referring to GW's favorite scripture, i think they have something in their eyes...like a log, perhaps?:shake
Bishops in England Call Bush and Tony Blair "White Vigilantes"
I saw this article in a British Newspaper On-Line this Morning. Now here is my thing that gets me riled up. We are not perfect, I think we all know that and both Bush and Blair have tried their best through this war. I think they are both good and fair leaders. Hussein has been captured and Iraq is now slowly on its way to democracy, even though many challenging years still await. Why resort to name calling? Are we back in the time of the Pharisees? :shrug I dunno, I'm certainly thankful Saddam is gone. I guess this kinda stuff is what turns some people off about church and religion and I think its sad. Of course, I know not all churches agree with these comments, but still the media loves to retell stuff like this even though its perhaps in the minority. :rolleyes
Bishops slam "white vigilante" Blair
Mon 29 December, 2003
By Andrew Cawthorne
LONDON (Reuters) - Two church leaders have blasted Prime Minister Tony Blair for going to war in Iraq, with one bishop saying he and U.S. President George W. Bush acted like "a bunch of white vigilantes".
Their criticism -- plus an embarrassing contradiction over weapons of mass destruction by the U.S. administrator of Iraq at the weekend -- comes at the end of a miserable year for Blair whose popularity has tumbled over the invasion of Iraq.
The Archbishop of York, David Hope, who is the Church of England's second most senior churchman, said Blair had displayed "a real lack of listening" over Iraq and his claims of fallen dictator Saddam Hussein's arms capability remained unproven.
"Undoubtedly a very wicked leader has been removed, but there are wicked leaders in other parts of the world," he added in an interview with The Times newspaper.
Hope urged churchgoers to pray for Blair, and said he and Bush should remember they will one day answer to God.
"I want to say...that there is a higher authority before whom one day we all have to give an account," he said.
The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, was scathing about Blair's military alliance with Bush in Iraq. He likened them to a pair of mavericks fighting crime in multi-racial inner-city London.
"For Bush and Blair to go into Iraq together was like a bunch of white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug-dealing. This is not to deny there's a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it," he told The Independent newspaper.
"The world now needs a U.N. army in the way that Britain 200 years ago needed to turn its bands of militia in each town into a national police force."
"STRANGE CHRISTIANITY"
Wright said the religious conservatives surrounding Bush espouse "a very strange distortion of Christianity" while the fact "some of them stand to benefit financially from the reconstruction of Iraq" made their motives suspicious.
Blair braved major opposition in Britain before the March invasion, saw support rise as fighting began, but has since faced a barrage of criticism over the reasons for war and the handling of post-Saddam Iraq. He has said he would do it again and is "ready to meet my maker".
Before Christmas, Blair told troops that the Iraq Survey Group hunting for banned weapons had found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories". But embarrassingly for the government, Paul Bremer, the United States' top man in Iraq, flatly contradicted that as "a red herring" on Sunday,
The existence, or otherwise, of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq remains a huge issue for Blair -- despite Saddam's capture earlier this month -- because of the emphasis London put on that as a justification for war.
A weekend survey labelled Blair the country's least trustworthy politician.
Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, added to the chorus of criticism on Monday, saying London and Washington had opened the door to terror groups in Iraq.
"Far from being a victory in the war on terrorism, the invasion of Iraq has been a spectacular own goal, as our intelligence services accurately warned," he said.
Bishops slam "white vigilante" Blair
Mon 29 December, 2003
By Andrew Cawthorne
LONDON (Reuters) - Two church leaders have blasted Prime Minister Tony Blair for going to war in Iraq, with one bishop saying he and U.S. President George W. Bush acted like "a bunch of white vigilantes".
Their criticism -- plus an embarrassing contradiction over weapons of mass destruction by the U.S. administrator of Iraq at the weekend -- comes at the end of a miserable year for Blair whose popularity has tumbled over the invasion of Iraq.
The Archbishop of York, David Hope, who is the Church of England's second most senior churchman, said Blair had displayed "a real lack of listening" over Iraq and his claims of fallen dictator Saddam Hussein's arms capability remained unproven.
"Undoubtedly a very wicked leader has been removed, but there are wicked leaders in other parts of the world," he added in an interview with The Times newspaper.
Hope urged churchgoers to pray for Blair, and said he and Bush should remember they will one day answer to God.
"I want to say...that there is a higher authority before whom one day we all have to give an account," he said.
The Bishop of Durham, Tom Wright, was scathing about Blair's military alliance with Bush in Iraq. He likened them to a pair of mavericks fighting crime in multi-racial inner-city London.
"For Bush and Blair to go into Iraq together was like a bunch of white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug-dealing. This is not to deny there's a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it," he told The Independent newspaper.
"The world now needs a U.N. army in the way that Britain 200 years ago needed to turn its bands of militia in each town into a national police force."
"STRANGE CHRISTIANITY"
Wright said the religious conservatives surrounding Bush espouse "a very strange distortion of Christianity" while the fact "some of them stand to benefit financially from the reconstruction of Iraq" made their motives suspicious.
Blair braved major opposition in Britain before the March invasion, saw support rise as fighting began, but has since faced a barrage of criticism over the reasons for war and the handling of post-Saddam Iraq. He has said he would do it again and is "ready to meet my maker".
Before Christmas, Blair told troops that the Iraq Survey Group hunting for banned weapons had found "massive evidence of a huge system of clandestine laboratories". But embarrassingly for the government, Paul Bremer, the United States' top man in Iraq, flatly contradicted that as "a red herring" on Sunday,
The existence, or otherwise, of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq remains a huge issue for Blair -- despite Saddam's capture earlier this month -- because of the emphasis London put on that as a justification for war.
A weekend survey labelled Blair the country's least trustworthy politician.
Former Cabinet minister Robin Cook, who resigned over the war, added to the chorus of criticism on Monday, saying London and Washington had opened the door to terror groups in Iraq.
"Far from being a victory in the war on terrorism, the invasion of Iraq has been a spectacular own goal, as our intelligence services accurately warned," he said.
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Exactly, that is why Blair and Bush are being obedient to God and are involved in this activity which has been part of prophesy for years. Maybe Hope should read and understand what the bible has to say..... :shrugHope urged churchgoers to pray for Blair, and said he and Bush should remember they will one day answer to God.
I think the COE bishops should tend their own store nad be more worried about active homosexual bishops.
"For Bush and Blair to go into Iraq together was like a bunch of white vigilantes going into Brixton to stop drug-dealing. This is not to deny there's a problem to be sorted, just that they are not credible people to deal with it," he told The Independent newspaper.
Who is then credible? I see no one else stepping up to the plate. To take any moral stand on any issue and then to decide to become involved is the definition of character, to criticize without solutions is the definition, of a lack of character
Who is then credible? I see no one else stepping up to the plate. To take any moral stand on any issue and then to decide to become involved is the definition of character, to criticize without solutions is the definition, of a lack of character
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Cycle Forums: Motorcycle and Sportbikes Forum
A forum community dedicated to all motorcycle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, reviews, racing, touring, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
