The story I read suggesting that Israel's wall and anti-Christian writings in textbooks and elsewhere were responsible for the large number of Christians leaving the Middle East was much more convincing. This story had nothing to recommend it, except that the grammar and spelling were correct.

I would not call this journalism. It is propaganda, and not very clever either, as it is larded with cliched brickbats at straw men in a futile attempt to bolster his baseless enthusiasms. A political attack dog, pure and simple.

Tripe from the "right" of the same ilk as opposing tripe from the "left." (Said as if those labels have a meaning in this case.) Boiling the situation down to winning or losing a war in Iraq misses its complexity, its implications for the future and the human tragedy -- past, present and future.

This is an opinion piece and not a news story, so it is judged by a different standard. But its reliance on biased viewpoints as verifiable evidence weakens it. Here are three examples of "facts" the column relies upon: - "Radical islamists are driving Christians from the Middle East" - General Petraeus has "turned around the Iraq War" in a short time - "Success in Iraq is being downplayed because it is embarrassing to most journalists and Democrats" Enough said.

Utterly and shamefully biased, badly informed nonsense - - if not a transparent and shallow attempt at propaganda.