LOCK HIM AWAY TO STOP THE NEXT WAR!

[Guest guest]

Lock him away to stop the next war

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C20867%2C18843175-12272%

2C00.html

 

With his presidency reduced to a mess, George W. Bush may just decide

to lash out wildly at Iran, writes Phillip Adams

----

----------

 

April 18, 2006

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

GeorgeIII (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.