GW Bush borderline insane?-the Gog Magog episode.

[marcus]

GW Bush borderline insane?--the Gog Magog episode.

A friend emailed me this strange account from a Secular Humanist newsletter which I do not ordinarily see. It describes a weird but apparently confirmed telephone call that French President Jacques Chirac says he received from Bush in 2003.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=haught_29_5

==quote==
A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush
JAMES A. HAUGHT

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”

After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal. Dr. Romer explained that the Old Testament book of Ezekiel contains two chapters (38 and 39) in which God rages against Gog and Magog, sinister and mysterious forces menacing Israel. Jehovah vows to smite them savagely, to “turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,” and slaughter them ruthlessly. In the New Testament, the mystical book of Revelation envisions Gog and Magog gathering nations for battle, “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.” France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.” But other news media missed the amazing report.

Subsequently, ex-President Chirac confirmed the nutty event in a long interview with French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice, who tells the tale in his new book, Si Vous le Répétez, Je Démentirai (If You Repeat it, I Will Deny), released in March by the publisher Plon.

Oddly, mainstream media are ignoring this alarming revelation that Bush may have been half-cracked when he started his Iraq war. My own paper, The Charleston Gazette in West Virginia, is the only U.S. newspaper to report it so far. Canada’s Toronto Star recounted the story, calling it a “stranger-than-fiction disclosure … which suggests that apocalyptic fervor may have held sway within the walls of the White House.” Fortunately, online...
==endquote==

Would Chirac lie in a long interview about this? Would he be getting a theologian to lie about having been consulted about it, at the time, after the puzzling telephone call? Did Chirac misunderstand what Bush was trying to tell him? Could the theologian have fabricated the story and gotten Chirac to back him up? Any comment?

 

[OmCheeto]

half-cracked

half?

???????

Standard Smilies Ouija conclusion:

He was mad.

For those of you who are not completely fluent in English, "mad" is another word for insane.

 

[marcus]

My wife suggests that Bush might have been drunk.
In Texas I believe it is considered quite normal for a man to get drunk and talk about Gog and Magog. So that would explain it.

 

[Integral]

Saying it drunk or sober, not sure which is worse.

Would really like to believe that this is some sort of hoax.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Similar comments were alleged before

President George W Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml

I pretty much had Bush pegged as a nut back in 2000 [I don't mean that figuratively]. I can still remember awkening to the news on the tv, in a hotel room, in Georgia, that he, not Gore, had won the election. While still in a slightly hynogogic state, I honestly believed that I was having a nightmare. It turned out that it was a nightmare that continued for the next eight years.

 

[lisab]

My wife suggests that Bush might have been drunk.
In Texas I believe it is considered quite normal for a man to get drunk and talk about Gog and Magog. So that would explain it.

Perhaps what they are trying to say is grog and egg nog, but it's lost somewhere between the drunken slur and the Texan drawl.

 

[DaveC426913]

Much as I think Bush is an incompetent fool, and would very much like to believe he is insane, I doubt that's the answer here.

My take is that he has always had a tendency to talk rather melodramatically. He often spoke to the public using platitudes, as if the public is incapable of understanding the real issues. I do not think he is clever enough to do this himself, I think he is coached, and is fed phrases that his advisors think will "ring true".

I think that, in his mind, Bush was talking about Gog and Magog for Chirac's sake. i.e. it is less a testament to Bush's beliefs than to Bush's complete lack of respect for Chirac's intelligence.

 

[Geigerclick]

Not mad, just damaged from alcohol and cocaine, and never being that bright to begin with. I have a relative who attended Phillips Academy with him, and some later schooling. They used cocaine TOGETHER. Yes, this is anecdotal, but given that this relative still thinks Bush was half-decent, I do not doubt it much.

Besides, evangelicals can be a little nutty when it comes to grasping notions of reality vs. theology.

 

[magpies]

He was probably just trying to be funny. I know I'd try that stuff if I got into office. I'd prank call russia all day.

 

[Evo]

My wife suggests that Bush might have been drunk.
In Texas I believe it is considered quite normal for a man to get drunk and talk about Gog and Magog. So that would explain it.

That would only apply to Evangelical nuts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That would only apply to Evangelical nuts.

Bush is an Evangelical.

Note also that being Catholic, Chirac doesn't even believe in end-times prophecies. :rofl:

 

[Lacy33]

That would only apply to Evangelical nuts.

I think the topic of Gog and Magog is of special interest to other faiths as well. Not that the other that I am thinking about knows what it is, others are profoundly interested in that topic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Haha, nice avatar!

When I looked at the page, it threw me for a moment. I thought I had double-posted. :rofl:

 

[Lacy33]

Haha, nice avatar!

Keeping in the theme of tragic. (Bush)...
Your posting that photo yesterday left a whole house of guests here stunned. I choose to borrow it and continue using it elsewhere so I will not forget.
How you found this young person photo was a gift to many. Thanks.

(edit)
Too bad the larger version was taken down because that is where you can see such deeply felt pain.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think the topic of Gog and Magog is of special interest to other faiths as well. Not that the other that I am thinking about knows what it is, others are profoundly interested in that topic.

Are you talking about Islam? I'm pretty sure the muslims know who/what/where Gog and Magog are/is. :rofl:.

 

[Lacy33]

Are you talking about Islam? I'm pretty sure the muslims know who/what/where Gog and Magog are/is. :rofl:.

No, I was talking about Jewish scholars.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Keeping in the theme of tragic. (Bush)...
Your posting that photo yesterday left a whole house of guests here stunned. I choose to borrow it and continue using it elsewhere so I will not forget.
How you found this young person photo was a gift to many. Thanks.

(edit)
Too bad the larger version was taken down because that is where you can see such deeply felt pain.

They are still up. Posts 182 and 196
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=405826&page=10
or
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/8829/sbs2l.jpg

End derailment.

 

[zomgwtf]

No, I was talking about Jewish scholars.

Ah, well, if the prophecy turns out to be true it probably will be important that they know about Gog. :rofl:. That way they know to run away when the time comes and just wait for God to step on in.

I honestly don't understand why G.W. would make reference to Gog and Magog for attacking Iraq. It's pretty well known that these peoples will be coming from far north... probably Russia. How does taking out Sadam have anything to do with the Russians?

I guess it depends which prophecy he's looking at. The one from Ezekiel or the one from Revelations.

Hopefully this invasion never happens because after the battle those who were against God have no more time to repent... and those who were faithful etc. get to live in the millenial kingdom with Jesus. I think I won't be given a chance to repent!

 

[BoomBoom]

I guess it depends which prophecy he's looking at. The one from Ezekiel or the one from Revelations.

The President of the United States should not consider ANY prophecies when making policy decisions (especially when they involve invading another country).

 

[mheslep]

...

Would Chirac lie in a long interview about this? Would he be getting a theologian to lie about having been consulted about it, at the time, after the puzzling telephone call? Did Chirac misunderstand what Bush was trying to tell him? Could the theologian have fabricated the story and gotten Chirac to back him up? Any comment?

True or not, yes Chirac would lie for an extra Euro. Meanwhile:

Oddly, mainstream media are ignoring this alarming revelation that Bush may have been half-cracked when he started his Iraq war.

How odd.

 

[Pattonias]

Wow, this incredible statement isn't met with even a little scepticism, or am I missing the joke.

 

[Pattonias]

Certaintly, we all hate him. He def. prob. was completely insane.

We will shoot down crackpot statements as long as they apply to topics we don't like, but when it comes to criticizing someone we didn't like in office, we'll go ahead and say his character was that of a barely functional wacko who despite his mental instability and substance abuse managed to dupe the former most powerful country in the world into blindy following his lead as he attempted to rule the world to lead the way for his coming god. It's no wonder he was able to turn away our eyes when he blew up the WTC to further his drooling simpleton goals, but he was able to lead between 60 and 80 percent of our elected leaders and most of our enlightened allies into a war that only a religious nut could think up.

Honestly if this was a Bush blew up the WTC thread how long would it last. I understand the standard anti-Bush sentiment, but this is obviously in the extreme. Another crack-pot article to add to so many conspiracy papers.

 

[Pattonias]

So the argument is that a man who is "burned-out coke addict and alcoholic making stupid comments" could accomplish all this on his own without any outside help. That the entire country followed this single man into this without raising a finger to stop it.

I think the conspiracy is that we have all collectively gotten too stupid to prevent this from happening. Who are we to complain if someone this obviously incompetent was able to lead us blindly about by the nose while we jacked up the world without restraint?

Its fun to pick a single whipping dog to blame all our woes on, but somehow this simpleton managed to accomplish this while congress slept. They must have been as messed up as he was. Surely now that we have mostly Democrats in office the world will be nothing but a peaceful paradise.

 

[Pattonias]

I see. Well I will avoid interupting the serious discussion that is taking place here. Obviously, this article is breaking news that was supressed by the global media at large. Thankfully we have the one newspaper in West Virginia who is willing to break the silence.

I just find if frustrating that a forum that requires so much from it's members and visitors when they post sources is giving so much time to this article.

Sure my suggestions that the President was involved with anything political or not, or that any kind of conspiracy exists is completely irrelovent, but we should discuss how the former president was trying to convince our closest allies to follow on our most recent crusade? He must be fairly charismatic because I met allied soldiers from all over Europe while I was stationed in the Middle East. Why would he only act crazy to the country that was least likely to listen even if he made a "normal" request for military support?

I'm going to find an article that claims proof that Obama is not a citizen, start a thread, and see if it gets banned. It's kind of a social experiment.

 

[mheslep]

Wow, this incredible statement isn't met with even a little scepticism, or am I missing the joke.

I https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2742488&postcount=20" some scepticism; maybe I was too cute.

 

[Pattonias]

You misunderstand why I brought up conspiracies. I'm not trying to bring them together, I'm trying to show them side by side. Saying that Bush accomplished all this while being a total religous wacko is just as unbelievable as saying he orchestrated a massive conspiracy.
You may believe that he was stupid, but I argue the opposite. He was an intelligent (although not so eloquent) man who led us in a direction we ultimately did not want to go in.

 

[edward]

You misunderstand why I brought up conspiracies. I'm not trying to bring them together, I'm trying to show them side by side. Saying that Bush accomplished all this while being a total religious wacko is just as unbelievable as saying he orchestrated a massive conspiracy.
You may believe that he was stupid, but I argue the opposite. He was an intelligent (although not so eloquent) man who led us in a direction we ultimately did not want to go in.

Most of what was to lead up to the invasion of Iraq can be credited to Cheney and Rumsfeld.

As far as being a religious wacko this country has millions of people, primarily the end timers who use the terms GOG, Magog, The Beast, period of tribulation, Anti Christ, and rapture on a regular basis.

Here is the original published version in French if anyone can read it. This is where it all began to go public.

http://www2.unil.ch/unicom/allez_savoir/as39/pages/pdf/4_Gog_Magog.pdf

 

[BobG]

Certaintly, we all hate him. He def. prob. was completely insane.

We will shoot down crackpot statements as long as they apply to topics we don't like, but when it comes to criticizing someone we didn't like in office, we'll go ahead and say his character was that of a barely functional wacko who despite his mental instability and substance abuse managed to dupe the former most powerful country in the world into blindy following his lead as he attempted to rule the world to lead the way for his coming god. It's no wonder he was able to turn away our eyes when he blew up the WTC to further his drooling simpleton goals, but he was able to lead between 60 and 80 percent of our elected leaders and most of our enlightened allies into a war that only a religious nut could think up.

Honestly if this was a Bush blew up the WTC thread how long would it last. I understand the standard anti-Bush sentiment, but this is obviously in the extreme. Another crack-pot article to add to so many conspiracy papers.

Read Winslow Wheeler's Wastrels of Defense. In it, he covers the Senate debate over whether to grant Bush the authorization for military action about Iraq. (This chapter was originally a stand alone article titled "The Week of Shame that you could read for free on the internet, but now the only way to read it is to pay for it.) Even with public opinion polls showing the majority of Americans did not support an invasion of Iraq without UN cooperation, the possibility of having an anti-war vote backfire on them in a future election filled politicians with terror. Watching Senators explain how their vote to authorize US military force was actually a vote against invading without UN cooperation was positively painful. Hillary Clinton's explanation was so twisted another Senator finally asked her if she was talking about the same bill they were about to vote on.

Don't underestimate the ability to manipulate 60 to 80 percent of our elected leaders when so few of our elected leaders would ever be willing to risk their political future making a stand for something they believed in. Their job is to get re-elected, not lead the country.

Still, I share the skepticism about this particular anecdote. It's been around too many years and ignored by the media for too many years to be trusted without some very solid sources.

 

[BobG]

Actually, the original article is still available: The Week of Shame

One thing is for sure. Democrats claiming Bush misled them into voting for the invasion were lying even worse than any lies Bush or Cheney made. Even without access to the classified intel reports (which some Senators, including Kerry, had access to), it should have been obvious the case against Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was weak.

The only valid reason to believe Hussein still had a working chemical weapons program was that verifiably eliminating it would seem to invite an invasion by Iran. It was almost as if Hussein's only available choice was between which country invaded him.

 

[DaveC426913]

One thing is for sure. Democrats claiming Bush misled them into voting for the invasion were lying even worse than any lies Bush or Cheney made. Even without access to the classified intel reports (which some Senators, including Kerry, had access to), it should have been obvious the case against Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was weak.

The only valid reason to believe Hussein still had a working chemical weapons program was that verifiably eliminating it would seem to invite an invasion by Iran. It was almost as if Hussein's only available choice was between which country invaded him.

I totally agree, and I got the impression the rest of the world did too. It was obvious that it was a snowjob. We were all staring at the radio saying "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? What does Iraq have to do with anything?"

But that's ancient history...

 

[Passionflower]

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

It is remarkable to me that many Americans criticize Muslim fundamentalism while Zionism and Christian fundamentalism is OK. But nevertheless, I think that many need to learn how to respect people's religious beliefs.

I myself am an atheist but I would not call a person insane just because he has a religious belief or because his ideas and thoughts differed from mine.

 

[zomgwtf]

I myself am an atheist but I would not call a person insane just because he has a religious belief or because his ideas and thoughts differed from mine.

Or because they allowed those religious beliefs to carry their entire nation to war? Remember this is the specific belief of a SINGLE person, they just happened to have had a lot of power. Other Americans for sure believe in Gog and Magog but I am quite skeptical they would have beieved destroying Iraq would have helped the cause.

The war costs the lives of aroudn 20,000 lives of American and allies lives, over 100,000 deaths to the Iraqi forces and its allies... and the most sad part is over 1,000,000 civilian deaths and at least 1,500,000 displaced Iraqi people. All just to take out Saddam huh? As well the country is in complete chaos with various factions fighting constantly amongst themselves, explosives always going off, the civilian population still very much at danger.

If you tell me that a person isn't insane to allow a biblical story of prophecy to do with Apocalypse on Earth to influence their decision in going to war with a much weaker nation, then you are a very sad, sad individual.

 

[Passionflower]

...then you are a very sad, sad individual.

Ignoring the ad hominem.

The war costs the lives of aroudn 20,000 lives of American and allies lives, over 100,000 deaths to the Iraqi forces and its allies... and the most sad part is over 1,000,000 civilian deaths and at least 1,500,000 displaced Iraqi people. All just to take out Saddam huh? As well the country is in complete chaos with various factions fighting constantly amongst themselves, explosives always going off, the civilian population still very much at danger.

You do not need to convince me of the, in my opinion, atrocities performed by the America army in the middle east.

If you tell me that a person isn't insane to allow a biblical story of prophecy to do with Apocalypse on Earth to influence their decision in going to war with a much weaker nation, then you are a very sad, sad individual.

While I am not a fan of GW Bush, I certainly do not think he is insane.

Is it not clear to you that Machiavellians do not shy away from any fabricated reason if it serves their cause?

 

[zomgwtf]

Is it not clear to you that Machiavellians do not shy away from any fabricated reason if it serves their cause?

S: (adj) insane (afflicted with or characteristic of mental derangement) "was declared insane"; "insane laughter"
S: (adj) harebrained, insane, mad (very foolish) "harebrained ideas"; "took insane risks behind the wheel"; "a completely mad scheme to build a bridge between two mountains"

I definitely think that GW, according to this claim, falls under this definition. Specifically the second one but the first one could be applied too.

Your rebuttle in my opinion does not work. It is different to say something in hindsight or to present a "fact" which supposedly supports your claim than to follow your own personal interpretation of biblical philosophy and to apply to a specific nation and attack that nation.

Your idea of fabricated reason in the case of war in Iraq would be more akin to GW using forged documents or his complete ignorance of the truth (as shown by the intelligence at the time) in order to serve his cause. However the story of Gog and Magog does not serve his cause in anyway, in fact he MADE it his cause. He specfically and arbitrarily applied a biblical prophecy to a nation state and gave that as a cheif reason to attack. This is completely insane behaviour, far from norm.

Are you goin to try and tell me that persons who create cults and murder people in the name of the cult are not insane? This is a perfect example of people using the cult AS the cause and not a reason to support a separate cause.

EDIT: By the way I don't really see any need to respect persons who follow conspiracy theory and invent their own. They definitely indeed in my mind are sad, sad persons. So I don't find this an ad hominen at all, I'm not saying your arguments are wrong based on you being a sad individual. I'm just pointing out that you are one.

 

[Pattonias]

I am honestly shocked at how much credit is being given to this article.