ANTI-WAR CROWD EXPLOITS THE POPE

Catholic League ^ | March 28, 2003 | William Donohue

[NYer]

ANTI-WAR CROWD EXPLOITS THE POPE

 

Catholic League president William Donohue spoke today on how the pope’s words on the war are being exploited by anti-war activists:

 

“It comes as no surprise that the pope is viscerally anti-war.  But he is also no pacifist.  Pope John Paul II has said repeatedly that war cannot be decided upon ‘except as the very last option.’  What he has not said, though such words have been attributed to him, is that there is no legal or moral justification for the war.  In any event, it is striking how many new friends the Pontiff has these days.

 

“Jessica Lange is anti-war and pro-abortion.  The NARAL enthusiast is now praising the pope for his position on the war.  What she fails to mention is that when the pope told a gathering of world leaders to say ‘No To War’ on January 13, he began by admonishing them to say ‘No To Death’; he specifically cited ‘the incomparable dignity of every human being, beginning with that of unborn children.’  Hear that Jessica?

 

“Michael Moore is quoted today saying, ‘The pope even came right out and said it: This war in Iraq is not a just war and, thus, it is a sin.’  But the pope never said this is not a just war, never mind a sinful exercise.

 

“The reaction of Catholic dissidents and anti-Catholics who are part of the anti-war crowd to the pope is even more comical.  The National Catholic Reporter is a Catholic weekly that never tires of railing against papal authority; ditto for Call the Action, an organization of Catholic malcontents.  Yet both are now lauding the pope for his leadership on the war.  Even that inveterate Catholic basher Frances Kissling is now speaking of the ‘humanitarian’ vision of the Vatican and the ‘religious authority of the pope.’  Maybe she’ll convert to Catholicism yet.

 

“We’ll call these people sincere when they stop exploiting the pope’s words on the war and start showing real and consistent respect for his teachings on all subjects.”

[ultima ratio]

I hereby excommunicate practically everybody.

[Desdemona]

Don't forget that some states vote on the Second Ammendment. If the perception is there that the right to bear arms is threatened, the threatening party has an uphill fight.

I think you're right. Bush is in no danger right now. He means what he says and leaders like that are few and far between.

As for the pope, he knows that this war is dangerous from many fronts and that all war is human tradgedy, but he has not outright condemned military force. He just cautioned that it should be the absolute last resort. The call of the last resort is the one that's hard, and who's right is anyone's guess. My own take is that this war had to happen. The sooner the better, else the fight would have been far more precarious.

[ultima ratio]

My quarrel is not with the Pope's opposition to the war itself. My quarrel is that he undermined Bush's diplomatic efforts to get Saddam to disarm without a war. The Pope threw in his lot with France, meeting privately with Tariq Assiz at a time when Bush needed support. As long as people such as Chirac and the Pope gave hope to Saddam that he could ride-out the storm, what incentive did that monster have to quit the scene, let alone to disarm? It was a disgraceful scene on the Pope's part--just more liberal bad judgment in a papacy full of foolish gestures and scandalous novelties.

[Aloysius]

If you want to win elections you have got to gain the swing voter.

You are correct if your only objective is to simply to win elections. Your strategy works for those who simply want power. If you want change, your strategy is a recipe for failure. How are we materially better off than when Clinton was in office? Under Bush the government still steals 40% of my paycheck. Under Bush we are still at war. Under Bush we still murder our own children.

The only difference I see between Bush and Clinton so far is that Clinton was an adulterer and Bush is not.

[drstevej]

***The only difference I see between Bush and Clinton so far is that Clinton was an adulterer and Bush is not.***

Grab some windex for your specs, Al.

[Aloysius]

Grab some windex for your specs, Al

Give me some substantive differences (other than Clinton is a Rhodes scholar and Bush is not).

[drstevej]

Clinton vs. Bush court nominees
Bush signs a partial birth abortion ban
Ashcroft vs Reno

[Aloysius]

Ha!

Clinton vs. Bush court nominees

No difference there.

Bush signs a partial birth abortion ban

So Bush has put an end to 0.00001% of all abortions, Whoopee!!

Ashcroft vs Reno

So far Aschcroft has covered up a staute of a naked lady in the Justice Department and stripped many American's of their civil liberties. Maybe you enjoy getting undressed as you pass through security at the airport. What else has he done?

[drstevej]

Your replies are ridiculous. Have a good day.

[Aloysius]

Have a good day.

I live in the USA. It's night time here. Nonetheless, I will have a good night. Are you a Kurdish rebel? Is that why you display so little knowledge about American politics?

[drstevej]

Have a good day.

[ultima ratio]

I say again, you are politically foolish. How do you suppose headway is being made against the crime of abortion if not through the wielding of power? Believe me, it's all about power. Janet Reno used her power to harrass pro-lifers. Clinton used his power to thwart the will of the people by twice vetoing a bill prohibiting partial-birth abortion. It's always about power.

You remind me of the crazy Iraqis who crash pickups into tanks. Thousands of these thugs keep charging with their rifles and two-bit machine guns--and are being blown away by our marines because they have no strategy, no intelligence and ultimately no real power. They just have a fierce mindless passion--like democrats who lose elections and grow furious--but it's not enough.

How are you better off now? Let me ask you this. Since 9/11, would you rather have Janet Reno in charge of the War against Terror or John Ashcroft? Would you rather have Madeline Albright as Secretary of State or Colin Powell? Would you rather have Richard Cohen as Secretary of Defense or Donald Rumsfeld? Would you rather have Clinton who as president was all talk and no action, who despised the military and was himself despised, or Bush who murders the language but is a true leader of men and is beloved by the armed forces?

[Aloysius]

Maybe I am politically foolish. But I live in the real world where the government steals 40% of my real money. You can play your Fantasy Cabinet game where you trade up in the draft to take Colin Powell over Madeline Albright, but that really doesn't effect average Americans. Both Madeline Albright and Colin Powell love unjust wars - no real difference there other than the embarrasment of having a female midget as Secretary of State.

Speaking of harrassing pro-lifers, George Bush and John Ashcroft sent their thugs after Joe Scheidler.

[ultima ratio]

If you seriously think Bush and Ashcroft are not pro-life, then you are hopelessly out of touch. As for taxes, it has been Bush who has been fighting--against mighty odds--for tax breaks for Americans, even before he ever took office. In fact, given his pro-taxcut positions, you should be wildly pro-Bush. Instead, you make ridiculous charges that don't hold up under any fair-minded scrutiny. As I said before, you obviously don't understand political strategy, which is all about the art of the possible. But rather than involve yourself in a democratically messy process, you want to nuke anybody who doesn't agree with you, including presidents who don't genuflect in your direction when and how you say so. Nor do you seem to realize the President has a few other things on his mind these days besides your paycheck.

[Aloysius]

Nor do you seem to realize the President has a few other things on his mind these days besides your paycheck.

Like a $70 billion re-elction campaign?

[ultima ratio]

Your animus against Bush is not based on anything reasonable. He is aggressively pro-life, he is morally above reproach, he treats other people with courtesy and respect, he is trying his damnedest to lower taxes, he is working his butt off to protect this country against its enemies, and he has been an efficient and unusually wise chief executive. What more do you want? Your griping is nothing more than petulance.

[drstevej]

This is your boy Clinton's idea of a successful operation!

[ultima ratio]

By the way, your $70 billion re-election figure is ridiculous. More like $100 million, all of it legal, all of it ethical, all of it necessary. Have you priced the cost of an ad in just the State of California lately? You are living in some left-wing utopia if you think elections don't cost money. Halls, cars, phone banks--all have got to be rented or set up. Staffs have got to be paid. Planes have got to be fueled, polls have got to be taken, etc.etc.etc. And you were asking ME to get real a few posts back?

[Aloysius]

Your griping is nothing more than petulance.

Try extending the one-tenth the charity towards the Pope that you do George Bush.

[ultima ratio]

Bush is a wise president. He is good at what he does. JnPII is not a wise pope. He is not good at what he does--for the reasons I have often enumerated. It has nothing to do with hero-worship or personality. It has to do with policies pursued.