The reason Bush invaded Iraq?

**KarlXII** · 05-26-2009, 00:28

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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.

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** · 05-26-2009, 00:34

Originally Posted by KarlXII

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.

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

...

**KarlXII** · 05-26-2009, 00:59

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

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

...

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** · 05-26-2009, 01:01

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?

**Fixiwee** · 05-26-2009, 00:37

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** · 05-26-2009, 00:44

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.

**Alexander the Pretty Good** · 05-26-2009, 01:01

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** · 05-26-2009, 02:16

Originally Posted by 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...

Actually you are right.

**Hosakawa Tito** · 05-26-2009, 11:11

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

.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 05-26-2009, 13:09

Jean-Claude Maurice, 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.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Extraits:

[...] 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** · 05-26-2009, 13:45

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 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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

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