Never one to shy away from jumping on whatever leftist bandwagon happened to be rolling past, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, outdid himself today:

The Archbishop of Canterbury warned today that British troops were “increasingly at risk” in Iraq as a result of the Government’s morally flawed decision to go to war.
In an uncompromising intervention, Dr Rowan Williams argued that the “moral and practical flaws” in the case for military action have become painfully clear as time has gone on.

Well, where to begin? Perhaps by pointing out that Williams’ talking points bear so much of a resemblance to those of the hard, anti-war left that he really ought to think about trading in his cassock for one of those Hezbollah-flags Respect Party members were gleefully wrapping themselves in last summer.

Does this sound harsh? Well, it’s meant to. See, when Williams attempts to de-legitimize the Iraq war as ‘morally flawed’, he’s also de-legitimizing the sacrifices of the British and US troops who’ve given their lives fighting in the thing. Sure, Williams twitters about how our troops are ‘increasingly at risk’. Only, by tightly-linking this to the supposed immorality of their mission, it’s really quite difficult to work out whether the Archbishop thinks these risks are a bad thing or just a consequence of squaddies participating in non-PC warfare.

What can be said, and with certainty, is that Williams manages to ignore the moral inversions staring him in the face. See, whatever the pros and cons of the WoT might be, it certainly is being fought against the kind of people who saw heads off on videotape and self-detonate in front of soldiers handing out candy to children. You really would think that an out-of-the-box idea like removing the plank from his neighbour’s eye before removing the mote from his own would appeal to Williams … But apparently not.

But he also conceded that he could have done more to have argued against the invasion in March 2003 or offered more support to the anti-war movement.

Now, let’s be quite clear about this — The head of the Church of England seriously considered joining the anti-war movement. What does that mean? That Dr. Williams hates all of those ‘morally flawed’ squaddies so much he’d lower himself to go on a protest march? That he’d sit cross-legged on the floor next to the ghost of John Lennon while singing ‘Give Peace a Chance’? Well, no.

You see, whether Dr. Williams likes it or not, the British ‘peace’ movement he laments not having joined sooner has always been lighter on kumbyas and heavier on Communism (courtesy of Trotskyite Lindsey German) and Islamofascism (courtesy of would-be suicide bomber Azzam al-Tamimi). So, question: Does Dr. Williams really mean to align himself with the kind of people who boast about their desire to self-detonate on Israeli schoolbuses?

And, question: What the hell are British soldiers supposed to make of the fact that the spiritual head of their Church would rather suck up to a terrorist than support their efforts to protect us from them?

(Cross-posted at Rottweiler Puppy)

Said RottyPup @ 2:00 pm | Permalink   

1. I love hearing about this kind of thing. Moonbats are the same, no matter what part of the the world they’re from.

   Your last question reminds me of the Pope’s saying that Saddam’s hanging was wrong.  Or ‘a shame’ or rubbish like that.  Has the catholic church defected from the teachings of the bible that teach that one of the jobs of government is to deliver justice?  And that capital punishment is justified?

   Comment by Cao — 12/30/2006 @ 4:21 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website