Balkanalysis.com

The full madness of George W. Bush has been revealed, as new articles describing journalist Bob Woodward’s Plan of Attack are released, and as Bush himself proudly reiterates America’s God-given right to proliferate ‘freedom’ at gunpoint everwhere on earth. The book backs up previous accounts of Bush’s determination to make war plans against Iraq immediately after 9/11. According to Woodward, who interviewed more than 75 key officials including Bush, the initial probing towards war with Iraq began in November 2001, when the president met urgently with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and said, “…let’s get started on this.” The next month, the president had General Tommy Franks draw up a hypothetical battle plan. And so the die was cast.

Bush’s war plans intensified during 2002, when the administration’s neocon “cabal” set up the Office of Special Plans to produce “intelligence” on Iraq’s alleged WMD program. The cabal was apparently guided by Vice President Dick Cheney and run by his chief aide, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith.

According to Woodward’s book, Colin Powell- barely on speaking terms with Cheney these days- protested that the vice president had through the OSP set up a parallel government to push the warmongering of the administration’s neoconservatives.

The president’s personal dedication to war had dramatically increased by early 2003:

“‘…we’re not winning. Time is not on our side here. Probably going to have to, we’re going to have to go to war,’ the book quotes Bush as telling national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in early January 2003.”

Rice’s significance as one of the key antagonists for war emerges in Plan of Attack. Although the position of national security advisor is one of the most important in any administration, Rice’s role was heightened by the president’s awareness that Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell had irreconcilably opposing views on Iraq. Perceiving Rice to be more independent, Bush placed great faith in her opinion which was, unfortunately for peace, pro-neocon.

However, Plan of Attack seems to reveal a more critical, even principled side of the president than is attested in Richard Clarke’s Against all Enemies and elsewhere. According to Woodward’s findings, Bush found the Saddam-WMD case “less than convincing” when first presented to him in December 2002, by CIA Deputy Director John E. McLaughlin:

“…McLaughlin’s version used communications intercepts, satellite photos, diagrams and other intelligence. ‘Nice try,’ Bush said when the CIA official was finished, according to the book. ‘I don’t think this quite – it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.’

He then turned to Tenet, McLaughlin’s boss, and said, ‘I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD, and this is the best we’ve got?’

‘It’s a slam dunk case,’ Tenet replied, throwing his arms in the air. Bush pressed him again. ‘George, how confident are you?’

‘Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk,’ Tenet repeated.”

This revelation should and will increase the focus on the CIA director as one of the most contradictory characters in the whole Iraq mess. He has come down on both sides since that 2002 meeting, alternately praising his agency’s handling of the situation and conceding that the intelligence they produced was flawed and in some cases manipulated. In the end, one wonders if Tenet is motivated by anyting more than a desire to keep his own job.

However, issues of critical circumspection aside, Bush has revealed recently why he is so dangerous: his belief that he has a higher calling to bring freedom to the world. Once committed to the cause, Bush has not wavered in his support for the occupation of Iraq; despite the growing chorus of opposition to his disastrous policy, he has only grown more recalcitrant and stubborn regarding the rightness of his mission, as was attested in his own address to the nation one week ago.

An article by Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo entitled, “George W. Bush, Neocon Napoleon” quotes from the speech, revealing the president as a megalomaniac caught up in his own self-deluded belief that he and his American vision are quite literally God’s gift to the world. According to Raimondo,

“…the President stumbled through most of the Q&A, but there was one point where he waxed passionate, and became momentarily articulate, as if possessed by some neocon demon speaking through presidential lips.”

In this revealing segment of the address, Bush waxed eloquent on America’s “historic opportunity to change the world,” by beating the hell out of Iraq and restoring it as a shining example of Jeffersonian democracy:

“…So long as I’m the President, I will press for freedom. I believe so strongly in the power of freedom.

…You know why I do? Because I’ve seen freedom work right here in our own country. I also have this belief, strong belief, that freedom is not this country’s gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.”

Well that’s all well and good, George- everyone has their own beliefs, about both their personal values and the great beyond. That does not however give one the right to impose them on everyone else- unless one is a mentally deranged megalomaniac sociopath. Take him out of the suit and high office, and George W. Bush would be interchangeable with any deluded leader of a religious cult. Raimondo continues:

“…in this moment of spontaneity, unscripted by Karl Rove and completely unfiltered, Bush revealed the madness at the heart of his presidency, the corruption that eats away at the White House and infuses Washington, the Imperial City, like a dense hallucinogenic fog. He really does think his job is ‘to lead this nation i
nto making the world a better place.’ Not defending the nation, not protecting our security, not getting out of the way of prosperity, but ‘changing the world.’”

Whereas orthodox neocons tend to arrive at their views on proliferating freedom from certain Enlightenment philosophers’ views, Bush’s self-righteous stance is “smoothly messianic,” as Raimondo puts it- in a more fundamentalist way. This aspect of the ‘freedom thing’ comes up again in Woodward’s book. When speaking with the author, Bush “…enunciated an activist role for the United States based on it being ‘the beacon for freedom in the world.’”

“‘…I believe we have a duty to free people,’ Bush told Woodward. ‘I would hope we wouldn’t have to do it militarily, but we have a duty.’

The president described praying as he walked outside the Oval Office after giving the order to begin combat operations against Iraq, and the powerful role his religious belief played throughout that time.

“…Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord’s will… I’m surely not going to justify war based upon God. Understand that. Nevertheless, in my case I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible. And then, of course, I pray for personal strength and for forgiveness.’”

Nevertheless, when asked whether he consulted his own father, a man who had plenty of first-hand experience in fighting Saddam, Bush said:

“…you know he is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher father that I appeal to.”

‘Well isn’t that special,’ to paraphrase Dana Carvey’s old role as the Church Lady on SNL. After all, what could a voice of experience possibly have to say, when compared to the irresistible calling of the Divine Will? Despite his own schizophrenic denials, it seems clear that Bush’s messianic vision for the world is driven by a cartoonish view of religion and a good-neighborly world run by evangelical Christians.

This kind of leadership can only lead American to ruin, and has other applications particularly harmful to American national security. As elder Republic statesman Congressman Paul Findley charges, “…Bush is overwhelmed by the influence of religious zealots both Zionist and fundamentalist Christian.” Thus, according to Findley,

“…Bush seems unconcerned by the worldwide outrage at America’s massive, unconditional, uncritical support of Israel, without which the Jewish state could never have carried out its humiliation and devastation of Palestinian society.

…This issue surmounts all others in the presidential political campaign. It impels me to speak out against what George W. Bush is doing. I am a Republican, and I will remain in the Party of Lincoln. I feel no joy in making this case against the president. He may be sincere in his stewardship, but he is wrong, dead wrong in the direction he is taking our country.”

Any possibilities that George W. Bush remains the loveable dimwit, as perceived in the early part of his term, or the resolute patriot he was perceived as being after 9/11, have been dashed by his own testimony as recorded in Plan of Attack and in his own address of last week. As he reiterated then, “…I fully understand the consequences of what we’re doing. We’re changing the world.”

When asked by Woodward how history would judge the war, Bush replied: “History. We don’t know. We’ll all be dead.”

I’m sure the 600-plus US soldiers and thousands of Iraqis already killed so that freedom will ring across Iraq will second this opinion. After all, what choice do they have?