In W We Trust?

Our President once said he'd learned more about politics from Jesus of Nazareth than from anyone else. Some evangelical Christians now do appear to believe that George W. Bush is on a messianic mission in taking on Saddam Hussein.

"'In this instance, the president has articulated a faith much like our own,' said Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at the National Association of Evangelicals" regarding the Iraq conflict. "That faith includes the existence of 'evil' in the form of people like Hussein," Cizik told The Washington Post.

But while the get-the-devil-where-he-lives-no-matter-the-cost argument may work for the devout, it doesn't seem to be a draw for much of the rest of the American populace, which is still not convinced about Bush's war?at least not with all the unilateral bravado with which the administration has alternately cast it. That's true despite the perceptions created by the Democrats' running for cover, and the tv news media's relentless cheerleading ("Showdown with Saddam," is the hot tag line on the screen these days, only to be outdone by "Target: Saddam"). Poll after poll shows consistent majorities of Americans wanting the approval of the UN, Congress, the European allies and Arab states before any military action is taken.

Just because Americans aren't fully on board, of course, doesn't mean we won't blindly march into battle. But it is interesting that people aren't totally sold even amid the 24-hours-a-day warmongering whirl. The weekend before last the cable news channels, seemingly spurred by the usual right-wing political hacks on the Internet, trumpeted over and over again a report that two men were seized in Turkey near the Syrian border as they were supposedly trying to smuggle 33 pounds of "weapons-grade" uranium into Iraq in a taxi.

If that wasn't going to convince those waverers in the polls that we needed to take on the Iraqi "madman" immediately, what would? In the end, it turned out to be 5 ounces of harmless metallic material. The men were released and "disappeared," according to some reports, which have been a lot more forthcoming than the American media about clearing up the, um, misunderstanding.

So, you have to give people credit for remaining skeptical even amid all of the intentional and unintentional manipulation. That's because the Bushies' case only gets murkier. Every day there are new and often contradictory claims made about why Saddam needs to be taken out immediately as well as new plans about how we're supposed to do it. For a lot of people here in New York, it smells as foul as the air on that terrible day last year. My 65-year-old father choked and coughed his way to safety on Sept. 11 as the deli he owns at Ground Zero sustained a great deal of damage. He lost a lot of friends and associates, and he's still angrily asking why the government failed to prevent the attacks and why they're deflecting attention now. Bush lately likes to talk about how we have to get Saddam "because he tried to kill my dad." Well, Osama tried to kill my dad?and did kill a lot of other people's dads, moms, sisters, brothers and friends?and a lot of us would like our government to finish the job of getting him and Al Qaeda before going on to W's personal revenge, thank you.

One day they imply Saddam is connected to 9/11, the next day the story changes. One day they say he's going to have nukes within a matter of months, the next day that angle is dropped (usually because reports debunk it, showing the threat is years away). The evidence linking Saddam and Al Qaeda is "bulletproof," says Don Rumsfeld, while Colin Powell says there's "no smoking gun" linking them. One day it's about the gassing of the Kurds (more than 10 years ago), the next day it's about bringing democracy to the Middle East. One day we're going to do it with the UN, the next day without, the next day with?then the day after that we're trying to convince someone, anyone to assassinate Saddam with "a single bullet," as Ari Fleischer said to a room full of reporters with dropped jaws.

Last week things felt a bit desperate indeed when Bush railed that under Saddam's order his opponents "have been decapitated"?as if our "friends," as Papa Bush described the Saudis last month, don't decapitate dissidents, alleged homosexuals and other people they don't like, on a regular basis. How the hell do you think we keep the oil flowing, Dubya? We look the other way from decapitations, that's how, silly! Heads may roll in the Saudi kingdom, but we've got to keep those SUVs rolling down the highways.

Of course, if having weapons of mass destruction and being an unstable nondemocracy whose weapons could fall into the hands of the terrorists were the criteria, we'd be creating "regime change" in Pakistan, pronto. But hey, we look the other way from them too?I mean, they only make nuke threats (and support terrorism) against India, the largest democracy on the planet.

So, few of the claims are adding up, as the Bushies also tell us they just plain know Saddam is an imminent threat but are not able to share all of the information. Throw in the oil issue?the fact that Cheney, Bush and all of their buddies are the oil industry in America and that Iraq does have the second-largest oil reserve in the world. Add the shameless way Bush has used the war rhetoric to demonize Democrats in the midterm elections. And add the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's revealing report two weeks ago showing the pre-9/11 plan among influential people in the administration?including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz?for the U.S. to occupy the Middle East and every region of the globe, remaking the geopolitical map. With that kind of baggage, it's difficult enough to trust Bush & Co. But with the Bushies also changing the story constantly and not offering more facts, well, it becomes just plain stupid to trust them.

And it's not just the majority of Americans and liberal Democratic public figures like Al Gore and Bill Clinton who don't trust Bush enough to give him carte blanche to go into Iraq without the UN and a coalition, and who have a lot of questions, period, about an invasion?or even staunchly oppose it. A broad swath of conservatives who often swoon over Bush like lovesick schoolgirls?from Peggy Noonan to Pat Buchanan to Bob Novak to Gen. Wesley Clark to Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar?don't seem to trust Bush either, at least not based on their own skeptical writings and comments about this administration's approach to Iraq.

We seem about to enter a war that may have heavy casualties (on all sides) that could screw up the rest of our lives, costing us billions of dollars, keeping the U.S. occupied in the Middle East indefinitely and possibly unleashing a catastrophic conflict?one that could also further terrorism here and abroad for a long time to come. Can many people beyond the partisans and the evangelicals say in all honesty that, based on the way the administration's presented its case, they actually trust George W. Bush?