You are hereA French Revelation, or The Burning Bush

A French Revelation, or The Burning Bush

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/ on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/ on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/ on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 06 August 2009

by James A. Haught

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”

After the 2003 call, the puzzled French leader didn’t comply with Bush’s request. Instead, his staff asked Thomas Romer, a theologian at the University of Lausanne, to analyze the weird appeal. Dr. Romer explained that the Old Testament book of Ezekiel contains two chapters (38 and 39) in which God rages against Gog and Magog, sinister and mysterious forces menacing Israel. Jehovah vows to smite them savagely, to “turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws,” and slaughter them ruthlessly. In the New Testament, the mystical book of Revelation envisions Gog and Magog gathering nations for battle, “and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

In 2007, Dr. Romer recounted Bush’s strange behavior in Lausanne University’s review, Allez Savoir. A French-language Swiss newspaper, Le Matin Dimanche, printed a sarcastic account titled: “When President George W. Bush Saw the Prophesies of the Bible Coming to Pass.” France’s La Liberte likewise spoofed it under the headline “A Small Scoop on Bush, Chirac, God, Gog and Magog.” But other news media missed the amazing report.

Click here to read the entire article

EWMI's picture

I have blogged on this in the past. Open the link at the end to look at the dates of the Iraq Wars. Both of these wars were fought on the OT calendar. Bush allegedly told the Palestinians that God spoke to him about the Iraq war as well. I do not think that Bush was a religious crank but that his chosen words brought Christian Zionists and Jews along side. I know for a fact, first hand, that his references to God speaking to him and the Babylon Iraq connection had great influence on Christian Zionists. They were the largest voting block in the US at the time.

Virgil's picture

That is pretty disturbing...

Islamaphobe's picture

I harbor enough suspicion of the French in general and Jacques Chirac in particular so that I hesitate to rush to judgment on the veracity of this story. I am willing to entertain the notion that George Bush is (and was) influenced somewhat by faulty eschatology, and I recall that Reagan supposedly speculated about the extent to which Revelation was prophetically applicable to the Cold War (I think he has been quoted as saying that he had heard that Chernobyl meant "Wormwood."). But I am also aware of the fact that many with secularist worldviews have a tendency to read things into what Christians say that are not necessarily correct understandings of their views.

Personally, I think Bush had good reasons to get rid of Saddam and that his father should have found a way to do so in 1991. In any event, given France's long record of following the maxim of "Let's make a deal" when it comes to the conduct of international relations, I advise using caution before buying fully into this story.

John S. Evans

RiversOfEden4's picture


I agree. I've seen several interviews with General Schwartkoff regarding the first Gulf War in which he lamented not being allowed to completely destroy Baghdad and Saddam Hussein within a couple of weeks of the start of the war. He was disappointed that he trained his entirely life to accomplish such a mission, and yet the politicians wouldn't let him finish the job.

Mick's picture

I confess that I have similar reservations when I consider the worldview of the author of this article. James A. Haught is an atheist and a materialist (see, as a result he will find fault with any religious motivation.

If the story is accurate, I agree President Bush was misled in his eschatology, but that gives me no greater fear than a politician who is misled by a misguided secular philosophy. We as Christian must take consolation in the knowledge that God is sovereign.

On the other hand, suppose the President understood prophecy properly and he understood there existed a threat to a democratic ally of the United States. Again suppose the President chose to communicate it using historically understood images and events to communicate effectively his concerns for this ally. I suspect Mr. Haught would find fault if the President used historically recorded events from any religious text, and the Bible in particular.


Mickey E. Denen

Virgil's picture

True about the atheist aspect of the article, however we have to fall back on the constitutional aspect of involvement in the middle east: there is no constitutional justification for it.

As far as the French go, why would they even make something like this up?

judge's picture

Islamaphobe:Personally, I think Bush had good reasons to get rid of Saddam and that his father should have found a way to do so in 1991.

Judge:This is the real problem isn't it. The most powerful nation miltarily is filled with people who think like matter what the facts say.
No matter that there were no WMD, no matter that the whole invasion was based on lies. No matter as another poster points about below 2-3 million Iraqi's are dead. No wonder that thier land has been polluted radioactively.
It just doesn't matter.
Dont you understand that it is wrong to tell lies, and then on the basis of those lies invade another country kill countless people contaminate their land for million of years induce a brutal civil war?

And no Im not anti-american. It is wromng for anyone to do this...isn't it?

Barry's picture

IMHO yes.
There is a difference between patriotism and an ego trip. All countries would do well to learn the difference.
One is pro-active and progressive. The other is simply sectarian and thus old covenant in perspective.

we are all in this together

RiversOfEden4's picture

There seem to be a lot of people in church today who think that "God is speaking to them". Why is it any different if George W. Bush made the claim?

EWMI's picture

Well, I think you make a very good point. Most people who say the hear divine voices are trying to impress someone. Bush was just much higher up the tree trying to impress much bigger players.

We need to note that Saddam, whose biography I have read, twice attempted to normalise relations with Israel. This is also recorded by Israeli professor Shahak. This was not allowed by the US or Israel. Iraq was among the most tolerant of lands in the Middle East, and Saddam was the most loyal of western allies. We turned on him when he no longer served us.

In 1990 Saddam asked April Glaspie the US ambassador to Iraq if he could take back the oil the Kuwaiti's were stealing from Iraq. Glaspie said that as far as Bush and Shultz were concerned this was an 'Arab to Arab matter' and did not concern the US.

Since then we, the West, have killed between 2 and 3 million Iraqi's, fostered civil war and destroyed the Christian population.

We have used 50,000 times more radioactive weaponry on the people of Iraq than Hiroshima. The land will be polluted for over one billion years. One of the most beautiful, stable and western friendly countries in the world has been destroyed.

Saddam stood against Islamic terrorism. Abu Nidal, considered by Oliver North to be the most dangerous man in the world, was sought out and killed by Iraqi agents. Militant Islamists tried to set up camp in Iraq and Saddam payed the Kurds to wipe them out.

Iraq had to be destroyed because it was a secular Arab state. The universities of Baghdad were among the best in the world. People from the third world sent their children to be educated there until the Western inspired Iran Iraq war. A secular Arab state with a strong Christian population is the last thing the pro war groups wanted. It would control the oil and serve as a model for secularisation for the Saudis, Afghanistan and the other Arab states. This would have made Israeli expansionism and oil theft impossible. We now have both. The oil contracts in Iraq have been converted to PSA (Profit Sharing Agreements) which are horrendously bad for Iraq and very good for oil.

None of Saddam's loyalty mattered however as the designs for the breakup of Iraq had been on the drawing board since the early 80s. Much like the designs for war against Iran which will begin at any time.

Saddam was a thug and a brute but less so than the Saudis or the Shaw or the Mullah's or the Taliban all installed and funded by the West.


Recent comments


Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
No only registered users should comment
What are you talking about?
Total votes: 43