Via Media

Via Media


What Might Have Been

posted by awelborn

Professor Bainbridge on the Moment:

It’s time for us conservatives to face facts. George W. Bush has pissed away the conservative moment by pursuing a war of choice via policies that border on the criminally incompetent. We control the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and (more-or-less) the judiciary for one of the few times in my nearly 5 decades, but what have we really accomplished? Is government smaller? Have we hacked away at the nanny state? Are the unborn any more protected? Have we really set the stage for a durable conservative majority?

Meanwhile, Bush continues to insult our intelligence with tripe like this:

"Our troops know that they’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy," Bush said in his weekly radio address. {Ed: Full text here}

"They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war," he said.

I guess that’s all he has left. After all, if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea? Not to mention Pakistan, which remains the odds-on favorite to supply the Islamofascists with a working nuke. If Saddam’s cruelty to his own people was the casus belli, why aren’t we taking out Kim Jong Il or any number of other nasty dictators? Indeed, what happened to the W of 2000, who correctly proclaimed nation building a failed cause and an inappropriate use of American military might? And why are we apparently going to allow the Islamists to write a more significant role for Islamic law into the new Iraqi constitution? If throwing a scare into the Saudis was the policy, so as to get them to rethink their deals with the jihadists, which has always struck me as the best rationale for the war, have things really improved on that front?

There’s more, including a comments section that quickly, as such discussions do, devolves into a singulalry unenlightened exchange, no fault of the Professor’s. It’s all "You TRAITOR to THE CAUSE" and "Hey, thanks! Now I have a reason to love GWB!" at the end.

Other signs of discord: Andy McCarthy’s words at the Corner this past weekend, related to worries about the Iraqi Consititution, which might or might not enshrine Islamic law as a standard of some sort, but Iraq the Model has, he says, the latest:

Regarding Islam and the constitution: it was agreed upon that no laws that are against the widely agreed upon values of Islam can be issued and no laws that are against the values of democracy and human rights can be issued.

Which is, of course, very specific and focused. Who knows?

What interests me (well, one of the things that interests me) is the collapse of political debate that’s so often reflected in these discussions. On conservative blogs and boards, criticism of the President is tantamount to High Treason (unless it’s Michelle Malkin going after him for his stance on immigration reform. She gets a pass for some reason). And then discussion between the "sides?" Forget it. It’s all about turf, even though I have no idea what the turf actually is. I’ve never understood why some, in discussing politics, erect altars and shrines to their political leaders, instead of actually debating issues. It’s hard to talk about Iraq, because it’s so easy to fall back on the "Oh, you think we should have just left Saddam in?" and "Oh, so you think we should cut and run?" Well, no, and no. But the comments thread at Bainbridge’s blog post is just a little depressing for the heat, rather than light it sheds.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(180)
post a comment
Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 1:55 pm


Uh-oh. You veer dangerously close to blaspheming the god. Beware the coming deluge.



report abuse
 

Nance

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:06 pm


Yeah, Amy. Why do you hate America? I think that’s the question we need to ask here. Why does Amy Welborn hate America?



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:06 pm


This is remarkably similar to the pattern that led up to the Great Liberal Crack-up in the 1960s. I am no Hegelian, so I do not thereby assume there is necessarily a Great Conservative Crack-up in the immediate offing (though there could be). I only suggest that people learn from the mistakes of those who went before them….



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:07 pm


No, that’s not an “all about turf” reaction of pure “heat”? No, siree. Not at all.



report abuse
 

Peggy

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:07 pm


While I’m not veering anywhere near leftward, I am incredibly dismayed by the turn of events in Iraq re: the constitution and the possible implementation of Sharia law. I am shocked at Rice’s/Bush’s seeming accomodation of such an outcome as well as the Bush administration’s support of the Gaza evictions. Bainbridge has some points worth discussing from the political right–from social issues, to government spending, foreign policy and national defense. Gee, that’s almost everything. Interesting.
The only issue that the partisan “conservatives” are willing to challenge Bush (& GOP Congress) on is immigration and sometimes on spending. Sean Hannity is an excellent example of this partisanship over principle. He’s twisting this way and that to justify Jeanine Pirro–Hillary w/an R.
In the meantime, ABC Radio had a DC talk host fired under pressure from CAIR b/c the host stated a thought-ot belief of his that Islam is a terrorist organization. Can you say dhimmitude?



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:08 pm


My post was in response to the first reponse, not the intervening two.



report abuse
 

Rich Leonardi

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:08 pm


I guess that’s all he has left. After all, if Iraq’s alleged WMD programs were the casus belli, why aren’t we at war with Iran and North Korea?
Once more, with feeling …
The relative maturity of Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs is precisely why we aren’t at war with them. Once a state has either gone or is about to go nuclear, our hands are tied militarily. Bush’s argument is that it’s better to nip those programs in the bud.
That said, I can’t help but feel like Bainbridge is right on some level. Who doesn’t watch the latest news from Iraq scroll across the bottom of a TV screen and pray for some sort of miracle to rescue us from that botched occupation.



report abuse
 

Zhou De-Ming

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:14 pm


Does this mean that the campaigning for the 2008 presidential election is now starting?
“There are no cats in America,
and the streets are paved with cheese!”
-Fievel Mouskewitz



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:15 pm


Peggy, I can assume you have no problems with the stations have talk show hosts who state that CHristianity is a terrorist organization (and such people exist and prate on about that; I encountered such this weekend at a wedding).



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:19 pm


Imagine the comments if we were losing in Iraq, instead of being in complete control of the country and fighting a group of mad bombers, many of them non-Iraqis, who have zero popular support among the vast majority of Iraqis. The only way we can possibly lose this fight is if American resolve collapses. Bainbridge and McCarthy aren’t traitors, they are simply wrong and short-sighted.



report abuse
 

Tom Herron

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:20 pm


But democracy is a “fire in the minds of men” as the president told us in his second inaugural address. The good old U.S.A. has to lead all the nations of the world in this permanent democratic revolution, which is what Dubya told us last January when he fired David Frum as his speech writer and hired Leon Trotsky.
So this “fire in the minds of the men in the Middle East” means an Islamic Republic of Iraq where women don’t drive, don’t go out without the veil and don’t vote and thieves get their hands chopped off.
That’s why Casey had to die, Mrs. Sheehan.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:26 pm


Caesar says :-
“Our troops know that they’re fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy. They know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets, and they know that the safety and security of every American is at stake in this war”
But the Holy Father says :-
How many pages of history record battles and even wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the name of God, as if fighting and killing the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity. [Address to Muslim Representatives at Cologne Zenit ZE05082002].
The choice between Caesar and Christ couldn’t be clearer.
God Bless



report abuse
 

ProfessorBainbridge.com

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:27 pm


A Comment on Comments

In general, I have been quite happy with my decision to open the blog for comments. Most posts that attract comments have yielded some interesting and, for the most part, civil extensions of the discussion. Some posts, however, have not.



report abuse
 

Richard

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:29 pm


Amy:
Bush gets a pass on foreign policy in general from the right.
When it comes to domestic policy and immigration, he has had his share of friendly fire. And rightly so, I think.
Iraq got the full treatment for a confluence of factors that made it the best candidate to make an example out of. Unfortunately, that doesn’t sell so well on a bumper sticker or a soundbite. Especially since the kind of WMD programs everyone was expecting turned out to be much less than expected.
It goes without saying that an Islamist government would negate our efforts in Iraq, which are now largely about securing a legacy of pluralism (which does not necessarily equate to American-style democracy) for the Islamic world.
As for Iran and North Korea, I would not rule out (especially with Iran) the possibility of air strikes. Options short of full invasion do exist.



report abuse
 

Peggy

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:31 pm


Liam,
Here’s the column in question by said host. There is no concerted effort in Christianity to rub-out (to use a mafia term) non-believers. Nor do our clergy recommend murder of sinners. [Unless you believe NARAL et als.] We gave up such thing a few centuries ago.
LINK:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
michael/graham072805.php3



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:32 pm


I’m not really sure what the despair is about. A regime permanently hostile to the US and supportive of terrorism is gone. The sanctions that were holding it in check were being eroded by the UN, France and other countries, and it was just a matter of time before the checks on the regime agreed upon at the end of the first gulf war disappeared. Most of the agreements made as a condition of the cessation of hostilities were being violated by Saddam, so this was just an extension of the first war as far. Yes, it’s true they’ll have Sharia. But frankly that’s the best sort of democracy that a country with a muslim majority is capable of.
I’m far more disappointed in the Bush regime because of its hesitation to fight a more vigorous political war on abortion and the other life and moral issues.



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:34 pm


Because people in this country have started to believe what they want to believe, rather than what is true. No one more so than the President–”we make our own reality”.
If you don’t want it to be true, it is false. And therefore the person claiming it is true is a liar, and he must have bad motivations.



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:38 pm


Mark Shea, have you seen this magnet? I thought it was a joke at first.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:39 pm


Peggy
Actually, Christian Reconstructionists in this country *do* recommend the execution of unrepentant sinners under Levitical standards. They are a fringe, and other than a few fanatics have not mobilized for violence here. But in the past, similar things have happened.
Now, I find the claim that *Christianity* is a terrorist organization farcical. While there is greater ferment in the Islamic umma in this period of history, as a historian I also find the same statement made about Islam qua Islam also farcical.
Understanding that does not mean one embraces dhimmitude.



report abuse
 

Rich Leonardi

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:40 pm


The choice between Caesar and Christ couldn’t be clearer.
In case anyone is tracking these things, 2:26:38 PM CST marks the official time when this thread jumped the shark.



report abuse
 

marianne

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:41 pm


Did anyone see his speech today? It was the same old same old: fightin’ hard, workin’ for freedom, stayin’ the course.
I recognized much of the empty claptrap and meaningless assertions from the 2004 campaign, not even substantially re-worked. And he said we had to be in Iraq because of 9/11 and the threat to our “freedom”: someone should tell him *no one* believes that anymore; Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, everyone knows it but he’s still sayin’ it. Hearing him was frightenin’, really.



report abuse
 

Dan Crawford

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:43 pm


Amy writes: the comments thread at Bainbridge’s blog post is just a little depressing for the heat, rather than light it sheds.
Is it ever otherwise on any political or religious blog spot?



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:44 pm


“On conservative blogs and boards, criticism of the President is tantamount to High Treason.”
A little bit of an unfair overstatement. I, for one, have been very critical of the President where I think he deserves it. I think if you read the Corner at NRO, you will see plenty of criticism of the President and his policies. As you will on FreeRepublic and other conservative sites.
“Uh-oh. You veer dangerously close to blaspheming the god. Beware the coming deluge.”
Typical. Don’t worry, Mark, I’m not going to interrupt you while you continue to work on your “moderate” street creds.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 22, 2005 at 2:47 pm


Oh. I almost forgot: your “moderate” street creds(TM).



report abuse
 

lpm

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:02 pm


marianne,
Bush is like a windup doll on this subject.
“We’re not yet safe. Terrorists in foreign lands still hope to attack our country. We must confront threats before they fully materialize…
The only way to defend to our citizens where we live is to go after the terrorists where they live”
That’s from his speech today at the VFW. And every speech since 2003. The only little problem with this is that there is no proof that Iraq ever had the means or the intention to “attack our country”.



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:10 pm


Typical.
Well, harumph. But whaddya expect from a Faithful Conservative Catholic[tm] who clearly worships Bush as there’s no other reason for anybody to think unlike me.



report abuse
 

Sydney Carton

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:15 pm


“Beware the coming deluge.”
She has little to fear, since she doesn’t bandy in Trademarked terms.



report abuse
 

Matthew Mehan

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:21 pm


Amy et al.,
Bainbridge is correct to be upset with the Iraq war’s illegitimate birth, but once the baby has been conceived, you have to see to its proper care. Donald McClarey (above) also is right that our resolve to see this through must not waver. But a more truthful dialogue about the 9-11 attacks and Islam would have changed the entire world strategy of the (poorly named) War on Terror and likely not led us to Iraq under the current pretenses which now cause both the frightening risks to a lasting democracy their and the sensible dismay of Americans at home. De-P.C.-ifying terror, and having a frank discussion about the difficulties of Islam, would have made for more rational measures taken at home and abroad in the first place, and enabled us to wage war in a way that had far more hope of developing lasting solutions to this world-wide problem, even if one of those solutions had been (in part) to invade Iraq.



report abuse
 

Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:25 pm


Did 2000 American Soldiers Die For Islam?

Amy Welborn is also covering this ground, in reference to a post by Professor Bainbridge at his blog and the responses thereto. Things are bound to get hot over at Amy’s before it’s all said and done.



report abuse
 

Maclin Horton

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:27 pm


I hope Donald McClarey is right. I must say, though, that as someone who supported the war rather queasily, I am feeling distinctly unwell.



report abuse
 

Nguoi Dang Chay

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:32 pm


>>unless it’s Michelle Malkin going after him for his stance on immigration reform. She gets a pass for some reason
Michelle Malkin is SOOOOOOOOOOO hot!!
As for Iraq, I don’t see what the problem is. As the Iraqi military and police take over, we reduce our military presence. It seems that people are demanding the streets of Baghdad be safer than those of D.C. (they may well be already!), energy generation be more reliable than that of California, and the threat of terrorism — in a country in the midst of the middle east — be eliminated, when that threat exists in New York, London, and Madrid.



report abuse
 

John Farrell

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:34 pm


I’m with reluctant penitant. Yeah, Bush has done a lot of things wrong, but the change in the attitudes of people over there, not just in Iraq, but what it’s led to in Lebanon, Egypt and even slowly in Syria and Saudi Arabia can’t help but have a better effect on the mid East.
Michael Barone has a nice piece on that today:
http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-8_22_05_MB.html
(Although the link was busy last time I tried it.)



report abuse
 

Dave Hartline

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:35 pm


Aside from the poor planning from Sec Rumsfeld, which is odd to say of him since he seemingly is such a stickler for detail, I don’t get the lack of resolve with those that initially thought the war was right. It has always been my belief that if you believe in a cause you stick with until the bitter end, even if it means your “end.” I continue to support the people in the Middle East (whatever their faith) having the same rights and privlidges that I have, no matter the cost. That is the inherit message within the Gospel, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
It gets into a psychological or historical question. Those of the Near East have always challenged the resolve of the West, whether they be Muslim or Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox have always insinuated that the West was overtaken by the Barbarians because they were weak. The “Peace” element of the Church really doesn’t exist in the Orthodox or even Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Why is this?
There’s a perverse admiration Al Qaeda has for George Bush, Tony Blair and Silvio Burlusconi. When one reads transcripts of their tapes they mock those that don’t have the courage to fight their advance like previously mentioned leaders do. The American Left hasn’t quite got to the following scenario yet and I pray it doesn’t but does anyone remember the movie “Independence Day?” The scene I am talking about concerns the aliens when they are just about ready to attack Earth. Everyone is taking offensive and defensive position when a group of “peaceniks” decide maybe the aliens need to be “understood and welcomed.” As the assembled peaceniks wave from the top of one on LA’s skyscrapers they are incinerated by the aliens. I know it’s just a movie but the parallels are strinking. I am a conservative pro-life, pro national defense Democrat. The party use to have a great deal of folks that had similar thoughts to me like, Sen Joe Lieberman and the late Pennsylvania Governor Casey. If the GOP is getting soft too, heaven help us all.
Cindy Sheehan is talking about the fact that we should have never even invaded Afghanistan. Moveon.org has taken their movement so far left that we somehow even deserved 9-11. A person of any faith can walk through St Peter’s in Rome, any holy site in Jerusalem, Bethlehem or just about any other place yet most people reading this couldn’t get within many miles of Mecca. Why is that?
Osama Bin Laden and his henchmen like Dr Ayman Al Zawahiri and the beheader himself, Abu Musab Al Zarqawi have made it very clear that they want the world caliphate (world Islamic rule.) The strategy in Iraq may not have been the best but at least it is trying to make some sort of stand against extremism. If you don’t believe me that Osama and his boys are trying to finish what was started centuries ago, just ponder this; Egypt, Syria, Turkey and even Bosnia and Albania use to be Christian lands. It took just one century before they were not. This was well before the Crusades, which really was an answer, to this 7th centry invasion. Osama talks about continuing the 7th century offensive. Maybe some of you don’t believe him. I do. The words of Sister Mary Gregory still ring in my ears, “The greatest trick of the Devil is to make you think he doesn’t exist.” Somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan Osama is smiling thinking maybe those in the 21st century west are as weak as they were in the 7th century. I pray he’s wrong but some of you make me think he may be right.



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:36 pm


What interests me (well, one of the things that interests me) is the collapse of political debate that’s so often reflected in these discussions. . . . I’ve never understood why some, in discussing politics, erect altars and shrines to their political leaders, instead of actually debating issues.
So when is the serious political debate going to start here, instead of all this incessant bitch, moan, bitch, moan, bitch, moan, bitch, moan, ad nauseum?
I’m beginning to wonder if Osama bin Laden was right — maybe the West, and America in particular, doesn’t have the will to fight and defend itself, that eventually we will delude ourselves into thinking that we can simply give up and it will all be over, blindly ignoring the fact that they have been at war with us, not for four years, not for 14 years, but for 1,400 years, since the time of “the Prophet,” and there are elements among the enemy that will always be at war with us.
Blame the good people who are trying to fight the enemy all you want, instead of actually blaming the enemy and other evil doers, but the fight will go on and be with us regardless.



report abuse
 

Dawn

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:48 pm


2 things:
David H.: “I continue to support the people in the Middle East (whatever their faith) having the same rights and privlidges that I have, no matter the cost. That is the inherit message within the Gospel, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”
David, would you agree that one of the rights & privileges is not to be invaded by a country they weren’t threatening?
Coilette: “blaming the enemy and other evil doers”
Just who is our “enemy”, exactly?



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:52 pm


In contrast to Bush’s ideology of a never ending war on terror, the Holy Father in his address to the Marienfeld Vigil with Youth points out that :-
It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our Creator, the guarantor of our freedom, the guarantor of what is really good and true. True revolution consists in simply turning to God who is the measure of what is right and who at the same time is everlasting love. And what could ever save us apart from love?
That’s God the guarantor of our freedom, not our armies. That’s love the only thing that can save us, not war.
But the Holy Father warns us :-
There are many who speak of God; some even preach hatred and perpetrate violence in God’s name. So it is important to discover the true face of God. The Magi from the East found it, when they knelt down before the child of Bethlehem. “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”, said Jesus to Philip (Jn 14:9). In Jesus Christ, who allowed his heart to be pierced for us, the true face of God is seen. We will follow him together with the great multitude of those who went before us. Then we will be travelling along the right path.
God Bless



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:53 pm


I’ve gone back and read the comments at Bainbridge’s blog. I question the legitimacy of the comment that Amy cites and which starts out “Prof. Bainbridge, You are a traitor to the cause of our country. You have joined the cowards like Sheehan who cries because her spawn got shot up like a dog in Iraq. Maybe he deserved it.”
I just don’t believe that those supporting the Iraq War feel that way about our men and women in uniform. The “spawn” of Mrs. Sheehan who got “shot up like a dog” may have “deserved it”?
The post continues: “I don’t care if soldiers are conservative or liberal. They are our servants and are paid to do our bidding and sometimes to die for it. So stop blaming Bush for the cowardice of some military families. Using troops as flypaper is the right way to go. 138,000 assholes who volunteer to die is better than any number of civilians who may die in a terrorist attack.”
Come on. That reads like a parody of what every leftist would like to believe that conservatives think. I don’t know anyone with such a cavalier attitude toward our fighting men and women.



report abuse
 

Peggy

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:55 pm


OK, thoughtful discussion to follow:
I think many are worried about mounting casualties of late. The solution from the left is to cut and run. The folks on the right, I would guess, would like more decisive action, not PC-ified, in the conduct of war. Even then there are legitimate concerns about whether the war is conducted justly. We’re there and we must do our best to ensure that democratic princples are reflected in the constitution. Indeed, we need not make a US of Middle East, but the possible implementation of Sharia law which would extend few if any civil rights to women.
There is frustration on the domestic front as well on the items I listed in my first post. Bush & the GOP appear to be deaf on matters of illegal immigration and excessive spending, for example. These are 2 topics that the Dems can pick up for their own, as we’ve already seen w/Richardson and Napolitano on immigration. Ahnuld & TX gov Perry are pressed to take similar action. As far as social matters are concerned, even my husband wonders if the gay-marriage issue was just an election ploy. No word about it since. Maybe it’s no longer an issue. Further, Bush actually compromised on the issue just days before the election, amazingly. Interestingly, John Roberts could very well be an instance in which Bush has come through, the more I read. Failure on SCOTUS nomination would be considered a great betrayal, I’d say.
What might have been is a fair question.
***
[Liam: The violence-advocating Christians are clearly a fringe (unless you watch L&O all the time!) and are not supported by many clergy; in fact, are condemned by co-religionists. This is far from the case with Islamic imans. Well, I won't hijack anymore. It is of concern to me, these victories by Islamicists.]



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 22, 2005 at 3:55 pm


This entire discussion just goes to prove a crucial point in warfare — the most powerful and overwhelming weapon ever conceived is not the nuclear bomb, it is the will.
If our will is superior to that of the enemy, we will prevail; if the will of the enemy is superior to ours, we will lose, indeed, if the will of the enemy is superior, we will probably end up surrendering hard fought victories and bring defeat upon ourselves.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:06 pm


Katherine:
I’ve seen that magnet before. Americans have conflated religion and politics since before there was an America. Not for nothing did Chesterton call us a “nation with the soul of a Church.”



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:19 pm


No, that’s not an “all about turf” reaction of pure “heat”? No, siree. Not at all.
Victor:
Actually, it was a mildly amused anticipation of the reaction such blog entries typically touch off, especially when the blogger has very conservative readers yet does not tend to discuss BushIraqtheWarNationalReviewhotbuttonstuff much.
If I’m “all about turf” I’m jiggered if I know what turf it is I’m all about with that little bit of a chuckle. Mostly I was just offering a bit of humorous sympathy for a fellow blogger as one who has, from time to time “stepped in it” myself (sometimes deliberately and sometimes accidently) and then watched a thread blow up as a result.
Personally, I though Nance’s post (right after mine) was far funnier (and far more satirically inflammatory) than mine. But that’s just me.



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:24 pm


“It seems that people are demanding the streets of Baghdad be safer than those of D.C. (they may well be already)”
They are not. They are not even close.
In 2004, Washington D.C.’s homicide rate was 35 per 100,000 residents. This is one of the highest rates in the country, many many times higher than New York or Boston, though it is no longer the very highest. It translates to an average of 2.92 killings per 100,000 residents per month.
Time magazine recently reported that:

A murder spree has erupted in Washash, as in countless neighborhoods across Baghdad. Death squads, which tend to move in Opel sedans, are entering what once were tight-knit communities and killing ordinary citizens, apparently to stir up sectarian hatred. The goal: to incite a civil war that each side hopes will give its sect dominance over the other. In Baghdad, a city of more than 5 million, there were at least 880 violent deaths last month, according to Faiq Amin Bakr, director of the Baghdad central morgue. (In New York City, with a population of more than 8 million, the total number of homicides for all of 2004 was 571.) And the figure for Baghdad excludes those killed by car bombings and suicide attacks, which, if included, would add nearly 100 to the total. Most of the victims were felled by gunshots. Some were beheaded. Few of the murderers have been captured. “Nobody knows who is doing this killing,” says Bakr. “It seems they’re trying to destroy our society.”

Let’s say that the “nearly 100″ killed in bombings = 90. This would put the total number of homicides at 970 for the month of July. If the population of Baghdad is 5,000,000, that translates to a rate of 19.4 killings per 100,000 residents per month.



report abuse
 

Dawn

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:32 pm


Coilette:
I’m serious when I ask you again: just who is the “enemy”, exactly?



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:42 pm


By comparison, here are some average monthly murder rates per 100,000 residents for a few other big cities in the U.S. and abroad in 2004:
London .20
Montreal .14
Toronto .15
New York .58
Los Angeles 1.13
Chicago 1.29
Philadelphia 1.84
Detroit 3.46
sources: 1, 2, 3
Apart from Detroit I believe only Baltimore and New Orleans are worse than D.C.



report abuse
 

Helen

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:50 pm


Peggy, maybe you were kidding when you wrote that the “left” just wants to “cut and run”. I think what people on all sides are growing angry about is that it is apparent we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq in the first place and *everything* war promoters told us has turned out to be false (number of soldiers needed, costs, oil would pay for it, they wanted us there, they had mobile labs, they were conspiring with Osama etc.)
Instead of owning up to that, war supporters just keep repeating we can’t leave. Many of us feel snookered into, and trapped in, a disaster that could bankrupt our country (4 billion+ a month)and doesn’t increase our safety. Of course we want to bring it to an end. Maybe if the people who got us into this would resign, we might feel safer with new leadership to guide us out.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:50 pm


So Iraqis are learning the necessary skills to privatize violence instead of leaving it in the hands of a cumbersome state! Who said we have nothing to teach the Islamic world?
“The rebirth of Islam is due in part to the new material richness acquired by Muslim countries, but mainly to the knowledge that it is able to offer a valid spiritual foundation for the life of its people, a foundation that seems to have escaped from the hands of old Europe.”
–Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger



report abuse
 

john c

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:54 pm


I think it’s time to introduce some serious hyperbole into the argument… (without reducing the smugness level, mind).



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 22, 2005 at 4:55 pm


This is, first and foremost, part of a brewing conflict within the Islamic umma. It is a much delayed brew, which began brewing in the first half of the 18th century when the three great state prongs of the umma — the Ottoman Sultanate/Caliphate, the Persian empire and the Mogul empire — imploded (though it took a couple of more centuries for the first two to disintegrate). There’s a reason Wahhabism dates from the wake of this.
The developed world is not the primary arena for this conflict, and it needs to realize that it is not the subject, but merely a convenient object to project an internal conflict outward. The reason it is important to understand this dimension of the problem is because we are not in control of the solution to that internal conflict. And not being in control is something Americans prefer to be in denial about.
I don’t say this from a peacenik perspective: I supported the invasion of Afghanistan, but not the war in Iraq. I am glad to see Saddam impotent, but I believed our whole approach here was deeply problematic. I also don’t think cutting and running is an option; we broke it, and now have to have the resolve to fix it. But fixing it, given the prior paragraph, means accepting resolutions that won’t necessarily be in our interest at all — quite the contrary, in all likelihood. When you run a Wilsonian foreign policy, you cannot suddenly adopt realpolitik without significant cost to your integrity or pride — since integrity is a necessary part of the foundation for American policy going forward, it likely requires sacrificing a fair measure of pride (as in admitting error, significant error, not just tactically but strategically). The current administration is incapable of that, sad to say, but I think that approach would leave us stronger in the long run.



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:05 pm


just who is the “enemy”, exactly?
I cannot believe that you honestly do not know the answer to that Dawn. And if you really do not, that is frightening.
The enemy are those that would cut off your head with a knife if you were to publicly pronounce Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. The enemy are those who plant remote controlled bombs and kill people in subways, buses, restaurants, schools, and hospitals. The enemy are those who coerce other innocent people to strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves up in crowds. The enemy are those who take box cutters, slit the throats of flight attendants, seize control of airliners, and fly them into buildings, thereby killing thousands of people. The enemy are those that would give aid, comfort, encouragement, and safe havens to such persons, and who would seek to obtain horrific weapons to give to such persons to commit wholesale slaughter and genocide. The enemy are those that move little boats to the sides of ships and explode bombs, blowing holes in the middle. The enemy are those that attack and bomb embassies, killing countless people minding their own business. The enemy are those that bomb the barracks of Marines who are merely seeking to keep the peace in foresaken lands. The enemy are those that kidnap diplomats and keep them hostage for more than a year. The enemy are those that would seize an old man on a cruise ship and toss him and his wheelchair over the side into the sea. The enemy are those that kidnap and kill athletes at the Olympics. The enemy are those that would assassinate Egyptian leaders for making peace with Israel. The enemy are those that would attack Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else who is a perceived to be an “infidel.” The enemy are those that would plunge knives into the chest of descendents of famous painters for the sin of making a movie. The enemy are those that would subjugate women, force them to wear humiliating burkas, and treat them as chattel or dogs. The enemy are those that invaded Europe before being defeated at the Battle of Vienna. The enemy are those that invaded Spain and France before being defeated at Tours. The enemy are those that destroyed the irreplaceable Library of Alexandria because the books were contrary to the “perfect” Koran. The enemy are those that attacked and conquered Christian lands in Northern Africa, Egypt, Byzantium, present-day Syria, and present-day Israel, subjugating Christians, molesting pilgrims, and formenting oppression.



report abuse
 

B Knotts

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:07 pm


I wasn’t really in favor of the invasion to begin with, prior to its implementation. That said, the question seems now to be moot.
We’re there, so now what do we do? Withdraw immediately? Is that the preferred strategy here? I mean, think that through for a minute…it doesn’t seem very viable to me.



report abuse
 

Dave Hartline

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:27 pm


Collette:
If I used your reasoning and say I was African-American, which I am not, I would probably still be toiling in some field in Mississippi. I find it very arrogant that some people in the west think that people in other parts of the world somehow deserve to live under oppression. Are you insinuating Saddam wasn’t all that bad with your statements? He was a homocidal maniac, a supporter of terrorists and to top if off he attempted genocide on the Kurds, Kuwaitis, Iranians and Shiites. I suppose Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin weren’t all that bad just a “little impulsive.” If this is the type of thinking that is beginning to emerge in the American mainstream than I better start rereading the Book of Revelation. The end can’t be far off. Somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan, Osama is saying the west is even weaker than I thought.



report abuse
 

John Farrell

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:30 pm


Coilette, beautifully put. It almost seems to me that some Catholics believe no offensive in the name of freedom against a worldwide death cult can be legitmately waged unless it be waged by a morally perfect state. (Utopia?) And yes, besides WMDs, Bush did mention that little bit about freedom and its importance to a world that wants to live in peace. That remains persuasive, even to those who feel “snookered” about not finding WMDs.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:36 pm


You know what? If I had a heart that wasn’t a little, shrivelled, blackened, hard piece of coal it would be broken right now.
Oh yeah — and darn those Iraqis for wanting to govern themselves in their own way. They were supposed to become little imitation Americans! I must have a couple of hard words with Mr. Rove; this failure cannot be allowed to stand. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to Windex the glass over the picture of Dubya I have on my shrine. Those candles get soot everywhere.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:42 pm


Coilette,
Now that you seem to know who your own enemy is, you are in an excellent position to put in to practice what Christ taught: “love your enemies and pray for them”.
God Bless



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:43 pm


‘The rebirth of Islam is due in part to the new material richness acquired by Muslim countries, but mainly to the knowledge that it is able to offer a valid spiritual foundation for the life of its people, a foundation that seems to have escaped from the hands of old Europe’
As much as I respect and admire the Holy Father I’m going to have to disagree with him on this one. I can’t see Muslims terrorist groups being less militant toward a pious Christian Europe than toward a secular Europe. Is that why the Vatican is a prime target–because it’s so secular and immoral? Is secularism the reason why there were so many Christian-Muslim wars before Europe became secular? Islam has as much problem with religious Christian (and Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, etc.) non-Muslims as it does with secular non-Muslims. I don’t think we gain anything by giving interpretations of militant Islam that are generous at the expense of truth.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:43 pm


Andrea:
Your beef is with the guys at National Review who rah-rahed for this war. Like it or not, once the WMDs turns out to be turnip ghosts, the war had to be justified on some other basis. The chosen basis was “Democracy for All!” Fine, and when you propose democracy to an Islamic society, what are you likely to get?
Answer: a democracy that freely votes to impose Islamic law on itself–to the horror of the rah-rah guys at NRO. It’s not like we couldn’t see this coming.



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:44 pm


There’s something far more at stake than that, folks, and if you’ve read certain conservative websites, you’ll see some Doubting Thomases,(Rod Dreher for example) and you’ll see some people start to slip off the cliff and go over the edge. I think one of the reasons is that they are worried a little bit at some of these places about their own credibility and they don’t want to be accused of, you know, just being in the back pocket of the administration or anybody else. But there’s something far larger than that to me, and that is: let’s just be hypothetical, let’s say that I were to come out and say, “You know what, folks? Iraq is a mistake not because of Cindy Sheehan. We’re not doing what we’re supposed to be doing over there. It’s not going right, and now that they’re putting together this constitution over there, and if it’s true that the government of Iraq is going to be an Islamic government, okay, then that’s it for me. I’m outta here, because that’s not what I was told this war was going to be. I’m getting out,” blah, blah, blah. Yeah, a lot of people are saying that. A lot of people are doing that. A lot of people say, “Wait a minute! An Islamic government? We didn’t go to war for that. We’re losing American kids lives to set up an Islamic government? I’m not going to support that.” Folks, we did not go to war in Iraq to set up an American government. I laugh. The same people that worry about an occupation, that worry about us imposing democracy and imposing Americans’ way of life over there, now are shocked that we’re not doing that. But let me just cut to the chase. One of the reasons why I’m not going to abandon this policy is, “What’s the alternative?” You want to turn all of this over to the people you see from the left and CINOs (Conservatives in Name Only) on television every day? You want to turn this over to people like Hillary Clinton? You want to turn all this over to people like John Kerry or Ted Kennedy or Patrick Leahy? Or perhaps Tucker Carlson and Rod Dreher?



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:53 pm


“Blame the good people who are trying to fight the enemy all you want, instead of actually blaming the enemy and other evil doers, but the fight will go on and be with us regardless.”
Well said Coilette! Some people may harbor the pleasing illusion that the thugs we are fighting in Iraq would cease to attack us if we withdrew to a Fortress America, but that is simply not dealing with reality. The fanatics who wage war under the banner of radical Islam will not rest until they are killed or we, including our smallest infants, are all dead or converted. America and the West can debate this war from now until the end of time, but it will not alter that simple fact.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 22, 2005 at 5:59 pm


‘The enemy are those that would cut off your head with a knife if you were to publicly pronounce Jesus as the Christ and Son of God’
This is very important to keep in mind. There are violent practices in the Muslim world that go beyond what we can reasonably call ‘militant’ Islam. For example, the persecution of converts to Christianity has broad popular support in Muslim countries.
Some randomly selected examples of such violence:
Saudi Arabia: http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=2134
Egypt: http://persecution.org/Countries/egypt.html
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/Egypt.htm
Pakistan:
http://www.persecution.org/Countries/pakistan.html



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:05 pm


R.P:
I have my own difficulties with the Holy Father’s words (for instance, I question the word “valid”). However, that could be due to a translation issue, so I’ll cut that some slack.
That said, I note with interest that the Holy Father is not speaking of “militant” Islam. He’s speaking of Islam, whose adherents number about a billion. Militant Islam, while it attracts a bigger percentage than, say, Militant Christianity (*is* there even such a thing?) still does not represent anything like a majority in the Islamic world.
Benedict’s point is that people in the Islamic world are finding some kind of *sustenance* in Islam that the dessicated world of the secular west does not and cannot offer. If Catholics wish to fight smarter, not harder, they should pay attention to this and out-Islam Islam in offering a spirituality that is not simply a shill for the worship of mammon, self and sex that so much of the West so obviously stands for. “Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!” was the cry of the liberated Iraqi. That’s cute and funny as a photo caption. As the foundation of a society it… will work as well in Iraq as it works here or in Britain.
I note with interest that Coilette’s description of “the enemy” did not not include “people who freely and without coercion murder 1.5 of their children each year”. It neglected to point out people who are laboring at this very moment to put to death aged people for the crime of being aged, not to mention disabled people for the sin of being disable. He didn’t talk about the enemy who is working to mass produce human beings so that giant corporations can make billions by ripping them to pieces for component parts. He neglected to name as “enemies” people who steal into your home everyday via TV to rob your children of their virginity, first intellectually, and then, if all goes well, physically, so that they can get with the program of consumerism. (As Uncle Screwtape says, “A man with an obsession is a man with very little sales resistance.”) No. The “enemies” are all Islamic for Coilette. It’s not a particularly Catholic worldview, but it does line up very nicely with talking points from the GOP.
I’m quite willing to grant that Coillette’s enemies list points, as far as it goes, to great evils facing us. I don’t pretend that foaming Bronze Age Fanatics don’t want to kill us. But I also don’t pretend that a great many wealthy people right here in our own country want to kill us too, and are doing a far better job of it. Indeed, they are succeeding so well, that they’ve got a great portion of the population convinced that we are fighting to preserve the basic American values of buggery and baby-killing and deliver these blessing to the Primitives abroad.
Seen in that light, I think Cardinal Ratzinger’s remarks make rather a lot of sense.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:10 pm


“No. The “enemies” are all Islamic for Coilette. It’s not a particularly Catholic worldview, but it does line up very nicely with talking points from the GOP.”
Yeah, that’s right, Mark. Just like that talking point we keep hearing from Bush about Islam being a “Religion of Peace”[TM].
That Bush. What a Muslim-hater.



report abuse
 

Charles A.

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:12 pm


Dayum! I can’t believe I agree completely with Mr. Shea!



report abuse
 

Larry

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:26 pm


Random thoughts, in no particular order:
1. Maybe it’s not going as badly in Iraq as it seems. We’re seeing things through a MSM filter. The milblogs and analytical sites like the Belmont Club consistently paint a more optimistic picture than does the MSM.
2. Maybe the above sentiments are extremely naive, and it IS going badly.
3. I supported the decision to invade at the time. I was convinced by the stated case of the administration, and by the arguments of commentators who I respected and admired.
4. As Bill Kristol said recently (yes, I know, a lot of people don’t like Bill Kristol) the comparison that has to be made is between two worlds:
a) the situation as it exists now in Iraq in late August 2005
b) the alternative: an uninvaded Iraq with Saddam still in power in late August 2005
5. Which of the two above, on balance, is/would have been better for US interests and security?
6. Even if it has been horribly screwed up, what is the best thing we can do NOW, from this point forward? Morally, politically, militarily?
7. Bush’s weaknesses are becoming more apparent over time. He has a singular inability to articulate abstract, sophisticated concepts and principles. He speaks in a sort of simplistic shorthand that is hackneyed and unconvincing. Boilerplate. Bush’s instincts are basically sound, but that is not enough in an age of danger such as the one we are in. We need a leader of intelligence and vision and articulation. FDR was such a leader.
8. This is too important to screw up. I’d take a smart Democrat who knows what’s at stake in the new world we live in. A guy like Lieberman. A guy capable of subtle thought and sophisticated articulation, combined with a gut level sense of the danger of the world we now inhabit.
9. George Bush is not the personification of the conservative movement. He is not uncriticizable by that movement. Hell, going back to 2000, I preferred McCain.
10. What is needed now is not tired, boilerplate rhetoric. What is needed now is honesty and intelligence. Talking straight with the American people.
11. During Iwo Jima, we lost 6000 Marines. One battle.
12. But of course, every death is a tragedy. And causes pain that reverbates in the grief stricken families for the rest of their lives. It kills me every morning when the latest casualties are announced.
13. Again, what is the best course of action from THIS POINT FORWARD?



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:44 pm


The following is for the people who think we are bogged down in a Vietnam type war and that it is an utter disaster. This is from the Armed Forces Press Service. The address is
http://www.dod.mil/news/Aug2005/20050820_2493.html
WASHINGTON, Aug. 20, 2005 – The rebuilding effort continues in Iraq, and coalition military officials here today provided a summary of the past week’s progress.
Children in a village of Tamim province received school supplies, clothing and toys from the Nahrain Foundation, a nongovernmental organization that focuses on providing proper nutrition, decent clothing and medical supplies to Iraqi women and children. The foundation received its supplies as part of a joint effort between American donations and a coalition forces-run program known as “Operation Provide School Supplies,” which accepts donations from private citizens and corporations in the United States.
More than 600 children will return to renovated or rebuilt schools in Maysan province when school starts this fall. This week, renovation on the Al-Eethnar Mud School was completed, and the Al Eethar Mud School was replaced at a cost of $87,000, benefiting 500 students who attend classes there.



report abuse
 

Ilyka Damen

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:55 pm


You Can Only Throw So Many Tantrums Before I Tune You Out

Was going to leave this as a comment at Andrea’s, on this post, but I think instead I’ll say it here, if only to distract us from the fascinating subject of celebrity genitalia. Amy Wellborn writes: What interests me (well,…



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:57 pm


If you are tired of hearing the constant negative news on Iraq that the liberal media puts out, please visit the following site. http://www.goodnewsiraq.com
You may not agree with the sentiment posted but even the worst critics of the war will conclude that Iraq is no Vietnam.
Jonathan Carpenter USN (ret.)
Arlington Texas



report abuse
 

Ilyka Damen

posted August 22, 2005 at 6:57 pm


You Can Only Throw So Many Tantrums Before I Tune You Out

Was going to leave this as a comment at Andrea’s, on this post, but I think instead I’ll say it here, if only to distract us from the fascinating subject of celebrity genitalia. Amy Wellborn writes: What interests me (well,…



report abuse
 

Dave Hartline

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:07 pm


Coilette & Dawn
First of all Coilette, please accept my apologies my comments were directed at Dawn who questioned my first post, not at you. Dawn just remember there is no greater gift than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends (even if you haven’t met them yet.) I can’t imagine what this country would be like if we would have backed out of the Civil War after Antietam where 20,000 died in one day! What would are country be like if we would have backed our way out of World War II after Normandy or Iwo Jima due to the high death toll?
The Holy Father told us about the dangers of relativism and we can see that with some in this country who put their finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing. Bob Dylan warned us about those people 40 years ago. Even in Vietnam, the Communist government has practically proved us right by by adapting western economic models. I look with pity on those like Cindy Sheehan that latch onto each and every group that might be anti-this or anti-that. G K Chesterton put it best, those that don’t believe in anything end up believing in everything.
Finally, in light of Islam having trouble with Al Qaeda types attempting to hijack their faith, and also with certain Protestant denominations having trouble keeping their teachings Orthodox, in the midst of pressure from dissident forces, I bet the idea of a Pope doesn’t sound half bad.



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:28 pm


I can’t imagine what this country would be like if we would have backed out of the Civil War after Antietam where 20,000 died in one day!
I was just thinking about the Civil War, and the Revolution, and I am glad that we had such stubborn and resolute leaders as President Lincoln and General Washington, who absolutely refused to quit, no matter what apparent set backs each one faced. To be sure — there were quite a few in 1864, such as George McClellan, who promoted the idea of quitting the war because it was too costly and unwinnable. Luckily, the American people disagreed and re-elected Lincoln, or else slavery might have continued to exist for several generations more. In fact, there were many in 1776, just a few short months after our declaring independence, that some were ready to quit, and desertions from the American army were mounting. General Washington may very well have been the only one left willing to fight, and thankfully he was in the right place at the right time.
If only we had one-one-hundredth the fortitude of the brave Iraqi people, who are taking the brunt of the attacks, and yet are remaining steadfast in their desire for liberty and freedom from terrorism.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:32 pm


Jay:
I have more in mind the groupthink kind of commentary that tends to dominate blogs and talk radio. Coillette’s post was a particularly ripe sample. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to him that far more American lives are snuffed out every day by homegrown ideologies that are every bit as hostile to the Catholic vision of the human person as militant Islam is. And because of this, conservatives are *stunned* when yer average Muslim looks at the freak show that is western media, or the moral abyss that is the western attitude to the unborn, the aged, and sick, and opts to go for the Traditional rather than the freak show.
Benedict’s point (which you opted not to address) is that there is something in the Muslim critique of the West and that as long as we continue to ignore that and explain away revulsion at the Freak Show with dumb jibes like “Oh, they just hate freedom!” then we shall continue to make no progress.
I say this not as a “moderate”, nor as a conservative or a liberal. I say it as a Catholic who is persuaded that the only cure for an inflamed Islamic spirituality is not a watery Western spirituality, but an authentic, healthy and red-blooded Catholic one. That’s why I posted Benedict’s comments. I have this queer notion that, on a Catholic blog, the teaching of God’s appointed teachers might shed some light on issues that we are trying to deliberate.



report abuse
 

Susan F. Peterson

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:37 pm


Is only one person here upset about the possibility that Sharia laws will possibly be written into the new Iraq constitution?
I never feel I know enough about what is really happening in international affairs to be sure what ought to be or to have been done. I find myself suspecting the whole weapons of mass destruction thing was an excuse to pursue some other advantage to the United States. I don’t think nations usually act with very high moral motives, any of them, and that one can mostly expect them to act according to their perceived self interest. And I want the United States to act in its self interest if to do so isn’t horribly wicked. So for me, if we could get a foothold in the near east and access to near east oil reserves by developing an ally there, at the same time getting rid of an evil tyrant and establishing a democracy there, that was good enough. A lie about WMD (if that is what it was) would not have been needed for me. But I wanted to see the democracy come about. And I am too much identified with my gender to think it is really a democracy if only half of the adults have full civil rights.
I feel like…all of those deaths…and then we are going to let those mullahs and imams (or whatever you call Islamic clergy)be in charge? No, please, no.
Susan Peterson



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:39 pm


I note with interest that Coilette’s description of “the enemy” did not not include “people who freely and without coercion murder 1.5 of their children each year”. It neglected to point out people who are laboring at this very moment to put to death aged people for the crime of being aged, not to mention disabled people for the sin of being disable. . . .
I knew I would draw out the blame-America-first types.
By the way, Coilette is a girl’s name (if you didn’t already catch it by the “ette” at the end).



report abuse
 

Larry

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:44 pm


Mark makes a good point when he states that a Christian revival in the West is the best long term counter to a threatening militant Islamic force. A new global caliphate.
A Christian revival would be good not only, and not even primarily as a means to an end, but as an end it itself. Unquestionably. No one who calls himself or herself a Christian would disagree.
That said, as I stated on this blog a couple of months ago in a thread, I still prefer Manhattan’s Upper West Side or the Capitol Hill District in Seattle to Taliban Kabul.
Heck, I prefer Provincetown to Taliban Kabul. By a mile.
I still prefer a society which produces trash like “The 40 Year Old Virgin” to what bin Laden would have in store for us.



report abuse
 

julian

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:47 pm


Whoever said George W. Bush was a conservative? Aside from quickly spurned talk of “compassionate conservativism,” Bush never gave any indication of being anything more than a Republican. The GOP is not perfectly conservative. The notion that Bush has betrayed his conservative roots is specious.
As to Iraq: Remind me which division of the Republican Guard flew planes into buildings full of civilians. I am all for staying the course, but three years out, let’s be honest. We went into Iraq because we could. Osama bin Laden is not in the dock, standing trial for crimes against humanity, and until he is, I won’t be happy with the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war on terror.



report abuse
 

Wodamark

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:49 pm


I agree with Mark Shea in that our society has much to be ashamed of the with the depravity and immorality we exhibit. However we do face a war of terror from people who would kill me, my wife, and my child if they had the oppurtunity.
Americans are so short sighted and impatient President Bush alluded to this in his speech to Congress right after 9/11 “Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime”
Our war on terror is working. Not one terrorist attack since 9/11 on us. I thank God for our President.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:51 pm


“Benedict’s point (which you opted not to address) is that there is something in the Muslim critique of the West and that as long as we continue to ignore that and explain away revulsion at the Freak Show with dumb jibes like “Oh, they just hate freedom!” then we shall continue to make no progress.”
Okay. I happen to agree with the Holy Father’s comments.
What I have been doing here tonight is taking issue with the attitude being expressed that some GOP talking point has whipped all of us who (up until this point) have supported the Iraq War into some sort of unquestioning anti-Islamic frenzy.
I think the hyperbole that paints those of us with whom you happen to disagree as “mind-numbed crusading robots” marching as to war, not to mention our being quick on the trigger to yell “Treason” with respect to anyone who questions Iraq policy, is quite unfair and inaccurate.
To my knowledge, the only time I have seen someone play the “treason” card on this blog was when ajb referred to Karl Rove’s role in the Valerie Plame affair as “treason”.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:59 pm


Gosh, Mark. I didn’t realize that we invaded Iraq on the basis of what writers on a conservative mag said. Which writer do you think pushed W. to the Big Decision, John Derbyshire or Jonah Goldberg? As for myself, I take all my marching orders (and get all my thoughts and ideas) from Better Homes and Gardens. Did you catch the column on “Rutabagas, Nutritious Tuber or Weapon of Mass Destruction” article in their October 2001 issue? I’m convinced Lynne Cheney read it.
Maybe I should run for president. Governing must be easy if all you need to do it is to read a biweekly periodical.



report abuse
 

Sydney Carton

posted August 22, 2005 at 7:59 pm


“But I also don’t pretend that a great many wealthy people right here in our own country want to kill us too, and are doing a far better job of it. Indeed, they are succeeding so well, that they’ve got a great portion of the population convinced that we are fighting to preserve the basic American values of buggery and baby-killing and deliver these blessing to the Primitives abroad.”
That is, however, entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. Those people were with us yesterday, are with us now, and will be with us tomorrow (if we survive tomorrow, that is). Why that irrelevancy should be brought into a discussion about the merits of the war in Iraq was wholly foreign to me, but I think I’ve figured it out.
Mark Shea and others like to mock people who think the President’s policies are right as Faithful Traditional Catholics (TM) or merely drones reading from a GOP Talking Points list. It’s a standard insult. But I think his and others’ point in mentioning the failures of Western Society when Iraq is a topic (as opposed to in general, or on a topic more germaine like abortion, in which all would agree that the West has faults) is to return to the base that THEY are familiar with: the standard talking point list of the Sunday homily (for lack of a better phrase).
I think that this Sunday Homily Talking Points are brought out because dissenters from the President’s policies offer no alternatives of their own, can’t admit that they have other solutions (at least solutions which involve taking the fight to the enemy) and so these standard lines about Western decline are regurgitated so that attention to that fact is concealed.
Even Prof. Bainbridge, who I like & admire, offered no solutions of his own. He even raises the question of whether it’s prudent to resist terror at all, and I called him on that on his blog. If dissenters like Mark Shea keep banging the drum on our own sins, they’ll never have to confront the enemy at all. In fact, the enemy is us – even if others want to kill us. After all, we’re going to die anyway, so what the heck, forget about the war, the terrorists, etc. Look at that beam in your eye.
Perfection is thus made the enemy of the good. Understandably, I also think Mr. Shea and others like him take hyperbole to a new level, and accuse the President of lying or willful distortion regarding Iraq and its WMDs. And I think that they are particularly obtuse when it comes to the fog of war, dealing with unknowns, and tactics. That’s all the more reason to bang the drum about the Sunday Homily Talking Points (TM).
The problem here is not necessarily anything in abstract with what is said. We can all agree that Western society has problems that need to be addressed with robust Catholicism. The problem is the utility of beating this drum in a context where it is wholly irrelevant. And using it as a club to silence people from supporting policies in which reasonable people can differ.
But what the hell do I know? I’m probably just reading from GOP talking points, and am a Faithful Traditional Catholic (TM) that can be ignored.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:01 pm


Sydney, you must come to the Dark Side and acknowledge your true Lord and Master, the great and holy Karlrove. Join us… join us…



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:04 pm


Oh, and what julian said up there about Bush’s so-called conservativism. He’s about as conservative as it is possible for a politician in the United States government to be these days, which basically means suits and ties in the Oval Office instead of sneakers and track suits. And he listens to country music and doesn’t seem to have a fondness for discussing the finer points of Hegelian philosophy. But that’s all the conservativism We, the People, will allow.



report abuse
 

Donna

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:07 pm


I note with interest that Coilette’s description of “the enemy” did not not include “people who freely and without coercion murder 1.5 of their children each year”.
Well, perhaps Coilette didn’t mention those people because abortion is not the topic of this thread. (since the matter’s been raised, though, do you think John Kerry, or any other Democrat, would have chosen a Supreme Court nominee who would displease NARAL?)
One can be opposed to abortion, euthansia and all the sick manifestations of unbridled libertarianism in our society while still seeing that radical Islamic terrorist (and the leaders, like Saddam, who bankroll them) have to be fought. Recognizing that the West has a common enemy does not mean one is blind to the faults and sins of the West. America was not a pure and holy society in 1942 either – the Jim Crow laws were in effect. Does that mean we had no business fighting the Nazis and the Japanese? No right to see them as enemies?
Radical Islamists didn’t care if the people in the Twin Towers were atheists, Christians, Jews, pacifists, Democrats, or Republicans. Heck, they don’t care if they’re fellow Muslims. They’re not letting you off the hook if you oppose pr0n or stem cell research. They murder entirely secularized Londoners with the same zeal as they kill Buddhists in Thailand, Christians in Pakistan (remember that attack on that church several years ago?), and Arabs in Baghdad. They’d saw off my head, or Chris Sullivan’s head (although he seems to long for martyrdom), or Gloria Steinem’s head, with the same relish.
Larry: I wouldn’t call McCain the “personification of the conservative movement”, either. The news from Iraq is dismaying these days, but I don’t believe many of the positive things going on in Iraq are reported outside of blogs like Belmont Club and I don’t believe my lack of trust in the mainstream media is at all naive. Heck, a lot of the things which go on in the West receive very little coverage. I doubt I’d be aware of Theo van Gogh’s murder by Islamists if it wasn’t for the Internet.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:07 pm


Jay:
I’m glad we’re on the same page with Benedict’s remarks. I think Amy’s use of the term High Treason is a bit of hyperbole. See, for instance, Coillette’s (nee “flexo”, who posts under various handles and doesn’t make a convincing female) insta-knee-jerk response which characterized my critique of his ideologically blind tract as “blame America first”. Guy’s been listening to Talk Radio too long.
My point is not “blame America first”. My point is that, from a *Catholic* perspective, an ideology that is totally blind to the *massive* toll on human life and dignity that the West is responsible for (as Coillette’s description of “the enemy” so clearly was) is an ideology that is *powerless* to present an alternative to Joe Blow Muslim when he is attracted by the familiarity of his own tradition and repulsed by the ugliness of the West. It is also an ideology that will tend to *defend* these ugly excresences as “American values” everytime they are contrasted with “Militant Islam”. “We may not be perfect,” declares the apologist for 1.5 million child murders a year, plus the burgeoning industry of fetal mass murder and harvesting, “But at least we don’t blow up people on buses!”
Right. We are more elegant and silent in our privatized violence. But seriously, 1.5 million deaths a year is equal to “we may not be perfect”?
My point is this: sooner or later we are going to have to abandon the game of pretending it’s
“Islam” vs. “western values” and recognize, once again, that it’s Catholic truth (about the human person, among other things) vs. various diseased ideologies and religous movements. Sometimes “western values” line up with Catholic ones. Sometimes Western values blaspheme God and man. Same with Islam. It’s a fool’s game for a Catholic to pledge his allegiance to any ideology of man’s–including American ideologies–at the cost of his Catholic faith.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:17 pm


“How is it that we hear
the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”
Doctor Samuel Johnson attacking the American revolutionaries.
Criticism of America in its war against radical Islam because of such festering evils at home as the abomination of abortion reminds me of Doctor Johnson’s criticism of our revolutionary forebears: true and utterly beside the point. We can attend to our foreign enemies and reform our country at the same time. The terrible sins that beset America today no more discredit our cause than slavery did the Revolution, or Jim Crow did our fight against fascism during WWII. I might also add that the idea that Islamic nations are appalled by the decadent West is somewhat simplistic. Under the surface, and not too far beneath the surface, there has always existed in Islamic states a lively immorality that has absolutely nothing to learn from the West at its most dissolute. The radical Islamists do not hate us for our decadence; they hate us because we exist and are not part of Islam.



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:19 pm


Well, when there’s a Catholic Confessional State or just a secular republic sufficiently pure for Mr. Shea to think worth defending against Islam, wake me up.
And the “turf” I was referring was the instant totally-predictable introduction of the usual Shavian Talking Points of other as Capital-Letter Trademarks and GOP-worshipping(cq) zombies reading karlrove’s talking points.
BTW … exactly how do you know Coilette is an apologist for abortion? He/she/it (to the extent the pronoun choice should matter) didn’t say word one about it. One way or the other.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:23 pm


I’m late to this, but here goes…
I think Bainbridge is dead-on about Bush in many areas, however; as much as it pains me to say it, I’m not sure that the war is the leading one.
The one really good argument for the war is the one the President seldom seems to make, and that is: that we are injecting a “good virus” into the throbbing center of the Islamofascist breeding ground. The sort of Iraq that Bush proposes to foster will, in time, set at least a good portion of Islam in a different, and more benign (to us) direction.
Of course, it may not work; but it does seem to me that all other alternatives are wanting. Can we really hunt down the terrorists? Can we really defend against them, indefinitely? Do we really want to appease them, buy them off — even assuming that would buy us anything in the end?
There are those who argue they will go away if we leave them alone. I don’t believe that. So, they will keep coming.
I don’t know if this really is Bush’s plan, but occasionally, he indicates it is. He may fail to see it through; he may fail, despite all efforts. I think the information we have about the situation in Iraq, however troubling much of it is, doesn’t tell me one way or the other. I think the bad news we get is not a very meaningful indicator; in a sense, it could be “good news” — if things were going badly in Iraq for the Islamofascists, there would be a period in which they would behave very badly, trying to avert a bad outcome. That might explain what we’re seeing. Or not. It’s just too soon to tell.
I wasn’t for this war, and I still have mixed feelings, but I do think the stakes are too high, now, to pull out. I think a lot of Americans understand that, even as they wish things were otherwise.
Now–after all that–do I think Bush has “pissed away the conservative movement”? Pretty much, yeah.
Does saying that get so-called “conservatives” (CINOs–I like that!) bug-eyed? Yepper.
I said as much in my first foray into the blogosphere. I said it at “Free Republic” — I was swiftly shown the door, for doing nothing else than criticizing Bush as insufficiently conservative. I did intend to be provocative, but I naively thought it would be positively so, in a “conservative” blog. Nope!



report abuse
 

Donna

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:28 pm


Islam” vs. “western values” and recognize, once again, that it’s Catholic truth (about the human person, among other things) vs. various diseased ideologies and religous movements. Sometimes “western values” line up with Catholic ones. Sometimes Western values blaspheme God and man.
Mark, nobody’s debating that there’s some mighty diseased ideologies out there, both secular and religious. Unfortunately, one of them is radical Islam and it’s followers are flying planes into buildings and sawing off heads and bombing buses. And they’re undoubtably planning to do more evil as I type. You don’t think the Vatican is a very possible target? Really, I was praying every day that no bomb would go off in the midst of the WYD crowd. I don’t think I was being delusionally paranoid, either.
It would be nice if the terrorist would just leave us be and let us straighten out our own backyard first – but they’re not going to do that.



report abuse
 

tcreek

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:28 pm


We have many brave young people fighting and dying to protect civilized society from an enemy of unspeakable cruelty. It is not possible for the enemy to defeat them, only lack of support back home can do that. The enemy is well aware of this.
“War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” – John Stuart Mill



report abuse
 

Christopher Fotos

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:38 pm


I am very late to this party, but I’ll say this anyway: Prof. Bainbridge’s post was extremely frustrating largely because it merely replayed ancient and dishonest arguments against the war in Iraq from the left(e.g. why don’t we also invade North Korea and Iran. Like we have an army to do that, etc. ) I am sure Bainbridge didn’t intend any intellectual dishonesty, but it was a little shocking to see him channel Michael Moore.
And Amy, Michelle Malkin “gets a pass” on criticizing Bush on immigration because a large and growing number of conservatives and Republicans are outraged at the massive lawbreaking and unraveling of society that illegal (sorry, undocumented) immigration represents.
I will leave Victor and Donald (to their relief) to their engagement with Mark, who reverts to type. Mindless idolatrous robots come to the defense of President Bush. We all know the script.



report abuse
 

Donna

posted August 22, 2005 at 8:49 pm


Coillette’s (nee “flexo”, who posts under various handles and doesn’t make a convincing female)
That’s a rather odd comment. I’m wondering why Coilette would lie about her sex – who would care one way or the other? I also wonder what makes for a convincingly “female” comment on a Internet site.



report abuse
 

Peggy

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:06 pm


Hi Sherry,
I guess it’s a good thing that at least 2 of us are dismayed at the possible implementation of Sharia law in Iraq. I daresay I might empathize more with Ms. Sheehan’s claim that her son’s death was for naught. None of us supporting, favoring or simply not opposing the war, I think it’s fair to say, favored good men and women giving their lives for such an outcome.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:20 pm


Victor:
If you read over the correspondence, you will discover that I only refer to Bronze Age Fanatics in my trademark capitals. Others are applying terminology to themselves that I would not, in fact, have applied (which is why I didn’t).
It’s also worth noting that at no time have I said the war on terror should not be fought. I also did not refer to Coillette as an “apologist” for abortion. Rather, I pointed out that, in a clash of civilizations, it’s generally not smart to speak in terms which suggest that one’s own civilization is simply and solely the Good Civilization and the Other Guy is the Evil Civilization. That was part of my point in citing Benedict’s remarks and in noting that Coillette’s “This is the Enemy” post seemed to be wholly lacking in recognition that not every heel is in Baghdad and Afghanistan.
I made no appeal for a pure Catholic confessional state (speaking of straw man arguments). I simply note that an increasingly depraved West sounds more and like “The Andrew Sullivan Gospel of Patriotism Hour” (brought to you by Planned Parenthood and the bottlers of Fetal Brand Skin Care) to large parts of the world and, if we expect to *win* the war on terror (which is still an objective of *mine*, at any rate) we should really take that into account.



report abuse
 

DarwinCatholic

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:23 pm


In re Shea’s comments, it does occur to me that back when the West arguably presented a much more faithful vision of Christianity (as did the Middle East and East) that certainly didn’t stop Islam from panting to slaughter untold thousands of Christians and conquering half the known world…
Sherry and Peggy are right, it would be a major, major setback if Sharia were implemented in Iraq. I think it’ll be a while till we know if that’s happening or not, even if the line I’ve heard proposed for the constitution is passed. After all, Egypt uses very similar language in its constitution (as I think someone point out above) and while that country certainly leaves much to be desired, it’s certainly not a theocracy along the lines of Iran.
The question of Islam seems to disorient the more simplistic culture warriors, in that we find ourselves confronted with a “traditional” society with some of the same moral norms and Christianity, which is nonetheless unquestionably brutal and oppressive. Sure, one can sympathize with good Muslims and their reaction to the godless secularism of Europe and much of the US. But at the same time, the way that most Islamic countries (and many Islamic immigrant communities in Western countries) treat women and members of other religions is unquestionably and objectively wrong. No amount of “we all believe in one God” feeling can be allowed to get in the way of that point.
Nor do I think that the Holy Father meant in any way to suggest that Islam was wholesome simply because it can fill the God-shaped hole in man’s heart. After all, as Dante shows us, most sin is but a misplaced or perverted good. Similarly, false religions, to the extent that they engage the human heart and mind, bear some kernel of truth.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:26 pm


Actually, I am quite dismayed at the apparent implementation of Islamic law in a Muslim country. Almost as dismayed as I am at the sudden popularity of discounting what the Iraqi people may or may not want for themselves, as opposed to what Americans, secular and Christian alike, want them to want.
Seriously, this is the deal: we didn’t go to that country to take it over and make it over in our own image. (No! You blaspheme! She’s a witch, she’s a witch — burn her, burn her!) To do so we would have to occupy Iraq like we occupied Japan, and I don’t have to visit the crazies at Free Republic to know that America and her allies no longer have the nerve or the willpower (as is so well displayed by certain people here and on Bainbridge’s site) to undertake such a large and costly undertaking, considering we are shrieking already about a war that has so far had a mild (as compared to say, one week in V*****m) casualty rate on our side. (Is it okay if I refer to us as having a “side”?) So, the only alternative we have is to tell the Iraqis “you know where to get the manual if you need any sensible guidelines, but it’s your country, do what you want.” Unlike ceratin people here and Professor Bainbridge I’m sure that the Iraqis aren’t entirely stupid and can figure out for themselves the implied… caution that if they don’t keep out of our hair and turn themselves into Iran-lite, or Son of Taliban, we’ll be glad to pay them a little visit. Eventually. Considering that we are still the most militarily powerful country in the world, and considering what we do when we get even slightly riled up and even while dragging the lead weight of a reluctant, complaining, spoiled population, our “eventually” is no longer the joke it was on 09/10/2001. That, at the very least, George Bush (or his evil Master Karlrove) has managed to do for us — liberals, conservatives, and all. Of course, he hasn’t also prevented teenage girls from wearing hoochiemama clothes and getting pregnant, amd Will and Grace still infests the airwaves, so he’s a “failure.” Whatever.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:30 pm


Well, Mark, how about Evil and Eviller? Light Gray and Dark Gray? Not Heaven Yet and Not Quite Hell?
By the way, the Andrew Sullivan Gospel of Patriotism Hour went off the air some time ago, to be replaced by The Andrew Sullivan Gobsmacked and Horrified at the Way Bush Betrayed the Cause of Gay Marriage Hour. I thought you got the memo.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:33 pm


Christopher:
Yes, Bainbridge’s argument about not invading North Korea, etc., was a particularly stupid argument.



report abuse
 

tcreek

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:43 pm


I am one of those minded numbed robots who voted for George Bush. Those on this blog who preach love and righteousness should practice what they preach when it comes to the President instead of maligning a good and decent man. It is hard to imagine the grief that is his because of the casualties in the war. Those on the left who say . . . he lied to the country. . . he did it for oil . . . he wanted to avenge his father, should have no place in the conversation.
The WMD objection is most ludicrous of all. Every intelligence agency in the world believed Sadam Hussein still had the weapons he had previously used, as did Al Gore, Bill Clinton and John Kerry. The question was not that he didn’t have them, but that they could not be found.
It is not difficult to see the hatred that the left and the MSM has for Bush, obviously so because they recent his outward Christianity. This is reflected in their slanted reporting and emphasis on the negative aspects of the war. A war BTW, that we won in three weeks. Sadam was defeated and is in jail, his cruel sons are dead, his army and republican guard are disbanded, democratic election were held and a new constitution is about to be put in place. The conflict now is NOT a war with Iraq but with Islamic terrorists mostly from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
If John Kerry was president the terrorists would likely be more active knowing that he would more readily withdraw out military, meaning that many Americans and Iraqis would have fought and died in vain.
And the U.S. Senate would be getting ready to approve a pro abortion justice to the Supreme Court with another to follow in a few months.



report abuse
 

julian

posted August 22, 2005 at 9:46 pm


Coillette is rather too fond of “Futurama.”
In re Bush’s conservativism: I, the Person, would allow as much conservativism as he’s willing to present.



report abuse
 

Donna

posted August 22, 2005 at 10:02 pm


I am also not thrilled about the possibility of Sharia law in Iraq. It is interesting though, to listen to NPR and WI Public Radio and hear the sudden horror of Islamic law many left-leaning commentators seem to have developed overnight. Some of them are the same people who have been bending over backwards to assure us of the wonderfulness of Islam (“Jihad means “Inner Struggle”) since 9/11.



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 22, 2005 at 10:18 pm


Coilette’s (nee “flexo”, who posts under various handles and doesn’t make a convincing female)
That’s OK, Mark, you don’t make a convincing male either. (OUCH, did that shy farm girl actually say that?) I didn’t have that operation and have all that Femzoil pumped in me to be insulted!
Coilette is rather too fond of “Futurama.”
Bite my shiny metal ass.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 22, 2005 at 10:19 pm


One more little tiny thing: some of you — okay, Mark — who have been lecturing on how we should clean up our own filthy sinful ways before we so much as dare lecture fanatical Muslims about things like keeping women in hot sacks so men won’t be driven into a frenzy of lust at the sight of female hair seem to have conveniently forgotten that the nits Al Qaeda Et Al have to pick with the Great Satan is the fact that we don’t put women here in hot sacks, and we even let them walk out in the street with their lust-causing hair uncovered, and so on. Also we haven’t all converted to Islam, that seems to be another point. So you guys — you can be the best Catholics in the land, totally non-sinning to the point you have trouble coming up with reasons to go to confession, etc., and you’re still not going to get a pass. So we might as well fight them who wants to kill us as opposed to tearing at each other for imprefections real and imagined.



report abuse
 

Bedevere

posted August 22, 2005 at 10:24 pm


Seriously, this is the deal: we didn’t go to that country to take it over and make it over in our own image. (No! You blaspheme! She’s a witch, she’s a witch — burn her, burn her!)
How about we just build a bridge out of her?



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 22, 2005 at 10:35 pm


Mark:
Your very first words were an accusation of politics as idolatry. And FWIW, I was far from the only person to see where this familiar line was going.
And no, you didn’t use the word “apologist” about Coillette and abortion. Merely “note[d] with interest that [his/her/its] description of ‘the enemy’,” in the context of answering that question from a war opponent did not include Domestic Demons X, Y and Z. (But didn’t exclude them either — I repeat, you have no basis for what you’re accusing.) And then cited “Uncle Screwtape” and noted “not a particularly Catholic worldview, but it does line up very nicely with talking points from the GOP.” That’s not calling someone an abortion apologist. Pardon my slander.
And since actually-existing polities will always be imperfect, it is a tiresome point of no import whatever (except paralysis-inducing demoralization), to point out said imperfections in the context of a war discussion among one’s own citizens. As Joe Louis put it when asked about American racism: “whatever’s wrong with my country ain’t nothing Hitler’s gonna fix.”



report abuse
 

Whitcomb

posted August 22, 2005 at 10:54 pm


tcreek:
It’s not currently a war? That’s not what the president himself says. He calls Iraq the main front in the global war on terror.
One of my beefs with the president is that he has asked nothing of the American people in the war effort. The only Americans who are sacrificing anything are those who are in the military and their families. About 1,800 KIA so far and about 15,000 wounded.
Instead of requiring us to pony up the money to pay for this enterprise, he’s cut our taxes–three times–lest he offend the supply-side gods, apparently. What has been asked of the rest of us? Some inconvenience at the airport, that’s about it.



report abuse
 

Victor Morton

posted August 22, 2005 at 11:11 pm


One of my beefs with the president is that he has asked nothing of the American people in the war effort.
That’s a very fair point. There’s a disconnect between what Bush is claiming is at stake, i.e., we’re in a war (which I actually think he understates — it is a clash of civilizations). And the “everything normal” attitude he, and the left to be fair, tries to convey (if we change anything about our way of life “the terrorists will have won). I mean, we’re actually more afraid of ethnic profiling than another 9-11, talking about airplane searches as if this is a rerun of late-90s debates on Driving While Black on the NJ Turnpike. And talking about immigration as if it were (and this actually is how Bush sees things, but many on the right do not, hence the ease with which Michelle Malkin and others slam the administration) not a matter of national security or, somewhat less imminently, cultural identity but about capitalism’s need for a ready supply of cheap labor. On that issue at least, witness his guest-worker program, I believe Bush sorely wishes it were still September 10.



report abuse
 

Jonathan Carpenter

posted August 22, 2005 at 11:29 pm


For those of you who think Iraq is a big disaster read the following story.
Soldiers Donate Computers to Baghdad Schools
BAGHDAD, Iraq – Soldiers of 4th Platoon, Troop C, 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 5th Brigade Combat Team, donated 22 desktop computers to the Al Furat Neighborhood Advisory Council for area schools June 5.
The computers are part of a project to enhance the schools of Baghdad’s Al Furat neighborhood with technology and other school supplies. A total of eight schools will receive computers. Six of the schools are in Al Furat and two others are in Al Schweb, a nearby neighborhood.
“This is a good opportunity for Al Furat, especially for the kids,” said 2nd Lt. Tim Harris, the platoon leader. “They can do a lot with the computers … learning with educational computer programs. It will give them something to do, so they aren’t always on the streets.”
How come no one ever prints such good news? Anything worthwhile does not happen overnight! Contrary to the musings of Mr. Dreher et. al.



report abuse
 

Sydney Carton

posted August 22, 2005 at 11:30 pm


Victor,
I don’t understand the mentality behind September 10 people. That age, and those times, are gone forever.
I think that we’ve been extremely lucky thus far to have no repeat of terror in America, at least since the DC Sniper. I also happen to believe that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it won’t hesitate in blowing all of New York City to smithereenes. Hell, we’re lucky enough that they haven’t gotten one yet from Pakistan. But then again, maybe they do have it and they’re trying to use it right now. Who can tell?
Taking the fight to the terrorists and their state sponsors is the only possible hope of victory. Sitting back and waiting in a fruitless bout of self-reflection to assuage radical mass murderers is not a quality foreign policy, and is reckless.
I suppose I shouldn’t be shocked, but when a man like Bainbridge says that killing a terrorist only causes 10 more to spring up, then that’s a real shocker. It a statement of abject surrender. And we know that surrender means nothing to the terrorists, and they’ll kill us as we grovel. How could he say that kind of thing? All these complaints about domestic policy and Western decline are nice, but what chance is there of righting those errors if they kill us the way they dream of doing?



report abuse
 

anseo

posted August 22, 2005 at 11:48 pm


nobody seems to remember Madeline Albrights remark that the death of a half a million Iraqi children was worth it upon refelection.
Perhaps, only perhaps, that had something to do with others wishing to do the U.S. an injury.



report abuse
 

anseo

posted August 22, 2005 at 11:50 pm


nobody seems to remember Madeline Albrights remark that the death of a half a million Iraqi children was worth it upon refelection.
Perhaps, only perhaps, that had something to do with others wishing to do the U.S. an injury.



report abuse
 

anseo

posted August 22, 2005 at 11:51 pm


nobody seems to remember Madeline Albrights remark that the death of a half a million Iraqi children was worth it upon refelection.
Perhaps, only perhaps, that had something to do with others wishing to do the U.S. an injury.



report abuse
 

Jaime

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:16 am


Was it Larry?
Q: “5. Which of the two above, on balance, is/would have been better for US interests and security?
A. “b) the alternative: an uninvaded Iraq with Saddam still in power in late August 2005″
As US security was not threatened *in any way* by Iraq, the US has gained nothing, only lost people, money, credibility and moral prestige. Please name one thing that has been gained for US security. US security. Just name one.
As for the “virus” of democracy, it took several hundred years for English law to develop into a system we’d recognize and several hundred years beyond that for our own system to be born. It’s not a “virus” but a developed structure of law that underpins democracy.



report abuse
 

Richard

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:47 am


Somebody — anybody — please reassure me that all the Michelle Malkin talk doesn’t represent any sort of trendy movement, now that Ann Coulter has attained full-metal hormonal imbalance.
As for Sharia, not to worry. Karlrove has Diebold all lined up for the referendum vote.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:59 am


‘Coilette’s description of “the enemy” did not not include “people who freely and without coercion murder 1.5 of their children each year’
Perhaps she had in mind ‘enemies’ in the strict sense of the word–the kind that are fought by the US army. Most reasonable Christians think that the other kind of enemy ought to be fought by political and legal means.
‘My point is that, from a *Catholic* perspective, an ideology that is totally blind to the *massive* toll on human life and dignity that the West is responsible for (as Coillette’s description of “the enemy” so clearly was) is an ideology that is *powerless* to present an alternative to Joe Blow Muslim when he is attracted by the familiarity of his own tradition and repulsed by the ugliness of the West.’
I think that this is a fair point, to a point. People coming from the left often blame Christians for the hostility that many ordinary Muslims feel toward the West. Yet they ignore pornography and homosexuality as factors contributing to this hostility.
However, one would be wrong to assume that abortion and destruction of embryos are contributing factors given relatively permissive Muslim views on these issues. (See for example: http://www.islam101.com/science/stemCells.htm.)
And even pornography and homosexuality do not explain the ‘success’ of Islam. This is what I objected to in the BXVI quote above. It’s no doubt true that, contrary to what I suggested, the Holy Father did not have in mind militant Islam but Islam in general. His claim was probably that Islam is flourishing—people are going to Mosques, practicing their faith, etc.–because of the failures of secularism in the West. But I don’t agree with this claim either. For, even if the West was quite Christian and non-secular, faithful Muslims would remain faithful Muslims. They were faithful Muslims even when the Christian world was not secular. The perverted aspects of Western secularism simply do not enter into the average Muslim’s faith calculus.
But what about the claim that US moral decadence negates any moral superiority that the US might have in relation to Islamic countries? This, I take it, was the point of the claim that there is not only one ‘enemy’ from the Catholic perspective.
It is no doubt true that there are no porno theatres or gay pride parades in muslim countries. It is probably also true that the abortion, fornication and divorce rates are lower, that people dress more modestly, and that children are more polite to their elders. The question from the Catholic perspective is ‘Is this social order maintained in a way that is consistent with Catholic teaching?’
Well one immediate disqualifying factor is the disposition of the legal system that maintains this social order toward Catholics. But let’s suspend this as a consideration. Muslim societies probably have lower abortion rates and destroy fewer embryos (even with permissive muslim attitudes on these issues) and certainly have fewer prostitutes, pornographers, and gay parades. Why? Is it the result of laws that are consistent with Catholic teaching?
Let’s take premarital sex. The rates are lower in Muslim countries, in large part because it is acceptable for a father or brother of a woman who has behaved in a way that dishonors the family to kill her.
Take, for example, the following cases (documented here: http://iwraw.igc.org/publications/countries/jordan.htm):
‘Rania Arafat refused an arranged marriage with a cousin and eloped with her Iraqi boyfriend. In 1997, she was lured into a field by two aunts and shot four times in the back of the head by her 17-year old brother. [47] In another case in 1994, a 16-year old girl was murdered by her older brother because she had been raped and become pregnant by her younger brother. The family encouraged the older brother to “cleanse” the family honor, fearing ridicule by neighbors. [48]’
Honor killings of women are common in Muslim countries. The practice of honor killing is a very effective way of reducing pre-marital sex rates. Is this a way of reducing pre-marital sex rates that is consistent with Catholic teaching? No. We cannot claim that the society is superior to ours because it accomplishes X and because accomplishing X is called for by Catholic teaching if the WAY in which it accomplishes X is not consistent with Catholic teaching.
We cannot say, therefore, ‘Well of course, from the Catholic perspective it’s perfectly reasonable that Muslims should hate our country because they forbid premarital sex and our country allows it’ when the WAY in which the Muslim thinks it permissible to forbid premarital sex violates Catholic teaching.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:01 am


Victor:
Given that I’ve been informed by readers of this very blog that “Total war was a great moral advance” (when the topic is America’s Right to Nuke) I do confess a certain amount of jaundiced eye when it comes to American political views being idolatrous of America. One doesn’t have to look *very* far in blogospheric political discussions to find some ideologue or other pitting their favorite idol against the teaching of the Church. Not all are liberals.
That doesn’t mean America is Evil. It just means that Benedict is right and we should really give a bit of thought to what Muslims (ordinary ones, I mean, not the nutjobs) find sustaining about Islam and repellent about the West and not just chalk things up “They hate freedom” and “Critics of the American Way Always Blame America First.” I suggest that because, like it or not, a billion Muslims aren’t going anywhere anytime soon and the sooner we get past the more bellicose rhetoric of the “Mecca Delenda Est” crowd and face that reality, the sooner we can navigate in the real world.
I have no trouble with the war on terror. If it were in my power to blow Osama bin Laden away I would do it in a heartbeat. I’m not Chris Sullivan. But I also recognize that killing Osama is not going to slay the hydra. Finding the heart will do that.



report abuse
 

Ivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 2:23 am


It would seem that the “democratisation” of Iraq is as always subject to the US election cycle. Whether the Iraqis get sharia today or under a future dispensation is not in doubt, and the unenviable position of holdouts against sharia will be held by the Christians and the small minority of secular minded Muslims. Given that even with US forces around the terrorists are killing with impunity in the most horrible way, I don’t fancy their chances in an Islamic Iraq.
As a gungho supporter of the war I must say that the Vatican and the French were right. Instrusive inspections coupled with demands that Saddam shuts down the child prisons would have been the way to go. As it stands even the strategic position of Israel is worse off without a Saddam to act as a counterweight to Iran. It looks to have been a bridge too far.



report abuse
 

Alan K. Henderson

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:57 am


Another latecomer.
Which does not belong: Iraq, North Korea, Iran.
Andwer: Iraq, the only of the three to have violated a ceasefire agreement with the US.



report abuse
 

Andrea Harris

posted August 23, 2005 at 6:34 am


Given that I’ve been informed by readers of this very blog that “Total war was a great moral advance” (when the topic is America’s Right to Nuke) I do confess a certain amount of jaundiced eye when it comes to American political views being idolatrous of America.

Which “readers” are those? I get the feeling that it’s one — one — reader, and his initials are J.H. You know, you really should get over your trauma that people exist out there who want to nuke Mecca; lots of people want lots of things they aren’t going to get. I want a forest-green Bentley with leather seats and a walnut dashboard but so far no such vehicle has appeared in the apartment parking lot with a gift tag with my name on it.
You know, it’s the broad brush that irritates me. I don’t read the Freeper site, I rarely read Malkin’s site (she’s on my blogroll but so are a hundred other blogs I have no time or inclination to read), I haven’t read Coulter’s column in years, and I hardly ever read NRO. I let my subscription lapse when Florence King retired; her column was the only reason I subscribed in the first place. I have never written anything fangirlish about George Bush, much less gone around screaming “Traitor!” at anyone who disses him. But because I happen to think that 1) the war is going rather well as wars tend to go (no really, do crack a history book or two before you start screeching about how this particular war is a total fiasco from beginnning to end), and 2) our most serious problem isn’t our bloodthirsty hatred of Muslims and unborn babies but the fact that for whatever reason our national morale seems to be at rock bottom and outburts like Bainbridge’s aren’t helping, I’ve been labelled a slavering robotic Republibeast who wants to destroy the conservative movement… somehow. Perhaps by forcing all pregnant teens to wear shiny patent leather shoes on the way to the abortion mill.



report abuse
 

Seamus

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:22 am


“Which does not belong: Iraq, North Korea, Iran.
“Andwer: Iraq, the only of the three to have violated a ceasefire agreement with the US.”
You can’t seriously mean to say that North Korea has never broken the 1953 armistice?



report abuse
 

Cacoethes Scribendi

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:56 am


George Bush has p—-d away the conservative moment

What Might Have Been
Amy Welborn:
What interests me (well, one of the things that interests me) is the collapse of political debate that’s so often reflected in these discussions. On conservative blogs and boards, criticism of the President is…



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 11:31 am


Andrea:
No. It was not Joe who declared Total War a great moral advance. It was some guy named Jay (not Anderson, I think), subsequently defended, if memory serves, by various others. What was notable (at least to me) was not so much the defense as the lack of derisive laughter–the sort that would have happened if he had declared abortion or cannibalism Great Moral Advances.
My point in speaking of the Mecca Delenda Est crowd is not simply that there are Catholics who want to nuke Mecca, but Catholics who are happy to support and excuse all sorts of ius in bello evils so long as we Good Guys perpetrate them. Readers familiar with my work know this because they’ve seen my rebuttals of both Catholics and non-Christians who have labored to justify murder and torture in the name of American realism. What I see is people saying “It’s okay to do evil if it’s for America, and besides the ends justify the means.”
Again, I’m not saying all conservatives say this. But I am saying that this sort of thinking is not simply the province of nutjobs like D’Hippolito. Neither Linda Chavez nor Michael Ledeen are kooks like D’Hippolito. Each have argued from very respected pulpits for the legitimacy of cold-blooded murder (Ledeen) and torture (Chavez).
My closest friend is a supporter of the Iraq War. Another good friend is in Iraq right now. I respect their prudential judgments and I respect them. I would never lampoon them as Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM] because it would never occur to them to look right at the clear teaching of the Church and ignore, sneer at, or dismiss it concerning matters of grave sin, simply to make some ideological point.
But when the Church points to some intrinsic grave evil like torture, nuking Mecca–or Hiroshima–and Catholics respond with “Total war was a great moral advance” or “So the tender feelings of some terrorists are more important to you than getting vital information!” I can’t help but get the notion that, when push comes to shove, Catholic teaching–even about grave and intrinsic sin–takes a back seat to the needs of keeping a united front with the talking heads on conservative talk radio. I regard that as being just as idolatrous as the Left’s worship of the sacrament of abortion.



report abuse
 

NotSamIAm

posted August 23, 2005 at 11:55 am


Now that you seem to know who your own enemy is, you are in an excellent position to put in to practice what Christ taught: “love your enemies and pray for them”.

I find it disconcerting that the Catholic Church doesn’t teach any prayers for our enemies. At least, I haven’t found any. Maybe if you know of some, you can pass them along to us Chris.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:40 pm


I always kinda thought “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” filled that bill pretty well, NotSamIAm.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:41 pm


NotSamIAm, try the Our Father for starters.
In regard to military enlistments for FY2005:
“Remember last spring, when the Army’s recruitment efforts fell short for a few months? The media’s glee would have made you confuse the New York Times and Air America.
When the Army attempted to explain that enlistments are cyclical and numbers dip at certain times of the year, the media ignored it. All that mattered was the wonderful news that the Army couldn’t find enough soldiers. We were warned, in oh-so-solemn tones, that our military was headed for a train wreck.
Now, as the fiscal year nears an end, the Army’s numbers look great. Especially in combat units and Iraq, soldiers are re-enlisting at record levels. And you don’t hear a whisper about it from the “mainstream media.”
Let’s look at the numbers, which offer a different picture of patriotism than the editorial pages do.
* Every one of the Army’s 10 divisions — its key combat organizations — has exceeded its re-enlistment goal for the year to date. Those with the most intense experience in Iraq have the best rates. The 1st Cavalry Division is at 136 percent of its target, the 3rd Infantry Division at 117 percent.
Among separate combat brigades, the figures are even more startling, with the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division at 178 percent of its goal and the 3rd Brigade of the 4th Mech right behind at 174 percent of its re-enlistment target.
This is unprecedented in wartime. Even in World War II, we needed the draft. Where are the headlines?
* What about first-time enlistment rates, since that was the issue last spring? The Army is running at 108 percent of its needs. Guess not every young American despises his or her country and our president.
* The Army Reserve is a tougher sell, given that it takes men and women away from their families and careers on short notice. Well, Reserve recruitment stands at 102 percent of requirements.
* And then there’s the Army National Guard. We’ve been told for two years that the Guard was in free-fall. Really? Guard recruitment and retention comes out to 106 percent of its requirements as of June 30. (I’ve even heard a rumor that Al Franken and Tim Robbins signed up — but let’s wait for confirmation on that.)”
Source New York Post, Ralph Peters, August 23, 2005.
Guys and Gals, what are you doing? Didn’t you get the memos from Bainbridge and McCarthy?



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:43 pm


“I always kinda thought “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us” filled that bill pretty well, NotSamIAm.”
I see we had the same thought virtually at the same time Mark!



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:47 pm


I *thought* I felt an electric spark arc across the world and connect our brains, Donald. :)



report abuse
 

A Holy Fool

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:53 pm


Professor Bainbridge objects to the “criminally incompetent” way that the US has overseen the Iraq war. I thought he made the wrong arguments with the wrong language. However, his basic point is sound: the US is capable of executing the Iraq War far better than our nation has so far.
The Coalition Provisional Authority made costly errors in the beginning. Among the tops was disbanding the fully-trained Iraqi military on the basis of ideological purity–No Baathists need apply. When anyone that aspires to a position of any significance in Hussein’s Iraq must belong to his party, many qualified people are going to sign up. Does this mean they’re all loyal toadies of the Butcher? It clearly did to the CPA.
Hmmm. What do you suppose a bunch of trained ex-military with no job prospects will do once ex-intelligence Saddamites with cash flow come calling?
Many US servicemen have died because of IEDs. Body and vehicle armor have been poor, and clearly inadequit, against this kind of heinous attack, and have been since the beginning. Why didn’t the Pentagon get this right from the beginning? Why is the Military a step behind the Jihadists that continue to improve the IEDs?
More boots on the ground could give the the military in Iraq more capapbility to secure Iraq’s borders. That would reduce the level of foreign Jihadists entering the country. It might also cut off the IED flow from Iran. Why can’t this be done while the Iraqi security forces are being trained?
Asking these questions does not make one an Anti-American, Saddam-loving beatnik that blames America first and ignores the GWOT. It does make one a supporter of the Administration that can’t reconcile lofty objectives with seriouly questionable means of achieving them. More–not less–political conservatives should be asking these questions.
Not to mention Faithful Catholics.



report abuse
 

A Holy Fool

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:57 pm


Donald R. McClarey and Mark Shea,
Nice Synchronicity! Let’s get you guys to Vegas! Come on, we’ll make a killing! :)



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 12:59 pm


Holy Fool:
Well… okay. But I get all the babes in feather boas. Donald gets to be attacked by the tiger.



report abuse
 

Coilette

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:28 pm


Coilette, Now that you seem to know who your own enemy is, you are in an excellent position to put in to practice what Christ taught: “love your enemies and pray for them”.
Chris, my dear brother in Christ, let me share with you what I wrote four days after 9/11/2001, after I drove by the Pentagon and viewed the damage from the heights in Arlington –
Pray for true peace. Pray for my buddy as he gets activated and sent into battle. Pray for our enemy, that God grant them grace and wisdom to choose peace. Pray for us, that, as we destroy that enemy, that God grant us grace and strength to not hate those He commands us to love, that we kill not for vengeance, but to end the violence and the capacity and will of the enemy to make war on us, until the day we again may live in peace with these children of God.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:30 pm


Jonathan, thanks for the good news links.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 23, 2005 at 1:45 pm


“Well… okay. But I get all the babes in feather boas. Donald gets to be attacked by the tiger.”
I am confident my wife would prefer that I get the tiger rather than the babes in feather boas, but I think she would insist upon an aged tiger, toothless and declawed.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 2:21 pm


Coillette:
A beautiful prayer. Thank you!



report abuse
 

Jaime

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:08 pm


Please name one thing that has been gained for US security. US security. Just name one.



report abuse
 

Jaime

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:09 pm


Please name one thing that has been gained for US security. US security. Just name one.



report abuse
 

NotSamIAm

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:24 pm


I was actually thinking of the enemies that would cut my head off and thereby cut off my chance to forgive them after they trespass against me, because I might be too busy praying for my own soul to give them a spare thought.
Why doesn’t the Church have a prayer that asks God to change our enemies to friends, or at least to be less murderous, especially the enemies that want to kill us. It seems there are lots of prayers specifically for friends, loved ones, dearly departed, our leaders, our church leaders, most everybody who is not murderous toward us, but enemies just get treated like what, generics maybe?
What about when everybody was praying for the conversion of the Soviet Union. What was that prayer like, or rather, what were the words that were said? Was that also the Our Father, or was there another specific prayer?



report abuse
 

Calculon

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:46 pm

Bedevere

posted August 23, 2005 at 3:54 pm


MAYNARD: Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One.
BROTHER: “And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, ‘Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.’ And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large –”
MAYNARD: Skip a bit, Brother.
BROTHER: “And the Lord spake, saying, ‘First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.’”
MAYNARD: Amen.
ALL: Amen.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 4:36 pm


Coilette: Great prayer. Thank you.
NotSamIAm: How about the prayer Our Lady herself taught us at Fatima : “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, and lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy” ?
Mark: If you “recognize that killing Osama is not going to slay the hydra” then why do you want “to blow Osama bin Laden away” ? This doesn’t seem rational.
God Bless



report abuse
 

A Holy Fool

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:04 pm


Mark Shea,
Excellent! Have have your agent call me
Donald,
“an aged tiger, toothless and declawed”
Come on, man! We’re talking Vegas! Where’s your sense of adventure?
Coilette,
A beautiful prayer! Thank you for sharing it!
Chris Sullivan,
Pacifism is a perfectly acceptable way of living the Catholic Faith. It’s also not the only way. Quit implying that it is; distorting the Church’s teaching never does much for one’s integrity.



report abuse
 

A Holy Fool

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:05 pm


Mark Shea,
Excellent! Have have your agent call me! ;)
Donald,
“an aged tiger, toothless and declawed”
Come on, man! We’re talking Vegas! Where’s your sense of adventure? :)
Coilette,
A beautiful prayer! Thank you for sharing it!
Chris Sullivan,
Pacifism is a perfectly acceptable way of living the Catholic Faith. It’s also not the only way. Quit implying that it is; distorting the Church’s teaching never does much for one’s integrity.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:05 pm


Chris:
Because it’s a step in the right direction. He is the source of an awful lot of money for al-Quaeda. Even the JPII recognized in Evangelium Vitae the right of a society to defend itself by capital punishment when the criminal posed and ongoing threat.
End of discussion, Chris. Your insistance that pacifism is the only possible position for a Catholic holds no water with me and your fundamentalist proof-texting from the catechism is a rhetorical trick, not an argument.



report abuse
 

A Holy Fool

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:06 pm


Doh!
Sorry about the double post!



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 5:58 pm


Mark,
If you kill Bin Laden, Al Qaeda will still have his money.
Your desire to kill doesn’t seem rational.
God Bless



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 23, 2005 at 6:01 pm


“Donald,
“an aged tiger, toothless and declawed”
Come on, man! We’re talking Vegas! Where’s your sense of adventure?”
I could put my head in the elderly tiger’s mouth as he attempted to gum me to death.



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 6:08 pm


Chris:
All indications are that al-Quaeda is a top-down organization. People at the top make the decisions and underlings carry them out with info dispense on a “need to know” basis. There is strong evidence several of the 9/11 hijackers didn’t know they were on a suicide mission since only the top people needed to know that. Given that command structure, killing people at the top, like bin Laden, tends to impede the function of the whole organization.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 6:28 pm


Mark,
One could say much the same about the WhiteHouse as a top down organisation.
But you already “recognize that killing Osama is not going to slay the hydra”.
“Tends to impede the function of the whole organization” is a million miles from CCC2267′s “only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” which is why it says applications of this provision “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
I see nothing in your arguments that meets the conditions of CCC2267.
God Bless



report abuse
 

tcreek

posted August 23, 2005 at 7:54 pm


I repeat my previous statement. – “The conflict now is NOT a war with Iraq but with Islamic terrorists mostly from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.”
Why is that not true? From every report that I have read it is foreign terrorists that are responsible for most of the killings. It amazes me that,in spite of the great danger,
so large a number of Iraqis continue to enlist in their police force and military to aid in the defense of their country.
In the matter of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, our Lord was obviously speaking of family members, co workers, neighbors and not the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin. Forgiveness can only come after repentence and then only as a personal act.
To say that God commands forgiveness for the perpetrators of 9/11 or any other suicide bomber or terrorist is lunacy. They don’t want or give a dam about your forgivness. They see it only as a sign of weakness and a reason to continue the killing.
Chesterton had it about right.
“The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.”



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:16 pm


In the matter of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, our Lord was obviously speaking of family members, co workers, neighbors and not the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin.
Where’s that in the bible ?
It ain’t what Our Lady taught us to pray at Fatima – “for those most in need of thy mercy” – that’s the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin.
God Bless



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 8:48 pm


In the matter of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”, our Lord was obviously speaking of family members, co workers, neighbors and not the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin. Forgiveness can only come after repentence and then only as a personal act.
This is simply not true. Jesus commands us to forgive *anyone* against whom we have *anything*.
“When you stand to pray, forgive anyone against whom you have a grievance, so that your heavenly Father may in turn forgive you your transgressions.” (Mark 11:25)
It is a favorite fiction among some Christians that, so long as your enemy doesn’t repent, you are free to go on hating them and desiring their damnation. We are bound to desire the redemption and forgiveness of all. No exceptions.
At the same time, we are not bound to therefore abandon our duties as police or soldiers when confronted with a criminal or an enemy. I extend forgiveness to Osama bin Laden. At the same time, I would have no qualms about putting a bullet in him if he refused to surrender peacefully (and the odds of that are very high). I would have supported attempts to assassinate Hitler by the Allies or the resistance for the same reason. Like the people who murdered St. Stephen, they were an unrepentant menace. But as St. Stephen nonetheless prayed, “May the Lord not count their sin against them.”
Chris, since no power on earth can possibly persuade you that use of lethal force is ever justified, what’s the point of citing the Catechism? You ignore the Catechism when it disagrees with your dogmatic pacifism.



report abuse
 

Chris Sullivan

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:28 pm


At the same time, I would have no qualms about putting a bullet in him if he refused to surrender peacefully
Where’s that in the Catechism ?
God Bless



report abuse
 

Mark Shea

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:33 pm


The Just War teaching you steadfastly ignore. End of discussion.



report abuse
 

NotSamIAm

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:58 pm


It is also a favorite fiction among some Christians that hate is an emotion. The same can be said of love. If I am not trying to kill, maim, or otherwise harm my enemies, I am not hating them. Of what am I to forgive them if they have done nothing personally to me?
So that leaves me with what to pray for in regards to my enemies? I can continue to pray that the Lord will have mercy on those that most need it as I have done before, but that is generic and not enemy specific. Additionally, it does not speak to conversion.
Perhaps there will be one at the site Calculon has suggested. (Thank you BTW)



report abuse
 

Ed the Roman

posted August 23, 2005 at 9:59 pm


Mark, while I agree with you on Chris and just war, is this CAEI or OB?



report abuse
 

tcreek

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:13 pm


Mark,
I don’t see how it is possible to “forgive anyone against whom we have anything” if they do not ask for forgiveness and repent of the harm they have done. What possible good could come from that in this life or the next?
The “good” thief asked for forgiveness and was forgiven. Did Jesus also forgive the “bad” thief who did not ask?
Judas was a friend of Jesus but “woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.” Not very forgiving, but if Judas had repented. . . ?
Not to be a smart alec about this but are we not doing a disservice to the person who needs forgiveness? Do we forgive adultery to a spouse who continues doing so? Do we forgive slander of someone who continually does so? Do we forgive terrorists who continually kill innocent people? Pray for their repentance and be ready to forgive if their actions change, of course, but I do not see how forgiveness has any meaning without repentance.



report abuse
 

Bedevere

posted August 23, 2005 at 10:18 pm


So that leaves me with what to pray for in regards to my enemies? . . . Perhaps there will be one at the site Calculon has suggested.
So, what, you do not want to pray that, by use of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, your enemies will snuff it?



report abuse
 

NotSamIAm

posted August 24, 2005 at 7:07 am


Sorry Bedevere, that would not be what I want as a prayer for my enemies… that would fall more under the auspices of a prayer for my protectors and that their aim be true.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:48 am


I’m probably trying to shout over the hurricane, rhetorically, with this, but it won’t be the first time . . .
Prof Bainbridge raised a very interesting point that I think has been largely ignored in this thread: which was, has Geo W. Bush wrecked (“pissed away” was the actual verb) the conservative movement?
I think an awful lot of folks think of Conservatism as dark-roasted Republicanism — and there are good reasons for them to be led to believe that.
Those of us who are “to the bone” Conservatives have dreaded this very outcome, and seen the election of the wrong sort of Republicans, who wear conservative principles the way most of us wear seasonal clothing, as leading us to this place.
Some of our critics jeer, “oh, you purists just don’t want to win!” or, they add, “with that mindset, you can’t win!”
To the first challenge, I’d say, oh yes we do — but we have our eye on something a lot more significant than just the next election or two. It’s a long ballgame and an even longer season.
To the second, I’d say, those who assert what can and can’t be done, in the field of politics and social change, are awfully arrrogant, or at least awfully ignorant, even of recent history. Remember the Cold War? Remember Jim Crow? Remember slavery?
For those who know what the heart and soul of Conservatism is about, the Bush Era has been depressing, especially because it’s not all of Bush’s own doing: For all the reasons September 11 was a bleak day, add this reason: it made the hope of restoring a small-government, American Republic, suddenly so much more remote.
I would argue that what we are getting from Bush is not Conservatism.
We may be getting all sorts of good or necessary, or prudent policies. Perhaps some “necessary evils” (I don’t mean that in the absolute, moral sense); and we are getting some conservative policies, and nominations, along the way (again, the blind squirrel comes to mind). But taken as a whole? Nope, Bushism is not Conservatism. That’s what I think.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:57 am


Septimus,
The party does seem to be considerably more pro-life and socially conservative under GWB. Unfortunately that has not yet given birth to any significant policy so one wonders whether the moral libertarians in the party aren’t winning the war after all.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 10:28 am


Follow the $$$ and you will find the rudder for policies. Votes shift; cash is in the bank.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 10:32 am


Follow the $$$ and you will find the rudder for policies. Votes shift; cash is in the bank.
Consumer capitalism — which is what Corporate America embraces as its civic religion — is the dire enemy of traditional family life.
Corporate America is not morally libertarian in any principled way; it’s sole principle is the Bottom Line.
And if people think the GOP is not captive to Corporate America in a substantial way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.
(This is in no way to commend the Democrat party by comparison. It has tried – and somewhat succeeded – to ape the GOP in this way, too, and it has other problems, to boot.)



report abuse
 

c matt

posted August 24, 2005 at 10:41 am


Yet they ignore pornography and homosexuality as factors contributing to this hostility.
That’s because they associate pronography, homosexuality (and abortion) with freedom. Therefore, in a sense, they should agree with Bush that they hate us because they hate “freedom.”



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 11:31 am


‘And if people think the GOP is not captive to Corporate America in a substantial way, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.’
Unfortunately, the only alternative–the Democrats–are far worse when it comes to pornography, abortion, homosexuality. The pornography industry had explosive growth under Clinton. The GOP under GWB has promoted some socially conservative policies–e.g. the FMA, the partial birth abortion ban, faith-based initiatives, restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research, etc. These are small steps but they’re something. The Democrats, on the other hand, are very much in the pocket of the porn and abortion industries and the gay lobby. No conservatice could ever vote for them. However, I do agree with prof bainbridge that the GOP wasted an opportunity for revolutionary change. Social conservatives handed the GOP a mandate, and the GOP suddenly became country club republicans after the election. It all started with specter. Many moral conservatives are likely to stay home in the future.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 11:36 am


RP
The GOP did not “suddenly” become CCRs after the election. It has been corporatist all along at least since it got power back. What happens is that it modulates for primaries. And reverts to its true nature after elections. This is as dependable as night following day. And was amply predicted at St Blog’s. Specter started nothing, changed nothing, represents nothing new. And moral conservatives always threaten to stay home, until the Dems throw up a monster the CCRs can bait them with.
Anyone say Hillary The Monster yet? Oh, wait, that meme has been worked for a few years already. How on earth can it be milked for more? Don’t worry: we can depend that it will.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 11:37 am


Btw, this syndrome is called codependency in psycholingo.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 11:49 am


‘The GOP did not “suddenly” become CCRs after the election.’
Before GWB the GOP was dominated by CCR’s, both in ideology and in practice. That did change with GWB. He presented himself as a Christian social conservative and he brought many Christian (Protestant and Catholic) social conservatives into the party. The GOP supported parental notification, the partial birth abortion ban, the FMA, restrictions on stem cell research spending. GWB has been public about being pro-life–something that CCR’s would never do. I think, however, that even many authentic social conservatives in the party lack backbone and act like CCRs even when they are not.
Maybe the ‘monster Hilary’ meme works because she really is a monster from the social conservative perspective. If you think that it is important to oppose the influence of the abortion and stem cell research industries, the gay lobby and anti-Christian groups, you cannot but see Hilary–or anyone else who is supportive of the agendas of these groups–as a moral monster. It’s not the fault of social conservatives that the Democrats have nothing less frightening to offer.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 12:06 pm


Which proves my point that social conservatives will be easily baited into voting GOP by the prospect of Hillary, and hope yet again not to be co-dependantly dissappointed yet again after the fact….
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 12:08 pm


Btw, my own way of dealing with co-dependency with our party system is that I no longer vote against anyone. I only cast votes in favor of someone I can genuinely support, affirmatively. This means I cast a lot fewer votes than I used to, though I always show up to vote, even if to cast an entirely blank ballot (that hasn’t happened yet, but it soon may).



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 12:10 pm


It’s not insane to opt for weak-kneed social conservatives over a party whose policies are intrinsically evil. Things were worse under one Clinton from a social conservative perspective and they would be worse under the other too.



report abuse
 

Liam

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:10 pm


“Many moral conservatives are likely to stay home in the future.”
So it seems this is not true, so long as a sufficient monster can bait them.
That being the case, they can depend on the GOP taking their vote for granted, modulating for primaries and going back to form post-election.
They should not whine, then; that’s the bargain they strike. No one forces them to do this.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:00 pm


‘So it seems this is not true, so long as a sufficient monster can bait them.’
Unless the Democratic party changes substantially, it will offer something monstrous from the social conservative perspective no matter who its candidate might be. Whether social conservatives stay home or vote for the GOP depends on the degree to which the GOP includes social conservatism in its own platform. Under GWB it was included and he was successful. Under his CCR father it was not and the GOP failed. If GOP offer in the future is a CCR platform the Democrats will win, no matter how monstrous their ideology because social conservatives will stay home.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:09 pm


reluctant:
I don’t mean to pry, but have you worked in party politics? I mean, get involved in primaries, and conventions, and so forth?
I say that, because I did that for a lot of years, in GOP politics, on the local, state and national level. And, based on that, I would say I don’t see “the party” as particularly more prolife “since” Bush’s election — in the sense of any cause-and-effect.
There are strong prolife, conservative forces at work all over the country, pushing the GOP in that direction, nominating and electing such candidates — and they’ve been before Bush was elected, and since. Bush, himself, has not always been helpful (Exhibit A: the Toomey-Specter battle in PA last year).
Also, I’d point to the way the White House has helped elevate very contrary sorts in the GOP: Rudy Guiliani, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Ridge, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice. Some of this is excusable, some not (i.e., the convention went out its way to showcase pro-abortion and other “moderate” GOPers).
The worst is that Bush himself is not 100% prolife, as his father (really!) was when elected VP and later, P, and as Reagan was. And this used to matter; but I seemingly less and less.
Who will come next?
Sen, Sam Brownback is running, and he’s 100%; so is Sen. George Allen, and his position on abortion is even softer than George W’s, though he cuts a culturally-conservative figure, such that people give him credit he hasn’t earned.
Allen is quirky; he may end up being sort of a squishy-on-abortion libertarian type, not all bad, but this is progress? And that may be the best-case scenario for him.
Who else is there? McCain? Pataki? Romney? Frist? All worse on prolife.
Bush Jr. was the first not-100% prolifer nominated in an open race since Roe; Ford narrowly escaped not being re-nominated.
So which way next?



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:40 pm


‘There are strong prolife, conservative forces at work all over the country, pushing the GOP in that direction, nominating and electing such candidates — and they’ve been before Bush was elected, and since.’
GWB has made the pro-life cause a very public part of his campaign. Of course that changes nothing in the ranks of the GOP, but pro-life issues are part of the GOP platform in a way that they would not be if CCR’s dominated the party. My point was merely that it was not ‘insane’ for social conservatices to vote for the GOP in the last election, and that if the GOP does not bring social conservatives any victories in the near future it will suffer politically, no matter how morally depraved the other side is.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:43 pm


‘the first not-100% prolifer nominated in an open race since Roe’
What makes GHWB 100% prolife and GWB not-100% pro-life?



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:23 pm


reluctant:
The prior Pres Bush opposed abortion when the father was a rapist or it was incest. That’s 100%. That was Reagan’s position; and it was in 1980, when George Bush pere joined the ticket, that he embraced that position. When he ran on his own in 1988, he held fast; and as President, this was where he was least wobbly.
The current Pres. Bush supports keeping such abortions legal.
If you think the GOP platform is more prolife than it was prior to this Pres. Bush, I believe you are mistaken; although that may not have been what you meant.
Dole, who was the nominee in 1996, always voted 100% prolife, although I wouldn’t have trusted him (and didn’t vote for him); but he did pick a prolife running-mate, Kemp.
Quayle was always 100% prolife (VP under prior Pres. Bush).
One big difference in rhetoric between this Pres. Bush, and prior Pres. Bush, and Reagan, is that they always advocated significant legislation against abortion (I mean a Human Life Amendment); this Pres Bush has been much more circumspect on such things, emphasizing “persuasion” instead. He has signed a couple of bills, which are good, but very minimal. I’m not saying that was bad; but really — he wasn’t going to veto them, for heaven’s sake, and his father, and Reagan, would have signed them, too. So I’d say if there’s been a change in devotion to prolife, its been in the CONGRESS, far more than in the GOP occupants in the White House; compared with his predecessors, this Bush is not an improvement. His Supreme Court picks may yet show him better, but his dalliance with Alberto Gonzales doesn’t give hope; and we don’t know, yet, that Roberts will be the great guy we hope he’ll be. He may yet be an Anthony Kennedy.
By the way, at least two opponents, in the 2000 primaries, hammered Bush for not being 100% prolife: Bauer and Keyes, who were 100%. Sadly, a national prolife organization entered the fray, and attacked THEM for attacking Bush.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:25 pm


reluctant:
I’m not attacking any “social conservative” for voting for Bush. I understand why they made that choice.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 25, 2005 at 12:46 am


‘One big difference in rhetoric between this Pres. Bush, and prior Pres. Bush, and Reagan, is that they always advocated significant legislation against abortion (I mean a Human Life Amendment)’
The HLA was still on the GOP platform in 2004, though I do seem to remember Bush fudging on the exemptions you mention in a debate with McCain. But the HLA has been out of the picture politically for some time, and it may simply have been a calculation by GWB not to spend political capital on something that was not going to have adequate legislative support anyway.
I had in mind two respects in which the GOP seems to be more pro-life under GWB than under GHWB:
(1) GWB has been quite good at making a case for life issues in general and he’s been surprisingly willing to talk about the importance of respecting human beings at the embryo stage. I just have not found evidence of GHWB having been quite so passionate about life issues when speaking about them. GWB seems to be more like Reagan in this respect. Of course it’s true that the president’s role is primarily one of signing the right legislation and vetoing the wrong legislation–and GHWB and GWB have done both–and appointing judges. GHWB, like Ronald Reagan, had a mixed record on judges and GWB’s is still to be determined.
(2) More pro-life items do seem to be coming up in recent GOP history, for two reasons. First of all pro-life strategy has changed. Under GHWB all political capital of pro-life republicans–correct me if I’m wrong–was put into the human life amendment, and it did not get anywhere. Now the HLA seems to be on the backburner–though it’s still on the GOP platform–and other items have been added, e.g. parental notification, crisis pregnancy programs, federal funding of abortions, born alive infants protection act, etc. These items are less dramatic than HLA, but there are more of them and, consequently, the GOP has a more pro-life image than it did before. Second of all, embryonic stem cell research is now a big issue whereas it was not under GHWB.
In answer to your earlier question, no I am not involved in politics. In fact I can’t even vote since I’m not a citizen, and I won’t be able to vote in the near future because I’m not at all close to being a citizen—I’ve only been in the country for a few years. I was, however, very interested in American politics even before I immigrated. I’m sure I will somehow be punished for the hubris of speaking authoritatively about issues with which I have had, until recently, a very theoretical acquaintance.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 25, 2005 at 8:57 am


Reluctant:
Well . . . I won’t punish you, at any rate!
Your account is pretty accurate. The HLA was always out of the picture, politically; if anything, it’s more likely now, with GOP control of both houses. What’s important isn’t that GWB tries to get a vote; simply endorsing it (which is really all his predecessors did) would a useful thing. And I don’t agree that that “costs” “political capital.” No offense, but that image of “spending political capital” is an easy one for folks to use, but I do wonder if people have a definite idea of what that actually means.
I would argue that when a pol rallies his people, he EARNS capital; he gives them reasons to be committed, to be energetic, and — if there is to be a vote on something, he can help mobilize them to make a difference.
Put it another way — the only “political capital” anyone in politics has is what he has of value to bring to a political battle. And there are two “currencies”: one is the “currency” of the inside battle — meaning, the wrangling and struggle in the legislature. The inside currency is hard to describe: it takes the form of leverage, trades, quid-pro-quos, etc. But that’s not hermetically sealed from the outside…
And in the “outside” battle — which is all about public support or opposition, which ultimately translates into votes at the next election — the “currency” is voters.
If you can mobilize them, you have a lot of “political capital.” You don’t necessarily “spend” them in a battle, because that implies you don’t have them anymore, and that need not be the case: if a prolife organization, or a political figure, mobilizes millions of Americans in support of, or opposition to, legislation, then he hasn’t “lost” those voters!
They’re still on the ledger, if you will; and, generally, they’re still ready to fight, perhaps moreso.
The “cost” would be that a politician loses supporters by waging the fight. But the reality is that in our country, almost all pols are elected as a result of a coalition, grouped around a party label, and congruent with it. (It’s not unheard of for a GOPer to have coalitions uncongenial to the GOP, but it usually doesn’t happen.)
People who tend to vote GOP aren’t really that likely to bolt, when the pol does something for someone *else* in the coalition — unless he fails to deliver for *your* part of the coalition. Put it another way: what part of Bush’s coalition does he lose when he promotes prolife? Hard to say, since he had that position when they chose him the first time.
Put it yet another way: if Bush goes out and beats the drum for a prolife issue, does it make sense that when he comes back, say 6 mos later, on a business issue, that his business constituencies are going to say, “Gee, we’re still mad he was so prolife — so we’re sitting on our hands, even though this bill is what we’ve longed for for years!” I’d say, No, that makes NO sense.
So how does Bush “lose political capital”?
Now–it is true that a pol, like Bush, does stand to “lose” something; mainly time; and he loses more in the “inside” battle, when — in order to get the Congress to do what he wants, he may spend some of that inside currency: “OK, Senator, I won’t bring up the tax reform you don’t want to vote on, if you’ll help me with this prolife measure.” But that’s where the outside currency — public pressure — is so useful. But it isn’t always enough.
My point, about “political capital,” is that you only really “spend” it when you try to pass something, or get someone confirmed — and, again, only in the “inside” currency I mentioned.
Meanwhile, taking strong stands that energize your people — that isn’t spending, that’s earning!
Final point (sorry this is so long!): Legislation is valuable long before it’s passed into law. Just talking about it, introducing, hearings, and then a vote on it, is very valuable — not only in mobilizing the troops (increasing capital), but also in identifying who the good and bad guys are, in advance of the next election. The recent, very modest prolife bills are probably more valuable that way, than as actual policy, since they make such modest changes, should they even be upheld.
There is another piece of legislation called the Life at Conception Act, which would overturn Roe, without a constitutional amendment. How does it do this?
Simple: the Roe ruling said (not quoting): we (the Court) cannot decide if unborn children are “persons” under the 14th Amendment; if such were determined, the whole argument about abortion coming under “privacy” would collapse (Roe did use the term, “would collapse”)…
Hmmm — if the Supreme Court can’t determine if unborn children are persons under the 14th Amendment, who can?
Well, the 14th Amendment says that CONGRESS shall enforce this Amendment with legislation.
NB: the Court did NOT make a definite, negative determination: “fetuses” are NOT persons under the 14th Amendment. (Although they still might.) So it’s an open question.
The Life at Conception Act does just this: it declares unborn children “persons” under the 14th Amendment.
The National Pro Life Alliance (with which I am affiliated) is working with members of Congress on this — it’s been introduced, but I can’t recall the bill number this year, sorry.
We’d love to have President Bush endorse it; trouble is, he supports abortion in cases of rape and incest.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 25, 2005 at 10:55 am


Septimus,
Here is what GWB did say about the HLA:
‘The platform doesn’t talk about what specifically should be in the constitutional amendment. The platform speaks about a constitutional amendment. It doesn’t refer to how that constitutional amendment ought to be defined.’
(http://www.issues2000.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Abortion.htm)
So he supports a constitutional amendment, but one that includes exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
By ‘expending political capital’ I mean spending time talking about, defending publicly, getting criticized for something that has no chance of passing in the senate and house of representatives.
This may very well be an unfair judgment, and please correct me if I’m wrong, but GWB strikes me as more sincere about being pro-life than his father because he has actively supported and campaigned on specific pro-life legislation that actually had a chance of being passed. His father, on the other hand, supported something that everyone knew to be a political fantasy. This may be why the libertine left was not nearly as shrill about GHWB as they are about GWB. The war against abortion will be won one battle at a time and BWB has won some battles.
The pro-abortion crowd were comfortable with the old HLA days and are very afraid of the small battle approach to the war. That’s why they’re so up in arms about the fetal pain issue. Can you imagine what would happen if legislation were introduces requiring an abortionist to administer an anaesthetic to the baby before it is killed? All of a sudden you have another patient in the picture. And pretty soon you’ll have people asking ‘Why are we killing THIS patient?’
‘trouble is, he supports abortion in cases of rape and incest’
If abortion were permitted only in cases of rape and incest it would be a huge victory and would prohibit the vast majority of abortions. One could then work on getting the public to think about why it is that abortion is permitted in THESE cases while it is not permitted in the others. Once the unborn child is humanized by sweeping anti-abortion legislation, it would be difficult to deny its humanity in the other cases.
I’m not arguing that GWB is Mother Teresa. And I do think that if he messes up with the supreme court appointments and brings no further pro-life (or, more generally, social conservative) victories, the Republicans will suffer the fate of Conservatives in the UK, because the social conservatives who were out in full force in the last election will feel duped.
By the way, I’ve been using this phrase ‘social conservative’ and I’ve noticed that you’ve put scare quotes around it, so maybe I should explain. By ‘social conservative’ I mean someone who is concerned about issues like abortion, pornography, gay marriage, school prayer, faith-based initiatives, etc. A social conservative believes that there ought to be restrictions even on conduct that is not likely to harm them personally (this belief is a denial of Mill’s harm principle), and that the state ought to promote the moral development of its citizens and respect for and participation in mainstream religious institutions. RObert George’s MAKING MEN MORAL is a philosophical argument for social conservatism.



report abuse
 

Septimus

posted August 25, 2005 at 12:09 pm


reluctant:
I don’t mean them to be “scare quotes”; I put it in quotes to try to convey that the term is not my own, but one someone else used, and I’m referring to it; because I find the term too amorphous. But for clarity in our conversation, I referred to it.
As to the rape and incest exception. I understand your argument; and were it successful on those terms, it would be a big step forward.
But here are the problems:
First: an exception for rape or incest invites — nay, seems to BEG — those seeking abortions, and those eager to facilitate them, to say “she was raped” or “she was an incest victim.” I predict a huge leap in instances of such crimes. And that puts prolifers in the position of “harassing” poor women as we challenge such claims. It may be doable, but it does create real problems.
Second: once such legislation is passed, most of the coalition behind such legislation leaves the field: “we won!” Leaving only a remnant, still seeking protection for the other children. Yes, you may get sympathy, news coverage, and editorial support; but such things do not generate much legislative action.
The chances of ever protecting those children would be far dimmer than ever. Hence, I simply don’t believe in the “salami slice” approach. It’s fundamentally wrong-headed, because it thereby slices off more and more of the coalition of the public, whose pressure is necessary to “pop” the legislative “cork.”
Now, an argument can be made that we can’t ever get 100% and I understand that.
But the time to make that concession is not early, but late. Concede that when the bill is nearing passage, if necessary.
And then, you concede it not in a positive sense, but in a negative sense: it happens, you complain, and grudgingly accept what you get (note the Left always does this: this isn’t enough, but it’s a start.) I.e., prolifers must never do what they’ve begun to do: say it’s OK to leave those children vulnerable. It’s never “OK.”
But if we give that concession early (which is what we’re doing with Bush; what his position, if you justify it pragmatically, does) and what will you have to offer later? Then it’s “mother’s health” or “fetal deformity” etc.
And you can’t argue principle at that point, because the rape-and-incest concession is utterly without principle. That’s part of the problem. That’s why the moral high ground must NEVER be conceded; that’s what was wrong with his stem-cell “divide-the-baby” solution.
About the “political capital” — well, as you define it, then I reiterate more strongly that that’s not “spending” anything; it GAINS capital; because who cares if he’s criticized! Meanwhile, he mobilizes his forces, and that’s what matters, not the opinions of the NY Times et al.
As to the President’s sincerity. Well, how can I challenge that? I would say I’m more interested in actions, and his actions haven’t overwhelmed me. Talk is nice, but relatively easy. He signed bills, yes; but he could hardly do otherwise. I.e., he’s done about the bare minimum. That doesn’t make him BAD; but for me, that doesn’t earn him any extra credit. (His father and Reagan were about the same, by the way; the 100% vs. rape-and-incest are key differences, and this Bush is objectively worse on that).
Roberts, and whoever follows, will be a key indicator. Assuming Rehnquist is next to retire, the President needs to bat 1.000; he can’t do what the mainstream GOPers advise: one for the prolifers, one for the moderates. I doubt he’s quite that stupid, but — no offense to him — but I am no longer amazed by the calculations politicians make. To be candid: in politics, sincerity by itself has almost nil “cash-value.”
Also, too many other decisions he’s made — I mentioned the stem-cell one, and also his interventions in primary battles — do not support the view that “he really wants to do the right thing.”
Finally, one disturbing thing in Bush, that I didn’t see in his dad, and even less in Reagan, is the rhetorical emphasis on “persuasion” and “changing the culture.”
Sounds nice and innocuous; but it either betrays a misunderstanding, or it’s cover for inaction.
What it does is concede what I refuse to concede: that we can’t pass the legislation we want.
It may actually be true, we cannot; but there’s no way to know that without the attempt; and this sort of concession says, don’t attempt it.
It gives an advantage, both to the pro-aborts, and to the foot-dragging “allies” of ours, an advantage against us. For pro-aborts, they say, “even prolife leaders admit the country isn’t ready for their radicalism…” For our sunshine allies, they can say, “even you admit, now is not the time…”
What possible benefit is there, for the prolife movement, to give those who stand in our way, this advantage?
Of course, I see why Bush wants to do that; it makes him sound, and perhaps feel, more “reasonable”; and it gives him an excuse for less action; it puts prolifers, who want that action, that much more on the defensive.
But, honestly, it’s not the job of prolife voters to make the President, or any policy-maker, feel better about delaying action.
Now, if you say that rhetoric isn’t terribly significant, then don’t say he gets brownie points for good rhetoric.
My point is, good rhetoric doesn’t add much; but negative rhetoric can be one more thing that complicates our work. And, if he’s really “our guy,” then he should be saying what helps us. That’s not asking that much.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 25, 2005 at 7:03 pm


‘once such legislation is passed, most of the coalition behind such legislation leaves the field: “we won!” Leaving only a remnant, still seeking protection for the other children’
I’m inclined to think that once such legislation is passed you now have a legal argument for restrictions in the other cases as well. For such legislation would essentially be a recognition of the personhood of the unborn baby–no non-person could warrant such legislation–and such a recognition would be grounds for further restrictions. If the law recognizes the personhood of the unborn baby then you don’t need broad popular support for the further restrictions. Of course, you and I are both guessing and I understand your concern.
‘And you can’t argue principle at that point, because the rape-and-incest concession is utterly without principle. That’s part of the problem.’
In my view it would be part of the solution. For if there is a contradiction in the law and if the law recognizes the personhood of the unborn baby, the exceptions would eventually have to go. Imagine a constitutional amendment banning slavery in all cases except when the slave owner really needs the slave in order to make a living. The latter exception would eventually have to go because it is inconsistent with the core of the amendment, which recognizes the personhood of the slave. A lawyer could easily argue on behalf of a slave owned by someone who falls under the exception that the exception is unconstitutional. Again, I don’t mean to minimize the concerns of those who disagree about the ‘salami slice’ approach. I just happen not to agree with these concerns. I admit, however, that I might be wrong.
I don’t think that I really disagree with your concerns about GWB. I agree that ‘good rhetoric doesn’t add much’ though I do think that good rhetoric does add something.



report abuse
 

biagra

posted August 1, 2007 at 10:37 pm


Here some linkz,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.