UPDATED: AUG 9, 2007

 “DERANGED OR DELUSIONAL, NOT”

This column is largely based on two recent Commentaries of mine that appeared on BuzzFlash.  I am offering the analysis here on TPJ as well because I think that this understanding is of critical importance as we move ahead in the political battle against the Georgites and their continuing assault on US Constitutional Democracy, otherwise known as the “Unitary Executive.” 

Peggy Noonan was perhaps the paramount hagiographer of Ronald Reagan, perhaps the most influential creator of the Reagan Myth. Peggy Noonan is currently a Contributing Editor for The Wall Street Journal. In a column entitled "American Grit" posted on the OpinionJournal.com on Friday, July 13, 2007 (that tells you something), Noonan had this to say, in part, about George Bush: "I found myself Thursday watching President Bush's news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth. . . . Americans have always been somewhat romantic about the meaning of our country . . . . But they like the president to be the cool-eyed realist, the tough customer who understands harsh realities. With Mr. Bush it is the people who are forced to be cool-eyed and realistic. He's the one who goes off on the toots."

He's the one who goes off on the toots?!? This is Peggy Noonan speaking, folks. He must be deranged or delusional, according to her. That's the only possible explanation of what Noonan describes as his "seemingly effortless high spirits. . . . [His] certain steely good cheer. . . ."  And then at the other end of the political spectrum, we have respected columnists such as the New York Times’ Paul Krugman.  In his July 20, 2007, NY Times column "All the President's Enablers," Paul Krugman said, among other things: "In a coordinated public relations offensive, the White House is using reliably friendly pundits . . . . to put out the word that President Bush is as upbeat and confident as ever. . . . Iraq is a bloody quagmire. . . . Yet Mr. Bush remains confident. Sorry, but that's not reassuring; it's terrifying. It doesn't demonstrate Mr. Bush's strength of character; it shows that he has lost touch with reality."

But hold on. We do have the alternative view of The New York Times columnist David Brooks, who seems to be vying for the position of paramount hagiographer of George W. Bush. In his column of July 17, 2007, "Heroes and History," he tells us that in an interview at the White House "Bush was assertive and good-humored. . . . His self-confidence is the most remarkable feature of his presidency. . . . [Far from being delusional, he has an] unconquerable faith in the rightness of his Big Idea. Bush is convinced that history is moving in the direction of democracy, or as he said Friday: ‘I do believe there is an Almighty, and I believe a gift of that Almighty to all is freedom. And I will tell you that is a principle that no one can convince me that doesn't exist.' [And so], Bush remains energized by the power of the presidency."

Exactly so, folks. Not only does this man remain "energized by the power of the presidency," but also he is using it to a fare-thee-well, whether (details, details) the powers he is exerting, because there is no one there who can stop him, are described in Article II of the Constitution or not. He is neither deranged nor delusional. He is right on track. In fact, it is probably to his benefit that his critics are focusing on "deranged or delusional" because it distracts most of them from seeing what is really going on under the Bush polices, both foreign and domestic. Of course, those policies have nothing to do, either at home or abroad, with "moving in the direction of democracy." We know exactly what Bush's view of democracy is, and it has nothing to with "freedom," which he is moving as fast as he can to totally stamp out right here in River City, as we, along with every other website devoted to the Constitution, have documented extensively.

That Bush remains confident is terrifying alright, but not for the reason Prof. Krugman puts forth. It's not that he has lost touch with reality. Let's take Iraq. Do you think the Georgites don't know exactly what is going on in Iraq, just like they knew for sure what wasn't going on in Iraq (building WMD, connecting with OBL) before they went in? The reality in Iraq is exactly what he wanted when he sent U.S. troops in there. You think it's "victory," when he has had so many chances to declare it: well, yes, no WMD; well, yes, the U.S. caught Hussein; the Iraqis had elections; the Iraqis formed a government; the Iraqis are moving (ever so slowly, but they are moving) to give the U.S. control over some significant part of their oil; there are the bases; Iraqi troops are getting trained (to do what exactly is a matter of conjecture, but they are).

So Bush could have declared "victory" and left on more than one occasion. But he doesn't. He keeps moving the goal posts. And once again folks, we have to realize this was the plan all along. Until our side really understands this, we are going to get nowhere in the political battle that has to be won to remove this man and his people from the government and to prevent a like-minded successor such as Rudy Giuliani from taking over. As long as it is accepted that Bush has some kind of notion there is such a thing as the "victory" that O'RHannibaugh scream about endlessly, we will lose. It's not that Bush is not in touch with the reality in Iraq; he is in touch with it, very much so, and loves it. It is from this basis that the challenges to Bush on Iraq must start. It is not a difference of degree --- when to get out and on what terms. It is very much a matter of kind --- whether the U.S. will get out or stay there for the foreseeable future.

The same thing goes for dealing with Bush on matters of Constitutional Democracy. It is not whether "signing statements" are Constitutional or not. Bush, or in this case at least the lawyers who came up with the idea that is nowhere to be found in Article II that defines the nature, duties, and responsibilities of the Executive Branch, know that it is unconstitutional. The Bush people know they have violated the Geneva Conventions and thus Article VI of the Constitution that incorporates treaties as the Supreme Law of the Land. The Bush people know that what they call "Executive Privilege" over the matter of breaking the law and firing those U.S. attorneys for political reasons is nowhere to be found in the Constitutional concept of the Presidency. Gonzales knows he is lying to the Senate. Gonzales knows he is engaging the "F___ You" approach to Congress when he simply refuses to answer a straight question from Sen. Schumer. And the Bush people know exactly what Gonzales is doing. In fact they have told him to do it.

So for the Georgites it is not a question of some sort of delusional Constitutional interpretation. It is a question of whether or not the Constitution, as Bush once said of it, is just a scrap of paper, or whether we, in fact, do live in a nation of laws and a Constitutional democracy. When Rove made that famous statement at the opening of the Clinton Library, about "I change Constitutions," he wasn't kidding. When Bush says "I'm the Decider," he means it. When Bush said dictatorship would be a good form of government, just as long as he would be the dictator (just as his father did), he meant it.

The Real George Bush does not want "victory" in Iraq. The debate must begin to swing in that direction, and soon. The Real George Bush does not believe in U.S. Constitutional Democracy. The debate must begin to swing in that direction, and soon. If both do not, and soon, it will be a very long time before we will get to have open debate on matters of policy and the rule of law in this country, and much blood will have been shed in the interim. Yes indeed, for the sake of the country, the real George Bush must be made to stand up.

In case you think that I am out there by myself on this question of delusional/intentional, listen to what Sen. Leahy had to say on the matter (“Leahy Attacks Bush, Roberts,” The Politico, Roger Simon, Aug. 2, 2007): “In an interview with The Politico conducted in his Senate office, Leahy said: ‘Chief Justice Roberts has made the court an “arm of the Republican Party.” . . . Gonzales “has undermined law enforcement in America.” . . President Bush has stated, “in effect, that he is a law unto himself and the president can overrule the law, the courts and congressional actions." . . . Bush does not "listen to any views other than his own" and that those views are shaped by a vice president who has "an inordinate amount of control over him." . . . . "The president, with others, has stated in effect that he is a law unto himself and the president can overrule the law, the courts and congressional actions," Leahy said. "We have seen this with regards to torture, signing statements and the president determining who will be prosecuted. And we have seen actions in the White House to make sure prosecutions are brought against Democrats and not Republicans.” . . . Leahy continued: "This is unbelievable. You expect the White House to play by the rules and they have thrown out the rule book." ‘

I disagree with the Senator only in his statement that this is all “unbelievable.”  The problem facing us is that it is all too believable, and I am not being delusional when I say that.  Many of Bush’s critics, on our side and increasingly among Republicans such as Noonan, and Democrats such as Krugman, think Bush is delusional (or deranged) when it comes to Iraq policy. No folks, with the exception of a few like Sen. Leahy, it is his critics who are being delusional when they think he continues to pursue his policies because he is delusional. He ain't. We are. We are going to be able to beat him only when we recognize that fact, now oh-so-obviously staring us in the face.  We only need to see it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Column is based in part on my Commentaries “Deranged, Delusional, NOT” of 07/24/2007 (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/070) and “Will the Real George Bush Be Made to Stand Up?” of 07/31/2007 (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/071).

________________