When Barack Obama was starting out in Chicago, one of his first admirers was Joseph Cardinal Bernadin, the effeminate creator of the "seamless garment" theory, that said that the pro-life issue could be shelved in favor of social welfare, anti-war, and other liberal causes.
So it should come as no surprise that, unlike the Iraq war, which was condemned by the Vatican and American bishops as a violation of Just War theory, when Barack Obama chose to engage in military action against Libya, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared it to meet Just War criteria.
The Iraq War came after the genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein spent twelve years trying to shoot down the American and British planes enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq, a clear violation of the cease-fire ending the 1991 Gulf War. No matter; American bishops declared that because Iraq had not invaded any other country, it was not a just war.
Fast forward to 2011. The mere suggestion that Muammar Quadafi might kill civilians in his own country means that military action is justified. But what about the bishop's position that military action is only permissible when a country has invaded or attacked another country? Apparently, that no longer applies. Or could it be that military action is immoral when a Republican does it, but when the bishop's own Barack Obama does it, it is moral? The murder of the Kurds apparently didn't make war to unseat Hussein moral, but the possibility that Quadafi might kill civilians makes this war moral?
So it should come as no surprise that, unlike the Iraq war, which was condemned by the Vatican and American bishops as a violation of Just War theory, when Barack Obama chose to engage in military action against Libya, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops declared it to meet Just War criteria.
The Iraq War came after the genocidal regime of Saddam Hussein spent twelve years trying to shoot down the American and British planes enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq, a clear violation of the cease-fire ending the 1991 Gulf War. No matter; American bishops declared that because Iraq had not invaded any other country, it was not a just war.
Fast forward to 2011. The mere suggestion that Muammar Quadafi might kill civilians in his own country means that military action is justified. But what about the bishop's position that military action is only permissible when a country has invaded or attacked another country? Apparently, that no longer applies. Or could it be that military action is immoral when a Republican does it, but when the bishop's own Barack Obama does it, it is moral? The murder of the Kurds apparently didn't make war to unseat Hussein moral, but the possibility that Quadafi might kill civilians makes this war moral?
No comments:
Post a Comment