The problem is, Matt, that you’re right. We can’t just leave Iraq in shambles now. And we can’t really think that partition is a righteous idea, either. Frankly, I believe that we’re in a stalemate, and there IS no good way out, and there aren’t going to be any winners in this scenario.

That said, calling Jim Wallis anything but a much needed voice in the Christian dialog isn’t just ignorant, it’s downright ignant.

However, Wallis blog post is just a re-hash of the old rhetoric against the war. The FACT is we are there now, and in desparate need of an “exit strategy”. Wallis simply offers to take all the marbles and go home. That might be the best solution for America, but it is NOT the best solution for Iraq. Thus, it ignores the responisibilty we assumed when we invaded.

Matt, a Christian being “too kind” to another Christian? I don’t understand.

Wallis is saying some pretty radical things, but they’re pretty well thought out. I find that sound bites (or “proof texts”) don’t work well in displaying real truth.

Nonetheless, thanks for bringing Wallis to the table. I find him worth listening to even when I disagree.

that’s a downright foolish statement. Wallis represents a MUCH NEEDED voice within the church, especially these days when so many feel that being a Christian equates with being a Republican. There are plenty of us out there who agree with Mr. Wallis. Attempting to compare Michael Moore, who is the Rush Limbaugh of the left, with Jim Wallis, who seems like a genuinely upstanding guy with his heart in the right place is downright ludicrous.

Second, you create a straw man in your second to last paragraph. Wallis does say that the Administration asserted a connection to 9-11. And you mention that in the first sentence of the paragraph. Yet, by the third sentence, you imply that Wallis claims that the Administration said that Saddam Hussein was behind 9-11. You see the difference? Connection is not equal to behind. And Wallis never claims that the Administration said that SH was behind the attack, just that they were connected. And the Administration certainly said that:

“What the vice-president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaeda. And Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a US diplomat… There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaeda ties.” (www.bbc.co.uk September 18, 2003)

Though in that same story, Bush denies the Hussein was ‘behind’ the attacks, he links them with the group responsible, therefore linking SH and 9-11. Furthermore, the majority of Americans believed at that point that Saddam had actively participated in planning the attack. I suspect that the administration allowed the misconception to persist because it helped their cause.

And finally, I personally don’t care for the ‘vast majority of experts’ that you cite. I don’t know who they are, where they work, what their ideological position is. If I were to accept the opinion of the ‘vast majority of experts’ on every issue, I would certainly believe a lot of crazy stuff. There are credible experts on both sides of this issue.