Late February 10, 2003
Bush versus The Pope
George W. AntiChristThe Pope ain't buying Bush's pitch that his attack on Iraq is a "just war," as defined for the Catholic Church by St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. (See Timesonline.co.uk)
Bush's case was argued for him by Michael Novak, whom the Times refers to as "a conservative Roman Catholic theologian and a close ally of President Bush." (How's that for contradiction in terms? That phrase is imploding with mutually exclusive concepts.)
Funny how the great Bush family has friends high up everywhere, even in the Catholic Church. There are always people who will sell their souls for money and power, even in the church.
But say what you will about the Pope, he is not buying into the game and God bless him. The 82-year-old Pole, who's been shot and God-knows-what-else, still works hard for peace and justice, and that's all you can ask of anyone.
According to the Times, this particular issue has really gotten his dander up and he is "Looking and sounding like a man rejuvenated by the urgent need to avert the imminent conflict."
God! That Bush team is so brilliant -- so puhrofesshionul they have even got the Pope against America now. They've united those eternal enemies France and Germany. The Bushoids are literally bringing the entire world together, in resistance to them. That's how bad they are.
And still the polls are telling us that Bush is -- popular?
When I say Bush is an AntiChrist, I'm not name-calling, not demonizing, and not engaging in mysticism, but merely making a literal statement.
"Anti" only means opposed to, the opposite of. By Christ, we'll take the Christian definition, which is Jesus of Nazareth. Speaking without emotion, or attachment to a foreordained conclusion, is not George W. Bush the diametric opposite of everything Jesus taught, everything he lived and died for? Take a refresher look at the Sermon on the Mount some time, and some time soon preferably because time is short.
How does Bush's mad push toward mass murder in Iraq size up along side the teachings of Jesus? Is there anything Bush could do, or say, that could possibly counterbalance that, to make him what he calls himself -- a Christian -- in the face of his behavior toward the Iraqis? His behavior toward all the poor and struggling people in the world who fall within his long reach? Could any ritual he could follow, like closing his eyes reverently as a prayer is being said at a public occasion; piping up with a line like "Jesus is my favorite philosopher" at a debate in order to deflect attention from his utter vapidness as a personality, his waste of a Yale and Harvard education; all his sanctimonious BS lately about God and Justice and Democracy as he prepares to destroy every trace of all of them. And he even talks Love and Peace. All the while his agenda is all about killing, plundering. The man holds nothing sacred except money, power, and loyalty to his masters.
Surely there would be many who would find it deeply offensive, and even improper, for someone to refer to George W. Bush, whom they consider to be the president of the United States, as AntiChrist. But without getting into a religious argument, but merely looking in terms of the historical record of the actions of these two, even a Bush supporter and/or a hardcore member of the Christian Right would have a hard time denying that mass murder and destruction are as much in opposition of Jesus' teachings as any possible human act.
Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's," and was given a brutal Roman execution. Today's emperor is Bush.
Now we have before us the absurd spectacle of Poppy Bush sending his Very Important Religious Ally to persuade the Pope to endorse the Bush regime's slaughter of families in Iraq. How low can they go?
I am personally bewildered by anyone who can call himself a Christian and endorse in any way the kind of carnage the administration is pushing, an unprovoked attack on very poor, innocent people. In fact, is there any religion you can name that would condone the killing of innocent men, women and children to satisfy a requirement of power, a territorial annexation in effect?
And I find passive acquiescence to this atrocity by anyone who calls himself a Christian almost as inexcusable as if they were out there with a hatchet themselves butchering families. There is no honor in doing it with tools no matter how sophisticated they are. The gangster with the impeccable suit is no less a killer because of it. Because not to stand up, not to speak out against such crime, not to take whatever action you can take in your own sphere, is a shameful negligence. People are crying out, and you close your ears.
And at this point, I don't think ignorance is an excuse. So many atrocities have been carried out by the U.S. shadow government undercover, such as the murderous Nicaraguan Contras, who were US funded and trained, but it was hidden. But now the US is openly attacking another country that has not attacked us. And the administration is trying to imply a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, on the assumption that Al Qaeda was the perpetrator of September 11, but it is not relying on that to make its case. The case is one of the most lame pretexts to come along in a while. It's all about what Saddam Hussein ever could do if he ever does get weapons of mass destruction. It's not even a very good lie, and those who are going along with it, are merely acquiescing, refusing to think for themselves, refusing to stand up for what is right.
If every American who did not want the country to attack Iraq just took the trouble to make his or her voice heard by others, especially by those with decision-making power, we would move out of this hell created by the Bush clique. That is all it would take. Just a little from everyone who doesn't want war.