The
"Bush & God" Scam: Don't Buy It
by Ira Chernus
"Bush & God," the cover of Newsweek announces, as if
the two were business partners. That's what the White
House wants us to think. It is mounting a massive
campaign to paint the president as a man on a divine
mission, a man who sees himself as an agent of God.
Some of the reasons for this PR ploy are obvious. It's
so much easier to go to war if we believe that God is
on our, and our leader's, side. Wrap the flag around
God, and who can question your moral credibility? If
Bush stands with God, those who actively oppose his war
must be down below with Satan. If Bush is so sincerely
religious, those who question his motives must be
misguided. Such a spiritual man would never send others
to their death for crass motives like power and oil.
Surely, he must have higher ethical principles in view.
There is a risk in this strategy. It makes Bush look
like a fanatic. That could easily drive some of the
undecided into the antiwar camp.
But making Bush look like a fanatic might very well be
the point. If he really believes he is on a mission
from God, why would he care what the French, the
Russians, or even the American people think? Nothing
can stop a religious fanatic from doing God's work on
earth. As antiwar sentiment mounts, the White House may
be using this "Bush and God" gambit as a way to say:
Forget it. March and lobby as much as you want. Nothing
can stop this Christian soldier from marching out to
war.
This is a new twist on Richard Nixon's famous "madman"
theory. Nixon wanted the North Vietnamese to believe
that he was so irrational, he could easily nuke them
into oblivion if they did not settle the war on his
terms. Now the White House says that George W. is so
irrationally sunk in his Christian beliefs, he must
have U.S. policy settled on his terms.
The irony is that the White House has to spin this
story precisely because George W. keeps turning back
from the brink, as more and more of the world turns
against his war. Remember when we were told that the
war would have to start by February, to get it over
with before the desert turned too hot? Then, as
diplomatic resistance to war mounted, nature's deadline
was put off until later in the spring.
On March 7, facing a French and Russian veto in the
Security Council, the U.S. did another backpedal. It
amended its supposedly "final" resolution to include a
deadline of March 17. All the amendment says is that
Iraq must show it is disarming in good faith by the
17th. But most Security Council members, including the
French and Russians, say Iraq is already disarming in
good faith. So come the 17th, the Security Council will
remain as paralyzed as ever. The amended resolution has
no real teeth. It is another U.S. surrender.
But every time the Bush administration caves in to
diplomatic pressure, the White House puts out the story
that it's more determined than ever to go to war. And
the U.S. media dutifully buy it. The media heralded the
March 17 date as a drop-dead deadline, an absolute
proof that Bush will indeed have his heavenly war, come
hell, high water, or UN veto. Of course, they may be
right. But if you look at what the administration does,
not what it says, the evidence points in the opposite
direction.
The pressure is mounting against war. It would be a bad
mistake for antiwar forces to swallow the line about
"Bush and God" as proof that our protests are useless.
The New York Times editorial board and its star pundit,
Thomas Friedman, have come out against war. Even the
more conservative Washington Post is calling for Bush
to wait "a few more weeks," hoping for an international
change of heart.
Sure, we progressive activists would like everyone to
oppose the war on moral grounds, like we do. But if we
have to ally with pragmatists like the Times, the Post,
and the French government to get the job done, so be
it. Our alliance is growing. We are on a roll.
Only two things can stop us. We could tear our alliance
apart with internal squabbling and demands for
ideological purity. More likely, we will slow our own
momentum by convincing ourselves that war is
inevitable, because Bush is an irrational fanatic. That
is what I hear in antiwar circles, over and over again,
far too often. The more we tell each other that our
efforts are doomed to fail, the more we come to believe
it.
This is a time for one last enormous push against the
war. Who knows? God may be on Bush's side. But it
doesn't matter. The political momentum is on our side.
Let's go out confidently to stop this war before it
starts.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University
of Colorado at Boulder. chernus@colorado.edu
Published on Monday, March 10, 2003
by CommonDreams.org
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0310-01.htm
