Bush Derangement Syndrome: Libs Still Crazy After All These Years

It’s all Bush’s fault.

I’ve learned over the years that if I want to have any sort of dealings with liberal friends and acquaintances that President George W. Bush’s guilt must simply be treated as an assumed, unspoken fact or law of nature, like gravity.

Failure to treat liberals’ grand delusion in such a manner will bring about the inevitable near-lycanthropic transformation in which they become something resembling less human, more feral poodle defending a bowl of scraps.

It’s also become obvious through the years that this Bush Derangement Syndrome — that’s the clinical term — has always contained a strong undercurrent of anti-Semitism, even though Bush isn’t Jewish. What didn’t click at first was that this particular strain of anti-Semitism would often come even from people who are at least nominally Jewish. Eventually, I came to understand that it was only conservative Jews who were targets of this particular viewpoint, making anti-Semitism safe and fashionable for liberal Westwood Jews, G-d bless ’em nonetheless.

One amazing characteristic of BDS victims is how persistent the mental illness is. Once it strikes, it sticks. I’m aware of only a few people who’ve snapped out of it and come over to the “Dark Side” with us “evil” arch-conservatives.

Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein isn’t one of them.

Bernstein was on “Morning Joe,” with Joe Scarborough, at MSNBC when the discussion turned to the Iraq War. Bernstein had this mouthful to say:

“This was an insane war that brought us low economically, morally. … We went to war against a guy who had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. It was a total pretext! It’s inexplicable and there you go to Cheney, there you go to Bush, there you go to the Jewish neo-cons who wanted to remake the world. Maybe I can say that because I’m Jewish. To bring about a certain result. …”

Wow. What’s the Yiddish word for “Uncle Tom”?

Seriously, though, as conservatives well know, the Left is always quick to throw out labels like anti-Semite, not to mention the fall-back “racistbigothomophobe,” so it just tickles the funny bone to hear someone like Bernstein demonstrating why the Left is the biggest source of all this “hate” they keep pinning on us.

Scarborough was having none of Bernstein’s conspiracy talk, though.

“It would be much worse if a Southern Baptist said that,” Scarborough said. “But I think actually some would accuse of you of Bush Derangement Syndrome there, that there was this grand conspiracy of the neo-cons, and you said Jewish neo-cons, that they somehow went to war on a pretext for the State of Israel.”

Then he gave Bernstein the second barrel:

“Let me state again. When you were the president of the United States. When you were the commander-in-chief of the United States and the United States of America has been hit by terror attacks, a year earlier, and the CIA director comes into your White House, whose job, responsibility is to track intel every single day and says to you, Mr. President, it’s a slam dunk, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, you can criticize George W. Bush for a lot of things. You can criticize him for not talking to Colin Powell, who is the general that ran the war in the same country a decade earlier. You can say that he should have waited longer, that he should have waited and hoped that sanctions would work. But what you cannot say, Carl, is that this was an insane decision totally detached from reality, because if you’re the president of the United States … let’s just play this out … if you’re the president of the United States and you’ve got the CIA Director and just about every other intel agency on the globe saying Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, and you feel you have to move against him. If you don’t do that, if you don’t do that, and then America is hit, what are people like Carl Bernstein saying a decade later?”

Saddam Hussein was a gnat. In many ways, yes, he was the excuse for getting people behind the invasion of Iraq (and Democrats in Congress supported it, too), but he was a gnat nonetheless, who had throughout the entire Clinton presidency been an annoyance and a threat to America.

People not affected by BDS may recall Operation Desert Fox, a four-day bombing of Iraq ordered by President Clinton to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to make and store … oh, what was that phrase? … weapons of mass destruction (which we all know now didn’t exist, the Carl Bernsteins of the world would assure us).

At the time, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said, “I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is — I think we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century.”

It wasn’t the first time Clinton bombed an Iraqi target. In 1993, U.S. forces attacked Hussein’s intelligence-gathering center. The reason given publicly was because of an Iraqi plot to assassinate President George H.W. Bush after the Gulf War. But Clinton’s Iraq adviser Laurie Mylroie said the bombing was also ordered by Clinton in retaliation for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

That bombing was believed carried out by al-Qaida operatives, but Mylroie and others at the time believed it was sponsored by Saddam Hussein’s government.

In 1996, Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraqi targets again — without any international alliance or congressional approval, by the  way.

Then in 1998, before Operation Desert Fox, he ordered the striking of a bin Laden training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, in retaliation for the bombing of our embassy in East Africa.

Does any of this start to sound familiar?

Notice any connections (Hussein-Iraq-bin Laden)?

The Iraq War didn’t occur in a vacuum, and it wasn’t over oil. Despite post-war second-guessing, after 9-11, there was a combination of history and current intelligence linking Iraq to al-Qaida. By invading Iraq, the Bush Administration could eliminate a festering sore and potentially serious danger in Hussein. But more importantly, it provided “turf” for the necessary and inevitable fight with al-Qaida.

A lot of people fail to understand that point. After 9-11, al-Qaida had to be fought, no question. But where do you go to fight a stateless organization that is spread out over much of the globe? There’s nowhere you can go to smash al-Qaida’s headquarters. So the only thing you can do realistically is pick your battlefield and call them out. And that’s what the second President Bush did.