I have had accusations of my motives being partisan in my opposition to this Iraq war. Someone pointed out to me that they recall my being upset over Iran Contra and Nicaragua, and then the first Gulf War, and “then, while Clinton was president, NOTHING”.

There are two seemingly very reasonable answers. One: I did not hear much about things like the bombing of Kosovo by NATO. I no doubt read SOME things about it, but I was NOT reading much at all during the 1993-1999 period. I was unemployed for a year, I was changing jobs three times, I was moving to Nashville, I was adopting a child, and I was NOT writing or reading, even much of Sojourners. I was focusing then, when I did write, on the issue of The Church and the Web, as the Internet was coming of age. I was deeply immersed in Ecunet. I was active, but NOT politically.

Second, the issues of ethnic cleansing that was going on in Serbia/Kosovo/Bosnia made it pretty clear that some action was called for. Actions DID happen, and there WERE several groups, including Sojourners, who were critical of the inaction of the Clinton administration prior to the eventual “responses”, and then of the nature of those interventions (the usual U.S. “solutions” such as air strikes, and the resulting civilian casualties.

Further, none of these “strikes” were “unprovoked”; or lacking in “reasons” for a call to international action. CLEARLY, there was no intent top deceive the public about the nature or existence of “reasons to act”.

To lay that alongside Iraq today and suggest “Why weren’t you outraged then?” You must be simply partisan Democrat and biased against Bush. Bullshit. That is an outrageously false comparison to this administrations’ actions and deceptions in this whole Ira debacle.

There also wasn’t this whole euphoria n the Church in supporting the actions of the United States. In fact, the Religious Right itslef didn’t complain about Kosovo or Clinton’s military decisions. Why WOULD they? To them, the most important thng was Clinton’s personal morality, which undoubtedly was more detructive and tok more lives than things such as bombings.

If I had been in a Church that was faitful to the gospel, and who explored the issues of how to “speak the truth to power” as the Church must in all times, not just times of war, I would have been protesting the use of bombs to “dispel” or “discourage” the perpetrators of the “cleansings”. To cause the deaths of more innocents in order to respond to the deaths of other innocents makes no sense, and is not morally acceptable, any more then that it is now as we take far more innocent Iraqi lives in retaliation for the deaths of 3000, which were outrageous enough. “Retaliation?” they might ask? Iraq was not “retaliation”. But if they realized how the Bush administration had “designs” on Iraq prior to 9/11, and then rushed in immeidately, on the very next day when they put their heads together on 9/12 and Bush was asking for “evidence” on Iraq, and telling Richard Clarke to “find connections to Iraq”, and that Bush had to be constantly RE-focused on Al-Quieda and Osama Bin Laden, the “retaliation” feature is pretty clear. 9/11 “made it possible” to sell the goods to the American people. And all Bush had to do is say he “asked God for guidance” and millions of American church goers bowed down to him and called him a “great Christian leader”, and “annointed by God”.

No, I tend to put the emphasis on “What would Jesus do?” The Religious Right folks consider that a non-sensical question when it comes to war. They’ve been well-trained and indoctrinated to “keep political issues” separate when it comes to opposing clear preferences of their annointed leaders.