, the employee and the teacher can't be forgiven what they have done in their positions - they violated others' trust because they could not or would not do their duty.

How about the elderly driver who unintentionally loses control of his vehicle and endangers others, because his faculties don't allow for his properly controlling the vehicle. What if he is a school bus driver and runs off the road? Is this a forgivable lapse and he can continue to risk others' lives, or do we suspend his driver's license or at least release him from that position?

How about a once-great surgeon whose hands shake uncontrollably during operations causing damage to his patients? Is this forgivable in a surgeon or should he not be operating? Are victims entitled to recompense or should they simply "forgive"?

All of the above are forgivable, and ought to be forgiven, in the sense of not hating and loving them, reconciling with one another (though this might involve admission of wrongdoing by one party) even when tragedy results. However, it is not forgivable in the sense that they are substantially able to carry out their duties any more or ought to be allowed to.

I think it is disingenuous to intentionally mischaracterize a judgment call that a person is seen to be making errors that render him unfit for duty and equate that judgment with a lack of Christian charity on the part of the person making that call. I think this is just bad faith partisanship, and it is when you consider it, a form of deception, knowingly making a false accusation against another person in order to discredit them.

Often I see that on here, not a zeal for the truth, but an aggression to "win" by fair means or foul.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 7, 2007 11:37 AM

"If an employer finds an employee in a position of trust who grossly betrays that trust, should his employment be terminated, or should he be "forgiven"?"

False choice. You can be both terminated and forgiven.

"I think this is just bad faith partisanship, and it is when you consider it, a form of deception, knowingly making a false accusation against another person in order to discredit them."

Wallis isn't saying Bush should be terminated, and his term will end shortly anyway, so his use of the term "forgiven" cannot possibly refer to employment.

Posted by: kevin s. | November 7, 2007 12:05 PM

Actually, impeachment would not be a bad idea. Keep in mind that it does not imply resignation as seen with Clinton being put on trial. By impeaching the administration, we can use the current evidence we have against them to put what they have done out in the open into the public sphere. Impeachment means holding them accountable for their actions.

Regarding the last statement, "Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven," I understand that the context of this sentence is being used in that they should not get away with injustice and that they should be held responsible - it is not being used in the context in which they cannot find forgiveness in God or others. However, as forgiveness of sins is a central tenet to the Christian faith, I would recommend that you revise the last sentence to resonate its meaning more clearly which is simply holding them accountable for their acts of injustice.

Posted by: Drew | November 7, 2007 2:46 PM

Actually John Conyers started HIS impeachment investigations well before the Dems gained the majority.

I think what first pushed his button was Bush's abridgment of American Constitutional rights under the pretext of 9/11.
He's also been investigating the politicization of the Department of Justice and of course the authorization of torture by the Bush administration.

For years Conyers has been a lonely watchdog of the American Constitution.
The majority Republicans made him use a storage room in the basement of the Capitol for his hearings but this didn't stop Conyers.
Now that he has the power of the subpoena, Republican witnesses have had to lie, obfuscate, take the fifth amendment, hide behind executive privilege or even to refuse the subpoena entirely.

Make no mistake, this is a lawless crime syndicate we're up against.

Posted by: justintime | November 7, 2007 4:12 PM

Since the democrats took over the majority

Huh???

You just contradicted yourself, Mr. Sheldon. You told us that Clinton's popularity ratings went up when the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress held impeachment hearings. You seemed to be thinking that the same thing would happen to Bush if the current Congress held impeachment hearings.

I think the exact opposite would occur. I think CONGRESS' ratings would go up if the American people began to see Congress reasserting its Constitutional authority in the face of this Constitution-usurping administration. Since George Will's Nov 4 column was removed from here, you might want to find it and re-read it (or read it if you missed it).

But my point wasn't ratings anyway--in the end, why should we care one whit about ratings if the Constitution is in jeopardy?

BTW, just so you don't think I'm tooting the Dems' horns, I'm a registered Republican.

Hasta luego,

Posted by: Don | November 7, 2007 6:06 PM

I posted to agree with Drew, above.

Posted by: Kevin Wayne | November 7, 2007 6:29 PM

Don said

You just contradicted yourself, Mr. Sheldon. You told us that Clinton's popularity ratings went up when the REPUBLICAN-controlled Congress held impeachment hearings. You seemed to be thinking that the same thing would happen to Bush if the current Congress held impeachment hearings.

Me

I certainly did not . I don't believe the democrats will follow through with impeachment .
I don't think they have the resolve to do what "they believe is right" when it will cause their political aspirations of the WhiteHouse and other elections to be put in jeopardy .

The democrat leadership realizes that this impeachment would throw a wrench into 2008 elections . At least Pelosi realized it was the wrong thing to do at one time , We shall see .
Ya think Shumer and crowd are backing Kuccinch ?

Also the majority of Americans do believe this war was a mistake , but unlike the fringe here , do not see the sinister motives that are so clear to you and your group . The majority of Americans believe Bush screwed up , not that he should be put in jail .

The view here and dominant in liberalism today has been to highlight our deep rooted historical imperialistic freedom hating motives from day one of our existence , it does not take much to even leap to consider we planned 9/11 ourselves or believe Bush is a criminal . The average American does not disdain this country like the folks here do , sorry , God Bless America makes sense to many of us .
. You have seen the TRUTH movement , liberals that sound very much like the ones here . But without injecting God into their statements . We are so filled with greed and nastiness , we planned 9/11 to start a war .

If you dare mention that you love America and believe it stands for freedom and opportunity you are some how off your rocker and induging in idolatry . Thats why this impeachment will hurt the democrats , its based in their hatred of America more then even their hatred of Bush .

I suggest to you many conservatives who have the same beliefs I do would welcome Impeachment if we knew their indeed were crimes committed , If you look at certain polls , as much as half of the Conservative Enagelcials that are depicted as republican drones here are saying they will not vote for the present Republican candidate . I will I assume , was hoping for a better choice then Hillary and Rudy though . I believe smaller government is better for all of us . I somehow fall quite short of thinking that makes me a better Christian then someone else . I will leave that to Wallis and Dobson to sort out .

The average American thinks Bush made a mistake , even incompetent . But no , not guilty of treason or war crimes . That is what I believe also .

Don said

I think the exact opposite would occur. I think CONGRESS' ratings would go up if the American people began to see Congress reasserting its Constitutional authority in the face of this Constitution-usurping administration. Since George Will's Nov 4 column was removed from here, you might want to find it and re-read it (or read it if you missed it).

Me

I think your wrong , the sympathy vote is what Clinton received , its like when the Redsox beat the crap out of the Rockies , Americans in general root for the under dog . The redsox fans will always root for the sox , the rockies will always basically defend the rockies , the in between fans just got tired of one team beating up the other . Its human nature .

That is what I was talking to , people thought Clinton was a sleaze bag , but it was like leave him alone , he has his wife to deal with over this .

Plus you realize facts and not spin will be allowed . This blog started out using a 60 minutes report and an author that had a small narrow view in the over all Congressional Commission report on this subject . Why not use the Commission report ?

One guess ...

You do realize that trials are not spin and sound bites , they are based on facts . This report has been out since 2005 , 2006 have been the turnaround in the majorities in Congress, and they are just getting to it ? What is new that has come out since 2005 Don ? Besides Lower Congressional ratings ?

I like George Will , do read him from time to time . He is independent yet a conservative . I would like to read it , maybe he could explain better what your trying to say . Remember the name of the piece ?

Don said

But my point wasn't ratings anyway--in the end, why should we care one whit about ratings if the Constitution is in jeopardy?

Me

Well I agree with that . I think we all should .

Don said

BTW, just so you don't think I'm tooting the Dems' horns, I'm a registered Republican.

Me

I am an American , and it does not matter if a democrat or republican has maligned the Constitution . If you commit perjury you should suffer the penalty also . The rest of us working stiffs have to obey the laws .

Somehow I could not see you voting for Reagan at all .

So you believe in smaller government and local control ? How do you handle the belief here that is considered racist and un Christian ?

Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 7, 2007 7:31 PM

Stop stuffing the blogs with incredible volumes of text that aren't original and that no one in their right mind would bother considering due to the enormous amounts to go through.

You're just clogging things up. What do you think it proves?

Mind you, I just see knee-jerk spewing going on. Hardly a dialog!

Some people are in so much denial. By what logic does the Rumsfeld memo "time to roll in all things connected or not" after 9-11 translate into way-out conspiracy theories that America attacked itself?

I guess some people think their purpose in life is to just logroll propaganda to try to shut people up.

I must say, it's been eye-opener on here - far from convincing anyone, some of the hot-headed conservatives have done more to make me question them than trust them. I would say that's counterproductive. Why not argue from reason and use logic instead of flying off the handle? I can picture angry people with veins throbbing in temples!

Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 7, 2007 9:45 PM

By what logic does the Rumsfeld memo "time to roll in all things connected or not" after 9-11 translate into way-out conspiracy theories that America attacked itself?
Posted by: N.M. Rod

Whats the matter , hit close to home . You have to have a belief that the people involved here are sinsiter to believe the things you and your elk do . That being said , it makes perfect logic if you think that people would have people murdered for a phony trumped up war , that its not hard to continue that line of thinking to believe that 9/11 was a our own government's doing . Liberals are behind the Truth movement , not conservatives . They hate America , and believe this is not the land of freedom and opportunity .

Why do you think so many want to come here for ?

Especially when you have your mix of religious phoniness mixed into leftis propaganda , you sound like a clanging bell . There is no love in your oratories , only holier then thou condemnation ,
You lift no people up from your sermons , but you point out the flaws in everyone , and of course admit your wrongs , but amazingly have no desire to ever admit you were wrong , that you insulted another , its always they deserved insulting .

Your a jerk , you think that any conservative on this board has any respect for your self righteous drivel .

Your constant spewing usually has nothing related to the subject at hand , but somehow convinces you that your heart is in the right place . But time after time you prove your heart is meant for your eyes only , it never provokes understanding , commonality , or the simple fact that we are exchanging opinions . With you , its always NM ROD , see me being the spirtual giant among the lost .

Have a nice day .

If you ever want to have a conversation I am more then willing , its even psooible I could learn something from you . But you need to come off your high horse , your just a man , with an opinion . We all here I assume are doing the best they can , and of course it is Christ our Lord who gives us any extra measure of discernment , so there is nothing to get all hottey about .

Posted by: Mick | November 7, 2007 10:38 PM

I'm going to add to the chorus and say that I don't believe this post comports witht the perspective of the rest of this site (and Wallis' general perspective, I'm sure) that forgiveness is the heart of the Gospel. Tell the truth, Jim, and bring low the mighty. But let's not start sounding like the Pharisees in our accusations and the Dobsons of world in our unforgiving "us v. them" mentality. My friends were really upset about your words and are ready to write you off as the religious lefty Pat Robertson after this one. I can't go there because I know that you're better than this post. You know the heart of the Gospel is reconciliation and forgiveness. I think you should acknowledge that and post a reconsideration of these thoughts because you're subject matter is serious and needs to be heard - it just won't be heard if you get shrill.

Posted by: clint | November 8, 2007 9:41 AM

Important points, well made, ______.

Posted by: justintime | November 8, 2007 2:14 PM

Jim, you have no reason to apologize. I agree with your assessment of the current administration and believe that if this were the 1970s, these people would already be in jail. But, we live in a post-9/11 world and everything has changed. Our expectations of government are so low now, that the American people are content to wait until '08 for a new crop of leaders.

While we in the US are enjoying the highest lifestyle we have ever had, without being inconvenienced by the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are content to let things grind on. Of course, the president knows this, which is why he rallied the American people after 9/11 to “our continued participation and confidence in the American economy,” (code translation: Keep shopping). The old adage of no pain, no gain applies to ending war, too.

Posted by: Chuck Warnock | November 9, 2007 3:39 PM

When will we rise up as a Nation and proclaim . . . "Not in my name" will you degrade our right, will you kill soldiers, will you erase all goodwill that the United States has built up over decades? Not in my name, not any more.

Posted by: Susan | November 12, 2007 5:07 PM

Jim Wallis comments are disappointing and sad, coming from a man who claims to be above politics we see the anger and rage of a man very much a part of the partisan divide and basing numerous claims of his in complete falsehoods...The Religious Right, it appears is not the only group of people who think the same way...

Posted by: R.D. McClenagan | November 13, 2007 1:20 PM

I was quite unimpressed in this attack by Jim Wallis. To me it was short sighted and certainly not Christ-like. Who made you judge, jury and executioner? Do you think GWB and those in his administration so stupid as to do something knowingly when they all know the truth comes out sooner or later? I don't think them to be the "dummies" so many paint them to be. I cringe when so-called ministers become "holier than thou" in the political arena. Besides ~ this information that the "blog" was based on is not exactly new news.

Posted by: Julie Anne | November 14, 2007 2:00 AM

"Curveball..." author Bob Drogin, et al, says that its SOP for allied intelligence agencies to not allow another nation's agents to have direct access to a source of theirs' and so that's why they repeatedly denied the CIA's preinvasion requests for such an interview with Curve.
Well, how come, then, they (the German BND) actually did allow such an interview with the CIA---ie., but only after the invasion, ie., in 2004???
The world should ask the Germans to put that con artist/poor 'ol liar on an open to the press, investigative hot seat so that we all can hear/read of the sordid story directly from the horse's mouth.
In the meantime, it burns me up that the German government is, reportedly, still protecting that guy, and , also reportedly, actually throwing obstacles in the way of, for example, the Los Angeles Times being allowed an interview with him. (For example, the BND reportedly threatened to "de-protect" him if he did so cooperate with the said Times' reporters).

Harvey

Posted by: Harvey | November 26, 2007 6:41 PM