Listen to the Generals

The Democrats in Congress are currently doing everything possible in their power to undermine our war effort in Iraq while claiming to have the moral high ground because they are doing - as Majority Leader Harry Ried is fond of saying - "the will of the people". While I cannot and would not try to mitigate the large body of evidence indicating that there is a massive and growing portion of the country who now favor ending the current War in Iraq (nor would I generally want to suppress the will of the people), it is incumbent upon our political leaders to not only listen to their electorate -and indeed to all who are effected by their policy decisions- but at times to also stand up and actually be the statesmen that they pretend to be. This is especially true at such times when either the people have a misunderstanding or are just plain wrong. It is in those cases that a good leader will, rather than be blown with the political winds, make an argument and attempt convince the people of what the right course of action is despite any perceived political consequences. This incidentally is exactly what Joe Lieberman has done and despite the fact that I disagree with the man on almost every issue, I have the utmost respect for the true Statesman that he is.

The fact is that the people of this country do want the war to be over because they are weary and because they see no signs of improvement nor any hope for success. They have not thought (at least not in any great detail) about the consequences of leaving nor do they see any prospect for any of this changing except in the number of the troop body count reported each evening on the news.

I am therefore ashamed of our Democrat leaders in the US Congress who despite a recent course change in Iraq, continue bullheadedly to try to arrange an immediate troop withdrawal - that is to say surrender - without either understanding the consequences of said withdrawal or listening to what General Petraeus (who took over command of our forces in Iraq in February) has to say about what our prospects are of actually winning the war. They do this because either it is the easier thing to do (as it is easier to agree with someone than it is to convince them of something) or because it is the most politically advantageous thing to do(although I suspect the latter). Neither of which are marks of Statesmanship. And while I generally refrain from assuming that someone is not acting on the best of intentions, in this case I must present the following evidence that our Democrat leaders are acing on one of the two aforementioned reasons in these words of General Petraeus himself during an Interview with Hugh Hewitt:

The Surge has not been given time to achieve it's goals:

[The Troop Surge has been going] about a month now , Hugh. We received the final Army brigade, the Marine expeditionary unit, and the combat aviation brigade in June, and they all went into operation about the mid part of last month. So it’s about a month that they’ve all been on the ground, and all of our forces have been engaged in what is a pretty comprehensive offensive operation in just about all of the belts and Baghdad, as they’re called, and then in also several neighborhoods in Baghdad that are of particular concern because of the activities in those neighborhoods of al Qaeda, or in some cases, of militia extremist elements.

General Petraeus will be giving a report to congress in at which time it may then be appropriate to draw conclusions about our current strategy:

I have always said that we will have a sense by that time [September] of basically, of how things are going, have we been able to achieve progress on the ground, where have their been shortfalls, and so forth. And I think that is a reasonable amount of time to have had all the forces on the ground, again, for about three months, to have that kind of sense.

Even if neither of the above were true we have a responsibility to the people of Iraq:

I think just first of all, we have an enormous responsibility, because of course, we did liberate this country. And so right off the bat, a lot of us feel, certainly, that degree of responsibility.

If you want to know what is going on in Iraq and what responsibilities we have there so that you can have some semblance of what we actually should be doing, you absolutely must do more than simply read the opinion polls and listen to the evening news. You have to listen to our Generals about what is being done, how it's going, and candidly contemplate the consequences of failure. It is not enough to simply shroud yourself in "The Will of the People".

So Read the whole Interview if you really want an understanding of the war other than the main stream news headlines

Read more commentary by Hugh Hewitt

Continue reading "Listen to the Generals"

Collapse Listen to the Generals

Who is Archbishop John Nienstedt?

We here in the Archdiocese of St. Paul will soon have a new Archbishop. So I thought it might be a good idea to find out a little bit about the man before he replaces our current Archbishop Harry Flynn next year.

The local media has already pegged Nienstedt as 'Conservative'. Not that I fault the media for being ignorant or just plain lazy or both, but that label is simply not appropriate for a variety of reasons that I will get into in a moment.

This is a perfect opportunity to show how the media is completely incapable of thinking and I need to spend a moment dissecting it. You see the media has these square holes that are the templates to which they create stories and they shove each and every peg they can find regardless of whether it is round, triangle, square or otherwise into that same hole.

Take the title of this Star Tribune article: Archbishop-elect John Nienstedt: 'I do not come as a politician but as a priest...'
Who ever heard of an Archbishop-elect? Bishops are not elected they are appointed! The proper title is Coadjutor John Nienstedt. This is simply laughable coming from the Star Trib's 'religion' correspondent. But they have this square hole and...

Now you can start see why they label Nienstedt as conservative. Later in that same article the Tribune tries to explain why they are justified in painting him in such a manner:

All Roman Catholic bishops are expected to support church doctrine. But the
issues they emphasize lead observers to characterize them as conservative,
moderate or liberal.

Here is the key phrase: the issues they emphasize. But if you keep reading the article that's not really what they mean. what they really mean is the issues they don't emphasize:

Flynn has been considered moderate by Catholic standards. For instance, although
in 2005 he advised parishes to deny communion to worshipers wearing rainbow
sashes, a symbol of support for gay rights, he did not punish a parish that
defied him

Here we come down to the crux of the issue with the Star Trib. If a bishop supports church doctrine he is conservative and if he does nothing (or close to nothing) he is liberal. I would argue that the correct terminology would be Orthodox and Heterodox (or for those of you a little weaker in the stomach: Less Orthodox). I would even prefer something like 'Active' vs. 'Passive' (as this seems to be what the Star Trib really means) or even 'Strict' vs 'Lenient'. Also the examples the Tribune uses to site Nienstedt's 'conservatism' do not even include any punishment so exactly what criteria the Tribune is using remains unclear.

In any case, the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' are political terms, and based on politics alone Nienstedt is certainly not a conservative. One only needs to spend a few minutes reading the current Diocese of New Ulm (His current seat) page on him to discover some of his more liberal political leanings:

• He joined the lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of Minnesota's Concealed Carry law
• He leans to the left on Illegal Immigration
• He signed on with the rest of the Minnesota Bishops supporting legislation that would attempt to mitigate Global Warming
• although I could not find specific examples, by reading between the lines all indications are he leans to the left on minimum wage, affordable housing, universal health care, welfare etc.

While I may disagree with our new Coadjutor over many of these issues, they are political issues about which he is free to come to his own prudential judgement and still be well within the bounds orthodoxy. Conservatism and Orthodoxy are not the same thing as the Star Tribune would have us believe. Every indication I have seen indicates Archbishop Nienstedt as being 100% faithful to the Magisterium of the Church (read: orthodox) and is vociferously outspoken about it. Every Catholic in the diocese should welcome with open arms an orthodox Catholic as our Archbishop. I for one hope that his zeal for the Truth will inspire him to reign in some of the abuses that have gone on far to long in this diocese (e.g. general absolution). When we have an 'active' bishop that will stand up for orthodox positions we will be less likely to end up with problems like the rainbow sash movement which was a direct result of a 'passive' bishop.

If you happen to be catholic and are dreading the arrival of an orthodox bishop then I have to question what you believe it means to be Catholic in the first place.

Welcome to the Twin Cities Archbishop Nienstedt!

Continue reading "Who is Archbishop John Nienstedt?"

Collapse Who is Archbishop John Nienstedt?

A Lonely Fathers Day

My Brother-In-Law was deployed with his National Guard troop Sunday for an 18 month tour-of-duty. He leaves behind my sister and niece. Kare 11 did a story on the deployment and used them as their centerpiece. God Speed to those men and women puting their lives on hold for our country. The following video was on Saturday's 10 O'clock News, but be warned: you might need a Kleenex. (isn't my niece cute)

Continue reading "A Lonely Fathers Day"

Collapse A Lonely Fathers Day