George W. Bush and Tony Blair were almost certainly psychopaths in 2003

2
3078

psychopath_advisory

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

Jean Edward Smith, a biographer and the John Marshall Professor of Political Science at Marshall University, has recently put the final nail in the coffin of the Bush administration. “Whether George W. Bush was the worst president in American history will be long debated,” Smith writes in his recent biography of Bush, “but his decision to invade Iraq is easily the worst foreign policy decision ever made by an American president.”[1]

So, how does that line up with Bush’s statement that God told him to invade Iraq? Bush said then,

“I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”[2]

Obviously those statements came from a psychopath. A psychopath constantly hears voices. He cannot realize what is real and imaginary. He always lives in fear because he cannot apply practical reason to real life. If he has to mix his psychopathic behavior with “Christian” or “Muslim” languages so as to delude the masses, he will certainly do it in a second.

Furthermore, a psychopath’s behavior will almost certainly manifest itself in “aggressive, perverted, criminal, or amoral behavior without empathy or remorse.” Robert D. Hare of the University of British Columbia declares that those people can be “charming” but “deadly.” “Their hallmark is a stunning lack of conscience,” he continues. “Their game is self-gratification at the other person’s expense. Many spend time in prison, many do not.”[3]

Hare adds, “The most obvious expressions of psychopath—but by no means the only ones—involve flagrant violation of society’s rules.”[4]

Rules, by definition, have to be based on practical reason, and practical reason cannot exist without metaphysical Logos. Immanuel Kant in the eighteenth century put things in a much more sophisticated way with the publication of his philosophical project Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. What Kant is saying is that to ignore practical reason—or the categorical imperative—in any social or intellectual endeavor is to commit intellectual suicide.[5]

"I know. I am not revered. But I have lots of friends in politics."
“I know. I am not revered. But I have lots of friends in politics. And that’s good enough for me.”

So, when Bush, Blair, and the Neocons got involved in “flagrant violation of society’s rules,” they inexorably ended up violating practical reason, democracy, and eventually metaphysical Logos. The end result again was chaos virtually everywhere, most specifically in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Like other scholars who have reported on this issue, Smith declared that the first three stooges who advocated aggressive expansion in Iraq were Frederick Kagan, “a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,” Eliot Cohen, “a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies,” and Robert Kaplan, “national correspondent for the Atlantic.[6] They created what one ought to call a diabolical club, and they began to spread false information to the American people.

Tony Blair himself has recently admitted that there were some “elements of truths” to the charge that the Iraq War precipitated the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS.[7] He added: “Of course you can’t say that those of us who removed Saddam in 2003 bear no responsibility for the situation in 2015.”[8]

So, if Blair described the removal of Saddam Hussein as “my crime,”[9] if he “deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq,”[10] and if Obama has also admitted that the destruction of Iraq led to the rise of terrorist groups like ISIS,[11] why aren’t Bush and Blair behind padded cells for the rest of his natural life? Why do the jokers still want to try another war?[12] Iraq is still mired in violence and terrorism, and Blair is still making millions and enjoying his life?[13] How can this man look at parents who sent their sons and daughters to Iraq to die for corrupt oligarchs and political whores?[14]


"If you have to lie, you have to smile first, right?"
“If you have to lie, you have to smile first, right?”

Business Insider, a thoroughly Zionist outlet when it comes to attacking Russia, talks about how Blair deliberately used a “Machiavellian” ideology and even cited Blair saying that he had to use a “trick” in order to convince the masses to invade Iraq.[15] Blair knew that “public opinion,” according to Insider, was against the elite seeking to invade a foreign nation. Public opinion is still against the elite seeking to invade countries like Syria.[16] But once Blair summoned his “trick,” all hell broke loose. What was that trick?

“So: the trick we need to take is this: we have to find a way of refocusing the issue on the absence of full co-operation by Saddam; and do so in a way that pulls public opinion and the UNSC waverers back to us by showing that we have indeed made every effort to avoid war. In my opinion the waverers need this to justify shifting. And for us in Europe it is vital in altering the state of our opinion.”[17]

Business Insider again declares:

“It’s not the first time Blair floated this idea. As early as July 2002 he was talking about using Saddam theoretically breaking UN resolutions as ‘our casus belli’ — a Latin phrase that means an action that justifies war. Incredibly, Blair said in the February 2003 memo that a disadvantage of this tactic is Saddam ‘might conceivably comply fully’ with the UN weapon’s inspection resolution.”[18]

Again, Blair, who “first floated the idea of regime change in Iraq just three months” after the 9/11 attack,[19]  perceived that if Saddam complied with UN resolution, that would have heralded the death knell of the Neocons’ dream of an Iraq invasion. Here is Blair’s own words:

“He [Saddam] might conceivably comply fully—but the chances of this, according to all intelligence are minimal. And if he does, it would still amount to a huge humiliation.”[20]

Blair went on to declare that Britain and the US did pursue UN resolution, but the move was all a smokescreen which he and Bush used to unconvincingly persuade the masses that war was necessary. In his words,

“It gives doubters a reason to sign up. It helps the Arab world to come onboard. It allows us to show the world we are going to war, not because we want to, but because we have to. Above all, it shows the US reaching out, understanding concerns, but still firmly willing to act. It sets the UN a fundamental test. It gives the Europeans something to rally round. When we do act, it will show we went the last mile for peace.”[21]

Blair added diabolically:

“The only explanation is that they need to be persuaded that we would prefer peaceful disarmament if that were possible. Proving it isn’t possible is the huge benefit of the ultimatum route.”[22]

If that were true, then Blair would not have summoned the word “humiliation” if Hussein happened to comply with UN resolution. As has been reported, Hussein was even willing to step down or cooperate with the US in order to avoid a bloody and unnecessary war.[23]

The fact is that both Blair and Bush were pawns who were more than ready to invade a sovereign nation. Yet in a desperate and hopeless attempt to rescue the Iraq debacle, Newsweek came out with an article by Owen D. Thomas of the University of Exeter saying:

“If we actually want to learn from what happened, we should recognize that Tony Blair has been remarkably consistent in his view that the removal of the regime was necessary, whether or not Saddam Hussein actually possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Blair, it seems, genuinely believes that the war was in our best interests because it may have prevented an unlikely (but not impossible) catastrophe. This way of thinking has not gone away.”[24]

Thomas implicitly argues that those who believe that Blair went to Iraq for reasons other than genuine are propounding “conspiracy theories.”[25] Thomas is so blind and deluded—deliberately, I would say—that he cannot construct a coherent thought. Blair himself admitted that the war was concocted not on the basis of practical reason, but Thomas is still not persuaded.

Max Boot
Max Boot

In a similar vein, Jewish Neocon Max Boot of Commentary has recently struggled mightily to wiggle out of Tony Blair’s recent admission and the Chilcot report. How did he get out of the dilemma? Listen to him:

“But how exactly does the Iraq War differ from previous wars? From World War I, when the Great Powers were said to have ‘sleepwalked’ into a conflict that no one really wanted? From World War II, which Winston Churchill called the ‘unnecessary war’ because it could so easily have been prevented by more vigilant enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles? From the Vietnam War, which was launched in no small part due to two supposed attacks on U.S. ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, one of which probably did not happen?

“And while I do not want to diminish the devastating toll of the Iraq War—not just for British and American troops but especially for Iraqis—it pales in comparison to the cost of the Vietnam War, to say nothing of World War I and World War II.

“It is common throughout history for countries to blunder into wars and to blunder in war-making. What separates the ‘good’ wars from the ‘bad’ ones is not in how countries get into them but, rather, how they get out of them.”[26]

This man has got to be kidding. Didn’t his brethren universally blame Hitler for attacking Poland and thus initiating World War II? Why does this completely dumb argument only work when Boot and the Brotherhood get into trouble?


"Oh, boy. Iraq is actually a thorn in our flesh. It sucks."
“Oh, boy. Iraq is actually a thorn in our flesh. It sucks.”

What we are seeing here is that Boot can’t really deny that the war was based on false pretense; he can’t refute Blair’s own admission. Can he apologize to the American people about the whole debacle? Well, he lacks moral and intellectual courage. Why? Because he doesn’t want to give up his Neoconservative ideology, which is essentially Talmudic and Satanic. Therefore he has to continue on a diabolical path, making statements like this:

“For all of the folly that led to World War II and notwithstanding numerous mistakes in its conduct and conclusion (which led to fresh wars in Vietnam and Korea and to the Cold War), it is judged the ‘good war’ because its major consequences were peace and democracy in Western Europe and substantial parts of East Asia.”[27]

There you have it. Not a single evidence will convince him at all. I have personally interacted with people like him over the past seven years or so and I have always come out with huge headache. Some of those people will share your premises and agree with the rational steps but completely reject the conclusion simply because it does not sit comfortably with their cherished ideology. People are certainly frightened by the truth, and as John Adams rightly put it, “Facts are stubborn things.”

So, it is literally impossible to argue with someone whose goal in life is not to pursue the truth through practical reason and to participate in the laws of logic using the intellect but to uphold a wicked ideology by whatever means necessary.

Man, as a rational creature, has the ability to apprehend the truth and to submit his appetite to it. However, when a person has already pledged his allegiance to an ideology, then that ideology becomes his “truth.” His motif is to defend that ideology to the death, no matter how inconsistent or contradictory its premises may be.

I say all this to show that the Neoconservatives follow the same pattern. They have already committed themselves to a wicked system and nothing will convince them that the same system is producing evil and chaos from top to bottom. How else would Jewish Neocon Jonah Goldberg declare that the invasion of Iraq was “a worthy mistake”?[28] How else would political sluts and whores like Ann Coulter write crazy things like “the magnificently successful Iraq War”?[29] Where does Coulter have the moral courage to say things like “We had won, executed a dictator, presided over democratic elections, and killed loads of al Qaeda fighters”?[30]

Can Coulter look at Iraq today and continue to propound claptrap like that? Just a few days ago, at least 292 people lost their lives due to a car bomb by ISIS in Iraq. At least 200 others were severely wounded.[31] Where is Coulter when you need her?

She writes in If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans that she “suffered more just listening to the endless repetition of those Abu Ghraib stories than the actual inmates ever did.”[32] If this woman had any brains, she would start apologizing to the American people and to Muslim communities around the world for writing pervert things like that and for ignoring the massive amount of documents on Abu Ghraib.[33] She would also start refunding her naïve fans who plunked down the money to buy her propaganda.


So, we have a situation here: the government and their lackeys simply can no longer tell the American people that they are fighting wars because they want to protect the United States. Psychopaths like Bush and Blair were spreading perpetual wars because they were pawns in a revolutionary movement known as Neoconservatism,[34] which former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy Paul Craig Roberts has said is a threat to the political order.[35]

This major threat has already caused thousands upon thousands of unnecessary deaths.[36] When will we go after the culprits? When will U.S. intelligence, as former CIA officer and academic Paul R. Pillar has argued, “target Israel,”[37] which began to incite perpetual wars in the Middle East in the first place?[38] When will defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Bruce Tanner stop profiting from the aimless wars in the Middle East?[39]

Nearly all those wars were done for the apartheid[40] state of Israel.[41] Their proponents never stop living in fear.[42] Keep in mind that since 9/11, the wars have cost US taxpayers $14 million every single hour and $337 million every single day.[43]

Keep also in mind that the state of Israel gave Tony Blair a million-dollar prize for his work in 2009.[44] And since then, “Bush has given at least 200 paid speeches and probably many more, typically pocketing $100,000 to $175,000 per appearance. The part-time work, which rarely requires more than an hour on stage, has earned him tens of millions of dollars.”[45]

In other words, the Powers That Be bought those men with blood. And sure enough, they didn’t disappoint the current regime in Tel Aviv. They helped create what is now the worse disaster in American history, which obviously is the opposite of democracy and freedom[46] and which sparked terrorist organs virtually all over the Middle East. Jeb Bush has desperately and hopelessly tried to wrestle with some of these issues over the past two years or so, and he eventually came up with a conclusion:

“ISIS didn’t exist when my brother was president. Al Qaeda in Iraq was wiped out when my brother was president.”[47]

There are some ideas that are so pathetic and so dumb that if you spend time refuting them, then you have given their proponents too much credit. But this is what’s passing for intellectual honesty and moral courage in the Republican Party these days. No one wants to take responsibility at all, but Republican representatives are lining up like chickens and asking that Hillary’s head be placed on a silver platter for screwing up Gaddafi.

When the Republicans screwed up Saddam, Coulter and others stood up and said crazy things like it was a good thing. When Hillary screwed up Gaddafi, the same Coulter basically came out with a rope and declared that Hillary had committed an unpardonable sin and therefore ought to be hanged. The only reason that Hillary is not charged, said Coulter, is because “Democrats do not indict Democrats.”

For Jeb Bush, “If Hillary Broke the law, she should be prosecuted.” But is Jeb willing to prosecute his own brother? The answer is no.

What we are seeing here is that representatives are refusing to submit their appetite to the moral law and practical reason. In that sense, they are totally irresponsible to needs of the vast majority of the American people. Perhaps this is one reason why Americans currently “yearn for third choice.


[1] Jean Edward Smith, Bush (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016), 660.

[2] Quoted in Ewen MacAskill, “George Bush: ‘God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq,’” Guardian, October 7, 2005.

[3] Robert D. Hare, Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of Psychopaths Among Us (New York: Guilford Press, 1993), 1.

[4] Ibid., 2.

[5] We will have more to say about this in a later article entitled “Vladimir Putin: NATO Is Satanism in Its Ideological Outlook.”

[6] Smith, Bush (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016), 495.

[7] Adam Taylor, “Tony Blair kind of apologized for the Iraq war, but many Brits still hate him,” Washington Post, October 26, 2015.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Nicholas Watt, “Tony Blair makes qualified apology for Iraq war ahead of Chilcot report,” Guardian, October 25, 2015.

[10] Heather Stewart, “Tony Blair deliberately exaggerated threat from Iraq, Chilcot report finds,” Guardian, July 6, 2016.

[11] Peter Oborne, “If Chilcot fails to nail Blair’s lies, it’s final proof our democracy is broken,” Daily Mail, July 5, 2016.

[12] Ishaan Tharoor, “Tony Blair feels bad about the war in Iraq. But he still wants to try it again,” Washington Post, May 24, 2016.

[13] Sam Greenhill, “The £12m tax mystery: Tony Blair’s earnings soar by 42% (but he only pays £315,000 to HMRC),” Daily Mail, January 9, 2012; Katie Allen, “Tony Blair businesses amass £13m cash after surge in profits,” Guardian, January 5, 2014; Matt Chorley and Daniel Martin, “Tony Blair finally quits as Middle East peace envoy after concerns over conflicts of interest with his business affairs,” Daily Mail, May 27, 2015.

[14] “Mother of Soldier Killed in Iraq: ‘I Blame Blair for My Son’s Death,’” Sputnik News, July 6, 2016.

[15] Oscar Williams-Grut, “MEMO: Blair tells Bush this is ‘the trick we need to take’ to get the world to support war in Iraq,” Business Insider, July 6, 2016.

[16] See for example Jon Stone, “Labour members ‘overwhelmingly opposed’ to bombing Syria ahead of decision from shadow cabinet,” Independent, November 30, 2015.

[17] Williams-Grut, “MEMO: Blair tells Bush this is ‘the trick we need to take’ to get the world to support war in Iraq,” Business Insider, July 6, 2016.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Oscar Williams-Grut, “CHILCOT: 9/11 ‘fundamentally changed’ the approach to Iraq,” Business Insider, July 6, 2016.

[20] Williams-Grut, “MEMO: Blair tells Bush this is ‘the trick we need to take’ to get the world to support war in Iraq,” Business Insider, July 6, 2016.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Will Heilpern, “LETTERS TO TONY BLAIR: Saddam Hussein’s lawyer wrote these letters as part of a plan for the Iraqi leader to step down before war was declared — but Blair ignored them,” Business Insider, July 5, 2016.

[24] Owen D. Thomas, “Why Tony Blair Really Went to War in Iraq,” Newsweek, July 5, 2016.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Max Boot, “What Chilcot Missed About Iraq,” Commentary, July 6, 2016.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Jonah Goldberg, “Iraq Was a Worthy Mistake,” LA Times, October 19, 2006.

[29] Ann Coulter, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2013), 3.

[30] Ibid., 16-17.

[31] “Death toll from devastating ISIS truck bomb in Baghdad rises to nearly 300,” CNN, July 7, 2016.

[32] Ann Coulter, If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (New York: Crown Forum, 2008), 2.

[33] See for example Karen J. Greenberg, et al., The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Shadi Mokhtari, After Abu Ghraib: Exploring Human Rights in America and the Middle East (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Jameel Jaffer and Amrit Singh, Administration of Torture: A Documentary Record from Washington to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007); Seymour M. Hersh, “The General’s Report,” The New Yorker, June 25, 2007;  Julian Borger, “U.S. General Linked to Abu Ghraib Abuse,” The Guardian, May 22, 2004; Luke Harding, “After Abu Ghraib,” The Guardian, September 20, 2004; Luke Harding, “Focus Shifts to Jail Abuse of Women,” Guardian, May 12, 2004; Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris, “Exposure: The Women Behind the Camera at Abu Ghraib,” The New Yorker, March 24, 2008; Michael Otterman, American Torture: From the Cold War to Abu Ghraib and Beyond (Australia: Melbourne University Press, 2007), see chapters 9 and 10; Philippe Sands, Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 14-16; Jane Mayer, The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals (New York: Anchor Books, 2009); Maggie O’Kane, Teresa Smith, et al., “The Torture Trail: What Did General Petraeus’s Special Advisor, James Steele, Know?” The Guardian, October 23, 2010; David Leigh, “Iraq War Logs: Prisoner Beaten to Death Days after British Handover to Police,” The Guardian, October 28, 2010; David Leigh and Maggie O’Kane, “Iraq War Logs: U.S. Turned Over Captives to Iraqi Torture Squads,” The Guardian, October 24, 2010; Nick Davies, Jonathan Steele and David Leigh, “Iraq War Logs: Secret Files Show How U.S. Ignored Torture,” The Guardian, October 22, 2010; Mark Danner, Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror (New York: New York Review of Books, 2004).

[34] Murray Friedman, The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Stefan Halper and Jonathan Clarke, America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).

[35] Paul Craig Roberts, The Neoconservative Threat to World Order: Washington’s Perilous War for Hegemony (Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2015).

[36] “Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000,” BBC, October 16, 2013.

[37] Paul R. Pillar, “U.S. Intelligence Ought to Target Israel,” National Interest, January 4, 2016.

[38] “Report: Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel,” Haaretz, April 16, 2008.

[39] See for example “‘An intangible lift’: Defense contractors assure investors of Middle Eastern wars’ profitability,” Russia Today, December 8, 2015; “Defense Contractors Cite “Benefits” of Escalating Conflicts in the Middle East,” The Intercept, December 5, 2015.

[40] Bradley Burston, “It’s Time to Admit It. Israeli Policy Is What It Is: Apartheid,” Haaretz, August 17, 2015.

[41] See John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (New York: Farrar & Straus, 2007).

[42] See for example Mitch Ginsburg, “How I learned to stop loving Obama and worry about the bomb,” Times of Israel, April 9, 2015.

[43] David Sirota, “$14 Million An Hour: War Costs Top $1.6 Trillion Since 9/11, Say Congressional Researchers,” International Business Times, December 22, 2014.

[44] Aislinn Simpson, “Former Prime Minister Tony Blair wins million dollar Israeli leadership prize,” Telegraph, February 17, 2009.

[45] Michael Kruse, “On talk circuit, George W. Bush makes millions but few waves,” Politico, June 7, 2015.

[46] See for example Patrick Porter, “The Chilcot Inquiry Shows Why the Iraq War Still Matters,” National Interest, July 5, 2016.

[47] Glenn Kessler, “Jeb Bush’s claim that Islamic State ‘didn’t exist when my brother was president,’” Washington Post, May 27, 2015.

Biography
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He is currently working on a book tentatively titled, Kevin MacDonald’s Abject Failure: A Philosophical and Moral Critique of Evolutionary Psychology, Sociobiology, and White Identity. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

Comments are closed.