microsoftly, so softly
Reading that Pollack article with my mildly skeptical eye produces a different result. Based on the fact that Bush met once with this group -- as I'm sure he meets with many many groups, some o them religious -- Pollack takes for granted his own invention that Bush contravened all international law and opinion on Israel? I would credit the many with an act of unqualified genius if he could contradict all opinion on Israel, because I recall it being somewhat distributed over an enormous spectrum, but that's just me, mister not-that-selective memory. As for international law, I think Pollack is confusing the UN with The Law, something that it isn't even in a qualified sense. Pollack takes for granted, without any evidence offered, a religious wingnut's claim that he's in daily contact with the White House. Come on? How many people would claim that just because they call there daily, or send emails? I'm on a GOP mailing list and I get emails from W all the time-- does that mean the White House is in weekly contact with me? I say yes, yes it does.

Pollack goes in with how Bush as been known to pray in the Oval Office. Big Whoop. And he uses biblical language to talk about foreign policy, to the chagrin a religious nut, who thinks it should be used only to refer to religious goings-on. Okay, but what does that have to do with Bush? First he's in bed with them, Next he's contaminating their faith.

And finally, lots of people are Praying for Bush. Pollack thinks that this sort of support for this evil evil president is untenable, and possibly evidence of pro-Bush bias (but he doesn't seem to go out on a limb, here). His advice: don't pray for Bush, or pray against Bush.

In Pollack's paranoia, it doesn't occur to him that religious people could be, as all other people are, regular people with their own agendas who act in support of them. Sure, they think they've got "their guy" in the White House, and maybe they think that makes them more Godly, but it sure as hell doesn't make their wackiness Bush's fault or doing, and vice versa. Those religious guys are crazy and wrong, and so here is Pollack, so I suppose he's in good company.

Kirk, you seemed pretty uncritical of the quoted passage when you say "The [] fact is a [] cult has control of the highest levels of our government." Pollack's best evidence of that is a deputy undersecretary of defense who preaches in evangelical churches. I'm sure there are numerous deputy undersecretaries of defense who engage in the usual spectrum of un-religious behavior, but I guess they don't reinforce Pollack's pre-conceived bias, so ou they go. (This page lists 3 deputy undersecretaries, not including Boykin (not listed), and 5 undersecretaries, so there're probably two more deputies) Pollack's second best shot, in the quoted passage, requires that you believe Bush changed his Israel policy because they told him to. That is why, I suppose, Bush is in favor of a frikken two-state solution? I'm sure the Apocalytics are apoplectic about a two-state solution, so even that claim doesn't make sense.
--LAN3 Thu Jun 17 11:04:58 2004
P.S. I'll get my own blog next time.
--LAN3 Thu Jun 17 11:05:38 2004
Hey LAN--
You make a good point that Pollack prolly overstates the case. But it does jive with hints I've seen hear and there...I've heard other points that suggest Bush sees "Left Behind" as a reliable prediction, and have you seen that stuff about Ashcroft and "annointing"?

My "the fact is" bit I stand by--not that the group claiming to have influence has that much influence, but I firmly believe Bush is a member of the large sect that has this scary apocalyptic viewpoint, and fundamentally I think that effects their ability to think in true LONG TERM good for the nation...short term as well
--Kirk Fri Jun 18 01:45:28 2004
Planning? Our administration plans?
--Mr. Lex Fri Jun 18 09:08:02 2004
Err, I think they kinda planned to invade Iraq from WAAAAY before 9/11, so in that sense, yes.
--Kirk Fri Jun 18 09:37:03 2004
I disagree strongly-- it's one thing to suggest that Bush is a member of a fundy sect that believes in the rapture, and yet another to suggest he's a full subscriber to the most extreme beliefs therein, and yet requires the sect, now a cult, to do his thinking for him.
--LAN3 Fri Jun 18 11:26:02 2004
Ok, I revised the copy, and made a note about the correction.
--Kirk Fri Jun 18 13:21:54 2004
I appreciate the change of language. There's probably a case to be made for the claim that Bush is a believer of these alarming beliefs -- and I agree that they're especially alarming if held by a person with Executive powers -- but IMO it's a weak case.
--LAN3 Fri Jun 18 17:05:43 2004

Comments Disabled... (Thanks Dirty Rotten Spammers)
Feel free to write kirkjerk at gmail dot com!