Jjjim… it’s a badly kept secret that Ronald Reagan almost never went to church in his life.
The religious right embraced him because they thought he shared their agenda, and the secular left feared him for that very reason. But in power, Reagan pretty much ignored the agenda of the religious right.
Ditto to astorian’s comments. And to add a few of my own…
If anyone is actively seeking an end-of-the-world, clash-of-civilizations showdown along religious and racial-purity lines, it’s the Wahabbism-supporting “Islamofascist” [credit: Christopher Hitchens, noted lifelong lefty & socialist turned post-9/11 Bush supporter] Persian Gulf states and their likeminded ilk elsewhere in the Muslim world – but Saudi Arabia in particular. Saudi Arabia has been actively funding and promoting the ideological creed behind Osama Bin Laden for many years. Only now are they beginning to see how their radical ideology could backfire against them, should the United States decide that the Saudi royalty are the sort of “friends” we cannot afford to humor any longer.
The most radical allegation that can be made against Bush and his administration at this time is not that they are leading a war against Islam in general, or that they are persecuting a war outside the acceptable precedent legal frameworks (i.e., U.N. and NATO alliances). No, the most radical agenda item for Wolfowitz, et al. is their determination to wage a presumptive war for “regime change” in order to remake Iraq as we did Germany and Japan after WWII – through de-Ba’athisization, temporary coalition-directed administration and reconstruction overseen by an American general, followed by assisting the establishment of the formal democraticization of Iraqi politics.
But Iraq is really just the beginning. The deep goal that the administration is hoping to achieve is that the proximal example of a democratic, reformed and newly prosperous Iraq will kick-start a “domino effect” of bottom-up popular clamoring for reform, secularization, liberalization, and democratization throughout the Middle East.
Nor is this necessarily an empty pipe dream. Arab advocates of democratic reform have called the U.S. on its hypocrisy (and, arguably, racism) in its willingness to support the harshly repressive royal houses and other dictatorships of the Persian Gulf and Middle East. And you know what? They were absolutely right. Going all the way back to the turbulent wake of WWI, when the Middle East was carved up by the Great Powers, the U.S. has only been too happy to repudiate our radical ideological tradition in favor of securing a steady supply of oil through the deadly combination of capitalist corporatism and our buddy arrangements with autocratic regimes and dynasties.
9/11 was the wake-up call that was necessary to question the continuance of these arrangements of convenience. IMHO, the ultimate or “deep” target of the war underway now is not Saddam Hussein’s incipient dynasty, nor the disarmament of Iraq, nor proving the existence of his WMD, nor dismantling the Ba’ath party apparatus.
No, the ultimate target is the House of Saud and its global exportation of Wahabbism. Saudi Arabia has been waging a subterranean war against us (and the West in general) for many years – but it was a war waged by nonconventional means. A war of ideology, conducted through the establishment of thousands of ultra-conservative religious madrassas and mosques throughout the Islamic world. A war that the Saudis have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on, and have sent thousands of their people to far-flung lands to put into effect and oversee.
But, given our dependence on a stable OPEC – a stability usually ensured by Saudi Arabia – and the unique status of S.A. as the home of Islam, an overt military action against Saudi Arabia is out of the question. I believe that the Bush administration understands this, however, and is in turn waging their own undeclared (and undeclarable) “deep” war against Saudi Arabia. This too is a war waged unconventionally.
There is simply no instigating cause for retaliation against S.A. (not even a “smoking gun” link to Bin Laden) that would not be widely misinterpreted in the Muslim world as a “war against Islam”. The only tool readily available to an American administration is the festering discontent of S.A.'s lower classes – a rage and alienation that we can encourage through the promise of radical reforms taking root in their Islamic neighbors.
And so the democratic screw turns. Sweetheart inside-track deals for Halliburton & co. aside, the desperate mission in Gulf War II is democratization, and the Bush administration is fast-tracking it as surely as they know how.
This seemingly latest incarnation of Cold War domino theory is, if you will, a secularized eschatological vision in its own right, but it’s hardly Bush’s to claim. In fact, the instigation of radical reform in other countries by force of the American example is the guiding impetus – as radical and presumptive as it is – that has inspired the patriots and leaders of the United States since the earliest days of the American colonies. This is none other than the ecstatic “shining city on a hill” metaphor (taken out of storage after 9/11 and dusted off), and it encapsulates a traditional and uniquely American global outlook – with all its grand ambition, altruism, and hubris – that is now almost 400 years old. And if Bush’s grand ambitions for the Middle East should come to pass, this guiding vision will enjoy a renewed validation and yet another lease on life.
I don’t know what is in George W. Bush’s mind, but I did see that BBC report; and I believe it seriously exaggerated the numerical strength of fundamentalist Christianity in the United States. That report implied some 59% or so were ‘fundamentalist’. I would lower that to less than 20%…still an important number, but not enough to rule a theocracy.
I do think Bush is genuinely religious (he doesn’t just use religion to daub his image as many others politicians do). Jimmy Carter was also very devout, and a lot of people have forgetten how genuinely scary his religious views were to some people when he was a candidate. Since the 1920’s, presidential candidates had actively avoided overt religiosity . Of course Carter’s interpretation of a "social gospel’ made him incline to the left of center.
I don’t think Bush seriously believes the ‘end times’ are upon us, no more than any other Christian with genuine faith - who does keep in mind that the whole world, or our own lives, may potentially end at any time. I do think that the Christian right is a powerful segment of his domestic coalition, but even they express dissapointment in Bush (his stem cell “compromise”, his attempts to reach out to American Muslims, his refusal to declare an all out war on abortion rights, etc.). They merely see him as far better than a Democrat.
Yay for astorian.
Ditto for me too.
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Aya, just as I thought. More stuff and nonsense.
What kind of evidence could anyone provide? Bush may be stupid, but I don’t think even he would be stupid enough to make a public speech about it. Beyond that, or breaking into the White House and stealing his diary, I don’t think any “hard evidence” could be forthcoming.
Ah, so the point of the OP is empty speculation, then?
Look, there are several forms of “evidence” that one can provide, each with a corresponding probative value. One can use specific comments by the subject himself, recollections by others of specific comments, association with those holding specific views, etc. I’m sure you can think of others. In the overall scheme of things, providing “unnamed sources” has got to rank as the least legitimate.
NaSultainne, you did notice this is IMHO, and not Great Debates, right?
Actually, it’s now in MPSIMS, dontcha know? 
As to your point, which I presume is that largely uninformed humble opinions are not subject to the same level of evidentiary support, I agree. What bothers me is to see dopers reacting to such a minimal degree of any legitimate substantiation that we’re ever-so-close to mere conjecture. And what is that worth? We might as well just start making sh*t up whenever the board gets a little slow. Otherwise, let’s at least put a label on the OP stipulating that this is hardly more than another in the endless series of “What If” queries we use to occupy our downtime.
Do’h! Damn moderators making me a liar…
…provides the punchline to the joke:
how can you tell when your chief executive is getting too religious?
The Saudis. That’s sur-surreal.
I’d like to thank The Scrivener for an excellent and well written post. Let us all hope that the dim witted Shrub at least has advisers capable of sustaining this level of vision.
I too believe that the House of Saud is one of the most deadly enemies America has. Their country’s unique position as nexus of the Haj, combined with petro-wealth that files in thousands of Arabs each year, only to abandon them to “Islamofacist” (love that term!) Whabbist clerics, is a key issue affecting future global stability.
To those who mentioned Reagan; I’ll remind you that he was allowing an astrologer to influence some of his decisions.
sigh!
FLIES in thousands …
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zenster *
That he may be precipitating events in the Middle East in order [to] propagate his own vision of the “end times” is an unspeakable horror.
[QUOTE]
bolding mine
What a change in mindset! From W being the equivalent of the kamikaze fundie prez to “dim witted Shrub” manipulated by his advisors into a coherent, thoughtful, vision no less! of a foreign policy, courtesy of Zenster’s analysis.
Gee, thanks.
I’ll remind you that FDR and his wife also had personal astrologers, and at that, they’re still not in an exclusive club.
Oh, and The Scrivener, ditto on your post. Best summation of the guiding strategy of Bush and his admin.