The reason Bush invaded Iraq?

[KarlXII]

*Doing this AGAIN*

Chirac says Bush invaded Iraq to defeat Gog and Magog (http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/19/why-bush-invaded-iraq-the-war-on-gog-and-magog/)

God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa)

If it is true, then I wouldn't be surprised. If it isn't, I wouldn't be surprised.

Though it all makes sense. If it wasn't for WMD's or oil, it had to be for God!

[Crazed Rabbit]

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

Gee, I'm just a bit skeptical.

Though the whole powerpoint thing with Biblical quotes is troubling.

CR

[Beskar]

Operation Iraqi Liberation.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.

That speaks loads for the "authenticity" of the event.

I can't believe I still rely on the BBC. :dizzy2:


Soon after, the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz carried a Palestinian transcript of the meeting, containing a version of Mr Bush's remarks. But the Palestinian delegation was reluctant publicly to acknowledge its authenticity.

So even the Palestinians won't say it is authentic?

Really reliable. By really reliable I mean :daisy:.

[Hooahguy]

That speaks loads for the "authenticity" of the event.

I can't believe I still rely on the BBC. :dizzy2:



So even the Palestinians won't say it is authentic?

Really reliable. By really reliable I mean :daisy:.
i was having the same thoughts...

[KarlXII]

That speaks loads for the "authenticity" of the event.

I can't believe I still rely on the BBC. :dizzy2:


Yes, because it's the BBC, and he's Palestinian, they're liars. :juggle2:



So even the Palestinians won't say it is authentic?

Really reliable. By really reliable I mean :daisy:.

Reluctancy does not always mean lieing. Chirac's sticking to his word, not sure if he was a truthful President, though. Again, I could care less.

Though the whole "Bible quotes on memos" is strange....and creepy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yes, because it's the BBC, and he's Palestinian, they're liars. :juggle2:

Not because it's on the BBC, but do you really think the Palestinian government is the best source for the following terms in the same sentence?

1) Anti-Bush campaign.
2) Truth.

[KarlXII]

Not because it's on the BBC, but do you really think the Palestinian government is the best source for the following terms in the same sentence?

1) Anti-Bush campaign.
2) Truth.

So......who should we start believing? Faux News is there, we can ask Bush himself, he'd be an unbiased statement. We could ask Israel? They're always good with that....I think....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So......who should we start believing? Faux News is there, we can ask Bush himself, he'd be an unbiased statement. We could ask Israel? They're always good with that....I think....

So in the name of neutrality you go right to the opposite bias? :inquisitive:

[CountArach]

Operation Iraqi Liberation.
Aye.

[KarlXII]

So in the name of neutrality you go right to the opposite bias? :inquisitive:

Well, if you can't trust the Palestinian official and dismiss him, it's logical to go for the completely fair and honest Israeli official on these matters.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, if you can't trust the Palestinian official and dismiss him, it's logical to go for the completely fair and honest Israeli official on these matters.

Only I didn't do that...

[Hooahguy]

dont bring israel into this. they had nothing to do with this.

[KarlXII]

dont bring israel into this. they had nothing to do with this.

Well if you're quick to dismiss a Palestinian politician's opinion, it's completely logical to go to their opposite.


Only I didn't do that...

Right. Sorry, must've mistaken myself when you said:


George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month

That speaks loads for the "authenticity" of the event.

[Furunculus]

Maybe he did it for the twin purposes of:
1) take the war on terror from american soil on to foriegn soil
2) creating a stable keystone in the arc of instability, i.e the oil producing nations of the ME

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well if you're quick to dismiss a Palestinian politician's opinion, it's completely logical to go to their opposite.

No, it isn't, as I just said...you were the one who did that, not me.



Right. Sorry, must've mistaken myself when you said:

I mentioned Israel where?

[KarlXII]

I mentioned Israel where?

You never mentioned Israel. I never said you did. Read it again.

[Hax]

Friday 7 October 2005

This was 4 years ago. Bush did not took action against the Palestinians since then, so it's a bit tricky altogether. I do see Bush as a dumb and therefor dangerous person though. Overall, it's a good thing he's out of office, in my opinion.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You never mentioned Israel. I never said you did. Read it again.

Were you trying to say I dismissed the Palestinian official? Which I did, because it is obviously not a reliable source? And then you say I might as well bring an Israeli into it, since I am wary to accept the Palestinian version as truth?

Logical. :dizzy2:

[KarlXII]

Were you trying to say I dismissed the Palestinian official? Which I did, because it is obviously not a reliable source? And then you say I might as well bring an Israeli into it, since I am wary to accept the Palestinian version as truth?

Logical. :dizzy2:

You're dismissing the politician BECAUSE he's Palestinian. Hell, if we can't rely on a politician because he's PALESTINIAN, who do we rely on?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You're dismissing the politician BECAUSE he's Palestinian.

Yes, because a Palestinian politician would have absolutely no motive for taking down Bush, or, if I may be bold, making something up. :inquisitive:


Hell, if we can't rely on a politician because he's PALESTINIAN, who do we rely on?

...

[Fixiwee]

I can't believe you are arguing about that.
It's not the main reason why he was going for a war in Iraq, but Bush did say that he did it in name of Christ on many, or at least some, occasions. I remember that the Swedish prime-minister addmited that, after a private talk with Bush.

Let's face it, Bush is a silly man and should have never become President of the United States.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Bush was not so bad, not if you take away his mistake of invading Iraq. And mind you, I never supported the invasion from the beginning.


That said, does anyone here actually believe he invaded for the oil?? That is the myth of the uneducated anti-Bushites.

[KarlXII]

Yes, because a Palestinian politician would have absolutely no motive for taking down Bush, or, if I may be bold, making something up. :inquisitive:



...

You can say that about ANY politician. Are there only a select few "unbiased" who can say something in political and international matters?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I've said before that I'm probably unique in the fact I'm the only person in the world who opposed the Iraq War to an insane degree, and now I'm coming out slightly in favour of it retroactively. I never thought I'd do that.

NOTE: I mean the idea of a war in Iraq itself, not the way it was handled.


You can say that about ANY politician. Are there only a select few "unbiased" who can say something in political and international matters?

Missing my point, are we? ~;)

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Isn't this beating a dead horse a bit? The guy's left office in disgrace and we all know the Iraqi adventure was a debacle...

[Fixiwee]

Isn't this beating a dead horse a bit? The guy's left office in disgrace and we all know the Iraqi adventure was a debacle...
Actually you are right.

[Hosakawa Tito]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v517/hoppy84/beating-a-dead-horse.gif

Some horses are never dead enough, I guess. Rumor has it GWB actually went to war to avenge that assassination attempt on Poppy. That and the subconcious shame of avoiding the Vietnam War by hiding in the Air National Guard, but that's a whole nuther dead horse to :smash:.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Jean-Claude Maurice (http://www.amazon.fr/Si-vous-r%C3%A9p%C3%A9tez-d%C3%A9mentirai-Villepin/dp/225921021X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243335632&sr=8-1), editor of the Journal du dimanche. He wrote a book about the dealings of the Chirac government, Chirac, Villepin, Sarkozy.

I haven't read it. Chirac apparantly confirms his bafflement at the description of the Middle-East in apocalyptic, Christian-fundamentalist terms by Bush. Stupefied Chirac and the foreign ministry had to consult a very theologist to explain the sectarian language. A Swiss one, to avoid politization.

Unbelievable. Like the words of Iranian ayatollahs or orthodox zionists, we now need experts on Christian cults to explain the obscurantist wording of American presidents. The most powerful nation in the world, ran by Jesus freaks. Working towards fullfilling their part in the Apocalyps.

Good grief. :dizzy:



Extraits (http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/chirac-bush-et-l-apocalypse_746203.html):

[...] Jacques Chirac l'a appris, le mois précédent, de la bouche même de Bush Jr. Une révélation reçue d'abord avec étonnement, puis, renseignement pris, avec effroi. Lors de cette conversation téléphonique visant à convaincre son homologue français de se joindre à la coalition, George Bush Jr. a utilisé un argument singulier, affirmant que... "Gog et Magog sont à l'oeuvre au Proche-Orient" et que "les prophéties bibliques sont sur le point de s'accomplir". Sur le moment, Jacques Chirac, stupéfait, ne réagit pas. Il sait Bush religieux, mais il a du mal à comprendre que le président de la première puissance du monde soit à ce point fondu des Ecritures qu'il batte le rappel des duettistes Gog et Magog pour justifier son combat! Chirac s'en ouvre à ses conseillers, d'abord portés à sourire. Il les charge de l'éclairer plus précisément sur Gog et Magog.

Un jour plus tard, George Bush récidive, prononçant ces deux noms mystérieux lors d'une conférence de presse sur "l'axe du mal". L'Elysée consulte d'urgence un spécialiste. Pas en France, mais en Suisse, pour éviter d'éventuelles fuites. C'est Thomas Römer, professeur de théologie à l'université de Lausanne, qui est mis à contribution. Son rapport a de quoi glacer le sang. Gog, prince de Magog, c'est l'apocalypse. Ce personnage apparaît dans la Genèse, et surtout dans deux des plus obscurs chapitres du Livre d'Ezéchiel, prophétie d'une armée mondiale livrant la bataille finale à Israël. Un conflit voulu par Dieu qui doit, terrassant Gog et Magog, anéantir à jamais les ennemis du peuple élu avant que naisse un monde nouveau.

Pour un esprit français, l'évocation de Gog et Magog pouvait prêter à rire. Chirac, lui, ne rit pas. Cette parabole d'une apocalypse annoncée pour réaliser une prophétie l'inquiète et le tourmente. Il s'interroge aussi sur l'inculture religieuse à l'heure où les soubassements religieux sont beaucoup plus déterminants qu'on ne veut le croire dans les décisions politiques et militaires. [...]

[KukriKhan]

The first article in the OP references a Gentlemen's Quarterly article, which is now available online. The briefing cover-sheets referred to are HERE (http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret) as a slideshow.

Though not particularly objectionable, they (the coversheets) seem a little weird: over-produced, almost Hollywood-ish, or Madison Avenue-ish.

In the years I ever handled classified documents or attended such briefings, I never, ever saw anything like that. The stuff I saw was always kinda plain, other than a colored border commensurate with the security level (FOUO, Conf, Sec, TS).

Like in this pic of the VP, holding a SECRET Coversheet:
https://jimcee.homestead.com/13-cheney.jpg

OTOH, I never saw a SecDefDailyIntelBrief for POTUS, either - so maybe the story is valid.

[Vladimir]

The first article smells of yet another conspiracy theory.


There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was fundamentally religious. He was driven by his understanding of the realisation of Biblical revelation in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord

Yes, little doubt in the mind of the author. The case was so clear that even the UN gave its acquiescence. However, I'm sure that many need a refresher.

The slides look real enough to me. The interesting part is the lack of copy numbers. That must mean the source had access to the original document and had a part in creating the briefings.

[KukriKhan]

The interesting part is the lack of copy numbers. That must mean the source had access to the original document and had a part in creating the briefings.

I wondered that too. And agree it shouldn't be hard for anyone 'in the loop' at the time to identify the leaker, if they were so inclined.

[Vladimir]

I wondered that too. And agree it shouldn't be hard for anyone 'in the loop' at the time to identify the leaker, if they were so inclined.

Exactly what I was thinking too. The time periods of the slides narrows the window as well.

I'm curious who could have added the phrases to the slides. Obviously ol' 43 didn't create them himself. Who added the quotes, where did they get them from, why were the specific phrases chosen? Why are certain portions of the classification guidance redacted? Maybe W had a copy of Daily Devotions (http://www.devotions.net/devotions/05may/26.htm) and decreed that day's quote would go on the slides. Or maybe the slides were edited by the hand of God himself! Who knows? Evidently some guy from Sweden does.

Oh, wait...the GQ article states the slides were produced in the PENTAGON and not by the administration. Huh. :thinking:

[Tribesman]

The case was so clear that even the UN gave its acquiescence.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No they didn't , the UN laughed at the rubbish "evidence" america put forward, Colin Powell was made to look a complete fool at the UN with the half :daisy: bull he presented ,there was no aquiescence at all . most UN members condemned the American action and more importantly since it was a matter for the security council 3 veto holding members objected .

I'm sure that many need a refresher.

Like yourself for example:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Oh, wait...the GQ article states the slides were produced in the PENTAGON and not by the administration. Huh.
You had better tell that to some of those American posters here , they were insisting the other week that the PENTAGON is part of the administration ....well at least when they want to blame the President for stuff from the Pentagon:2thumbsup:

[Vladimir]

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
No they didn't , the UN laughed at the rubbish "evidence" america put forward, Colin Powell was made to look a complete fool at the UN with the half arsed bull he presented ,there was no aquiescence at all . most UN members condemned the American action and more importantly since it was a matter for the security council 3 veto holding members objected .

Like yourself for example:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

You had better tell that to some of those American posters here , they were insisting the other week that the PENTAGON is part of the administration ....well at least when they want to blame the President for stuff from the Pentagon:2thumbsup:

:laugh4:

You're making too many assumptions. The UN most certainly agreed that something be done with Iraq if they didn't comply with inspections. When Iraq didn't comply, then we provided the "something" that the UN failed to specify. I never stated the UN gave the approval of our actions, they gave approval for action. I don't have the exact wording but I believe it was UN resolution 1441. The laughter you heard must have been the :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: in your mind.

You of all people should know that the U.S. had sufficient cause for invasion in 2003. We actually had more justification for removing Saddam in 2003 than in 1991. The U.N. believed it, Congress believed it, and CIA wanted to believe it. Unfortunately, someone threw us a Curveball (don't make me do this again, I don't want Lemur to loose that sexy six pack :kiss:).

Well, they are partially correct. Part of the Pentagon is part of the administration. I hope some of our Irish posters understand that as well. In a sense, the President is responsible for everything the Pentagon does.

It's interesting that you typed President as a proper noun. I appreciate it.

[Tribesman]

You of all people should know that the U.S. had sufficient cause for invasion in 2003.
Yes they had sufficient cause , the cause was a lunatic in the white house which was indeed quite sufficient .

The U.N. believed it
Bollox , they didn't believe it which was why they not only refused to back your countries action they were highly critical of it and ripped Powells "evidence" to shreds.

I don't have the exact wording but I believe it was UN resolution 1441.
Yes , and 1441 said any further breaches would have to go back to the security council :dizzy2:
Furthermore America itself breached article 10 of the resolution

Unfortunately, someone threw us a Curveball
By a curveball you mean the government lied and used fabricated "evidence"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes they had sufficient cause , the cause was a lunatic in the white house which was indeed quite sufficient .

Overstated. Iraq was mis-calculated on a number of levels (why bother? why at that moment in time even if you think it's worthwhile? why plan an invasion without planning for the subsequent occupation?), but I wouldn't label it madness.


Bollox , they didn't believe it which was why they not only refused to back your countries action they were highly critical of it and ripped Powells "evidence" to shreds.

They were indeed skeptical. However, absent the actual invasion and occupation of another member, I doubt the UN would have authorized the use of force even if Powell had displayed iron-clad evidence that Saddam had a dozen nuclear warheads and was working on the launchers while the session was in progress. The UN loathes the use of force -- people tend to pay more attention to that sort of thing and it becomes far more difficult to properly siphon off funds.

[rotorgun]

Here are some quotes of GWB from: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm


"People say, well, do you ever hear any other voices other than, like, a few people? Of course I do." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 18, 2008


"I've been in the Bible every day since I've been the president." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 12, 2008

They do kind of tie in with the gist of this thread, if one can take this man seriously, which I never seemed able to do once his general character revealed itself to me...or was it God talking to me from a burning Bush? :laugh4:

The shame of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Chaney in using such a simple minded man to accomplish their goals is sin embargo.(Without limits)~:rolleyes:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

If we're going to debate old history, how about we go over how awesome Taft was. Something like

"The reason Taft was so awesome?"

and the content can be stuff like "sweet mustache" and "didn't rock the boat"

[rotorgun]

That said, does anyone here actually believe he invaded for the oil?? That is the myth of the uneducated anti-Bushites.-Aemilius Paulus

What other strategic resource does Iraq possess that would justify such a monumental cost in lives, property, and finances as this invasion has cost? Sheep? Persian Rugs? Signed copyies of the Quran? (May God's blessing be upon it, as I mean no disrespect here) If not to actually gain control of the oil, than at least to "stabilize" a country from which the 4th largest oil reserves exist, I should imagine.

Perhaps President Bush may have had his Godly calling, but the wheels of power work in much more mysterious ways. I am a Christian, and well versed in the book of revelations, and prophecies concerning Gog and Magog. I don't remember reading anything that would indicate to me that the United States is to be the instrument of God's will against them. What I do feel, is that there are those in power who would twist these prophecies in any way in order to accomplish their plans of domination. It has been done in the past, and will continue to be done.

Does anyone still think that the coalition invaded Iraq to secure more rights for Sheepherders, and Iraqi rug sellers?

[KukriKhan]

The shame of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Chaney in using such a simple minded man to accomplish their goals is sin embargo.(Without limits)

Are you sure it wasn't: fuera de toda proporción, o excesivamente? Or is "sin embargo" some language other than Spanish? Latin? Italian?


They do kind of tie in with the gist of this thread, if one can take this man seriously, which I never seemed able to do once his general character revealed itself to me...or was it God talking to me from a burning Bush?

The man with a trembling finger on the button that could end the world... you could not take seriously? Oh, wait. You're just being clever. I get it.

[rotorgun]

KukriKhan-Are you sure it wasn't: fuera de toda proporción, o excesivamente? Or is "sin embargo" some language other than Spanish? Latin? Italian?

It is actually a Spanish expression I have heard used by some of my Spanish speaking friends. Sin-meaning without, embargo-meaning something like to prevent or limit(I think). I am not the most fluent person in La lingua Espanol; but thanks for the new expressions. :beam:


The man with a trembling finger on the button that could end the world... you could not take seriously? Oh, wait. You're just being clever. I get it.

It was a frightful time indeed. It's just my ofttimes cynical and sarcastic way of understating the obvious. :yes:

[Tribesman]

I wouldn't label it madness.

Doing Irans work at a time when they were supposed to be getting rid of Al-qaida and its backers , wasting precious time, money, resources and most importantly lives on a stupid needless venture can only be called madness Seamus , doing it over a bunch of obvious lies makes it complete madness .

I doubt the UN would have authorized the use of force even if Powell had displayed iron-clad evidence
It might have helped if the administration presented something about the fabled WMDs that wasn't already contradicted by the reports the arms inspectors had presented . Perhaps then the lies and fabrications wouldn't have been so laughable .


If we're going to debate old history
I think that is too difficult a task for some , after all Vlad can't even manage recent history.

[CountArach]

If we're going to debate old history, how about we go over how awesome Taft was. Something like

"The reason Taft was so awesome?"

and the content can be stuff like "sweet mustache" and "didn't rock the boat"
And you didn't even mention his Campaign slogan? "Get on a raft with Taft."

How could you claim that "Didn't rock the boat" is above that? I demand satisfaction!

[Incongruous]

Overstated. Iraq was mis-calculated on a number of levels (why bother? why at that moment in time even if you think it's worthwhile? why plan an invasion without planning for the subsequent occupation?), but I wouldn't label it madness.


How was the invasion of Iraq not madness considering the reality that there was no properly planned invasion (well unless you discount the rampant looting) and no properly planned occupation. The whole thing was completely mad, considerng the REALITY of it.

I mean WHAT IF Sadam actually had WMDs? The idea of attacking him would have stupid, the guy would have just wasted the Kurds and then attampted to take on Israel, why risk that unless you are frikin crazy? Who cares since he clearly had no weapons...

Well maybe the Iraqis do.

[Andres]

Doing Irans work at a time when they were supposed to be getting rid of Al-qaida and its backers , wasting precious time, money, resources and most importantly lives on a stupid needless venture can only be called madness Seamus , doing it over a bunch of obvious lies makes it complete madness .

Maybe it's just the cowardly pacifist and anti-militaristic Euro wuss who has never carried a loaded gun in his life in me, but I'm inclined to call all armed conflicts pure madness.

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1460/256mkw.jpg (https://img17.imageshack.us/my.php?image=256mkw.jpg)

'B..but Jack....the biblical prophecies from the Book of Revelations are being fulfilled!!'




Although George W. Bush is universally recognized for his right-wing leaning, he is not so well-known, at least publicly, for upholding some of the most fundamentalist apocalyptic thoughts (http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14890)underpinning the spiritual beliefs of some of his ideological brethren.

A recent book to be published soon in France by Plon may help shed some light, if the allegations therein contained were to be independently verified, on this, perhaps, mysterious side of the ex-republican president of the United States. The book whose French title is Si vous le répétez, je démentirai (If you repeat it, I will deny) is written by the journalist Jean Claude Maurice who served as the editor-in-chief of the newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche between 1999 and 2003. It consists of a combination of interviews with three prominent French politicians, the ex-foreign minister Dominique de Villepin, the current president Nicolas Sarkozy and most importantly the ex-president, Jacques Chirac. It is one portion of the interviews devoted to Mr. Jacques Chirac that we will try to briefly analyze here.

During those private interviews, Jacques Chirac had purportedly confessed to the journalist some personal remarks regarding the faith of George W. Bush that seemed quite daunting. He told the journalist that the latter called him twice beseeching him basically, in the name of their common “spiritual faith”, i.e., “Christianity”, to join the collective effort of the coalition being formed to wage a preemptive war against Iraq. In his first telephonic call he reportedly said to Jacque Chirac: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East” and then added that “the biblical prophecies are being fulfilled”. Bewildered, Jacques Chirac did not react immediately. He knew that Bush was somehow religious but could never have thought that the president of the world only superpower was as mysteriously warmhearted to the complex intricacies of the Scriptures as he seemed to be. When a day later George W. Bush pronounced the mysterious words in a conference about the “axis of evil” (the word “evil” was inserted by the evangelical speechwriter Michael Gerson, the original term coined by another staff writer, the Canadian Jew David Frum, was “axis of hatred”), the Elysée decided secretly to consult an expert or biblical scholar about the issue.

In order to avoid any possible leak in France, they decided to outsource or solicit the service of a discreet and prominent outsider instead of a local expert more prone to indiscretion. It was Thomas Römer, professor of Theology at the University of Lausanne, who was called upon to clarify, for the occasion, the biblical mystery at stake. His report was chilling: Gog, prince of Magog, is merely the Apocalypse.

Indeed, the character appeared in Genesis and mainly the last most obscure chapters of the book of Ezekiel. It underpins the fulfillment of a prophecy, i.e., a last victory against the enemy of the “chosen people” or children of Israel following their return to the “Promised land”. The announcement of this parable of Armageddon to illustrate a mysterious biblical prophecy was not as laughable as it might appear to the French, according to Jacques Chirac who appeared quite disturbed and tormented because of what he just heard. He then wondered how come one be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs, according to the journalist.

Jacques Chirac became almost adamant in his conviction regarding the true beliefs of the president Bush and the nature of his character. He is not mistaken anymore. The man is dangerous. He is an irrational leader who wrongly believes in his messianic vision, and worse of all, intrinsic ability to decrypt the scriptures. His reading of current events epitomized the nature of his irrational thoughts and destructive instincts: Symbol of the antichrist, a transnational Islamist army is threatening the West, i.e., the main ally of the chosen people and September 11 terrorist attacks are the precursory proof [...]

Flabbergasted, Chirac pursued: “They will inflame the region (“they” being Bush and his neoconservative clique). They don’t understand anything and are flagrantly ignorant of an Orient already complex. Ask them to name you one poet of the region. To them the fight between Shiites and Sunnis maybe simplistically reduced to the caricature of an American game: the finale of a Middle Eastern Superbowl (...).You will see it: they will wage a war of Pandora, win it quickly, but the most difficult thing will emerge later. Shiites and Sunnis will fiercely fight one another. After the invasion, a bloodier civil war will erupt, totally different in form and nature, from the regular combats of the early blitzkrieg. Al Qaeda will find a new safe haven from where it can easily recruit and operate. Within a year more troops will be needed and in three years, when 3000 American lives will have perished, the choice will be then between two bitter options: a quick withdrawal or a significant surge in troop’s level.”

It is easy to make a big fuss of the conspicuous religiosity of an odd character like Ahmedinajad who does not even hold much sway in his own country, despite all the bluster and colorful rhetoric, it is a lot harder to forget that the leader of a great western nation, proud legatee of the philosophy of Enlightenment and rational thought, endowed with unparalleled powers and military might, could having been irrational to the point where he was actually hearing “divine” voices and be stupid enough to lend credibility to such chimerical thoughts .

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm sorry, but this all smells intensely fishy. I don't think anyone can accuse me of being a supporter of President Bush's policies, least of all towards Iraq, but no-one who is clinically insane is going to rise through American politics to the presidency.

And that's how these articles are trying to characterise him. President Bush is clearly a man of faith, and he allows that faith to guide him - this is not remotely unusual. It is much too easy to dismiss him as a deluded religionist - I think that is dangerous, and undervalues the true damage he caused to the values of the United States. He was not insane - he was a clever man who made some very dubious choices largely informed by a momentous event that we in Europe are sadly more familiar with than the American people. It would have been hard for any president to resist the calls for "something" to be done.

In addition, this sentence from the last article rather worries me (my emphasis):


(the word “evil” was inserted by the evangelical speechwriter Michael Gerson, the original term coined by another staff writer, the Canadian Jew David Frum, was “axis of hatred”)

What the heck does that "Jew" remark have to do with the subject?

I submit that President Bush allowed himself to buy the same soiled goods as so many US presidents before him - that they have a Manifest Destiny which is facilitated by armed intervention and a profound disinterest in the workings of other cultures. That's a failure of philosophy and Hamiltonian politics rather than religious insanity.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What the heck does that "Jew" remark have to do with the subject?
Oi.

Apparently I linked to the Palestine Chronicle. For the convenience of posters here, I googled for English translations of the extracts from the book I quoted in French in the previous post. It led me to the article above. Maybe the author has a dubious mindset. Maybe he simply meant to differentiate between Christian fundamentalists in the Bush administration and others. I dunno.

*googles*

Ah, the Palestine Chronicle has Jewish, Arab, and American authors. It is not an anti-Semitic rag. It does take a clear political stance.
"The Palestine Chronicle has been an invaluable source of information and analysis about Palestine and related issues, drawing from a wide range of sources, including many that are otherwise inaccessible to the concerned public. An independent voice, it has been trustworthy and reliable." -- Noam Chomsky, a professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.


However that may be, I do not think that Bush was a singular blinded Christian fanatic, nor a Manchurian candidate for apocalyptic Christians.
(On the contrary: I think it is much worse. Evangelicism shapes US politics in a much more direct manner. By openly toiling away to displace science with magical thinking, to overturn a woman's right to choose, to relegate gays and lesbians to second class citizenship, and to ensure the apocalypse.)

Is this what led to Iraq? Nah. The road to Iraq was a crooked one. With many impetuses. some of which I quite agreed with and still agree with.

I think my verdict about the role of Christian fundamentalism in this all is twofold: it creates a narrow, single-sided opinion about the Middle-East, with all the US foreign policy implications of that.
And secondly, shall I say, it did not provide for a mindset that encouraged sober reflection.

[Fixiwee]

I'm sorry, but this all smells intensely fishy. I don't think anyone can accuse me of being a supporter of President Bush's policies, least of all towards Iraq, but no-one who is clinically insane is going to rise through American politics to the presidency.
I'm sorry, you don't have to be sane to get to the top of politics. There are a lot of examples for that through out history. And putting the word "American" to the title does not make it and argument.

[Kralizec]

What was Chirac's response to the book?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm sorry, you don't have to be sane to get to the top of politics. There are a lot of examples for that through out history. And putting the word "American" to the title does not make it and argument.

I think I understand what you meant by that last sentence, and I'm afraid it does. The United States have one of the most gruelling and open selection systems for their presidential candidates ever seen. Nowadays, perhaps too gruelling for some otherwise excellent candidates. It is highly unlikely anyone with serious mental impairment would get elected. I'd agree it's much easier for loonies to come to power in Europe, where I fear most of your claimed examples would derive.

For my sensibilities, President Bush was misguided, misinformed and wrong in many policies. But he was not insane.

[Fixiwee]

I think I understand what you meant by that last sentence, and I'm afraid it does. The United States have one of the most gruelling and open selection systems for their presidential candidates ever seen.
I don't belive you. You had hardcore alcoholics in office.


Nowadays, perhaps too gruelling for some otherwise excellent candidates. It is highly unlikely anyone with serious mental impairment would get elected. I'd agree it's much easier for loonies to come to power in Europe, where I fear most of your claimed examples would derive.
That's not a valid argument, please. It's happening all over the world, not just Europe. All over the world! Why couldn't it happen in the US?


For my sensibilities, President Bush was misguided, misinformed and wrong in many policies. But he was not insane.
It's not about insanity per se. Being a reilgious fanatic is about idiotism. You can have a university degrees and still be a religious zealot. And Bush was one. That's the whole argument. If you don't see that, well then you have a different opinion.

Being sucessfull in politics, well you need 3 things: Money, money and more money. That's all.

[LittleGrizzly]

Personally i would take out the 3rd money and replace it with friends in high places....

Banquo is Irish not American... im sure they have had some alcholics in office though... either that or we need to go back to the drawing board with that stereotype...

Im not so sure about it myself, I think his faith may have guided his decision making process somewhat but i think the reasons for war were a bunch of practical considerations... like Iraq's oil reserves... removing someone who wasn't friends with the west.. estalishing a new US base in the middle east...

Not exactly glorious either... perhaps maybe worse in some ways...

[Banquo's Ghost]

You can have a university degrees and still be a religious zealot. And Bush was one. That's the whole argument. If you don't see that, well then you have a different opinion.

Indeed, zealotry is an impediment to reason.


Banquo is Irish not American... im sure they have had some alcholics in office though... either that or we need to go back to the drawing board with that stereotype...

Not at all, alcoholism is practically a requirement for the job of Taoiseach. As is venial corruption and religious zealotry. W wouldn't have made it past the constituency meeting. :wink3:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

And you didn't even mention his Campaign slogan? "Get on a raft with Taft."

How could you claim that "Didn't rock the boat" is above that? I demand satisfaction!

I didn't even know that! That's awesome! :2thumbsup:

[rotorgun]

Flabbergasted, Chirac pursued: “They will inflame the region (“they” being Bush and his neoconservative clique). They don’t understand anything and are flagrantly ignorant of an Orient already complex. Ask them to name you one poet of the region. To them the fight between Shiites and Sunnis maybe simplistically reduced to the caricature of an American game: the finale of a Middle Eastern Superbowl (...).You will see it: they will wage a war of Pandora, win it quickly, but the most difficult thing will emerge later. Shiites and Sunnis will fiercely fight one another. After the invasion, a bloodier civil war will erupt, totally different in form and nature, from the regular combats of the early blitzkrieg. Al Qaeda will find a new safe haven from where it can easily recruit and operate. Within a year more troops will be needed and in three years, when 3000 American lives will have perished, the choice will be then between two bitter options: a quick withdrawal or a significant surge in troop’s level.” Jauque Chirac

If this is to be believed, and it seems somewhat just a bit too prophetic, than my question is, why did not President Chirac not counsel President Bush as to his alleged analysis? If I felt this passionate about my ally potentially about to make such a huge blunder, my conscience would have led me to implore him to listen to reason. All of these observations should have been clear to many experienced foreign affairs experts in the Bush camp as well. Why was there no attempt to make his views known to President Bush through a trusted third party, as is often done to save political face?

[Tribesman]

If I felt this passionate about my ally potentially about to make such a huge blunder, my conscience would have led me to implore him to listen to reason.
Wasn't it French attempts at reasoning with the fruitcakes in the Bush administration that brought along the cheese eating surrender monkeys moniker and the invention of Freedom Fries .

[Meneldil]

If this is to be believed, and it seems somewhat just a bit too prophetic, than my question is, why did not President Chirac not counsel President Bush as to his alleged analysis? If I felt this passionate about my ally potentially about to make such a huge blunder, my conscience would have led me to implore him to listen to reason. All of these observations should have been clear to many experienced foreign affairs experts in the Bush camp as well. Why was there no attempt to make his views known to President Bush through a trusted third party, as is often done to save political face?

See Tribesman's answer. France almost became part of the axis of evil back then.

As for the validity of this statement, although I don't like Chirac, I have to admit he knows his topic when it comes to the middle-east and asia.
He is quite respected throughout the arab world mostly because he shown them some respect, and somewhat understood their culture.

Furthermore, he wasn't the only one to predict such an outcome. The civil war between Shiites and the Sunnis, the ridiculous occupation of Irak... many middle-eastern experts (such as Antoine Sfeir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Sfeir)) foresaw this and other things.

[rotorgun]

See Tribesman's answer. France almost became part of the axis of evil back then.

As for the validity of this statement, although I don't like Chirac, I have to admit he knows his topic when it comes to the middle-east and asia.
He is quite respected throughout the arab world mostly because he shown them some respect, and somewhat understood their culture.

Furthermore, he wasn't the only one to predict such an outcome. The civil war between Shiites and the Sunnis, the ridiculous occupation of Irak... many middle-eastern experts (such as Antoine Sfeir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Sfeir)) foresaw this and other things.

Yes, you and Tribesman are correct about our sudden turn about attitude towards France, something I deeply regretted and personally apologize to my fellow French Orgahs for. Please try not to take us too seriously, and realize that not all of us feel that way. France has a sovereign right to determine what is in her own national interests. I never could understand that, in a country which espouses the right of free speech, and self-determination, so many of us could adopt such a hypocritical stance-Appalling.

Thanks for the information about Antoine Sfeir. I'll give it a look tomorrow. :beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

What was Chirac's response to the book? Chirac co-operated with the book. The book itself is not about Iraq and Bush. The passage about Bush is just a side-note. (The fun stuff in the book is about Iran - but that's for another thread.)

Chirac has always felt vindicated by how 'Iraq' turned out. Simply put: Bush was wrong, Chirac was right. What is new - at least: confirmed by Chirac for the first time - is the bit about the weird referals to the Book of Revelations by Bush.



If this is to be believed, and it seems somewhat just a bit too prophetic, than my question is, why did not President Chirac not counsel President Bush as to his alleged analysis? If I felt this passionate about my ally potentially about to make such a huge blunder, my conscience would have led me to implore him to listen to reason.Dominique de Villepin made a famous speech at the United Nations, before the invasion in 2003. The French position was made perfectly and abundantly clear for all the world to hear:


There may be some who believe that these problems can be resolved by force, thereby creating a new order. But this is not what France believes. On the contrary, we believe that the use of force can arouse resentment and hatred, fuel a clash of identities and of cultures, something that our generation has a prime responsibility to avoid.

To those who believe that war would be the quickest way of disarming Iraq, I can reply that it will drive wedges and create wounds that will be long in healing. And how many victims will it cause? How many families will grieve?

We do not subscribe to what may be the other objectives of a war. Is it a matter of regime change in Baghdad? No one underestimates the cruelty of this dictatorship or the need to do everything possible to promote human rights. But this is not the objective of Resolution 1441. And force is certainly not the best way of bringing about democracy. Here and elsewhere it would encourage dangerous instability.

Is it a matter of fighting terrorism? War would only increase it and we would then be faced with a new wave of violence.

Let us beware of playing into the hands of those who do want a clash of civilizations or a clash of religions.

Is it finally a matter of recasting the political landscape of the Middle East? In that case, we run the risk of exacerbating tensions in a region already marked by great instability, not to mention that in Iraq itself the large number of communities and religions already represents a danger of a potential breakup.

We all have the same demands: We want more security and more democracy. But there is another logic other than the logic of force. There is another path. There are other solutions.

We understand the profound sense of insecurity with which the American people have been living since the tragedy of September 11, 2001. The entire world shared the sorrow of New York and of America struck in the heart. And I say this in the name of our friendship for the American people, in the name of our common values: freedom, justice, tolerance.

But there is nothing today to indicate a link between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. And will the world be a safer place after a military intervention in Iraq? I want to tell you what my country's conviction is: It will not. Full transcript (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/villepin.transcript/)

[LittleGrizzly]

Dominique de Villepin made a famous speech at the United Nations, before the invasion in 2003. The French position was made perfectly and abundantly clear for all the world to hear:

Well, that summed it up pretty damn well... shown right on most counts...

[Askthepizzaguy]

President Bush is clearly a man of faith, and he allows that faith to guide him - this is not remotely unusual. It is much too easy to dismiss him as a deluded religionist

I'm curious... where does faith end and delusion begin? That anyone would refer to a religious text written by ancient man to govern a modern nation astounds me. Even if it were a book related to government... the Bible is more about self-government and private, personal morality than a book designed to help leaders of nations literally fight evil. Gog and Magog? I'm wondering how many churchgoers have even the slightest idea what they are. Time for a "man on the street" poll.

Whenever the Bible is used to justify wartime action, I think it runs contrary to the message espoused in the Bible. But I wouldn't know, I'm not religious. Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

I'm not on an anti-religion tangent here, I'm genuinely curious.

[rotorgun]

I'm curious... where does faith end and delusion begin? That anyone would refer to a religious text written by ancient man to govern a modern nation astounds me. Even if it were a book related to government... the Bible is more about self-government and private, personal morality than a book designed to help leaders of nations literally fight evil. Gog and Magog? I'm wondering how many churchgoers have even the slightest idea what they are. Time for a "man on the street" poll.

Whenever the Bible is used to justify wartime action, I think it runs contrary to the message espoused in the Bible. But I wouldn't know, I'm not religious. Maybe I'm misinterpreting.

I'm not on an anti-religion tangent here, I'm genuinely curious.

Well....at the risk of getting off on a tangent of my own, I'll say this. Being a Christian, for me, often places my interpretation of the scriptures at odds with this concept. The New Testement emplores me to remain seperate from the "world", meaning that which is contadictory to my faith. At the same time one is to live in the secular world in such a manner as to be an example of their "Christlikeness."
It is indeed a very personal guide that I try my best to live by. At no time am I commanded to force my beliefs on others, but only to be ready to give an answer to those who might ask me the reason for the hope God gives me. Jesus said to be "in" the world, but not "of" the world. This is very difficult at times, believe me.

As for it being an instruction manual to leaders, it has its uses. To take passages from it as reasons to make war is wrong in my opinion. It was wrong during the Crusades of the middle ages, and it is wrong today. If that was its intended use, than my lord would not have sacrificed himself on the cross, but he would have led Israel in a "Jihad" against the Romans. Instead he asked us to "forgive" our enemies. I don't believe that he told us not to defend one's family, property, or country. I think he meant to offer us a way to avoid conflict if possible.

Mine is certainly not the "right" interpretation, nor am I wise enough to make any such claim. I just hope that I shed some light on your question. Unfortunatly, there are those who use the Bible in such a way, as there are also some who use the Quran to justify violence. I am opposed to such a despicable twisting of either of these beautiful gifts to mankind.

[KukriKhan]

Chirac co-operated with the book. The book itself is not about Iraq and Bush. The passage about Bush is just a side-note. (The fun stuff in the book is about Iran - but that's for another thread.)

Chirac has always felt vindicated by how 'Iraq' turned out. Simply put: Bush was wrong, Chirac was right. What is new - at least: confirmed by Chirac for the first time - is the bit about the weird referals to the Book of Revelations by Bush.


Dominique de Villepin made a famous speech at the United Nations, before the invasion in 2003. The French position was made perfectly and abundantly clear for all the world to hear:

Full transcript (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/07/villepin.transcript/)

I remember that speech. The UN translator delivered his interpretation in a sneering, sarcastic voice, and for an hour or so, I hated Dominique de Villepin. The I got the transcript from C-Span, and read the english version - minus the sneering - and thought: "Well... he's not wrong, yanno?"