Benedictine to Bush: 'Mr. President, this place is not your place.'

Maybe Bush can finally offer Catholics an apology for speaking at Bob Jones University a few years ago. The institute that believes the Pope is an agent of the devil & Catholics are going to hell.
No radical right-winged Christianity there, right?

Mark Silva is reaching even further down the food chain than usual for anti-Bush statements he can publicize.

Mr. Brennan's statement isn't even up-to-date anti-Bush screed, having been published in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette May 2nd, a week ago:

http://postgazette.com/pg/07122/782515-109.stm

Mr. Brennan's letter to the editor hasn't caused a stir in the media, except for the left-wing Huffington Post. And HuffPo's sister, the "Swamp".

"Maynard Brennan, past president, from 1963-69, wrote an opinion piece for the Post-Gazette last week..."

Bruce try reading the Swamp before attacking it.

Brucie says we should not debate whether President Bush violates the Catholic notion of "just" war. What else should we rule out debating Bruce? You follow a strange brand of democracy. In Italian its pronounced Fascism, I believe.

I went to Loyola University Chicago. And I am a very liberal Catholic.

But if I had the chance to have the sitting President of the United States as my commencement speaker? Are you nuts? I wouldn't care how much I disagree with his policies (like I do with Bush). What an extraordinary honor.

Just sit down and shut up. Someday, those protesting now, will tell their grand kids about the event with pride.

I'm with Steve. I think George W is terrible, but sometimes you put all politics aside and respect the office. You don't have to agree with the man, just enjoy the moment. Leave the politics to the voting booth.

America is clearly fighting a just war in accordance with the principles of Jus Ad Bellum (Thomas Aquinas) commonly understood to be: having just cause, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the use of proportional means.
The reasons for going into Afghanistan and Iraq meet all of those tenents - attack and destroy the Taliban Government in Afghanistan and destroy and eject Al Qaeda from there following 9/11.
Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the UN resolutions made the US invasion is just in light of the tarrorist threat the US now faces. The intention was correct, and so are the intentions to set up a free and moderate Iraq.
The people who are immoral are the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, the Saddam Hussein regime holdouts, and all related terrorists. These are the people who brought the world into this current war. The US is just in its war against these elements, and is justified to attack them where ever they hide.

Ummm...HK how did you get past the first two priniciples.

Principles of the Just War

A just war can only be waged as a last resort.

All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians.

The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

HK-

I disagree with your analysis on the justness of the Iraq war -

Just cause- OK

Declared by proper authority - OK, but based on falsehoods.

Posessing right intention - Who knows what this administrations intentions really are?

Having a reasonable chance of success- No. Even Cheney admitted after the first Gulf War that taking out the Hussein government would most likely lead to the US being bogged down in a long occupation and chaos with in Iraq.

Proportional means- I think 600,000 dead Iraqis argues against that.

And you forgot one key criteria:

War as Last resort - Not even close. War was this administrations first choice. The inspectors were back in, Saddam was contained.

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/justwar.htm

Hey HK--

I don't care what you tell yourself to justify wars, but going into Iraq was and is tactically stupid. Going to war and not taking the time to figure out what you are getting into and how to manage it is even dumber.

Once again it is more important to be a Democrat than an American. The President of the United States, whoever holds the office, should be treated with honor and respect as a commencement speaker. If you don't agree with him, there are numerous ways of letting him know this without being ungracious at your graduation ceremonies.

The President of the United States should be treated with no more honor and respect than he has earned, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican. Is there a first amendment exemptions for graduation ceremonies? I hadn't heard that. Of course if protests are a big concern, it sure wouldn't be hard for the school to find a better public speaker than the decider/commander guy.

Mac... Fist of all, how do you pull an attack on Democrats from this article? You see this article as evidence that Democrats are disrespectful to the office of the President or somehow not American? The only reference to the Democratic party in the whole article is the mention that the college president, the guy who has welcomed Bush to speak at his college and is writing articles calling for people to respect the President's right to speak and his office in general, is a Democrat.

Do you actually read these things? Or do you just assume that there's some offense in there that is obviously the fault of the Democratic party? Jeez man... take off the partisan blinders for a moment and read the news for what it is.

Second... the defining quality of America is that the citizens are entitled to protest the government if they find it necessary or expedient. We are not required to be "gracious" to an elected official, just because of his office.

I will agree that there should be some limit to this freedom. It find it wrong when individuals go to these private speaking events and protest loudly on the inside just to disrupt the activities. But this instance of individuals writing a petition in protest and calling for the school to allow reasonable protests to occur on public spaces is not in any way unjust or unAmerican.

Mac,
Obviously your head has been in the sand. Rarely does Bush speak in front of crowds that haven't been hand picked to avoid embarassing confrontations. During the 2004 elections, protesters were coralled into sections blocks away from the stage President Bush spoke from. He is in a bubble. This could be many peoples only opportunity to have their voices heard in our great democratic country. You can, at the same time, respect the Office of the President and disagree with the President's policies and voice your disagreement.

I don't understand this notion of respecting the office of the Presidency. I think of the guys I remember as President, and Jimmy Carter is the only one I have any respect for as a human being. And he wasn't an effective President, just a good guy.

Hey Jim G-
Invading a country is not tactics. Tactics is the application of fighting units; typically division and below sized units.
Invading a country is the strategic level of war. And invading Iraq was the next correct step in this war. Using two divisions to drive on the capital was probably a large enough force to take that objective, but the errors of 2003 were 1. to not follow-up with several hundred thousand troops. 2. disbanding the Iraqi Army, and 3. dismissing all the low level government folks who know how to run the local governments.
Now we are playing catch - up.
The biggest error the US made was in the 1990's - the so called peace dividend - now that was stupid. That is going to take time to reverse, and get the Army the up to the additional size needed. BUt the new direction that GEn. Petreus is working has a good chance of success, and as additional forces become available that chance of success increases.
If Al-Qaeda says we should leave Iraq, or will be force out by them; then we should do the opposite. Stay for decades, until all the anti-western, pro-terrorism regimes fall by the wayside.

Mark,

It's interesting that you headline the blog with a hypocrite's taunt,"Benedictine to Bush: 'Mr. President, this place is not your place.'

Are you for or against open discourse?

Drew

Stay for decades, until all the anti-western, pro-terrorism regimes fall by the wayside.

Posted by: HK | May 9, 2007 1:39:52 PM

That worked so well in SE Asia.

HK-
Invading Iraq was a tactical choice. Go ahead build up the armies. Loose thousands of lives, spend trillions of dollars over many years. That is exactly how the enemy wants to bring America down. Never listen to what Al-Qaeda wants or says, do what is best for us. You have fallen for their tactics.

Hey Tony, but for the cowards haunting the halls of Congress we would not have abandoned the Vietnamese.

The ones I work with here in America are glad we gave them a chance. Their families back in the "old" country hate the oppression which still exists.

I thank them every day for coming here and endorsing my belief that we were there for a reason and because we had a President the asked us to do something for our countty and not for ourselves.

I am a believer in the Kennedy clarion not the McGovern whine.

Jethro,
We meet the justification principle in that the Hussein regime was defying the UN resolution, which the penalty was military action against him for that defiance.
Proper Authority was met as the President went to the Congress and was given authorozation, According to the just war theory, that authorization comes from a legitimate ruler; in our case the Executive Branch and Legislative branch of government. Our elected officials make those decisions. You say: "actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority.." OUr president and our congress comprise our legitimate authority who can wage war, they are not individuals or groups.

Jethro,

Write the guy a letter at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.

"We meet the justification principle in that the Hussein regime was defying the UN resolution, which the penalty was military action against him for that defiance."

Just Not True.

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

And you still fail to address the Last Resort issue.

hk,
Had inspectors been given more time they would have concluded what they were discovering. There was no evidence of WMD in Iraq's possession prior to invasion. All non-violent options were NOT COMPLETELY exhausted.

HK,

Just how many of your family members are you willing to sacrifice for GW's follies over the next few decades? Get your head out of the sand. The American public has spoken and its wants an end to the BS war. Get over it neocon chickenhawk.

hk, Stay for decades? What makes you think our continued presence will bring peace or help pro-western, anti-terrorist regimes? Are you basing that on how well our other attempts at monkeying with governments over there have gone? I remember our guy, the Shah of Iran. Remind me how well that turned out.

The ones I work with here in America are glad we gave them a chance. Their families back in the "old" country hate the oppression which still exists.

Posted by: Drew H | May 9, 2007 2:03:13 PM

A chance to live under a military dictatorship rather than a communist dictatorship?

I guess Mommy locked someone in the closet one too many times.

"Military Dictatorship", even Moveon.org hasn't used that one...yet.

I agree that the Presidency needs to be honored and respected as much as possible for the sake of a civil democracy. Though I can't help but think this is the result of the divisive politics of the Bush administration coming back to bite him. This administration has governed with a harsh "with us or against", "good vs evil" tone. They speak of so much of democracy but bristle and display an arrogant dismissiveness when democracy means someone disagrees with them. Bush talked about a mandate after the 2004 election, when he earned 51% of the vote, after doing worse than that in 2000. The message of the kast two elections was that this is a diverse and divided country looking for someone who can pull us together through what binds us, not drive a wedge through us to squeak out a few more votes. Its time for democracy, which means lawmakers working together, negotiating, and finding reasonable solutions that serve the most people in the best way. This is what Iraq needs by the way, not a surge. They need diplomacy. And our soldiers needed the right equipment and numbers for the job back in 2003. Its sad that the President is such a divisive and loathsome figure, but its the house he built. Too bad W, deal with it.

Stay for decades, until all the anti-western, pro-terrorism regimes fall by the wayside.

Posted by: HK | May 9, 2007 1:39:52 PM

Wipe hands, easy as that. they'll just "fall by the wayside" due to nothing other than our unwavering stick-to-it-iveness.

Ahhh.. a true-blue neocon. Mountains of ideology and hope, no reason or logic.

Why, HK, do you think that, after decades of occupation, anti-western, pro terrorism regimes would just "fall to the wayside"? The logical & reasonal expectation would be that the longer our troops are occupying their soil, the longer anti-western, pro terrorist regimes are going to have a political platform to garner the support of the people. Your kind are the best friend of anti-western, pro-terrorist regimes.

Drew-

I was refering to the government of the Republic of South Vietnam, a military dictatorship.

Dave K,

That is right -we should stay engaged in the middle east for decades, like we have in Europe. Not as occupiers, but like we have in Kuwait, and Qatar, and Yemen, and the Sinai, and Egypt, and for periods of time other moderate Arab countries. Inevitably, once we get past the fighting, and Iraq for example, starts to get on its feet, we will need to to stay partnered with these nations to help maintain the stability in the region.
We stayed in Europe and Korea for decades, and out of that came the decline of the East Bloc and communism. Because by 1990, the communists realized thier way was wrong. And so will the notions of Jihad disapate as time goes by, and the people in these countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and hopefully Iran, and Syria, will see over time that having a Democratic form of government, a free market system, and the freedom to do what you choose instead of being oppressed by a regime like Hussein's or being executed by the Taliban for doing something immoral like having an impure thought about something, is better than listening to fascist islamist crackpots fill people's heads with jihad.
I know this, because I have lived it. I am a soldier who spent the 90's in Germany, partnered with German troops, it was our western way of life the people on the otherside of the Wall wanted.
I have been to Iraq, and Kuwait.
Did you know right now about 15,000 Americans live in Kuwait City to work, thier presence along with the US troops stationed there has caused many changes in that society since the early 1990s. I was there when women got to vote for the first time.
These things are happening in Iraq and Afghanistan too. Every day, every week, month, and year those new governments hold on and take root, the Jihadists are losing. And we have to help them through the process, we can beat these enemies, we just have to want it bad enough.

And hey neal,

I don't know what a neocon is. But trust me, my head is a lot less in the sand than the liberal crowd who does not serve - I've been over there, so I know what I am talking about. I know others who were killed and lost a limb. And I'll deploy and probably put myself in harms way again, but its necessary, we have to beat this enemy. You know why, because those jihadists want to take our way of life from us, so don't worry, better men than you are doing the job that those who want to give up and surrender haven't the courage to do.

The letter also complains that Bush's social policies "protect the privileges of rich and powerful Americans" at the expense of the poor,'' and accuses him of stifling debate with "fear mongering and threats."

You can't argue with Logic!!!

I'm just surprised that anyone would consider George W. Bush the best possible commencement speaker. His verbal skills are almost embarrassing.

Dave K,

That is right -we should stay engaged in the middle east for decades, like we have in Europe. Not as occupiers, but like we have in Kuwait, and Qatar, and Yemen, and the Sinai, and Egypt, and for periods of time other moderate Arab countries.... We stayed in Europe and Korea for decades, and out of that came the decline of the East Bloc and communism.

Posted by: HK | May 9, 2007 5:09:15 PM

Then I guess we are in agreement HK... We should pull our troops out of Iraq, where the populace definately doesn't want us, and move them to permanent bases in Kuwait, where they do (much like Germany and South Korea). You seem to forget to note the little caveat that the West Germans and South Koreans overwhelmingly WANTED a long-term American military presence. That is why those presences are big pluses for democracy and American interests. That's not at all the case in Iraq.

I'm not against having military bases to defend democracy in countries where the general populace wants us to do such... but that doesn't exactly seem to be the case in Iraq. In Iraq, it seems we blew the lid off a civil war that's been bubbling beneath the surface for 1400 years or so and pretty much everyone there thinks we're causing more harm than good (not exactly analogous to the West German and South Korean examples).

Don't sell us on these apples to oranges comparisons. Cause it's a much shorter stretch to compare America's current role in Iraq to that of Russian in Afghanistan a couple decades ago than the one you're trying to make.

There's a difference between truly defending democracy vs. forcing it on an unwilling populace down the barrel of a gun. One is morally correct and just good foreign policy. The other one isn't (guess which is which).

HK | May 9, 2007 5:09:15 PM

Thanks for your service!!!

Logic Prisoner,

Thank you for the compliment! And you are welcome!