"...we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That's why we're doing this." GWB

Does this then mean that we will soon see the U.S. engage in liberating Darfur, Zimbabwe, etc, since one presumes from the President's remarks that the human beings of those regions equally bear the mark of our maker and are therefore equally worthy of liberation?

Come on, Georgie, do you really expect us to swallow that this religious rhetoric represents the fundamental motivation for your involvement in Iraq? If so, it appears that God favors liberating the injustices of Iraq over the injustices of Darfur or Zimbabwe. On what basis would that be? The black gold factor wouldn't have anything to do with it, now, would it?

Thanks for this, Jim, and keep up the important work you're doing!

Posted by: canucklehead | March 13, 2008 1:56 PM

Seems to me that a man who decides to "inflict" freedom on a group of folks half way around the world without first talking about this honestly and openly with his own citizenry, those who are going to pay part of the price for this "freedom by bombs, bullets and blood" massacre, should not claim faith and love of freedom as his motivation and justification.

It seems pretty bold to me to state that "every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth has been given the great gift of liberty by an almighty God" and to use that as a posthumous justification for our actions. I think the gift from God is Life, and that sin is Death. I think that it is even more daring to claim that "I" have been chosen to act on behalf of God, in the manner in which I alone deem appropriate, to bring God's "gift of freedom" to a nation(s) of peoples.

But, should we give "our president" the benefit of the doubt? Is he right on? Where does that leave those of us who are in just a bit of disagreement on this?

Oh, Mr. Bush, just one question lingers in my mind. How are we to know when we have defeated this enemy (whoever that is) and this ideology (whatever that is)? Or are we already committed to the strategy of Vietnam....obliterate this village to save it? I for one am running out of money that you can take from me, way too many bodies of my brothers and sisters have been offered up, and my own soul and the soul of this nation are shivering uncontrollably from the consequences of this freedom-killing machine you have released in my name and the name of my God.

Posted by: Carl J. Malischke | March 13, 2008 2:58 PM

Thank you for your words, Jim.

It is troubling to see that the idea of Manifest Destiny is still alive and well in our current government administration. Whether or not we believe that our form of government is the best in the world, it is never right to impose it on another people by force. That seems to me to be the antithesis of freedom.

historyguy

Posted by: historyguy | March 13, 2008 3:30 PM

"You're being too exclusive in your call for repentance. Why not extend the net of guilt to include Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda, all other terrorists, and all dictators?"

bin Laden and al Quaeda are certainly evil and do evil things. But they do not act in my name when they perpetrate evil. The government of the USA does.

Posted by: carl copas | March 13, 2008 4:28 PM

"Is George II deceiving himself or just trying to deceive the rest of us?"

Just trying to deceive the rest of us.

Posted by: I and I | March 13, 2008 5:07 PM

Thank you Jim Wallis for your thoughtful and prophetic words.

Posted by: D | March 13, 2008 5:59 PM

How sad to see that Jim Wallis still does not understand true biblical repentance. He casts repentance in the light of politics but it has nothing to do with politics but with the holiness of God. Because God is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16) then He demands that those who sin will die (Romans 3:23; 6:23). Repentance, biblically speaking, comes from the Greek word metonia but has often been mistranslated in our English Bibles. The word means a "cosmic change of mind and heart" that comes only by the grace of God (Romans 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:24-25). Willis misses the point completely by turning away from the inerrant Scriptures to politics. I will pray for him to know what repentance really means.

Posted by: Roy | March 13, 2008 6:47 PM

Joni

Since when did the killing of thousands of people not be considered a sin? How can you sit there and say war is not sin when over and over again Jesus talked about being peace-makers, merciful, and love our enemies? And the people on this blog, those you claim to be bashing Bush, are repenting themselves from the sins of our nation, which shows that we hold ourselves just as responsible as Bush is responsible.

I can only assume your some kind of Christian fundamentalist who has never had to think for themselves and only parrots what your precious leaders tell you. People like yourself have been fooled into believing Christian=Republican, that's why Bush "won" twice (even though Gore received more votes in 2000).

Posted by: Matt G. | March 13, 2008 7:17 PM

Oh, well, there seem to be a lot of folks who go over to NRO and get fired up, then come over here to do their uncritical reverse version of Spiro's "nattering nabobs of negativism" routine.

Unfortunately, I've found much of it to be strictly partisan heckling, impervious to logic or reason, and completely misunderstanding Jim Wallis' true positions. Even if you reprint in full what Wallis said in any number of cases, in context, that's never acknowledged, just repetition of the original distortions.

Wallis' statements are far more nuanced and orthodox than these attacks acknowledge, and that's a shame. Because no real dialog is possible if you set up a strawman and insist on burning him, instead of engaging what's really been said, logically and accurately - and fairly.

Too bad.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 13, 2008 8:18 PM

DITE

It's called oil. The American government knows it wouldn't benefit at all from stopping the genocide in Darfur, that's why they haven't gotten involved. When came to Iraq, the land had something to offer that we can use, oil.

Plus, we didn't go in and "liberate" Iraq because of the genocide of Kurdish people. We went because there were supposed to be WMD's (which there weren't), that reason also had American benefit written all over it (we felt threatened, so we attacked).

Don't label the Iraqi invasion as delivering the Kurdish peoples, because now they're worse off than they've ever been. They now have to worry about Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups that were not there before we invaded. Also our Christian brothers and sisters are now in more danger; just in the news today an arch-bishop was held for ransom and then killed.

If we went into Iraq for the Kurdish genocide, then the Kurds would be better off, they're not. Now a lot of them are disillusioned with the U.S. We would be establishing more humanitarian efforts for the Kurds, we are not.

Yes war is terrible, but I wouldn't rate sins and say there are worse things than one particular sin over another, that leads you one step further in justifying it, justifying just about anything really. There are very few, if any wars, fought today that actually done out of freedom. God does not rank sins, neither should we.

Posted by: Matt G. | March 13, 2008 8:52 PM

Well said Rick Nowlin.

Posted by: Matt G. | March 13, 2008 9:37 PM

"Clinton was impeached for far less -- in essence, simply for being a Democrat who didn't take marching orders from the right wing."

As far as I was concerned, his multiple serial sexual infidelities and the way in which he did them while in the White House brought disrepute to the office. Moreover, it was an issue that had to do with trust and telling the truth - because he'd supposedly leveled with the American people over similar issues before he was elected. He brought morality and fidelity to new lows of example in our culture - before this, five and six year olds had no idea what fellatio was, but after Bill, everyone did. I also remember traveliing across the US, and encountering so many men who used the presidential example of faithlessness to justify, excuse and trivialize male infidelity.

Now we find out others who were for his impeachment were no better - Newt Gingrich come to mind - but it was still a despicable example.

At least Eliot Spitzer has a sense of shame, but Clinton's lack thereof arguably cost Al Gore the Presidency, which he would have won had Clinton resigned and he had been the incumbent.

Many Republicans didn't back impeachment for just that reason - they preferred a morally vulnerable Clinton in the public's close memory, and a Gore compromised by him.

That was putting Party ahead of the nation for Republicans, and self ahead of the nation for Clinton.

I have to think that a Gore Presidency would have, been on balance, a far better experience overall from what has devolved - even though in 2000, I was a Bush supporter.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 13, 2008 11:04 PM

As far as I was concerned, his multiple serial sexual infidelities and the way in which he did them while in the White House brought disrepute to the office. Moreover, it was an issue that had to do with trust and telling the truth - because he'd supposedly leveled with the American people over similar issues before he was elected.

It was, however, far more complicated than that. Remember how he was impeached to begin with -- Monica Lewinsky blabbed to Linda Tripp, who hated Clinton with a passion, who hooked up with "independent counsel" Ken Starr and lawyers from the right-wing Rutherford Institute representing Paula Jones; they all cooked up the scheme -- a "perjury trap," which BTW was flatly illegal. Clinton got off basically because the charges were so flimsy his lawyer turned them into Swiss cheese. When Hillary complained about the "vast right-wing conspiracy," she was actually telling the truth.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 14, 2008 12:03 AM

“It's called oil.”

Ha. Sudan doesn’t have oil?!?!?
If we went into Iraq for oil, why are gas prices higher now than they were before we went in? Why didn’t we take control of the oil wells when we occupied the country in 1991?

“we didn't go in and "liberate" Iraq because of the genocide of Kurdish people. We went because there were supposed to be WMD's”

You know one of the reasons we knew they had WMD’s? .. THEY USED THEM ON THE KURDISH PEOPLE!!!

I am really curious how you measure Kurds being worse off???

Do you want the punishment for parking tickets and punishment for murder to be the same? Well, then don’t be ignorant and say things like, “God does not rank sins, neither should we.”

Posted by: DITE | March 14, 2008 3:55 AM

I repent of supporting the war, same-sex marriage and abortion. And taxes gotta go too. I want to live like a Christian should.

Posted by: Pondering | March 14, 2008 8:12 AM

"What makes Saddam’s genocide of the Kurdish people tolerable and genocide in Darfur not tolerable?"

That's an excellent question. Maybe we should ask former President Bush why he stood by and allowed a weakened Saddam do commit genocide in that region of his country. Maybe we should ask Donald Rumsfeld why he assisted in the sale of the materials that Saddam used against those people. Maybe we should ask the American and European manufacturers of those materials why they sold them to a known criminal like Saddam.

Maybe we should ask ourselves why it is in our national interest to provide support to "pro-American" murderers and tyrants.

Posted by: RJohnson64 | March 14, 2008 9:17 AM

I think Jim said 'New Direction'... heh heh heh... get it? 'new direction?'

Posted by: Rick Nowlin of the future | March 14, 2008 9:37 AM

Jim Wallis wrote:

And why is he so certain he is right? It’s all because he believes in freedom:

And why is Sojo so sure they're right? Because they believe in peace.

I am definitely getting a chuckle out of watching Sojo confess the President's sins.

Posted by: Wolverine | March 14, 2008 10:48 AM

You say Bush was/is guilty of "questioning opponents' patriotism". Could you give us some examples of this.

There were so many instances I can barely remember them, but Dick Cheney specifically used the term "un-American" in referring to war protesters at least once and warned reporters not to ask any probing questions. The best thing to do would be to check the papers from about five years ago.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 14, 2008 11:10 AM

Thank you, Don. That were his exact words.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 14, 2008 11:31 AM

DITE

Whether or not I was 100% accurate in all that I said does really matter here. The point I was trying to make was that the U.S. doesn't do anything unless they see a benefit, or they feel threatened. The U.S. never does anything for just the common good anymore.

But I'm curious to know why you think the Kurds are better off? Or how our Christian brothers and sisters (while very few) are better off? Or that anyone is better off? I hope people feel content that while we wage a war that is breaking our backs Osama bin Laden is sipping tea somewhere laughing his head off.

Do you want the punishment for parking tickets and punishment for murder to be the same? Well, then don’t be ignorant and say things like, “God does not rank sins, neither should we.”

I did not say that there will be the same consequence for every sin. Sin comes down to this: man wants to be his own god and do his own thing, causing us to rebel against Him. Yes, there are different punishments for sin. But in God's eyes does His heart not break when we sin against Him, no matter the sin that was committed? And in war, when we not only sin against God, we sin against our neighbor as well. And even if I am wrong about God ranking sin (which I am open, not ignorant, to admit), we definitely have no authority/sovereignty to rank sin.

Someone else asked me what policy in Iraq do I support. I would have to say that I am not smart enough to really come up with my own; God blessed others with that expertise. But I would have to say that any policy not supported by Bush or Christian dispensationalists is fine with me.

Posted by: Matt G. | March 14, 2008 11:47 AM

Rick, If there are so many examples, surely you would be able to remember them.

Jeff, you just don't want to do the research yourself. I see this kind of thing all the time in my classrooms: Lazy "researchers". Surely you can look up news accounts from five years ago as well as Rick can. Why make him do work you are fully capable of doing yourself.

An as far as the "you are with me or the terrorists" quote, sure Bush was referring to foreign governments, but its meaning wasn't lost on domestic affairs. I have essays in our reader textbook, notably actor Tim Robbins' "A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation" which details the ways dissenters were treated during the early days of the "war on terror."

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 12:28 PM

Peace Don,
Its very challenging to hold up a source such as the bias hollywood liberal Tim Robbins (husband of the equally shrill Susan Sarandon). After the horrific day of 9/11, we had little choice but to respond drastically and abruptly. To not "lock down" our security in some way for a specific period of time would have been irresponsible. I don't support the imprisonment of dissenters unless they can be documented as traitors, but that isn't what happened. I'd be curious to see what exact 'liberties' were torn from them. Were they not able to make phone calls to Afghanistan without being monitored? Were their Hollywood communist meetings infiltrated by the FBI? What happened?
And if Rick Nowlin is going to level accusations it is his responsibility to back them up, not Jeff's. Jeff has every right to demand facts to back up the outrageous and conspiracy driven charges of our God-fearing president. (boy - that "God-fearing" label will rile some of you non-judgemental people up!)

Posted by: Steve S | March 14, 2008 12:41 PM

"I believe - and I know most of you, if not all of you, believe - that every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth has been given the great gift of liberty by an almighty God."

With all due respect- where did God give us the "great gift of liberty?"

If that were the case, would not Jesus have encouraged an army against the Romans-- who were ruthless, despicable, occupiers-- of his, Own, country?

Freedom is important-- but the cause of war in Iraq was never about freedom-- the label eventually morphed into it, by some. But that doesn't make it so in God's eyes. He knows the truth-- and that is where the problem lies, for us.

God gave us the gift of life-- mankind dictates its form of liberty. It is self-inflicted. We love playing God. Some love to judge. Some love force. We can be a very violent being who sometimes would rather resort to violent measures to solve problems for more than one reason. And then we say we are-- Christ-like.

Jesus never promised it would be easy-- on the contrary. He told us to follow him and endure until the end.

If one is so worried about "liberty" --you need to, at the very least, begin to love your neighbor. It starts there.

One may have a difficult time in Heaven-- since there is the same ruler forever, and ever-- no democracy with elections in a few years. One can't force their views by shock-n-awe. Their are no wars or warmongers. He's already been through all that-- and it will not be repeated which is why he can call his kingdom paradise. And the rules are not man-made- yet, those who are welcomed live in peace and respect, always. Imagine that.

Jesus called the kingdom "Paradise." It is absolute- forever and ever. If so, we can, at least, try and imagine who is in it. We should ask ourselves- who are those that are in the kingdom? Who are they like?

When we go before God, we are not given a lobotomy. We are who we are-- as well.

We need to return to God-- by putting him first, not Earthly beings or "things." We need to truly learn what God's son said in those Gospels-- for the sake of others, as well as ourselves. It is the bread of the Bible.

Peace- Elizabeth Daniele

Posted by: Elizabeth Daniele | March 14, 2008 12:55 PM

Admittedly, that is one of the most frustrating thing about these debates... nobody believes in another's sources. I can't stand Tim Robbins because I know what he stands for and you won't believe Dobson for the same reasons.
we can agree that is frustrating.

Posted by: Steve S | March 14, 2008 1:10 PM

Oops! Another typo escaped my keyboard. This one is kinda serious.

"... accusations of disloyalty by dissenters from Bush's 'war on terror'" should have been, "... accusations of disloyalty AGAINST dissenters from Bush's 'war on terror'"

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 1:34 PM

Agence France-Presse: March 14, 2008

A detailed Pentagon study confirms there was no direct link between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda network, debunking a claim President George W. Bush's administration used to justify invading Iraq.

The U.S. administration on Thursday tried to bury the release of the study, limiting distribution of the report and making it available only at individual request and by mail - instead of posting it on the Internet or handing it out to reporters...
------------------

But that's a FRENCH report...

Posted by: canucklehead | March 14, 2008 2:36 PM

The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.

• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking "dirty bomb," convicted of conspiracy.

• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.

• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.

• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.

• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).

• Click here to view photos.

• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York's Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.

• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.

• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.

• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.

• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.

• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.

• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.

• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.

• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.

• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.

• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.

• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.

• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 14, 2008 2:57 PM

"Sojourner Truth -- The info I posted comes from the book "Blinded By the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative" by David Brock, who personally witnessed much of what I was wrote about. And after that book came out six years ago, nobody stood up and said that he was factually wrong."

David Brock, as you're aware, used to write for the very partisan, if erratic, American Spectator. I read most all his original pieces there. And some time ago, I think I read his book. (Sometimes it's hard to recall, as I always have several cycling from the library, from eclectic sources, at any particular time next to me. Because of the volume, some I have only scanned through.)

Now David always had an issue that anyone (at least I did) could have seen looming - he was at the time, in a state of cognitive dissonance, because he was overtly homosexual, yet his political allies were, might we say, not sympathetic to gay issues.

There is a certain validity to ask of David, "Were you lying then, or are you lying now?"

David was excessively in attack dog mode for the Spectator but his pieces had reporting integrity at their core - as faras they went they were true, but being partisan, did not contain much that was mitigating.

David's own internal conflicts, in my opinion, caused him to exhibit excessive partisanship in reporting. Subsequently, he has exhibited the behavior of the former alcoholic who is now a tea-totalling prohibition crusader - also not an objective or balanced position.

Additionally, having decided on his new course, which has resolved his own moral/political conflict, the only way to continue a career with "the other" was to be an acceptable "expose" convert to the new true belief.

David is still David, in my opinion more consistent, but disingenuous in his cherry-picking to suit his audience and exhibiting the same strains of extremism in whatever he calls his current cause.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 14, 2008 3:07 PM

Sojourner Truth -- Concerning David Brock: I would think that, were he simply tailoring his message, he wouldn't have bothered to check his facts or sources. But in the foreword to the paperback version, he mentioned that, though conservatives complained about that very thing, they did not challenge one single fact in the book. Because they could not -- they knew everything he said was true and could be proven in a court of law (important, because that crew has no problem suing and has the money to do so). That's the difference.

Paul -- The government also thwarted about a dozen terrorist strikes during the Clinton years, one of which was the bombing of the Los Angeles airport on Dec. 31, 1999. But the conservatives didn't want to give him any credit for anything.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 14, 2008 3:20 PM

I hear ya - but Bill missed the bigger picture and let the terrorists fester. Too concerned with Lewinsky. And to think they bombed the Towers in 1993!!!!!

But how about closing in on Bin Laden and his boys in the mountains of Pakistan with a force of 100+ drones

I always thought it was comical that I could see my own mailbox on Google Earth, yet we can't find Bin Laden in these mountains.

Of course Pakistan has always been the main obstacle - but now with the changing scenery - we may see some very interesting things before the election.

Posted by: Paul Jamieson | March 14, 2008 3:31 PM

Just read through various comments, and am surprised that many of you have not moved yet to Canada. Your vindictiveness against our country and its leaders is what you should be repenting.

Posted by: judithod | March 14, 2008 3:39 PM

thought of Tim Robbins right away when Rick made his accusation. I believe he tried very early on to redefine what free speech is. His take is "if you disagree with me, you are chilling my free speech".

Well, that's simply not what Robbins said. He said dissenters were not being allowed to express their views in public forums. Specifically, his invitation to speak at the Baseball Hall of Fame was withdrawn because of his outspoken opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Yes, he links it to free speech (incorrectly in my view), but not in the sense that simply disagreeing with him was infringing on his freedom of speech. He discusses specific actions taken by individuals and organizations to squelch dissenting voices.

This runs parallel with the patriotism issue. If a liberal disagrees with a conservative on national security they call that patriotism. If a conservative disagrees with a liberal on national security it is said they are accusing them of being unpatriotic.

This is a gross oversimplification, as usual.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 3:40 PM

This is the reason Rick can't pull an example from his memory of Bush questioning his opponents of being unpatriotic (nor can you).

I did NOT say I couldn't. I DID say that it would take me time to pull up specific examples. Thing is, my point is that even if I did you would brush them off.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 14, 2008 4:14 PM

Rick,
No Rick, your point is that Bush accuses his opponents on Iraq as being unpatriotic. You need the facts before you make the charge. If it takes you time to pull up specific examples, you should have never made the charge.

Jeff

Posted by: Jeff | March 14, 2008 4:37 PM

No Rick, your point is that Bush accuses his opponents on Iraq as being unpatriotic. You need the facts before you make the charge. If it takes you time to pull up specific examples, you should have never made the charge.

The truth is that he did -- consistently -- and your demanding proof before I said that doesn't change that. Really, you just don't want to believe it.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 14, 2008 4:45 PM

The statement becomes insightful when uttered as sarcasm that reflects the absurdity of the claim.

Um, Earl, I thought that was what I was doing. You might want to re-read my entire post.

:-)

D

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 5:40 PM

I did NOT say I couldn't. I DID say that it would take me time to pull up specific examples. Thing is, my point is that even if I did you would brush them off.

Rick, it is apparent that Jeff reads what he wants to read, not necessarily what you or I have written.

D

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 5:45 PM

Another typo: The poem was from Sabbaths 2003, not 2008.

:-)

D

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 6:05 PM

rick hardl eever backs up anything. he doesn't have to because he has superior knowledge and was once a media guy. read his stuff and know him.
oh, and i feel so comfortable knowing that tim robbins is being taught in school.
and on ricks 12;55 post no one stood up and said bush was factually wrong on wmd either.your beloved liberals all voted for it. just because no one challenges a statement doesn't make it fact. think rick. think. you might be wrong. wow! sojourner truth, when you wrote about brock i thought you were writing about our own rick nowlin.

Posted by: jerry | March 14, 2008 7:19 PM

One more thing, Jeff. To say that I disagree with Robbins on one point is not the same thing as saying that I think he's "all wet."

D

Posted by: Don | March 14, 2008 7:45 PM

"Sojourner Truth -- Concerning David Brock: I would think that, were he simply tailoring his message, he wouldn't have bothered to check his facts or sources."

There are plenty of ways to relay things that have truth to them or are incomplete in a way calculated to produce a particular conclusion on the part of a reader. It's called spin - not quite outright lying, but manipulatively selective or interpretive.

It's well known to detectives that sincere witnesses can have widely varying recollections of the same events, even different interpretations.

Brock's not doing reporting anyhow - he's doing, at best, advocacy journalism, or simple ideologically-based propaganda in support of a political agenda. Like many of left and right in the "culture wars," agit-prop.

You can publish any number of things that are facts whose interpretation is open to choice - and never be sued because your facts are wrong.

Moreover, in the American system, libel laws generally not only shield criticisms made of those who engage in public life or discourse, but the onus is on the person who feels they have been unfairly attacked to make the case, which also has to involve some sort of real monetary loss. First Amendment issues that come into play make the bar very high to successfully challenge political opponents, whatever they choose to say.

Generally, even incorrect facts can be published if the intent was not to deceive - in other words, the presumption is that a partisan could credibly have believed just about any way-out theory to be fact. In England, where the person or entity accused of making the libel has the onus to prove that their statements are true, there are many more succesful libel actions.

But in America, even if as Mark Twain observed we "have the good sense not to practice our right to free speech" "the remedy for bad speech is not less, but more speech," as Justice Brandeis opined.

That is not to say there's no truth to anything Brock has to say - now or then.

The facts remain that President Clinton did commit serial adultery and I consider that brought disrepute upon the office and did harm to the country, setting new low expectations for leadership. That was in the White House.

But as for Brock's revelations, the Los Angeles Times covered the same ground and came to the same conclusions - Governor Clinton had an adultery problem - one which the future President purported to put to rest when he appeared on 60 Minutes with Morley Safer to bite his lower lip and apologize for, with Hillary at his side.
His own 1992 campaign's notes showed they were concerned with defusing the Arkansas governor's "bimbo problem" as they so colloquially put it.

It's beside the point to attack the various messengers, rather than the subject himself, for pointing out the truth that the Emperor had no clothes on in the Oval Office, just when he ought to have.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 14, 2008 7:53 PM

Washington: Authorities have captured a high-level al-Qaida figure who helped Osama bin Laden escape from Afghanistan in 2001, the Pentagon announced Friday.//But in a memo obtained by The Associated Press, CIA Director Michael Hayden told agency employees that Rahim was detained in the summer of 2007."

Hmm. The day after a damaging Pentagon report is released, Washington announces they caught some friend of Osama's in the summer of 2007?? Hmm.

"The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001." Paul Jamieson

Remind me again what anything on your list has to do directly with the U.S. going against Iraq, which I believe was the original topic of Jim's post.

Posted by: canucklehead | March 14, 2008 8:26 PM

"Just read through various comments, and am surprised that many of you have not moved yet to Canada. Your vindictiveness against our country and its leaders is what you should be repenting."

So people are still using this kind of language when they can't debate the issues on their own merit? That's a copout. At least be original. (And I can imagine when Hillarboma becomes president you won't have any criticism, right?)

Posted by: I and I | March 14, 2008 10:51 PM

So, I guess the clear message I get from all this give-and-get, returning back to the original topic is,

"Conservatives don't do repentance."

Got it.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 14, 2008 11:55 PM

Yikes. Are you saying that President Clinton never committed adultery, or if he did, it is not something that mattered?

I suppose it depends on just what is, is.

It mattered to me and many others. We were appalled.
His lies just caused him to fall further into the traps laid for him.

Even Ted Kennedy recently said, "Facts are stubborn things."

I'm not saying he (or Eliot Spitzer, for that matter) ought to be arrested, but as Spitzer realized (and his case has certain marks of a political hit, too) he'd forfeit the moral right to hold even a lesser office like that of governor, regardless of his accusers' own motives or the speculation about what charges they might try to fit. To me, he's taken the higher moral ground by not trying to brazen his way out by lying once discovered.

I realize that when they went after Al Capone, they did it with an entirely different charge from that of his real crimes. But should that suspect prosecutorial sleight-of-hand have absolved Capone from accountability for his own actions, or not?

To claim otherwise, only for those whose political sympathies one shares, is a major ideological blindness as dark as that of one's opponents who do just the same.
Morality simply cannot be decided along partisan lines, otherwise it's simple demonization.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 15, 2008 4:19 AM

I was speaking in concert with your version of sarcasm.

Thanks, Earl.

D

Posted by: Don | March 15, 2008 8:10 AM

Are you saying that President Clinton never committed adultery, or if he did, it is not something that mattered?

Hardly, and even Brock said so, but adultery was only a pretense, as we soon found out when we learned that GOP honchos also had been tomcatting. The real motivation always was the overturning of an election; in fact, the day after the 1996 election the VRWC was already planning to have him impeached -- and this was long before anyone ever heard of Monica.

See, it knew that if Clinton were able to institute his program fully, changing the culture in the process, it was finished as a political force. (In 1992 activists actually went to Federal court in Arkansas and filed a lawsuit to have his name stricken from the ballot; the judge told them where to stick it.)

Ever since that day, we have been waging a global war on terror and it will continue unabated until we stamp it out.

Might as well have a war on sin. Because you don't fight a "war on terror" with tactics and an attitude that, depending on your viewpoint, could also be interpreted as terroristic -- you end up being sucked into the very same game you say you're trying to end. Bin Laden knew just what he was going when he sent those planes into the WTC.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 15, 2008 11:20 AM

"on 9/11 the foes of freedom brought death to themselves and their ideas. They had no idea what they had wrought

Ever since that day, we have been waging a global war on terror and it will continue unabated until we stamp it out."

The term of "global war on terror" has been tossed around to distract from the process of picking and choosing targets by W and his possee. But after all the waste of lives and the repeated destruction of the land and resources, the battle call continues with expansionist threats. The stance of unabated pursuit will not stamp it out. Terrorists delight in that kind of macho reaction and demonstrate their ability to exercise deadly strikes at random. John McCain said with boisterous emphasis, "We will not surrender, they will surrender." Let the battle continue until they surrender, perhaps for another hundred years?

Posted by: Earl Troglin | March 15, 2008 2:03 PM

Conservatives don't do repentance."

Got it.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth

Heavenly Father,

We come before You today to ask Your Forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ''Woe to those who call evil good,'' but that's exactly what we have done. We have lost our Spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that; we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism; We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism; We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle; We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery; We have neglected the needy and called it self preservation; We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare; We have killed our unborn and called it choice; We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable; We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem; We have abused power and called it political savvy; We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition; We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression; We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of this state and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state of Kansas. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your Will.

I ask in in the name of your Son, The Living Savior, Jesus Christ

The response was immediate. A number of legislators walked out during the prayer in protest. In 6 short weeks, Central Christian Church, where Rev. Wright is pastor, logged more than 5,000 phone calls with only 47 of those calls responding negatively. The church is now receiving international requests for copies of this prayer from India, Africa, and Korea.

Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on "The Rest of the Story" on the radio and received a larger response to this program than any other he has ever aired.

Posted by: Bibical Truth | March 15, 2008 4:14 PM

Rick,
"It has proven nothing." (your quote)
First it was
Bush has been guilty of "questioning opponents' patriotism"
Then it was
"There were so many instances I can barely remember them" apparently you should have said I can't remember them

Posted by: Jeff | March 15, 2008 8:12 PM

"In the case of Gingrich, however, he had a history of doing it."

And not only that, was doing it while raking Clinton over the coals very publicly for doing it. Thanks to Gingrich, fourth-graders had to hear discussions about whether oral sex is considered sex, and all that nonsense.

I think it is pretty clear that Clinton was guilty of adultery and Gingrich was guilty of adultery plus hypocrisy about the adultery. Hmmm, what did Jesus say to the hypocrites who were about to stone the woman? I've met zero conservatives who are willing to even discuss this.

Posted by: I and I | March 15, 2008 10:52 PM

"Someone else asked me what policy in Iraq do I support. I would have to say that I am not smart enough to really come up with my own; God blessed others with that expertise. But I would have to say that any policy not supported by Bush or Christian dispensationalists is fine with me." Matt

Actually I asked Matt which of the US policies towards Iraq in the last 50 years he preferred--and if the answer was none, what he would like.

I relate to the "I'm not smart enough" line. But, very seriously, I see a strain of Matt's response in the broad debate surrounding Iraq in general, and in this "5th anniversary of the war series" in particular.

i.e. "Any policy that Bush does not support is good." "I don't know what I want--but this isn't it."

This is not political fun and games, "gotcha politics," or water-cooler chit-chat.

Seeing awful costs to US military engagement in Iraq is not a vision or strategy for peacemaking.

The opposition to invasion in the run-up was focussed on things like, "We support plans if President Bush consults with Congress first." "We support if US consults more with the UN."

There was loyal opposition to US/UN sanctions and flyovers. There was loyal opposition to US support of Sadaam; and loyal opposition to US opposing him. This is not peacemaking.

I hope Sojo is just working up to some thoughtful/prayerful pieces on a vision/strategy for peacemaking going forward.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 16, 2008 3:42 AM

rick; questioning your veracity is not a personal attack. the general statements you make are opinions and should be so stated unless you can back them with facts, examples or are quoting someone else. thank you. you almost never answer my questions because they are to common sense for you and don't fit your "line".. are you telling me not to comment on this blog again?

Posted by: jerry | March 16, 2008 5:03 PM

It would be helpful to know the origin of the prayer, the context in which it was used, the purpose behind it, and the application intended.

Posted by: Earl Troglin

This is the text of the original prayer delivered January 23, 1996 by Pastor Joe Wright to the Kansas House of Representatives in Topeka.

Heavenly Father,

We come before You today to ask Your Forgiveness and seek Your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ''Woe to those who call evil good,'' but that's exactly what we have done. We have lost our Spiritual equilibrium and inverted our values. We confess that

; we have ridiculed the absolute truth of Your Word and called it pluralism;

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism;

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle;

We have exploited the poor and called it the lottery;

We have neglected the needy and called it self preservation;

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare;

We have killed our unborn and called it choice;

We have shot abortionists and called it justifiable;

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building self-esteem;

We have abused power and called it political savvy;

We have coveted our neighbor's possessions and called it ambition;

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression;

We have ridiculed the time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

Search us, O God, and know our hearts today; try us and see if there be some wicked way in us; cleanse us from every sin and set us free. Guide and bless these men and women who have been sent here by the people of this state and who have been ordained by You, to govern this great state of Kansas. Grant them your wisdom to rule and may their decisions direct us to the center of Your Will.

I ask in in the name of your Son, The Living Savior, Jesus Christ

Posted by: Bibical Truth | March 16, 2008 6:57 PM

I can only assume your some kind of Christian fundamentalist who has never had to think for themselves and only parrots what your precious leaders tell you. People like yourself have been fooled into believing Christian=Republican, that's why Bush "won" twice (even though Gore received more votes in 2000).

Posted by: Matt G.

Someone else asked me what policy in Iraq do I support. I would have to say that I am not smart enough to really come up with my own; God blessed others with that expertise. But I would have to say that any policy not supported by Bush or Christian dispensationalists is fine with me.

Posted by: Matt G

Posted by: contradiction | March 16, 2008 9:00 PM

questioning your veracity is not a personal attack. the general statements you make are opinions and should be so stated unless you can back them with facts, examples or are quoting someone else.

Wait. I'll have answers for you in due time.

you almost never answer my questions because they are to common sense for you and don't fit your "line".. are you telling me not to comment on this blog again?

No, you want me to fit yours. That I will not do.

The impeachment was about obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton was under investigation, he perjured himself in my opinion, but he defintely misled by his testimony the facts.

However, the way it was done was illegal -- a "perjury trap," if you will -- and had he the money he could have sued someone. (As it is, the right wing tried to bankrupt him, to the point where he had to hold fund-raisers to pay his legal bills.)

This seems relevant to Jim's apparent assigning of the Iraq War to a special category of sin, allowing him to selectively ignore many others.

As I said before, the prophetic message often fits only special situations. Being more general at times can mean just mouthing off -- it depends on the situation.

Let's take abortion, for example. It's easy for "pro-life" people to call for repentance, but very little, if anything, is said from that side as to the specific situations that cause inappropriate sexual activity, let alone unwanted pregnancy, of which also need to be repented. Therefore, their "prophecy" often has no basis.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 16, 2008 10:07 PM

If he had the money, do you realize how rich they are?

Not in those days they weren't, which is what made him vulnerable in the first place. What money they've made since came from book deals and speaking fees.

Poor guy. How about the women who he molested who suddenly were compared to trailer trash, leaks from the White House making them appear as ambulance chasers.

Well, in fact, most of those were rumors planted by right-wing media that (upon closer inspection) had no basis in fact or otherwise could not be proven. The "Troopergate" story was an example of that -- it turns out that the Arkansas state troopers who said that Clinton was using them to get women were in fact pimping for each other. Did you notice that the Clinton "scandals" stopped after the impeachment? There was a reason for that -- the MSM eventually realized they were being had and stopped publising those glorified "tips" that were designed not to tell the truth but to besmirch the guy. One reason that the war in Iraq lost so much support is because people stopped believing the Fox News Channel after its connections to the Republican Party and conservative activists were revealed a few yeas back.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Umm, like the MSM doesn't have connections with the left wing and their activists?

If they did you'd hear chapter and verse from the right -- what those connections were, moneybags, specific activist groups. On top of that, as a result none of them would be making money in the first place.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 17, 2008 3:03 PM

Sin?

The hundreds of thousands of lives taken in Iraq - including pregnant women, young children, and grandparents - is a number we don't care about.

The Geneva Conventions are quaint and do not serve our interests. (Spoken by the Secretary of Defense. But, as Commander-in-Chief, as GWBush loves to remind us, he is responsible for the actions of his primary staff. He had the moral obligation to publicly rebuke that statement. But his silence, is not much different from Adam's silence in the garden. It lead to soldiers at Abu Ghraib thinking it's just fine for them to torture.

Oh. But the US doesn't torture. Which, in bush-talk means that we do torture those who are created in the image of God.

He did use those words, "image of God", did he not? I suppose, then, that the tens of millions of children in this country he do not have access to health care do NOT have that image imprinted within their spirit?

To the victims of Katrina: Help is on the way - so stop complaining.

A man who does not know the difference between "compassion" and "pity". Perhaps that's not a sin, but claiming to be compassionate when his miserly actions clearly show otherwise...

Christians are called to be peace makers, to love their enemies. So, exactly how does "bring 'em on" fit into a Christian's lexicon?

Our President has doggedly and unwaveringly taken the side of the powerful and the wealthy. Not just with tax cuts, but with his positions on Social Security, prescription drugs, bankruptcy laws, etc.

GWBush has exposed his true nature countless times. Draw your own conclusion.

Posted by: bbuudd | March 19, 2008 5:50 PM