"We may be safer, but where's the tall guy from Afghanistan?"
Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 02:16PM 
President Bush spoke of thwarted terrorists attacks by al-Qaeda in 2002 and 2003 planned for both west and east coasts in America today.
Three targets cited were in the United States, including plans to use hijacked airplanes to attack the West Coast in mid-2002 and the East Coast in mid-2003. The White House said at least one planner of the West Coast attack was a key figure behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. The President said in his speech:
"Since September the 11th, the United States and our coalition partners have disrupted a number of serious al Qaeda terrorist plots — including plots to attack targets inside the United States. Let me give you an example. In the weeks after September the 11th, while Americans were still recovering from an unprecedented strike on our homeland, al Qaeda was already busy planning its next attack. We now know that in October 2001, Khalid Shaykh Muhammad — the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks — had already set in motion a plan to have terrorist operatives hijack an airplane using shoe bombs to breach the cockpit door, and fly the plane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We believe the intended target was Library Tower in Los Angeles, California….."
"As the West Coast plot shows, in the war on terror we face a relentless and determined enemy that operates in many nations — so protecting our citizens requires unprecedented cooperation from many nations as well. It took the combined efforts of several countries to break up this plot. By working together, we took dangerous terrorists off the streets; by working together we stopped a catastrophic attack on our homeland."
The day before the speech by the President, D-NY Senator Hillary Clinton made some hostile comments at the United Auto Workers Convention, saying,
"We’ve lost two elections and we lost them on the issue of security. Republicans are doing it to us again. Two weeks ago, Karl Rove … was telling the National Republican Committee ‘Here’s your game plan, folks, here’s how you’re gonna win — we’re gonna win by getting everybody scared again.’ On one hand we had Franklin Roosevelt saying, ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ This crowd [Republicans] keeps saying, ‘All we’ve got is fear and we are going to keep playing the fear card.’ I take backseat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism. You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."
Even if "you" could explain it to her, she still wouldn’t get it. Mrs. Clinton’s comments were indirectly aimed at US troops in Afghanistan. They are the ones fighting al-Qaeda and hunting Bin Laden.
Mrs. Clinton neglected to mention that Pres. Clinton was responsible for letting Bin Laden slip through his fingers several times during his presidency. Bill Clinton justified himself in a 2002 speech saying,
"At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America. So I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America."
In reality, Osama Bin Laden orchestrated the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in NYC that killed 6 Americans. He also ordered a truck bombing targeting Americans in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia at a U.S.-run military training center for the Saudi National Guard. Several Americans were killed. Then in March of 1996, Bin Laden was residing in the Sudan. The Sudanese contacted the United States and offered to hand over Osama, but Pres. Clinton declined (perhaps preoccupied with other things).
It would appear hypocritical to blame Pres. Bush (the troops) for not capturing Bin Laden while Bill Clinton didn’t capture him when he was presented on a silver platter.
The January 7, 2006 edition of Newsweek Magazine theorized that perhaps there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11/01 because the "terror threat" has been exaggerated. Wishful thinking. The United States has a strong and resolute President who decided passing the torch of terror to another generation isn’t acceptable. Los Angeles, California should be very grateful that John Kerry didn’t win the 2004 Presidential election.
Expose the Left Michelle Malkin Righting America Stop the ACLU Sister Toldjah HooahWife AubreyJ
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/380329
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (60)
AMY -
Great combo of two stories! I only heard bits of the second one today (and I agree with your analysis - she IS slamming the troops), but the first one got my blog-juices boiling.
Before the detractors hit YOUR site (as one has mine already), let me just say first that the President would have NEVER listed these 10 plots if they were not legitimate. YES, some were in the planning phase and YES some were nearing execution, but how does that matter?
In my view, this - and the fact that there have been NO ATTACKS ON U.S. SOIL SINCE 9-11 - is evidence that his policies and programs are WORKING to secure this country. After 20 years in the military, and the past three in defense contracting, I know a thing or two about that.
Cheers Ame!
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Great post, Amy.
I also think that Mrs Clinton does wrong to downplay the threat from groups such as Al-Q'aieda. Those people really do hate the USA and seek to destroy it. America must keep a robust strategy aimed at defeating Islamic terror groups, because they pose a real threat. I'm confident that the current administration has its eyes on the ball.
The (D) Mayor of LA is a little whining #$@$^ himself... “The president didn’t let me know before the speech,” knowing good and well he had been told beforehand by the White House... Not to mention the rest of his left of left press conference......
Great post Amy...
AubreyJ.........
This is really also a case of trust. I trust my President, George Bush to defend our country and our way of life from these terrorists and islamo-facists much more than I would trust Al Gore or John Kerry from doing or not doing the same. Not everyone in the US or every media "needs to know" all methods we are or will use to win this war. After it is over, then some of our defense methods may be unclassified.
Great post, Amy. I was wondering what you'd say about the thwarted terrorist attack on LA ('02), but, as usual, you gave me even more info than I was looking for! :-) Ms Clinton is wrong...we don't have fear...we have pride and security, precisely because of the actions of our current President. I think that I'd have more fear with a weakling President, like the one depicted in this season's 24 (TV show)!!
The Left has an inability to accept responsibility for their actions. The reason they lose elections *can't* be because of their wacky platform, no no, there must be a vast rightwing conspiracy at work. Or something. For a party who professes so much faith in the democractic process, Democrats seem to have zero faith in and no respect for the American public.
If she runs in 08, she has to pass through town and I'll be waiting for her.
I agree. I also think it's pretty clear that the policies of the Bush administration are working. There's really no other conclusion. If Dems attribute everything bad that happens in America to the President, why not the good? I know the answer if obvious, but if the buck truly does stop with him, it's only fair.
Tom, excellent comments! It's fascinating to hear an outsider's take on American resolves and American politics. It's frankly a breathe of fresh air.
Aubrey, I'm not even sure why the mayor of LA cares. Surely at the time there were intelligent briefings between city officials and the White House (or Homeland Security). I wonder why he makes such a big deal out of not being told, particularly when it's his office's fault for not relaying the message from the White House that they did indeed get?
Chief RZ and Princess, it would be a pretty different world if Al Gore or Kerry were president. I would be very interested to see how they would have handled 9/11. I suspect they would have drummed up the emotional aspects of 9/11 and once 9/11 was far enough behind the emotion meter, they'd totally ditch the idea of any sort of war on terror whatsoever. Bill Clinton did nothing when al-Qaeda hit the USS Cole.
Trent, great comments. I especially loved: " For a party who professes so much faith in the democratic process, Democrats seem to have zero faith in and no respect for the American public." DOH!
Not only has Hillary been bashing the troops by suggesting that we can't get bin Laden, but she's also bashing the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the Mossad, MI6 (British Foreign Intelligence), SDECE (French Intelligence), etc.
It seems that Hillary is an Equal Opportunity Basher... and pretty unsophisticated... and not too diplomatic either. Obviously she has not been smart enough to recognize the ramifications of her own statements.
In the words of Bugs Bunny... "What a moroon!"
Regards...
I do not seriously doubt the truth of the Library Tower plot, however the timing of releasing it to the public is surely political, coinciding with public doubts about extended eavesdropping powers etc.
If I'm being really cynical, having bin Laden on the loose is a useful political gambit. He's there, everyone's scared, Bush can extend the state of emergency indefinitely. I'll go get my new tin-foil hat fitted...
JEZ -
You're right - you ARE being overly cynical. Bush gets hammered for bin Laden's continued freedom. Can't you imagine the political boost he would get for bringing down Osama? Zawahiri? Zarqawi? (pretty much in that descending order).
The man is NOT running for reelection, and capturing or killing bin Laden now would be as beneficial (if not more so) than later. In fact, this would be a GREAT time.
And we didn't "switch" to Iraq - the troops that have been there fighting in Aghanistan would take some serious umbrage with that statement of yours.
Last year,one of my former troops who had just returned from Afghanistan (spec ops) told me that if anything, we had TOO MANY troops on the ground looking for Osama. Sometimes, a smaller force is more effective.
But most people don't understand the magnitude of searching for ONE MAN in that vast, harsh, mountainous and cave-ridden landscape - dotted with literally hundreds of villages loyal to bin Laden.
AMY -
Even when Bush does something that is UNDENIABLY good and commendable, there are those on the far left just waiting with SOMETHING to throw at him. CASE IN POINT: Directly on the heels of the last Iraqi Election, which was a MASSIVE success, the NYT releases the erroneously named "Domestic Wiretapping Scandal" story.
What happened to the Election news??? Exactly....
I give Bush credit for working on rooting out Al-Queada. I am ALL for going after them. Invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do. How dare the Taliban give refuge to Bin Laden!
But I still say that the war in Iraq (along with some civil liberty infringement) wasn't necessary and, I believe, have detracted from these efforts.
Just wanted you to know that I give him full credit for going after the people who attacked us (at least in all the legal ways).
From the comforts of your livingroom, your comments make perfect sense. The reality is, from the moment those planes crashed in NYC, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, our only choice was to launch a COMPREHENSIVE, GLOBAL war on terrorism. We already had thousands of troops in a Coaltion in Iraq. It was NOT a "diversion" from pursuing UBL. The fact is the only way to prosecute this war is to demonstrate US national will to root out and destroy terrorists AND THOSE GOVERNMENTS THAT HARBOR, ARM OR SUPPORT TERRORISTS. It is a liberal myth that we could prosecute our campaign in Afghanistan against the Taliban and ignore the greater middle east. Please THINK about what I am saying.
Iraq did not arm or support terrorists, except to pay Palestinian suicide bombers (which is Totally wrong, but not a threat to the US). You know who pays for terrorism, like what we saw on 9-11, in the middle east? Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iran, Syria, Pakistan...why didn’t we go after them? Iran has actively refused to participate in our war on terror by refusing to extradite AL-Queda members, and it's pretty clear that Pakistan is jerking us around. Those governments would have been legitimate targets, and we would have been able to go after them except that we are now tied up in a country that had nothing (or comparatively very little) to do with terrorism.
Okay, now you think about what I've said and tell me what you think. (No matter what you write back I promise that i will think about it)
There is growing evidence that Iraq DID arm and support terrorists. For further info you can read this recent article...
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/saddamalqaeda.html
Good reading...
"Everyone agrees that is a HUGE catalysts for Muslim extremism. Just think what we could have done fo that problem with all this money."
Again, false. Everyone does NOT agree, including the American people who have voted Pres. Bush into office twice at a great percentage and in greater numbers than Bill Clinton (I'm just bringing that up now because I hear the "Bill Clinton's mandate" speech coming).
The democracy in Iraq has influenced the Middle East in this way:
After the first successful elections in Iraq in Jan. 2005, Arab newspapers all over the Middle East began asking this question: 'Why there and not here?' , according to Middle East analyst Marc Ginsberg, who was an ambassador to Morocco during the Clinton administration.
-March 2005: 25,000 Lebanese protesters forced the end of the Syrian occupation of Lebanon. This is a direct result of the elections in Iraq, according to the Lebanese people.
-Shortly after that, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced that Egypt will hold its FIRST direct, multiparty presidential elections. And they did.
-Lybia voluntarily dismantled it's WMD programs in Dec. 2003. Moammar Gadhafi had developed an advanced WMD program but under the pressure of US and coalition success in Iraq, he demonstrated that countries can abandon WMD and nuclear programs voluntarily and peacefully.
- Afghanistan held it's 1st democratic FREE election in history on Oct. 9, 2004 and Hamid Karzai won in a landslide. Women are now able to leave their homes without fear of death of abuse, can be educated and Afghanistan now has its first female provincial governor.
- Syria handed over Saddam Hussein's 1/2 brother in Feb. 2005 to Iraq, who was a leader in the insurgency in Iraq. He is awaiting trial in Baghdad. Pres. Bush admonished in Brussels that "the Syrian regime must take stronger action to stop those who support violence and subversion in Iraq."
As for the money, are you saying we should put a low price tag on human freedom, or is it good enough that we ourselves are lucky enough to have it that we don’t care about the freedom of others? What about all the US money squandered on Medicaid abortions every year? Or on Medicaid treatments to preventable diseases like lung cancer and AIDS, problems people largely voluntarily bring upon themselves? Are you saying we’re wasting money doing that?
As for Patkistan, keep in mind that this movement in the Middle East has only been underway for 3 years. It takes decades for these things to resolve themselves, and I think the people in the Middle East are worth it.
This isn’t to ignore the obvious complexities of, say, Hamas being voted in as the new Palestinian government. Some “democracies” will end up imploding and caving into terrorist states, but these will likely not survive the long term existence required to be a true nation. Democracy has forced things to come to a head in the Middle East. But at least we’re giving other people the opportunity to determine their own fate; the vast majority can end up like Kuwait or other Arab success stories.
More later.... out the door here.
Meg, we were ALREADY THERE. We did not "go into Iraq" as though it were some afterthought or new mission. You seem to be isolating our national security efforts into compartments. We have had a comprehensive national security strategy for years that determined our military actions in the middle east. We had been conducting combat missions in Iraq since 1991. It was a festering sore that corrupted the entire UN and almost rendered the security council meaningless. We had dozens of troops and airmen killed in Iraq from 1991-2003 before we launched the regime change mission. So please, consider that we didn't 'go into Iraq' as some afterthought. If you understand that Saddam was a pan Arabist (the main plank of the Ba'ath Socialist Party) and that his political aspirations went far beyond the borders of Iraq, as well as his connections, there was just too much at risk in leaving him in power. As Amy has demonstrated, the winds of democracy have been unleashed by the implementation of self-government in Iraq and has completely changed the complexion of the middle east.
As for Palestine, that is a thorny problem of Biblical proportions (literally) that only God can resolve. The Jews have a right to be there, they are never going to leave again, and God Himself is the guaruntor of that deal. I don't know how you can lay this st the President's feet; how does one negotiate with a party that says Israel has no right to exist?
I do understand that Saddam had aspirations beyond Iraq, but they were to terrorize the Middle East, not us. There are countries over there that do way more to threaten us directly than Iraq did. Remember that Muslim extremists attacked us, and Saddam was anything but a fundamentalist Muslim. Remember what Osama Bin Laden said about Saddam? He said Saddam needed to be eliminated.
Why aren't we dealing with these other governments as staunchly as we did Iraq?
The Israelis were promised that land if the fulfilled God's convenient. So before you can say that the land is Biblically theirs, you need to show me that Israelis don't break any of The Commandments. Good Luck.
Amy, There is one theme that runs through all of the violence you mentioned (including the current violence in Iraq). Can you think of what it is?
The point wasn't semantic, it was strategic/operational. We were already conducting combat operations in Iraq.
OK, don't believe me, but I think the common sense answer would be to give the benefit of the doubt to a guy who spent a year there, has been shot at, mortared, deeply involved with establishing the new government, etc... I am still in touch with Iraqis I met there.
Perhaps, just perhaps, Meg, the people the tax payers hired to do the job of steering foreign policy, national security and strategic defense know more than us. Just maybe. And maybe they see Iran as the dominant threat in the region. Have you looked at a map and seen what countries flank Iran?
I am just a garden variety platoon sergeant, I do not make policies. I train and lead men in small elements to fight hard and win on my level. I have faith in my government - God knows I served 8 years under the Clinton adminstration and for Soldiers its way better under President Bush. I have faith in my leaders. I am not being asked to make foreign policy. But when I go to the ballot box as a citizen of this great nation, I vote my conscience. My conscience tells me that whether I can convince you or not that we were already at war with Iraq, that I know we did the right thing. The look in the eyes of the Iraqi people told me that.
As far as Israel, you are quite mistaken. All the Old Testament prophets foretold of the final regathering of Israel into the Promised Land for both judgment and deliverance - the sign of the final days before Christ returns to save His people Israel. They will never again be removed from the Land, and all who attempt to do so will be disciplined by the Almighty, the Holy One of Israel. (Zechariah 12:1-9)
"...if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation..."
(Exodus 19: 5-6)
Do you attend a church regularly? Ask your priest/preacher whomever about this.
"Perhaps, just perhaps, Meg, the people the tax payers hired to do the job of steering foreign policy, national security and strategic defense know more than us. Just maybe. And maybe they see Iran as the dominant threat in the region. Have you looked at a map and seen what countries flank Iran? "
I don't care for the argument that the government knows best. In democracy, the people know best. If the government has a good reason for attacking the country next door to our real target (i.e. attacking Iraq when the threat is Iran) then I want to hear why that is. We need to know what's really going on to make informed decisions about these things. So far we have been told that we attacked Iraq for WMD's and that we attacked to get rid of Saddam and create a democracy in the Middle East (a LOFTY goal). Some things should be classified, but the reasons for going to war are so serious that we need to hear all about them.
I would LOVE to be convinced that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do. But it will take a LOT to convince me that war was the answer. Maybe you and I just differ on when we think war is the right answer. I feel like it has to be the absolutely last option.
If we assume that the goal of this war was to get rid of Saddam, we did not need a war. We could have done the same thing as was done to Milosovich. If we assume the goal of this war was to find WMD's we could have spent more time with the weapons inspectors (who asked for more time and said that war was not necessary). If we are cracking down on human right’s abuses in the Middle East, we should have started with Saudi Arabia.
I first posted on this to give a complement to Bush. To show that you can dislike most of his policies but still give him credit for something done right. I'm curious to know, do you have any substantive criticisms for this White House?
That quote is not referring to the land of Israel. The prophets (Jeremiah, Isaiah) prophesied about their inheritance. I don't have the time to go into it at the moment, but will try later if I have time. Johnny is a genius and he knows every prophecy and verse off the top of his head. I have to look them up and just don't have the time right now.
As for Iraq, it doesn't really matter if you think going into Iraq was the right thing to do nor will I judge your sincerity about it. The fact is we are there. It was right. We have friends in Iraq who correspond with us via e-mail and phone. Iraqis thank us. You should, too.
I wrote this in my essay about Martin Luther, so keep that in mind when you read it. It addresses the fact that God doesn't discard and start anew with those who disobey or disappoint.
**************************
http://www.johnnyproctor.com/martinluther.html
"God chose Abram to be the father of nations and built a covenant between Himself and Abram. Instead of waiting for God to fulfill his promise to give Abram and Sarai a son, Abram attempted to bypass God's plan by having a child with his maid, Hagar. The consequence is Ishmael. In Genesis 16:12, God says of Ishmael, "He will be a wild donkey of a man. His hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand will be against him, and he will live to the east of all his brothers." Ishmael is known as the first Arab, which is why Muslims and Arabs all consider Abraham to the their father in faith along with Jews and Christians.
Sin, consequence.
Genesis 27 describes Isaac's (Abraham's son) sons, Jacob and Esau. The younger brother Jacob cheated and lied Esau out of his father's blessing and birthright, yet Isaac could not rescind the blessing. As we follow Jacob's life, you'll see he falls in love with Rachel and agrees to labor for her for 7 years. He is tricked into marrying the sister, Leah, and had to labor an additional 7 years to marry Rachel. He reaped and sowed.
Sin, consequence.
In 2 Samuel 11, the sin of King David against Uriah and his wife Bathsheba is committed. Adultery, murder....As a result, the Lord told David through Nathan, "Now, the sword shall never depart from your house because you have despised Me and taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife. Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household. I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. Indeed, you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and under the sun." (2 Sam. 12:10-12). Consequently, David's newborn son dies (2 Sam. 12:17-18), incest and wickedness enters David's house ( 2 Sam. 13: 1-20), David's son Absalom tries to murder David (2 Sam. 15), and eventually Absalom is murdered (2 Sam.18).
Again, sin, consequence.
What Martin Luther failed to see about God was that throughout all sinful acts, deeds and intents perpetuated by or through the Church and popes, God never discarded his chosen vessel, but rather worked for their repentance. God kept his covenant with Abraham, despite his sins. God's authority and blessing, passed on through Isaac to Jacob, although acquired through ill means, was still authority and blessing honored by God, despite his sins. David remained King of Israel and the father in the Messianic line, despite his sins. They all had to reap what they sowed, but God's promise never was forfeited from them."
**************************
Food for thought.
If you both are Catholic and pro-war, do you disagree with what The Vatican has said concerning this war? Remember, the just war theory was rejected.
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0511/articles/dulles.html
p.s. i'm confused, what should i be thanking you for?
"The Second Vatican Council, while providing a solid and traditional framework for discussing Jewish-Christian relations, did not attempt to settle all questions. In particular, it left open the question whether the Old Covenant remains in force today. Are there two covenants, one for Jews and one for Christians? If so, are the two related as phases of a single developing covenant, a single saving plan of God? May Jews who embrace Christianity continue to adhere to Jewish covenantal practices?"
So you see, the issue is far from settled. What is crystal clear is that the modern State of Israel is a miraculous occurance literally fulfilling Isaiah 66:8. The people of Israel suffered as half of their population was destroyed between 1939-1945. At their weakest point, they are repatriated from every nation under the sun and rise in a single generation to become a first world power. This fulfulls too many oracles from the prophets to list. Again, the purpose of the regathering is not a reward for keeping the Covenant; it is within the Divine purpose for both the judgment of Israel, the nations, and for the salvation of the remnant of the House of Israel.
Just War theory rejected? By whom? There are 100+ Roman Catholic Priests serving on active duty in the US Army. I am sure I would have heard had there been some ecclesial censor.
Per the President: In private, I am critical of a few decisions by the Bush administration. In public, I refrain from criticism as the questionable tactics of the 'loyal opposition' have gravely endangered troops in harm's way as well as disclosed our efforts to intercept terror communications.
"If you both are Catholic and pro-war, do you disagree with what The Vatican has said concerning this war? Remember, the just war theory was rejected."
War is always a last resort. I'm not sure that the Vatican had an official "just war" statement that contradicts the war in Iraq. Pope John Paul II was against the war AT THE START, but before his death he changed his tune and said it was a good thing that Iraqis were liberated. Pope Benedict has been a supporter of the US against terrorism (supporting the war on terror) and has made many appeals for terrorists to surrender. He says he prays for them to stop. He also said, when asked if Islam was a religion of peace, that he couldn't say it is in its entirety because of the violence carried out by many Muslims.
I'd have to disagree with assertion that the Vatican is against Operation Iraqi Freedom. Officially, the Church must almost always be against war, but there are just wars, and according to everything I've heard, this qualifies as one according to Pope Benedict.
I should have been more clear, The Vatican rejected the just war theory for the War in Iraq, but not the theory completely.
There are tons of articles out there talking about what Pope John Paul said about the war:
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004Jun4.html
This is one of the things that I feel makes the Catholic Church great, Consistent Philosophy. There are no distinctions between abortion, war, and the death penalty, they are all wrong. You know that the Holy Father cares about more than politics, he cares about life.
I have to say that I take offence at the idea that my opposition to the war has put anyone in harms way. I didn't want to put one single solider in harms way. I wanted them all home and safe with their families. I would never do anything to put someone’s life in jeopardy.
I wish I could go into more depth but cannot right now. Pope Benedict has been a vocal supporter of freedom and democracy and has spoken out concretely against the terrorists and their leaders (including Osama, al-Zarqawi, etc.). IF I have time later, I'll give you some info on this.
Keep in mind that Catholics are required to adhere to Catholic teaching. The "just war" idea is NOT doctrine.
PJPII had ideas about evolution that he could not support doctrinally, so he couldn't issue an encyclical favoring evotion. Pope Leo X (I think?) did issue an encyclical on evolution. An encyclical simply supports existing doctrine and reemphasizes it.
PJPII could NOT issue an encyclical on the war because he didn't have doctrinal support. Many of my priest friends who are active duty were perplexed by the Pope's position against the war on the onslaught because he suffered through communism and repressive regimes. He should have known better.
Meg, I did not say "your" opposition to the war (of which I know little); I was referring to Durbin comparing our MPs to Pol Pot; Time magazine printing that we had flushed a Koran down the toilet without any witnesses; John Kerry accusing American troops of terror against women; and the left's crusade to limit the President's authority to intercept terror communications between foreigners and the US, which completely tipped our hand to the enemy. Those are dispicable betrayals of our troops and they embolden the enemy. In fact, they make headlines on Al Jazeera. I am sure you know that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs GEN Peter Pace publicly denounced John Murtha's "pull out now" remarks as demoralizing to American servicemen and their families.
I didn't call it a doctrine; I called it a theory.
Okay, speaking out against Terrorists is different than being for the War in Iraq. Hello?!!? I speak out against terrorists! I think almost everyone does. They are horrible, and I pray for them to stop too.
For all you say about Islam not being peaceful, Christians have certainly shown their violent side recently.
God gave a commandment not to kill.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
Christians (not all) say bomb the heck out of them.
Pope Benedict supports Intellegent Design. Pope John Paul II supported evolution. Should I change my mind based on what the Pope's opinion is? In matters of doctrine, there's no question: he speaks infallibly on those issues.
You're also misinformed about the death penalty. The Catholic Church is not opposed to it, but in the Catechism (official teachings document) it states that the death penalty can be used in serious cases. It's left up to the individual to decide if serious means murder or not.
It's always funny how non-Catholics attempt to grab convenient issues suitable to them while they diss the Church in other areas. For example, do you condon the use of birth control? Abortion? If so, you are in direct violation of Church teaching. So your opinion on the Church's discourse about just war isn't something I need to consider, in as much as you pick and choose teachings to believe. I don't. Whatever as a Catholic I am required to accept, I do, adn do so willingly. With every thing else, I give the utmost preference to the Pope in his opinion but also hold to my own conscience, such as with the war in Iraq.
I'm not sure if you were talking to me or Johnny, but I did say that you said it was a "theory", not doctrine. Just war, that is. It changes nothing at this point.
"God gave a commandment not to kill.
Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
Christians (not all) say bomb the heck out of them."
It's sad to see you go the way of insulting. God gave a comamndment not to kill as a moral law.... kill meaning murder, take the innocent life of. He however sanctions plenty of war in the Old Testament. Read I & II Samuel if you don't bleieve me. God commanded Saul, the king before David, to kill even the women and children. Jesus said to turn the other cheek (convenient quote) but also said that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. This is because the Christian faith divides... it reveals evil and provokes good people to correct it.
The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is correctly rendered, "thought shalt not commit murder (private killing)." There are dozens of times in the OT when Israel was commanded to purge entire populations, defend itself in war, etc... The LORD himself is called a warrior in Isaiah 42:13, and David, a man of war, is called "a man after God's own heart". In vail will you attempt to demonstrate either from scripture or tradition that pacifism is a Christian position.
Okay, I don't have time to go into every point you made, but I will tell you that you are wrong about the death penalty. The Church says that the death penalty can only be used if not killing the person would lead to the deaths of other (e.g. the person is a serial killer and we don't have jails). Ask your friend Johnny about this or ask a priest.
I'm not trying to insult anyone. Saying that (some) Christians want to bomb people is the (sad) truth; I never intended it as an insult. I'm sorry if you felt insulted by it.
P.S. War takes innocent life. That's what's wrong with it.
Johnny,
It's true that the Bible is full of seeming contradictions, like the ones you pointed out. That's why the church tries to unify all of them into something cohesive, doctrine. After spending years thinking and writing on the subject the best theological minds of the church came to the conclusion that war is almost always wrong. And applied specifically to this war, the church again came out against it.
As far as the death penalty goes, this is what the the catechism says:
"http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html"
Capital Punishment
2266- **The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime.** The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67
2267- **The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.**
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
------------------------------------------
The door is open for the State to choose whether or not to exact the death penalty according to Church teaching. St. Paul in Romans also talked about civil affairs saying that the "executioner's sword is a minister of God", another reference to the legitimacy and justification for capital punishment. This is Christian teaching.
When you said,
"P.S. War takes innocent life. That's what's wrong with it."
I fully understand the abhorance to civilian deaths. It is THE worst part of war, a result of the original sin of whatever act or provocation began the conflict to begin with.
However, under Saddam, 100 Iraqis were being killed/murdered per day. During the worst terror attacks of the war (2004-2005) it was an average of 25 a day. Now it's significantly lower. If nothing else, the US has greatly slowed the mortality rate in Iraq. We have liberated over 27 million people. Iraqis themsevlves say they are better off. I've done reports on numerous polls on my blog about this.
Is it better to have 4-5 times the death rate under Saddam as long as we don't see it, or better to free people to live their own lives without fear of being fed through a meat grinder (Saddam is a psycho) and have 1/5 of the death rate due to terrorist attacks?
As an Iraqi woman told Pres. Bush last month, Saddam and the Baathist party was the biggest WMD.
Iraq is FAR better off than it has been in generations, probably ever in its history. Would you rather have Iraq as it was? Simple human compassion would promote freedom for Iraqis.
The Palestinians did nothing with the land as long as they had it. My understanding is that when the Jews regained their rightful state, it began to flourish economically, argriculturally, etc., etc. The Palestinians seem to destroy everything they put their hands to.
I'm a big supporter of Israel. Where, by the way, would you suggest they go? Into the sea as the Iranian President suggested?
TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS
ON THE DEATH PENALTY
The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.
The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are "cruel and unnecessary". This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that "it is time to abolish the death penalty".
It is surely more necessary than ever that the inalienable dignity of human life be universally respected and recognised for its immeasurable value. The Holy See has engaged itself in the pursuit of the abolition of capital punishment and an integral part of the defence of human life at every stage of its development and does so in defiance of any assertion of a culture of death.
Where the death penalty is a sign of desperation, civil society is invited to assert its belief in a justice that salvages hope from the ruin of the evils which stalk our world. The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.
Strasbourg, 21 June 2001. "
So, where'd you get that link? I'm a Catholic, you cannot tell me that the Catechism is not authoritative. It is THE go to "rule book" if you will of the Church. Like the Bible, it is unchangeable and unchallengeable.
And yes, PJPII was against the death penalty, but he couldn't issue an encyclical on the matter because his view (opinion) contradicted the Catechism. The Catechism does support the death penalty as being rare and for harsh cases, but it does allow for the States to determine what that might be.
You're just wrong on this one, Mavic. I think perhaps you confuse established unchangeable doctrine with Papal wisdom.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#II
It also talks about intentional homicide and self defense.
If you are prepared to support the Catholic Chruch via YOUR quote, you must also be prepared (since you're *trusting the Church*) on these other matters:
You must be against abortion, euthenasia, birth control, human cloning, artificial insemination..... are you? Then don't pick and choose what you THINK you know to be true about the Catholic Church.
Sorry for the tone. I'm in a rush and am to the point this morning, no time for pleasantries.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#II
III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE
Peace
2302 By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill,"93 our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice."94 If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment."95
2303 Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."96
2304 Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquillity of order."97 Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity.98
2305 Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace."99 By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility,"100 he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace."101 He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers."102
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.103
Avoiding war
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.104
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."105
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
2310 Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.106
2311 Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way.107
2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties."108
2313 Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
2314 "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."109 A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;110 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
2317 Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."111