[marshmallow]

And the US too, apparently.

Remember when Saddam was the "not so bad" bad guy, who we supported and armed against the "bad" bad guy, Iran? Well apparently now, Saddam is the "bad" bad guy and Iran is the "not so bad" bad guy. Confusing isn't it?

We had the opportuinity to eliminate this punk 12 years ago and we turned our back on it. Now he's really evil and has to go. Maybe he's worse now than when we supported him. Yeah, that's it. He was a good guy and it all went wrong.

Still, it's good to be able to bash the Vatican for our problems, isn't it? This is all their fault, of course.

Just as well morality is not what American policy happens to be at any particular point in time. We'd all get confused real quick, wouldn't we?

[stanz]

Funny how sensitive some people are about religous references. I don't recall bashing the Vatican. It was at the end of a list of other entities.But I do think the Pope made bad call on this one. And, I'm not the only one saying it. Even the staunch Catholic Bill O'Reilly seems to feel that way.
Someone once said "Politics makes strange bedfellows." This is so true.

[Future Snake Eater]

Remember when Saddam was the "not so bad" bad guy, who we supported and armed against the "bad" bad guy, Iran? Well apparently now, Saddam is the "bad" bad guy and Iran is the "not so bad" bad guy.

The State Dept. lacks a fully-functional crystal ball--you act based on the best information you have at the time. Nobody's perfect.

We had the opportuinity to eliminate this punk 12 years ago and we turned our back on it.

That was also the fault of the UN. Bush (41) was following their latest edict to liberate Kuwait only and not to storm Baghdad.

Too late the world has seen what an impotent POS the UN is.

[gcruse]

You can't pin this one on the Vatican. If they had their way, the peace would remain undisturbed while atrocities continued unabated.