Whaddya expect the Pope to say, Annie? "Crucify the fuckers!"?

I think the intent is to show the inconsistency - all of them seemed to be okay with the murder of innocents by state actors, but not private actors.

Yeah, I need more help understanding, Annie, what is so hollow about the Holy Father's words.

All of these people were opposed to Bush's actions against Iraq. These people all talk a great game when it comes to terrorism but are completely unwilling to do anything to stop it. That is why their word seem so hollow now.

Thank you, Tony and SJ.

Some of us believe that the prayers of the Holy Father -- and the universal church -- are more effective weapons against terrorism than smart bombs and Airborne rangers.

"Some trust in chariots, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God..."

I'll grant you the others, but not JP2.

Perhaps it's time again for the Holy Father to issue yet another apology.

"We cannot not recognize the betrayal of the Gospel committed by some of our brothers, especially in the second millennium. Recognizing the deviations of the past serves to reawaken our consciences to the compromises of the present. We humbly ask forgiveness," Pope John Paul II repenting for the errors of his church over the last 2,000 years.

The Holy Father seems to have a short memory these days.

You'll sooner see McDonald's promoting veganism than the Pope promoting war. That's as it should be, unless you think the Crusades were good things. And it's why, as I explained about a year ago on my own blog, the Church's own doctrine -- now, at least -- explicitly provides that the ultimate right to decide to go to war (or not) rests with civil authorities, not the Church.

Since the days of Papal armies are long gone, exactly what should the Holy Father do to stop terrorism? He's significantly different from the other three in a very important respect: He has essentially no temporal power to influence the outcome of the war; he has no army at his disposal. What's he supposed to do, deploy the Swiss Guard to Baghdad?

He could say something like " We've got to exterminate these cockroaches and scorpions before they fuck up annie's vacation plans again".

Second-guess their hollow-ness, Annie. I wasn't closely following foreign policy at the time but I can say now that losing Putin's alliance is more of a major diplomatic failure on Bush's part than any supposed "hollow words" from Russia's leader. Putin was the first leader to call with condolences after 9/11 and take a stand with Bush, and the Russian people were among the most sympathetic, strewing the embassies with flowers. But the winds change quickly, you're right, and not because of any Russian hypocrisy. Our treatment of Putin and the whole relationship with Russia at the time was a complete disaster, the most inane behavior I can imagine. We literally slapped them in the face.

Now that I'm telling you why the problem of Iraq is our fault, let me question your premise. Think about 9/11 and the origins of the "War on Terror" -- much bigger than Iraq (and which Iraq isn't really even a part of). You should be thinking of Afghanistan, where Russia swiftly swept in to give us aid and intelligence, extremely valuable as their understanding of and preparedness for war in that region was far superior to ours. (The republics bordering Afghanistan are, after all, part of the former Soviet Union, and still home to Russian military bases.) They are actually the ally that made our campaign to topple the Taliban successful. And when we slapped them in the face for their help, is it any surprise that when we started pushing against them to take a much more questionable position, Putin was ready to stand up and say no? I think not. Indeed, at least in the case of Russia, the Dems are absolutely right in naming Bush a complete and utter diplomatic failure on the Iraq issue.

Candace, you make some good points concerning the diplomacy or lack thereof concerning Russia. OxBlog has a post examining some of the issues and difficulties.

"The experience in the postcommunist world is clear: The fastest democratizers are also the fastest economic reformers and the most successful economies."

As such, the Bush administration should not hesitate to demand that Putin's stop undermining the foundations of Russian democracy. Colin Powell should not be saying that "I have some concerns, but I don't think democracy is in trouble in Russia." It is. And when the US ignores that fact, it damages our own credibility as a global advocate of democratic reform.

Moreover, Putin is hurting our efforts to win the War on Terror by waging a brutal and senseless war in Chechnya. While we can't force Putin to change his ways, we can keep the global spotlight on his authoritarian and aggressive behavior. Ever the self-interested pragmatist, that kind of negative attention may just keep Putin in line. "

DVD to Pocket PC

nike shox
shox shoes
nike shoes shox
nike shox running shoes
nike shoes
shox nz shoes
shox nz
shox torch
torch shoes
nike dream shoes
dream shoes
shox monster shoes
nike shox monster shoes
nike shox nz
nz shoes
shox oz
oz shoes
shox r3
nike shox r3
shox r4
nike shox r4
r4 torch
shox r4 torch
nike shox r5
shox r5
shox tl1
tl1 shox
tl3 nike shox
tl3 shox
nike shox turb
shox turb