A religious fanatic - with his finger on the nuclear trigger

[Jerry Biggers]

After the disgusting behaviors of all government leaders involved -the U.S., Libya, and Egypt - and the inept responses of the Obama administration in dealing with the atrocities of Muslim extremists/terrorists in Benghazi, I was wondering just what our former President George W. Bush would have done. Wondering that is, until I came upon this account of the secret conversation between Bush and French President Jacques Chirac - where our President was trying to get France to join the coalition to invade Iraq.

Was it because Saddam had Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction? Not... exactly.

Get a load of this:

http://www.secularhu...age=haught_29_5

Now think about what that says about Bush's mindset and what did happen. And what could have happened.

But are we any safer with an Obama trained in Marxist political economy AND "Black Liberation theology?"

Of course, we could get Romney. Everyone knows how sensible and rational Mormonism is......

[Selene]

Jerry:

Respectfully, has the "tape" been made available through a FOIL request, or, are we relying on the hearsay testimony of Chirac?

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Adam,

The story apparently has been circulating on internet sites (primarily leftist) since at least 2009, according to Google citations. It was recently repeated in a new book , "500 Days" by Kurt Eichenwald, and excerpted in The New Yorker

(see link: http://tragicfarce.c...sh-told-chirac/

Is it true? Or is it wishful thinking on the part of the left, which is always eager to paint Bush (and every other prominent Republican since at least Eisenhower) as incompetant, ignorant, fools, and just plain stupid? Unfortunately, too many Republicans make that easy.

Anyway, I first heard the story while channel surfing, and came upon "Democracy Now!", a project of the very Left-leaning (How left? One of the premiums that they recently offered viewers/listeners to theit TV/radio programs to persuade them to contrbute during one of their beg-a-thons, was a special coffeetable version of The Communist Manifesto, commemorating its 150th Anniversary) Pacifica Foundation, on a PBS affiliated station from Washington (WHUT, owned by Howard University). Eichenwald is making the rounds promoting his new book, which I think is devoted to further demeaning the Bush II Administration (sounds to me like beating a dead horse), but the Left eats this stuff up.

But I digress, is the story true? Apparently, we have only Chirac's version and some others in his regime, and some alleged biblical scholar from Switzerland, who Chirac consulted with on what "Gog and Magog" referred to. Other discussions of this alleged incident have pointed-out that Reagan apparently (allegedly) believed the same thing, regarding living in The Last Days, a frequent, (actually, obsessive) theme on the evangelical/fundamentalist Christian Right.

However, there is a problem with this scenario - that Reagan, Bush, etc. actually believed that the Biblical Apocalypse is coming to pass. If they did - and they saw themselves as Agents-of-God (which some of these stories claim, but do not prove), why did they not go all out and hit The Enemy with everything we've got, including nuclear weapons. Why not? After all, these are The Last Days. We're doing God's work. Let's Nuke the Forces of Evil. Time's almost up, anyway!

The fact that this did not happen, calls into question whether Reagan/Bush I/Bush II really did believe this apocalyptic scenario that the Left is trying to lay on them.

Another aspect of the story that is questionable is that Bush would use that line of reasoning with Chirac According to the Left, Bush II never did anything without consulting Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condileeza Rice. Even the Left does not believe that these three are stupid. Quite the contrary. Sorry, I don't buy that they would have approved that line of approach by Bush in trying to persuade Chirac.

[9thdoctor]

Apparently, we have only Chirac's version and some others in his regime, and some alleged biblical scholar from Switzerland, who Chirac consulted with on what "Gog and Magog" referred to.

First of all, would you credit such a statement coming from Chirac any more than you’d credit the equivalent from a known liar like Clinton? What was it Woody Allen (as Alvy Singer) said about politicians, they're ethically a notch below child molester? But assuming it’s true, it evokes an old lesson from Greek tragedy: if these things are predestined, what’s the point of fighting it? A favorite passage comes to mind, just substitute “kill” for “die”:

“Marxist dialectics? That’s

not

an opiate, eh?”

“It’s the antidote.”

“No.” It can go either way. The dope salesman may know everything that’s ever going to happen to Tchitcherine, and decide it’s no use—or, out of the moment’s velleity, lay it right out for the young fool.

“The basic problem,” he proposes, “has always been getting other people to die for you. What’s worth enough for a man to give up his life? That’s where religion had the edge, for centuries. Religion was always about death. It was used not as an opiate so much as a technique—it got people to die for one particular set of beliefs about death. Perverse, natürlich, but who are you to judge? It was a good pitch while it worked. But ever since it became impossible to die for death, we have had a secular version—yours. Die to help History grow to its predestined shape. Die knowing your act will bring a good end a bit closer. Revolutionary suicide, fine. But look: if History’s changes

are

inevitable, why not

not

die? Vaslav? If it’s going to happen anyway, what does it matter?”

Thomas Pynchon,

Gravity’s Rainbow

, page 701

[Jerry Biggers]

In case I did not imake it clear, in post #3 above, I am arguing myself out of buying the "Chirac-Bush-Gog-Magog" story.

At least until there is more corroboration. From someone other than Chirac.

For the reasons that I listed in #3, the story does not seem credible.