George W. Bush Killed Christianity In The Middle East.

Many conservatives see W. Bush as a better President than Obama.  But, Bush’s invasion of Iraq, instead of looking better through the lens of time, keeps looking worse.  He was not a person who pondered and reflected on possible consequences.  As he said himself, “I don’t do nuance.

Nuance would have served him well.  While Bush said he wanted democracy in Iraq, and there is some of that, other things have gotten worse.  One is treatment of the Christian faithful.

According to the link below, a member of the Catholic clergy with experience in Iraq pleaded with the Bush Administration not to invade.  He predicted anti Christian sentiment would be unleashed.  This has now come to pass.

Christians are now being chased out of several Middle East countries.  The irony is some Christian commentators are blaming President Obama for the plight of these Christians.

In fairness, we don’t know what would have been the fate of Christianity in Iraq or the other countries experiencing the “Arab Spring” without the Bush invasion.  Saddam, like all humans, would eventually have died and unexpected things might have followed.  We don’t even know the future of Islam.  We only know is Christianity was harmed by the invasion.

Christian leaders have had an apcolyptic view of Islam for a long time.  It is often claimed the Crusades, a Christian invasion of the Middle East, was a necessity to stop the spread of Islam.

Both the Crusades and invasion of Iraq remain mistakes by Christians.



54 Responses

  1. Brad

    Relying on Bush to represent Christianity abroad is like relying on Charles Manson to represent hippies.

    Bush is without any question the worst president in the history of the U.S., and one of the worst leaders of any democratic country in human history. That administration has caused more human misery and anguish than any other president I know of.

    Truthfully, I think most conservatives know this but won’t admit it. They desperately want Obama to be worse than Bush so they can feel a little better about the atrocity they committed by sending Bush to the Whitehouse.

    1. Coon Rapids Randy

      Actually, there is a three way tie for worst. Obama, Carter, and Woodrow Wilson. That makes W 4th worst.

      1. Brad

        Obama inherited the Bush catastrophes, and then you conservatives proceeded to blame him for the entire mess. That’s all you people can do when you refuse to accept responsibility for your own atrocities.

        Obama’s main problem is that he caves into defective Republican ideas too much. He has proven one thing – Republican ideas are failures even when Democrats implement them.

        1. Coon Rapids Randy

          Caves into defective Republican ideas. Are you serious?
          The Republicans are some of the most wishy washy politicians out there. They also only hold 1/3 of political power in the US, The senate and president are democratically held. They don’t have the power you claim. 5 years has gone by and its STILL Bushes fault? Come on. Lets not forget that his first two years in office Obama had a Democratic house and senate. It was because of that the Republicans won the house. To try and stop the bleeding of our wrecked economy and the usurpation of power from the people.

          1. Coon Rapids Randy 7:42 We all complain about the other party’s President, and, that of our own. In the case of W. Bush, he sent troops into two countries without a way to get out. He had information that weapons of mass destruction were probably not there. Of course, he had other information that they were there, from one source who had a history of not being truthful.

            Now, all Presidents, and the rest of us, make mistakes. But when Presidents are intellectually lazy and many thousands of lives are lost because of it, and the mistakes cost all of us trillions of dollars, we as good citizens should not defend them.

          2. Brad

            The Democrats have caved in on just about every Republican idea there is. The healthcare bill is essentially a recycled Republican plan from the 1990s. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts up until the beginning of this year, and he has had other tax cut such as the payroll holiday.

            You see, the Democrats are gutless spineless corporate boot-looking weasels (with a few exceptions). Their ideas are mostly rehashed Republican ideas from the past, and today’s Republicans label these failed ideas as “socialism” because they aren’t working and Republicans need to deceive people into thinking they are Democratic ideas because they want to win elections.

        1. Henry

          Carter had the wisdom to initiate an ineffective grain embargo, which devastated the US farm economy for a couple of decades. In essence with his wisdom, he created competing markets for the American farmer. $1.50 wheat and $1.00 barley anyone? I threshed quite a bit of this during the global warming period of the 80’s when the climate was drier than a bone.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            Yes. We sold the wheat to the Russians at a reduced rate, so they could sell it to the Chinese at a good profit. Farmers lost out, the Russians made the $ $ $. If it hadn’t been the “Prince of Peace” Ayatollah Khomeini, Carter may have won his 2nd term. or maby not. At least it was a deal breaker for his 2nd term.

          2. entech

            Interesting to see how American farming gets on without being subsidised to the hilt. Have you any idea how animosity was directed toward U.S.A. and France for supporting their pathetic and inefficient farming.
            A couple of others with some semblance of reasonableness, Japan tries hard to protect its home rice industry, on the other hand Haiti was at one time self sufficient in rice _ great stuff American tax payers supporting the collapse of Haitian farming.

    1. entech

      What is the point of a resolution if the consequences have already been determined. Hussein was full of loud mouth bravado, he should have been flattened the first time around when world support was there. His big mistake was in thinking Bush was full of talk like himself, could have been right ,but badly underestimated the boys in the backroom pushing from behind.

      I may be wrong but I do remember the impression in the Australian public was that the decision had been made long before, and not only the public, the government forces were cocked and loaded for a long time before hand as well.

  2. Michael Ross

    “Both the Crusades and invasion of Iraq remain mistakes by Christians.”

    Couldn’t agree with you more, Jon. The Christians of the middle ages didn’t have the Bible, only the clergy and nobility did. Therefore they are less accountable than the Christians today that support all these idiotic wars in the name of Christ. We don’t promote God’s Kingdom on earth at the point of a sword or cruise missile.

    “‘Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,’ says the LORD of hosts.” (Zachariah 4:6)

    “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace” (Galatians 5:22)

    Also it is little known that 800,000 Iraqi Christians practiced their faith openly under Saddam Hussein. Not so in some other Muslim countries such as our good friend and ally, Saudi Arabia. Now they fear for their lives and many have fled the country under the puppet regime we have left in place. The media didn’t want American Christians to know that because Bush needed evangelical support for his war.

    1. entech

      In Jerusalem before the final crusades Muslims/Jews and Christians were working and living in harmony, not good enough for the zealots from Europe, kill then all.
      Similarly in Toledo, the troops that came from North Africa were pretty new converts and like the crusaders filled with zealotry, on finding a good working relationship they attacked all sides, they were supposed to be protecting the Muslims from Ferdinand and Isabella.

      It seems that ordinary people can get along but their “leaders” don’t like the idea.

    2. Coon Rapids Randy

      “Idiotic wars in the name of Christ”
      America didn’t invade Iraq in the name of Christ. America was attacked and was looking for a villain. Hussein lied about WMD and America believed him. Pretty stupid on Hussein’s part. El Qaida wasn’t even a force in Iraq. Was the invasion of Iraq misguided? Yep! Afghanistan also, not in the name of Christ. The American military purposely does not advance Christianity so as not upset the balance of power in the area (politics/strange bedfellows)

      1. Randy 4:23 “America didn’t invade Iraq in the name of Christ.”

        I looked up several of Bush’s quotes about why we invaded Iraq. There were 3 or 4 in the nature of ‘God is on our side’, ‘God is not nuetral in this war,’ etc. I wouldn’t conclude it was done simply “in the name of Christ”. It’s that god had smiled on their leadership. Bush and his people thought they had been Afghanistan they were brilliant in such matters and could not possibly be wrong.

        It’s not that there were not dissenting voices. They were there, just dissregarded.

      2. Michael Ross

        CRR – America is a covenant-founded nation, the most Christian influenced in history. Everything we do, we do in the name of Christ. We may not intend to do it in His name. We may not know we do it in His name. The rest of the world knows it and we have so bloodied the name of Christ with all out bombing, murdering, maiming, torturing, invading, occupying, and nation building that the world laughs at American Christians when we call our Lord the”Prince of Peace”.

        1. entech

          There has been more blood shed in the name of the prince of peace than any kingdom this world has know.
          Hugh Montefiore Anglican Bishop.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            well, if you subtract the Mongol invasion, the antagonists in WWI, WWII, The Korean “conflict”,and Viet Nam…..Even all the Muslim agression into Spain, Eastern Europe, and all around the world today, the Prince of Peace isn’t a priority in Islam. “To submit” to the will of God, (not in the sense of the “prince of peace” is. Could give more. The key word here is “antagonist”. The reaction or defense against such agression is what it is. If the “Name of the Prince of Peace” is then invoked, so be it. Even the conquest of the Americas was for gold, land, property for the King/ Queen, or personal gain/greed. The name of the “Prince of Peace” was only a sales gymnic. I will give you that some of the cannon fodder bought into it, but they were the result, not the cause. European colonialism was for goods, money, and land. And to compete with their neighbors in Europe. Again “the prince of peace” was only a marketing tool. I think you give way too much credit to “The Prince of Peace” in all this.

          2. Wanna B Sure

            Unless of course, one chooses not to defend oneself, gives up, and rolls over and exposes his soft tender under belly to the next non-follower of “The Prince of Peace”. Sushi or goat eyes anyone? (That’s a metaphore folks).

          3. Wanna B Sure

            A saying reportedly said on the British Isles. “God save us from the Vikings”. Well then, you should have just given up and let them have their way.

          4. Wanna B Sure

            And—-That reminds me of Prime Minister Jelly Fish himself. Mr. “Peace in our time.”. The UK’s equivilent to our Jimmy Carter. Guess that didn’t work out too well for him. The thought was good, reality wasn’t.

          5. entech

            Don’t get on at me, I am only quoting a Christian minister, one who converted from Judaism and reached a high position.

            Four ranting and raving things in 15 minutes is that a record? Look, drink your chamomile tea slowly, think carefully and you will get it all in one go. Then if you drink more tea and meditate for a while and then read what you have written you will find it easy to press the delete button instead of the send. 🙁

            A furore Normannorum libera nos, Domine” fascinating when you read a bit of history, the northmen sacked Lindisfarne, the Holy Island, and settled in Britain until they were practically absorbed into the population. The same northmen and Englishmen are now essentially all non-believers and you area are mostly religious extremists from the same background.
            Incidentally it is Scandavian fish dishes that are more like semi-decomposed jelly, kippers, although very tasty from the smoking are actually very firm and quite dry, they need to be fried in butter to make them delicious.

          6. entech

            I should check before posting, you added another bit of gratuitous insult.

            That is five in a row, I think it relates to something called attention deficit.

          7. Wanna B Sure

            Actually, the snippits are so they are easily understood, and each tender morsel is not lost. Nothing aimed at you personally. I’ve heard the blame cast onto the prince of peace before. What the situation is now in Europe/ England was not a thought in the 12th century. As for the camomile, I grow my own, and have a whole quart of dried blossome in my herb shelf, and enjoy it with a little raw honey, thank you. There is just so much material over such a long period of time to cover even in short comments. Even with all that, I’m afraid you may have missed the larger point. I don’t think Jimmy carter thought the Ayatollah khomeini was the Prince of Peace, nor PM Jellyfish thought Adolph was either. I don’t suspect the Mongols thought the Kahns were the “Prince of Peace either.

          8. entech

            Fascinating the ways this has developed, I made a simple comment in support (I hope he thinks it was) of Michael’s post. In answer I get some diatribe from you, feel free a public forum. I appreciate the fact fact that you can only think in snippets so as to avoid losing what you consider to be morsels, I have commented before on how sad it is to see the deterioration.

            The very pointed remarks about my country of birth was Not personal? Pray tell me why else you would find derogatory things to say. Actually Chamberlain is reviled and a laughing stock in England.

          9. entech

            Henry, you keep saying that, I am surprised that you keep admitting it. You are usually so circumspect about you true feelings.

          10. Wanna B Sure

            The mere fact that Chamberlain is reviled there is validation of my opinion. Why would you think I have centered on the UK just to be mean? History is history wherever it may apply, and comments go where history is relevent. If I have used the UK as an example, it is because you would be more familiar with it, and relate to it more than some obscure place on the planet. Again, the “snippits” are for your benefit, as you seem to miss some of the fine points in a longer multi- paragraphed post. . So, now who has the ADD. It would appear to be you.

          11. entech

            Why do I think you are making attempts to be mean History is history. The history is that it is very rare that you can go for any length of time without getting personal, you once brought my wife and mother into it, for which you will never be forgiven.
            Make you a deal – I will try and ignore you and PLEASE,PLEASE, return the favour.

          12. Wanna B Sure

            No—Not as long as you make false statements, out of context comments or present distortions. Need a tissue?

        2. entech

          2:19 pm Only problem with that is that anything you or Henry or one of your buddies doesn’t agree with can come under one or other of those things.

          Goodnight, long day tomorrow.

  3. Wanna B Sure

    Can’t remember all the facts, but didn’t Bush Sr, get beat up/double crossed by Sadam, and Jr. did a not well thought out “get even” with the resulting unintended consequences? Hussain was not much more than a Chichago gangster who kept the lid on tribal/ Sunni/Shia differences that presented a theocratic threat with not too kind practices. It appears that the Christians were not a theocratic threat. Hussain’s cheif spokesman was a Christian. Once Hussain was gone, all the tribal animosities came to the fore with even more cause to continue the conflict. The Christians were caught in the middle. Somewhat similar to what happened to the Palestinian Christians in Israel. Essentially the same situation exists in Egypt after Mubarak has been ousted, without a US invasion. Only there the fundamentalist Muslims are more centrally organized, with connections in the surrounding countries, and not quite so tribal.

    1. entech

      Much the way I remember it, slightly different but not much, at the end of Kuwait there were some who wanted to follow him and end it all. Bush senior was not keen on the idea, I read somewhere that he opined that “they will bury us in the desert”, but instead made agreements for good behaviour which was where he was double crossed, draining marshes and attacking the Kurds.

      One of the vulgarisms going around was that Junior wanted to prove he had bigger cojones than senior, who knows?

    2. Wanna 2;12 re: Hussain’s chief spokesman was a Christian

      I was proud of my aging brain that I could remember enough of his name to find him on Wiki, Tariq Aziz. I remember it as ironic he shared the same religion as our country, lived in the U. S. as UN Ambassador, but ended up in our Iraq prison as a very sick man, part of the Bath party. He died in 2003 it says.

      1. Wanna B Sure

        Yes. Interesting to note that authentic Christianity can thrive under/within individuals of any government world wide. The problem comes when power hungry individuals or groups of individuals use Christianity as a tool to controll polically in the form of, or even a loose form of theocracy. Even worse yet is to use Christianity as a political excuse, or validation, as in the case of the Crusades. On the other hand, the understanding of government/ state during the time of the Middle Ages was far different from our modern understanding of democracy or other isms. To do something politically, as in the example of international intrigue is one thing, to incorporate Christianity,( or any other religion for that matter) into the state/political realm is inexcusable.

        1. Wanna B Sure

          To continue… As in the case of dispensationalism thrown into the mix of apocolypticism in the Middle East, (Israel). A generally unspoken factor of almost all our recent presidents, with the exception of Kennedy.

          1. Wanna B Sure

            “with exception of Kennedy”—–Because Catholics among others are not dispensational /premillenial/pre-trib/, AKA Christian Zionists. ” Hurrying the coming of the Lord” with a landing pad on the Mount of Olives, and a re-built Temple on Temple Mount in Jerusalem.

    3. Henry

      Wanna:“Can’t remember all the facts, but didn’t Bush Sr, get beat up/double crossed by Sadam, and Jr. did a not well thought out “get even” with the resulting unintended consequences?”

      I believe that speculation concerning the Bush family is probably true. I am shuddering at the fact that Jeb is advancing himself. The political capital of the Bush legacy in my opinion is spent, and the republicans should find someone else and not have an unwinnable candidate cloud the election. It will be difficult enough with the “47%’ers”, a formidable force of card carrying EBT’ers.

  4. Henry

    Jon:“While Bush said he wanted democracy in Iraq,”

    I shuddered every time I heard him stump for democracy in the Moslem countries. Terrible decision. Now, we have/had Obamba continuing this tragedy, getting rid of rulers that kept the radical nature of Islam under control…..Mubarack, Kadofie.

    1. entech

      Oh yes Henry, why don’t you get rid of Obama and put some one in who will keep the {insert whoever you don’t like here, gays, JWs, other denominations} under control. Just remember Hitler started with the Jews but he had a very long list waiting its turn. You could find yourself on someones list without knowing it.

      1. Henry

        entech:“You could find yourself on someones list without knowing it.”

        Probably am on a list already. Just reported was the IRS targeting conservatives indiscriminately. Then they blame it on “overzealous junior employees”. Yeah right.

  5. Henry

    Jon:“Christians are now being chased out of several Middle East countries.”

    That trend happened prior to the Bushes. Weak-kneed Cartar with pee running down his leg sent the strong message to the Moslem that we are a paper tiger to be taken advantage of.

    1. Henry 10:29 “…we are a paper tiger…”

      One thing where Obama seems better than the last many Presidents is his willingness to go against the flow, that is the flow of the usual White House and Pentagon people. The link below is a long read but it gives a nice background of what he is up against staying out of Syria. As I would paraphrase it, he is asking whether more people will die because of its dictator or more will die because we go in and all the factions start fighting one another. I suppose there is no way of knowing for sure, but I’m glad he at least ponders the question.

      1. Henry

        Jon:“One thing where Obama seems better than the last many Presidents is his willingness to go against the flow,”

        What would that look like? Obamba flying Air Farce One against the jet stream burning taxpayer/climate changing fuel on his way to a distant golf course?

  6. Wanna B Sure

    May 9; CP World: Alex Murashko; “Islam expert warns Christianity may completely disappear from Iraq, Afganistan, Egypt”. A little different take from Jon’s source. Worth noting.

  7. Wolfy32

    So, who actually believes that the invasion of Iraq was for WMDs or religious purposes?

    I’m amazed that this thread has turned into a religious backed invasion. Really?

    1. Wanna B Sure

      It would be a stretch to call the Bath party, (Sadam Hussain) a religious movement, hence not a religious motivated/ backed invasion. In actuality Sadam kept the lid on the Islamic radicals, or anyone who was a threat to his regime for that matter. Had he not threatened WMD’s, intimated he had them, or used them against the Kurds, he could have died of old age. He bluffed/ manipulated himself into a spider hole. In Afganistan however, the Taliban, in conjunction with Bin Laden was a religious movement. It would be fair to call the action in Afganistan a political action against stated radical religious expansion, which of course included brutality to women, children, educators, and anyone not so disposed.

Comments are closed.