Fraser is off the mark when he appeals to the example of Jesus. Jesus ate with whores and small-time collaborators who wanted to enter the Kingdom of Heaven; he didn't sit down to chat with Herod, or Pilate, as if it were all good.

I'm also not sure what his "well, we all use oil" bit is getting at, either. Oh, we all use oil, so we can't possibly hold those who keep us addicted to it, who lead us into wars for it, who make obscene profits off it accountable? Malarkey.

Someone ought to point out to Fraser a major difference between Blair (and Bush et al.) and those with whom Archbishop Tutu sat during the Truth and Reconciliation process is that those people were seeking truth and reconciliation. Blair and the American politicians with whom he is complicit are seeking no such thing, but rather are pretending as if they had done nothing wrong.

Finally, the holding up the Great Assize as a reason not to pursue justice on Earth, which is what Fraser effectively does when he touts Blair's Christianity, is shocking.

Bishop Tutu has met with Mr.Blair and I believe even eaten with him. The objection is to sharing a public platform with Blair. I usually agree with Giles - but this time he is way off base. Bill's comment is on the mark.

Yes, we are all complicit. No, none of us who live comfortably while others starve have clean hands. Does that mean we must join in a public forum with people who prosecuted an illegal and unjust war based on lies? No. Giles missed the boat on this one.

Those who have a voice must continue to call the leaders to account from time to time, lest we forget. If Mitt Romney is elected, he will be under great pressure to undertake military action against Iran. I say to Archbishop Tutu, "Bravo!"

June Butler

With each passing election it becomes increasingly obvious to me that citizens of the US have less and less say about our govt. and its behavior. How can citizens of the US be criticized for complicity when our ability to control "our govt." is a sham?

For example: I noticed a graph from Pew Research that shows the transfer of wealth in the last 40 years from most of us to a few wealthiest of us. It happened over 3 Dem's and 5 GOP administrations. There was zero difference in the graph - it was if the same political party was in office for 40 years.

One can only conclude that the political class of this nation represents a select few of us, not all of us. The Church needs to be more countercultural than what we are.

Kevin McGrane

It's difficult to adjudicate between Fraser and Tutu because they mostly agree. Then the former says "My problem is with the empty-chairing", about which the latter says "I felt an increasingly profound sense of discomfort about attending." Tutu doesn't give much detail about why he drew the line there, so it's hard to know how he'd answer Fraser's objections.

Mark Preece

1. Suppose the issue is global warming. I'm not willing to concede the war in Iraq was about oil, but I will concede global warming and our dependence on oil are joined.

2. The U.S. stands in the way of solving the problem.

3. The U.S. stands in the way because our politicians of both parties know they won't get reelected if they attack the problem by getting serious about carbon based fuel. I favor a carbon tax as the best solution, but the particulars of serious solution pale in comparison to the political stumbling block -- that the price would go up substantially under any realistic proposal and that would mean a change in lifestyle Americans won't accept.

4. We are accountable for the government we have and its failures.

5. Let's not blame our politicians for our own addictions.

6. Do you want to say your favorite politician gets a waiver from doing something about global warming because that's pragmatic in order to get reelected. (IE, best is the enemy of the good?)

Speaking truth to power is supposed to be one of the callings of the people of God. However, some people are much better positioned to speak truth to power effectively. In this case, Archbishop Tutu because of his stature, his experience during apartheid,his call to speak truth to power within his own Anglican tradition, is well positioned to do and to speak as he has.

Tutu's empty chair is his yoke of iron. Lesser church leaders would have schmoozed with Blair all the while invoking platitudes to rationalize the same.

We should be grateful to Desmond Tutu, though not surprised, that a gifted peace maker like him has such clarity of mind and purpose when it comes to contending with the movers and shakers of war making.

Giles Fraser has also earned his chops, and I often appreciate his writing. He is a refreshing voice in the so often passive-aggressive wilderness that is churchland; but I disagree with his position on the substance of this matter notwithstanding.

[CAUTION: CYNICAL DESPAIR FOLLOWS]
John Chilton, I think the accountability that the electorate bears for the government in power is much smaller than we have been lead to believe. The death grip that the two parties have on the system means that we are never given a real range of options, but only a choice between two neighboring positions.The American political system is not fit to purpose; I do not seriously entertain hopes of casting a vote for someone I would like to be in office - the best that I'll be able to do is to vote for the lesser of two very real evils. Voting for a third party candidate whose views I truly endorse would accomplish little, and at the real risk of letting the greater of the two main evils be elected. In my view, we can only shoulder accountability/blame for the rate at which the situation gets worse, not whether it gets worse or better.

At times I'm not even sure that we have a real two party system, as opposed to one real party - the Corporate Party - represented by a Good Cop and a Bad Cop. Whichever of the two parties makes it into office, it will be the corporate class in whose interest they will rule, rather than the interest of the citizenry.

Personally, I wish Tutu had followed through and attended, and had a conversation with Blair about leadership and what that means at this point in our world's history. Not that either one would have convinced the other of anything, but to an extent it rubs me the wrong way when someone, anyone, backs away from a discussion with another who has a different view on the basis of "I'm a more authentic leader" or "Your point of view is sinful" or "I'm so much closer to God on this point that there's no point to our meeting" or whatever it was that motivated Tutu to excuse himself.

Leadership is a tricky element. Being an effective leader is *not* synonymous with demonstrating a moral or ethical example -- think Hitler or any of the many other psychopaths who were able to recruit multitudes yet destroyed the lives of millions of others. And being a leader of a Western nation dependent on oil produced on less progressive countries is complicated to begin with and more so when there is open conflict.

I happen to agree that the invasion of Iraq was indefensible, but I also concede that there are folks more knowledgeable than I who would dispute that. My complicity (I think) is limited to my inability to reduce my carbon footprint to zero or near to it. A good part of me would like to string GWBush up for starting that war, as I've learned nothing in the last 11 years that has convinced me that it was worthwhile. The Americans who voted for him, especially the second time, were woefully misguided, imho -- but then I realize that there is more than one issue that conveys to a vote for President.

The conversation between Blair and Tutu might have been interesting and informative, as would be the case at any time between a political and religious/spiritual leader. When one side bows out because the other is too evil/corrupt/criminal/(fill in the blank), we all lose.

Sarah Ridgway