This weekend is Memorial Day Weekend

…and whether you vote for the Nobel Prize Winner who has launched more cruise missiles and drone strikes than any other, or we choose the lesser of two evils and vote for, you know, the evil of a warmonger party that has learne absolutely nothing from its blunders….

“I can’t name a single Romney foreign policy adviser who believes the Iraq War was a mistake. Two-thirds of the American people do believe the Iraq War was a mistake. So he has willingly chosen to align himself with that one-third of the population right out of the gate,” – Christopher Preble, Cato Institute.

…we will help guarantee that we have more troops to memorialize. 

Unless, of course, we vote for, oh, I don’t know, somebody who saw the Iraq War would be a disaster and who thinks the best way to support our troops is to keep them home with their families and not send them to get killed in expermental nation-building wars, followed by being tossed in a land fill, stripped of their benefits by the traitorous swine in the Ruling Class, and abandoned to joblessness and suicide.

  • Ted Seeber

    Can we write in Ron Paul? Because the Constitution Party just nominated Virgil Goode, who while he doesn’t support any intrinsic evils I’m aware of, is a bit of a Buchannan-style isolationist.

  • http://eighthway.wordpress.com Br. Gabriel, OP

    I’m concerned. The quote from Christopher Preble is nonsense. Ther are many ways in which one can believe that the action or country took in Iraq was correct. The question can be answered with respect to different qualifications. For instance, given the intel at the time, or in retrospect, or all things being equal, etc. A single person might respond differently deepending on which qualification is used. It is also important to note that the matter is far from settled in ecclesiastical circles depending upon who’s just war theories are being used, etc. Also, in a Republic, the majority opinion of the population is irrelevant with respect to public policy. In fact, the structure of a Republic is designed so that the opinion of the majority of the population is highly mitigated. Those elected to office are supposed to be free from the tyranny of the mob, so to speak. These being the case, I don’t know how this is a helpful contribution to public discourse or even a valid critique of the Romney advisor team.

    • Ted Seeber

      The intel at the time was based on the word of a known liar, the Pope himself condemned the invasion as unjust. I don’t know of any just war theory that can justify preemptive invasion for something a country *might* do, do you?

    • Dan C

      1. Are you defending the Iraq War? If so, say so. I think it was a war that was obviously unjust at the time of the war, and was waged unjustly, and as a nation, we continue injustice to the people of Iraq-from our collaborators to our prisoners.
      2. Plenty of faithful Catholics opposed the war at the time, and those Catholics were routinely derided by individuals who named themselves “orthodox” Catholics. Perusals of prominent blog posts from the time would be evidence of this.
      3. Several prominent Catholic leaders, who at the time named themselves as “orthodox,” were disappointed enough with teaching from US bishops (and even those wimpy European Vatican-types) to suggest that the bishops lacked any “charism” to teach that a given war may be morally problematic.
      4. American conservatism crashed on the rocks of these two unjust wars, and that is no exaggeration. American conservatism and its Catholic adherents also created (as evidenced by David Frum’s proclamations at the time) an environment that broached no consideration of alternative viewpoints, even from among its stanchest constituents. Exhibit A: Andrew Bacevich.
      5. In retrospect, one should evaluate these wars from the standpoint of those who rejected these wars as reasonable and just. What did the wars’ critics see that you didn’t see?
      6. The WMD accusations on the part of Iraq were not found to have been credible. Reflexively, Hans Blix was given no credibility, yet he was shown to be correct. He was vilified routinely. That he was European was the source of suspicion, condemnation, and rejection. Blix’s evaluations contradicted what turned out to be fabricated intel by sources who should not be perceived as credible. Bias and bigotry ruled the blogs when Blix’s name came up.

      For many many folks, the wars are considered huge blunders, unjust and suspect that many many of the leaders knew the evidence not credible. Forcing soldiers to fight an unjust war damages them and our nation. Continuing to pretend that it is justifiable and folks didn’t err gravely is not helpful.

  • Dave K

    It is hard to believe that the Republican establishment is still defending the atrocity against Iraq and contemplating another one in Iran. Both political parties have moral blind spots which firmly tie them in with Culture of Death. Voting for a party stooge advances the death culture. I wish Ron Paul would run third party and give Americans a real choice.

    • Dan C

      There was never admission of error or repentance. In fact, to do so would disqualify the elected official, because apologizing even for unnecessary killing (such as for the mentally ill soldier who had a break and starting shooting) results in the response that “America should never apologize.”

  • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

    The problem with Paul is that you get the impression his predictable skepticism about our policy is less about thinking it through, and more about the fact that he sees himself as the only politician in American history who simply is right all the time. I’ve noticed his supporters go a long way in helping him maintain that viewpoint. Paul appears to appeal to that group who believes that America sucks, is one of the most stupid and boorish countries in history (don’t get them wrong, they love our country), but it’s everyone [else's] fault. That’s what I’ve noticed. The fact that, four years ago, Paul supporters came down on Huckabee like a ton of bricks, when Huckabee took most of the same crucial stances that necessitate support for Paul (except for the whole libertarian ‘let everyone fend for himself’ approach), made me wonder if it was really Paul’s positions, or something else, that was the appeal. Now, off to a weekend of fun with the family as well. Everyone have a good weekend. TTFN.

    • Dave K

      I think Ron Paul has proven himself to be almost alone in DC in thinking his way through the problems which grip this country. He saw the looming financial problems decades ago when Nixon took us off the Gold standard. He understands the mischief the Fed has injected into the economy with fiat money and interest rates. He sees our foreign policy run by Zionist interests and the military industrial complex rather than American interests. He is wise and experienced enough to know the difference between war propaganda and real threats. He understands that war should be the last resort rather than a convenient tool of foreign policy when agreement cannot be reached. In short, Ron Paul has proven himself to be one of the rare kind of person who has not been corrupted by DC politics. Maybe he is the only one there who doesn’t have Alzheimer’s!

    • Kirt Higdon

      Anyone who opposes US wars, both overt and covert, is going to be right about 99.9% of the time on that issue. Paulistas objected to Huckabee because he was and still is a war-monger. Since his run he’s also been a Fox News shill. Paul and his supporters are considered extremists simply because they would like to see the US behave like a normal country and other countries do not have hundreds of military bases in more than one hundred countries throughout the world and do not wage interventionist wars 24/7 year after year. The US is not an exception; the moral law applies to the US as well.

      • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

        Huckabee a war monger? Only if you are a pacifist. If I remember correctly, he was openly critical of Bush’s policies in Iraq. But then, in real life practice, I’m having a hard time distinguishing between the Church’s appraisal of warfare and pacifism. It appears to want to have it both ways: We’re not saying war is always wrong – as long as everyone loves each other, doesn’t hurt each other, and nobody breaks anything, there’s nothing wrong at all. I’ve noticed that trend in quite a bit of Catholic bantering. We’re not pacifists. We’re just saying that every war is wrong. Especially if it’s a war involving that America place. Though the Church didn’t really smack down the intervention in Libya the way it has other ventures. The Pope called for peace, but didn’t seem as critical, so perhaps there’s a threshold I’m missing. Perhaps that it wasn’t American led. You never know. Oh, and the things said about Huck were before he was a Fox News host. That’s just a lame excuse to avoid the obvious: You shall have no other Pol before me, thus saith the Paul.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X