The President's War

[Desert Walker]

BEHOLD

MY THOUGHTS:

Is the war in Iraq right or wrong? That's the simple question that a lot of people are asking. Many are answering it as well. I'm not so sure, however, that this question is being properly considered.

The things that need to be considered are not being considered by most people who talk about this war. It seems to me that the President considered these things prior to invading Iraq. And it may come as a shock to many on the left, but the things Bush considered are matters of moral responsibility.

You see, the President made an oath before he occupied the office of President. He swore before God that he would defend this country against all threats foreign and domestic. According to the teachings of the Church regarding the taking of oaths, as soo as Bush took that oath he was MORALLY duty-bound to do exactly what it was he swore to do. In other words, it is a sin for a President to deliberately fail to fulfill his oath of office to defend this nation against all threats foreign and domestic.

Thus, it should be crystal clear to Catholics at least why Bush decided to invade not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan, and furthermore, why it is necessary to authorize the intelligence community to spy on certain U.S. citizens or residents. Because if Bush did not do these things he would be sinning against God and against his own nation. The Church teaches that if a person believes he is morally bound to do a thing he should do it or he is committing a sin of ommission.

None of us can know what it was that President Bush perceived as threatening that caused him to believe that the only way he could fulfill his oath of office to defend this nation against all threats foreign and domestic was to go to war. None of us can know. We can have our opinions, but please, we must give the President the benefit of the doubt. He HAS a MORAL DUTY in this matter regardless of what any of us happen to think about it.

[Desert Walker]

Not a real hot topic I guess. I would like to have a serious discussion about this. There's so much that I think is being misunderstood about the war. I'm not in favor of war for the sake of war, just for the sake of defending a defendable goodness against relentless destroyers.

[crazymaine catholic]

you raise some really good points. while war is horrible, i think most people don't completely understand what war means, so all they see and hear is the terrible aspects of it. most people fail to consider the lives that have benefited from this. this isn't to say i'm in complete agreement with the war, but there are certainly some things that i do think are acceptable with the war.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Desert Walker' date='Jan 26 2006, 08:38 AM']BEHOLD

MY THOUGHTS:

Is the war in Iraq right or wrong? That's the simple question that a lot of people are asking. Many are answering it as well. I'm not so sure, however, that this question is being properly considered.

The things that need to be considered are not being considered by most people who talk about this war. It seems to me that the President considered these things prior to invading Iraq. And it may come as a shock to many on the left, but the things Bush considered are matters of moral responsibility.

You see, the President made an oath before he occupied the office of President. He swore before God that he would defend this country against all threats foreign and domestic. According to the teachings of the Church regarding the taking of oaths, as soo as Bush took that oath he was MORALLY duty-bound to do exactly what it was he swore to do. In other words, it is a sin for a President to deliberately fail to fulfill his oath of office to defend this nation against all threats foreign and domestic.

Thus, it should be crystal clear to Catholics at least why Bush decided to invade not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan, and furthermore, why it is necessary to authorize the intelligence community to spy on certain U.S. citizens or residents. Because if Bush did not do these things he would be sinning against God and against his own nation. The Church teaches that if a person believes he is morally bound to do a thing he should do it or he is committing a sin of ommission.

None of us can know what it was that President Bush perceived as threatening that caused him to believe that the only way he could fulfill his oath of office to defend this nation against all threats foreign and domestic was to go to war. None of us can know. We can have our opinions, but please, we must give the President the benefit of the doubt. He HAS a MORAL DUTY in this matter regardless of what any of us happen to think about it.
[right][snapback]866497[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


thank you! Kind Sir..

[OLAM Dad]

DW,

I agree with what you say in principal. My only points don't detract at all from your main point.

I think you're confusing the presidential oath of office with the oath of office that military officers take.

The presidential oath of office is specified in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

He swears to defend the constitution so your comments are valid. There is simply no mention of threats foreign and domestic.

As a military officer myself I took the following oath on a couple of occassions. I like it better.

"I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God. "

My second comment is that it is not the 'President's War'. It is 'America's War'.

[Desert Walker]

Thank you for the clarification. I had a feeling I was getting the Presidential oath wrong and confusing with something else, I just couln't think of what it was I was confusing it with.

Anyway both oaths appear to demand the same duty. The difference seems to be that one demands fuflilling it from an office, the other on a battlefield.

I agree: America's War. The debate however insists on calling it the President's.