Posted on 06/04/2004 3:49:33 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
ROME — President Bush and Pope John Paul II (search ) met briefly for talks in Vatican City Friday at the start of the president's 36-hour tour of Italy.
The president nodded and smiled as he greeted the 84-year-old pontiff, leaning down to hold his trembling hands. The closed-door talks between the president and the Pope, who has expressed fervent opposition to the war in Iraq, were to focus on Iraq and the conflict in the
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
'Hand picked successors' are seldom elected in modern times.
ok
And if I remember correctly, x42's wife did not cover her head on their visit to the Vatican.
It would seem that if the Pope said 'God Bless America' it was not in his prepared remarks!
It was only required (pre-Vatican II) in a church, not when meeting a bishop.
I am confused about nothing, I have read and heard all of the pope's and his surrogates comments on Iraq, Afganastan, the WOT, terrorism, Israel, Palestinians, for the last decades.
His positions are very clear, and I disagree with him, as I would any man who held his views.
Then explain what you think "sovereignity" means and why it is a mistake to say "restore sovereignity."
SD
I builded bridges once...
I seem to remember reading that the hand picked successor to the Pope is a conservative African Cardinal.
I had a dream that the next pope would be from Africa and did some research........had no idea about any of it. Problem is this one will be a man killer, was shredding the flesh off of a human being. Guess time will tell, whether it was prophetic (which I have done) or to much pizza....:) I have a feeling won't be pizza, we are lined up for to much fulfilment of prophecy, so much its scary.
And I'm not a doomsdayer.
You explain to me why the pope felt the need to lecture the President of the United States, in public, on returning Iraq to a sovereign country, ie, independence and self-government, when that President of the United States has had that as his stated goal in Iraq and in Afganastan.
The United States and our President have given NO indication that they wanted Iraq for our own. In any way shape or form.
Moreover, just last month the vatican called us "barbarians", and called the Iraq war a "moral failure", ie, the President of the United States is a moral failure, and a barbarian.
It was NO mistake on the pope's part to chastise the President of the United States in public. He did it on purpose.
He was punishing the US, and implying that the reason we remain in Iraq, and have not turned over sovereignty is for some nefarious or mysterious reasons.
And NOT because of terrorists and Saddams goons, killing innocents, and trying prevent a civilized society from emerging, as the Islamic cults have been doing for decades, roaming the globe, murdering innocents with impunity. All the while claiming victimhood and political oppression by the US and Israel.
Until he addresses those truths, I will not take him seriously.
Wow....how could any thinking American not be proud of that wonderful man that we call President. Of course I want him to win the election, but even if he doesn't, for my lifetime, I will always be grateful that I was alive when such a great man was my President. God Bless President Bush.......
When you come out riddled with error and won't correct yourself, it reduces your credibility.
If you want to hate the pope, go ahead. If you really think the Pope called the president and the entire US "barbarians," there is no hope here. No amount of facts is going to get in your way.
SD
It seems as though they do when they're at St. Peter's.
Why the Catholic Church would allow this sorry state of affairs is beyond me.
LOL, cut the drama, it does not work on me. This has nothing to do with religion. The pope comments were on politics and policy.
I just explained to you about sovereignty and pope, and asked you to explain why the he even brought the subject up?
Why bring it up to the Pres?
Has the Pres indicated he wanted no gov chosen by the Iraqi people?
Has the Pres been somehow preventing Iraq elections? a written constitution? and a rule of law, or a census which enables an election?
No.
But who has been preventing those advances?
Did the pope address those groups, individuals and those who claim responsibility for blowing up innocents in Iraq?
No.
BTW, speaking of facts, do a search, and read the vatican statements about the US and our Pres, for the past 3 years.
Or for that matter, search on the vaticans statements on subjects such as the "occupation", Arafat, the UN, Israel, AQ, BL, Islam, ect.
Vs, the Iraq war and Bush, I don't recall the vatican calling Arafat or BL immoral or barbaric.
The Pope and Pres Reagan met in Fairbanks in the old days when they were blasting all over the planet. Their respective planes landed right here and the two met on the runway. A little ceremony witnessed by half the population and then they were on their way again to destroy Communism wherever they found it.
Do you honestly think Arafat, OBL, Saddam, and other terrorists give a crap what the Pope thinks?
What could be better for a jihad than having the head of the "infidel" Catholic Church declare these Islamic figures evil?
I mean, come on, no offense, but use your head.
It takes a special breed of idiot to think that this was some type of upbraiding the Pope was delivering to the President. He was merely encouraging him to rstore sovereignty as soon as possible. There is no question that the Pope thought we weren't going to do it at all. If you weren't a Pope-hater, you'd understand the message.
BTW, you still haven't explained why you think Iraq has never had "sovereignty" and what you think the word means.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.