Re: Chicago Conference On Truth vs. Terror
- From: jazzerciser@xxxxxxxxxxx (-)
- Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 16:53:50 GMT
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=15&num=1904
-------------------------------------------------------------------
George W. Bush: War criminal?
By CHB Staff
Mar 10, 2003, 05:42
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Is Pope John Paul II telling the world that if President George W.
Bush goes ahead with his plans to invade Iraq without United Nations
sanctions, the Catholic Church will consider Bush a war criminal?
"A war would be a defeat for humanity and would be neither morally nor
legally justified," the Pope told Bush in a papal message delivered
last week by a special envoy. "It is an unjust war."
This leads even conservatives like John McLaughlin, host of the
syndicated McLaughlin Group and a longtime supporter of both
conservative and Republican causes, to have second thoughts.
"The Pope is saying an invasion of Iraq would be criminal," says
McLaughlin, who is also a former Jesuit priest. "A statement that
strong cannot be ignored."
As Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell scramble for votes in
their uphill battle to win UN Security Council approval for an
immediate invasion of Iraq, the Pope's words are creating growing
problems for Bush at home.
On Capitol Hill, where many members of Congress are Catholic, the
Pope's words add to increasing concern that Bush's stance of Iraq has
left the U.S. in a no-win diplomatic corner.
"The Pope is more than just the leader of a religious community," says
McLaughlin, who served as a speechwriter for Republican presidents
Nixon and Ford. "The Vatican is a recognized sovereign entity with its
own diplomatic standing and recognition."
Although no Catholic member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, has
yet announced opposition to the war based on the Pope's comments,
sources within both parties on the Hill say it is only matter of time
before it happens.
"We can talk until the cows come home about the separation of church
and state but the fact remains that religion carries a lot of weight
on the Hill," says political scientist George Harleigh. "The
Republicans use religion to justify opposition to abortion, the
religious right answers to their leaders, the Jewish members listen to
what Israel wants and the Catholics listen to the Pope."
Supporters of the Pope's position say the opposition is not driven by
antiwar sentiments. The Pope did, in fact, support the U.S. war
against terror in Afghanistan. But when it comes to Iraq, the Pope
does not feel the U.S. has made its case for immediate invasion before
the UN Security Council has exhausted other diplomatic means.
This makes members of Congress with large blocs of Catholic voters
back home sit up and take notice.
"I want to think my President is right in this cause," said a longtime
Republican member of Congress on Saturday, "but I also have to listen
to my conscience and the leader of my religious faith. The phone calls
from my Republican district are running 4-1 against invading Iraq. I
also have to listen to my constituents."
Some Republican members are now telling House Speaker Dennis J.
Hastert that they want a new Congressional resolution to authorize
military action against Iraq but sources in Hastert's office say the
speaker is resisting because he feels such a resolution would fail.
"We don't have the votes on either side of the aisle to back the
President's play on this," says one Hastert aide. "A vote would
undermine the President and destroy our credibility in the world's eyes."
Lon Edwards, who worked in the Republican administration of Bush's
father, says the President's credibility is already gone.
"We say we are going to war with Iraq to enforce that country's
non-compliance with a resolution of the United Nations. But the UN,
whose resolution we are using to justify the action, refuses to ratify
that action," Edwards says. "Where's the credibility in that?"
Other diplomatic professionals agree that the President's position is
growing more and more untenable each day the U.S. set deadline of
March 17 grows near.
"I went to work in the State Department when Richard Nixon was in
office," says retired diplomat Morris Leibmann, who left the State
Department because he didn't like Bill Clinton's actions as President.
"I would be ashamed to be representing the United States with our
allies right now. We're acting like a spoiled bully who is throwing a
temper tantrum because he didn't get his way."
Repeated attempts to obtain official comments from The White House or
the offices of House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert or Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist were unsuccessful over the last three days.
2006 by Capitol Hill Blue
.
- Prev by Date: Re: The Popularity of Go
- Next by Date: Re: Chicago Conference On Truth vs. Terror
- Previous by thread: Re: Chicago Conference On Truth vs. Terror
- Next by thread: Re: Chicago Conference On Truth vs. Terror
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|