The American flag flapped in the drizzle, anchored by power windows and an upscale sedan.

The driver meant to leave no doubt as to where he or she stood. But the car’s bumper raised more questions than it answered.

On one side was a “United We Stand” bumper sticker. On another, an anti-abortion slogan. And beside it, “WWJD.”

WWJD – what would Jesus do? It seems that was on everyone’s wrist a few years ago. And now, the more burning question appears to be WWWD – what will W do?

With George W. Bush seeking to sell the merits of an invasion of Iraq, we are left to wonder what role Jesus would have today if, say, for the sake of healing a divided country after Election 2000, he’d accepted a Cabinet post.

This is only a guess. But one might assume that when Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld decided it was time to attend to war, Jesus would have been told there were urgent matters for him at the Earth Summit.

The “United We Stand” unity throng wouldn’t dare ask WWJD when it comes to selling a unilateral invasion of Iraq. The throng really wouldn’t want to know.

What about that other peacemaker, the United Nations? Therein is one of Bush’s hang-ups in explaining what he says we must do. On one hand he uses Iraq’s violations of the U.N. cease-fire in Desert Storm as a pretext for invading. On the other hand the administration appears to treat the U.N. role as barely relevant on the matter. The other pretext, of course, is countering terrorism. A direct 9/11 tie-in to Saddam and “United We Stand” would be on every bumper. Many an American wanted to believe he was involved. Now a year removed from 9/11, be reminded of the first few days after the Oklahoma City bombing, when we assumed we knew who had done that most heinous deed: people who look like Saddam. In fact, it was the heartland’s fair-haired own.

A direct 9/11 Iraqi tie-in? We are not hearing that. The rationale we are hearing for an attack is weapons of mass destruction for which Saddam must be removed preemptively.

Bush may have considerable support for this. But “United We Stand” behind it? Not even close. Not even among Republicans.

Americans could be united to great degree around a concerted effort to reinstate weapons inspections teams under threat of force by a multination military.

When British Prime Minister Tony Blair was backing up Bush’s concerns about Iraq last week, he wasn’t diminishing the role of the United Nations.

“The U.N.’s got to be the way of dealing with this,” he said, “not the way of avoiding it.”

Agreed. The United Nations has to deal with it, because this was the United Nations’ fight in the first place.

Since Jesus conveniently would be in Johannesburg or Rio de Janeiro when the subject turned to war under our WWWD vs. WWJD scenario, the Bush administration wouldn’t need to unduly concern itself with the possible collateral effects of doing what it proposes, or of the human ravages of the past 10 years in Iraq.

If the question were “WWJD?” an end to economic sanctions that have taken a mighty toll on the Iraqi people would be on the table as one hope – short of bloodshed, upheaval and American occupation triggering more terrorism – of getting Saddam to act less like a caged animal.

But, unilaterally and ominously, the question is coming down to bombs, bullets and “WWWD?”

And other questions remain: What are we uniting behind? What are the facts to merit an attack? Why have we given up on weapons inspectors? Amid the bumper-sticker rhetoric, the answer is WWWK: We wish we knew.

—

John Young writes for The Waco Tribune-Herald.

©Cox News Service