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

     --

     --

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.

     --

     --

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