by Paul J. Balles

What can you do against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?

- George Orwell

 
Having a lunatic in the White House is dangerous.  Lest anyone think that the label exaggerates odd behaviour, look closely at the latest madness. 

What president, in his right mind, would ignore his generals, change several generals for one who sucks up to the boss, ignore the Congress and the mandate given the Congress by the voters, ignore the CIA and the intelligence community,  ignore the Baker bipartisan commission and ignore the soldiers dying and getting maimed in a civil war that has nothing to do with the security or safety of America?

A recent analysis of biographical sources by psychiatrists at Duke University Medical Center revealed that almost half of American presidents from 1789 to 1974 had suffered from a mental illness at some point in life, and more than half of those presidents, the study found, struggled with their symptoms — most often depression — while in office.

The study's report hastened to add, however, "What is hopeful about this is that it is evidence that people can suffer from depression or other mental problems and still function at a presidential level, if not at their best,"

President G W Bush functions as a speechmaker who refers to himself as the decider.  Unfortunately the evidence indicates clearly that he can't function as the decider.  On 9/11, he kept reading to children for 20 minutes after being informed that a highjacked plane had flown into the World Trade Center.

 

Bombing and invading Iraq and lying about why to the US Congress, the public and the rest of the world, was madness so unbelievable that after discovering the fraud people still wanted to give him a chance to turn the lies into realities.

Spurred on by the Israeli lobby and the hawks in Israel, the mad hatter added incredible support to the bombing and destruction of Lebanon’s entire infrastructure—more lunacy toward a country he complains to support.

A president who suddenly does an about face in his state of the union address about his concern over global warming and health care, when he has ignored those issues for six years, has to be out of his mind to think that his bluffs will convince anyone.

This article started off with "Having a lunatic in the White House is dangerous.” What's the clear and present danger?  Once more, G W Bush is ready to yield to Israeli and American Zionist pressure to pre-emptively strike at Iran, with excuses about their nuclear ambitions.

This will all be done without any real assessment of Iran's development and use of nuclear power.  Israel and the administrative dual loyalists don't want Iran to have any nuclear capabilities.

Several leading Israeli hawks have already threatened a military strike against Iran if America fails to act.  This, as in the back-room campaigns to get the US to invade Iraq, is meant to get the US to act.  AIPAC and Abe Foxman have already taken up the Israeli cause in America.

The other danger--an equally mad lunatic in Ahmedinejad, whose rhetoric was not what some interpreted it to mean-- may have been crazy enough to allow misinterpretations of his rhetoric to go unchallenged and uncorrected out of a mentally ill delight in the amount of attention he's been getting.

Challenging the US and Israel, as Ahmedinejad has done is the behaviour of a lunatic whether he intended what the Zionist propagandists have accused him of or not.  The provocation, if responded to as Israel and the US want, will certainly result in millions of deaths and chaos in the Middle East. That's not the sort of thing done by a leader with a sane mind.

Two reasonable proposals made by Iran have been ignored by the US.  One was Ahmadinejad’s challenge to debate Bush.  The US and Israel, however, are not interested in replacing destruction with words.  The second snub of words by the US came when Iran frankly offered to enter into discussions and the US, on shabby grounds, refused.

Thus, we have two lunatics leading us into World War III, without the slightest concern for the number of lives lost or the damage done to the planet.  Can we, just once, have large enough protests around the world, and especially in America, to pre-empt the madness of pre-emptive strike mentalities?

Name

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Add Comment