Did He Plan It?

[M.SIGGA]

Interesting post Ironmonk, but it is really pointless. Lots of great knowledgeable people and politicians have been great thinkers and have done great things without a formal education including Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein.

Our President, Mr. Bush, aka the Leader of the Free World, braged once about how he doesn't read the newspaper because it's full of "opinions" - the only other leaders who bragged about this were Hilter and Louis XVI. He also cannont read or speak with proper diction. He is ill mannered when speaking with/adressing foreign diplomats and shockingly ignorant when it comes to anything non-American. He might come from the Ivy League, but he doesn't give the impression that he is anything more than a C student from any other university.

His staff might be and elite group of intellectuals on paper, but that hasn't stopped them from starting wars based on faulty British intelligence. Without his WH staff the president would be lost. As an American, this is totally embarrasing. Today over 500 Americans are dead. All that paper wasn't enough to encourage further investigations so the president didn't sound like an idiot while addressing the nation and the world in the State of the Union Address last year.

This is the reason people hate the president and make fun of him. This is why people are burning images of him and desecrating the American flag throughout Western Europe. This is why our great nation is the laughing stock of the whole world. I'm not judging his heart, I'm just stating the facts. Celeberties just give us something to laugh about because it's their job, and they do a great service to the American people who would probably cry otherwise because this whole war/presidential situation is just so pitiful.

[jrndveritatis]

Regardless of the criticism of Bush, most of which I disagree with, my question is:

How can any Catholic loyal to the magisterium vote for a candidate who supports abortion when a pro-life candidate is available?

I think it is clear that to vote for any of the Democrats running for president would be a sin, probably mortal, because they all support abortion.

This is really all that the whole issue comes down to, unless you can find an alternative to Bush who is pro-life.

Abortion is declared to be a gravely sinful act by the Catholic Church. Other political issues can be disagreed upon by Catholics. However, abortion must be opposed under the pain of sin. The war was a prudential judgment by Bush, a judgment which the Catechism of the Catholic Church authorizes. The pope was personally opposed, but in matters of prudential judgment the pope teaches that the governing authority has the authority and duty to make the decision.

[M.SIGGA]

If prudential judgement was the case, then JPII would have accepted the war right away. The fact is that all alternatives to war were not exhausted simply because of the fact that America didn't research their sources of information. Bush's folks trusted uncreditable sources and faulty info from the British. The reasons for going to war was based on subjective information and is therefore not prudential. Although this war proved to be good in certain areas, this is not a just war. In due time, when Iraq evolves into another Shiate nation like Iran, the outcome will prove my point.

[M.SIGGA]

I am a loyal Catholic who cannot support Bush because my discernment tells me that he is not sincere and he is evil. If he truly believed abortion was evil and millions of people, all those innocent American babies, were brutally being slaughtered everyday he would have done or at least said something by now. He has done nothing, his father did nothing and Reagan did nothing - yet all "pro-life." His war on terror has surpassed the need to save the children, so I don't consider him to be any different than a democrat. A title and a name means nothing if you don't deliver the goods. There is nothing in Catholic teaching about following someone with hollow words, so no, I will never support president Bush because I don't want any part in his sins of ommision.

[ironmonk]

Interesting post Ironmonk, but it is really pointless. Lots of great knowledgeable people and politicians have been great thinkers and have done great things without a formal education including Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein.

Our President, Mr. Bush, aka the Leader of the Free World, braged once about how he doesn't read the newspaper because it's full of "opinions" - the only other leaders who bragged about this were Hilter and Louis XVI. He also cannont read or speak with proper diction. He is ill mannered when speaking with/adressing foreign diplomats and shockingly ignorant when it comes to anything non-American. He might come from the Ivy League, but he doesn't give the impression that he is anything more than a C student from any other university.

His staff might be and elite group of intellectuals on paper, but that hasn't stopped them from starting wars based on faulty British intelligence. Without his WH staff the president would be lost. As an American, this is totally embarrasing. Today over 500 Americans are dead. All that paper wasn't enough to encourage further investigations so the president didn't sound like an idiot while addressing the nation and the world in the State of the Union Address last year.

This is the reason people hate the president and make fun of him. This is why people are burning images of him and desecrating the American flag throughout Western Europe. This is why our great nation is the laughing stock of the whole world. I'm not judging his heart, I'm just stating the facts. Celeberties just give us something to laugh about because it's their job, and they do a great service to the American people who would probably cry otherwise because this whole war/presidential situation is just so pitiful.

Comparing Bush to Hitler is laughable...

Bush and Hitler were both right handed. They were both men. They both had mothers, and fathers! The similarities are endless!!! Oh My!! what are we to do???!!!

It is sad that over 500 americans are dead... they died fighting for what they believed in.

Freedom.

Think of how many thousands of people Saddam butchered.

Think of how many thousands that he tortured.

Is it a shame that the Iraqi people now do not have to fear Saddam?

Is it a shame that Saddam genocide actions have been stopped?

Is it a shame woman are now allowed more freedoms?

Is it a shame that people can now use the satallite TV receivers?

Is it a shame that terrorists will no longer receive blood money for suicide bombings?

Isn't it a shame when people only get their information from one side?

I love the Pope, but I think that the US did what was needed and right. I think that the US might have a little more information on what was going on behind the scenes.

All diplomatic routes were exhausted. Saddam was ignoring everything, imposing more regulations on the poor impoverished people of Iraq would not have solved anything.

It's pitiful that Saddam was allowed to stay in power so long.

It's pitiful that people don't search out all the facts and actually listen to both sides.

-ironmonk

[M.SIGGA]

It's more of a comparison of ignorance. There is no comparison btw Hitler and Bush because Hitler actually served his country in the military b4 sending people to war and Hitler also won the popular vote. Note you didn't compare Bush to Louis XVI, the person he mostly parallels, seeing both of them were raised with silver spoons and neither care about the poor or public opinion. Pity everything that certain peeps post is totally onesided.

[ironmonk]

It's more of a comparison of ignorance. There is no comparison btw Hitler and Bush because Hitler actually served his country in the military b4 sending people to war and Hitler also won the popular vote. Note you didn't compare Bush to Louis XVI, the person he mostly parallels, seeing both of them were raised with silver spoons and neither care about the poor or public opinion.

You have just proven that you know nothing about Bush....

Envy is one of the 7 deadly sins... becareful.

[M.SIGGA]

haha you have proven that ignorance is bliss.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

alright you two... cut it out or move it to the back alley...

[jrndveritatis]

I am a loyal Catholic who cannot support Bush because my discernment tells me that he is not sincere and he is evil. If he truly believed abortion was evil and millions of people, all those innocent American babies, were brutally being slaughtered everyday he would have done or at least said something by now. He has done nothing, his father did nothing and Reagan did nothing - yet all "pro-life." His war on terror has surpassed the need to save the children, so I don't consider him to be any different than a democrat. A title and a name means nothing if you don't deliver the goods. There is nothing in Catholic teaching about following someone with hollow words, so no, I will never support president Bush because I don't want any part in his sins of ommision.

Bush is evil????

Voting for abortion is evil.

Bush has done nothing????

Banning partial birth abortion is something. Stopping the funding of stem cell research on newly produced stem cells from embryos is something.

No different than a Democrat????

The Democrats are the ones opposing any pro-life judge nominee. Bush is the one appointing them.

Hollow words????

He promised a tax cut...he delivered. He promised a partial-birth ban...he delivered. He promised an increase in defense spending...he delivered.

Okay, given that you will not support Bush, I pray you do not support a Democrat, because that would be morally wrong, as Pope John Paul II has demonstrated above in the Gospel of Life.

If prudential judgement was the case, then JPII would have accepted the war right away. The fact is that all alternatives to war were not exhausted simply because of the fact that America didn't research their sources of information. Bush's folks trusted uncreditable sources and faulty info from the British. The reasons for going to war was based on subjective information and is therefore not prudential. Although this war proved to be good in certain areas, this is not a just war. In due time, when Iraq evolves into another Shiate nation like Iran, the outcome will prove my point.

JPII, as the Pope, practically must promote peace until it would be morally wrong to do so. The Catechism explicitly declares, "The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." The war was not based on intelligence from the British alone. In fact, we have rather superior intelligence agencies who are capable of providing their own information. Just because we have found no weapons, it does not follow that the intelligence was faulty. That is irrefutable. Perhaps Iraq may turn into another Iran. That is not the point. Bush, as president had a sworn obligation to defend the United States as his prudential judgment dictated. He did so. Whether his judgment was faulty or not has no relevance to his authority to defend our nation.

[megamattman1]

Just a few points I thought reading over all your stuff.

It was okay for Ironmonk to point out that most of us would do no better if we were president just to point it out. (though it's kinda outta no where as it's beside the point of everything we're talking about) Just as long as he doesn't think we shouldn't criticize him at all. I'm sure he criticizes presidents and what have you. Even all the professional always disagree about stuff. Besides, are we suppose to sit idly by and let things happen for any side?

I suppose I should give Bush more credit as it'd be a sticky situation being more adament about something that didn't produce results, so maybe it is good politics. Only "good" since it's politics. But I don't like that he's not straight forward, and it's skirting the very thing that made the war just.

As far as the other issues go. I agree that we'd be wise and obligated to vote pro-life. I agree with that dude that if the words are hollow, maybe someone else is a better candidate. And I'm a bit of a cynic so I will have to study more into Bush's history on abortion to see if his words are hollow or not. I love that he banned partial birth, but as I said of my cynicism and devil's advocatism, I will need to look more into his history.

Giving tax cuts and raising military spending isn't necessarily that great of an accomplishment when we're going into debt. Maybe it's best for the economy, but even economists disagree with that whole trickle down theory. Having a bunch of debt and interest can't be good. So it's a gray issue and hard to say. I'm not much into lables since they're so relative, but maybe I'm so ultra conservative that I think we should cut spending and not give a tax cut when we have debts to pay and deficits to prevent. I personally liked George Bush senor. He had the fortitude to raise the taxes when they needed to be raised. (again now is different and yes it's hard to say what's best) Then there's Arnorld Swartzenhimer.... now there's a man I'd vote for. seriously! :lol:

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[Ellenita]

The war was not based on intelligence from the British alone.

Thank goodness to see the argument that this war began because of faulty intelligence from the British being refuted! The perception over here is that Bush very much wanted the war - nothing to do with our faulty intelligence (and without a doubt it was given spin to establish a reason for war). Tony Blair has been universally portrayed as Bush's puppet in the matter and vilified in the press.

Don't forget there was the thorny issue of refusing to allow further time for the UN mandate to go to war which resulted in the war being declared illicit in the eyes of the international community - Blair consistently worked to bring the international community on side and might have achieved it if the 'hawks' in the Whitehouse had allowed him more time.

Ironically there is the possibility that Blair might still be indicted as a war criminal as a result of the war since there was no clear mandate....not so Bush of course since the US does not recognise the international court. Without a doubt, Blair will lose votes because of our involvement in the war and there are predictions that he may well lose the next election completely - polls consistently say people think he lied over Iraq.

Incidently, I did not campaign against the war or march in the largest protest march this country has ever seen, since I hoped that Blair was a man of integrity who would not take us war without good reason......and that surely WMD would be found soon..... I'm currently wondering where my brain cells were during this time!

[megamattman1]

Interesting Ellenita.

One other note I should say. Maybe it is a gray issue if giving the tax cuts will help the economy or not. I suppose it couldn't hurt it and if anything it'd help it. Still hard to say.

But one thing that seems certain (any objections?) is that any help it would cause would be short term and only as a result of the artificial nature of going into debt. Much like someone throwing everything on credit! And appearing wealthy on the outside. We could be heading to economic misfortune if this is the case.

But moreover in this case causing more people having low paying jobs and having families with unstable working condidtions creating more people and unemployed. Creating more need for more tax cuts in an endless cycle. And that's only if it helps the economy.

Creating people shouldn't be looked upon as wrong per se. But in bad economic conditions it may be the case taken to the extreme. In reality it may be a lack of education on the part of the unemployed as wouldn't there always be a need for someone with an education? Well in an ideal society I suppose but perhaps not in reality. Perhaps these are educated decent people needing jobs and can't get any. This would only reaffirm our need to exam our welfare system in a conservative approach.

Anyway, I could see if the rich who run the country were hurting to give a cut but that's not the case. It seems like we shouldn't be giving tax cuts as the economy will take care of itself.

Edited January 21, 2004 by megamattman1

[jrndveritatis]

I suppose I should give Bush more credit as it'd be a sticky situation being more adament about something that didn't produce results, so maybe it is good politics. Only "good" since it's politics. But I don't like that he's not straight forward, and it's skirting the very thing that made the war just.

What is he not being adament about? Wait give me a few mins and I will post what he said in the State of the Union. It was very adament.

Giving tax cuts and raising military spending isn't necessarily that great of an accomplishment when we're going into debt.

Agreed. Good point. Going into debt is bad. However, raising military spending was required to meet the threat, even at the cost of going into debt. Giving taxes has given the economy its biggest quarterly growth in the GDP in 18 years. The Dow is soaring. More jobs are growing. The way to avoid going into debt is to avoid spending like you said. I guess my disagreement with you is on not cutting taxes. I personally, and obviously this is a political, not religious belief, feel that the government is way too big and many of its programs should be cut. Cutting programs would take away the deficit while causing the need for less taxes and allowing tax cuts.

[jrndveritatis]

Here is what Bush has to say in justification of the war. I think it is pretty straightforward.

Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts - already the Kay report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims - terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq - where hundreds of thousands of men, women and children vanished into the sands - would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.

Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.

We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.

The war clearly was based on much more than British intelligence.