[APBaer]

The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday they must oppose laws on abortion, euthanasia and gay marriages and can not accept compromises

So what's next?
The Seventh Day Adventists Church told their politicians on Thursday they must oppose blood banks and transfusions and can not accept compromises?

The Christian Scientist Mother Church told their politicians on Thursday they must oppose laws giving access to medical care because only prayer was appropriate and it can not accept compromises?

And late news from Rome,
"The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday that war with Iraq was wrong and they must give Saddam a big wet kiss and can not accept compromises"?

[Desdemona]

And late news from Rome, "The Vatican told Catholic politicians on Thursday that war with Iraq was wrong and they must give Saddam a big wet kiss and can not accept compromises"?

Not at all. Just a demand for a full accounting of why a war would be just and necessary. If it is, the Vatican will back it. They're not convinced yet.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

The Vatican stressed that it wasn't trying to dictate policy or interfere in matters of state...

Can you spot the lie in this statement?

;)

Next to come - Vatican demands that Catholic politicians:

- Oppose the death penalty;

- Mandate the redistribution of wealth;

- Oppose American defense measures;

- Support trade unions;

- Oppose all support of Israel....

And on and on and on.....

[heyheyhey]

The Vatican told Catholic politicians...

That's the humble supremacy of the Christian message; all you need to do is to remind your brethren the precepts of the Gospel.
How many divisions has the Pope...? None!

[Catholicguy]

The End of Bush the Bold




December 31, 2002
To read the conservative and neoconservative press, you’d think that President George W. Bush combined the military genius of Napoleon, the courage of Coriolanus, and the moral wisdom of Confucius. My own view is that he confirms the truth of the adage “Never send a boy to do a man’s job.”

Actually, the presidency is more a Superman’s job. Nobody should be given — or trusted with — that much power and responsibility. Nobody can possibly handle it.

By abandoning our Constitution, in which the legislative branch is supreme, we have permitted the executive branch to assume a centrality it was never meant to have. The president is now said to be our “leader.” He’s expected to provide governance, protection, economic expertise, geopolitical cunning, and inspiration, among other things; and of course he also has to have a talent for raising money and winning elections.

Rare is the man who can master even one of these disparate, unrelated, almost miscellaneous skills. Requiring all of them is like asking a single individual to excel at playing the harpsichord, logical theory, standup comedy, chess, and pole-vaulting.

In these terms, nobody can be a good president. He can only play one on TV. Reagan was superb at this impersonation; Bill Clinton might have been just as good, if only he hadn’t set an unhappy precedent by splashing his personal foibles onto the front pages.

But Bush? For most of his first year in the Oval Office he gave us the impression he was lost in the job. After the 9/11 attacks, however, he seemed to achieve a new stature. Maybe we were right the first time.

In the wake of the attacks, Bush adopted the posture of Gary Cooper in High Noon. He played a resolute hero who knew what he was doing. It flew with the public and most of the pundits; even his liberal critics were impressed. But he quickly diverted from a “war on terrorism” to an irrelevant war on Iraq.

He sealed his obsession with Iraq by naming it one of the three points on an “axis of evil,” along with Iran and North Korea. He said Iraq posed an urgent danger because it was ruled by a cruel tyrant bent on acquiring nuclear weapons and threatening the whole region, if not the whole world.

Well, someone answering this lurid description has now stepped forward, and it isn’t Saddam Hussein. It’s North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.

Kim has nukes, and he’s not hiding it. He’s bragging about it. He dares Bush to stop him. He passes the “cruel tyrant” test with flying colors. He’s a Communist of the Stalin-Mao ilk, permitting mass starvation in his country rather than relaxing his iron grip. He seems quite cheerfully willing to go to war with his neighbors. And this is to say nothing of his funny teeth and haircut: he even looks eerie.

How cruel is he? Well, desperate North Koreans are actually risking their sorry lives to flee to China, making China the first Communist country ever to have an illegal immigrant problem. The North Korean media call Kim “the Dear Leader.”

So how is Bush handling this certified monster? Very awkwardly. In amusing contrast to his tough talk about prostrate Iraq, Bush is treating North Korea as a diplomatic problem, nothing urgent. What about those weapons of mass destruction? Surely we can resolve our little differences like gentlemen. What about the “axis of evil”? Just a figure of speech, it seems. No hard feelings.

Kim seems to feel differently. He may be crazy, but he’s not stupid. When he heard Bush speak of that “axis of evil,” he heard “hit list,” and he figured North Korea’s turn might be coming when Bush was finished with the Middle East.

So Kim decided to upset Bush’s schedule by shaking nukes in his face before he was ready. Why wait for war at Bush’s convenience? Why not challenge him preemptively, as it were? Sure enough, Bush, the brave cowboy, backed off fast. He realized he wasn’t dealing with a mere Saddam Hussein.

So much for Bush the Bold. Yes, the presidency is too big a job for any man, but Bush, it’s now clear, is far, far out of his depth. Publishing his hit list was an act of the most puerile bravado.

[Catholicguy]

<> War with Iraq? You've got to be kidding. This is the Deathstar against a guy on a goat.

Daddy's Desert Storm I took a little over a month; 1/16/91 - 2/27/91.

Any bets thie one ends faster?

Dubya gives State of the Union address Jan.28. The Super Bowl is on Jan 27. Look for Son of Desert Storm I to begin Sunday -late..or early Monday so he can walk into the joint session to tumultuous applause as the "Commander in Chief."

If you are in Vegas, take America and "under" in the 30 days over/under

[Catholicguy]

<> From Jeffrey Tucker's review of David Frum's "The Right Man:The Surprise Prersidencey of George Bush W. Bush.<>

They are not serious enough to put much thought into the effects of their actions on the country, on liberty, on the world, or much of anything else. Not a word in this book indicates that the White House has any sense of the moral and practical responsibilities associated with heading the world's biggest state. But they are serious enough to believe that they have somehow been blessed by the god democracy to make big, important decisions. Paul O'Neil, who was just fired as Treasury secretary, is right that it is all about "deluding the people" into believing something that is not true.

In his first meeting with Bush, soon after the inauguration, Frum reports that the president had only one firm policy item backed by real conviction: "his determination to dig Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq." This was six months before 9-11, and two years before weapons inspections. Why should anyone take seriously the idea that Bush is waiting for Iraq to comply with anything? Though Iraq was not discussed much during the campaign, the secret plan vengeance was always there.

<> Fortunately, the Vatican knows this Iraq War is all about revenge,propaganda, smoke, mirrors and bovine excrement<>

[heyheyhey]

Your precious quadruplets,

POST #26

POST #10

POST #4

POST #3