In an apparent attempt to come up with a guise other than warmonger, George W. Bush is being hastily repackaged as “deeply religious.”

Bush has always been officially described as “born again” — a useful device to explain the transformation from his early days (up to the age of 40) of heavy drinking and carousing.

But the notion that Bush is motivated by deep religious convictions is being pushed with such vigour these days by his supporters that one senses an orchestrated campaign — perhaps to prevent worldwide skepticism about the motives for the Iraq invasion from spreading to the U.S.

Some Americans may worry about an evangelical crusader controlling the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal, but religion — even the fundamentalist variety — is generally considered a good thing in the U.S. Certainly, focusing on religion helps keep attention away from other more contentious motives for invading Iraq, such as oil or world domination.

So the media have been hyping Bush’s alleged spirituality (including a Newsweek cover story on “Bush and God”), even as the president snubbed pleas for peace from world religious leaders and last week tested a 21,000-pound bomb in preparation for unloading it on people in Iraq. (Blessed are the bombed children.)

Of course, it’s possible that Bush is deeply religious, whatever than means. More likely, Bush is simply an empty vessel, a hollow shell, a person of weak character and limited life experience who is therefore highly susceptible to the control of a small, determined group of ideological hard-liners bent on asserting U.S. power more forcefully in the world.

A description attributed to Bush himself in 1989 seems apt. The Houston Chronicle reported Bush telling a friend: “You know, I could run for governor, but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business …”

One thing that stands out in Bush’s past, besides the partying and business failures, is the extent to which he relied on his family’s political and financial connections. U.S. presidents have often come from blue blood backgrounds, but George W. Bush makes even John F. Kennedy look like a self-made man.

But back to that group of hard-liners, (which includes prominent Bush advisers like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, John Bolton and Douglas Feith).

The hard-liners have long been a force within the Republican party, struggling against the post-Vietnam resistance in America to getting entangled in a big war.

Their approach could be described as U.S. supremacist; they are dismissive of international organizations like the U.N. and multilateral attempts at disarmament. They want Washington to use its military superiority to enforce American global dominance — a goal that has become more achievable since the demise of Soviet power.

The hard-liners became a significant force in the administration of George Bush Sr., under the tutelage of hard-liner Dick Cheney, who served at the time as defence secretary. But their push to make Washington more assertive and unilateral was held in check somewhat back then, since Bush the elder was a multilateralist, as were others in his cabinet. He was also — whatever else one says about him — experienced, accomplished, knowledgeable about the world and in control of his own government.

None of this could be said of his son, whose presidency came, in the end, courtesy of the ultimate in connections — Supreme Court judges appointed by his father.

George W. wasn’t part of the hard-line Cheney crowd; while they were honing their arguments about U.S. supremacy, he was focused on his next martini and on making a fortune in the oil industry using his father’s connections.

But he was happy to get on board with them for his presidential bid, selecting Cheney as his running mate.

To the public, Bush appeared affable and not particularly threatening, even talking in a televised presidential debate about the need for America to be “humble” internationally. But, lacking any outside constituency or the experience to control the politically savvy hard-liners, George W. became their boy in a way his father never was. The American people, however, remained resistant to war.

Then came Sept. 11. The hard-liners knew their ship had come in. And George W. finally found something he was apparently good at — talking about evil and vengeance.

It is a tragedy for the world that such a pliable, empty vessel as George W. Bush should happen to be in power at a time when the traumatization and lulling of the American public has made possible the carnage about to unfold in Iraq.

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...