Thanks, I’m here all week…

I certainly wouldn’t keep reading here if not for the occasional lol’s this site gives me, so I suppose it’s only right that I get to reciprocate every now and then. Also, you’re greatly stretching my comment — i.e., a single inadvertent racist remark does not a racist make, though coming right after you had flagged another remark as racist, it deserves a riposte. But for the record, the tongue was obviously in cheek. As for my claiming that Benedict is a patriot, I’m not really sure where you got that either, but I would refer everyone here to your comments within Feddy’s “God Bless America ” thread to supply any needed context.

Lastly, now that you mention it, my second paragraph somehow “disappeared” when I posted it last week on your own thread. Funny how that happens. I guess censorship (not that there’s anything necessarily wrong with that) is a little more problematic depending on who is looking over your shoulder, or maybe the comments all of a sudden became funnier the second time around, but honestly, no hard feelings either way.

Open thought, yes. Being a jerk, no.

Michael, the next time you curl up with some native feminist liberation theology, I’d chase it down with a dose of some sustainably and locally grown fair-trade chamomile, instead of whatever other “herb” you might be in the habit of relaxing with, if you know what I mean. It might help you ratchet down the paranoia. You might also try anthologizing for us all your racist assumptions about Neanderthals and any other indigenous peoples you deem deficient. That way, the next time you presume to lecture others about racism by displaying your own, the irony will be even more delicious.

Finally, I’d save your hectoring of Bishop Sheen for later. Don’t get me wrong, it’s pure comedy gold, but for that very reason you should wait until a few weeks before Catholic blogging nominations go out. I’m telling you: ka-CHING!

Christopher Says:
May 27, 2008 at 8:51 am
…
I happen to support our troops where in fact they are bringing peace and restoring a sense of order and security, as they are presently doing in joint cooperation with the Iraqi police / army and the Sahwah Al Anbar. Iraq can scarcely move forward if its citizens are living under the perpetual threat of kidnappings and beheadings.

Funny, Christopher, that the majority of Iraqis don’t see it that way. Are you claiming to know more than they do?

Now, first of all, MM seems to be saying that the majority of Iraqis either are not “bringing peace and restoring a sense of order and security” or that the majority of Iraqis believe that Iraq can “move forward if its citizens are living under the perpetual threat of kidnappings and beheadings” or that the majority of Iraqis do not believe that “their joint presence in Iraq at this moment in time is preferable to that of Al Qaeda”.

Now, what MM basis this claim as to the beliefs of the majority of Iraqis on, I’m not sure.

One thing he is not basing his assessment on is the BBC’s March 2008 survey of Iraqi public opinion:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/14_03_08iraqpollmarch2008.pdf

This shows that currently Iraqi opinion is evenly split over the question of whether it was good or bad that the US invaded Iraq:

Q8. From today’s perspective and all things considered, was it absolutely right, somewhat right, somewhat wrong, or absolutely wrong that US-led coalition forces invaded Iraq in spring 2003?
Mar08
Absolutely Right 21%
Somewhat Right 28%
Somewhat Wrong 23%
Absolutely Wrong 27%

It also contains some interestingly contradictory findings, such as that a majority (53% — see Q21) say that the US surge has made security worse, and yet a larger majority (63% — see Q22) say that they would like US forces to remain until the situation is more stable, or even longer.

Also, by margins of 70-80% Iraqis said that US forces _should be involved in a laundry list of items including (see Q34) training the Iraqi army, providing financial aid, and engaging in operations against al Qaeda and other foreign jihadists.

This smacks of the old sacred-secular division of labor that so many have critiqued.

But then, like the Bishops, I don’t have specific competence in political, economic or military strategies, so I’ll leave it up to General Petreus and Congress to determine when best to determine said “responsible transition.”

Too bad you didn’t agree with their recommendations from the start, or else this mess would not have happened.

And ‘ahem,’ there is nothing in the text that says a u.s. military presence is needed.