[Peace-discuss] Clinical insanity

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The jocular tone is a little hard to take (a "silly" war?),
and the Aussie author is unacquainted with the constitutional
difficulties of what he proposes (see the 25th amendment), but
the problem is real. --CGE] 


     Published on Tuesday, April 18, 2006 by The Australian
     Lock Him Away to Stop the Next War
     by Phillip Adams
 
We cannot wait any longer for the impeachment of George W.
Bush. Far more efficient to have Bush certified. There is no
need for further debate on his mental state. The US President
is bonkers.

Having turned the White House into a madhouse, having taken
more lunatic positions on more issues than any head of state
since George III (are they, perchance, related?). GWB needs a
long rest and a change of medication. And it shouldn't be too
hard to guide him into a padded cell. Just tell him it's the
presidential bomb shelter.

Let's examine the symptoms of his mental decline. First, Bush
convinced Americans that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. This
is something the poor fool might have believed, given a
tenuous grasp of geography, history and political reality. He
then began to hallucinate about weapons of mass destruction,
despite the evidence of Hans Blix and a multitude of others
that there weren't any. And he finally organised a tatty
little alliance to join him in the silliest war since Vietnam,
one guaranteed to recruit terrorists in unprecedented numbers.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq war was launched with presidential
lies. Like Vietnam, the Iraq war descended into a moral and
military quagmire. And if Iraq seems to be less of a stuff-up,
consider this fact: it's taken just three years in Iraq for US
deaths to equal the body count after six years in Vietnam.

Little wonder six retired senior generals have joined ranks
with the American public in condemning the war, or that the
guru of neo-conservatism, Francis Fukuyama, has broken ranks
with the likes of Charles Krauthammer and William Kristol in
denouncing it. Or that many in the Republican hierarchy have
joined left-wing critics denouncing the invasion as a mistake
and a failure, calling for immediate withdrawal.

When Bush was re-elected in 2004, this column suggested the
President would go on to blast Iran or have the job done by
Israeli surrogates. Both scenarios were dismissed as absurd
and alarmist. Now journalist Seymour Hersh's revelations of a
US plan to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, perhaps with
nuclear bunker-blasters, are causing national and
international dismay. They've also provoked anger among the
Pentagon's highest-ranking officers already enraged by Donald
Rumsfeld's stewardship of the Iraq invasion and occupation.
Given Rumsfeld's clear contempt for their opinions, they might
well feel mutinous should he and the Commander-in-Chief show
further signs of strategic insanity. But would that prevent
air strikes by the Israelis? Given the sabre-rattling by that
ratbag in Tehran, what could hold Israel back?

Bush is attempting to hose things down, but the world recalls
his endlessly repeated mantra before the invasion of Iraq.
Military intervention wasn't inevitable, just an option.

Now bleeding in the polls with mid-term elections looming,
isn't it possible that Bush might go for broke? Double or
nothing? A final, desperate throw of the dice?

Condoleezza Rice might join the Pentagon in trying to talk him
down. So, one hopes, would Tony Blair and John Howard. But did
Bush listen to reasoned argument last time? With a reckless,
irrational President, you've the perfect set-up for the tail
to wag the dog. As with 9/11, here's an opportunity for
reality to follow a Hollywood script.

Last week I discussed this scenario with Fukuyama. His initial
response was that Bush's political situation is too perilous
for such a tactic, that the US public and its media wouldn't
tolerate another Iraq. But bombing Iran's nuclear facilities
could be characterised as surgical. It might not need troops
on the ground and would certainly seem more relevant to the
war on terror than the neo-con adventure in Iraq. Fukuyama
conceded that such a strategy was possible.

And that possibility is more than enough. A lame-duck
President with the eagle as his symbol once again takes the
role of hawk. With his presidency a total mess, what's there
to lose? So it's time to certify the President. Yes, you'd
have to certify his equally deranged Vice-President as well.
And toss in Rumsfeld to keep them company. Along with anyone
else in the administration, the Congress, the Senate or the
Australian parliament mad enough to think Iraq a sane decision.

© 2006 The Australian

###