Why are Bush and the other Christocrats/Christians so in love with going to war?

 

By: Jeff Wismer

 

March 30, 2006

 

The war in Iraq

 

On everyone’s hearts and minds these days in the war in IRAQ.  Contrary to the “Mission Accomplished” banner on the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003: (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/)

; the war rages on, and the United States as become a rather helpless spectator in the recent sectarian war between the Shia and the Sunni.  To help understand why Bush was so eager to rush to war in Iraq, let’s look at what Bush has said over the years about war.

 

To Quote Bush: (http://antiwar.com/quotes.php)

 

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.”

 

“I think war is a dangerous place.”

 

“...the role of the military is to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place.”

 

“If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, we’re going to have a serious problem coming down the road.”

 

 Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

 

“Our nation is somewhat sad, but we’re angry. There’s a certain level of blood lust, but we won’t let it drive our reaction. We’re steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon we’ll have to start displaying scalps.”

 

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.”

 

Clearly the desire of Bush to go to war was demonstrated in memos.    The first of which was the Downing Street memo.  The Downing Street "Memo" is actually meeting minutes transcribed during the British Prime Minister's meeting on July 23, 2002. Published by The Sunday Times on May 1, 2005 it was the first hard evidence from within the UK or US governments that exposed the truth behind how the Iraq war began. This site is intended to provide information about the Downing Street Memo and how it fits in with numerous other documents and events that relate to the Bush administration’s march to war: (http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/)
 

The second was the David Manning memo.  In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.Skip to next paragraph But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times:

(http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/27/international/europe/27memo.html?ei=5088&en=be186887fe0c83a2&ex=1301115600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all)

What better way to institute the methodology used to go to war with Iraq than to make a policy to support it?  Two years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon has formally included in key strategic plans provisions for launching preemptive strikes against nations thought to pose a threat to the United States. The doctrine also now stipulates that the U.S. will use "active deterrence" in concert with its allies "if we can" but could act unilaterally otherwise, Defense officials said. The changes codify the more assertive defense policy adopted by the Bush administration since the Sept. 11 attacks and are included in a "National Military Strategy" and "National Defense Strategy," reports that are part of a comprehensive review of military strategy conducted every four years. "The president has the obligation to protect the country," said Douglas J. Feith, the Defense Department's undersecretary for policy. "And I don't think that there's anything in our Constitution that says that the president should not protect the country unless he gets some non-American's participation or approval of that."  (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0319-01.htm)

In the United States we have Bush's sophisticated War Machine. A machine that’s nothing more than the construct of powerful corporations such as:

ExxonMobil (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/)

Halliburton (http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/)

Boeing (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/boeg-d17.shtml)

Lockheed Martin (http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=14402)

This in turn is trumpeted by its main vessel of Fox News Corp:

(http://www.outfoxed.org/)

(http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067)

(http://www.newshounds.us/)

The United States is not a single-party state, but it is, at the moment, a single-party country, with only one fully functional national party. While the leaderless Democratic Party flounders, the focused, dynamic Republican Party controls two of the three branches of government, and exercises a growing influence over the top echelon of the third (Supreme Court).

The lack of a full-fledged opposition party or parties, as distinct from a Congressional opposition, is a liability in the current post-coup circumstances. The political party as little more than an oversized electoral machinery, one of the glories of the American political system (it has spared the country European-style party bickering and instability) has now become a major obstacle to building a national resistance against Bush.

http://www.thegully.com/essays/US/politics_2001/010403stop_bush.html

Karl Rove and Bush realized that if they simply branded Osama as the criminal thug that he was - the leader of an obscure Islamic mafia with fewer than 20,000 serious members - they wouldn't have the super-villain they needed for George W. Bush to be seen as a super-hero. If Bush only authorized a police action, he'd miss a golden opportunity to position himself as the Battle Commander of The War Against Evil Incarnate.

And so began the building of the mythos. Osama as evil genius. Osama as worldwide mastermind. Even Osama as the antichrist (as General Boykin reminded us so candidly).

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0106-13.htm

For George to remain SuperGeorge throughout his term of office, and thus to pull the country behind him for an FDR-sized transformation of the nation on behalf of his corporate masters, George needs a war every bit as huge as FDR's WWII. And that requires Osama to be as big as Hitler in the minds of Americans. Thus, Richard Perle writes in his breathless and hyperbolic new book An End To Evil: "There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust."

This archetypal transformation of George W. Bush from spoiled, rich pretender-to-the-presidency into the caped (well, flight-suited) SuperGeorge, Defender Of All Things Good And Right has had a powerful impact on the American people, and Rove hopes to ride it to victory in 2008.

Just a Reminder, there is the cost of the Iraqi War.  On April 23, 2003 during an ABC Ted Koppel Interview, Andrew S. Natsios, Administrator U.S.A.I.D., said that the war would cost the U.S. Taxpayers ONLY 1.7 Billion Dollars.  As of today the current cost of the war to US Taxpayers is 251 Billion dollars and counting: (http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182)

Then there is the Death Toll of Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)

Bush and Blair might have done well to read a Russian report that talked to forced democracy and the repercussions. (http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/8/588.html) 

But then again when you’re a Christian, you believe no matter how much you’ve screwed up, only god can judge you.  Of course there is that shame and guilt thing, but when you’re as well insulated as Bush and Blair from the outside world, it doesn’t really matter what you’ve done wrong if there is no real accountability for your actions.

 According to this article, (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/03/10/opinion/edpabst.php#),
Secular Britain was shocked last weekend when Prime Minister Tony Blair said that God would be his judge over the war in
Iraq. Similarly, President George W. Bush has often used God to justify the war on terror as a religiously blessed and righteous campaign against "evil doers."

In the name of good versus evil, people are being killed, imprisoned and tortured with impunity. For almost three centuries Christianity avoided capture by the logic of the state, and was able to form human beings into a community that transcended class, race and geography. This tradition was eclipsed in A.D. 325, when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Since states put a premium on conformity and political allegiance, religion became a primary way to ensure mass compliance with state authority.

This dubious historical legacy was further compromised when, in the so-called wars of religion of the 16th century, European princes competed for power. Notions of race and nation were deployed alongside religion to formulate political identities that were ethnically and culturally exclusive.
 
Paradoxically, by privatizing religion, secular settlements produced religious fundamentalism. Confined to the personal sphere, religion is deprived of civic engagement that would mitigate fanaticism and foster moderation, and faith answers to no authority other than subjective inner conscience.

Indeed, this is why Blair thinks the invasion of
Iraq is consonant with his Christian beliefs: On television he explained, "The only way you can take a decision like that is to do the right thing according to your conscience." The trouble is that once liberalism has surrendered any belief in objective truths, all personal subjective beliefs become true. Once all things are equally valid, the only way to attain supremacy is through war and power.

Hence, convinced of their own self-righteousness, Blair and Bush are blind to the reality of their actions. With religious zeal, they pursue their shared project to make Western hegemony irreversible. Blair and Bush seek to create a brave new world in the image of their faith, a vision that just happens to be irreconcilable with Christianity.

War on Christmas

Who can forget Fox News sycophant, Bill O’ Reilly, and the way he trumpeted the “War on Christmas”.  (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jack_cla_051216_bill_o_reilly_s_war_.htm) 

O’ Reilly demanded that Christians around the United States boycott WalMart (http://walmartwatch.com/) and any other business that was secularizing Christmas. 

Yet another Fox News sycophant, John Gibson, wrote a book, entitled “War on Christmas”. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175827,00.html)

But according to this Washington post article, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901357.html), people were asking, “What War on Christmas?”  I've been hearing about this "War on Christmas," so I headed to the Heritage Foundation the other day for a briefing from one of the defending army's generals: Fox News anchor John Gibson, author of "The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought." Gibson -- and Bill O'Reilly, his comrade in the Fox-hole -- see this as a two-front war: Assaulting Christmas from the government end, they say, are pusillanimous school principals, politically corrected city managers and their ilk, bullied by the ACLU types into extirpating any trace of Christmas from the public square. Battering the holiday from the private sector are infidel retailers such as Target and Wal-Mart, which balk at using the C-word in their advertising in favor of such secularist slogans as "Happy Holidays."

The latest alleged perfidy is the failure of the White House Christmas card to mention Christmas, instead expressing "best wishes for a holiday season of hope and happiness" and featuring a verse from Psalms. William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, calls this evidence that the administration has "capitulated to the worst elements in our culture." I call it a recognition, especially welcome at a time of sectarian violence, that not all the 1.4 million folks on the Christmas list are Christian.

This has reached its most imposition-of-Sharia-law-like level of intolerance in the campaign to cow stores into saying Christmas. O'Reilly, escalating his "Christmas Under Siege" campaign, has posted a list of naughty and nice retailers. The American Family Association goes further, calling for a boycott of stores -- it's targeted Target -- that fail to use the word Christmas in their advertising or in-store promotions. "Target doesn't want to offend a small minority who oppose Christmas," says AFA's chairman, Donald Wildmon. "But they don't mind offending Christians who celebrate the birth of Christ."

O’Reilly, Gibson, and all the other fox news sycophants out there sure proved their point didn’t they?  They even got the other Christocrats so revved up that the GOP in congress presented resolution 579 to save Christmas.  It was at this point that Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) responded with this poem: (http://www.patriotdaily.com/bm/poli/agenda/rep-dingells-poetic-respo.shtml)

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.

Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In
Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in
Iran.

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ..... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.

We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.

This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.

At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.

'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas."

The War on Easter

Just picture it, the tomb in which the mythical creature Jesus Christ was supposed to be laid to rest after the crucifixion, and the rock covering the entrance being thrown aside, with Jesus coming out of the tomb with guns a blazing, and shots being fired back and forth like an old western movie.  Actually all you had to do was watch the Colbert Report on Comedy Central the other night to see that visual come to life.  I don’t think I’ve laughed that hard in a long time. 

Obviously Jesus isn’t fucking around anymore, and he’s going to kick some secular ass! 

Fox is again "fighting for the rights the Christian Majority" with another faux menace: The War on Easter. Undoubtedly, the "Spring Bunny" will cause the downfall of The Republic.  (http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002601.htm)

According to Hughes for America, (http://hughesforamerica.typepad.com/hughes_for_america/2005/12/future_war_on_s.html),  The War on Easter: If the religious right is so up-in-arms over the birth of Jesus Christ, you would think they'd have a back-end campaign in the wings for His resurrection. I, for one, can't wait to hear the Bill O'Reilly’s and John Gibson’s of the world spinning yarns about far-flung Midwestern towns outlawing the sale of ham. Or Easter eggs, both chocolate and the painted kind. Or that horrible green plastic grass. Plus, there's the anti-Semitic tie-in, which is always a plus for these people. If they can agitate their base and persecute someone - especially Jews, though African Americans or homosexuals will do - it's easy to motivate the Christian Taliban into action. Beatings optional, of course.

 

Colbert put it succinctly when he said, “The war on Easter is far worse than the War on Christmas, b/c at least with Christmas we use Santa and the elves to sell other products, but with Easter all we have is the products themselves to sell, like the Easter bunny, so it’s much harder to defend.”

 

As for further evidence the War on Easter has started, we look to St. Paul, Minnesota.  (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060323/ap_on_fe_st/easter_bunny;_ylt=Avl0zkG4i44z6ZxkLxBOFjKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-)

ST. PAUL, Minn. - The Easter Bunny has been sent packing at St. Paul City Hall.

A toy rabbit, pastel-colored eggs and a sign with the words "Happy Easter" were removed from the lobby of the City Council offices, because of concerns they might offend non-Christians.

A council secretary had put up the decorations. They were not bought with city money.

St. Paul's human rights director, Tyrone Terrill, asked that the decorations be removed, saying they could be offensive to non-Christians.

But City Council member Dave Thune says removing the decorations went too far, and he wonders why they can't celebrate spring with "bunnies and fake grass."

The following is an email I sent to Tyrone Terrill:

Mr. Tyrone Terrill:

I'm responding to a story written today in which you had the Easter Bunny thrown out b/c you were thinking of "non-Christians".  At first I thought, this must be a ha-ha funny joke, then as it turned out, it was a oh, ohhh, ohhhh no! kind of joke.  Are you trying to feed Fox News stories? Are you on their payroll??..."War on Christmas" now "War on Easter".  It's odd that it would come from you, Mr. Terrill, a Christian who admires Martin Luther King Jr., and one that stands up to ignorance.

With all due respect...this is a very ignorant act on your part.

First of all, the Easter bunny is a pagan symbol.

Second of all, you're just another Christian trying to stir up trouble.  How do I know you're a Christian...

According to an article written last June, 2005 by Katherine Kersten (http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5447399):

"On Saturday, Terrill's home church --
Mt. Olivet Missionary Baptist Church in St. Paul -- will launch a broad-based project of "intervention and prevention." It will start with a summit called Youth Jam, and the St. Paul Black Ministerial Alliance and other Twin Cities organizations are behind it."

The war on Christianity

 

From a transcript of March, 29, 2006 MSNBC show Hardball with Chris Matthews:

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12079685/)

(Chris) MATTHEWS:  So you want to identify with Rick Scarborough's, Reverend Rick Scarborough's claim that the reason Tom DeLay is in trouble with the courts, with the Democrats, with the media, is because he's a Christian.  Are you going to identify with that argument?

(Tony) PERKINS:  I would not say that in total.

MATTHEWS:  But he did.

PERKINS:  I'm just saying that I think that that has made him a target.

MATTHEWS:  It has?

PERKINS:  I think it has.

MATTHEWS:  His religion?

PERKINS:  The fact that he has been so out front on many of these issues.  Now in terms of his legal problems or what he's facing today, those stand on their own.  But I think that clearly anyone who stands up and identifies with the evangelical community if a very pronounced way as he has.

Did I miss something?  This would seem to be an odd time to declare Christianity under siege. A Christian conservative president has just nominated two Supreme Court justices who take an expansive view of religious rights, and religious conservatives are ascendant in a Republican Party that controls both chambers of Congress.  Nevertheless according to a Washington post article, (http://www.theocracywatch.org/new_war_christians_post_mar29_96.htm), there are those who would say Tom DeLay lost his job as House majority leader because he was indicted by a Texas grand jury on charges of money laundering and conspiracy, or because of his extensive ties to lawbreaking lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But they would be wrong.

In fact, the Texas Republican fell from power because he is a Christian.

That, at least, is the view of Rick Scarborough, convener of a conference this week called "The War on Christians."

Gary Bauer, a Christian activist and former presidential candidate, argued in a speech that the "War on Christians" in America was even emboldening al-Qaeda. "They believe they can win, because they believe you and I are decadent; they think our civilization is fat and lazy," he said. "I believe they're wrong, but I understand why they're confused."

And why are they confused? Because American Christians are attacked by "elites" who think America is "a country of unbridled liberty, different strokes for different folks."

The agenda was similarly ominous, with forums on the threats from Hollywood, the judiciary, gays and, worst of all, the news media. "I can tell you that there probably is no greater megaphone for anti-faith values," conservative activist Paul Weyrich said in introducing a panel on the subject.

Apparently it only gets worse for the Christians.  According to this article, (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/3/28/214939/827), Last weekend 25,000 youth descended on San Francisco to attend a BattleCry event. The purpose of BattleCry is to save today's youth from a "sinister enemy" that is "ravishing their hearts." From christianbooks.com:

A sinister enemy marches across our land leaving in its path the ravished hearts and minds of America's youth. Giant corporations, media conglomerates, and purveyors of popular culture have invested billions of dollars and endless hours of effort to seduce and enslave the souls of our youth. And so far, they have succeeded.

 

Last weekend's event had strong military overtones as in this slogan on a T-shirt: Christi's Righteously Equipped Warriors. "I attended the Battlecry event," wrote Debra Hubert of the War Resister's League in an email to me, "and witnessed its military metaphors, completely ignoring Jesus' prohibition of violence. I saw Navy Seals pumping up nationalism and the wars in the middle east."

As reported in The San Francisco Chronicle

Military metaphors abound in Luce's descriptions of the struggle. He tells young people of how "an enemy has launched a brutal attack on them." At a pre-Battle Cry rally Friday afternoon on the steps of City Hall, Luce told his mostly teenage audience that "terrorists of a different kind" -- advertisers -- were targeting them and that they were "caught in the middle of the battle."
"Are you ready to go to battle for your generation?" he asked, and the young people roared "yes!" and some waved triangular red flags flown from long, medieval-looking poles.

It seems in times of perceived threats and perceived troubles, the Christian community needs to go back to its roots, and declare WAR!  Why?  Because that’s what they’ve always done.  As evidenced in this article, (http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/3/29/142025/638), War imagery in Christianity isn't new- in fact, it is as old as the faith itself. When Christians were being persecuted in ancient Rome, The Book of Revelation was written as a means to bring encouragement to the embattled believers huddled in the catacombs of Rome. The apocalyptic imagery, the floods of blood and fire were written to contrast the horrors inflicted upon them. Revelation was the ultimate spiritual 'revenge script'.

When Christians came into power in Europe, the paradigm flipped, and their leaders used the same kind of horrific imagery to rally people to go to the Crusades, and later, to persecute the Jews and non-believers.

When the pendulum swung back to the spiritual realm, war imagery (http://www.battlefocused.com/spiritual-warfare/) was often used to keep the believer safe from demonic influence, and scripture outfitting the believer with the tools needed to overcome temptation or possession was often cited in many sermons that had the devil on the run. This kind of 'spiritual warfare' (http://www.spirithome.com/spirwarf.html) is part and parcel of many Christian sects, and rarely goes beyond them.

But things have changed again- for the worse. The war imagery pendulum is swinging back from the spiritual realm to the real world, a place that should be of concern to moderate Christians and non-religious people alike. Instead of the Christian version of 'jihad' or 'struggle' against the internal adversaries of spiritual practice, the struggle has been moved to the outside world and its perceived adversaries- all nonbelievers- including fellow Christians. The constant and urgent message is this:   Christians are being attacked (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/2/102405.shtml). There is a war against Christianity (http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/dean/?adate=3/22/2006#1385273). Christians must go on the offensive and fight back." This message is constant and unrelenting. In spite the fact that they are currently in power, there is still a war against them going on, and battles to be fought against a nebulous and often changing enemy. That enemy is now 'the flesh, Satan, and the world'.

Of course what all this boils down to is fear mongering (http://www.catholicleague.org/04press_releases/quarter3/040924_rnc.htm) Fear of losing control (power), fear of poverty (greed), and fear of death (religion).   Bottom Line, without fear being produced by the war machine to occupy the hearts and minds of Christians everywhere, what would the Christians do with their spare time?  They definitely shouldn’t have more time to become better educated and less ignorant about the real world around them, nor should they use that time to improve their own lifestyles or others for that matter.  I would say that Christian leaders and Houdini have something very interesting in common.  They’re both excellent at the art of deception and diversion.

Closing Hymn: Onward Christian Soldiers!

(http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/n/onwardcs.htm)