View Full Version : Bush foresaw Armageddon (or just a 'Middle East Super Bowl')?
"Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East"
The biblically inclined may know those names as nations who beleaguered the godly in the Book of Revelation (or indeed as people who menaced the chosen in Ezekiel's cryptic prophecies. There's some confusion, but they were generally up to no good ;))
Equally confusing is that the above phrase was apparently uttered by George W Bush to Jacque Chirac prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He's a straight talker though, so he apparently clarified his thoughts with the following line:
"the biblical prophecies are being fulfilled"
This (http://www.palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=14890) article has the benefit of quoting directly from the recent book (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.fr%2FSi-vous-r%25C3%25A9p%25C3%25A9tez-d%25C3%25A9mentirai-Villepin%2Fdp%2F225921021X&ei=X6d9SuiGC4yTjAfb4fzwAQ&usg=AFQjCNHn2FaRpMHJSUGwR9J9IrUV0ydwFQ&sig2=Ev2Gto6xgJPtwF2ig_vq4Q) where Chirac apparently confirms these quotes and talks more about the incident. (It also uses less ad hominem attacks on Bush than some other articles doing the rounds ;))
If true, you'd think this really should have caused something approximating a **** storm. As it is there's been barely a stir. I guess Obama and the economy have been dominating, and Iraq and Bush are old news these days. Have we got any French speakers on the boards who feel like buying the book and confirming any of this? You'd have to be able to stomach Chirac grandstanding though of course...
They don’t understand anything and are flagrantly ignorant of an Orient already complex. Ask them to name you one poet of the region. To them the fight between Shiites and Sunnis maybe simplistically reduced to the caricature of an American game: the finale of a Middle Eastern Superbowl (...).You will see it: they will wage a war of Pandora, win it quickly, but the most difficult thing will emerge later. Shiites and Sunnis will fiercely fight one another. After the invasion, a bloodier civil war will erupt, totally different in form and nature, from the regular combats of the early blitzkrieg. Al Qaeda will find a new safe haven from where it can easily recruit and operate. Within a year more troops will be needed and in three years, when 3000 American lives will have perished, the choice will be then between two bitter options: a quick withdrawal or a significant surge in troop’s level.
Aside from anything else, I'd like to get a date on when he allegedly said this. Sounds suspiciously like some prescient hindsight ;) (Even though of course his actions from the time do tally with these sentiments).
Unfortunately, the Bush admin's actions could also be seen as tallying with the 'prophetic' mindset that's being described :|. And if there's one thing i'm sure of, it's that prophecy has no place in influencing international wars.
Wow, interesting article and I'm not at all surprised to read this.
Yeah, it's intriguing innit. There's always the possibility that Bush was being 'playful', which is one of the reasons i'd like to see more text from the initial book. And Chirac is undoubtedly spinning some plates of his own here. Still, even in the 'best case scenario', it'd be a pretty inappropriate thing to be saying while arming up for a war in the Middle East.
Yeah, i know, i'm trying to withhold judgement as much as possible until i know the context (he does have a track record of saying things that parody his own persona etc). It looks pretty bad on the face of it tho.
FILMFREAK087
08-10-09, 10:27 PM
I see this as pure pandering, Bush knew he could rally right-wing zealots with this apocalyptic rhetoric, while at the same time getting his hands on the oil supplies, and distribution of the resulting contracts. Does anyone else remember the book by a Bush employee which asserted that the religious right was often the butt of many a joke inside the administration?
He says, he says--Chirac and Bush. Who knows? Who cares?
. . . . while at the same time getting his hands on the oil supplies, and distribution of the resulting contracts.
:rotfl: Name one US oil company who has a production license, one US contractor with a drilling contract in Iraq. To this day, Iraq's oil production is still not up to its pre-war levels, which is why it's the only one of the 12 members of OPEC that is not officially subject to a production quota that it couldn't reach anyway.
FILMFREAK087
08-11-09, 07:00 PM
:rotfl: Name one US oil company who has a production license, one US contractor with a drilling contract in Iraq. To this day, Iraq's oil production is still not up to its pre-war levels, which is why it's the only one of the 12 members of OPEC that is not officially subject to a production quota that it couldn't reach anyway.
I didn't say he succeeded, but that it was his motivation. :rolleyes:
He says, he says--Chirac and Bush. Who knows? Who cares?
Hey, that's the spirit! It doesn't matter what our president says to other world leaders, especially if its some religious nonsense!
Nope, not important. Move on. :)
I think rufnek's sentiment was more "who knows what really happened, or what was meant by it." Which is perfectly valid.
Look, it's not a coincidence that people who already dislike the guy have no trouble believing this, and assume the absolute worst about it. It's a rorscach anecdote; it tells you more about yourself through your response than it does about actual events. If you want to believe it, you will, but objectively it's a half-step above gossip.
I think rufnek's sentiment was more "who knows what really happened, or what was meant by it." Which is perfectly valid.
Look, it's not a coincidence that people who already dislike the guy have no trouble believing this, and assume the absolute worst about it. It's a rorscach anecdote; it tells you more about yourself through your response than it does about actual events. If you want to believe it, you will, but objectively it's a half-step above gossip.
But that isn't what he said, Yoda. It is perfectly valid to be concerned if this is the truth.
And I have no friggin' idea why anyone would just assume the French President lied. For what reason?
That's the problem, if you dont' want you to believe it, then somebody must be lying. And it adds to the whole idea of just throwing a bunch of crap out there and seeing what sticks. Goes both ways.
And what our President says is important, not gossip.
But that isn't what he said, Yoda.
What he said was vague, and what I said is a reasonable interpretation. He certainly didn't say that it "doesn't matter what our president says to other world leaders," as you characterized it, so if you want to be literal you might want to start there.
Regardless, I'll let him speak for himself as to specifically what he meant, though I feel quite comfortable assuming he didn't mean something completely inane.
And I have no friggin' idea why anyone would just assume the French President lied. For what reason?
Uh, to sell books? You haven't noticed that there are dozens of books which make incredible accusations about every President? There was more than one about Obama before he was even elected. If you decide you believe it, hey, fine, but there's always a reason to conveniently misinterpret or embellish sensational anecdotes. Particularly ones that are tailor-made to play into existing memes. After all, it works: there was an article about the quote, and now we're talking about it on a forum.
There's also the issue of whether or not he said it before or after the war, and whether or not it's actually any kind of indicator of motivation. These are the sorts of branching possibilities that are conveniently skipped over.
And what our President says is important, not gossip.
I didn't say what our President says is gossip. What makes gossip gossip is that we don't know if it's true, misleading, or anything else.
Uh, to sell books? You haven't noticed that there are dozens of books which make incredible accusations about every President? There was more than one about Obama before he was even elected. If you decide you believe it, hey, fine, but there's always a reason to conveniently misinterpret or embellish sensational anecdotes.
Fair play on that. Although as the quotes come from Chirac we have to presume a political/profile motive rather than a book-profit one (he didn't write the book, he was just one of the three key figures interviewed for it). I struggle to see what he could be seeking to achieve though, given his political life seems to be mainly over now. It could be purely the fact that he clearly doesn't like Bush ;). Could just be his way of trying to carve out his place in history etc.
Knowing when he made the accusations, and in what context, would be revealing too. The book seems to comprise interviews conducted between [EDITED] 1999 & 2005. It would be interesting to know whether these are 'embargoed' thoughts, as it were.
There's also the issue of whether or not he said it before or after the war, and whether or not it's actually any kind of indicator of motivation. These are the sorts of branching possibilities that are conveniently skipped over.
Chirac claims Bush said it in early 2003 prior to invasion while trying to garner support. This is backed up by the academic (http://sedulia.blogs.com/sedulias_translations/2009/05/chirac-asks-theologian-to-explain-george-w-bushs-reference-to-gog-and-magog-early-2003.html) who got a call at the time to explain who Mog etc were. [orig article here - French] (http://www2.unil.ch/unicom/allez_savoir/as39/pages/pdf/4_Gog_Magog.pdf)
(NB, for those that want to follow the paper trail so far, this (http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/litterature/critique-1291-jeanclaude-maurice_si-vous-le-repetez-je-dementirai.htm) seems to be the source of the book extracts used by the original link in this thread. [translation] (http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.tv5.org/TV5Site/litterature/critique-1291-jeanclaude-maurice_si-vous-le-repetez-je-dementirai.htm&ei=MbSCSsPKCtirjAfVyKH2CQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522Directeur%2Bde%2Bla%2Br%25C3%25A9daction%2Bdu%2BJournal%2Bdu%2Bdimanche%2Bentre%2B 1999%2Bet%2B2005%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26hs%3DHwX))
---
I'd say the balance of evidence so far suggests Chirac has definitely claimed that Bush said these things. I think that counts as a high profile source (if not an intrinsically trustworthy one ;)). I'd like to read more context on the whole conversation either way.
r3port3r66
08-12-09, 10:42 AM
....despite all the bluster and colorful rhetoric, it is a lot harder to forget that the leader of a great western nation, proud legatee of the philosophy of Enlightenment and rational thought, endowed with unparalleled powers and military might, could having been irrational to the point where he was actually hearing “divine” voices and be stupid enough to lend credibility to such chimerical thoughts .
Really interesting story to be sure!
To me, Rufnek is right. People have been trying to predict the apocalypse forever. The Middle East seems to be the spot where this is all to begin. President Bush may have said these things, but really, who hasn't these days. The response to his "remark" wasn't taken too seriously then, so why mix it up into our culture now? listen, President Bush said many questionable things during his duty, things that you would ask yourself "OK, why would he say that?" or "Did he just say that?" Look if the world is going to end, it's going to end. I highly doubt its demise began because of an American President's ill-timed vocal premonition, or more accurately observation. If anything he gave away the ending to a good book or Good Book. Anyone can say the pieces of the apocolypse are coming together and the world is doomed: the LA street corners are full of them. I'm sure every one here has seen that crazy man's van with scriptures painted all over it driving around town.
Sorry Gg, who cares? :)
Come on now r3, you can distinguish between a crazy man on the street and Bush right ;)
I'd care if Bush had said that in all seriousness. (And for what it's worth, Chirac does seem to have taken it seriously). Given that he's someone who could actually influence such conflagrations in the Middle East (and was in the process of making one happen) his words become more pertinent than those of your average loon playing a Left Behind computer game.
r3port3r66
08-12-09, 11:13 AM
The article is dated: 03/06/2009. The interviews happened between 1999 and 2003. And the book has yet to be released(?). If Jacque Chirac had been so concerned that Bush's remarks were sentiments of doom, why then wait 7-10 years to make them public? I'm more fearful of world leader comparing Bush's motivations to that of a Super Bowl game. Can this be the basis of some of our foreign affairs?
Book's been out since March i think (see the translated 'extracts' link posted above). It's available on French Amazon. (Although they say the journo was operating from 1999-2005 - another little discrepancy in the net coverage which keeps me itching to see the original source and get to the bottom of this).
There's plenty of reasons for Chirac keeping quiet until now to be honest. Lot's of 'kiss and tell' stuff can't really be released until you're safely out of office. If Chirac had gone on the record at that delicate time France would have been beyond mud in the US's eyes (they were already gonna stay out of Iraq it seems, why make things worse?). You don't start slinging **** in those circles for no reason. The standard operating procedure seems to be make your decisions behind closed doors, then say something plausible in public to explain your actions ;)
Now he's out of office Chirac can no longer prejudice geopolitical relations, so is freer to speak his mind and release some select dirty secrets.
You're right about the book aspect; it would probably be for more intangible reasons like fame, significance, etc., than actual money, but who knows. I don't know if Chirac is the kind of politician that's fairly rich from his standing (as many here are) or not. There've been a few suggestions across the pond here that imply some politicians are not as wealthy as we generally assume all of them to be, so I suppose I just don't take that for granted the way I once did.
There's really a fine line between all this, I think. It's easy to talk about how absurd talking to God is, but would someone also suggest that praying is absurd? You don't need to change too many words for the criticism to become a criticism of believers in general.
If he's hearing actual voices, that's troublesome. If it's informing policy that he would not otherwise have adopted, that's troublesome. But I doubt either is the case. I think he "talks" to God in the same way any devout Christian does, and I don't think he did something wildly out of his personal character or positions as a result, either--which is the most salient question, I think.
r3port3r66
08-12-09, 11:40 AM
Forgive me I get easily confused ;). Really.
I just don't get how something supposedly that important wouldn't be brought to light until now. And how it matters now, when it should have mattered then-- if it were true. Is this the equivalent of political tabloid journalism, or was it really not that important at the time. I need clarification, because unlike you and Yoda, my political intelligence is limited, and you have me intrigued....
You're right about the book aspect; it would probably be for more intangible reasons like fame, significance, etc., than actual money, but who knows. I don't know if Chirac is the kind of politician that's fairly rich from his standing (as many here are) or not. There've been a few suggestions across the pond here that imply some politicians are not as wealthy as we generally assume all of them to be, so I suppose I just don't take that for granted the way I once did.
I'm under the impression that Chirac is pretty well off. I think he's definitely got an ego on him that would push him to continually define himself and his actions in the public sphere even after leaving office. (It's also possible that he thinks he's 'done the right thing' over Iraq and wants to stamp that on history etc).
There's really a fine line between all this, I think. It's easy to talk about how absurd talking to God is, but would someone also suggest that praying is absurd? You don't need to change too many words for the criticism to become a criticism of believers in general.
If he's hearing actual voices, that's troublesome. If it's informing policy that he would not otherwise have adopted, that's troublesome. But I doubt either is the case. I think he "talks" to God in the same way any devout Christian does, and I don't think he did something wildly out of his personal character or positions as a result, either--which is the most salient question, I think.
I don't think that's the real accusation being made here. There's some florid prose to that effect in the Palestine Chronicle piece, but that's really the author taking some license with the story (& then suggesting it's too outlandish to contemplate).
The key issue seems to be:
(a) Whether Bush believes in Biblical prophecy (including carnage in the 'Middle East' as a prerequisite for Judgment Day etc)
&
(b) Whether these beliefs influenced his policy on Iraq (& contingent issues like Israel)
If he delivered the said lines to Chirac in all seriousness, then you'd have to say yes to (a), and 'it seems so' to (b) as far as Iraq goes.
---EDIT---
Forgive me I get easily confused ;). Really.
I just don't get how something supposedly that important wouldn't be brought to light until now. And how it matters now, when it should have mattered then-- if it were true. Is this the equivalent of political tabloid journalism, or was it really not that important at the time.
The way i see it, it wouldn't have been expedient to publicize it at the time, whereas now there's no political cost to releasing it (& perhaps some personal gain for Chirac, possibly in financial terms, possibly in 'self justification' terms etc)
Even when disagreeing massively, nations don't like to burn bridges. Releasing these elements of a private political conversation at the time would've done exactly that.
r3port3r66
08-12-09, 11:55 AM
Wow! Nancy Reagan should have said something....;)
And Nixon too. Jeane Dixon is a HACK!
Forgive me I get easily confused ;). Really.
I just don't get how something supposedly that important wouldn't be brought to light until now. And how it matters now, when it should have mattered then-- if it were true. Is this the equivalent of political tabloid journalism, or was it really not that important at the time. I need clarification, because unlike you and Yoda, my political intelligence is limited, and you have me intrigued....
Now, you'll have to forgive me for being confused.
I have no idea why anyone would not think this is important. First off, information such as this -- conversations between leaders -- is important for history. Second, when a leader says something as nutty as this, I think people should know about it.
If you remember at the time, American media vilified the French, supporting the changing of "french fries" to "freedom fries," which has to be on the list of the silliest and pettiest things we've ever done. The right-media would have had a field day going after the French. In addition, to be honest, some of the things that came out about Bush years later was already circulating around long before he was even re-elected. Some of us already knew he was questionable in his decision-making, but nobody wanted to believe it.
I'm only sorry this is being belittled as not important. That is astounding to me. Of course, the very idea of George W. Bush is astounding to me. :p
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.