Bush and the Bible
Moses' law criminalizes making an intentional false allegation against another party:
"If a false witness rises against any man to testify against him of wrongdoing, then both men in
the controversy shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who serve in those days. And the
judges shall make careful inquiry, and indeed, if the witness is a false witness, who has testified falsely
against his brother, then you shall do to him as he thought to have done to his brother; so you shall put away
the evil from among you." (Deuteronomy 19:16-19).
Mr. Bush knew on September 12, 2004, that there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda, because this is
when Richard Clarke, his counter-terrorism czar, told him so. Yet from that time to the present Mr. Bush and
Mr. Cheney have sought to convince the public that Iraq was behind the terrorist assault on the twin towers.
In the eyes of the Lord, as evidenced in Deuteronomy 19:16-19, this is a great evil.
For what should Mr. Bush be impeached? Imagine you're standing on the sidewalk watching as a posse of irate
citizens comes stampeding by, looking to corner the culprit who has just moments before committed an horrific crime.
Suppose you point to a man standing there and say, 'He's the one, he did it.' Suppose the man you point to did
not do it, and suppose you knew that full well...you just happened to hate him. God has said what He thinks
of such behavior in Deuteronomy 19:16-19.
We as a nation can agree with God on this or disagree with Him; either way, God is not mocked.
When terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, liberty stood firm, because it was founded on a rock. But
then the second wave hit, as internal subversion sought to achieve what burning aviation fuel and twisted metal could
not. Fundamental American values were trampled, at home and abroad, at Guantanamo Bay where detainees were held
incommunicado in degrading conditions without ever hearing the charges against them, at home where librarians were
expected to report what their patrons were reading. Foreign terrorists did not do this to us, we did it to ourselves.
We've made a bargain with the devil in bartering away our freedom for security; we will end with neither freedom nor
security. People of faith should realize, even if others do not, that however attractive or profitable doing wrong may
seem, it's never the course of safety, because it is God who holds the outcomes in His hand.
The American people held the power in their hand to beat back this second wave last November. They did not.
What opportunity was missed? The American people had the opportunity last November to vindicate our character.
We could have shown we understand it is wrong to start a war. This is what the Bible teaches: "If it is
possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men."
(Romans 12:18). But we did not. That portion
of the electorate which self-identifies as 'Christian' played a crucial role in this election. These voters
reported concerns with 'moral values.' Evidently for this constituency military aggression raises no moral concerns.
To the Lord's way of thinking, Christian values encompass more than 'social issues:'
“Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger
or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say
to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’”
The American electorate saw the populace of Fallujah under the gun, and did not minister to them. No doubt this
is because they are 'terrorists:' even the little bitty babies. Not only did we not minister to them, we re-elected
the terrorist who holds them at gun-point.
The founding fathers worried that America would be dragged into war by
monied foreign interests: "...it become of so much consequence to
certain nations, to have a friend of a foe at the head of our affairs,
that they will interfere with money and with arms." (Thomas Jefferson,
letter to James Madison on the Bill of Rights, December 20, 1787, p. 84,
Jefferson's Letters, edited Willson Whitman.) Strangely enough the American
people have chosen three times to be governed by a family which is a case
study in conflict of interest. This family's rise to prominence was funded
by the same pay-masters who finance international jihad. How can this make
anyone feel safe?
Nor does Mr. Bush mind flaunting it. He strolls about in public, openly holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah.
Meanwhile I am less and less able to recognize my own country. This same avaricious family has done all in its power
to cheapen and degrade political discourse; elections now are mud-slinging contests. What I recall from the debates
of my youth about the Vietnam war was the moral earnestness of all involved. There was no one, of any political
persuasion, who argued that America should do what was wrong, provided it was in our interest. People then could
not have wrapped their minds around the concept, 'America should do what is wrong;' they
loved this country too much. One did not hear people suggesting we should deliberately reduce another country to
anarchy, so as to afford ourselves a convenient shooting gallery to plink away at the terrorists who would rush
in to fill the resultant vacuum. Yet people openly say that today, explaining that their way, you see, if we miss,
we only hit natives. The America of Lynndie England,-- the America the Bush family
has crafted,-- is not the country I remember as my home.
As of October 2005, the War on Iraq has been freshly repackaged as the war against "Islamo-fascism."
People like to know, not only what they are fighting against, but what they are fighting for. Americans who
understood Communism, against which we contended in Vietnam, to be a great evil, nonetheless grew lost in perplexity
watching Madame Nhu on TV, wondering, 'just why are we fighting for this bunch, again?'
The same might be said by those listening to the 'Islamo-fascist' present
leader of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, who advances the standard 'Islamo-fascist'
policy goal: instituting Sharia, Islamic law, and discarding Iraq's heretofore
secular legal structure. If we are fighting against
'Islamo-fascism,' then why are we also fighting for it? Despite the administration's
habit of describing Iraqis as if they were small children and their ancient land a blank slate, Mr. al-Jaafari's
'Islamo-fascist' Dawa party in its past history has engaged in acts of terror
against American targets. He is, in short, an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist...and we handed him Iraq.
Had the United States wanted a secular Iraq, we could have refrained from invading that country, because that was the
status quo prior to our invasion. Although past administration rhetoric has proved incapable of differentiating between the
secular Arab nationalism of the Baath party and 'Islamo-fascism,' in fact their principles are diametrically opposed. So to
portray our invasion of Iraq as a foray against 'Islamo-fascism' has it exactly backwards. While in Afghanistan, U.S. forces
toppled a hostile Islamic fundamentalist regime and installed a secular government, in Iraq it's just the other way around:
we overthrew a secular regime and established a nascent Islamic fundamentalist state. If one of these approaches is the correct
recipe for confronting Islamist terror, it's unclear how the inverse could also be.
So, far from fighting against 'Islamo-fascism' in Iraq, we are fighting
for it against all enemies, including secular Arab nationalists nostalgic
for the old regime as well as 'Islamo-fascists' of a rival sectarian stripe
from those we favor.
A glance at neighboring Iran, an 'Islamo-fascist' terrorist state of the Shia persuasion, leaves one unconvinced that
Shia 'Islamo-fascism' is more benign than the rival Sunni brand. Indeed it was theocratic Iran who originally sponsored
such 'Islamo-fascist' terrorist groups as the Badr Brigades, whose ascendancy in southern Iraq was not won on the battlefield
but handed to them by the Bush administration. The divide between these sects began with a dispute about succession to Mohammad,
founder and first conqueror on the road to the Muslim world empire. It has hardened into irreconcilable cultural differences. While
Sunnis respect private judgment, Shi'ites expect each individual believer to subordinate his judgment to a 'source of emulation'
like Ayatollah al-Sistani. This ayatollah graciously tells his followers for whom they may vote. Thus this one individual, an
Iranian national who cannot vote in Iraq, nevertheless casts many ballots, through the purple-stained fingers of the many who do
as he tells them. This is democracy in form, one-man rule in substance.
It may be objected that the current 'Islamo-fascist' leadership was voted
into office by the electorate and thus the U.S. military has no choice
but to uphold its tenuous hold on power. But elections held under foreign
military occupation are rarely fair or free, and this was no exception.
In a free election all parties are allowed to compete. During the height
of the cold war, when America was locked in a death struggle with Communism,
those few Americans who wished to do so were perfectly free to vote for
Gus Hall, the perennial Communist standard-bearer. No one could have prevented
them, because the first amendment to the U.S. constitution protects freedom
of association, including the right to form political parties. When politicians
commit crimes, a free society prosecutes the criminals, it does not outlaw
their political parties. Thus if Republican Tom DeLay did indeed funnel
illegal political contributions, who would suggest banning the Republican
party as a fair and enlightened response? Yet Viceroy L. Paul Bremer, whose
claim to rule rested not upon the consent of the governed but the right
of conquest, banned the Baath party, a popular socialist party some of
whose members had committed crimes against humanity. That portion of the
electorate which would prefer to vote for this secular program was effectively
disenfranchised. The foreseeable result was the triumph of the religious parties.
It is unclear why American blood should be spilled or American tax dollars expended to entrench the 'Islamo-fascist' regime
of Ibrahim al-Jaafari. If we are fighting against 'Islamo-fascism,'
why do we cry 'victory' upon installing 'Islamo-fascism' in power? A 'War Against
Terror' that grants the terrorists exultant possession of the State cannot be counted a success.
One of the more lunatic notes struck by al Qaeda rhetoric is their pretension
to world domination: a restoration of the universal Islamic caliphate.
Sane observers cannot perceive a group whose only demonstrated military
capability revolves around the indiscriminate murder of unarmed persons
as poised on the brink of world domination. Yet our President assures us
that, not only is al Qaeda poised on the brink of world domination, the
only thing that staved it off was America's toppling of the prior secular
government of Iraq. Left unexplained is how al Qaeda, previously described
by our President as shattered, crippled and beaten, came to be poised on
the brink of world domination. But this otherwise unstoppable outcome was
staved off only for the moment; American must continue propping up Mr.
al-Jaafari's Islamist government...or the world will come to be dominated
by like-minded persons.
Unlike past insurgencies the U.S. has confronted, the Iraqi insurgency lacks a 'National Liberation Front,' a political
umbrella under which various groups can unite to achieve stated war aims. Likewise it lacks a functioning provisional government.
Failing any sense on the part of the public as to what an insurgent victory would mean, an essential ingredient for
military success is missing. Never fear, our President, and the compliant media following him, have nominated the foreigner
Zarqawi for the role of 'leader of the insurgency.' Some Iraqis reportedly believe the man himself to be a fiction devised
by the United States, yet he really does exist, and does in fact lead a small al Qaeda-affiliated faction specializing
in mosque bombings and the like. The aim of these atrocities is reportedly to start a sectarian civil war. This group does
not aim at civil war in the belief that civil war is good for Iraq. How can further blood-letting heal this blood-drenched
and blood-drained land? Rather, they aim at civil war in the belief it is bad for America. The hatred for humanity and
contempt for human life displayed by this faction yield the same disgust in Iraq as in America. Thus it is difficult to
understand the President's conviction that the only thing preventing this faction's triumph, indeed global conquest
by al Qaeda, are the American troops who have been unable to stop these attacks on 'soft' targets.
According to objective sources, these indiscriminate enemies of humanity represent a small part of the anti-American insurgency:
"One U.S. intelligence official said just 2 percent to 5 percent of attacks, generally those involving suicide bombers,
can be directly blamed on al-Zarqawi." (Portland Press Herald, October 23, 2005, AP 'Terror Plotter "A Daily
Threat"'.) Yet Mr. Bush reports that 100 percent of the insurgency arises from this source. Why the discrepancy?
Perhaps Mr. Bush is really more afraid of factions within the insurgency with more of a claim to the public's sympathy.
Or rather it seems that this administration tosses around ideological terms as if they were confetti, land where they
will. However Mr. Bush's war to unseat the Baath party's secular
socialism can plausibly be described, the 'war against Islamo-fascism' is not it.