Replies

There had been weapons inspections for twelve years. Saddam had never cooperated. He was not cooperating even after Bush laid down the gauntlet and issued his threats in his famous UN speech challenging the Security Council to put some teeth in its resolutions. The Security Council then signed on to an American demand that Iraq must cooperate or else.

Did Saddam finally cooperate? No. Did that matter to France or Germany or Russia--all of whom had lucrative ties to Iraq and to Saddam personally and had a vested interest--oil and big bucks--in his continued stay in power? No. Even the UN was making billions skimming off the top of its oil-for-food program. Nobody wanted the fun to end--except a handful of nations siding with us, and, of course, the suffering Iraqi people. That's the real truth, not the leftwing version which is off somewhere in a parallel universe where the birdies tweet and Saddam is considered a latterday hero for standing up to the mean-old imperialist U.S.A. thirsty for Iraqi oil.

You write, "It would be more accurate to say that the entire world community suspected that Saddam might be developing WDM's, and that is why the U.N. sanctioned the resumption of weapons inspections."

That is not, in fact, accurate. Most first world nations had the exact same intelligence we did and none argued that these WMD did not exist but were only being developed. Even President Clinton frequently alluded to Iraq's WMD. Now the issue is convenient as a means for the left to sully a bit of the brightness in the victory that rightfully belongs to the US and Britain. But back then, before the war, no one had doubts about Saddam's weapons, not France, not Germany, not Russia, not the Democratic Party. Are we supposed to believe Bush and Blair lied to the world about Saddam's arsenal in order to justify an invasion that would prove no such arsenal existed in the first place and that they themselves were a bunch of liars? Give me a break.

In any case, the fact that inspectors were pleading for more time meant nothing if Saddam would not cooperate. And he would not--even demanding Iraqi monitors must accompany all interrogations of scientists, a demand he never backed off from. So why stretch out such a farce for months more--as if our troops were toys which could be kept bobbing on open seas indefinitely? Bush correctly saw more time as the ploy by which to turn back the use of force. He wasn't buying, said, "After twelve years, time's up," and moved into action.

As for the Vatican statement on oil--I don't usually ascribe to the editorial views of NCR, but I have found their reporting to be accurate. Here is what they had to say during the turmoil preceding the war: "The Vatican also kept up its rhetorical drumbeat, with unusually strong comments suggesting that armed force without United Nations authorization would be illegal, and that the United States may be acting on the basis of its desire to control Iraq’s oil resources." These claims were repeated in the Jesuit journal Etudes. Even after we indirectly commissioned Michael Novak to go to Rome to make our just-war case to the Pope, the Vatican was hostile.

And yes, we entered into negotiations with Saddam--but Bush is not his father. He is deeply serious about his faith and a moral man who took the moral dimension of the Iraq crisis very seriously. In my heart of hearts I believe his primary reason for going to war was to free the Iraqi people, though he gave three distinct reasons over and over: to eliminate the threat of WMD, to destroy the Al Qaeda support in Iraq, and to free the Iraqi people.

Finally, why on earth should you think I'm "backpedalling" from the SSPX as if I believed it were an infallible font of all wisdom, even in matters secular? I consider its views on Iraq wrong and irrelevant. The Society serves one great purpose and it does this well--it has held onto Catholic tradition and the true faith, despite every pressure and even persecution. But these priests are hardly experts on world affairs. The Pope's stand, on the other hand, was something else--it directly interfered with the pressure we were exerting on Iraq against Saddam and gave a frisson of moral legitimacy to the hate-America marches that were burgeoning all over Europe. Had the Pope won the day, Saddam's henchmen would still be pushing people they didn't like feet-first into giant shredders. Thank God for Bush!

I didn't want to change the topic of discussion, just point out inaccuracies in your post, which you proceeded to multiply in your response to mine.

It is heartening, however, to see you acknowlege that the pope does excercise considerable moral authority, and that the SSPX is, in comparison, ignored, even by it's adherents.

What's more, how could the priests, that you consistently defend as being holy, devout, unimpeachable witnesses to the faith get just-war theory wrong? How could Fr. Scott, who describes the N.O. mass as inherently evil, and opposes everything the Vatican does, find himself in agreement with the pope on this issue? Are they anti-American or pro-European as you explain as the pope's reasons for opposing U.S. aims?