FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

George W. Bush and a Delusion of Biblical Proportions

   Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News
 


quex
What I actually wanted to put in the subject line was "George W. Bush and the F*cking Sad Travesty."

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush

From the article:

Quote:
Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”


What the hell?

Quote:
In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.” France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.” But other news media missed the amazing report.


I am for all the world pleased that the man is out of office, as I heartily disapproved of his policies, but I'm horrified at the very idea that this might be true in any way. Could it really be that the American people installed a nutjob into the highest office of the land? TWICE? At the cost of thousands of lives of young Americans, thousands more of our allies, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

Quote:
The French revelation jibes with other known aspects of Bush’s renowned evangelical certitude. For example, a few months after his phone call to Chirac, Bush attended a 2003 summit in Egypt. The Palestinian foreign minister later said the American president told him he was “on a mission from God” to defeat Iraq. At that time, the White House called this claim “absurd.”

Recently, GQ magazine revealed that former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld attached warlike Bible verses and Iraq battle photos to war reports he hand-delivered to Bush. One declared: “Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground.”


Good lord.
deanhills
I guess something like this is only possible in France! Evil or Very Mad Obviously this is being used for political mileage by Chirac and others, and it would appear that it has become fashionable for French politicians to play ping-pong with comments related to religion to score points. Sarkozy's Burka comments in another thread comes to mind as well. Give me Bush any day and that is not an indication of supporting Bush, but just how completely disgusted I am by French statesmen making really stupid statements like these in public. Worst part is that there is not even style in it, nor creativity. Bush has been out of office for a number of months now.
AftershockVibe
Are there any reputable news websites with this story? The ones posted, even looking at their names, seem to have a slight conspiracist angle! This doesn't mean they're automatically wrong though.

So, links. Even in French would be ok?
coolclay
While I don't mean to underestimate the credibility of these French Officials, this sounds extremely far fetched. Even if Bush may have felt this way in his own mind he certainly was smart enough to not go talking about it, to the French nonetheless. I too would like to see any credible source about this info.
quex
AftershockVibe wrote:
Are there any reputable news websites with this story? The ones posted, even looking at their names, seem to have a slight conspiracist angle! This doesn't mean they're automatically wrong though.

So, links. Even in French would be ok?


Certainly.

Rue 89 (French)
details on Jean-Claude Maurice's book (also in French)
article from the Palestine Chronicle
much earlier (but entirely relevant) article from the Guardian
the Toronto Star article
the GQ article, covering Rumsfeld's biblical quotation
a short congregation from C&L
attention from the New York Times
Counterpounch article by Clive Hamilton, currently a visiting prof. at Yale
Juuust barely getting the eye of the Atlantic...

I imagine major news media (in the US, at least) are thinking along the same lines as yourself; that this entire incident seems eerily unreal, and so long as no major media entity among their peers is going to take the first step... well, it's likely a small game of see who bites first.

Then, of course, there is the current administration and our present circumstances to consider. President Obama wants very much to close the book on past derisiveness between the two major parties of US politics. He has already withheld torture images (counter to his own promises) and put down talk of bringing former defense officials to court, angering some of the more leftist members of his party. There is health care reform to pass, and an economy to prop up. He seems completely absorbed in the task of repairing the holes in the ship, so to speak, rather than throwing the old captain overboard.

To this end, I imagine Obama would likely order some kind of gag on news of any newly-surfaced craziness that might outrage the American public. I similarly imagine that the mainstream media would agree to the gag... but smaller, far-left web sites and blogs would not.

While I personally hope it is NOT true, I can't in any good faith dismiss it, as effed up as the Bush group was...
quex
coolclay wrote:
Even if Bush may have felt this way in his own mind he certainly was smart enough to not go talking about it, to the French nonetheless.


Ah, I see we have similar hang-ups about this, but for different reasons... I should like to counter that I am sincerely convinced that Bush was NOT smart enough to have abstained from sharing personal religious beliefs with the French president, or any other head-of-state for that matter. I think he is very much mentally handicapped in the realm of reason and predicting the interpretations others may have of his words and actions.

Rather, I doubt (or doubted, until now) that the cadre of professional politicians surrounding him, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, and others would have allowed him the opportunity to share any such disturbing personal beliefs with such important allies. I had imagined he would be coached otherwise. Now, with Rumsfeld quoting the Book of Revelations and Cheney dropping various admissions from the previous administration's black book at every interview, I think there may have been a lesser sum of sanity between all of those misguided men than I had so desperately hoped.
deanhills
quex wrote:
To this end, I imagine Obama would likely order some kind of gag on news of any newly-surfaced craziness that might outrage the American public. I similarly imagine that the mainstream media would agree to the gag... but smaller, far-left web sites and blogs would not.
I'm not anti-Obama, but have to say that his taking sides in a racial related incident, to the extent of interfering, did not do anything for him at all. He did the "taking sides" publicly to the media, which did create a mild form of "outrage". So likely he would not want to gag the media, as it featured quite high in getting him elected, as well as getting elected for a second presidency.

quex wrote:
I should like to counter that I am sincerely convinced that Bush was NOT smart enough to have abstained from sharing personal religious beliefs with the French president, or any other head-of-state for that matter. I think he is very much mentally handicapped in the realm of reason and predicting the interpretations others may have of his words and actions.
I believe that Bush might have made mention of this, but in an ENTIRELY different context, different time frame, when it would have been appropriate, and that he is being quoted completely out of context in a derisive way, unbecoming more the French statesman who made those comments about Bush, than Bush himself. I cannot picture Bush going around disparaging French statesmen. But yes, I can picture the French doing that. Maybe they don't have enough really dignified issues to keep themselves busy, to show they are doing good work, so have to go around and discredit the American presidency to impress their audiences. Twisted Evil
quex
deanhills wrote:
quex wrote:
To this end, I imagine Obama would likely order some kind of gag on news of any newly-surfaced craziness that might outrage the American public. I similarly imagine that the mainstream media would agree to the gag... but smaller, far-left web sites and blogs would not.
I'm not anti-Obama, but have to say that his taking sides in a racial related incident, to the extent of interfering, did not do anything for him at all. He did the "taking sides" publicly to the media, which did create a mild form of "outrage". So likely he would not want to gag the media, as it featured quite high in getting him elected, as well as getting elected for a second presidency.


Wait a second. Are you alright this evening, Dean? o.o?

The Professor vs. Cop thing was an entirely unplanned incident. The question was posed during an open Q&A session. Do you think Obama would have made the "police acted stupidly" statement if he had time to plan a response? It was obvious his remarks, because of the conflict they created, were a mistake that cost precious time and took away media attention from the windup for the health care pitch. This was regularly commented upon by practically every political strategist that any news source could drag onto the set. Even the local news in Ballwin, Missouri had some half-assed politico junkie ready to admit that. It took a personal intervention on Obama's part to patch things up, the much-overhyped "beer summit", which ALSO took much time and attention... do you really think the president of this administration has two hours to spend patching things up between a cop and a professor during the biggest financial crisis of several decades and the second coming of the health care war?

Also, considering the cooperation between the media and the Obama election campaign, wouldn't you expect a little good will to be leftover? Especially if the administration were to stress the importance of NOT making people angrier than they already are with a story that could easily wait until later...?

deanhills wrote:
quex wrote:
I should like to counter that I am sincerely convinced that Bush was NOT smart enough to have abstained from sharing personal religious beliefs with the French president, or any other head-of-state for that matter. I think he is very much mentally handicapped in the realm of reason and predicting the interpretations others may have of his words and actions.
I believe that Bush might have made mention of this, but in an ENTIRELY different context, different time frame, when it would have been appropriate, and that he is being quoted completely out of context in a derisive way, unbecoming more the French statesman who made those comments about Bush, than Bush himself.


Oh, how I love roasting the French...

deanhills wrote:
I cannot picture Bush going around disparaging French statesmen.


...but are you serious? Bush very readily "disparages" pretty much anyone. Minorities, world leaders, his own staff and the press; even blind reporters, although he did have the sense (or a press secretary with the sense) to apologize upon learning that the man was blind...



Honestly, now.
deanhills
quex wrote:
... do you really think the president of this administration has two hours to spend patching things up between a cop and a professor during the biggest financial crisis of several decades and the second coming of the health care war?
My point exactly, he should not have commented at all! There would have been no problem if he had chosen "no comment" on something that he had no clue about. But then perhaps he knew much more than most at that time, but from the side of Gates, who had been in contact with him.

quex wrote:
Also, considering the cooperation between the media and the Obama election campaign, wouldn't you expect a little good will to be leftover? Especially if the administration were to stress the importance of NOT making people angrier than they already are with a story that could easily wait until later...?
If this were true, it would worry me greatly. I couldn't imagine the media cooperating with Obama for his election campaign, that would obviously show serious bias. I would also expect goodwill during Obama's presidency as he is now President of the United States.

quex wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I cannot picture Bush going around disparaging French statesmen.


...but are you serious? Bush very readily "disparages" pretty much anyone. .........
Honestly, now.
I see, and Obama and Chirac do not? Twisted Evil

Before you wish to make me into a Bush supporter please note I'm not a Bush nor an Obama supporter. I admire certain things that Bush has done, as well as think he has made some serious mistakes as well including the invasion of Iraq. The part I admire most about him, is that he was able to make decisions and see them through. Obama has only been around for six months. So one has to give him more time. So far I am worried about his spending habits, as well as need to control everything through Government regulations. I'm also worried that he is moving too slow on processing the Gitmo detainees. Also, he is behind with the budget that should have been tabled during July. His slip of the tongue with regard to Gates is obviously going to cost him a number of supporters. Not everyone will be as compassionate and understanding as you are. But for me it is not that big an issue. It is a slip-up, period and can't really define completely who he is. We need to give him more time, and my hope is for him to do well, not to fail.
gandalfthegrey
This is a complete misinterpretation of the concepts of Gog and Magog to any biblical scholar.
LimpFish
this seems a bit extreme to me... what bible prophesy would he be fulfilling by going into iraq? is it something from revelations?
deanhills
LimpFish wrote:
this seems a bit extreme to me... what bible prophesy would he be fulfilling by going into iraq? is it something from revelations?
No. French talk in higher social circles would have it that Bush was citing religion for reason for invading Iraq. That is obviously absurd and Bush must have been quoted out of context for political mileage.
Related topics

How smart George W is?
Bush admin tortured for "proof" of Saddam-9/11 lin
George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People - Kanye West
Bush and Iraq
bush and condi talking...
Conservative Christian Dictionary.
Chirac-Bush-Queen sex posters
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
MLK Jr's 'Bash Bush' event omitted some vital information.
Bush in Freefall
Bush spells out 'LA terror plot'
Articles of Impeachment for President Bush
[var]Chistes diarios.
Look funny George W Bush
Bush & Bin Laden S.A.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.