US Diary: Bush is more than wrong-headed; he's pretty wacky; or is he maybe plumb insane?

1. A Maniacal Messianic Prepares to Fulfill His Destiny -- by Ted Rall

"I have fulfilled my destiny," the president says manically. He has just entered the nuclear launch codes that will trigger World War III. Seconds later, he emerges from a bunker. The Secretary of State squeezes between two soldiers. "Mr. President!" he shouts. "We have a diplomatic solution!"

He smiles. "It's too late," he replies. "The missiles are flying. Alleluia. Alleluia."

The above scene, from David Cronenberg's 1983 adaptation of the horror novel "The Dead Zone," is a classic if slightly preposterous nightmare of a world destroyed by a demented demagogue. Now, incredibly, a lunatic out of a Stephen King movie has brought the United States to the brink of Armageddon.

Until I read Seymour Hersh's expose in The New Yorker and subsequent follow-up coverage by other journalists about the Bush Administration's plans to start a war against Iran, I had dismissed talk of George W. Bush's messianism as so much Beltway chatter. True, he hears voices, even claiming that God and Jesus Christ talk to him. "I believe God wants me to run for president," he told a friend in Texas. Eschewing mainstream religion, he routinely parrots the apocalyptic ravings of fringe Christianist cults: "And the light [America] has shone in the darkness [the enemies of America], and the darkness will not overcome it [America shall conquer its enemies]," he said during his fevered campaign for war against Iraq. He mimics Old Testament cadences: "God told me to strike at Al Qaeda and I struck them," Bush told the Palestinian prime minister in 2003, "and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."

Nooor-mal.

Despite the man's wacky religiosity, I have been giving Bush the benefit of a small amount of remaining doubt after five years of the most disastrous rule this nation has ever suffered. I believed that he was breathtakingly bigoted, stupid and ignorant. But I didn't think he was out of his mind. Until now.

"Current and former American military and intelligence officials" tell Hersh "that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium." Of course, uranium enrichment for peaceful atomic energy is permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Which is what the Iranians say they're doing. But the Bush Administration, which knows a little about lying, doesn't believe them.

Fair enough: One only has to consider the risk of nuclear conflagration between India and Pakistan to see why the fewer countries have nukes, the better. Not every country can be trusted with such terrifying weapons. So how does the trustworthy United States plan to make its stand against nuclear proliferation?

By nuking Iran.

"One of the military's initial option plans," reports Hersh, "...calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites." An intelligence insider says that "Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap. 'Decisive' is the key word of the Air Force's planning. It's a tough decision. But we made it in Japan."

"We're talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years," he went on. Crazy stuff. But whenever someone inside the Administration opposes the nuclear option, "They're shouted down." The pro-nuke faction, led by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, is responding to internal critics with a "B61 [nuclear bomb] with more blast and less radiation."

You may have heard that Bush dismissed Hersh's article as "wild speculation." At first I, like you, responded with a sigh of relief. But I've come to learn that Bush doesn't talk like a human being. His policy pronouncements are carefully lawyered to give him the kind of technical out that Bill Clinton could only have dreamed of. Bushspeak is crafted to ensure that what Mr. Straightshooter says is rarely what he means. Filtering "wild speculation" statement through Bushspeak analysis shows that it's no denial at all.

"The doctrine of prevention is to work together to prevent the Iranians from having a nuclear weapon," Bush said. Notice that, despite the disaster in Iraq, he still reserves the right to wage preemptive war. He continued: "I know here in Washington prevention means force. It doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

It doesn't mean force necessarily. If and when a reporter reminds Bush of this statement after he attacks Iran, he will say that he never took the military option--including nukes--off the table. Moreover, he'll say, that he told the truth at the time. Thus the present tense: means.

Bush has not denied Hersh's article. Therefore, we should accept it as accurate.

We already know that Bush is capable of lying about his willingness to use diplomacy instead of war. "We're still in the final stages of diplomacy," he told reporters on March 6, 2003. "I'm spending a lot of time on the phone, talking to fellow leaders about the need for the United Nations Security Council to state the facts, which is Saddam Hussein hasn't disarmed...Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Iraq is a country that has got terrorist ties."

Actually, Bush had decided to invade Iraq months--probably years--before. He had moved hundreds of thousands of American troops into the Persian Gulf. Two weeks later, he ordered an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein and began the saturation bombing of Baghdad. But Bush was still talking as if there were something Saddam could do to avoid war. "Our demands are that Saddam Hussein disarm," he went on. "We hope he does." Sure.

Many people have asked me during the last year whether I thought Bush would attack Iran. I said no, because he's out of troops, out of cash and out of political capital. He couldn't so he wouldn't.

Those things are still true. Not to mention that Iran would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. Yet, as Hersh reports, the U.S. may bomb at least 400 cities and towns inside Iran. "Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups." You don't need troops, money or the support of the American people when God talks to you. And when you're insane.

(Ted Rall is the editor of "Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists," an anthology of webcartoons which will be published in May.)

2. It's Called Mad For A Reason, You Fool! -- by Joyce Marcel

He slices, he dices, he juliennes! Just look at that tomato! Now how much would you pay for such a president? But wait, there's more!

Bush came into office ready to attack Iraq. He lied through his teeth about his reasons - who is sure, even today, what his deepest ones might be? He turned the national tragedy of 9/11 into a false raison d'être, threw the Middle East into turmoil, made Iraq a training ground for terrorists, corrupted the soul of our nation with lies and torture, and began to squander its wealth.

But wait, there's more! Now he wants to nuke Iran.

Given the growing awareness that Bush and his cronies are really crazy enough to try it, retired top U.S. military officials are developing consciences. They are speaking out against the war in Iraq using words like "unnecessary" and "the worse strategic mistake in American history." They are calling the Bush administration's behavior "self-deluding, derelict in its duty, negligent and irresponsible." Even former Secretary of State Colin Powell told journalist Robert Scheer that he never believed Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat. "Now he tells us," Scheer sneered.

But wait, there's more!

These same top retired military officers are falling all over themselves calling for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Former Major General Paul Eaton, who oversaw the training Iraqi troops after the U.S. invasion, described him as "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically." This unprecedented behavior is almost rational enough to make a military coup seem desirable.

Yet our president defends Rumsfeld, saying his "energetic and steady leadership is exactly what is needed at this critical period. He has my full support and deepest appreciation."

And wait, there's more!

Seymour Hersh of The New Yorker, who a few years ago broke the story that Bush was planning to invade Iraq - a story that made no sense at the time, since America had been attacked by Saudi religious madmen - now reports that the U.S. already has soldiers on the ground in Iran. Also, the Air Force is practicing "over the shoulder" bombing, a maneuver designed to deliver nuclear weapons. And - here's the coup de grace - Bush and the neocons believe that once we nuke them, Iranians will welcome us with flowers.

Bush casually discredited Hersh's story in a recent speech at Johns Hopkins University. "What you're reading is wild speculation," he said, insisting that his promise to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons "doesn't mean force necessarily. In this case it means diplomacy."

Which is pretty much what he said right up until the day we attacked Iraq. Hersh was right then and, God help us, he's probably right now.

So now what would you pay for this president?

No one wants an Iran with nuclear weapons, true, but the best estimate from the international nuclear community is that the country is still five to ten years away from having them. Why fight now?

Because Bush is running out of time. The most frightening quote in Hersh's article is from a government consultant who says the president believes he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

Stop a nuclear confrontation by having a nuclear confrontation? I wouldn't exactly use the word "courage." It's called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) for a reason, you presidential fool! Get it? Mutual? We destroy them, they destroy us? Mutual. MAD!

But no, An anonymous member of the U. S. House of Representatives told Hersh that Bush "has a messianic vision." I guess if you believe in Armageddon, you can't be blamed for wanting to jump-start it.

True, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is a far-right religious terrorist and all-around nut job who wants to bomb Israel into the sea and would love a chance to confront America. But as a Pentagon advisor told Hersh, "The problem is that the Iranians realize that only by becoming a nuclear state can they defend themselves against the U.S. Something bad is going to happen." Duh!

And still there's more!

Minus the flowers and the dancing in the streets, what could be the possible results of multiple bombing attacks, including nuclear ones, on Iran?

Mushroom clouds. Radiation in the winds. Mass casualties. Contamination. Assured nuclear proliferation. Possibly an Iran-China alliance - and China not only has the bomb, but the missiles to deliver it. An army of suicide bombers.

Add major Shiite uprisings in Iraq and Iranian retaliation on the "exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates," Hersh said.

And -wait for it! - at the very least, $150-plus barrels of oil for the foreseeable future.

Hezbollah, which has been quiet for the past few years, could be drawn in. And there's always al-Qaida. Remember them? Terrorist attacks all over the world could result.

All that's left are lies and illusions masquerading as foreign policy. Now how much would you pay? Is anyone offering a set of Ginzu knives? How about a Pocket Fisherman or a Bamboo Steamer? Why isn't there any amazing TV offer? Why aren't the operators standing by?

Bush is playing chicken with nuclear weapons. How can we stop him? Millions around the world took to the streets to protest his invasion of Iraq, yet he remained superior, patronizing and implacable.

The best we can do now is raise our voices in the loudest of protests and then elect as many Democrats as possible to Congress in the upcoming election - especially candidates who have served in Iraq.

Let's hope an activist Democratic Congress will start impeachment proceedings and stop this president before he slices, dices and julliennes America along with the rest of the world.

(Joyce Marcel is a free-lance journalist who lives in Vermont and writes about culture, politics, economics and travel. A collection of her columns, called "A Thousand Words or Less," will be out in May. Email to: joycemarcel@yahoo.com.)