Return to: Home | Culture | Media

27 comments from readers

gcarth
11 September 2008 at 12:25

Great article from John Pilger.

The trouble is that every time I read John's articles, I become consumed with rage and sadness in equal measure.

I recently read that about 1 in a hundred of us is psycopathic and that a disproportionate number of these psycopaths inhabit the corridors of power in politics; law enforcement; big corporations; the media.

There is an epidemic of gutless sycophants in the media that still fail to question, what is abundantly clear to any sane person, to be gross injustices and plain State terrorism.

1 in a 100 psychopaths is a lot of people - certainly enough to have some concern about, particularly if more than that proportion are in the various power elites.

Obviously this begs the question: are there not a similar number of psycopaths in power among Al Queda; the Taleban; Iran; China; Russia etc. etc.?

There may well be...but that still doesn't justify the attempts at complete world domination of the world by the US, UK and much of the West. Two wrongs don't make a right as they say.

We in the West brag about our democracy and sense of fair play; we brag about our 'civilized' and enlightened values; our moral superiority. Surely we in the West lost all our right to take the moral high ground when we invaded Iraq and killed thousands of civilians just to get rid of one man - Saddam Hussein - and even worse to get our hands on Iraqi oil and reinforce further, our control in the Middle East.

Of course, we actually lost the moral high ground many years ago from the CIA backed bloody upheavels in Latin America to Vietnam; from the British Empire before that and so on...

writeon
11 September 2008 at 13:17

I think one needs to remember a few simple ground rules; essentially the West is a force for good in complex and often very violent world, we are trying, though we don't always succeed, and sometimes it isn't pretty, and we make mistakes; we are trying to make things better and help. Help people to live their lives in freedom and peace and prosper. Sadly it's often only through the use of force that we can achieve this aims.

When things go wrong, this isn't because we don't care or we're reckless, sometimes on rare occassions bad things happen, but we don't deliberately go out of our way to destroy entire coutries, cities, villages, hamlets or mud huts and the people who live in them. The deaths of innocent civilians trouble us and we regret the loss of life. We don't deliberately set out to slaughter civilians; men, women and children. That is just one of the differences between us and the terrorists, who do target civilians without scruple. We in the West have scruples and we value every single human life.

The 'war on terror' isn't something we started. It's been forced on us and now, reluctantly we have no choice but to take up the gauntlet that's been cast down.

I was talking to a leading NATO general the other day in fact at a reception. I asked him about these wars for freedom and peace, and he told me that there would be more of them and it wasn't just the soldiers that were having to learn new tactics and new attitudes in the fight against the terrorists. The populations of the NATO countries would also have to learn how to deal with the challenges we faced, learn to respect and support our fighting men, who were putting their lives on the line for our freedom and to help others who also wanted freedom. Finally he said that if he didn't choose to believe that what he was doing was right, sending young men into battle for freedom, he wouldn't be able to look at himself in the mirror in the morning.

Europhobe
11 September 2008 at 13:41

as usual, unfocused ranting.

TerryB
11 September 2008 at 14:08

WriteOn,

Come on, are you serious? Amongst your many pearls of wisdom, this one gets my back up the most:

"....we in the West have scruples and we value every single human life....."

So "we in the west" - ie. YOU - should be demanding a war crimes tribunal for, at the very very least, the infamous "Afghan Massace" of thousands. Watch this link.

http://52.thelastoutpost.com/video-1/iraq/afghanmassacre#

TerryB
11 September 2008 at 16:05

WriteOn,

Come on, are you serious? Amongst your many pearls of wisdom, this one gets my back up the most :

"....we in the West have scruples and we value every single human life....."

So "we in the west" - ie. YOU - should be demanding a war crimes tribunal for, at the very very least, the infamous "Afghan Massace". Watch this link.

http://52.thelastoutpost.com/video-1/iraq/afghanmassacre#

gcarth
11 September 2008 at 19:13

writeon,

You say you were "talking to a leading NATO general the other day". Do you seriously think he was going to admit that the West are in the wrong? And of course he would say that he was doing the right thing sending men into battle - he is in denial like Bush, Blair and the others or maybe he's a psychopath...

This is the trouble with you people: you listen to only one side of the story; you allow your prejudices to blind you.

TerryB is absolutely right. How arrogant it is to suggest that those in the East are less scrupulous and more inclined to kill innocent citizens than we Westeners. Both sides are guilty of heinous crimes but in terms of numbers of innocent civilians killed, hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern civilians have been killed directly or indirectly by the coalition forces compared with a few thousand Westerners.

Neither side is right...they are both horribly and stupidly wrong.

Kamranh
12 September 2008 at 12:44

Quoting the Morning Star? How open of the author

Pilger is an absolute fascist

gnuneo
12 September 2008 at 14:20

writeon: no, how could you??

do you think Iranians do not "value human life"? Do you not think Iraqis "value human life"? I can assure you, they do just as much as we do in the West.

there is a gulf between the 'normal' people, and our 'leaders', and this is the same across pretty much the whole world. People do not want war, they gain nothing from it except violence, death and poverty. 'We' have not brought peace and democracy to the ME, 'we' are still continuing the same Imperial policies that put the lie under the notion that the West is all about peace and democracy.

"The trouble is that every time I read John's articles, I become consumed with rage and sadness in equal measure. "

couldn't have said it better.

"I recently read that about 1 in a hundred of us is psycopathic and that a disproportionate number of these psycopaths inhabit the corridors of power in politics; law enforcement; big corporations; the media. "

i've heard this too, but i regard it as too simplistic - even psychopaths, genetic or socially created, can be socialised by sane, humane societies to grasp the Golden Rule - Do not do unto others, what you would not have done to yourself. What this indicates is that our own societies are NOT sane and humane, they are still partly based upon notions of ruling and controlling others - the mentality that both creates and exaggerates psychopathology. Note that Scandinavia, probably the most advanced, sane and humane societies on Earth, produces far less psychopaths than the US, and is far more resistant to them acquiring power - although not perfectly, as we can see from the current Danish Govt.

pilger: its gets tedious. Can't you at least once write an article i can disagree with and argue over?? I'm sure there is some clause somewhere in the UN DoHR that gives me the right to take you to court over this...

fantastic words, once again. Thank you!

justinhifh
12 September 2008 at 15:11

Writeon - if by 'We' you are referring to the majority of moral, decent people that populate the Western hemisphere I couldn't agree more. The trouble is there is an ever widening gulf between 'We' in this sense and those who inhabit the corridors of power in our society where special interests, money and the endless pursuit of greater influence is falsely bundled with notions of 'security', 'freedom' and the D word. The root cause of this widening gulf? an ever compliant corporate media for whom quick easy news headlines (ie delivering government PR messages straight from the horse's mouth) is more commercially viable than probing and seeking the truth.

Thyagarajan
12 September 2008 at 21:23

The function of a good newspaper is to bring constant balance to available truthful news and thoughtful analyses of many different alternative policies in the pursuit of democracy. This essay does that and does that well. I applaud New Statesman for the excellent job it does. Please carry on this much needed service to the reading, thinking public.

Dr.B.Thyagarajan

philo
12 September 2008 at 22:48

Research Bushe"s speech for noble democratic reason,that could not take a lot of time.

But then ,any of his Cabal could instill nobility,and democracy,at the touch of a media mogul or several.

BillN
13 September 2008 at 11:05

I like the suggestion that you can tell Iraq was all about democracy because of the naming of the onslaught as operation Iraqi Freedom. I supppose if "we" nuke Iran out of existence it would be morally justified so long as we give it a name like "Operation show Iran we love them and mean them no harm"

As for the idea that our intentions differentiate the consequences of our actions from "the terrorists", all that does is help our General look into the mirror. Even assuming the intentions of those who initiate "our" wars are good, which is a big assumption, it does not make it OK when a mothers child is blown to pieces to be told it was ll with the best of intentions.

There is an old saying about good intentions and the destination to which they pave the way, perhaps Western leaders do have good intentions because they are leading us inexorably to that destination.

Krisco
13 September 2008 at 12:14

In his apologia, ‘writeon’ appears to repeat the language of ‘collateral damage’ usually paraded by those who perpetrate such crimes. I am perplexed by this for ‘writeon’ is usually knowledgeable in these matters. His theory of the benevolent spread of democracy fails utterly in this instance because (a) the USA planned the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11 [remember PNAC?] and (b) Iraq was not involved in the 9/11 atrocity! He has conveniently forgotten (i) Rumsfeld’s view that they bombed Iraq because there were no targets worth bombing in Afghanistan and (ii) Wolfowitz’s reply, when questioned about the civilian casualties which might follow, “Blood is replaceable, oil is not” [words uttered during the preparation of PNAC]. It was known that the authors of PNAC wanted something of the magnitude of ‘Pearl harbour’ to get the American people behind the US policy of invasion – and that was before 9/11 too! As is well known “Patriotism & religion [add security against terror] are the best refuge of the worst scoundrels”.

Krisco

writeon
13 September 2008 at 17:04

Guys,

I would contend that the dominant political culture in the West is quite simple and clear. 'We' have controlled the world for he last 500 years, and this didn't just happen by chance. We didn't do it on our own, we had help, lots of it, devine help. 'God' helped us in our endevour, otherwise we couldn't have achieved so much so quickly. From the beginning when we sailed out of Europe in our ships, with fair winds at our backs and hope in our hearts, we had the Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.

Columbus had orders to bring the word of Jesus Christ to the 'indians' and save their immortal souls. We, Europeans, were never merely bloodthirty murderers intent on conquest and getting rich. There was more to it than that. It's much the same today with our 'war of terror'. When our leaders say they that 'freedom' and 'democracy' are our primary goals, and we only want to 'help' the long-suffering peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, they mean what they are saying. Freedom and democracy will lead to economic development and prosperity, with our help. Historically we've always 'helped' others, at the same time as we helped ourselves. That's just the kind of people we are.

Sometimes, unfortunately it was necessary for us to baptize the mortal bodies in rivers of their own blood, but the important thing was that their immortal souls were saved!

At the same time obviously we incurred various expenses in our missionary work that necessitated turning the native populations into slaves to work on our newly aquired plantations and mines. This was all perfectly legal, as the Pope had given us the land and the natives were now legally citizens of Spain or Portugal, and any resistance on their side was now clearly an unlawful revolt against their new European sovereigns to whom they now owed their alligence.

I don't think I need to write an apologia for the actions and motivations of what some would term 'Western Imperialism', after all, actions speak louder than words. Obviously their were excesses and mistakes. In retrospect in was unfortunate that we were forced to destroy and enslave the native kingdoms of South America and Mexico, but sometimes the price of progress can be high for some of the parties envolved in the inexorable march upwards and onwards!

Perhaps the worst thing one could say about Westerners is that we, occassionally put too high a 'price' on the 'value' of White people's lives compared to others. But even when the terrorists prepare traps for us and force us into situtations where we have no option but to massacre women and children in their hundreds, like in Afghanistan/Pakistaon over the last couple of weeks; afterwards we eventually admit our mistakes, appologize and move on. Let's be honest, putting our soldiers on trial for warcrimes wouldn't bring those dead women and children back, would it?

What I hate about the terrorists, to paraphrase an Israeli prime minister, is that they are forcing us to massacre innocent civilians by the tens of thousands, before we can kill them, and that's just not right or fair, shame on them! The fact that they are prepared to sacrifice so many of their own people just shows what terrible people the terrorists really are.

Gideon Polya
13 September 2008 at 21:49

Excellent article by John Pilger. The death toll from the Bush-Blair War on Terror Global Holocaust (9 -11 million deaths, see below) now exceeds that of the WW2 Jewish Holocaust (6 million dead, 1 in 6 dying from deprivation).

The fundamental measure of the pure evil of US Alliance democratic imperialism (actually democratic tyranny and indeed, in the absence of adequate existing words or a suitable neologism, democratic Nazism) is avoidable death - the violent and non-violent excess deaths or deaths that should not have happened - associated with war, invasion and occupation of other countries.

Using UN Population Division data and the latest medical literature data, it has been estimated (September 2008) that the violent and non-violent avoidable deaths associated SO FAR with the Bush I plus Bush II genocidal global wars on this 7th anniversary of 9-11 (3,000 Americans murdered, very likely by their own government and at the very least with the passive complicity of their own government) now total 9-11 million.

This total includes avoidable deaths in presently Occupied Iraq (1990-2008; 4.2 million), Occupied Afghanistan (2001-2008; 4-6 million), Occupied Haiti (0.1 million), Occupied Somalia (0.3 million) and 0.6 million global post-invasion opiate drug-related deaths (about 50,000 in the US, 3,000 in the UK) due to US, UK, NATO and White Australian restoration of the Taliban-destroyed Afghan opium industry to 93% of world market share in 2007, as compared to only 5% in 2001 (UN Office on Drugs and Crime World Drug Report 2007: http://www.unodc.org/ ).

This tally of 9-11 million excess deaths does NOT include post-invasion excess deaths linked to Bush I and Bush II policies in other US-backed occupations, namely in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (1967-2008 in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 252 and the 2004 finding of the International Court of Justice; post-invasion under-5 infant deaths 0.2 million, post-invasion excess deaths 0.3 million, and Palestinian refugees totalling 7 million), Occupied Lebanon (1982-2000 and then again in 2006), Occupied Syria (1967-2008), Occupied Diego Garcia (100% ethnically cleansed by the UK and the US) and in Pakistan (currently being invaded with bipartisan, Obama-McCain US political support by US ground forces, the first such territorial occupation in the former British Raj by Anglo forces since Indian and Pakistani Independence in 1947).

For detailed and documented analysis see "9-11 Excuse for US Global Genocide. The real 9-11 atrocity: Millions Dead in Bush Wars": http://mwcnews.net/content/view/25184/42/ and "Media-ignored 9-11 Crime - 9-11 Million Dead in Bush Wars ": http://gpolya.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/12/1860137-media-ig... .

In demanding war crimes trials for Bush and Blair, British Nobel laureate Harold Pinter, informed by Mainstream media, asked (2005): "How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand? More than enough, I would have thought. Therefore it is just that Bush and Blair be arraigned before the International Criminal Court of Justice" (see: http://www.countercurrents.org/arts-pinter081205.htm ).

9-11 million? More than enough, I would have thought.

ozwry - australia
14 September 2008 at 04:51

Despite Mr Pilger's constant promps, I did not/could not laugh.

However, laughter came spontaneously from the comments of "writeon." Such brilliant satire ... unless, that is, one of us is seriously, umm, deluded.

taghioff.info
14 September 2008 at 05:09

"Note that Scandinavia, probably the most advanced, sane and humane societies on Earth, produces far less psychopaths than the US, and is far more resistant to them acquiring power - although not perfectly, as we can see from the current Danish Govt. "

And there is a simple reason for this , a belief in equality in Scandinavia. This is what the Golden rule implies, and without we tend to collective psychopathy, which is a social outcome of gross inequality.

Most of the discussion in the UK and US has lost this sense of equality and fairness, partly due to a destruction of the notion of class by identity politics, and partly due to the destruction of the idea of distribution through the fetishizing of growth.

But people across the world have a lot in common, even if it is not their position in the workplace that defines this. We are all dependent on the environment, and that defines us as a group that needs to recognise itself: We need to find our common humanity again, and to defend those at the bottom who are directly dependent on nature for their livelihoods.

And the environment calls a halt on the fetishization of growth also, we cannot keep on this way, there are not unlimited resources, so we need to think about how they are distributed.

Things really are changing, it is a question of where on the curve we want to be.

fairplay
14 September 2008 at 06:07

writeon

as soon as you mention comments from an israeli prime minister about terrorism your argument loses all credibility

we are not there to play god and since when did being a freedom fighter become a way to be cast as a terrorist? i dont recall the US government condemning the IRA too often when they were bombing british civilians!!!! throwing stones at a tank that has levelled your home killing most of your family makes you "AL QAEDA" these days. unbelievable

what a load of tosh. we dont install democracy around the world. we dont help people. we get what WE WANT first and when theres nothing left we duck and leave them to sort out the mess.

there is no war on terror. the terror is being created by our own governments. whether you belive there are terrorists actually out there or not our foreign policies are creating hatred everywhere. eventually when the brain dead population of britain and the usa start to stop believing the propoganda machine that is the manstream media maybe hatred will be created on our own shores too. hopefully not, specifically in a violent sense, but i think it is already to a certain extent.

the question is when is enough enough? how much more blood will be spilt over the "bottom line"?

personally, i just want to wake up with a smile on my face and go to bed knowing that ive made a few other people smile throughout the day. politicians do the same. they wake up and put a smile on their face when they check the stock markets and their portfolios and they manage to make their globalist masters smile through most of the day withe their murderous unjust decisions!

writeon
14 September 2008 at 19:01

A few days ago, sat on a tire, sitting watching the old man river, the Mississippi rollin', rollin' by my temporary home, I began to wonder. Behind me about a half a mile away was the ruins of tobacco plantation. The greek facade of the main house, with its columns, crumbling. The slaves had all upped an' gone away. The library where the best of them had learned to read, a dry husk, empty and ghostly.

Sat on my tire, a tire from a Lincoln, I wondered about the power of satire, or the lack of it, in a world post everything, and probably post intelligence.

We live in truly grostesque times, when the worst of men, the most obviously charlatans are chosen as our leaders. The noble idea of democracy is prostituted into a race, a first past the post. The dull and the dumb, blinded by their own towering mediocraty are leading us over the edge into disaster.

writeon
15 September 2008 at 09:54

Walking along the path, through the fields, past the ruined mansion-house, down to gently rolling Mississippi last night with a friend, we talked about the seemingly cosmic batte we're involved in, the battle between good and evil, between us, the forces of democracy and the terrorists.

When we kill innocent people in our war against the terrorists we believe it's 'justified' because we are good. However, when the terrorists kill innocents, it's unjustified and wrong, because they are evil in thought and deed, compared to us. This, in the West, is percieved as an important and fundamental distinction.

But problems arise in this widespread form of argument. What we seem to be saying and arguing, is that what makes the killing and deaths of innocent civilians wrong, isn't really the fact that they are dead, but rather who killed them and why, and what their attitude, feelings and perceptions are in relation to the killing. The concrete results, the killings, the deaths, the maimings; fade in significance, compared to and relative to, the 'ideas' behind the killing, are these ideas good or bad. The ideas justify the means and the results.

I think Westerners have always placed little to no value on the lives of non-Westerners. Historically this seems obvious and incontravertable. We developed an ideology and culture that robbed non-Westerners of their 'hamaness', they were not-us, below us, sub-humans to be exploited, enslaved and if they resisted - exterminated. It's balm for the soul to have defined non-Westerners as a sub-species. This is the core of racism, which was really an economic catagory and justification for imperialism and enslavement.

Nothing much has changed today, in fact we seem to be moving backwards in time, as a new variant of the 'whiteman's burdon' is taken out and dusted off for mass consumption, our sacred duty to 'help' the world as we help ourselves to whatever they've got than we need.

An example of our ingrained cultural racism is painfully illustrated in the way our so-called 'free media' have covered the recent spate of American bombings in Afghanistan. Where scores of women and children have been slaughtered and maimed by our bombs and bullets. How would we react if these atrocities had been carried out by 'Muslim/Islamist terrorists' in London or New York? The reaction of our media, pundits and political leaders would have been massive and violent. There would have been cries for revenge and retribution, we would have blasted the enemy to pieces, piled a mountain of bodies on top of the dead. Yet our reaction to the attacks resulting in so many civilian casualites in Afghanistan, is so calm, so muted, so incomplete, so lacking any empathy or understanding. Why? Because we don't think they are worth it, not compared to our lives, not really.

Democracy, human rights, freedom; are just words we use, abuse and prostitute, to suit our needs and interests. They don't mean anything or apply to the enemy or anyone else who gets in the way when our imperial legions are on the march. What characterizes the West is our ingrained cultural, political, and economic, double-standards, hypocracy and an infinite capacity for self-delusion.

fairplay
15 September 2008 at 13:35

writeon

do you feel the media should be as accountable as say the current american adminstration for lying to the people?

will they ever face the music for their part in these despicable acts on innocent civilians by their lies and smokescreen coverage? i dont think so. you see, the problem starts at an early age with the blatant propoganda we are fed at school until we are old enough to watch and read the MSM that we take as "being the facts". unfortunately, the majority of the population dont want to know the truth as it scares the wits out of them. they would rather not know and get on with their sad little lives. this is a huge part of western ideaology. "I'm alright jack" and so forth. you are right, a video of dead babies in iraq might twang their conscience for the time its on the tv but thats it. once its moved on to paris hiltons new hairstyle they have forgotten about it. pictures of dead babies on their home soil, whatever the circumstances would leave them seething for hours.

now we are in the age of the internet and people's thoughts and ideas are changing, probably faster than the powers that be would like. how long will this last? who knows? not long in its present state i assure you. i am nearing retiremnet age. ive got through my life fairly unscathed. why should i care about the wars in the middle east? it doesnt affect me does it? of course it does. it will affect my kids and my grandkids. it will affect my pension (if its not been raped already) and it affects my conscience.

but, you try telling your best friend, your brother, workmate etc what is actually happening and they will look at you like a leper. that is what the media are good at. making fools of all of us. the internet could awaken millions but that opportunity will be taken away sooner rather than later

writeon
15 September 2008 at 21:57

After Iraq, ideally the West's leading politicians, that's Bush and Blair and their hangers on, should have been put on trial for the ultimate international crime, the crime of waging an agressive war against peace. The powerful media moguls, Murdoch et al, editors and senior journalists, who willingly provided the propaganda foundation which allowed the political leaders to 'get away with it', should also have been put on trial, charged with something like 'treason', acting in the interests of foreign power as opposed to the interests of Britain. What's disturbing and disgusting is the lack of real remorse or being held to account and shamed, by the media whores who masaged us into war, the establishment journalists, what a sorry bunch they all are. Highly paid, intellectual prostitutes. How telling it is, about the true nature of our 'democracy' that those few journalists who had the courage to tell the truth have nearly all suffered setbacks to their careers, whilst the professional liars have prospered and continued as if nothing really happend.

More positively action should have been taken to make sure something like it could never happen again, or at least make it more difficult. Murdoch's empire in Britain should have been broken up one way or another because he was complicit in enabling warcrimes to be committed. Nobody should be allowed to own more than one media outlet over a certain size. One national newspaper, one national television channel and that's it. That woul of course mean interfering in the 'free market', but as the free media market made going to war based on lies, which undermined democracy, that's a price I'd be willing to pay, and anyway compared to the price the people of Iraq have paid, it seems rather mild.

But that was never going to happen, not under our system, one would need a healthy and functioning democracy for that.

Bhatti
16 September 2008 at 09:02

Writeon, do you perhaps live on planet Fox.

fairplay
16 September 2008 at 12:45

why planet FOx? doesnt sound like FOX rhetoric to me

nawawimohamad
17 September 2008 at 11:21

The US administration consists of a bunch of lunatics. If they were not, the world would be a better place for everyone to live. Just imagine spending trillions of USD on war, killing, destruction and sufferings, while the Katrina disaster has not even being rebuild and Ike caused a mere 2 billion USD damage compared to 9 billion USD being spent monthly on Iraq war! Has God been too kind to the US or is God unfair? No, because obviously the rule is different for the insane and even in the court of law a person can be found not guilty on proven to be insane. The US administration is insane.

writeon
17 September 2008 at 20:44

The question for me is, are they just 'insane' or 'mad', or is their a method to their madness? Is it really just chaos or is there a pattern that emerges, a plan of some sort a reason behind all the violence?

It isn't just the Bush regime that dreams of world dominantion, it's been the primary US objective, arguably for decades, and it's been pursued deligently by administration after administration, but using different methods. But with the threat and use of military force always close at hand.

What characterizes the current administration is their total lack of subtlety and openly agressive attitudes, threatening military agression on an unprecidented scale, and launching wars to secure access to the Middle East and Eurasia.

Investing billions on improving the lives of ordinary people instead of wasting them on war would be a sensible and moral accomplishment, if one was interested in making the world a better place for everyone to live; only the American ruling elite aren't interested in that. What they are interested in is maintaining the world pretty much as it is, with them at the top, owning it and controling it for their benefit. In fact a better, fairer, world would probably threaten their position as the lords of the world, and they have no intention of letting go of a world they believe they can control for ever, and this attitude and it's consequences, may be the real 'proof' of their collective delusion and 'madness'.

nawawimohamad
18 September 2008 at 06:26

Writeon, the US administration is utter raving mad. Anyway any form of mental illness fits the description. But I can't really see any long term benefit for the US from their lunatic actions maybe just a few moments of glory followed by frustrations and despair coupled with an everlasting PST syndrome! Just imagine Bush dreaming of Osama and al-Qaeda everytime he sleeps.