Full Version: President Bush's Motivation
As we head into war on or about March 17th, I personally have a feeling of dread. Others seem to have bright optimism, though.
President Bush Article, WP
So, is GWB guided by The Big Guy? Is he trying to be another Sam Houston? Or is he destined to, as the scripture says, to have his pride take a fall?
I do hope my feeling of impending dread is just the jitters, and that somehow this war will lead to peace.
President Bush Article, WP
So, is GWB guided by The Big Guy? Is he trying to be another Sam Houston? Or is he destined to, as the scripture says, to have his pride take a fall?
I do hope my feeling of impending dread is just the jitters, and that somehow this war will lead to peace.
I remember reading in a collection of Gore Vidal essays The United States: Essays, 1952-1992 a section about Ronald Reagan's presidency. I believe the essay was entitled "Armageddon?" and it raises some serious questions about fundamentalist faith in such high positions of power.
I really will have to go back and read the essay, but in it are various conversations and actions from the president interpreted or taken in an effort to fulfill biblical prophecies. For Reagan, the Soviet Union served the purpose of some prophetic evil that was to swoop in from the north on Israel and America was the Christian nation that would save the day. Hence, we found ourselves immensed in both a continued arms race and our introduction to "Star Wars."
I tried to find parts of the essay online, but I have as yet been unsuccessful. I will be sure to edit a link onto this if I find one, or would be grateful if anybody else has better luck.
At any rate, it would seem that part of the driving force for Bush is some notion of Manifest Destiny. Immediately upon taking office he cut off the talks with North Korea because we were a good and virtuous nation that wasn't going to talk or negotiate with evil nations. Yes, this is the same Texas governor who once proudly stood behind Ol' Sparky.
Clearly today President Bush still harbors these black and white divisions of good and evil, and has a misplaced confidence about his actions under the presumption that some higher power will protect his actions. I'm all for people having their faith; but to put the lives of people, and the fates of nations, on the line because of a personal faith...? I find this absurd, reckless and unconscionable.
The ancient Hebrew empires; the Holy Roman Empire; and the British Empire all once thought they were the bearers of Manifest Destiny, among others. Reagan thought for sure he'd be commander and chief for Armageddon. And now we have Bush... they've all been wrong before and they'll continue to be wrong now.
I really will have to go back and read the essay, but in it are various conversations and actions from the president interpreted or taken in an effort to fulfill biblical prophecies. For Reagan, the Soviet Union served the purpose of some prophetic evil that was to swoop in from the north on Israel and America was the Christian nation that would save the day. Hence, we found ourselves immensed in both a continued arms race and our introduction to "Star Wars."
I tried to find parts of the essay online, but I have as yet been unsuccessful. I will be sure to edit a link onto this if I find one, or would be grateful if anybody else has better luck.
At any rate, it would seem that part of the driving force for Bush is some notion of Manifest Destiny. Immediately upon taking office he cut off the talks with North Korea because we were a good and virtuous nation that wasn't going to talk or negotiate with evil nations. Yes, this is the same Texas governor who once proudly stood behind Ol' Sparky.
Clearly today President Bush still harbors these black and white divisions of good and evil, and has a misplaced confidence about his actions under the presumption that some higher power will protect his actions. I'm all for people having their faith; but to put the lives of people, and the fates of nations, on the line because of a personal faith...? I find this absurd, reckless and unconscionable.
The ancient Hebrew empires; the Holy Roman Empire; and the British Empire all once thought they were the bearers of Manifest Destiny, among others. Reagan thought for sure he'd be commander and chief for Armageddon. And now we have Bush... they've all been wrong before and they'll continue to be wrong now.
Since Reagan's policies managed to win the Cold War, without any bloodshed, I guess his 'faith' betrayed him.
Abs & MM,
Thanks for reviving this thread. I thought it was going to be completely ignored
I have to admit that I get a little nervous around religious types with big guns. A politician who claims to be spiritual is always suspicious, to me. I look to the actions, not the words.
The parallel between Reagan and GWB was done with the axis of evil speech (GWB) that alluded back to the "empire of evil" (Reagan). Both men seem to view the world as black/white good/evil. Impatience with those of us who see shades of gray seem to make these types impatient.
No bloodshed with the end of the Cold War? Well, MM, I question whether the Cold War really ended, and I point to all the bloodshed that has happened since this condition was declared. I also remind you that we keep quite a nuclear arsenal ready to go, if needed. We have also bowed out of arms agreements and are defying the UN. We may be on the verge of the Hot War, and if this all came from Reagan's policies--well, I guess I won't hang his picture on my wall. What were his policies anyway? Oh yeah, tax cuts and military spending. Yep. He had one heckuva recession during his first term too. I see the parallels.
Abs, Vidal's takes on things might be interesting to this thread. Hope you find them.
Thanks for reviving this thread. I thought it was going to be completely ignored
I have to admit that I get a little nervous around religious types with big guns. A politician who claims to be spiritual is always suspicious, to me. I look to the actions, not the words.
The parallel between Reagan and GWB was done with the axis of evil speech (GWB) that alluded back to the "empire of evil" (Reagan). Both men seem to view the world as black/white good/evil. Impatience with those of us who see shades of gray seem to make these types impatient.
No bloodshed with the end of the Cold War? Well, MM, I question whether the Cold War really ended, and I point to all the bloodshed that has happened since this condition was declared. I also remind you that we keep quite a nuclear arsenal ready to go, if needed. We have also bowed out of arms agreements and are defying the UN. We may be on the verge of the Hot War, and if this all came from Reagan's policies--well, I guess I won't hang his picture on my wall. What were his policies anyway? Oh yeah, tax cuts and military spending. Yep. He had one heckuva recession during his first term too. I see the parallels.
Abs, Vidal's takes on things might be interesting to this thread. Hope you find them.
QUOTE(Musing from the Middle @ Mar 15 2003, 12:55 PM)
Since Reagan's policies managed to win the Cold War, without any bloodshed, I guess his 'faith' betrayed him.
Saying that somebody won the Cold War seems to imply that the Cold War is over...
Yet we see more indications of "rogue nations" now pursuing nuclear capabilities than we did during the Cold War. North Korea is believed to already have some and pursuing more... prompting South Korea and Japan to threaten nuclear proliferation as well.
I will certainly agree that Reagan's faith betrayed him, though. It was a driving force behind the furthering of the arms race and now President Bush's lack of "gray-world-vision" has prompted another surge in the [Cold] war. Our pre-emptive policy combined with the good and evil mentality has encouraged purportedly "evil" nations to step up their quest for nuclear status.
Hypocrites..... and..... 
Power trips
If any of you would like discuss the end of the Cold War at length, please join us here 
Credit for Ending the Cold War.
My guess is that AuthorMusician would like to stick to this question:
Credit for Ending the Cold War.My guess is that AuthorMusician would like to stick to this question:
QUOTE
So, is GWB guided by The Big Guy? Is he trying to be another Sam Houston? Or is he destined to, as the scripture says, to have his pride take a fall?
Apologies for giving so much attention to the issue of the Cold War...
I only meant to show the role of faith in the WMD crisis then, and try to make comparisons to the role I feel it is playing in the WMD crisis today.
To better stick to the matter at hand, I'd summarize my point as saying that while faith can be a valuable personal asset, I don't feel it should take precedence over a more practical and balanced approach to international affairs. And Bush doesn't seem to understand this, as he has (in my view) invoked his faith in an attempt to justify his dangerously cavalier attitude.
I only meant to show the role of faith in the WMD crisis then, and try to make comparisons to the role I feel it is playing in the WMD crisis today.
To better stick to the matter at hand, I'd summarize my point as saying that while faith can be a valuable personal asset, I don't feel it should take precedence over a more practical and balanced approach to international affairs. And Bush doesn't seem to understand this, as he has (in my view) invoked his faith in an attempt to justify his dangerously cavalier attitude.
The premise for this question seems to be a couple of quotes in the article from random schmoes who don't even know Bush, but are merely analyzing their assumptions about his decision-making in light of their own religious beliefs. That's hardly a definitive set of evidence to declare the man a zealot. My reading of the linked article points to a more secular interpretation--Bush is comforted by his faith, not dominated by it.
Also, the argument that Bush somehow views himself as the Messiah sounds suspiciously like Bin Laden's denouncements of "the Crusader Bush".
Also, the argument that Bush somehow views himself as the Messiah sounds suspiciously like Bin Laden's denouncements of "the Crusader Bush".
Hey Bacchus... welcome to America's Debate.
Just because OBL made a similar statement doesn't discredit anyone else who makes a similar observation. The language being used by the Shrub administration may not indicate that Bush THINKS he is a religious icon, but it is clearly an attempt to tap into the religious sentiments of the people.
QUOTE
Also, the argument that Bush somehow views himself as the Messiah sounds suspiciously like Bin Laden's denouncements of "the Crusader Bush".
Just because OBL made a similar statement doesn't discredit anyone else who makes a similar observation. The language being used by the Shrub administration may not indicate that Bush THINKS he is a religious icon, but it is clearly an attempt to tap into the religious sentiments of the people.
QUOTE(Bacchus @ Mar 15 2003, 04:38 PM)
The premise for this question seems to be a couple of quotes in the article from random schmoes who don't even know Bush, but are merely analyzing their assumptions about his decision-making in light of their own religious beliefs. That's hardly a definitive set of evidence to declare the man a zealot. My reading of the linked article points to a more secular interpretation--Bush is comforted by his faith, not dominated by it.
Also, the argument that Bush somehow views himself as the Messiah sounds suspiciously like Bin Laden's denouncements of "the Crusader Bush".
Also, the argument that Bush somehow views himself as the Messiah sounds suspiciously like Bin Laden's denouncements of "the Crusader Bush".
Often times you will see a person demonized for taking a stance contrary to those that demonize him. In some cases he is called satan. In others, he is said to be overly guided by his faith.
My take on the President is that he believes his decisions are sound and that in the overall scheme of things, his faith will get him through. I don't think his faith guides his decisions as much as it allows him to be comfortable in knowing that he is doing the best that he can do in this life and will be rewarded for that in the next.
Some additional links with another perspective on Bush and ideas of spiritual motivation:
USA Today: Bush's Agenda Walks the Line
(main target is faith-based initiative plan, but also touches on foriegn policy, as below)
Definition of Providence:
CNN: Faith a Driving Force Behind Presidency, 2001
Washington Post: Links Faith and Agenda
*Bold type added for AD thread
In response to Bacchus:
I believe this also addresses the original question about whether Bush at least thinks he's guided by the big guy, which I contend he does.
USA Today: Bush's Agenda Walks the Line
(main target is faith-based initiative plan, but also touches on foriegn policy, as below)
QUOTE
Bush, who turned away from drinking and toward religion in midlife, was raised Episcopalian and became Methodist when he married. Asked in a presidential campaign debate to name his favorite philosopher, he answered, "Christ. Because he changed my heart." His descriptions of himself as a "compassionate conservative" and Saddam Hussein and terrorists as "evildoers" reflect moral convictions rooted in his faith.
Bush made a clear statement of faith Tuesday night after reciting the dangers posed by Iraq and the likelihood of confrontation. "We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence," the president said, "yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now."
Bush made a clear statement of faith Tuesday night after reciting the dangers posed by Iraq and the likelihood of confrontation. "We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence," the president said, "yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now."
Definition of Providence:
QUOTE
Main Entry: prov·i·dence (n.)
1 a : often capitalized : divine guidance or care b : capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny
1 a : often capitalized : divine guidance or care b : capitalized : God conceived as the power sustaining and guiding human destiny
CNN: Faith a Driving Force Behind Presidency, 2001
QUOTE
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush told attendees of the annual National Prayer Breakfast this morning that his faith influences nearly every aspect of his life, and that he believes demonstration of his deeply held religious beliefs will bring a new era of civility to the nation's capital.
Washington Post: Links Faith and Agenda
QUOTE
About the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush said: "We're being challenged. We're meeting those challenges because of our faith. . . . We carried our grief to the Lord Almighty in prayer." Bush assigned religion a role in the economy ("There are some needs that prosperity can never meet"), in a possible attack on Iraq ("Liberty is God's gift to every human being in the world"), and in coping with the Columbia space shuttle accident ("Faith assures us that death and suffering are not the final word").
.....
But with war in Iraq looming, and much of the world opposed to his position, the president in recent weeks has adopted a strongly devotional tone. In a series of speeches -- a pair of remembrances for the Columbia victims, last week's National Prayer Breakfast and today's address to the religious broadcasters -- Bush has far more openly embraced Christian theology. Today's speech brought the most thorough linkage yet between Bush's worldly policies and Christian faith -- including a pronouncement that an American attack on Iraq would be "in the highest moral traditions of our country."
.....
J. Mark Horst, who has a radio ministry in Breezewood, Pa., said faith is what makes Bush propose seemingly unreachable goals and defy odds to reach them. "As Christians, we're commanded to be of strong courage," Horst said. "He's taking what he reads in the Word and saying, 'This is what I believe, and I'm going to go for it.' "
.....
But with war in Iraq looming, and much of the world opposed to his position, the president in recent weeks has adopted a strongly devotional tone. In a series of speeches -- a pair of remembrances for the Columbia victims, last week's National Prayer Breakfast and today's address to the religious broadcasters -- Bush has far more openly embraced Christian theology. Today's speech brought the most thorough linkage yet between Bush's worldly policies and Christian faith -- including a pronouncement that an American attack on Iraq would be "in the highest moral traditions of our country."
.....
J. Mark Horst, who has a radio ministry in Breezewood, Pa., said faith is what makes Bush propose seemingly unreachable goals and defy odds to reach them. "As Christians, we're commanded to be of strong courage," Horst said. "He's taking what he reads in the Word and saying, 'This is what I believe, and I'm going to go for it.' "
*Bold type added for AD thread
In response to Bacchus:
QUOTE
The premise for this question seems to be a couple of quotes in the article from random schmoes who don't even know Bush, but are merely analyzing their assumptions about his decision-making in light of their own religious beliefs. That's hardly a definitive set of evidence to declare the man a zealot. My reading of the linked article points to a more secular interpretation--Bush is comforted by his faith, not dominated by it.
I believe this also addresses the original question about whether Bush at least thinks he's guided by the big guy, which I contend he does.
QUOTE(Bacchus @ Mar 15 2003, 04:38 PM)
Bush is comforted by his faith, not dominated by it.
Correct. It saved him from a trip to a clinic for the rest of his life
It's amazing what religion does: start off down so deep you think life is over & Religion throws you a lifeline (second chance)
Anways...
QUOTE
Also, the argument that Bush somehow views himself as the Messiah sounds suspiciously like Bin Laden's denouncements of "the Crusader Bush".
Nah. Bin Laden just calls him Satan & Satan's imp.
Takes one to know one eh Binny?
I think Bush taps into the religious person in him & preaches to the American people like a regular priest about evil/Saddam.
goamerica,
Yep, I'm in complete agreement.
The word "crusade" started to be used, then that was nixed by the administration. Too anti-Islam.
I can't get the parallel out of my mind, though. This is a modern form of crusade--to free the region from political abuse. Will it be more successful than the first crusade? I suppose so. The balance of power is way over on our side.
One thing I'm wondering about is how our President reconciles spirituality with politics. This must involve big conflicts.
QUOTE
I think Bush taps into the religious person in him & preaches to the American people like a regular priest about evil/Saddam.
Yep, I'm in complete agreement.
The word "crusade" started to be used, then that was nixed by the administration. Too anti-Islam.
I can't get the parallel out of my mind, though. This is a modern form of crusade--to free the region from political abuse. Will it be more successful than the first crusade? I suppose so. The balance of power is way over on our side.
One thing I'm wondering about is how our President reconciles spirituality with politics. This must involve big conflicts.
There is obviously more than one reason behind his actions here. Part of it is no doubt influenced by the fact that Saddam supposedly attempted to have his father assassinated. Another reason is probably that he wishes to avoid Iraq pulling a North Korea and popping up with "weapons of mass destruction." Another reason might be that, as an oilman, he wants Iraq to be producing oil for world (read: US) consumption. Another part is no doubt influenced by a fear of Iraq attempting to further destabilize the Middle East. One more reason might be an actual desire on his part to help the Iraqi people, as difficult as that might be for some to believe.
I suspect there are many motivations behind his policy, some of which we will not know until long after his presidency is over. While it is fun to ridicule him as a warmonger or an oilman looking to strike it rich, the truth is always more complicated than we would like.
I suspect there are many motivations behind his policy, some of which we will not know until long after his presidency is over. While it is fun to ridicule him as a warmonger or an oilman looking to strike it rich, the truth is always more complicated than we would like.
And gee whiz, he might actually be telling the truth when he speaks to America and the world. I've watched a lot of politicians for a lot of years, and this one reminds me of Clancy's Ryan character. An honest man in a position in which no one expects honesty, and because everyone is looking for spin and agenda, they treat him unfairly. Now he could have me snowed, of course, but I just don't think anyone is that good an actor.
QUOTE(Bacchus @ Mar 19 2003, 04:48 AM)
And gee whiz, he might actually be telling the truth when he speaks to America and the world. I've watched a lot of politicians for a lot of years, and this one reminds me of Clancy's Ryan character. An honest man in a position in which no one expects honesty, and because everyone is looking for spin and agenda, they treat him unfairly. Now he could have me snowed, of course, but I just don't think anyone is that good an actor.
Bacchus, I'm sorry to say this, but based on the facts collected I'd say he's not even close to the truth. He may seem sincere, and maybe he truly does believe what he says, but reality gives a whole different picture.
1. He wants the world to believe Saddam and Al Quieda are linked, but the truth is there is currently NO verifiable evidence that supports that accusation.
2. He wants the world to believe Saddam has been importing uranium and centrifuge cyclinders for making nuclear weapons, but the UN weapon inspectors deemed the dossiers stating this FALSE and "untrue" information, and centrifuge cyclinders "highly unlikely" for building WMD. ( Btw these FAKE dossiers are the very same ones that brought about Resolution 1441 )
3. He wants the world to believe invading Iraq will bring stablility and create a strong wave of democracy to cover the Middle East, yet even more declassified US documents state exactly the opposite.
The truth part of his speeches is Saddam did use chemical weapons on his own people in 1991 ( the Kurds ), and he also used them against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, but Iran used them on the Iraqis as well. Ironically, Iran and Iraq have worked out their differences and recently have been freeing POWs on both sides.
And it is true that Saddam did violate some resolutions over the years ( not 17 ) but did you also know that the reason UNSCOM was abolished was because the organization was being used to spy for America? I wasn't sure about this one till I found articles where Scott Ritter ( former UN inspector leader ) and Bill Clinton admits this right before the group was disassembled.
UNMOVIC is now in place of the former, and even Blix stated Iraq was "beginning to comply" and that to complete his job would take MONTHS, not years. Why the sudden push to halt it?
Because with each passing day the truth is coming forth about this case and its spreading like wildfire. Bush may have the majority behind him at this moment, but as more and more of these documents surface his credibilty will continue to slip.
I don't doubt that Saddam is a bad man, but the REAL fact is we are attacking a country because of crimes done 12 years ago, and the false accusations and untruths fabricated by "someone" of today.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.