onlinejournal.com.
White House insiders say Bush is "out of control"
By Mike Hersh
Online Journal Contributing Writer
"For 11 long years, Saddam Hussein has sidestepped, crawfished, wheedled out of any agreement he had made not to harbor, not to develop weapons of mass destruction, agreements he's made to treat the people within his country with respect. And so I'm going to call upon the world to recognize that he is stiffing the world."—George W. Bush, 9/5/02
September 12, 2002—Sources within the White House inner circle say George W. Bush is "out of control." An unprovoked attack against Iraq is imminent, because Bush believes he's on a mission from God to rid the world of Saddam Hussein, whether the world likes it or not.
High ranking Republicans express strong dissent against Bush's plans. The Washington Post reports: "Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, respectively the national security adviser and secretary of state in the first Bush administration, have advised against invasion." International and congressional leaders support renewed weapons inspections, but White House sources say Bush himself demands removal of Saddam as his objective. Bush "talks a lot about the oppression of the Iraqi people, and liberating [them] from this madman." (New Plan On Iraq Emerges, Former Officials Urge U.S. Caution)
We aren't privy to the secret intelligence, but our allies and these top Republicans are. They all say Bush hasn't made the case that Iraq poses a clear and present danger. That's why our allies are not lining up to join the Bush "Crusade" against Saddam. That's why top elected Republicans and two generations of GOP wise men reject Bush's "cowboy diplomacy."
Rather than consider this counsel as he claims he's doing, Bush is stepping up his rush to war. This belies Bush's more placid public pronouncements, in which he claims he will respect Congressional prerogatives: "President Bush promised yesterday to seek congressional authorization before taking any military action to ensure Iraqi disarmament." (Bush to Seek Hill Approval on Iraq War)
According to inside sources, this is all for show. Bush has already made up his mind to attack Iraq. We must ask ourselves: Why war? Why now? The only credible answers are alarming. As during his campaigns, Bush is relying on others like Richard Cheney to present his anger to the public. George W. Bush is very angry today.
In private, Bush is lashing out against his Secretary of State, General Colin Powell for "undermining his authority." True, Powell informed the public about the "fierce debate within the administration over a possible confrontation with Iraq," however he defers to Bush: "Now that the holiday period is over and all the European colleagues are back to work, and the United Nations General Assembly will be meeting next week, I think you will see the president will pull all these threads together," said Bush's top diplomat. (Powell Cites ﾑRealﾒ Divide Internally on Iraq Policy)
Others are not so confident. The European Union and international elder statesmen oppose Bush's designs against Iraq. They hope to reach Bush via Powell and even former President Bush. The Washington Post reports "Former South African president Nelson Mandela expressed firm opposition to military action. Mandela said he had tried to speak to Bush and had instead spoken with his father, the former president. 'I asked him to speak to his son, and I have already spoken to Powell,' Mandela said. 'I have not given up trying to persuade the president not to attack Iraq.'" (Washington Post - Sep 4, 2002)
Colin Powell is no liberal or dove. As James Mann, a senior writer-in-residence at the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote in the Washington Post: "Powell has been, throughout his career, a proponent of a strong national defense, an extensive military presence overseas and, more generally, a unique American role in the world. He supported the Star Wars program in the 1980s and resisted relaxing the ban on gays in the military in the 1990s." (The Left and Right Have The Secretary All Wrong)
Mann added: "Powell served comfortably as the loyal military aide to Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, the most hawkish Cabinet member of that Reagan administration and the architect of unprecedented increases in the defense budget. Mann quotes Powell: 'To Weinberger and Reagan we owe the resurgence of the United States as a respected and credible military power.'" Bush is wrong to question his Secretary of State's loyalty because as Mann notes: "Powell turned down offers to become Clinton's secretary of state, primarily because he felt more in tune with the Republicans than with the Democrats on foreign policy."(Washington Post)
Powell is wrong if he thinks Bush seeks a diplomatic solution rather than a military confrontation. Even so, Powell is supporting Bush, at least so far. Therefore, the real divide between Bush and Powell has less to do with "undermining authority" than doctrinaire differences. The Powell Doctrine on use of force reads as follows: "US troops should be sent into conflict only when vital US interests are at stake, where there is strong public support, where the objectives are clearly defined and limited, and where overwhelming force is used to accomplish the objective." (Washington Post)
Bush is abandoning the Powell Doctrine for a new doctrine unprecedented in American history. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger is perplexed by Team Bush's demands that America and the World's leaders should trust one man's judgment—without consultation or proof—as justification for an unprovoked attack. This is beyond a leap of faith. It is a mad jump to an illogical conclusion at odds with American honor and dignity. Our allies, military experts, and Republican Secretaries of State Kissinger, Baker, Eagleburger and Powell oppose this Bush Doctrine.
The US was founded as a nation of peace and commerce, not aggression and conquest. Powell—and over two centuries of American policymakers have always considered war the last resort. Bush's Doctrine starts with the first strike use of massive deadly force in defiance of every American principle. Bush's approach relies on "leveraged power"—threats and use of force, even unprovoked first strikes for arbitrary purpose. Even absent adequate force, vital US interests, and clearly defined and limited objectives. Even over Congressional, allied and public opposition.
One military expert compares the international arena to law enforcement. The police have no interdictory authority. Until there is a crime, under the rule of law, the police have no jurisdiction. That's been our policy since 1776. George W. Bush believes differently, based on his personal sense of power and divine guidance.
Bush's sense of unquestionable authority drives him out of control when anyone defies him. Court decisions declaring his and Attorney General Ashcroft's actions unconstitutional and excessive infuriate Bush. People are questioning him on Iraq, and that makes Bush very angry. Our allies nearly unanimously refuse to grant Bush blank check authority to attack Iraq. The Congress, the media and the American public express the same concerns. Bush is furious anyone dares "defy" his "authority" to declare war. This rage renders him unwilling to listen to anyone other than partisan political yes men. He is "out of control."
Top White House poltical advisors Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett joined Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld priming Bush for battle. Rove wants Bush to attack Iraq before the November elections to force Democrats and moderate Republicans to toe-the-line or look like "weaklings" (paraphrased due to vulgarity). That's the wrong reason to put 100,000s of American troops in harms way. But to Rove, that's a small price to pay for winning Congressional races.
Rumsfeld tells Bush to attack strong and hard, assuring him the Congress, our allies, and the American people will "fall in line." That may well be true, at least over the short run, but that defies the Powell Doctrine requirement of public support before committing to war. It also begs the fundamental questions. Why war? Why now?
Fellow Texan Republicans James A. Baker III and House Majority leader Richard Armey both made unprecedented public criticisms of Bush, cautioning against this unprovoked invasion and refuting administration claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States or our vital interests. They lead the calls urging Bush to rely on weapons inspectors rather than weapons. However their advice goes unheeded.
Bush is intent on ousting Saddam, and considers inspections part of a one-two punch, rather than an alternative to all out attack. Sources characterize the Bush policy as "send in the inspectors while we arm the missiles." This reckless doctrine makes Ronald Reagan's motto "Trust but verify" seem positively placid by comparison.
Bush's party leaders, his father's national security team, several Secretaries of State—including his own, and our top military planners all advocate alternatives to invasion. They all oppose Bush's first strike doctrine. Without support from his party, the public, or our allies in the Middle East and, and without any evidence Iraq poses a threat to us or the region, Bush is pushing for an imminent attack. The situation, under a steady boil at least since Bush branded Iraq an evil power during his State of the Union address, is now about to boil over. (War With Iraq Is Imminent)
Undaunted and untroubled, Bush sees confirmation in the unlikeliest places. He read former President Carter's recent statements as support for an invasion. Carter warned against a unilateral US war against Iraq, because Baghdad represents "no current danger to the United States." (Carter says Iraq poses "no current danger" to US, also, Carter Takes on "Belligerence" in Washington)
Carter's OP-ED published in the Washington Post concludes: "As has been emphasized vigorously by foreign allies and by responsible leaders of former administrations and incumbent officeholders, there is no current danger to the United States from Baghdad." (Jimmy Carter: America's Policy Shift, The Troubling New Face of America)
Our source confirms Team Bush believes that "If that's what Carter says, then we must be right." This describes Bush as either deep in delusion, on an all consuming mission—or both. Adding to this harrowing unreality, Bush's top spokesman denies there is any conflict over Iraq within the administration.
Labor Day, Ari Fleischer told reporters on an Air Force One: "[Cheney and Powell] haven't spoken differently, they've spoken the same." Fleischer further enunciated "The American position, as the vice president said in his remarks, and Secretary Powell said, and as the president has said, is that arms inspectors in Iraq are a means to an end, but the end is knowledge that Iraq has lived up to its promises that it made to end the Gulf War, that it has in fact disarmed, that it does not possess weapons of mass destruction." (No Conflict on Iraq Policy, Fleischer Says)
For the record, Powell has called for return of weapons inspectors, saying "The president has been clear that he believes weapons inspectors should return." By contrast, Cheney told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 26: "A return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of compliance with U.N. resolutions. On the contrary, there is a great danger that it would provide false comfort that Saddam was somehow 'back in his box.'" (Washington Post)
This is not merely an internal White House conflict. This is a three-body equation. First, Bush sees himself as the divine sword of retribution against Saddam. For him, nothing else matters. Second. Karl Rove and Dan Bartlett are trying to use this for partisan political advantage. The third leg - including Bush's own military advisors, Colin Powell, and top Republican elected officials and career diplomats - are resisting invasion.
Despite their wise counsel and his assurances to the contrary, Bush has already made up his mind. He will step up his actions because, as the White House sources tell us, Bush is "out of control." Bush believes he was personally called by God to lead America. Tim Russert and former NYC Mayor Giuliani discussed this on "Meet the Press" last year. At the time, most dismissed such talk as post-September 11th hyperbole.
However, Bush has embraced this notion of Biblical mission, and now operates with an absolute sense of supreme authority without qualification and without limitation. He stands poised to unleash American might full force against anyone who would dare to defy him. The Karl Rove camp hopes an attack on Iraq will humiliate Democrats in time to sway the mid-term elections. This means the late-October deadline reported by the media was no misprint. Bush and Rove see this as a date certain for reluctant Republican politicians, members of the opposition, and even our allies to stand "with us or against us."
It's of no small moment that Russia with its thousands of nuclear missiles recently embraced not only Saddam but Iran and North Korea—Bush's entire "axis of evil." The implications of their approach should give Team Bush pause, however like an MBA focused on the next quarterly report, he's ignoring long-term ramifications. His top political team and Rumsfeld support and enable Bush's messianic mission. There is no sign of caution or consideration of consequence in their analysis.
As the Bush Administration rushes headlong into war, we should pause and consider the law. International law doesn't support an attack on Iraq, but I am concerned with an even more basic law: Isaac Newton's laws of physics, specifically the one stating: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." We would be foolish to ignore this immutable law. We simply cannot afford Bush's approach fiscally, legally, or geopolitically. (Bush's Iraq Attack Risks Reaction)
The White House is already implementing its plans for Bush to strong-arm domestic and international allies. Bush was scheduled to begin making phone calls this morning, September 5, speaking bluntly and personally to international leaders. Bush, Rove and others seek to "leverage" every strength of the US against leaders reluctant to back invasion plans. Cautioned about potential adverse consequences on international trade and economy as well as other policy issues, Bush said, "There is only one issue."
President Carter disagrees. He wrote: "Fundamental changes are taking place in the historical policies of the United States with regard to human rights, our role in the community of nations and the Middle East peace process—largely without definitive debates (except, at times, within the administration). Some new approaches have understandably evolved from quick and well-advised reactions by President Bush to the tragedy of Sept. 11, but others seem to be developing from a core group of conservatives who are trying to realize long-pent-up ambitions under the cover of the proclaimed war against terrorism." (The Troubling New Face of America)
Carter is not alone questioning the ideological and partisan political underpinnings of this new dangerous doctrine. Former Weapons Inspector and Marine Intelligence Officer Colonel Scott Ritter says this right wing cabal has captured our national security policy and are putting their narrow partisan interests above our national interest. Colonel Ritter says the man he voted for is planning to invade Iraq to improve his party's chances at the polls this November. We all know the "wag the dog scenario." It's no secret Republicans are in big trouble heading into the November elections. Lately it seems war is the only GOP issue, as the economy sinks into a Double Dip W. Bush recession. (AWOL Bush Aims America At Iraq, and RED ALERT - October War in Iraq)
Warning signs still under the media radar suggest a worse situation, if that's possible. Some among Bush's trusted White House staff fear what they are seeing and where Bush is taking us. His state of mind hauntingly reminds them of Richard Nixon's Final Days. They fear Bush is becoming Nixonesque . . . or worse. Although Bush lacks Nixon's paranoia, he may entertain even more dangerous notions.
George W. Bush sincerely believes God sent him to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Bush's monomania about Saddam and his sense of divine purpose scare some of his closest advisors. His resentment of dissent and refusal to credit counsel alarm many from the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations. Even top officials from his father's administration fear the worst, and former President Bush is among them.
Top Republicans past and present oppose Bush's plans for an unprovoked invasion. Our closest allies around the world loudly and clearly announced they will not support an attack against Iraq. Polls show the American public does not want America to go it alone. Experts from the US, the UN, and the Middle East all advise we inspect Iraq, not attack. Bush is intent on bucking all of them. (Inspect Iraq, Don't Attack)
USA Today reported "many congressional leaders - including those who support the use of force against Saddam - worry that the administration needs a clearer justification than the belief that Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction." Although "Bush administration lawyers have concluded that establishing a link between al-Qaeda terrorists and Iraq would provide the legal justification the White House needs to attack Saddam Hussein's regime," Armed Services Committee Chairman Delaware Senator Joseph Biden says Bush has "no Constitutional authority to invade." Biden expressed hopes the Bush administration have the "resolve" to do the right thing. (Connection sought between Iraq, al-Qaeda)
John Warner of Virginia, the ranking Republican on the committee also contradicts the Bush position. Senator Warner said Bush will "have to come to Congress" for authorization because "no existing resolutions of a general nature would suffice to meet that political - not legal - requirement." Warner is the Senate's leading expert on military matters. He authored the resolution empowering former President Bush to launch the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and his support is crucial to this Bush in 2002. His opposition should give Bush, Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld pause. But apparently it hasn't and won't. (USA Today)
So why war? Why now? Because Bush sees himself as the divine sword of retribution. Because Karl Rove and other shortsighted partisan-minded White House insiders are trying to exploit war for political advantage. Against this, the voices of reason are resisting invasion. Who will prevail in this triangular test of wills?
Will we go to war for Republican partisan political advantage? Will Bush lead us on a crusade based on his misguided sense of divine missionary purpose? Will American forces kill and die for all the wrong reasons? It all depends on media responsibility reporting the facts, public awareness and opposition, and Congressional courage. In other words, prospects appear bleak.
Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas is about 25 miles away from the burned out site of the Koresh Branch Davidian compound outside Waco. Now people wonder: Is Bush's state of mind that far from Koresh's? |
