No, Jesus would turn the other cheek and try to win over Saddam with love. He would want us to show Saddam so much love that he would stop torturing the children of his detractors.

That’s sarcasm, in case you had not notice.

That is never the question.
We should always being trying
to be in God's will not asking
who's side God is on.

Amen to the previous comment

The link to Bush's Armageddon Obsession details something I've begun to hear rumblings about. Bush's world view is closely aligned with apocalyptic fundamentalist thought. For example, the fundamentalist Christian Right is opposed to any ceding of land of the West Bank by Israel. Why? What's it to them? Because their reading of the "end times" causes them to believe that Israel's borders must conform to a pre-set geography, which it roughly does only if you include all of the West Bank and Gaza. I'm not saying that Bush is definitely, consciously following this, but people influential with the administration believe it. And they are pushing an agenda. It sounds too wacked out to be true. I didn't believe it at first, but I'm starting to wonder . . .

And why has Bush almost never made this "war" rhetorically into a war against religious extremism and intolerance?

Brian,

I agree that Bush lets the fundamentalist right influence his foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East. The fundamentalist right pre-empt sound diplomacy.

On "end times", it's interesting that at the end of every century there's a spate of "end times" demagoguery. Around 1996/'97, there were fundamentalist televangelists talking about the "end times", and how world events were aligning themselves with Revelation, and how Y2K was a sign of "end times". Fundamentalist televangelists sold many books and made a lot of $$money with all the "end times" hogwash, particularly in the South.

Now that it's 2003, you don't hear so much about "end times". Those books and sermons were written in '98/'99, when the subject was hot. It's like the French doctor Thomas Malthus in 1798 who predicted that population would exceed the food supply- Malthusian theory. Malthus may have been right, but it prompted a lot of hooey back then about "end times", and how nations of people had to adopt a religion and get right with God.

"End times" ministeries are a fraud. Are we so egotistical a generation that we think we are the last? Those fundamentalist televangelists who are no longer preaching "end times" because it's no longer the zeitgeist should pay back all the money they made off of marketing "end times".

Bush is just following a course in "confronting evil" which is a highly Christ-like thing to do. For a more detailed explanation of "just cause" in war here's an article:
http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/02ws/ws021017.htm

So that once Jesus leveled judgement on evil doers, let now George W. Bush and the oil lobby level judgement.

So that once bishops interpreted scripture, let now Joseph Loconte of the Heritage Foundation decipher the Holy Word.

NYT can be real moronic sometimes.

Confronting evil is one thing. Being obsessed that the only answer is to go to war, invade and overthrow another country's government, even if it's an evil dictatorship, is something else. I'd be satisfied if we insist through the U.N. on having vigorous inspections with the military forces around ready to strike back if Iraq tries something. Iraq hasn't invaded another country since 1990, probably does not possess nuclear weapons, does not have the means to attack our country, was not connected to the 9/11/2001 terrorist acts and doesn't seem to be such a serious cause for concern among its neighbors.

In this case the U.S. would be the party to break the peace and would be attacking another nation that isn't even an imminent threat to the U.S. Not even close to meeting the criteria of a just war.

Mike the Anal.

My understanding of "just war" doctrine is that it requires one to have exhausted all other options, that it be proportionate to the problem, and that it actually have a chance of correcting the problem.

Invasion of Iraq is AT LEAST as likely to exacerbate the problem (threat of a terrorist attack on US and its friends) as it is to reduce it.

Obviously, the fancy of God choosing sides is quite silly, which to not shortcome Loconte, is part of what he is saying.
But anyone would know that 95% of what jesus said was about a pretty strong pacificism-- look at his death, for christs sake!

What Loconte does is ripe fundamentalism. Jesus is using the black and white terminology to metaphorically describe the battle of good vs evil within one's 'soul' and what the literal-minded Loconte does (having no real sense of soul) is use it to justify a pre-emptive strike.

The Christian movement we have endorsing this war in the US is scarily similar to the mentality that led the Crusades.

Mike's position is common among many allegedly Christian Bush supporters, particularly fundamentalists, but also among conservative and authoritarian-leaning types. Essentially, their argument will come down to the fact that they implicitly trust Bush. From that perspective, the criteria for "just war" are met because they believe what they are being told by the administration.

If one doesn't assume Bush is totally honest, the following easily fall down:
Just cause.
Proper authority.
Right Intention.
Last resort.
Proportionality.

That leaves:
Probability of success.

They believe Bush, bush says he believes in God, ergo Bush is God.

tweedledum-
I believe the sanctions, containment and UN threats that have failed over the last 12 years mean we HAVE exhausted the other options. I happen to believe that a threat to the US NOW (if we attack) is LESS than if we let Saddam cook up some WMD and give them to terrorists in a few years.

And to the others: how are you SURE that Iraq isn't developing chemical or "new-kew-ler" weapons (ok, he needs to learn the correct pronounciation)? I hope no one is foolish enough to say that we have as much or more information about the situation than the WH/Pentagon (who ARE sure).

Maybe I'm not as cynical as everyone else, but Bush wasn't looking to take out foreign regimes BEFORE 9-11; he's doing what he thinks he should to PREVENT another 9-11.

They WERE planning to take out Iraq before 9/11.

Both Howard Fineman and Tim Russert, supposedly moderate commentators, have said in the last 24 hours that "Americans trust Bush on the terror issue". Why don't they report on the growing public unease with the reality of an Iraqi war? The mainstream press has joined the conservative press with prepping the American psyche for war.

Everything is falling into place for an inevitable war. Fineman and Russert are doing their part.

What is the connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists? The Bushies have had all this time to dig for evidence on that front and have come up with nothing concrete.

Iraq and terrorism not related issues at all and they need to stop obfuscating that.

We still need to focus on bin Laden (the unmentionable name?). We need to focus on bringing about peace between Israel and Palestinians. As long as the inspectors are on the ground, I can't see how Iraq trumps those issues.

Back to the just war thought.

Does the U.S. have just cause to attack Iraq, i.e. has Iraq attacked the U.S. or poses some imminent threat to the U.S. itself?

Does the U.S. have legitimate authority to make war on Iraq? I definitely do not endorse just making war on a country just to show that we're big and strong, although my strong impression is that that's exactly the rationale for the Bushies. They're chomping at the bit to "hit" somewhere so that the rest of the world will somehow be impressed. They seem to think that a show of force is all that's needed to make the rest of the world fall into line. I think that that's foolish and very shortsighted. Moreover, as the only thing concrete that the administration can point to as a wrong that Iraq has committed is Iraq's having violated U.N. resolutions, the only party who has legitimate authority in this case is the U.N. Ironically, the U.N. is an annoyance and a stumbling block for the Bushies, but at the same time they're still trying to use it to find some justification.

Is invasion/regime change a response in proportion to the wrong that Iraq has committed?

Is war being turned to only as a final resort when all other means have been completely exhausted? My distinct impression is that the administration has longed to have a war from the get-go while practical considerations, however, have forced it to swallow hard and have to be patient until enough allies are on board.

What is the intention here? That's extremely unclear. There's been precious little thought given and/or relayed to the public as to the aftermath and to the exit strategy post-overthrow. Is it to engage in nation-building? How long of a military occupation might there be? Is it really feasible to try to impose democratic government in Iraq? Is it feasible to allow Iraq to break up into separate nations, which it might well do on its own, absent a dictator holding the country together?

What is the probability of long-term success, i.e. democracy and stability in the region? I don't believe it's as high as some seem to think. To the contrary the different risks are numerous.

Who's weighing all of this in the administration? It doesn't seem like anyone is. I sudder to think of how things might have gone if this crew had been in charge in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Father of six,

Have you ever considered that you may be wrong?

Or is that beyond all consideration on your part?

Sometimes the wisest people are the ones who are able to change their views after listening to experts on a given subject that have more than just their own partisan ego to answer to.

To Richard P.

The attack on 9/11 was about more than one man Bin Laden. I think he is probably already dead anyhow. But even if he is not, we must get at the root of the terrorists. Iraq is among that root system. Just like a dandelion, if you just cut off the weed on the surface, its only a matter of time until the problem is just as big as it was before.

I just watched the Italian leader pledge his country’s complete support for our probable Iraq invasion today. He has joined England, Spain, Australia, and at least 4 other countries that have pledged their allegiance to our common cause. The Italian leader was very emotional when he stated today that when he sees our American flag, the feeling goes right down to his soul that America stands for freedom. Wow. This guy really makes me proud to be from this country that will stand up and do what’s right.

Who cares what the French say? I don’t. Even in Bosnia, the French did nothing to stop the genocide until we stepped in. You lefty America haters will probably find something sinister about this as well.

D of C,

Fineman and Russert's statements that Americans trust Bush on the terror issue reinforces public perception that the Bush move toward war is the correct choice. By emphasizing that Americans trust Bush, without reporting on growing doubts as reported in the polls, Fineman and Russert are reinforcing the perception that the Bush initiative is correct. The statement that "Americans trust Bush on terror" only tells part of the story. But by saying it enough times, without reporting the other side, the statement serves to prep America for war.

Like reporters in past wars, it shows that Fineman and Russert can be used to prep America for inevitable war. For this Iraqi war, however, there is an oppostion whose side should also be reported.

I could be wrong in what I heard both Fineman and Russert say, and if so I'll admit it. But their words were "Americans trust Bush on the terror issue", and the growing discontent was not reported or analyzed during their interviews. I'm concerned when the White House position is championed and the opposition position is minimized. As in the past, reporters can easily be manipulated by the White House PR machine. There is obviously more than the Bush position on this particular issue, and it should be reported.

Unnamed Troll-

lefty America haters

Very funny. I haven't heard that one since well, this morning. Bill O'Reilly was interviewing some guy who wrote a book titled something like, "Why the Left Hates America." They were discussing why the left always resorts to personal attacks rather than discussing the facts.

Damn liberal media!

Bush once said he wanted bin Laden "dead or alive...." I think that's something for which Bush needs to be held accountable. I'll be damned if the right-wingers are willing to leave Clinton alone on that. He had tried, too, to get bin Laden. However, it was the holdovers from the Clinton administration who warned Bush about terrorism, although before Sept. 11, 2001, all Bush could say was "missile defense." Given that we haven't found bin Laden, whom Bush supposedly badly wanted found, you have to wonder what are the actual chances are that we're going to find Saddam.

Iraq has no connection to the Sept. 11 incidents, except in Bush's rhetoric.

There is no connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda for one simple reason: Saddam and Osama hate each other's guts. Saddam is the type of "bad" Muslim that Osama hates. Saddam is ruthlessly secular and has cracked down on Islamic millitants in his country (considering them, as do all Middle Eastern governments, to be a threat to his rule). Also, Saddam is not a "pious" Muslim by any definition of the world, let alone Bin Laden's ultra-fundamentalist definition. Saddam drinks, he gambles, he sleeps around (his son Uday's womanizing is legendary). The only way they are alike is that they both hate America. But Osama would never work with Saddam or take orders from him, nor would Saddam ask for his help. Each of them would try to kill the other at the drop of a hat.

"Maybe I'm not as cynical as everyone else, but Bush wasn't looking to take out foreign regimes BEFORE 9-11; he's doing what he thinks he should to PREVENT another 9-11." - Mike the analyst

Absolute bullsh*t. Bush was planning the attack on Afghanistan before 9/11.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

So much to maybe respond to, but my new thought of the day, i.e. something I read somewhere that I had not considered before, is that our inner government has been training South American military types in torture techniques for a couple of decades. Okay, let's assume Saddam tortures---want to replay our role in South America?

Wonder if God will overlook the source of the weapons Saddam used to "kill his own people" when judgment day arrives.

Wonder if a single Christian would recognize Christ if he walked the earth today? Monday morning quarterbacking is easy. Most people are too rigid in their views and expectations to accomodate that which does not conform to them -- and today's Christians are no different from the Jews of 2000 years ago.