consortiumnews.com

More Readers on Bush's 'Delusions'

October 15, 2006

Editor's Note: Below are readers' comments about our story entitled "Bush & His Dangerous Delusions":

Editor's Note: Below are readers' comments about our story entitled "Bush & His Dangerous Delusions":

In Robert Parry's  10-12-06 article, "Bush & His Dangerous  Delusions," he reminds us of a January 31, 2003 meeting where Bush and Blair discussed their intentions to invade Iraq.  According to the minutes taken by Blair's foreign policy aide, David Manning, Bush "still hoped that he might provoke the Iraqis into some violent act that would serve as political cover."

In a September 21, 2006 Nation magazine article, David Lindorff wrote of the Bush administration's plan to deploy a "strike group" of ships including the nuclear aircraft carrier, Eisenhower, to the Persian Gulf.  Could this be another attempt to use provocation as justification for a war with Iran? Apparently, the Eisenhower, minesweepers and other vessels of the "strike group" have in fact been deployed to the Persian Gulf.

It's a frightening scenario.  This administration is creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of endless war and endless terrorism.  The PNAC is pushing forward as planned.

N. Ivancich
California

     --

When George Bush set his jaws and glared into the camera defiantly -- "If we quit before the job is done, that's cut-and-run!" -- I thought to myself, I've seen that bull-dog face before.  And then it came to me.  It was a special of some kind on Barbara Bush, portraying her as authoritarian and spiteful with her friends as she was growing up.  I wish I could but I can't tell you when and where I saw it.  With your resources perhaps you could find it.  It might help to explain why George Bush is out of touch with reality.
Elaine Foster
Herndon, VA

     --

Re: Delusional Bush

Beginning largely in the 1970s and ‘80s, an obvious pattern of creeping contempt for established parliamentary principles and traditions took hold. Reagan, Thatcher and Canada’s Mulroney saw nothing wrong with arbitrarily ignoring established, accepted traditions in pursuit of purely partisan and harshly ideological goals. After all, in their eyes they weren’t actual laws or statutes, but rather ‘quaint’ gentlemen’s agreements.
By the time of Clinton, Blair and Chretien, there was no going back, for playing by old established rules had clearly become a game for suckers. Put simply, political parties were no longer interested in putting in the effort to persuade the opposition or the public through learned discourse, debate or even clever legislative maneuvering.

The present horrifying decline, piloted by a cast of deplorable characters only too willing to destroy every principle in the national political-social sphere that they cannot abide ideologically, merely to prove once and for all that such principles-everything from comprehensive international diplomacy to even such sacred institutions as medicare and old age pensions-do not work. It’s like a child purposely breaking a toy so that it can demand another, more expensive toy. “See? (SMASH) I told you it’s broken!”

That’s where we’re at today. G. W. Bush, Blair, and now Canada’s Harper, irregardless of 'traditional' party affiliation ('neo-con' versus traditional conservative), have shown themselves only too willing to destroy a thing in order to prove it doesn’t work, and to explain why in the most glib and generic terms in the hope that few will challenge their manipulative assessment, which is the case more often than not thanks to an utterly compliant press.

Is President Bush delusional? Yes, but a delusion can only manifest itself in reality if it is accepted-or in this case ‘enabled’-by others. None stand on principle now, for power is the only principle. President Bush is the ultimate expression of abandoned principles and discarded honour in pursuit of ultimate, lasting political and ideological power...the only bigger delusion than the one he lives in is our delusion that he, or his many enablers, will accept the now painful reality and change.

Many thanks for your insightful articles...I recommend them often.

CHope
Ontario, Canada

     --

Bob, it's obviously difficult to determine just what the man has deluded
himself into believing, based on his perverted views of humanity, and
what is outright lying in the service of political power.

I'm originally from "the great and sovereign state of Miss'ssippi", and
we once had a governor by the name of Ross Barnett.  Next door in
Alabama was George Wallace.  Now, Ross, I think, actually believed that
niggers were inferior to white folk ... he had the "miscegenation" spiel
down pat, down to how it all went wrong back in Egypt land.

Wallace, as evidenced by his "embrace" of black support later, was an
opportunist, who used the ingrained racism of white people (of which I'm
one, so I know, sadly) to gain and keep office, but modified his stance
as political necessities dictated.

I imagine Dear Leader is a bit of both, in which case I don't think you
can say he's delusional.  He knows he's lying out his ass, but in his
hermetically-sealed world where honesty is a buzz word with no basis in
reality, that means less than nothing to him.  "L'état, c'est moi,"
n'est-ce pas?

But the bottom line is:  What difference does it make?  Barnett and
Wallace were both racists who made life unbearable for blacks, and The
Leader of the Free World pursues an equal opportunity agenda of misery
for anyone outside the realm of the rich and powerful.

It's pretty goddamn awful in Afghanistan (Remember it?  Invasion,
occupation, innocent lives lost ... sound familiar?) and Iraq (not to
mention Haiti, Palestine, Lebanon, etc., etc., ad infinitum) ... but
it's no picnic for just folks in these here United States, either, is
it?

*Why* he does it may make for interesting discussion, but what *we* do
about it is the categorical imperative.  Given their past, present and
future of making the world safe for Machiavellianismo, voting for
Democrats, while it may have some limited short-term benefit, won't lead
to the necessary changes.  It didn't before, did it?  It won't do so
now.

So what to do?  Do what you conscience demands and your courage allows
... and never be satisfied with the limits of either.

And hope like hell it catches on.

Regards
Doug Latimer
Oakland

     --

Thank you for the great article.
I like the way that you "take him at his word"
Scholarly research has shown that propagandists like Bush believe their
own propaganda.

Many Thanks,
Pete
     --

Your article is right on the money! Thanks for your continued efforts. Perhaps you are familiar with the book "Bush on The Couch," by Justin Frank. Frank is a a psychoanalyst practicing in Washington D.C.

On page 200 Frank states:
"A careful consideration of the evidence (regarding Bush's psychic state) suggests that behind Bush's affable exterior operates a powerful but obscure delusional system that drives his behavior. The most precise psychiatric term to describe his pathology is most frequently used to identify a particular condition exhibited by schizophrenics that, as we'll see has broader applications as well: megalomania."
"A megalomanic sees himself as the center of the world, the one figure who has all the answers. He tolerates no disagreement, and sees external reality as either threatening or nonexistent. This view stems from a need to triumph over insecurity and fear, to deny and annihilate internal fantasies of persecution and fears of being attacked."
"Megalomaniacs love to break things: it makes them feel all powerful." ("Breaking" Iraq must have been one hell of an orgasm!)

The book was published in 2004, so it was more than obvious even by that time, that this is a president who needs to be removed from office. These last two years have made the diagnosis by Frank and the therapists that worked with him, ever more obvious. The more threatened he has become, the more bizarre his desperate reaction. If anyone wants to understand what the real story is regarding Bush, this is the book to read. It should be required reading by every Senator and Congressman. Were that to be the case, our elected officials might find the backbone to seriously challenge Bush on things like torture, illegal wire tapping or the disregard of the Geneva convention and our Constitution.
 
We need to impeach Bush and Cheney after the November election.
 
Paul E. Scott

     --

President Bush is not just maintaining his fictional story lines in order to keep the expeditionary forces in Iraq for our safety. Or his dangerous idea of our safety, which is to continue to draw extremist fighters to battleground Iraq so they can be killed there, or to stifle a rising caliphate, or to nation-build a decent democracy in the heart of the Middle East. (Hey, why would they want us there, given our brutal, merciless history with them, in and out of collusion with their oppressors?) But he is not just advancing this delusional narrative for the reasons he gives publicly.
 
There's more to it than that. He must maintain the "justifying" fiction about Saddam's intransigience toward the weapons inspectors, and the "covering" fiction that the administration had exhausted all diplomatic channels at the U.N. to avoid being impeached. Delusional? Not really. Sneaky, you bet. He has been reckless, flouted the law, and he knows it. He has to state convincingly that there were U.N. resolutions authorizing force (invasion) when they really said no such thing.  They simply warned that 'there will be further consequences' for non-compliance.
 
But there was no non-compliance. The twisted excuses drive you crazy, don't they?
 
In reality, he is providing this phony narrative to divert attention from his guilt in committing the impeachable offense of lying to Congress, which he did in the week before the March 19, 2003 invasion. That is when he falsely certified to Congress as President of the United States that Saddam was definitely not cooperating with inspectors, that the President was unable to verify the absense of proscribed weapons, and that he was unable to get U.N. authorization for force despite a bonafide attempt at diplomacy with the world body, and was compelled therefore to act unilaterally.
 
Certainly, the world body, to whom U.S. law bound the president, would not authorize the use of force if Blix's inspection regime was working and and was still in progress. A premature declaration by the American president that inspections were a scam was not a bonafide attempt at diplomacy. The law he broke had two parts: he can initiate war unilaterally only if Iraq inhibited inspections and only if the U.N. failed to authorize invasion unreasonably, in contempt of verifiable WMD threats (I paraphrase.) Any other reason for unilateral action was not authorized.
 
George Bush  sticks to his narrative because he broke the law willfully and maliciously, with forethought.  He was planning all along to invade that country.  To me, he was bound and determined to show that only "toughness" works. To him, the U.N. wimped out by not following through by authorizing force.
 
His certification was false and he provided it only as a formality for a premeditated and preordained course of action. The certification was a legal requirement specified in the war authorization law of September, 2002. All the White House Press Corps needs to do is bring this up.  I suspect they are chicken.
 
Look at what all this has cost us and others for generations to come.  The cost of his crime is unimanageable.  He can not quit his fictional narrative and tell the truth because he would be exposing his crime of lying to Congress. He is locked in a cynical cycle to save his own skin and avoid being busted.
 
David Hamilton
Little Rock, Arkansas

     --

Bush isn't "losing" touch with reality, he never had any contact with it,
from the beginning.  He's simply acting out the behavior that we were always
able to expect from him.  This is a man that profoundly hates people, and
takes pleasure in ruining lives.  He's been this way most of his life.
Recently, however, he became President.  Wowie, now he can really hurt
people!

jp

     --

Your post on Bush's delusions is right on the money. I figured he was
delusional ---that is to say, deficient in mature, coherent
strategies to apprehend reality---when he announced Ashcroft. To me,
that was the Dems first big rollover. The Rice appt was another:
hopelessly in over her head and under Cheney and Rumsfeld's thumbs.

Brendan Howley

     --

Well, Robert, I agree Bush is bonkers and the rest are all crazy too, but I do not subscribe to the belief that they are delusional.

Bush is simply doing the bidding of his masters, maybe even his daddy, and is merely a front man.  I think the left may be entirely missing the point here. They know what they want and so far they are getting everything they want

I would agree with the "delusional" assessment if I truly believed that they mean well, which I can't and I don't.  They have given
us absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe them.  Given the history of these creeps it seems all too obvious that they do not give a rat's ass about anything but achieving their goals of hegemony.

It may be true that they believe some of their own propaganda, and in that sense they could be considered delusional in a way, but the truth is that as far as I can tell they have given 0  effort to improve the lives of anyone on the planet, short of their rich pals.

Anyhow, I love your website and have bought some of your books, and thought you did a great job on the Central America stuff.

Thanks for your efforts.

Art Ryan


Back to Home Page