A different perspective on Bush

[Mr Spinkles]

Here is the account according to the Washington Post:

Imagine our surprise Wednesday to read in the Israeli paper Haaretz (online), that Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Abu Mazen, meeting recently with militants to enlist their support for a truce with Israel, said that, when they met in Aqaba, President Bush had told him this: " God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [ Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

However, the article goes on to say:

The Arabic-speaking colleague's translation, was this: "God inspired me to hit al Qaeda, and so I hit it. And I had the inspiration to hit Saddam, and so I hit him. Now I am determined to solve the Middle East problem if you help. Otherwise the elections will come and I will be wrapped up with them."

Even then, there's uncertainty. After all, this is Abu Mazen's account in Arabic of what Bush said in English, written down by a note-taker in Arabic, then back into English.

[emphasis added] the full article can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A37944-2003Jun26?language=printer

As you all know, I am an atheist. However, I would like to distance myself from some of my fellow atheists, who often jump at the opportunity to prove the insanity of any deeply religious person. Like Bush, I feel strongly that we must take a tough stance on brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein, and encourage democracy. That I derive this conviction from my own inner sense of justice, and Bush thinks it comes from his God is immaterial to me. Doing good is doing good, whether a person thinks God told him/her to or not.

Is it possible that some of us here on these forums are biased in our thinking about Bush? Could it be that, because he is a strong advocate of the ideals of "the other side" that we demonize him subconsciously, rather than simply disagreeing with his policies? I disagree with Kerry on some issues, but unlike my fellow Bush supporters, I do not think he's a "bad" person...hell, I've never even met him. In fact, I'll bet he thinks his views really are what's best for the country. Can I blame him for trying to do what he thinks is best for the country? Of course not. So I don't blame him...I just vote for Bush, and hope the best man wins.

For some more perspective on, perhaps, what Bush is really like as a person, try reading this: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-01-bush-cover_x.htm You may find that some of the negative conceptions of Bush are accurate...but that there are also some positive things to be said as well that aren't always accounted for.

I encourage everyone to open your minds, assess your own bias and challenge your preconceptions.

 

[Watcher]

We talked about this not to long ago didn't we? Remember....The Cheney/Bush/Rumsfield trinity....Ha Ha Ha.... I don't really support Bush at all, and don't agree with his policies. Politics are mostly a game anyway, but I would like to see Kerry get elected. I didn't agree with Saddam either, but Bush shouldn't have went in there in decided it was America's problem now. As West Virgina Senator Robert C. Byrd so elequently put in in March of 2003.
"There is no credible evidence to connect Saddam Hussiem to nine eleven, the twin towers fell because a world wide terrorist group, Al Quada, with cells in over 60 nations, struck at our wealth, and our influnces by turning our own planes into missels."
It was a very powerful speach that I have memorized for a certain class I take. If I can find the link to the entire speech i will post it.

 

[Runt]

If I didn't disagree with his policies, I wouldn't really care much about his religiosity. However, the combination of what I consider to be immortal policies (both domestic and foreign) coupled with his almost fanatic belief that he is enacting God's will is what makes me dislike him.

 

[Green Gaia]

Call me biased if you want, but no amount of spin you put on this man will make me like him or vote for him. My mind is made up on this issue.

 

[Rex]

*closed lips*

 

[Faust]

Mr. Sprinkles,
I respect anyones views and their right to express them but once again I must state that I adamantly disagree with you.
I consider religion taken beyond reasonable boundaries to be mental illness. One way to exceed the measurement that I apply is to believe that one has been personally appointed by God to impose His will on the rest of the world. And I can not personally trust the governance of this country to someone I perceive as mentally ill.
Again, and I realize I'm being insufferably redundant, see my reply to you in your post in the religious news forum.

 

[robtex]

H
As you all know, I am an atheist. However, I would like to distance myself from some of my fellow atheists, who often jump at the opportunity to prove the insanity of any deeply religious person. Like Bush, I feel strongly that we must take a tough stance on brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein, and encourage democracy. That I derive this conviction from my own inner sense of justice, and Bush thinks it comes from his God is immaterial to me. Doing good is doing good, whether a person thinks God told him/her to or not.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm

I am not going to argue politics one way or the other but I do want to point something out. What is signifigant isn't that Bush is motivated by Christianty. It is that he uses it as a tool to motivate Christians. If you go to the link above it suggests that 77 % of Americans are Christian. Even if that number is a little high realize that many non-christians have had such a strong dose of Christian morality in their younger years that it is a part of many of them. If we were a primary buddist country trust me he would be promoting Alan Watts and Dogan instead of the Bible. It ain't about what he believes..it is about how he can use what American's believe to solidify and validate his points.

While that is not terrible in and of itself it does create an additonal problem. In addition to the heavy civilian causalities over in the Middle East one has to realize that seperation of church and state is not a middle east concept except in Turkey as I understand it. When Bush waves the flag of Christianity and than kills Muslims overseas he takes a political war (which is still not jusifiable) and turns it into a religious war.

Many people on this site and elsewhere would contend that religious tolerance may be one of the greatest goals for the next century. When Bush uses the Christian card to gain support against a nation of muslims he retards those efforts to such a degree that it may not be fixable in our lifetime.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Spinkles -

I have to say, that for my money, Bush (W) strikes me as the least intelligent, most arrogant, and most self righteous president we have had in my lifetime. That is covering a lot of ground. I watched his machine commit character assasination on Max Cleland, John McCain, and John Kerry. I am certain that it has been done to numerous others that I am unaware, all for the sake of power. For me, his actions (and those with whom he surrounds himself), are deplorable and despicable.

I wish that the Republican party had nominated McCain 4 years ago, and I wish that Gen. Wesley Clark had received the Democratic nomination this time. I honestly feel that if it had been Clark, this race would be over by now. Then again, I'm not counting the fact that by now, the smear machine that is Karl Rove would have some people believing that General Clark was responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping, and the My Lai massacre. I'm sure that the Swift Boat vets would have the inside scoop on Clark's constant patronage of some kiddie porn sites on the internet.

This kind of garbage makes me loathe the Bush machine all the more.

Fair and Balanced,
TVOR

 

[chuck010342]

Spinkles -

I have to say, that for my money, Bush (W) strikes me as the least intelligent, most arrogant, and most self righteous president we have had in my lifetime. That is covering a lot of ground. I watched his machine commit character assasination on Max Cleland, John McCain, and John Kerry. I am certain that it has been done to numerous others that I am unaware, all for the sake of power. For me, his actions (and those with whom he surrounds himself), are deplorable and despicable.

I wish that the Republican party had nominated McCain 4 years ago, and I wish that Gen. Wesley Clark had received the Democratic nomination this time. I honestly feel that if it had been Clark, this race would be over by now. Then again, I'm not counting the fact that by now, the smear machine that is Karl Rove would have some people believing that General Clark was responsible for the Lindbergh kidnapping, and the My Lai massacre. I'm sure that the Swift Boat vets would have the inside scoop on Clark's constant patronage of some kiddie porn sites on the internet.

This kind of garbage makes me loathe the Bush machine all the more.

Fair and Balanced,
TVOR

I must say that your name combined with the avatar of the scarecrow is very amusing. This world needs more humor in it, things should not be taken seriously all the time.

Politics is not my area of study so please keep that in mind while judgement of my post occurs. I am not to fond of either politician none of them can have my vote. What strikes me as interesting is that your Bush Bashing needs one more word to make it complete; hypocrite. George Bush claims to be a christian and yet he goes to war with Iraq. "All those who pick up the sword shall die by the sword" In a personal interview I would tell him that quote and ask of his response. Not to leave John kerry out of the horrid hypocrisy, but his long Senate record is anything but concrete (perhaps he injured more then when he shot his foot during Vietnam.)

 

[maggie2]

As a Canadian, looking into the USA and watching a lot of coverage of your upcoming election I can tell you this. I think Bush's biggest weakness is that he just can't see that he's done anything wrong. I find it amazing that when he was asked in the second debate to name three mistakes and how he corrected them he just couldn't do it. He was also asked by Tim Russert about mistakes and couldn't come up with any then either. I think it's very dangerous to have someone who can't look at what they've done and see that they need to make some adjustments. Bush is, in my opinion, the most dangerous, arrogent, obnoxious, least intelligent president I've ever seen and I only can pray that he will not be re-elected. I hate putting labels on people but he really pushes my buttons. I think he'll do anything to win.

I must admit I'm not a big Kerry fan either, but I think he has far better morals than Bush and he at least uses his brain and is a thinking person. Too bad McCain didn't decide to run as his Vice President...the two of them would have made an awesome ticket and certainly would have defeated Bush hands down.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I think perhaps the most interesting thing about the criticism I'm hearing on Bush is that it is extremely self-contradictory. It appears as though Bush has become a veritable boogeyman to liberal minded individuals. To some, Bush is a crazy religious zealot with no grasp of reality. To others, Bush is a crafty politician who feigns true religious conviction to sway the masses. To some, Bush weighs his religious beliefs far too much into his political decisions. To others, Bush doesn't incorporate true Christian beliefs into his policies nearly enough. I have observed that when people strongly opposed to a politician's policies express their critical views their imaginations often run wild, each individual ascribing his/her own worst fears to the politician in question. Emotional, fearful speculation, and not objective reasoning, takes over (I see the same thing with Kerry-bashers, and Clinton-bashers).

One way to exceed the measurement that I apply is to believe that one has been personally appointed by God to impose His will on the rest of the world.

I don't remember hearing Bush make this claim. Could you please provide a quote?

If we were a primary buddist country trust me he would be promoting Alan Watts and Dogan instead of the Bible.

Upon what do you base this speculation?

In addition to the heavy civilian causalities over in the Middle East one has to realize that seperation of church and state is not a middle east concept except in Turkey as I understand it. When Bush waves the flag of Christianity and than kills Muslims overseas he takes a political war (which is still not jusifiable) and turns it into a religious war.

1)Countries in the Middle East have had secular governments in the past and continue to have them today (Saddam's regime was extremely secular) 2)Gallup polls show that most Iraqis favor seperation of church and state, though they are divided on precisely how much seperation 3)How is Bush waving the flag of Christianity? 4)In what ways has this become a "religious war"? Are you aware that all of the victims of terrorism in Iraq have been killed not on the basis of their religion, but on the political ends that the terrorists believe can be acheived? Do you realize that insurgents/terrorists have killed coalition troops, Iraqi civilians, and foreign contractors of all religions?

I have to say, that for my money, Bush (W) strikes me as the least intelligent, most arrogant, and most self righteous president we have had in my lifetime.

More self-righteous even than LBJ, who not only refused to change his policies in Vietnam in the face of thousands of casualties per week, but increased the number to be drafted?

I watched his machine commit character assasination on Max Cleland, John McCain, and John Kerry.

I've seen Kerry committing character assassination on Bush and Dean, but I can hardly blame him for it--that's politics. What I'm hearing is, Bush/his supporters have a political "machine" dedicated to destroying his adversaries, therefore, Bush is really bad. So, what makes Kerry any better? Please tell me you are not implying that the Kerry campaign does not have an equally malevolent organization dedicated to character assassination.

I find it amazing that when he was asked in the second debate to name three mistakes and how he corrected them he just couldn't do it.

First of all, he said he had made three mistakes in his Presidential appointments. Secondly, it was a loaded question--if Bush feels his decisions thus far have been sound, his adversaries will say "aha! He can't admit mistakes". If Bush admits mistakes he's made in his decisions, his adversaries will say "See! Even Bush admits he hasn't done a good job". No politician would give that question a straight answer, because you lose politically no matter how you respond. Ask Kerry to name 3 mistakes he's made in his 20 year period in the Senate--he'll dodge the question too.

I agree that Presidents should analyze their own decisions and recognize where they could have done better, but good leaders don't go around extrapolating in the political arena on all the bad decisions they've made, especially during a conflict.

I think he'll do anything to win.

First of all, if all Bush cared about was winning re election he wouldn't have brought up the subject of Iraq at all. He would have kept the public's focus on Afghanistan and been a shoe-in for re election. Secondly, how exactly do you square this with your previous statement? On the one hand, you characterize Bush as an uncompromising hawk who can't admit he's wrong, and on the other hand you cast him as a clever politician who will do anything to win--well, which is it?

 

[Faust]

(I don't remember hearing Bush make this claim. Could you please provide a quote?)


I was thinking of an interview I saw with Bob Woodward (Washington post reporter who along with Berstien broke the Watergate story). Bush gave him a large block of time and answered many questions, this mindset was expressed by Mr. Bush, in addition he was asked how he thought his decisions would be interpreted in the future, his reply was something on the order of " Future? We'll all be dead. This last statement was on film.
I confess I never got around to getting Mr. Woodwards book but the Whitehouse has never been able to produce a point by point refutation of it, only an attempted smear campaign against the author.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

More self-righteous even than LBJ, who not only refused to change his policies in Vietnam in the face of thousands of casualties per week, but increased the number to be drafted?

Let me begin by saying that I notice you didn't try to defend him on the "most arrogant" and "most self righteous" shots, so I'll assume you can accept those.
Yea - I'll say that (in my opinion) he is more self righteous than LBJ. I'm not defending LBJ, but I have heard it said by virtually everyone that had access to him at that time, that he worried constantly about what was happening and how best to solve the problem he inherited. Having been alive at that time in history, I would be the first to tell you that he was as worried about the political fallout as anything else, but he did feel a terrible sense of loss at what was happening.
If Bush has these same feelings, he's doing a whale of a job hiding it. He has shown not one shred of remorse that his trumped up reasons for taking us into this war have not been proven to be true. On the contrary, he and Cheney cling to the WMD argument like two middle school kids swearing they weren't smoking in the bathroom, attacking anyone and everyone that even dares to question them. Reprehensible. In defense of Bush, I'm sure he is sorry for each death, but his censuring the photos of the returning coffins is puzzling at best. Almost as if they can be hidden away, no one will notice that over 1000 young men and women are dead and gone. I can assure you that there are 1000 plus families that no longer have a father, son, grandson, brother, sister, mother, daughter coming home - whether they hide the flag draped coffins or not. I do not expect Bush (or any other politician) to attend the funerals of those killed in this, or any other war. By the same token, I would like to see them honor these individuals appropriately, rather than pretend that they never existed.

What I'm hearing is, Bush/his supporters have a political "machine" dedicated to destroying his adversaries, therefore, Bush is really bad. So, what makes Kerry any better? Please tell me you are not implying that the Kerry campaign does not have an equally malevolent organization dedicated to character assassination.

When I see Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. being spoonfed talking points by Karl Rove, I'm pretty sure I'm smart enough to recognize that this is a co-ordinated smear machine. They did it to Max Cleland (who lost an arm and both legs in Vietnam), Johh McCain (a POW in Hanoi) and John Kerry (we all know that story), all for political gain. As I said in the original post, I'm sure there are others that have been steamrolled by this despicable group. So yes, I'd say that qualifies as a smear machine, and Bush really is that bad (in my opinion).

As for Kerry, I did not mention his attacks on Bush because the thread is supposed to be about Bush. Now that you have mentioned it, I have to say that I detest the attacks on Bush's military record as well. In fairness, I didn't see any smears out of the Kerry campaign in the primaries (as Bush's group did when they were pursuing the nomination in 2000), nor did I see any attacks on Bush until the Bush smear machine had drug Kerry through the mud for a while. Again, I'm not defending Kerry's attacks on Bush's service record - just pointing out that I see them as a reaction to the initial onslaught. To be honest, I think if Kerry had refrained from his attacks, he would have been able to claim the high ground.
In response to your very last line, I would not say that Kerry is any better than Bush in regards to the attacks. If anything, he is just late to the game - and a sad game it is!

TVOR

 

[robtex]

Upon what do you base this speculation?

1)Countries in the Middle East have had secular governments in the past and continue to have them today (Saddam's regime was extremely secular) 2)Gallup polls show that most Iraqis favor seperation of church and state, though they are divided on precisely how much seperation 3)How is Bush waving the flag of Christianity? 4)In what ways has this become a "religious war"? Are you aware that all of the victims of terrorism in Iraq have been killed not on the basis of their religion, but on the political ends that the terrorists believe can be acheived? Do you realize that insurgents/terrorists have killed coalition troops, Iraqi civilians, and foreign contractors of all religions?

Just a few facts so that we are on the same page

Iraq has a population of 25 million plus
the percentage of the population that is muslim is 97 %
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

The United states has a population of 293 million
The percentage that is Christian is roughly 84 %
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

in this poll it is illustrated that in 2002 church attendance had an impact on voters outlooks. The republican party as well as the democratic party are well aware of the link.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm
in it is one break down voters and church goers..
bush gore
More than once a week 68% 32%
Once a week 58% 42%
Once or twice a month 41% 59%
A few times a year 40% 60%
Seldom 39% 61%
Never 35% 55%
Source: National Survey of Religion and Politics, University of Akron

further down in a second chart:

Church attendance Conservative Moderate Liberal
Once a week 54% 33% 13%
Almost every week 47% 39% 14%
Once a month 38% 42% 19%
Seldom 31% 45% 24%
Never 26% 40% 34%

Source: USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Polls taken from February 2003 to May 2004. More than 7,000 respondents combined from seven surveys; margin of error: +/- less than 2 percentage points.

Bush has listed Jesus as his favorite philospher.


In the below link I found the following info:

George Bush reports a life-changing conversion around the age of 40 from being a nominal Christian to a born-again believer—a personal transformation that ended his drinking problems, solidified his family life, and gave him a sense of direction. He changed his denominational affiliation from his parents' Episcopal faith to his wife's Methodism. Bush's personal faith helped prompt his interest in promoting his "compassionate conservatism" and the faith-based initiative as part of his new administration.

The real theological question about George W. Bush was whether he would make a pilgrimage from being essentially a self-help Methodist to a social reform Methodist. God had changed his life in real ways, but would his faith deepen to embrace the social activism of John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who said poverty was not only a matter of personal choices but also of social oppression and injustice? Would Bush's God of the 12-step program also become the God who required social justice and challenged the status quo of the wealthy and powerful, the God of whom the biblical prophets spoke?

Then came Sept. 11, 2001. Bush's compassionate conservatism and faith-based initiative rapidly gave way to his newfound vocation as the commander-in-chief of the "war against terrorism." Close friends say that after 9/11 Bush found "his mission in life." The self-help Methodist slowly became a messianic Calvinist promoting America's mission to "rid the world of evil." The Bush theology was undergoing a critical transformation.

In an October 2000 presidential debate, candidate Bush warned against an over-active American foreign policy and the negative reception it would receive around the world. Bush cautioned restraint. "If we are an arrogant nation, they will resent us," he said. "If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

The president has come a long way since then. His administration has launched a new doctrine of pre-emptive war, has fought two wars (in Afghanistan and Iraq), and now issues regular demands and threats against other potential enemies. After Sept. 11, nations around the world responded to America's pain—even the French newspaper Le Monde carried the headline "We are all Americans now." But the new pre-emptive and—most critically—unilateral foreign policy America now pursues has squandered much of that international support.

The Bush policy has become one of potentially endless wars abroad and a domestic agenda that mostly consists of tax cuts, primarily for the rich. "Bush promised us a foreign policy of humility and a domestic policy of compassion," Joe Klein wrote in Time magazine. "He has given us a foreign policy of arrogance and a domestic policy that is cynical, myopic, and cruel." What happened?

A Mission and an Appointment

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum says of the president, "War had made him…a crusader after all." At the outset of the war in Iraq, George Bush entreated, "God bless our troops." In his State of the Union speech, he vowed that America would lead the war against terrorism "because this call of history has come to the right country." Bush's autobiography is titled A Charge to Keep, which is a quote from his favorite hymn.

In Frum's book The Right Man, he recounts a conversation between the president and his top speechwriter, Mike Gerson, a graduate of evangelical Wheaton College. After Bush's speech to Congress following the Sept. 11 attacks, Frum writes that Gerson called up his boss and said, "Mr. President, when I saw you on television, I thought—God wanted you there." According to Frum, the president replied, "He wants us all here, Gerson."

Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." As he gained political power, Bush has increasingly seen his presidency as part of that divine plan. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0309&article=030910

As the chart reads it shows a very strong trend between voters chruch habits and their votes.

I want you to read this press release after Spt 11 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

In it Bush address it as a religious war by stating, " I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)"

"Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America."

In it he identifies some muslims as the reason for war. It may or may not be true but it is proof that it was acknowledge as a relgious war.
In this link:


http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2003/03/20030305_b_main.asp

he is qouted as saying, ""God is not neutral,"

Here is clearly presenting the idea that he uses religon to achieve his policical ends
http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/religion/faith_war.html


Iraq
http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2003/0527_NBiraq.html

The reality of the situation is:

1) bush is a christian
2) bush uses his religionous ideals to promote his policies
3) polls show that people tend to factor relgion into voting
4) Iraq is largely muslim and while it was secular in schooling and politics under Saddam it's people are largely Muslim and do see Bush religious speak.
(http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2003/0527_NBiraq.html)
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6125357/)
5) Because of Bushes religious interjections and Iraq religious mix it is not possible for a large percentage of both populations to see this as a religious war.


end notes
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0210-06.htm

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm really sorry for not replying sooner, folks. I won't go into lots of gory details here, but I did want to respond to a couple of things real quick.

Just a few facts so that we are on the same page

We're on the same page. I'm well aware that most Iraqis are Muslim, that most Americans are Christian, that the Republican party represents a more religious block of voters than the Democratic party, and that Bush would say Jesus is his favorite philosopher (he is Christian, after all).

But the new pre-emptive and—most critically—unilateral foreign policy America now pursues has squandered much of that international support.

Oh come on, we are not "pursuing" a unilateral foreign policy. We pursued a U.N. resolution to set a deadline for Saddam Hussein to cooperate fully with weapons inspectors, but the French, German, Russian, and Chinese governments would have none of it. Regardless, there are dozens of other nations involved in our coalition...hardly "unilateral".

The Bush policy has become one of potentially endless wars abroad and a domestic agenda that mostly consists of tax cuts, primarily for the rich. "Bush promised us a foreign policy of humility and a domestic policy of compassion," Joe Klein wrote in Time magazine. "He has given us a foreign policy of arrogance and a domestic policy that is cynical, myopic, and cruel." What happened?

After reading headline after headline of negative reporting coming from TIME magazine during the invasion, I have lost a good deal of respect for TIME. Tax cuts are good for our economy, because it puts money in peoples' pockets and gets them spending and investing....in a capitalist society, wealth creates wealth. As JFK said, "A rising tide lifts all boats." It makes sense that the rich get a larger tax cut--they pay more taxes.

I want you to read this press release after Spt 11 2001
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

In it Bush address it as a religious war by stating, " I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world. We respect your faith. It's practiced freely by many millions of Americans, and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah. (Applause.) The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them. (Applause.)"

"Fellow citizens, we'll meet violence with patient justice -- assured of the rightness of our cause, and confident of the victories to come. In all that lies before us, may God grant us wisdom, and may He watch over the United States of America."

In it he identifies some muslims as the reason for war. It may or may not be true but it is proof that it was acknowledge as a relgious war.

Let's face the facts--the most threatening international terrorist organizations today are composed of people who claim to be Muslim. But Bush definitely is not acknowledging that this is a religious war. In fact, I think the two paragraphs you quoted do a commendable job of outlining why this is not a war against Islam or Arabs. I particularly thought this part was poignant: "The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them."

In this link:


http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2003/03/20030305_b_main.asp

he is qouted as saying, ""God is not neutral,"

I couldn't find that quote on that site...but even so, how is that relevant?

Here is clearly presenting the idea that he uses religon to achieve his policical ends
http://courses.washington.edu/com361/Iraq/religion/faith_war.html

No, in fact that article makes nothing of the sort clear. The "evidence" this article uses to support its claim that "Bush may be using Christianity to sway public opinion" is not very convincing. Calling Saddam's regime evil and making a supplication to the generic deity "god" on behalf of our nation is not equivalent to "using Christianity to sway public opinion." I think the evidence shows that Bush's opinion is swayed by his own personal/religious worldviews (not the polls), and he simply communicates his views to the public, who accept or reject them based on how they fit their views.

The reality of the situation is:

1) bush is a christian
2) bush uses his religionous ideals to promote his policies

I agree with the first, not the second. I don't think Bush "uses" his religious ideals to promote his policies...I think he just has strong convictions, and sometimes those can be detected in his language. I personally admire a politician who doesn't equivocate, but calls regimes like Saddam's and Kim Jong's for what they are--evil. This last post of yours only supports the idea that Bush is a deeply religious Christian and does little to validate your earlier statement that "If we were a primary buddist country trust me he would be promoting Alan Watts and Dogan instead of the Bible."

4) Iraq is largely muslim and while it was secular in schooling and politics under Saddam it's people are largely Muslim and do see Bush religious speak.
(http://www.usip.org/newsmedia/releases/2003/0527_NBiraq.html)
(http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6125357/)

Although it pains me to see that some schools have started teaching Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, you'll have a hard time convincing me that Iraqis were better off with Saddam in power. I think it's promising that Iraq's interim government is trying to fight this, and I also doubt that many Iraqis would object to Bush's stern language towards Saddam.

5) Because of Bushes religious interjections and Iraq religious mix it is not possible for a large percentage of both populations to see this as a religious war.

I'm afraid you still have not shown how Bush has "waved the flag of Christianity" nor have you shown that the people in the Middle East are unable to distinguish between church and state. Also, you did not address the point I made in my last post: if the insurgents really do consider this a religious war, how do you explain their indiscriminate killing of Iraqis, Americans, and foreigners of all religions? The terrorists are fighting a secular battle under the guise of religion....I think Bush had it dead on when he said "The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Let me begin by saying that I notice you didn't try to defend him on the "most arrogant" and "most self righteous" shots, so I'll assume you can accept those.

What you see as arrogance and self-righteousness, I see as confidence and conviction. I prefer politicians who know how they feel, and try to lead the public--rather than those who try to figure out how the public feels, and follow the whims of popular opinion (inconsistent, uninformed, and ever-changing as that may be).

Yea - I'll say that (in my opinion) he is more self righteous than LBJ. I'm not defending LBJ, but I have heard it said by virtually everyone that had access to him at that time, that he worried constantly about what was happening and how best to solve the problem he inherited.

Um, did you read the article I cited about Bush? He's been worrying, too.

If Bush has these same feelings, he's doing a whale of a job hiding it.

Or, he just hasn't done a good job of making a big media circus out of it.

He has shown not one shred of remorse that his trumped up reasons for taking us into this war have not been proven to be true. On the contrary, he and Cheney cling to the WMD argument like two middle school kids swearing they weren't smoking in the bathroom, attacking anyone and everyone that even dares to question them.

Which reasons for war have not been true? The U.N. inspectors found missiles in excess of 150km, which is a violation of the Gulf War ceasefire agreement. It is well known that vast quantities of WMD were never accounted for, and that Saddam's regime was not fully cooperating with inspectors as the U.N. has demanded for over a decade. See: http://www.escwa.org.lb/information/press/un/2003/feb/14.html Another reason Bush gave for giving Iraq an ultimatum was because it would send a message to other regimes to back off their WMD programs--and indeed, since the war countries like Libya have started coming clean.

In defense of Bush, I'm sure he is sorry for each death, but his censuring the photos of the returning coffins is puzzling at best. Almost as if they can be hidden away, no one will notice that over 1000 young men and women are dead and gone. I can assure you that there are 1000 plus families that no longer have a father, son, grandson, brother, sister, mother, daughter coming home - whether they hide the flag draped coffins or not.

When our military is engaged in a conflict, you don't go around broadcasting images of American flag-draped coffins. It hurts our soldiers' morale; it provides comfort to the enemy; and it adds to the suffering of families whose loved ones are in those coffins or who may be in Iraq now. Knowing the number of soldiers who have been killed in Iraq is enough--we don't need to supply the insurgents with more ammo for a propoganda war they are already winning. That's the argument, at least...I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not to be honest...the ethics of the media in wartime is a difficult subject.

I do not expect Bush (or any other politician) to attend the funerals of those killed in this, or any other war. By the same token, I would like to see them honor these individuals appropriately, rather than pretend that they never existed.

I think politicians, in this case, are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. If they go visit troops in private and don't have media coverage, people aren't aware of it and think the policitians don't care about the troops. If they make a big media circus out of it, people are just disgusted. Bush did go running with that leg amputee a while back.

As for Kerry, I did not mention his attacks on Bush because the thread is supposed to be about Bush. Now that you have mentioned it, I have to say that I detest the attacks on Bush's military record as well.

This is why I like discussing things with people like you, TVOR. I have great respect for those who criticize their own "side". May everyone maintain as objective a perspective as yours.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Spinkles -

I have to say that we just aren't on the same wavelength when it comes to politics. Let's just both agree that whoever wins the election on Tuesday, that we'll hope they do a great job of running the country, make sage decisions regarding Iraq, eradicate Osama Bin Laden, oversee a burgeoning economy, and get re-elected in 2008.

I know this - even though we disagree on who should lead this country, we all want the winner to be the best possible President he can be.
TVOR

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hear, hear, TVOR! I'll toast to that. I was just thinking precisely the same thing earlier today, in fact.

 

[Sunstone]

Spinkles, TVOR, I'll pop a beer to you both!

The best thing about this election is the heavy turn-out. It's good to see so many people interested in the future of the country, and in voting.