A couple of days back this Metafilter post linked to a piece by Clive Hamilton in Counterpunch about Bush's supposed biblical inspiration for the invasion of Iraq:

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them."

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

"This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins".

The story of the conversation emerged only because the Elyse [sic] Palace, baffled by Bush's words, sought advice from Thomas Romer, a professor of theology at the University of Lausanne. Four years later, Romer gave an account in the September 2007 issue of the university's review, Allez savoir. The article apparently went unnoticed, although it was referred to in a French newspaper.

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on "a mission from God" in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

There can be little doubt now that President Bush's reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam's Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.

Many thousands of Americans and Iraqis have died in the campaign to defeat Gog and Magog. That the US President saw himself as the vehicle of God whose duty was to prevent the Apocalypse can only inflame suspicions across the Middle East that the United States is on a crusade against Islam.

There is a curious coda to this story. While a senior at Yale University George W. Bush was a member of the exclusive and secretive Skull & Bones society. His father, George H.W. Bush had also been a "Bonesman", as indeed had his father. Skull & Bones' initiates are assigned or take on nicknames. And what was George Bush Senior's nickname? "Magog".

Good stuff, eh?…especially that last "curious coda". 

Naturally enough, given their general hatred of Bush, this was for most Metafilter commenters no surprise at all; merely confirmation of what they'd known all along. One commenter was sceptical:

This is a pretty thin post- an allegation by a journalist from a corrupt ex-president of an at least slightly hostile nation (who was personally involved in the nuclear arms programs of the regime in question), reported in counterpunch and a palestinian propaganda site.

While I'm certainly willing to agree that Bush has a core of religious belief that informed his thinking, it seems a bit of a stretch to tie him into some mysterious christian doomsday cult, at least on the strength of this "evidence"…

but he was quickly squashed – "You really think Chirac is lying?"

Personally the whole story strikes me as absurd. If Chirac had confirmed that Bush spoke to him in these apocalyptic terms, then I'd say, yes absolutely, he's lying. Which is more likely: that Bush, desperately trying to win over the French, and knowing them to be unsympathetic to any plans involving the overthrow of Saddam, as well as being perhaps the most determinedly secular society in Europe, takes the opportunity to launch into some swivel-eyed rant about Gog and Magog, all the while keeping these fantasies hidden from everyone else? Or that this story emerges now because it fits the tales so many people like to tell themselves about Bush – as the self-serving Chirac no doubt realises? 

But has Chirac, in fact, confirmed? Journalist Jean Claude Maurice has said that Chirac's confirmed, but the book's title, Si vous le répétez, je démentirai – "If you repeat this, I'll deny it" – rather gives the game away as to what we're dealing with here. The author's pretty much given himself carte blanche to write what he likes. I don't know the reputation of M. Maurice, but I'd suggest that this is not journalism at its finest.

I wasn't going to post about this nonsense, but now I see that the National Secular Society are taking it seriously, with a post under the heading, A holy mission: is this the real reason Blair went to war in Iraq?

In 2003, nearly a million people demonstrated in the streets of London in protest against Tony Blair’s intention to involve Britain in George W. Bush’s “War on Terror” – and specifically to launch an invasion of Iraq. It has remained a mystery as to why, in the face of this unprecedented display of public anger, Blair went ahead with the war anyway.

One suspicion was that Blair, the Christian, shared George W. Bush’s belief that this was a “holy mission”, a fulfilment of Biblical prophecy.

More evidence for that explanation is beginning to emerge. First a new book by John Burton, who was Tony Blair’s political agent for 24 years and some say his mentor. The book is entitled We Don’t Do God: Blair’s religious beliefs and its consequences. “It was Alastair Campbell who said ‘We don’t do God’ – but we did. Tony did God all the time,” Mr Burton told the Northern Echo newspaper.

This much we already knew, But Mr Burton reveals for the first time the full extent of Blair’s obsession with religion. He says that religion gave Blair a “total belief in what’s right and what’s wrong”, leading him to see the so-called War on Terror as “a moral cause”.
Put this together with the alliance Blair made with George W. Bush and the evidence mounts, because now we have further confirmation that George W. Bush regarded his invasion of Iraq as a biblical necessity.

According to a book by the former French president Jacques Chirac, Bush approached him in 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the “Coalition of the Willing”.

Bush told Chirac that the Biblical cr
eatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated. (In Genesis and Ezekiel, Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy: “And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”)

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac: “This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”. 

I generally support the NSS, but I think their desire in this case for a good anti-Christian morality tale has rather led them astray. 

It's depressing to think that, for a considerable section of their audience, the decision to overthrow Saddam is now so inexplicable that they can only make sense of it by assuming Bush and Blair to have been driven by religious mania. Nothing about the breaking of UN resolutions, the invasion of Kuwait, the Kurdish genocide, the WMD ambitions (which have now been reduced to a mere fairy tale concocted by wicked neo-cons), the reign of terror under the dreaded mukhabarat, the UN oil-for-food scandal, the psychopathic sons waiting in the wings to set up a dynasty that would have made North Korea's Kims look like models of human decency. All forgotten now in favour of a simple story of apocalyptic nutters.

And of course this tale of a new crusade, of the Christian West once again attacking Islam, is precisely the story that Islamists are using to justify their violence. In Iraq, thank goodness, the worst seems to be over, but I doubt that it is in Afghanistan – or elsewhere. By propagating these myths the NSS are giving ammunition to the worst kinds of religious extremists.
Posted in

5 responses to “Gog and Magog”

  1. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    I know next-to-nothing about American fundamentalists. On the other hand, I do get the impression that lots of other people who know next-to-nothing about them either are preaching hatred of them.

    Like

  2. Dom Avatar
    Dom

    Each year, one member of Skull and Bones is given the name Magog, after some sort of juvenile (but harmless) story of sexual exploits. It has no religious significance.
    I know one fundamentalist. He bores me with his preaching, but the story of Gog and Magog never comes up. It is not important to them.
    The Bush administration was far too religious for my liking. Dich Cheney, apparently, quoted the Bible on his memos. But I don’t see this level of religious stupidity, and you’re right, to mention it to the French would have been seen as wrong-headed.
    I’m a little suspicious that the French alone seem to have heard this story. During the hostage crisis it was Giscard d’Estaing (and only him) who heard Carter say that American diplomats were better (or words to that effect) that other diplomats.

    Like

  3. No Good Boyo Avatar

    As for the “Palestinian foreign minister” canard, here’s what Mahmoud Abbas had to say about it (via Associated Press):
    Abbas denies Bush’s ‘mission from God’ remark
    AP 8 October 2008
    Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has denied an account by another Palestinian official of a meeting with US President George Bush in which Bush is cited as saying he believed that God told him to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    A statement in Abbas’s name released by his office said an excerpt from an interview with Palestinian Information Minister Nabil Shaath due to be broadcast by the BBC in which Shaath described a meeting with Bush in June 2003 gave a “completely false” account.
    In the interview for the series, Israel and the Arabs, Shaath described the meeting, at which he said Abbas was present.
    “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I’m driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, ‘George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.’ And I did. And then God would tell me, ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq.’ And I did,’” Shaath said.
    “This report is not true,” the Abbas statement said today. “I have never heard President Bush talking about religion as a reason behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush has never mentioned that in front of me on any occasion and specifically not during my visit in 2003.”
    Shaath could not be reached for comment.
    http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/abbas-denies-bushs-mission-from-god-remark/2005/10/08/1128563027485.html

    Like

  4. DaninVan Avatar
    DaninVan

    Mind boggling when Mahmoud Abbas can be held up as a modern day Diogenes.
    Liars lying about liars lying…

    Like

  5. Jim Miller Avatar

    A clarification: Bush is not a “fundamentalist”, though he could be considered an “evangelical”. He is, as far as one can tell, a fairly conventional Methodist, just as his father is a fairly conventional Episcopalian.
    Of course you are right to think this story absurd.
    Oh, and one other much-neglected point: Saddam had agreed to a truce after the first Gulf War and was violating it regularly. Among other things, he was shooting at American planes. (And, if I recall correctly, had offered his anti-aircraft personnel a big prize if they actually hit one. So we were at war with Saddam. The only question was whether we wanted to win it, keep the status quo, or pull back and hope he would then honor the truce. None of the three were great choices

    Like

Leave a comment