For the record, if and when the Republican nomination is decided in the expected fashion, John McCain has my full, unequivocal, unhesitating support. His many crimes against movement conservatism, and various constituent parts of it, are hereby pardoned. We cannot take the risk that American foreign policy (especially vis a vis Iraq) will substantially change in the coming months. Questioning the decision now is fruitless, and bringing the opposing policy to bear on the people of Iraq is immoral and stupid. We owe them at least a fair shot at a free country; to do anything less would be to ensure that the enormous cost in blood and treasure will have been in vain. This policy represents the very heart of liberal internationalism, and how terribly ironic that the opposition now pretends to disavow it. The numerous errors in execution and strategy do not change the mission from worthy to unworthy. The hardships on our soldiers and their families (and us) break our hearts, but they should not break our will. We do not decide policy based upon what is popular or easy. Senator Obama, look the people of Iraq in the eyes as you tell them that they’re not worth it. Look at their progress, look at the fragile freedom and scorn it; look at our past mistakes in that country and say our sins against it make us unfit to correct the mistake. Is this your vision? Is this your new direction? You have said you will stop genocide; is Iraq’s genocidal history unworthy of your attention? Have you failed to notice that its chief perpetrator was duly convicted and punished, aided by the American military power you claim should never have been used? This is not about George Bush, Dick Cheney, or anyone else the Democrats despise; it’s about whether our word means anything, it’s about whether we understand the gravity of war. That question ought not only be asked at the outset, but throughout. We are required to ask ourselves what obligations the unleashing of power has laid upon us, and to accept them. McCain understands this; his Democratic opponents do not. For chiefly this reason, I support John McCain for President of the United States.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
Comments