• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Rumsfeld covered Iraq briefing papers with Biblical texts

justone said:
Of course, I cannot dare to see those SECRET papers and the notes and the pictures.

No.


No way.

Not even a glance.


Not even a photoshop.


I just have to believe.

Can somebody post at least Photoshop pictures with Photoshop Scriptures on/under/above them?

can it be moved to Conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...
What? :confused:
 
I personally believe that Rummy should have superimposed a huge explosion onto the cover pages and quoted Anton LeVey, maybe something like "Are we not all predatory animals by instinct? If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they continue to exist?” - The Satanic Bible, page 25.

Or maybe even a pentagram with Slayer gathered around a table eating a cherub, with the quote "The Devil has always had the best tunes.” - The Satanic Bible, page 49.

I'm not sure it would have made a huge difference, but it would have been a lot more kick-ass!
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
The Old Testament God loved the Bush Administration. The New Testament God will send the lot of them to Hell.
Click to expand...
Seeing as how they are one and the same God, said Deity will very likely send a great many of us to Hell.

Pity none of us has a clue whom will be so sent and whom will be spared.
 
EgoffTib said:
What? :confused:
Click to expand...
What? :confused:
This is another proof that atheists do not understand simple sentences.

The OP states
danarhea said:
But pictures annotated with biblical text are going to give America a black eye because it gives an appearance that it was otherwise.
Click to expand...

I ask: - May I see the pictures annotated with biblical text before I believe they exist? Can somebody post them, link to them?

I guess, it would never come to an atheistic mind that somebody can ask to see things in order to believe that they exist.
 
justone said:
What? :confused:
This is another proof that atheists do not understand simple sentences.

The OP states

I ask: - May I see the pictures annotated with biblical text before I believe they exist? Can somebody post them, link to them?

I guess, it would never come to an atheistic mind that somebody can ask to see things in order to believe that they exist.
Click to expand...
I'll assume that English is your second language. Your sentences are far from clear and concise.
 
WillRockwell said:
The Iraq war was suposedly fought because Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States. Now we see these little passages, cherry-picked from the Bible to synchronize with the actions of our military. The obvious appearance is that we are fighting a "holy war". It looks a lot like the Crusades. It is not what was sold to the American people. It is wrong. It is further proof that the previous administration violated their oaths of office and misused the armed forces. We must understand how these people did these things so it can never happen again.
Click to expand...

The war in Iraq was waged to secure oil and global economic assets. The data was misrepresented to get public support, it was never the actual reason for going to war.
 
celticlord said:
Seeing as how they are one and the same God, said Deity will very likely send a great many of us to Hell.

Pity none of us has a clue whom will be so sent and whom will be spared.
Click to expand...

They are not. The OT god is a petty, vindictive god who uses murder, brutality and suffering to impose his will upon mankind. Contrast that to the loving, peaceful God of the NT. They're definitely two totally different beings.

BTW, everyone goes to Hell except Mormons. You need to watch South Park more often. They have the answers to life's burning questions ;)
 
Bush said at least on one occasion that doing God's work was part of his foreign policy and his everyday life. That's a bad start when you're about to invade a country full of people who are being told that Christians want to convert them/kill them etc. That people like Rumsfeld would be as bold as to give them any kind of proof, however weak, that they were right does not surprise me. He is the same retarded **** who thought he knew more about war then General Shinseki & Colin Powell.
 
Everyone here knows how I feel about the Bush administration and the invasion of Iraq, so this may come as a shock to some of you.

I really don't care that Rumsfeld did this. You know, many great military leaders of the past (and no, Rumsfeld is NOT one of them, he's a tool in my opinion) have used Biblical verse and prayer to inspire troops and lift morale. Historically it's been a good thing for the most part. It's not like he was crafting actual policy based upon scripture.

And if Rumsfeld felt like adorning his papers with scripture...meh, no biggie. I'm okay with that.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
The war in Iraq was waged to secure oil and global economic assets. The data was misrepresented to get public support, it was never the actual reason for going to war.
Click to expand...


That's why I used the word "supposedly". I am glad to see a conservative admit the real reason for the war. However, the Bush administration was so incompetent that even with their phony war they couldn't secure Iraq's oil and global economic assets.
 
Was wondering when this hit these boards.. not exactly breaking news as it has been on the news over here for about a week now.

But disgusting frankly but not surprising. I remember the oproar around the world when Bush stupidly said "crusade" in context with the situation in the area.. at least he learned from that some what. However this is on the same epic stupidity and is nothing but more fuel to the fire and "proof" for the enemy to the undecided that they are right and we are not. More fuel to the "war on islam" stuff that has driven so many muslim men and women to the ranks of the radicals....
 
PeteEU said:
Was wondering when this hit these boards.. not exactly breaking news as it has been on the news over here for about a week now.

But disgusting frankly but not surprising. I remember the oproar around the world when Bush stupidly said "crusade" in context with the situation in the area.. at least he learned from that some what. However this is on the same epic stupidity and is nothing but more fuel to the fire and "proof" for the enemy to the undecided that they are right and we are not. More fuel to the "war on islam" stuff that has driven so many muslim men and women to the ranks of the radicals....
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't help at all, but in my mind, our radical Muslim enemies already believe this to be a Christian war on Islam.
 
celticlord said:
Seeing as how they are one and the same God, said Deity will very likely send a great many of us to Hell.

Pity none of us has a clue whom will be so sent and whom will be spared.
Click to expand...

If you read Marcion, he makes a credible argument that the OT god is a vengeful bastard from the getgo, the NT god is very much the opposite, a kind and loving god, but not without the inclination to administer justice to corrupt leaders. His writings more than implied that both gods are known to us by interpretations of man. The catholic church destroyed all his writings, but arguments against marcion by pro-catholic priests give us a clue as to what he wrote.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
They are not. The OT god is a petty, vindictive god who uses murder, brutality and suffering to impose his will upon mankind. Contrast that to the loving, peaceful God of the NT. They're definitely two totally different beings.

BTW, everyone goes to Hell except Mormons. You need to watch South Park more often. They have the answers to life's burning questions ;)
Click to expand...

Mormons don't teach that, according to what I hear, many who claim to be righteous are actually money grubbing hypocrites and will burn, many who quietly do good christian work without benefit of organized religion will be among the "chosen".
Bush's handlers, IMO, most certainly manipulated the simpleton and took care of unfinished business from his daddy's administration....
 
Jerry said:
The war in Iraq was waged to secure oil and global economic assets. The data was misrepresented to get public support, it was never the actual reason for going to war.
Click to expand...

And you have some proof of this, right? I know this has been our reason for getting politically involved in the middle east for generations but, this time... please. This may have been discussed among the Bush admin but, it was not the #1 reason to invade Iraq. Where was any plan to secure those assets? Where was any plan to share in the wealth of those oil reserves?

Here's what Bush was talking about "before" he was gifted the Presidency:

Condi Rice on Sunday denied allegations by former CIA director George Tenet that Bush came into office determined to have a war against Iraq. This is the interview by Wolf Blitzer of CNN:

QUESTION: Because you remember Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury Secretary, where he wrote in his first book, The Price of Loyalty with Ron Suskind, and what Ron Suskind later wrote in his own book, The One Percent Solution, that the Bush Administration came in with a mindset to deal with what they called unfinished business with Saddam Hussein.

SECRETARY RICE: That is simply not true. The President came in looking at a variety of threats. We then had the September 11th events. The September 11th events led to a kind of reassessment of what the threats were. But in the entire period after the President became President, he was trying to put together an international coalition that could deal with Iraq, first by smart sanctions, smarter no-fly zones, then by challenging Saddam Hussein before the Security Council to meet the just demands of the Security Council, and ultimately by having to use military force. But this was an evolution of policy over a long period of time. Of course the President came in concerned about Iraq. President Clinton had used military force against Iraq in 1998. We had gone to war against Iraq in 1991. But the idea that the President had made up his mind when he came to office that he was going to go to war against Iraq is just flat wrong. '


But here is what Bush's ghost writer Mickey Herskowitz reports Bush saying during an interview when Bush was still governor of Texas in the late 1990s:

' “He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade….if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.” '


So that was 1999.

Then we have this account from May, 2000, by journalist Osama Siblani, who met with Bush in Troy, Michigan when he was campaigning for the Republican nomination:

' OSAMA SIBLANI: I met with the President, and he wanted to go to Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, and he considered the regime an imminent and gathering threat against the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: You met with the President of the United States?

OSAMA SIBLANI: Yes, when he was running for election in May of 2000 when he was a governor. He told me just straight to my face, among 12 or maybe 13 republicans at that time here in Michigan at the hotel. I think it was on May 17, 2000, even before he became the nominee for the Republicans. He told me that he was going to take him out, when we talked about Saddam Hussein in Iraq. . .

And then he said, ‘We have to talk about it later.’ But at that time he was not privy to any intelligence, and the democrats had occupied the White House for the previous eight years. So, he was not privy to any intelligence whatsoever. He was not the official nominee of the Republican Party, so he didn't know what kind of situation the weapons of mass destruction was at that time. '


Then let us come to January, 2001, when the Supreme Court had installed Bush in power. Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill wrote in his memoirs of the very first Bush cabinet meeting:

'"The hour almost up, Bush had assignments for everyone ... Rumsfeld and [Joint Chiefs chair Gen. H. Hugh] Shelton, he said, 'should examine our military options.' That included rebuilding the military coalition from the 1991 Gulf War, examining 'how it might look' to use U.S. ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq ... Ten days in, and it was about Iraq."


O'Neill specifically said that Bush instructed Rumsfeld to look at military options and how it might look to use US ground forces in the north and the south of Iraq.

How much clearer could it be that Tenet is absolutely right that there was never any serious debate about the merits of 'taking out Saddam' in Bush's inner circle?

For more evidence that the fix was in with regard to Bush and action against Iraq, see my "The Lies that Led to War" in Salon.com.
Click to expand...
Informed Comment

Now I know you pride yourself as a "true debater" so, please don't resort to that kindergarten response of killing the messenger.
 
PeteEU said:
But disgusting frankly but not surprising. I remember the oproar around the world when Bush stupidly said "crusade" in context with the situation in the area.. at least he learned from that some what. However this is on the same epic stupidity and is nothing but more fuel to the fire and "proof" for the enemy to the undecided that they are right and we are not. More fuel to the "war on islam" stuff that has driven so many muslim men and women to the ranks of the radicals....
Click to expand...

I think it is important to note that these where internal memos, not intended for public distribution. So, as much as I would love an extra chance to say Rumsfeld screwed up, I can't actually see that this even qualifies as stupid.
 
Redress said:
I think it is important to note that these where internal memos, not intended for public distribution. So, as much as I would love an extra chance to say Rumsfeld screwed up, I can't actually see that this even qualifies as stupid.
Click to expand...

Yes they were internal memos but they were government internal memos and no religious crap should be in official government internal or external communications. It is showing a favouritism towards a religion period. It is also as I stated another example of the Bush administration almost going out of its way to piss off the Muslim world.
 
PeteEU said:
Yes they were internal memos but they were government internal memos and no religious crap should be in official government internal or external communications. It is showing a favouritism towards a religion period. It is also as I stated another example of the Bush administration almost going out of its way to piss off the Muslim world.
Click to expand...

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree kinda thing. I am vehemently opposed to government involvement in religion in any way, but this really does not seem like that so much. I mean, we are not talking about laying out policy, more status reports as I understand it.
 
WillRockwell said:
The Iraq war was suposedly fought because Saddam Hussein posed an "imminent threat" to the security of the United States. Now we see these little passages, cherry-picked from the Bible to synchronize with the actions of our military. The obvious appearance is that we are fighting a "holy war". It looks a lot like the Crusades. It is not what was sold to the American people. It is wrong. It is further proof that the previous administration violated their oaths of office and misused the armed forces. We must understand how these people did these things so it can never happen again.
Click to expand...

Will, this statement is ludicrous. While I agree there was cherry picking going on, it wasn't from the bible. The only people who will view this issue as giving the invasion of Iraq an appearance of a holy war are people who already view it as a holy war.

I have to go with Jerry on this one in a round about way. The war in Iraq was about establishing a U.S. sphere of influence in a resource rich geographic area of the middle east. Or as it was put in the PNAC, "Secure and expand zones of democratic peace." Bush had Iraq on the brain, and in the days after Sept. 11th he saw an opportunity to justify a strategy his closest advisers had been working on for years.
 
Last edited:
I do think it was inappropriate for bible quotes to be placed (even if they were just stickies) on memos, etc.

Even in the government workplace there are standards that religious statements should not be distributed among others on documents.

However, I don't see this as any more than just a simple mistake that should not be repeated and that's about it.

Bush didn't try to piss off the Muslim world, that's why they weren't released. If Bush was trying to actually piss off the Muslim world, he would have spoken the quotes in speeches, etc.

This was a mistake, but a very very small one IMO and not really worth mentioning other than hoping it won't be repeated.
 
Redress said:
I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree kinda thing. I am vehemently opposed to government involvement in religion in any way, but this really does not seem like that so much. I mean, we are not talking about laying out policy, more status reports as I understand it.
Click to expand...

That is the problem. Once you allow religious talk into government business, then at some point it will take over and government policy will be formed around religious dogma instead of what is best for people. That is why any and all such acts as this one should not only be exposed but if still going on, be punished with a pink slip immediately.
 
Ikari said:
And what the hell would Christianity want to be associated with wars for? It's not specifically a war like religion, not if you're going on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ....

Paul
 
TheNextEra said:
I do think it was inappropriate for bible quotes to be placed (even if they were just stickies) on memos, etc.
Click to expand...

What statements like this do is put a chill in the air, helping to prevent any opposition to policies being pushed. These kinds of bible quotes insinuate that the pushed policy is on the side of God and if anyone opposes it they must be against God.

The people putting those quotes on those papers knew exactly what they were doing. More evidence how corrupt that mob was.
 
PeteEU said:
That is the problem. Once you allow religious talk into government business, then at some point it will take over and government policy will be formed around religious dogma instead of what is best for people. That is why any and all such acts as this one should not only be exposed but if still going on, be punished with a pink slip immediately.
Click to expand...

People in government can talk about religion. They just cannot preach it from their position in government, nor promote it officially.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom