In the late summer of 2004, a seminary colleague and I pondered the possibility of another four years of Bush 43. The polls were very close, and it seemed highly possible that we could be faced with four more years of G.W. Bush, coupled with both houses of Congress under the Republicans. My colleague observed ruefully, "Perhaps unified Republican rule would be the best education for the people to see just how much they don't want it." Before I could respond, he added, "Though, I really don't know if we can afford four more years of Bush and a Republican Congress." It turns out he was right -- on both accounts.

One could easily bewail the manifold profligracy of the last incarnation of conservative rule, and what it will cost to recover from it. However, I focus my attention here on the extent to which Congress in general and the Bush presidency in particular have served to fuel an exodus from Bushian conservatism. It was Immanuel Kant who once wrote that David Hume awakened him from his dogmatic slumbers, and in like fashion I rejoice -- indeed, give thanks to God -- for the extent to which many Christians have been awakened from the dogmatic slumbers of narrow moralism to a broader moral agenda, one more consistent with the one whose name we bear when we call ourselves Christians. So, I find myself in an odd place as a progressive follower of Jesus, giving thanks to God for a man generally viewed as the enemy of progressive Christianity -- G.W. Bush.

My thanks, though, would remain too abstract without some attempt to be more specific, and I readily grant that, at best, I am trying to find a silver lining in an otherwise profoundly dark cloud. Yet, it is hard to imagine any one thing that has contributed more to the transition of so many young Christians away from the narrow agenda of many of Bush's right-wing Christian enablers than a presidency that stands in such contrast with the values of Jesus. My good friend and Sojourners colleague Jim Wallis likes to express his puzzlement over how Jesus came to be seen as "pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-American." It is now obvious that under the excesses of GWB, many more have come to be similarly puzzled. What could stand more in opposition to our Lord's injunction to be peacemakers than the Bush doctrine of "pre-emptive war" -- unless it be his willingness to put the development and use of nuclear weapons back on the table? What could stand more in contrast to the values expressed by Jesus in the second half of Matthew 25 than the Bush penchant for tax cuts for the rich, tax cuts paid for on the backs of "the least of these"? What could be more opposed to the God-given obligation to steward the environment than "clean air" rules that worsen air quality, "clean water" rules that worsen water quality, the utter inattention to our dependence on non-renewable energy sources, and the propagandized denial of climate change? Finally, could there be any stronger expression of hubris vis-à-vis the rightful concerns of our global partners than Bushian unilateralism?

On the one hand, George W. Bush will leave a somber legacy, from which it will take years of our best thinking and acting to recover. We rightly bewail this legacy and, sadly, must to some extent own our complicity for allowing his "all fear, all the time" mantra to bewitch us. On the other hand, just as our deepest appreciation of the light often comes in the midst of the darkest hour, perhaps it took the darkness of Bushian conservatism to help us see its bankruptcy on Christian grounds. If this be the case, then maybe there will be one positive, lasting legacy of this administration: Perhaps, for a generation, we will not allow ourselves so easily to be distracted from the simple message of Jesus -- "Blessed are the peacemakers, care for the least of these, think first of the interest of others, love your enemies ...." May it be so.

Chuck Gutenson is the chief operating officer for Sojourners.

One of the few high points of the Bush administration has been its commitment to aid for Africa -- especially in combating HIV/AIDS. The president recently proposed an increase in funding for PEPFAR (President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.) But it's not going anywhere. Why?

Columnist and former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson answered the question. Seven Republican senators -- Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Jeff Sessions, Saxby Chambliss, David Vitter, Jim Bunning, and Richard Burr -- have placed a hold on the reauthorization.

In his column, Gerson wrote:

It is the nature of the Senate that the smallest of minorities can impede the work of the majority. But it takes a conscious choice -- an act of tremendous will and pride -- for members to employ these powers against an AIDS bill with overwhelming bipartisan support. The seven, led by Coburn, complain that the reauthorization is too costly. They object to "mission creep" -- the funding of "food, water, treatment of other infectious diseases, gender empowerment programs, poverty alleviation programs" -- as though people surviving on AIDS treatment do not need to eat, work or get their TB treated. And the senators are concerned that AIDS funds might be used for things such as abortion referrals and needle distribution, though the legislation doesn't mention these possibilities. So they are pushing for the extension of a superfluous spending mandate requiring that at least 55 percent of PEPFAR resources be used for treatment, on the theory that this will starve "feckless or morally dubious" prevention programs.

He also points out that presidential politics is at play. Gerson writes that some Democratic senators have no interest in passing something that would give credit to the president. But adding up all the obstacles, he concludes:

[S]upporters of the PEPFAR reauthorization now estimate a 50 percent chance it will be shelved until next year. Without a five-year U.S. commitment on AIDS funding, other countries would be reluctant to put new people on treatment. And lives would be lost.

Surely this is one place where saving lives should outweigh politics. It's time for something Washington knows less and less of: bipartisan politics on key moral issues.

 

President Bush's remarks, made last week in Israel, suggesting that anyone who wishes to talk with a violent enemy is the contemporary equivalent of a Hitler appeaser, are so wide of the mark, patronizing, and simply untrue that they must be challenged.

The fact that he used the emotive context of Israel's 60th anniversary celebrations as the background for these comments is an abuse of an already misused people. And implying that Sen. Obama wishes to appease terrorism is not only factually inaccurate, but morally troubling.

Why? Because this is to suggest that the only two options available to "good people" in responding to terror are to terrorise the terrorisers, or to cower in fear or denial. This has never been true. It does not become the president of the United States, a self-affirming follower of Jesus, to endorse the sport of violent revenge and the belief that there are certain people in the world who are so irredeemable that we should not talk to them. This aside, it is not politically efficient to suggest that terrorism can only be defeated by beating its proponents down.

I live in a place -- Northern Ireland -- where the government is now stewarded by two parties, both of whom could be caricatured as representing ancient warrior traditions. Their most recent manifestation, in the form of Irish Republican terrorism (the IRA) and militant Protestant fundamentalism, contributed to the horrors of my childhood, where political murder was a near-daily occurrence. After decades of terror, we did exactly what President Bush denounced last week -- we negotiated with each other and arrived at a settlement that sees former terrorist leaders share political power with those who consider themselves to be their victims. Successive U.S. administrations did not condemn this. In fact, the negotiations between terrorist leaders and constitutional democrats were chaired by former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. President Bush has visited Northern Ireland to endorse the process. He has shaken the hands of former terrorist leaders. He made a video appearance at an investment conference in Belfast two weeks ago, encouraging U.S. businesses to set up shop here and to work with, among others, the current representatives of the organizations responsible for our violent conflict.

His suggestion, therefore, that anyone who wishes to sit down and talk with terrorists is automatically the moral and political equivalent of a Hitler appeaser is not only historically false (in that we know for a fact that such negotiation at least sometimes actually does produce peace), but so absurdly detached from the reality of his own administration's practices that it suggests either a malevolent and politically expedient attention-grabbing propaganda opportunity, or that President Bush simply does not know the truth about Irish politics.

I imagine I will be criticized on at least two fronts for writing this. One, that I am singling out President Bush for no reason other than my personal antipathy toward him. To that I respond with the following: I believe President Bush is a human being in need of redemption, like the rest of us. I do not share much of his politics, but I have been willing to offer praise when he has made good decisions, such as his progressive engagement with HIV/AIDs in Africa. I also believe that his predecessor made terrible errors of judgment regarding violent conflict, not least in Rwanda, and might have been likely to make similar remarks had he been in office and in Israel last week. I hope I would have had the integrity to write this article about President Clinton were he seeking to make the same dishonest political capital.

The second criticism is more nuanced -- the suggestion that the Northern Ireland conflict is not comparable to that in the Middle East. To which I can only reply that the sectarian political divisions on this island have lasted for at least 800 years, and that the violence has at times been at least as barbaric as anything done by Hamas or al Qaeda. I think the real reason that people don't consider my home conflict comparable to others is quite simply racist: They think that Northern Irish Christians are more capable of persuasion than Middle Eastern Muslims. Or, more practically, they don't want to acknowledge that the distasteful and difficult journey traveled in Ireland may have broken the path that the rest of us need to travel too.

What is even more likely, President Bush's remarks mask what might be called another inconvenient truth. When historians uncover the background story to this moment in international relations, they will discover one of two possible facts -- either that the Bush administration is already secretly negotiating with terrorists, or that they really do believe their own propaganda. British military intelligence had a secret back channel to the IRA from at least the early 1970s. Without this, alongside the contribution of politicians, business and church leaders, and other forces, there would be no peace in Ireland today. It would be unthinkable if the U.S. authorities are not already, in some sense, talking to representatives of Hamas, Iran, North Korea, Hugo Chavez, Raoul Castro, and all the other members of whatever "axis of evil" we are told is most threatening at present. For to be honest, if the Bush administration is not engaged in dialogue with such as these, President Bush is both failing to heed the lessons of the history of conflict resolution, and, more seriously, to protect the American people.

Gareth Higgins is a Christian writer and activist in Belfast, Northern Ireland. For the past decade he was the founder/director of the zero28 project, an initiative addressing questions of peace, justice, and culture. He is the author of the insightful How Movies Helped Save My Soul and blogs at www.godisnotelsewhere.blogspot.com.

On Tuesday, President Bush spoke to the annual convention of the National Religious Broadcasters.  In a speech that The New York Times described as "Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions", he declared that “The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it is the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will forever be the right decision.”  After five years of war, his lack of reflection and, well, characteristic hubris should no longer surprise me, but the very boldness still does.

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

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. And today I want to speak about this precious gift, the importance of protecting freedom here at home, and the call to offer freedom to others who have never known it. … when confronted with the realities of the world, I have made the decision that now is the time to confront, now is the time to deal with this enemy, and now is the time to spread freedom as the great alternative to the ideology it adheres to. … we undertake this work because we believe that every human being bears the image of our maker. That's why we're doing this.

Many U.S. Christians disagree.  We also see the image of God in all those who have become the collateral damage of this awful war, and in the countless American lives snuffed out or broken forever. Also on Tuesday, along with Christian leaders on our Sojourners board like Brian McLaren, Mary Nelson, Wes Granberg-Michaelson, Barbara Williams Skinner, and Ron Sider, we launched “A Call to Lament and Repent.” 

Rather than celebrating the decision to go to war, we lament the suffering and violence in Iraq. We mourn the nearly 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died, the unknown numbers of both who are wounded in body and mind, and the more than 4 million Iraqis who are displaced from their homes. And we repent of our failure to fully live the teaching of Jesus to be peacemakers.

We also believe that repentance must go deeper than just being sorry – it means a commitment to a new direction.  This fifth anniversary of the war is the time for U.S. Christians to rededicate ourselves to the biblical vision of a world in which nations do not attempt to resolve international problems by making unilateral preemptive wars on other nations.  While we are not utopians and believe that human beings and nations will have conflicts, given the toll that war has taken in our violence torn world, we must begin to learn to resolve our inevitable conflicts by learning the arts and skills of conflict resolution and a new international approach to just peace-making.

I’m grateful that since Tuesday, nearly 20,000 of you have already joined with us.  Yesterday a friend of mine wrote to me. He is a strong Christian layperson, a successful businessman, and a lifelong Republican. But he said, “I have been looking for some form of penance since I argued so strenuously with you back in 2003 that, of course, our government had definitive proof of WMD, or we would not take the enormous geopolitical risk of invading Iraq. This enterprise seemed to be exactly the penance vehicle I needed.”

If you have not yet joined us, Click here to read and sign the statement lamenting and repenting of the Iraq war. 

I work in one of the largest slums in Africa - Kibera - located in Nairobi, Kenya. Some years ago, I started St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School to educate young people who have lost either both parents to the AIDS-pandemic, or one parent and the remaining parent is infected. I am proud to say we now have 265 students, and we are supporting another 50 graduates to go on to college.

Kenya and several other countries have made real progress in fighting AIDS with US support. On his recent trip to Africa, President Bush rightly received recognition for getting the ball rolling on expanding access to AIDS services in our region of the world, especially treatment and care for the sick and orphaned.

But, quite frankly, I am alarmed at how far removed from African reality his proposal is for the next five years of the program. Since Congress is now debating what direction to take this program, along with programs to address many health and development issues related to AIDS, I want to share what I have seen in Kibera and make a plea for realism.

We have learned a great deal about AIDS since 2003, when the U.S. first began its emergency response to the crisis in Africa. Anyone visiting us in Kibera would see that the AIDS issue cannot be viewed in isolation. My students, teachers, and their extended families face interrelated problems rooted in poverty, issues of gender, and a broken-down health system. A smart U.S. response must address this context, including the dearth of qualified medical personnel and community health workers. And to be effective, it would confront tuberculosis head on, since, as we have seen in Kibera, TB is what actually kills most people living with AIDS.

But the Bush approach, now taken up by the Republican leadership in the House, ignores these lessons. It does not seriously address any of these related issues and, worst of all, freezes funding at the current level for the next five years, even as the world is racing to meet the goal of universal access to all AIDS services by 2010.

This funding freeze would have a devastating impact on programs that serve the children I work with every day. So far, the U.S. AIDS initiative has provided crucial funding for programs that provide care for children - including school feeding programs, which have a broad impact. Yet, the president and his allies in the Congress would have these programs frozen in place instead of expanding them to meet the growing need.

Fortunately, an alternative is available. Congressman Tom Lantos, as chairman of the Committee responsible for AIDS programming in the House, understood that significantly greater funds were needed to fight AIDS and address basic capacity issues. One of the last things he did before he died of cancer was to propose five-year legislation which would update the U.S. response and provide $50 billion - not only for AIDS, but also for children's programs, TB, and malaria.

The Lantos proposal would also better meet the needs of women and girls. It would allow voluntary family planning services to women who are HIV positive and who do not wish to become pregnant. We can agree or disagree about the morality of contraception, but the truth is that helping women who may be weak and ill to avoid a dangerous pregnancy is about saving lives; and it would not promote abortion, as some pro-life groups have inaccurately stated.

The Lantos approach also eliminates the requirement that one-third of all HIV prevention dollars be spent on abstinence and fidelity. This funding restriction has been shown to not be workable on the ground. As someone profoundly committed to promoting abstinence and fidelity, my experience is that I can do my job most effectively when young people have the freedom to make moral choices. I am glad to see the Lantos bill still requires the U.S. to promote abstinence and fidelity as a part of a comprehensive approach.

Working in Kenya, I see people suffering and dying all too often from a disease that can be prevented. It is crucial that this program not become a political football, and I hope members of Congress of goodwill, from both sides of the aisle, can find a way to work together for the sake of Africa. Unless the U.S. AIDS program goes forward, together with programs that address the broader context of the epidemic, the ones who suffer the most will be the children I work with every day.

Father Terry Charlton, S.J. is the Jesuit vocation eirector for Kenya, the national chaplain of Christian Life Community, and co-founder and chaplain of the St. Aloysius Gonzaga Secondary School in Kibera.

In recent weeks, we've been watching Senator Obama and Senator Clinton try to disagree honestly without being too nasty in the process. This week, we saw Senator McCain come to the defense of Senator Obama when a warm-up speaker stooped to some low political rhetoric. Maybe the stale air of partisanship and "gotcha" politics can be replaced by some clean, fresh cooperative air ... for a while at least?

In that spirit, I think we all - Democrats, Republicans, and others - should stop what we're doing to honor President Bush for his ongoing commitment to Africa. I think Bono recently summed up what many of us feel regarding our president's concern for AIDS treatment, malaria prevention, education, and multifaceted economic development:

President Bush has every reason to be proud of what he and so many others have accomplished in Africa. From AIDS treatment once thought impossible, to millions of bednets to keep kids from dying of a mosquito bite, to new African jobs created with trade policy, to billions in old debts erased. And back in Washington, a political shift has taken place with Democrats and Republicans working shoulder to shoulder to partner with people of Africa as they work to lift their continent out of poverty, putting 29 million children in school in the last five years, with the help of debt cancellation.

Some will quickly say that more could and should be done. Yes - in fact, you'll hear from one of those voices today on the blog. But we should also acknowledge that much less could have been done. We should celebrate whenever good and beautiful things happen in this world, and President Bush has done some good and beautiful things for Africa. Kudos to him, and to all members of Congress of both parties - and to all Americans who can feel good that a portion of our taxes are being invested in this way.

Bono added,

These are accomplishments the next president must build on. ... I hope that the next president, whoever that is, will get to experience firsthand this beautiful and entrepreneurial continent that is rising to all of the challenges being sent its way.

Let's also pause a minute to pray that our next president and Congress will continue and expand what's being done. The pain and need in Africa are so great that it will take governments, businesses, churches, NGO's, individuals, and intergovernmental agencies, all doing their best - assisted by the powers of heaven - to make substantial and ongoing progress. Thanks be to God for the good that has begun to be done. God bless Africa.

Brian McLaren (brianmclaren.net) is board chair for Sojourners. He is in the middle of an eleven-city speaking tour you can learn about at deepshift.org.

Friday morning I posted about Bush legalizing waterboarding. That evening, Bill Moyers' Journal had a compelling and disturbing segment on the use of torture by U.S. forces. It was about the Oscar-nominated documentary film, Taxi to the Dark Side, directed by Alex Gibney who made Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. The Moyers segment includes excerpts from the film and testimony of prisoners falsely accused and tortured in Afghanistan and Iraq. Watch it.

Key quote:

Despite Rumsfeld's and Cheney's and President Bush's allegations that these guys are the worst of the worst, that they were all captured on the battlefield, recent studies of the whole compendium of the government's documents show that only five percent of these people were picked up by the United States. Only eight percent of them are accused of being members of the Al Qaeda. Over 90 percent of them were picked up by Northern Alliance or Pakistani forces in exchange for bounties.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is the Web editor for Sojourners.

Uncertainty about the consistency of conservative convictions was part of what killed the campaign of Mitt "Double Guantanamo" Romney, and it was coverage of the "suspension" of his campaign that nearly drowned out another important story yesterday.

Contrast that criticism of Romney with a familiar defense of George W. Bush: "Well, you might disagree with him, but at least you know where he stands." Though this faint praise could be applied to any number of universally condemned leaders throughout history, I keep running into people that sincerely mean it as a compliment, as if sincerity made up for bad choices--something I would think most conservatives would disagree with.

Well, if you want to torture this logic any further, know that waterboarding--or as the Spanish Inquisition called it, water torture--is legal according to the Bush White House. Under certain circumstances. Such as, whenever the president says so. The L.A. Times reports:

... in remarks that were greeted with disbelief by some members of Congress and human rights groups, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that waterboarding was a legal technique that could be employed again "under certain circumstances."

Fratto said the nation's top intelligence officials "didn't rule anything out" during congressional testimony Tuesday on CIA interrogation methods, and he indicated that Bush might consider reauthorizing waterboarding or other harsh techniques in extreme cases ....

I've always assumed that our clandestine forces used torture either directly or by proxy--because of history that's well documented in places like Guatemala, Colombia, Vietnam, and elsewhere. What I don't usually expect is official admissions of torture. Perhaps a wink and a nod as plausible deniability is established. Perhaps official consternation when the underlings get caught operating outside of conventions that high officials themselves have called "quaint." What's especially troubling is that history demonstrates that with official sanction or not, whatever these forces are actually doing is often several degrees worse than official admissions--and viciously specific in contrast to the vague official pronouncements about "harsh techniques." So if they're legalizing actual torture techniques now, I'm even more concerned about what's actually going on in the cells and chambers that we're never meant to know about. For national security. Because our enemies hate our freedom.

And if you think it's only "bad people" who get tortured, listen to the testimony of survivors.

Ryan Rodrick Beiler is Web editor for Sojourners.

Archbishop Elias Chacour, an Eastern-rite Palestinian Catholic bishop in the region of Galilee, is escorting President Bush on a tour of the Mount of the Beatitudes in Israel on Friday, Jan. 11. This date also marks the sixth year since the arrival of the first prisoners to the U.S. prison camp at Guantánamo Bay.

Chacour, a leader in the Christian peace movement, told Catholic News Service:

The Sermon [on the Mount] was calling for action in a certain direction. This is where Christ was calling on all his followers to get up and do something to get their hands dirty, protect the poor, heal the sick, release the prisoners - including those in Guantanamo Bay, and I will tell [President Bush] that.

Father Chacour, author of Blood Brothers and We Belong to the Land and three-time nominee for the Nobel Peace prize, is president and founder of Mar Elias Educational Institutions in Galilee. The school system serves 3,000 students from the major faith traditions in that area - Muslims, Christians, Druze, and Jews.

Rose Marie Berger, a Sojourners associate editor, is a Catholic peace activist and poet.

President Bush is in Israel today, meeting with Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and expressing optimism that a peace treaty could be signed by the conclusion of his term: "with proper help, the state of Palestine will emerge."

But even as he expresses support for a two-state solution, President Bush is hearing a lot from extremists in the religious right who oppose a just peace between Israel and the Palestinian people – and who'd like the White House to believe that their misguided fundamentalist theology and reckless militarism represent the views of all U.S. Christians.

Don't underestimate how extreme these groups are. A recent report by Bill Moyers covered a group called Christians United for Israel (CUFI), whose leader, Rev. John Hagee, has gone as far as to suggest that Hurricane Katrina was a punishment from God for U.S. support of Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. He's also urged a pre-emptive military strike against Iran.

Of course, Christians of every theological and political stripe care for the well-being and security of the Israeli people. But the extreme right goes too far by opposing diplomatic efforts to negotiate a peaceful settlement between the Israeli government and the Palestinian leadership. And there's reason to believe they have the ear of President Bush - who sent a personal greeting to be read at a recent CUFI convention:

I appreciate CUFI members and all event participants for your passion and dedication to enhancing the relationship between the United States and Israel. Your efforts set a shining example for others and help lay the foundation of peace for generations to come. Laura and I send our best wishes for a memorable event. May God bless you. George W. Bush, President of the United States.

Fortunately, dozens of evangelical leaders, including our own Jim Wallis, have recently come together to present an alternative point of view. In a public statement, they wrote:

In the context of our ongoing support for the security of Israel, we believe that unless the situation between Israel and Palestine improves quickly, the consequences will be devastating. ... As evangelical Christians, we believe our faith compels us to speak a word together at this crucial moment.

The Bible clearly teaches that God longs for justice and peace for all people. We believe that the principles about justice taught so powerfully by the Hebrew prophets apply to all nations, including the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. …

We call on all evangelicals, all Christians, and everyone of good will to join us to work and pray faithfully in the coming months for a just, lasting two-state solution in the Holy Land.

At this critical juncture for Mideast Peace, Sojourners has just launched a petition to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, letting her know that Christians support a just peace in the Holy Land. We invite you to join us in signing it.

Michael Sherrard is the online organizer for Sojourners.

In my post on Monday, A War Pitched with a 'Curve Ball,' I ended by saying, "And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison -- after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven."

Several readers have correctly pointed out that the heart of the gospel is forgiveness, and judgment is ultimately up to God. You are right, and I apologize. What I meant to say was in the legal context of "If they are found guilty," deliberately lying about going to war should not be pardoned. Remember Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he had even been tried for anything, or George H.W. Bush pardoning the leading Iran-contra figures? I do indeed believe in God's grace and forgiveness for anyone who repents. But the crime of lying about going to war should not be politically pardoned.

Watch 60 Minutes from last night or read the story. It revealed the results of a two-year investigation into the source of the key piece of information which was used by the Bush administration as "proof" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. This was the information that Colin Powell used in his now famous February 5, 2003 testimony at the United Nations reporting an "eyewitness" account that Saddam had a "mobile bio/chemical weapons program." The source, ironically code-named "Curve Ball," was a young Iraqi defector in Germany, who claimed he was a top student employed by a so-called seed purification plant that was really a bio/chemical weapons facility, and that he saw trucks moving in and out to be armed with the weapons of mass destruction. Problem is that he wasn't, after all, a "top student," wasn't there during the time he reported, got caught stealing equipment from his next employer, and there turned out to be walls at the alleged entrances and exits where the trucks were supposed to be going in and out.

For the first time, we know his name - Rafid Ahmed Alwan. Apparently, he lied because he wanted a green card in Germany, where he now lives. Turns out the Germans told the Americans that his testimony was "unconfimed," but the CIA wanted to use it anyway. Watch the 60 Minutes interview with former senior CIA official Tyler Drumheller who was asked whether "Curve Ball's" assertion was essential to going to war with Iraq. He replied, "If they had not had 'Curve Ball,' they would have probably found something else, 'cause there was a great determination to do it." But the information "Curve Ball" provided was the "absolutely essential case" for going to war. It was crucial to CIA Director George Tenet's telling the White House that the case proving the Saddam had WMD's was "slam dunk." Powell apparently believed the CIA's information, as secretaries of state normally do, when he told the world that Saddam had a mobile bio/chemical weapons program at the same time his successor, Condoleezza Rice, was talking about "mushroom clouds." No American had interviewed "Curve Ball," nor had they visited the plant, when Powell told the world about the Iraqi WMD program. Turns out that inspectors went to see the alleged WMD facility just days later, saw the walls where the trucks were supposed to be going in and out, and discovered it was a just a seed purification plant after all. But we never heard anything about that visit, and the war started a few weeks later—a war justified on false information.

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 how to be the president of the United States. And this isn't about being partisan - I was raised in a Republican family with two Republican parents that I loved more than any two people in the world. I've heard plenty of my Republican friends and public figures call this administration an embarrassment to the best traditions of the Republican Party and an embarrassment to the democratic (small d) tradition of the United States. They have shamed our beloved nation in the world by this war and the shameful way they have fought it. Almost 4,000 young Americans are dead because of the lies of this administration, tens of thousands more wounded and maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also dead, and 400 billion dollars wasted—because of their lies, incompetence, and corruption.

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. And if they are found guilty of these high crimes, I believe they should spend the rest of their lives in prison - after offering their repentance to every American family who has lost a son, daughter, father, mother, brother, or sister. Deliberately lying about going to war should not be forgiven.

UPDATE: Several of you have correctly pointed out that the heart of the gospel is forgiveness, and judgement is ultimately up to God. You are right, and I apologize. What I meant to say was in the legal context of “If they are found guilty,” deliberately lying about going to war should not be pardoned. Remember Gerald Ford pardoning Richard Nixon before he had even been tried for anything, or George H.W. Bush pardoning the leading Iran-Contra figures. I do indeed believe in God’s grace and forgiveness for anyone who repents. But the crime of lying about going to war should not be politically pardoned.

There is a good deal of contention about President George W. Bush's reasons for vetoing the SCHIP legislation that would have provided a much needed expansion of medical coverage for America's poorest children. Bush's supporters assert that the legislation would extend coverage to middle class families with incomes up to $83,000 a year, while hundreds of thousands of poor children would remain uninsured. They also share his argument that the bill would be a major step toward "socialized" medicine and government-run health care.

Those who opposed Bush's veto, including several prominent members of his own party, dismiss these reasons as specious and disingenuous. Senator Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, calls Bush's claims "flatly incorrect." Republican Senator Orrin G. Hatch contends that rather than covering "rich" children, upwards of 92 percent of the children covered will be from families with incomes less than 200 percent of the poverty level – less than $41,300 for a family of four. Bush's opponents also contend that his stated concern that expanding medical coverage for poor children will result in government-run healthcare makes little sense, especially since there have been government-run healthcare programs for Americans for decades – namely, Medicare and Medicaid – yet America is no closer to becoming a socialist state than it has ever been.

If the reasons President Bush has given for his veto are not his real reasons, what might those real reasons be? Read the full entry »

I remember about eight years ago when then presidential candidate George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that he would restore honor to the presidency, soiled as it had been by our previous president's infamous affair. I remember hoping he would succeed. But a new kind of shame has come to the office and to our nation as reports surface about our government's secret authorization of torture. We all share in this shame.

Conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan expresses what many of us feel. He reminds his readers:

... my first response to reports of abuse and torture at Gitmo was to accuse the accusers of exaggeration or deliberate deception ... It struck me as a no-brainer that this stuff was being invented by the far left or was part of al Qaeda propaganda. After all, they train captives to lie about this stuff. Bottom line: I trusted this president in a time of war to obey the rule of law that we were and are defending.

Sadly, he laments, that trust was betrayed:

And then I was forced to confront the evidence. He betrayed all of us. He lied. He authorized torture in secret, and then, when busted after Abu Ghraib, blamed it on low-level grunts. This was not a mistake. It was a betrayal.

The word "betrayal," of course, recalls Moveon.org's Sept. 26 ad. Many considered the pun childish at best, politically unsavvy at least, or worse. There was a rush to condemn anyone who failed to condemn the ad. But Sullivan's use of the word strikes me as anything but childish.

Our nation's reputation, not to mention that of the presidency, has been dishonored by this betrayal of trust. Honorable people - conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat - need to follow Andrew Sullivan's example, coming together to express our grief and outrage about the political hypocrisy and betrayal to which we have been subjected by people we elected.

Brian McLaren's new book, Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope, was released last Tuesday.

In two recent posts, The Global Church and America's War, and Iraq and Christian Identity, I talked about the difference between the perceptions of U.S. Christians and our sisters and brothers around the world. I recently received a powerful e-mail from a Pastor Kuruvilla Chandy of Grace Bible Church, Lucknow, India, who describes himself as "a born again Christian" who supported the Cold War and "as a believer in prophecy, [is] in general agreement about supporting Israel." Hardly the profile of a left-wing Bush-basher. I'd like to share some of what he wrote.

President George Bush is the darling of most born again Christians in the US of A. But in India many regard him as a liability to the Christian cause. His identification as a believer and his advocacy of the war that the rest of the world regards as unjust has embarrassed Christians who are in a minority in India.

He is not just critical of Bush, but has strong words of both challenge and encouragement for believers in the U.S.:

People will never agree on whether or not Bush is an aggressor. That really depends on political views.... Christians living in America, suffering from fear aroused by 9/11 and desiring their own self-preservation and prosperity will approve of Bush's war against Iraq and look for ways to justify it even from a biblical viewpoint. It is heartening though to see that there are born again Christians, even in the U.S., who are opposed to the warmongering and see the war as something they have been unable to support precisely because of their faith in Christ. However the vast majority of Americans, especially those who describe themselves as born again Christians, are solidly in support of Bush, and even question the Christian identity and commitment of those who disapprove of Bush.

He further describes the connection between Bush's faith and Bush's war:

In effect, Bush has given Christ a bad name. As a Christian writer in India, I wrote an article arguing that Bush's war had nothing to do with his being a born again Christian, and all to do with his being the American President (Times of India April 7, Lucknow, April 21, 2003). The only problem is that somehow his aggressive American-ness has been identified with his being a Christian. But we in India cannot see the war as the work of a Christian. In this regard, I represent the view of most Christians in India.

In my article I essentially defended born again Christianity as what is practiced by Christians who are committed to Christ and take His teachings seriously. I am myself a born again Christian. I did not deny that, just because Bush had made being a born again Christian unpopular. Being a born again Christian has nothing to do with Bush. It has all to do with following Christ faithfully with a desire to make Him known. In the Indian context it was necessary to show what born again Christianity really stood for. I had to demonstrate that being a Christian did not mean approving Bush's war.

Perhaps even more sad than the damage Bush has done to the cause of Christ globally is the response of Christians in the U.S.:

I also circulated the article among Christian friends in the U.S., to share my concern as a Christian from a country where Christians are a minuscule minority. I shared it with my friends in America trying to somehow influence Christian opinion in the U.S. Suddenly I lost friends—not just Americans, even Indians settled in the U.S.

As I reflected on my loss of some of my Christian friends living in America, I sadly noted the great divide that has occurred among Evangelical Christians. I know that Evangelicalism is not White Christianity, but somehow I get the impression that the agenda of White Evangelical Christianity is being thrust on Evangelicals around the world. It would seem that if one is to be accepted as a born again Christian, then one is required to approve of the world's only born again Christian statesman. If you don't approve of Bush, you're not okay.

Most American Christians have put their faith in Bush imagining that he will ensure their safety. If anything, he has made the world more unsafe for Americans and even for those who side with Americans.

Will Christians in the U.S. hear the prophetic challenge from their global sisters and brothers? Or, like the friends Pastor Chandy has lost, will they value their political allegiances above their allegiance to Christ, and to his body in the worldwide church?

Bono was in town the other night and had a small thank-you party for friends and allies to celebrate some successes in Africa with regard to poverty, AIDS, and other pandemic diseases. Joy and I went along, and it was nice to connect with him again. He gave a few remarks about signs of hope, even in the midst of so much still to do.

But there was another speaker. Agnes Nyamayarwo is a Ugandan nurse who has become an amazing activist in the battle against AIDS. She is HIV positive herself, lost her husband to AIDS, and unknowingly transmitted the disease to her unborn son, who also subsequently died. But Agnes is a woman full of hope. Joy and I got to spend some time with her and heard her story.

Agnes is an extraordinary woman and a person of deep faith. "When I had nothing else left," she told us, "I learned to walk with God." She is very grateful to the American people for the aid that made possible the HIV/AIDS treatment that saved her life. There are 1.34 million Africans now on lifesaving drugs, thanks to U.S. efforts—the most important thing the Bush administration has done. Here is a woman who has lost her husband and two sons, yet she has become a powerful activist and bright beacon of hope—all of which she attributes to her faith. When George Bush visited her country, the leader of the free world gave Agnes a big hug. And she whispered in his ear, "What about the global fund?" (the international AIDS fund that still needs more investment). Agnes has an agenda and a faith and both are very substantial.

As expected, President Bush yesterday vetoed legislation that would expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

At our religious leaders' news conference on Tuesday, I spoke of the issues at stake here.

Jesus made healing a principal sign of his ministry and of the presence of the kingdom of God. From a biblical point of view, it is simply wrong when health becomes a commodity and accessibility depends upon wealth. Until something is done to make universal health care a reality in America, millions of families will remain poor. SCHIP is one bill – one program – to help fix the health care problem. No bill is perfect. But a bipartisan group of legislators think it is a good bill in the right direction.

To veto the bill, with no alternative plan instead - to simply abandon millions of poor children, to leave them to a market system that is failing to provide health care to enough people - is simply morally unacceptable. We must not allow this to become an ideological battle over the larger issue of health care systems. This is about a specific program for poor children that a bipartisan majority believes is working. This is not about health care theories - this is about children. And now, overriding a presidential veto will become the next faith-based issue.

Also speaking to the media were the heads of two denominations who also serve on our Sojourners Board. Sharon Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) said:

Mr. President, members of the House and Senate, 9 million American children are without health care coverage this day. Those children are our children. God has given them into our care. We are the responsible adults who say whether they see a doctor or not. Our hearts need to break for them because they are our own. They are our future, and we need to give them a bright future. When historians reflect back on this era, do we want to be remembered as the people who turned their backs on the uninsured children of this nation?

And Glenn R. Palmberg, President of the Evangelical Covenant Church added:

An earlier administration, some 20 years ago, tried to declare ketchup a vegetable in the children's school lunch program. It was seen as a cruel and cynical response to the plight of low-income children. I still hear that talked about as the legacy of that administration regarding poor children some 20 years later. I think this veto has the potential of being talked about 20 years from now as part of the legacy of this administration, and it is seen as a cruel and cynical response to the needs of poor children.

As the Congress now gears up for the veto override battle, I commend the words of Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), one of the primary sponsors:

I disagree with the [White House] legislative staff on all of this. Frankly, I think the president has had pretty poor advice on this. I can answer every objection that they've made, and I'm very favorable to the president. I know he's compassionate. I know he's concerned about these kids, but he's been sold a bill of goods.

This article also appeared today at Time.com

When I first heard that President Bush was vowing to veto a bipartisan bi