Bush, Barack, Big Mac: recipe for disaster … ?

Who knows how much more damage George W. Bush can do to the country before he leaves office in January. Take your pick: A war with Iran. A war with Russia. Surrender to Mexico. Close Gitmo. Pardon Osama bin Laden's chauffeur.

Anything is possible.

I always get a kick out of those polls that ask, "Is the country going in the wrong direction?" Democrats point at the large numbers of people who respond affirmatively as evidence that the country wants liberal change, but in fact millions of people are sick of George Bush exactly because they think he governs too much like a liberal.

Want more spending on government programs? George Bush is your man. Want more open borders? George Bush is your guy. Want to improve the lives of people overseas whether they like it or not? George Bush is with you on that one. Want to spend billions of dollars to force schools in Montana and other states to indoctrinate children? George Bush agrees, and hopes there is No Child Left Behind. Want to increase the role of the federal government in every other sector of modern life, too? So does George Bush.

Call him Barack Obama Lite.

It's no wonder there were leftist activists at the Democratic convention protesting the coronation of Obama at Invesco Field. They are afraid that, despite his "change" rhetoric, Obama will just be George Bush Lite. Certainly, Obama's choice of career politician Joe Biden as his vice-presidential running mate did not help to dissuade the skeptics, who think the two-party system is really just a charade to keep the masses otherwise occupied while they are being robbed blind.

As for the other Republican in the race (Obama IS running against Bush, isn't he?), John McCain certainly doesn't instill any confidence that he will change the system. Remember, he is part of the national crisis also known as Congress. Despite his rhetoric against earmarks and his reputation as a maverick, McCain is an establishment politician who is just as goofy as Bush. He has bought into the liberal rhetoric about global warming, for instance, and he is one of the prime movers for the program of amnesty for illegal aliens. Lord knows, any conservative who plans to vote for McCain has to be both wearing blinders and holding his nose at the same time and is almost certainly motivated simply by dread terror of Barack Obama.

But that is in the future. For now, we just have to worry about Bush, and the do-nothing (except cause trouble) Congress. The two things I am most worried about are an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and some puling act of surrender to Mexico.

Regarding Iran, I am not necessarily against the attack itself, but rather against the prospect of letting this administration do anything on its own with the military. If they didn't understand the consequences of invading Iraq, how can they possibly be prepared for the fallout from a two-front war against the Muslim world.

Hitler disregarded the sage advice of his generals in 1941 and attacked Russia before he had concluded his takeover of Western Europe. The rest, as they say, is history. Britain, under Churchill, withstood Germany's aerial onslaught until the United States entered the war after Pearl Harbor, and Russia sacrificed tens of millions of its citizens to defend the motherland from the butcher of Berlin. Eventually Hitler was crushed and the United States got to foot the bill for healing Europe's wounds from World War II in the form of the Marshall Plan.

To complete the analogy, Bush is already fighting his war on the western front in Iraq and is fighting a limited war on the eastern front in Afghanistan. The difference with World War II is that both wars are against the same enemy, the Sunni Muslim leadership represented by al-Qaida and the Taliban. If Bush, however, authorized an attack on Iran, or sanctioned one by Israel, he would be opening a true second front - a war against the other major branch of Islam, the Shiite sect. This could easily spread into a conflagration that would stretch from Lebanon to Indonesia and beyond, and President Bush would be safely retired to Crawford, Texas.

Not likely to happen? Maybe not, but if we are going to fight a new world war, I would rather not see George Bush at the helm. Despite his occasional good intentions, he has proven himself to be a dismal failure at what his father called "the vision thing." He may not want to destroy his country, but you don't have to want a car crash in order to have one. Cowboy-style provocations without the capacity to follow through with measured and unified pressure on the enemy could easily result in a domino effect that would end with a flattened world (and not in the comfortable sense intended by author Tom Friedman).

As for Mexico, who knows what to expect? Anything is possible from the Bush administration, up to and including ceding the Gadsden Strip back to our southern neighbor (adios, Tucson!) as a sign of our enduring regret over America's heavy-handed 19th century applications of Manifest Destiny. It's also entirely realistic that the president would use his constitutional power of amnesty to give a blanket pardon to any and all illegal aliens within our borders.

But what I am most afraid of is that he will do something quiet and simple like send Congress the 2004 agreement he negotiated with Mexico to give Mexican citizens the right to receive Social Security Benefits for work done in the United States. This so-called Social Security "totalization" agreement allows workers from both countries to use work done in either country to amass credits toward Social Security retirement payouts, and there is no explicit ban on illegal work being used in the calculation. Like most Bush-designed programs, the devil is in the details. But one estimate puts the cost of the program the first year at $100 million. Considering how close our Social Security system is to bankrupt, that's $100 million too much.

Thanks to Congress giving up its constitutional authority to ratify treaties, Bush doesn't even need to get congressional approval on this baby. He just has to get it before the do-nothing Congress for 60 days and hope the citizens of the country don't notice. After the two months pass, if Congress doesn't say otherwise, the treaty is a done deal. Kind of reminds me of the way Congress votes itself pay raises without actually voting.

Sadly, even if President Bush forgets to send his "King George" treaty to Congress before he goes home, the next president still could. President Obama certainly would, and President McCain might just ask George to do it on his last day, as a personal favor.

Like I said, the country is going in the wrong direction, but not because we need to get more liberal.

. Frank Miele is managing editor of the Daily Inter Lake and writes a weekly column. E-mail responses may be sent to edit@dailyinterlake.com