Blair acted like a 'white vigilante' by invading Iraq, says bishop

The Guardian ^ | 30 December 2003 | Sarah Hall

[Hal1950]

Tony Blair came under attack from two of the Church of England's most senior figures yesterday for acting "like a white vigilante" and for lacking humility in forging ahead with the war on Iraq.

In the most outspoken outburst, the Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, accused religious conservatives surrounding the US president, George Bush, of espousing "a very strange distortion of Christianity" - particularly since, through Iraq's reconstruction, many would gain financially.

"For Bush and Blair to go into Iraq together was like a bunch of white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug dealing. This is not to deny there's a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it," he said.

In a separate rebuke, the Archbishop of York, David Hope, questioned the legitimacy of the war and said Mr Blair would have to answer to God - a "higher authority" - for his decision to forge ahead with the conflict.

He called on people to pray for Mr Blair and called on him to show more humility rather than exercising power in an authoritarian way. Referring to Iraq, he said: "One of the qualities of a good leader is that they have to be really attentive to the views of the people. It seemed at one stage that that was not happening."

The conflict, and the events leading up to it, had raised questions of leadership and trust.

Referring to Iraq, he said: "We still have not found any weapons of mass destruction anywhere. Are we likely to find any? Does that alter the view as to whether we really ought to have mounted the invasion or not?

"Undoubtedly, a very wicked leader has been removed, but there are wicked leaders in other parts of the world."

Dr Hope went on to call on Britons to "spend more time praying for Tony Blair", who should exercise a "calm, quiet authority".

The coalition leaders would have to give an account to a "a higher authority," he added, in an echo of the warning by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, at the Iraq war remembrance service, that Mr Blair would be "called to account."

Downing Street last night refused to be drawn on the church leaders' attacks, made in the Independent and the Times respectively. But the rebukes are likely to rankle with the prime minister, a devout Christian, who recently declared he was ready "to meet my maker" and answer for his decisions on Iraq.

While Alastair Campbell, the prime minister's former director of communications, forbade Mr Blair from speaking about his faith, and Mr Blair has sidestepped questions about whether he has prayed with Mr Bush at war summits, faith forms a strong part of the prime minister's psyche.

He confessed in an interview conducted during the Iraq war that he had wanted to end a televised statement before British troops went into Iraq with the phrase "God bless you", but was dissuaded by officials.

The former foreign secretary Robin Cook yesterday said it was time for Mr Blair to drop his claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "It really is time that the prime minister accepted that himself," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It is undignified to continue to insist he was right when everyone can see he was wrong."

[What Is Ain't]

"Undoubtedly, a very wicked leader has been removed, but there are wicked leaders in other parts of the world."

Quite right, old boy! I can think of two of the Church of England's most senior figures who should be removed.

[Welsh Rabbit]

How do loons with inverted morality like this actually become Archbishops? Tell me!

I don't have the answer to that. Another thing I don't understand is how people fail to see how spiritually bankrupt some of these so-called church leaders are. What I found particularly sickening in the archbishop's assertion that Blair would have to answer to a "higher authority" (very telling that he uses that term instead of God) is that he is claiming he knows how God will judge us and that we will be judged by our deeds rather than by our acceptance of Christ. Whether Tony Blair makes into heaven or not all has to do with his relationship with Christ, not the decisions he makes as PM. I also fear for the archbishop's soul more than I do for Tony's.

[10mm]

Who will rid me of that meddlesome priest?

Yeah. Where's Richard Brito when you need him?

[Tactical]

The former foreign secretary Robin Cook yesterday said it was time for Mr Blair to drop his claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. "It really is time that the prime minister accepted that himself," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "It is undignified to continue to insist he was right when everyone can see he was wrong."

This kind of mentality is so asinine!

I don't care if we find anything of WMD at all. We know for a fact Saddam had them, and used them in the IRAN/IRAQ war and against the Kurds up north. I don't need any more info that that to convict Saddam and his henchmen/women.

What is and will always be important is that fact the the coalition forces ousted the Bastard and freed an enslaved, endangered people.

No one can convince me, that something is wrong with the picture. Evil was removed and it had to be done by war, which by nature is violent. Saddam had his chance to surrender, move to a safe country and prior to that cooperate with the weaklings at the U.N. Of course he thumbed his nose at them, he knew they wouldn't follow through with the threats, firstly because those threats were weak and not clearly defined.

Thank the good Lord that "W" and Blair were in office when all of this came to a head. At least we have leaders with the guts to state their policies and stand by them.

Look at the DEM candidates, boy those guys can't figure out where they stand from day to day!

[driftless]

As an American, I feel a whole lot better knowing that Britain has as large a percentage of stupid leftists as we do.

[observer5]

"Undoubtedly, a very wicked leader has been removed, but there are wicked leaders in other parts of the world."

Same old idiotic argument. If the police cannot arrest ALL criminals, they have no right to arrest any!

Bozo

[Prodigal Son]

Blair ought to start wearing a Pith Helmet and riding a charger around the streets of London waving a sword on his way to work everyday. That would drive 'em nuts.

[rintense]

A 'white' vigilante??? The bishop is a RACIST!

[Lockbar]

Just my opinion: An example of another reason for my disgust of all organized religions. Liberal shills.

[Moby Grape]

Why is it that the religious left can not be roused to support action when humans are being placed into wood chippers for fun? What twisted brand of theology do these leftist hold to that they have compassion for a murderous thug, yet fear Christians, conservatives, and those who liberate a people? What scripture do they draw from to justify their hypocrisy?


The answer: They are POLITICAL first, religious second...these same leftist hypocrites supported NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, but when the American president is a conservative Christian republican, they suddenly find war abhorent. They are indeed a low breed.

[VRWC_minion]

So the Bishop believes that if their are bad guys selling drugs in the streets of his town, the police should not arrest them ? Or is somehow the fact that this bad guy and the people he abuses are not neighbors ?

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I did spell "screw" right however

So that fancy education has paid off.

[altura]

The only thing wrong with the crusades is they waited too long to start them.

[newheart]

I am not familiar with David Hope. And for the record, I disagree with him in this.

However, I do take exception to placing Tom Wright under the label of 'apostate bishop'. For the record, he does not, like so many in the ECUSA, believe that homosexuality is an acceptable and holy 'life-style choice.'

He states (by the way, in the same article where he is quoted in opposition to Bush and Blair) "If people's instinct leads them towards persons of the same sex then that is, like many other things in life, something with which a Christian has to wrestle rather than just saying, 'Well, if you feel that strongly, that's the way it should be'."

In his theological work he is fighting a mighty battle against the liberal, demythologizers of the past two centuries and he is doing so with some success. I am certain he would shy away from labels, but if he must be categorized, he would be a very conservative theologian and he definitely raises the blood-pressure of those on the religious left.

Personally I support Bush and Blair and the war in Iraq. But not without reservation insofar as I think that the way we handle ourselves in 'post-war' Iraq will tell more about the real character of our two nations. And I am confident that, despite Tom Wright's reservations, that character will continue to show forth.

But I am appalled at the kind of snide, unthinking and thoroughly uninformed commentary I have seen in this thread which is not only un-Christian, but, in my opinion, un-American. I was under the impression that our soliders are fighting and dying for the right of everyone to be able to freely express their opinions. I gather that in the brave new world so desired by many on this thread that dissenting opinions will no longer be tolerated.

I'll be right back after I slip on my asbestos overalls.

[Southack]

"But I am appalled at the kind of snide, unthinking and thoroughly uninformed commentary I have seen in this thread which is not only un-Christian, but, in my opinion, un-American. I was under the impression that our soliders are fighting and dying for the right of everyone to be able to freely express their opinions. I gather that in the brave new world so desired by many on this thread that dissenting opinions will no longer be tolerated."

Dear Child, no one physically shut up the stupid, morally bankrupt priest, even on this thread. He's perfectly free to continue to make his asinine, uneducated, knee-jerk Marxist comments, and he's free to do so BECAUSE we are tolerant and free ourselves.

But don't expect all of us to shut the F*ck up just because some left-leaning priest has uttered a few nonsensical words at us.

On the contrary, we are responding to his dementia with our *own* freedom of speech.

And we are responding in kind.

When a priest starts making absurd and outlandish comments such as "Blair is acting like a White Vigilante" then you can hardly expect us not to respond in kind, even though we are his moral and intellectual superiors who *could*, if we chose, behave on a much higher level than he is capable of competing on.

[BlueNgold]

Gay Bishops condemn the removal of Soddom...

[Southack]

"Why is it that the religious left can not be roused to support action when humans are being placed into wood chippers for fun? What twisted brand of theology do these leftist hold to that they have compassion for a murderous thug, yet fear Christians, conservatives, and those who liberate a people? What scripture do they draw from to justify their hypocrisy?

The answer: They are POLITICAL first, religious second...these same leftist hypocrites supported NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, but when the American president is a conservative Christian republican, they suddenly find war abhorrent. They are indeed a low breed."

70 posted on 12/30/2003 6:58:30 AM CST by Impeach the Boy

Well said. The Marxist priests are perfectly happy to see evil regimes murder, rape, and torture the innocent. In fact, such morally bankrupt priests encourage such regimes by opposing those of us who would dare to put a stop to their evil and madness through force of our own arms.

There is surely a special place in Hell for such betrayers of the cross as these apostate priests who would perpetuate such evil by opposing the use of our own force to stop it, too.

[ahadams2]

I respectfully disagree with your analysis of at least some of the comments here. If David Hope had simply spoken as himself - taken off his collar and clerical shirt and said 'hey this is just my opinion' then he would have every right in the world to say whatever stupid thing he wanted to say. HOWEVER, when he is speaking as an Anglican Bishop he does NOT have that right, and is, to the extent he is making politically oriented comments, misrepresenting the Anglican Communion by doing so...

[newheart]

No need to disagree. I also think that David Hope was out of line. But it does raise the question of whether those in positions of leadership in the church are free to make political statements. I would certainly prefer that he had taken off the collar first.

Would I feel the same way if I agreed with his position? To be consistent I should, but in that case it would be easier for me to simply say that he was speaking the truth to power.

Still, my bigger concern was categorizing Wright as apostate which he most definitely is not.

[newheart]

On the contrary, we are responding to his dementia with our *own* freedom of speech.

And we are responding in kind.

Now there's something to think about.