When Denial Goes Pathological: Is President Bush Sane?

When Denial Goes Pathological
Is President Bush Sane?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Tens of millions of Americans want President George W. Bush to be impeached for the lies and deceit he used to launch an illegal war and for violating his oath of office to uphold the US Constitution.

Millions of other Americans want Bush turned over to the war crimes tribunal at the Hague. The true fate that awaits Bush is psychiatric incarceration.

The president of the United States is so deep into denial that he is no longer among the sane.

Delusion still rules Bush three weeks after the American people repudiated him and his catastrophic war in elections that delivered both House and Senate to the Democrats in the hope that control over Congress would give the opposition party the strength to oppose the mad occupant of the White House.

On November 28 Bush insisted that US troops would not be withdrawn from Iraq until he had completed his mission of building a stable Iraqi democracy capable of spreading democratic change in the Middle East.

Bush made this astonishing statement the day after NBC News, a major television network, declared Iraq to be in the midst of a civil war, a judgment with which former Secretary of State Colin Powell concurs.

The same day that Bush reaffirmed his commitment to building a stable Iraqi democracy, a secret US Marine Corps intelligence report was leaked. According to the Washington Post, the report concludes: "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point that US and Iraqi troops are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar province."

The Marine Corps intelligence report says that Al Qaeda is the "dominant organization of influence" in Anbar province, and is more important than local authorities, the Iraqi government and US troops "in its ability to control the day-to-day life of the average Sunni."

Bush's astonishing determination to deny Iraq reality was made the same day that the US-installed Iraqi prime minister al-Maliki and US puppet King Abdullah II of Jordan abruptly cancelled a meeting with Bush after Bush was already in route to Jordon on Air Force One.

Bush could not meet with Maliki in Iraq, because violence in Baghdad is out of control. For security reasons, the US Secret Service would not allow President Bush to go to Iraq, where he is "building a stable democracy."

Bush made his astonishing statement in the face of news leaks of the Iraq Study Group's call for a withdrawal of all US combat forces from Iraq. The Iraq Study Group is led by Bush family operative James A. Baker, a former White House chief of staff, former Secretary of the Treasury, and former Secretary of State. Baker was tasked by father Bush to save the son. Apparently, son Bush hasn't enough sanity to allow himself to be saved.

Bush's denial of Iraqi reality was made even as one of the most influential Iraqi Shiite leaders, Moqtada al-Sadr, is building an anti-US parliamentary alliance to demand the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

Maliki himself appears on the verge of desertion by his American sponsors. The White House has reportedly "lost confidence" in Maliki's "ability to control violence." Fox "News" disinformation agency immediately began blaming Maliki for the defeat the US has suffered in Iraq. NY governor Pataki told Fox "News" that "Maliki is not doing his job." Pataki claimed that US troops were doing "a great job."

A number of other politicians and talking heads joined in the scapegoating of Maliki. No one explained how Maliki can be expected to save Iraq when US troops cannot provide enough security for the Iraqi government to go outside the heavily fortified "green zone" that occupies a small area of Baghdad. If the US Marines cannot control Anbar province, what chance is there for Maliki? What can Maliki do if the security provided by US troops is so bad that the President of the US cannot even visit the country?

The only people in Iraq who are safe belong to Al Qaeda and the Sunni insurgents or are Shiite militia leaders such as al-Sadr.

An American group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, has filed war crimes charges in Germany against former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A number of former US attorneys believe President Bush and Vice President Cheney deserve the same.

Bush has destroyed the entire social, political, and economic fabric of Iraq. Saddam Hussein sat on the lid of Pandora's Box of sectarian antagonisms, but Bush has opened the lid. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed as "collateral damage" in Bush's war to bring "stable democracy" to Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqi children have been orphaned and maimed. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled their country. The Middle East is aflame with hatred of America, and the ground is shaking under the feet of American puppet governments in the Middle East. US casualties (killed and wounded) number 25,000.

And Bush has not had enough!

What better proof of Bush's insanity could there be?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at:

No votes yet

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When Denial Goes

Tens of millions want impeachment? Wow, that's a good portion of the voting population. Strange though that I haven't seen the results of this poll anywhere but on this site. Did the sampled population consist of Vees and Instred and a few of their friends? It would seem so...

Re: A majority of Americans want Bush impeached

Quote:
Tens of millions want impeachment? Wow, that's a good portion of the voting population.

Tens of millions want Bush impeached, there's no doubt about that. Some polls have shown that a majority of Americans want Bush impeached.

These polls are very under-reported. The corporate mass media and most leading Democrats are opposed to impeachment, so the reality is that it doesn't really matter what the people of the US want.

Just like a majority of the people want troops out of Iraq, it simply isn't going to happen unless people get off their ass and raise hell and demand that the ruling class act in a democratic manner.

Re: A majority of Americans want Bush impeached

"Not a scientific survey"

These are just online polls with the results biased by online participation--something that isn't a good enough cross-section of American voters to back up a statement like "tens of millions." In the msnbc poll for example, only 350,000 or so votes were cast, but who knows how many were repeat votes, and where those votes came from. You certainly can't extrapolate that out to tens of millions. This particular blogger is blatantly stretching the truth.

Valid/scientific polls

FWIW, Zogby Int'l (to name one), a respected, mainstream polling company, has done a non-online, traditional scientific survey showing a majority of Americans want Bush impeached.

While the question was qualified by saying "if" Bush illegally wiretapped Americans, considering Bush has admitted breaking the law and wiretapping US citizens, I think it's safe to consider that a slam dunk.

+/- 2.9% Error

The same poll results could also be used to say that within the margin of error, less than the majority of American's support impeachment. 52% - 2.9% = 49.1% which is less than 50%. That's not even close enough to make the tens of millions claim anything more than laughable at this point.

assumptions, assumptions, assumptions

I might be mistaken here, I am no statistician, but even 49.1% does in fact probaly mean a majority since one cannot assume that all the remaining 50.9% does *not* want it. In these kinds of statistics there is always some "space" for categories as "undecided" and the like. Also, 49.1% of the, if I am not mistaken here, three hundered million americans is plenty enough for "tens of millions" claim. In fact, even taking out all children, foreigners and other non-voting people, you still would get tens of millions.

Not that any of that truly matters. Impeachement is a political decision of the Congress and considering how the Democracts have consistently prostituted themselves to the Bush administration I very much doubt that they will do anything about it now. Keep in mind that when Nixon was impeached this country still had a relatively free press. Today the corporate media is little more than a propaganda machine for the establishment. As for the free media, it does not have enough access to the TV-fried brains of most Americans to get them to get angry and start demaning an impeachment of the moron.

The "Republicrats" and their progaganda machine have an iron grip on this country and I do not think that it will loosen until a truly massive crisis happens (something like a yet another military defeat in a war with Iran, combined with an Shia uprising in Iraq triggering a Saudi, Iranian and Turkish intervention, an oil embargo from Venezuela and the coming to power of a Hezbollah lead government in Lebanon).

But until then, as Chomsky correctly says, there are not two parties in Congress, but only two factions of the Business Party...

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

assumptions... and a HUGE extrapolation

Apparently only 1,216 adults were polled. So roughly 50% of that is 608. Based on 608 people who said they would support impeachment IF Bush were found to have illegally tapped phones, you would say that tens of millions feel the same? You see, that is a big, blind jump, and it just illustrates the fact that you can get the answer you want to get out of a poll if you conduct the poll in just the right way, as downystreet.org must have wanted.

It would be interesting to see how many Americans would want shorter airport lines if we just profiled muslim immigrants.

assumptions... and a HUGE extrapolation

oh well, by that logic all polls should be rejected. Not a bad idea actually I suppose but only if ALL polls are rejected, not only those one does not like.

Motto: chown -R linux:GNU world
Distros: Debian, Kanotix, Frenzy, Damn Small Linux

yeah... I think most political polls are worthless

Most political polls are worthless, and biased. How can we trust that this particular one was conducted in an unbiased scientific way? What was the cross-section of people polled? They don't say. They only say it was scientific. Well, I'm trained in the sciences, so show me the raw data. Show me that it was truly unbiased. All I have now is your word that it is, yet I see that a particular group paid for the poll. Well, there is reason number one to suspect the results are biased. After all, you get what you pay for, right? You know how this capitalist society works... the same goes for political polls!

Syndicate content