Let's get a few things clear here. I'm not yet convinced that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction. As I've written earlier (see the article I wrote in 2003 on that topic) I am convinced that if he did we won't ever find them because organizations the administration labels "terrorist" have them. Regardless of the reward offered I think I can safely say they won't turn them in.
But I'm torn on the "lie" issue. I know as a fact that King George has absolutely no compunction against telling a bald-faced lie when it serves his personal interests. Understand, of course, that I use the term "lie" in the expanded sense Jesus must have meant when he talked about the deeper-than-the-letter reach of Ten Commandments.
Every time the current, marginally-elected president fails to tell the whole truth or claims executive privilege to prevent us from knowing how and why we're being governed he intends to deceive and is as guilty of a lie in the court of eternal justice as if he'd called Ms. Rice a fine example of Caucasian accomplishment.
From that perspective George DID lie about the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. He did intend to inflate the threat posed by our former ally. You can play around with definitions for "lie" all you want, but it should be clear that he didn't want to hear anything that suggested Iraq's threat wasn't all he pretended it was.
But it's entirely possible that Mr. Bush was self-deceived to the extent that he believed he really was saving the country by going to war. Since the preachers keep telling their congregations (contrary to all the current and historical evidence) that this is a "just" war, he probably thinks that whatever he does to cover up any mistakes is fully condoned by God.
And who am I to disagree? His God is clearly the God of War who delights in human misery (why else would he condemn sinners to an eternity of unbearable torment). And I'm quite certain that that God not only approves of his approach to this war, including the torment and unlawful imprisonment of captives, but will commend him for doing whatever unethical things he needs to do to stay in power so this war can continue.
The very fact that he applied to the WMD as a threat-to-us issue is an indictment of him as a national leader. That's because the threat posed by North Korea was and is far greater than that posed by Saddam even if all the things the administration said about him before the spring of 2003 were actually true.
To expend our limited defensive capabilities against a second-rate threat to our security, leaving us vulnerable to attack by an enemy that has the power to reach us and unable to respond promptly with significant force, is a breach of responsibility worthy of immediate impeachment.
And since it's Christmas it might be time to review human nature in the light of the socio-political culture surrounding the birth of Christ. What led the Jews to decide Jesus wasn't the promised Messiah? He did not give them what they wanted most. They had a good economy with flourishing trade. They had the freedom to worship God in the ways specified by Moses (something they lacked under Greek rule).
But they didn't have national sovereignty. The Romans used massive force to put down any potential threat to their empire. The fact that Pilate, charged with maintaining order in Judea and with putting down any potential insurrection, would try to release Jesus makes it clear that Jesus posed no threat to Roman domination.
God had chosen Israel. The Jews, ignoring the prophecies that a reunification with the Samaritans would be part of the full restoration of Israeli sovereignty, wanted sovereignty on their own terms. And they assumed that when God sent a Redeemer they would get that sovereignty. When Jesus stood in the way of that goal they removed him.
Why this departure into a "religious" topic? Because what the Iraqis want more now than anything is national sovereignty. We can give them a good economy (maybe). We can give them schools and hospitals, and even democracy. But the one thing we can't give them, national sovereignty, is the thing they want most.
I cannot guarantee that the insurgency will disappear if we leave Iraq. But whatever is going to happen when we leave will wait until we do and then happen anyway. The only guarantees we have if we stay is that more working-class young Americans will die and that we will have a weakend capacity to respond to real threats. What are we waiting for?
The title page of this website identifies me as a Christian. So why do I ridicule the God Bush claims to serve? Simply because if such a monster exists he deserves ridicule even if I pay for it with an eternity of torment. It's the only way I can be "in his face."
I am a Christian specifically because I believe the Creator revealed in the Bible is not what mainstream evangelical Christianity likes to pretend he is. See the theology section of this site for more details. Just compare the Jesus that Pilate was willing to give a pass to when brought in on charges he was stirring up dissent against Rome with the current crop of preachers who believe God wants them to advance Christianity through military conquest.
For that matter, I don't think the God revealed in the pages of the Bible is really as crazy about capitalism as we make him out to be. If he believed in capitalism, why would he include a ban on interest in the Bible?
Let's face it; most people find in the Bible confirmation that they're right, not condemnation of their deeply-held values. They think the Bible is about values, so it must favor their values. But the Bible isn't so kind. I holds ALL human values up to the light of divine purity and finds them ALL lacking.
So I'll admit that George Bush probably hasn't displayed any greater disregard of the value of integrity than have most people in this country. Since few people are willing to admit they lied, it becomes very tough to say George lied. But they will end up paying the price all self-deluded people eventually pay: knowing that they spent their lives in unutterable stupidity.