"It has, for example, persistently ignored scientists' warnings about global warming. Why bother to implement the Kyoto treaty if the world is about to end?"Why indeed? But then, if the world is about to end, why bother with such this-worldly concerns such as pressing for prayer in schools, restricting abortion, banning stem-cell research and all the other concerns of the Evangelical Right?
I thought this article remarkable for three reasons. Firstly, there is the complete absence of any form of materialistic explanations for what is happening in the present situation. Nothing about states and their economic and strategic regional interests. Nothing about the impact that historical alliances have on these today. And nothing about how decisions are made in a bureaucracy and the various institutional pressures that are brought to bear on them. Rather, Armstrong contends, Bush's theology is the decisive factor here. I appreciate that Ms Armstrong is essentially a theologian with little understanding of politics or history but I think it is significant that these days people who would describe themselves as 'Marxists' repeat arguments very similar to hers.
Secondly, her hypothesis is - as is the custom in CiF - rather lop-sided. Bush's apocalyptic theology, she insists, is driving world events. Given that her view of history, in as far as it is possible to identify her as having one, is essentially idealistic - you'd think the Israel-annihilating eschatology espoused by Nasrallah or Ahmadinejad might also be worth considering as a significant variable. But apparently not.
But the main problem with the article is the complete absence of evidence for her central hypothesis. She has apparently no proof to support her assumptions about Bush's supposed eschatology. But more importantly, she provides no evidence at all that this has any bearing on US policy in relation to the Middle East. Does Paul Wolfowitz believe in the 'rapture'? I don't think so.
In other words, this is a completely evidence-free article. An impressive achievement for someone posing as a defender of rationality and science, I think you'll agree.