Antiwar.com Blog

The position of the newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI on the Iraq war could not be clearer:

“Is the war that has been announced against Iraq a just war? ‘All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism,’ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied with a mischievous grin, ‘and the conclusion seems obvious to me…’ For the guardian of Catholic orthodoxy, the obvious conclusion is that the military intervention that is taking shape ‘has no moral justification’ (September 20, interview on the Italian national news program). The Catechism, Ratzinger explained, does not embrace a pacifist position a priori; indeed, it admits the possibility of a ‘just war’ for reasons of defense. But it sets a number of very strict and reasonable conditions: there must be a proper proportion between the evil to be rooted out and the means employed. In short, if in order to defend a value (in this case, national security) greater damage is caused (civilian victims, destabilization of the Middle East, with its accompanying risks of increased terrorism), then recourse to force is no longer justified. In light of these criteria, Ratzinger refuses to grant the moral status of just war to the military operation against Saddam Hussein. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added another consideration: ‘Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power.'”

I like the part about the “mischievous grin.”

Long live Benedict XVI, champion of peace.

The ascension of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI is good news for the peace camp: he will carry on the legacy of John Paul II, whose stance against the invasion of Iraq enraged the War Party — and inspired millions with the hope that God had not abandoned the world to the Devil. The new Pope, as head of the Congregation of the Faith, openly disdained the Bush Doctrine when it was invoked by the U.S. government as a rationale for war: "The “concept of a ‘preventive war,’" he noted, "does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church." You bet it doesn’t, and if I were the White House I would be expecting much more along these lines. Even as the War Party was reveling in its purported triumph, the Cardinal averred that “it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction,” declaring: “It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

The Holy Father got that right. Even in the choice of his name, the portents are good. Pope Benedict XV was pope during World War I. He remained neutral and “in 1917 delivered the Plea for Peace, which demanded a cessation of hostilities, a reduction of armaments, a guaranteed freedom of the seas, and international arbitration.”

Naturally, the smears began even before the papal conclave was over. The London Times, in a shameful piece headlined "Papal hopeful is a former Hitler Youth," informs its readers:

"The wartime past of a leading German contender to succeed John Paul II may return to haunt him as cardinals begin voting in the Sistine Chapel tomorrow to choose a new leader for 1 billion Catholics.

“Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, whose strong defence of Catholic orthodoxy has earned him a variety of sobriquets — including ‘the enforcer,’ ‘the panzer cardinal’ and ‘God’s rottweiler’ — is expected to poll around 40 votes in the first ballot as conservatives rally behind him. … Unknown to many members of the church, however, Ratzinger’s past includes brief membership of the Hitler Youth movement and wartime service with a German army anti- aircraft unit."

Pope Benedict – another Kurt Waldheim. Uh, well, not quite. The author of this slime waits until the 9th paragraph, when we are finally told that he didn’t have much choice in the matter:

"He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941. He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. ‘Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one,’ concluded John Allen, his biographer. Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from Dachau concentration camp."

In other words, the Holy Father, like millions throughout Europe, was enslaved by the Nazis. But he’s a German, and therefore automatically suspect, at least in certain circles. The smears are already coming from all the usual suspects – for example, Andrew Sullivan hates him for the same reason he hated John Paul II – because he won’t endorse the Sullivanian cult of War and Sodomy. Tough. Let Sullivan and his fellow whiners wail and rend their hair – this Pope means trouble for the War Party. And to that I can only add: Amen!

UPDATE: We’re going to hear days and maybe even weeks of vicious attacks and whining from the liberal-left about how Benedict XVI isn’t a feminist, a gay liberationist, a liberation theologist, etc. ad nauseum. But here’s some sanity from the Daily Kos.

UPDATE II: The canard that the first German Pope in a thousand years served voluntarily in the German army during World War II is refuted here: the truth is that, after being conscripted, he deserted — at great risk to his life.

It’s amazing to see the depths to which people will sink to slime anything or anyone that is perceived as holy, or having to do with religion. While this doesn’t do much to convince me of the existence of God, it sure is a helluva argument for the reality of Satan.

Give ’em a little sovereignty and they get all uppity:

“I saw the whole thing and adding insult to injury was when Iraqi soldiers drew their rifles at brother Fatah as he was being mistreated by the Americans,” said Ali Yushaa an independent Shiite MP.

Deputies took turns to speak for almost two hours about the many indignities that they and the Iraqi population suffer when coming in contact with US troops.

“According to the Geneva conventions, an occupying force must respect the occupied nation,” said Abdul Khaliq Zanganah, a Kurdish MP. “This offending soldier must be thrown out of our country.”

A Sunni MP, Mudhar Shawkat, handed in the green VIP badge issued by the US military authorising him and other deputies to enter the Green Zone and said he would only attend parliament if sessions were moved to another location.

“They should be put on notice and given two months — no more — to leave the Green Zone,” he said before walking out. Another unidentified MP shouted: “Yes, the end of occupation begins here. The Green Zone must be liberated from occupation!” Speaker Hajem Al Hassani said he would suspend sessions altogether unless they move within a week to a building on the fringes of the Green Zone that has its own entrance and would be guarded by Iraqi soldiers.

“Enough is enough!” he said before adjourning parliament until Sunday.

So, what sparked all this anger? Fatah Al Sheikh explains:

“When I told the translator with the soldier that I was a member of the national assembly, he answered: To hell with you and the national assembly,” Sheikh told his colleagues.

“I got really upset, so I got down from my vehicle to confront him and at that moment a US soldier came over and grabbed my neck and choked me for a minute or so.” Sheikh said the whole fracas started when he lined up in his car with other deputies to enter the Green Zone, the seat of the transitional government and home to the US embassy, foreign advisors and contractors.

He said he decided to get out of line and come back later when it was less crowded, but that as he began to pull out, a US soldier came over and kicked his car. “I showed him my badge, but he grabbed it from my hand and tossed it in my face,” said the bearded Sheikh. “When I got out of my car, the soldier twisted my arm.”

The US military said it was investigating the incident and refused to comment.

This kind of incident happens all the time in Occupied Iraq, with the difference that this time an MP got the treatment and he actually has recourse to a public platform from which to speak, unlike the ordinary Iraqis who endure the indignities in silence. Whatever will the Americans do?

As if on cue, “neolibertarian” blogger Glenn Reynolds reminds us that he was ahead of the curve in whipping up terror hysteria.

Thanks a million for the plug, Matt! I just blogged at LRC a little more about the parallels between the scapegoating of the right after OKC and the scapegoating of the left after 9/11. And I agree about the parallels you mention about the demonization of the enemy at Waco and Iraq. Koresh was said to have dangerous weapons, to be abusing his people, to be threatening his neighbors—just like with Saddam. The press was incredibly manipulated in both Waco and Iraq. The justifications for the federal attack were ever changing. In Waco, the feds first accused the Davidians of housing a meth lab. Then it was illegal guns. Then it was abuse of children. In Iraq, the feds first accused Saddam of a link to al Qaeda. Then it was WMD. Then the war was defended on grounds of liberating and democratizing the country. In both cases, they wanted to validate the attack and the pretext was secondary. The violence of Oklahoma retroactively justified Waco in some people’s minds; the violence of 9/11 retroactively justified the first Gulf War in the minds of others. In the nineties, the threat was people like McVeigh, Koresh, all “separatists” and the right-wing talk radio hosts that gave them aid and comfort. Nowadays, it is people like Osama, Saddam, all “Islamists” and left-wing protestors that give them aid and comfort.

If Iraq had happened under a Democratic president, many who went along with it would have protested, and some who protested would have went along with it. If Waco had happened unded a Republican president, many who defended the atrocity would have been appalled, and some who were outraged would have defended it.

For those interested, I still think Carol Moore probably has the best book on Waco. You can read it online.

Good article by Anthony Gregory on the causes and consequences of the Waco and Oklahoma City atrocities. Like Anthony, I’m appalled by all the Democrats who shriek about the PATRIOT Act, but whipped out their presidential kneepads to defend the slaughter at Waco and Clinton’s power-mad reaction to OKC – and by the Republicans who bashed same but claim that “9/11 changed everything.”

Face it, lefties and righties: Waco was a microcosm of Iraq. What the ATF did to the Branch Davidians is what the U.S. military has done to Iraq over the last decade and a half – an inconclusive initial attack, followed by a crushing siege, then a bloodbath. Don’t yelp about one and praise the other.

And before I see one more lazy journalist interview Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center about the continuing threat from militias and hate groups!, let me point out that Timothy McVeigh never belonged to a militia, the KKK, or a “Christian Identity” group. The only militant organization he ever belonged to – and the one where he first took human life – was the US Army. Of course, Potok and the rest of the court intelligentsia left and right earn their keep by deifying Leviathan and demonizing its Lilliputian enemies. Omigod, a bunch of angry rednecks with shotguns! Angry Venezuelans with AK-47s! Angry Arabs with aluminum tubes! (And so on.) Something must be done!

Nobody puts on a two-minute hate like the hate-hunters, and nobody terrorizes like the Terror Warriors. As I wrote of McVeigh almost two years ago, his “response [to Waco] bore the seal of his schooling.”