Unspun Logo

Why Iraq?

Posted by Rick · April 19th, 2004 · 3 Comments

This is the part I don’t get.

With Osama and the top leadership of Al Qaeda still at large, and with the U.S. still gripped by the trauma of Sept. 11, the president turned his attention to Iraq.

Could it be true, as Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke have indicated, that the President never really cared all that much about the terrorists? Could it be true that his real target was to either get even for Saddam Hussein’s attempt to get his father? Or were Cheney, Rove and Halliburton a driving force to obtain the second-largest oil reserves in the world? That is, was this really for Iraqi oil? Why have we given up on Afghanistan and the terrorists who originally attacked us? Why have we focused all Muslim attention on Iraq, such that Muslims are now flooding into Iraq for a chance to fight the Americans?

President Bush may truly believe, as he suggested at his press conference last week, that he is carrying out a mission that has been sanctioned by the divine.

What bothers me quite a bit about this war, though, is that Bush is starting to talk as if G-d told him to do it. Now where have we heard that before?

Wouldn’t it be something if the “Christians” who have been supporting George W. Bush turned out to be bringing Hal Lindsey’s predictions to fruition?

For the record, I think Lindsey is a crackpot. But for those Christians who do believe in the rule of the Anti-Christ: Do you think when he comes, he’ll stand up and say, “Hi! I’m the Anti-Christ!” or do you think he might pretend to be going about the work of transforming the world based on a mission from G-d?

Categories: The War President


3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Bob // Apr 19, 2004 at 9:04 am

    Hey Kids, let’s play a game!

    Can you find the AntiChrist in this list of names?


    Don’t forget to really pay attention since world order and cosmic chaos is the result if you don’t!

  • 2 Bob // Apr 19, 2004 at 9:10 am

    More background on the AntiChrist…

    Please notice how ignorance led to anti-semitism. I underscore the idea again, ignorance and misunderstood Christian theology contributed to the anti-semitic traditions for centuries and still continue today.

    This was NEVER INTENDED to be that way.

    “Gradually, over time, these various lines converged. The “lawless one” of 2 Thessalonians came to be equated with the “beast” of Revelation and labeled with the title “Antichrist” from the Johannine epistles. Throughout the early Middle Ages, popular Christian preaching continued to repeat and reinforce these ideas. Most of these preachers were poorly educated and knew little of the actual circumstances of the New Testament period. Their handbook for sermon preparation was something known as “glosses,” that is, copies of the Biblical text with marginal commentaries on individual passages and ideas. It was in these glosses of the early Middle Ages (7th to 11th centuries) that passages in Revelation came to receive some legendary additions, including the Antichrist terminology and a story to go with it. The commentators of the glosses even spoke of the birth of this Antichrist figure. He was often depicted as being Jewish, or as having a Jewish mother who was impregnated by Satan himself. These texts were often illustrated with lurid depictions of these ideas. It was from this popular tradition that much of the later Antichrist myth was born, and with it some of the most deeply ingrained and virulent elements of antisemitism in the western tradition. By the time we get to Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179) and Joachim of Fiore (11323-1202) these images had been firmly entrenched in the imagination.”


  • 3 Rick // Apr 19, 2004 at 9:27 am

    I really liked the “Name the Anti-Christ” game. Based on my answers, the results said,

    Very Good! You have all the instincts of a sleuth!

    Just to make sure that wasn’t the standard answer, I took the test again, but this time I only named Regis Philbin. It said I wasn’t so good and really needed to bone up on this stuff. 😉 (So there’s a hint for y’all! Don’t just pick Regis Philbin!)

    It then gives information about who has been said to fit the criteria and who has been accused by various parties of being the anti-christ. My favorite was this one:

    [Pat] Robertson himself was accused of being a potential candidate for the Antichrist by some premillennial dispensationalists when he broke with conventional premillennialist views in declaring that the coming New World Order, the rise of the Antichrist, and the apocalypse could be averted if Christian America rallied to prevent a one-world government.

    The reason I liked this one so much is that it goes to support the point I was making.

    I think this is hogwash. But if I was one of those who did not think it was hogwash, then it seems to me I’d want to be careful about using my Christian principles to alter the face of government and install a theocracy. IF you believed there was an Anti-Christ, wouldn’t it be pretty silly to support someone who said things like, “We can prevent the Biblical prophecy from coming true by electing me!” Shouldn’t we be wary of Presidents who start wars and — unprovoked — attack countries based on divine inspiration or because they’re doing the work of G-d?

    I’d tell you what the rest of my choices were on the “Name the Anti-Christ” game, but you need to play it for yourself! 😉

Leave a Comment