"Low morale. Incompetent leaders..."


You'd think the NYT was slamming the US Military in Iraq.

But it turns out, it's arch-terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi complaining about Al Qaeda.

I bet the food is terrible, too.


The giant turd himself, Michael Moore, must be very upset about this -- remember, Zarqawi and his merry band of murderers are the Minutemen, and they will WIN!!!

Plus, I hear al Qaeda had to cancel their dental plan because of budget cutbacks, and that's bound to hurt recruiting.

More seriously, I wonder how the Left is going handle betting on the losing side in Iraq. Remember: all of the Dems who ran for president (except Lieberman, peace be upon him) were saying Iraq was a "failure" in the fall of 2003. Then again, being a committed leftist means shutting your eyes to inconvenient realities like human nature, so they'll probably deal with the defeat of the "insurgents" the way they dealt with the communists' fall: by pretending they never made excuses for the bad guys in the first place.

from a friend, Conservatives distort papal legacy on Iraq war ...

JPII: "Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

Does that really justify the war? What about assasination or abduction instead?

For practical reasons, one cannot assassinate or abduct a regime.

I note that, like just about every article about the late Pope and Iraq, the author prefers to cite the Holy Father's "unequivocal opposition" without backing it up with actual quotations.


If you want a direct quote, follow the link (vatican.va) and do a search for that text. In that paragraph he speaks about Iraq.

Ask and you shall receive.

Sorry, Chuck -- that speech doesn't say what you want it to say. (Coincidently, it was delivered the day my comrades and I left on a ship bound for Kuwait.) If you read the whole speech, the impending Iraq War was one of many things the Holy Father addressed. It was not the point of the speech, nor do I think a fair reading of the text would lead you to think that the Pope's stance was "unequivocal opposition."

On the other hand, saying the speech was an endorsement of the war is not a fair reading, either. Most people think that the Pope would have preferred that the war would not have happened, and that's probably true. With fear and trembling, I respectfully disagree. I believe the war was just primarily because it restored a semblance of justice to a people who were oppressed, murdered, and abused. That is the proper object of warfare, and if the anyone else mistakes this for "settling differences between nations" then I point out that President Bush and his supporters had something far higher in mind: the restoration of justice to the Middle East, which is presently happening before our eyes.

Leave a comment

What? Who?

On life and living in communion with the Catholic Church.

Richard Chonak

John Schultz

You write, we post
unless you state otherwise.


About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by John Schultz published on May 3, 2005 5:04 PM.

Data! I love data! was the previous entry in this blog.

"...espousals are a kind of sacramental annexed to matrimony, as exorcism to baptism." is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.