Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

[hcap]

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

"President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind....."

[Secretariat]

hcap,

After reading your link, maybe instead of Bush hiring that lawyer it might have been better if he had hired a psychiatrist.

Frighteningly sad stuff.

[chickenhead]

gee, mood swings, paranoia, delusions of grandeur....hmmm....is there anything in his history to give us any idea what could be causing this?

Forget a shrink, he needs a good Narcotics Anonymous meeting...or at least that is what this article is written to imply.

[ljb]

This is the type of activity one could expect from someone who is in over their head. The house of cards is beginning to fall.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
This is the type of activity one could expect from someone who is in over their head. The house of cards is beginning to fall.

yeah.....keep whistling boys.........you guys kill me........I have read that the next step in the media process is to portray Bush as a religious zealot.......at least you guys are on schedule........right on time........

[JustRalph]

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2606171

From the Houston Chronicle

June 2, 2004, 9:29PM

A one-time Bush skeptic admits his error
By JOSHUA MURAVCHIK

George W. Bush's approval ratings are at a low. Some liberals, reports New Republic Editor Jonathan Chait, find Bush's very existence to be "a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche." Now even conservatives — such as columnists George Will, David Brooks and Robert Kagan — are pouring forth despair over the president's Iraq policies.

But my admiration for the man — for whom I refused to vote in year 2000 — grows ever higher.

A president's chief duty is to keep the nation safe in the dangerous tides of international politics. In 2000, I found candidate Bush too little engaged with this challenge. But since 9/11, he has offered the kind of leadership that ranks him with the greatest presidents of my lifetime, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan.

Like them, Bush is taxed with having a weak intellect and little mastery of policy details. Maybe so. But what Bush has, as they had, is a clear-eyed recognition of a great threat to our country, the courage to face that threat and a willingness to risk his political standing for the policies he deems essential to our security.

Sept. 11 was a watershed, but it was new only in scope, not in kind. For three decades, Middle Eastern terrorists had assassinated our diplomats, brought down our airliners, blown up our servicemen in their bunks and berths. They even bombed the World Trade Center. Yet as long as they were killing us in small batches, we responded with passivity, fearing to stir up more trouble.

Even Reagan, tough as he was, decided to slink away when Hezbollah murdered 241 of our Marines in their barracks in Beirut.

On 9/11, however, the terrorists managed to kill us by thousands at a swoop, and what Bush understood was that our policy of passivity, like the West's efforts to appease Hitler in the 1930s, had only invited more audacious attacks. He saw that we had no choice but to go to war against the terrorists and their backers. If we did not destroy them, the terrorists would set their sanguinary sights higher until they succeeded in killing us by the tens or hundreds of thousands.

He saw too that this war would be, as President Kennedy described the Cold War, a "long, twilight struggle" waged on many fronts and by many means. This meant that we would fight and some of us would die on his watch, but that victory could not possibly be achieved within so short a time as to enable him to claim credit.

Has our occupation of Iraq gone smoothly? Far from it. Have mistakes been made? No doubt.

Probably we should have sent more soldiers, not disbanded the Iraqi army, planned earlier elections and not adopted an artificial deadline for transferring sovereignty.

In the occupation of Japan, we made mistakes too: trying to impose federalism, which was alien to the Japanese; purging so many collaborators with the old regime that it crippled economic recovery and stirred deep resentment.

Perhaps even the decision to take on Iraq after Afghanistan was a strategic mistake in the larger war. It might have been better to have concentrated on overthrowing Iran's mullahs or forcing Syria out of Lebanon. In World War II, Allied leaders and commanders debated fiercely which fronts to concentrate on and in what order.

But the real issue is not about tactics or even the larger strategy but whether to fight at all. The alternative is to soothe ourselves with half measures — tightening borders, tracking funds, sharing intelligence, courting unfriendly governments — hoping against hope that a disaster even bigger than 9/11 will not be visited upon us.

Are we safer now than we were before we began to fight back against the terrorists? Perhaps not, just as we were not safer when we began to resist Hitler, prompting him to declare war on us. Back then, we were not safer until we had won. And we will not be safe now until we have defeated the terrorists and their backers.

Would some other president have made the same brave choice as George Bush to shoulder this "long twilight struggle"? Not Bill Clinton, whose eye was always on the electoral calendar. Not the elder Bush, who didn't think much of "the vision thing." And surely not John Kerry, who tells us that he voted against the Iraq war of 1991 although he was really for it and voted for the Iraq war of 2003 although he was really against it. Kerry offers, in short, all the leadership of a whirling dervish. Truman? Reagan? Perhaps. But 9/11 came when George W. Bush was in office. He has risen to the challenge of a vicious enemy. I wish I could vote for him twice this time — to make up for having underestimated him so badly in 2000

Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C

[Tom]

Ralph,
I find Off Topics goes good with popcorn theses days.
Vaudivile is back!
These guys must be in Egypt, cause they are in "de-Nile!"

[wolsons]

What a column! The clearest and sanest elucidation of the entire history of the Bush administration that I've seen yet.

Steve

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by hcap
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 4, 2004, 06:15

"President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind....."


You're serious posting stuff like this, right? You actually think any sane individual reading this fiction from the "Publisher of Capitol Hill Blue" has thought any higher of you for posting this garbage?

And to top it all off, brother Sec high fives you in obligatory fashion.

Is it that bad out there that you've resorted to posting pure fiction and trying to pass it off as a legitimate news story? Your latest link belongs right up there with all the "Penis enlargement" spam going around these days.

[Secretariat]

I don't know Pa. GW was making some pretty strange faces when the Pope was scolding him today.

[kenwoodallpromos]

Hcap forgot to put "LOL" at the end of the post. I assume anyone who went to the site read the FAQ's?. To paraphrase:
" Doug Thompson left awhile back". "We do not take anything seriously".
I like Bush bashing as well as the next person, but no not try to pass comedy off as serious. The demos have too many Kennedys, Gores, Deans, Frankens, and Moores doing that already. LOL.

[PaceAdvantage]

You can't be too sure these days....

[Secretariat]

I figured Hcap was poking a little fun. so heck, here's some more:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2100064

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by Secretariat
I figured Hcap was poking a little fun.

Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And BTW, you can't go to Italy without being scolded by the Pope anymore. Hell he is cussing out the tourist masses in Polish on the weekends........;) He is so far out of his wig now nobody knows what the hell he is saying.

I notice you think the Pope has the credibility to dress down the President of the United States, but when he says John Kerry should not receive Communion you go running into the Bulletin boards and Chat rooms screaming seperation of Church and State?

When it bends to your side you use it all you can. You can't have it both ways........... The height of Duplicity!!!! Liberal Democrats!

[ljb]

Jr,
The pope had nothing to say about Kerry recieving communion. If you are going to try and spin at least get some of the facts straight.
Also you may consider saying a prayer for President Bush, he could use all the help he can get in these stressful times. Once the election is over he can spend some time at a "resort" getting some help but until then we should all pray for his well being.

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
The pope had nothing to say about Kerry recieving communion. If you are going to try and spin at least get some of the facts straight.

Yeah.....like those Bishop's aren't working for the Pope........

[hcap]

kenwoodallpromos:
Hcap forgot to put "LOL" at the end of the post. I assume anyone who went to the site read the FAQ's?. To paraphrase:
" Doug Thompson left awhile back". "We do not take anything seriously".

LOL may or may not be called for.
Depends on whether you think the obvious lies and horendous behaviour of the bushies is funny. I don't.

My take on watching bush on tv lately is that he appears more distracted than usual-if that is possible. Don't know if "Blue" got this right, but gotta be concerned as the administration implodes.

Capitol Hill Blue has posted some info before other so-called "media".

Here is some more from their FAQ's

Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?
Musings, brain drain and rantings started by a grouchy old ex-newspaperman named Doug Thompson in October 1994. Thompson left us to pursue other things but some guy named McTavish walked in one day and took over so Blue lives on. That makes us the oldest surviving news site on the Internet. But dont' take our word for it. Go to Google and see if you can find anything older. Bet ya can't.

Sometimes we are joined, more or less, by a ragtag cast of current and ex-newspaper men and women who wander in and out of here like homeless children. Some still work for news organizations and use Capitol Hill Blue as an outlet for the stories their outfits don't have the guts to publish. Others are retired, but can't give up the Muse.

Nobody here draws a salary. We couldn't afford to pay salaries anyway. All money, if we ever get around to making any, will go back into the product. Or maybe we'll send out for pizza. But it couldn't be any bigger than a medium.

So, who's in charge?
Damn good question. We've been wondering that for a long time. Somebody must be in charge around here. We're sure of it. Well, we think we're sure of it. On second thought, does this place look like we have somebody in charge?

Why is it called Capitol Hill Blue?
Hell, we don't know. We're sure we had a reason when we started this thing back in 1994, but it's long since forgotten. Maybe it had something do so with feeling blue after watching Congress at work. Maybe it had something to do with the rampant pornography called Congress or the fact that we like publishing pictures of naked women from time to time or writing about sex. Maybe it had something to do with...ah, what the hell, we don't know.

What are your politics?
Politics? We don't need no stinkin' politics. We're recovering newspapermen. A few also served sentences on Capitol Hill. Experience in either, or both, of these endeavors creates political agnostics.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/Artwork/0803/chblogo080608.jpg

Pa. RE: Penis enlargement scams at least offer the sucker hope of a better sex life. This administration offers nothing and is in fact a larger scam.
Spending your money on a "few inches more", is A BETTER DEAL than the hundreds of billions wasted on the Iraq penis enlargement scam.

[hcap]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/944219/posts?page=23

From..
FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

"The TRUE Capitol Hill Blue story the PRESS IGNORED:'Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush'
FR - thru Capitol Hill Blue ^ | January 6, 2003 | DOUG THOMPSON

Posted on 07/11/2003 6:02:31 AM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

Dems plan to undermine America to beat Bush
CapitolHillBlue ^ | January 6, 2003 | By DOUG THOMPSON

Posted on 01/28/2003 2:07 AM EST by JohnHuang2

Democrats plan to undermine public confidence in President George W. Bush by challenging his credibility and raising doubts about America, sources within the party tell Capitol Hill Blue.


"Capitol Hill Blue obtained a copy of the talking points when the Democratic National Committee sent them to a news outlet recently acquired by CHB’s parent company. The talking points outline a strategy to raise public doubts of the President’s real intentions, including: --Saying the war is about oil and will be fought to benefit oil companies that have long supported Bush and the Republican party;"

So they also expose the dems
Or they just post sensational garbage?

Watch bush and decide.

[Secretariat]

OK, I'm taking CJ's advice and foregoing links and speaking from the heart. I don't know whether the Capital Blue story is true and neither does anyone here.

But do I think Bush is losing it? Yeah I do. Every President faces enormous stress. This guy looks to be having a difficult time of it. I think Nixon was on the verge of losing it, and this guy appears to be the same. Why else does he always have to go to Crawford, Texas and recover after a couple of days on the job? He looks bad, and sounds more desperate. I don't know if the Capitol Blue story is true, but from Paul O'Neill, to Clarke, to Zinni, to the medicare guy all seem to be saying that this is an "insecure" President who might have been a good C student, but one who almost failed Intro to Political Science and Economics at Yale, and who was admitted based on a Affirmative Action, but fights against it today. Now, I put absolutely no credit in the Pope and never had JR. I was just committing on Bush's faces during his interview. He seems to be finding it more and more difficult to cover his emotions in the face of pressure. Even in the 2000 debates the GOP began by making excuses before the Gore debate that he doesn't debate well. What does that mean? He can't think quickly on his feet, he can't research his topics thoroughly, he doesn't communicate his idea well. I imagine they'll try that approach again. Do I think Bush is nuts? Well, he says he is divinely inspired, and that the laws of the Constitution are secondary to the laws of what God tells him. Now, he took an oath to uphold the constitution of the United States, but feels whenever he interprets that God is talking to him that those laws can be shoved aside. Was he lying when he took the oath, or was it just one of his silent lies, "like I'll uphold the Constitution of the United States, unless MY God tells me differently"

I beleive he has proven his incompetence in Political Science and Economics just as he did in those courses at Yale and every private business he's ever run. Why are we surpised? Bush was a good cheerleader, and that's pretty much what he does. Sits on the sidelines and cheers the troop onto victory. Builds the biggest deficit in history (his econ professor must be shaking his head), and alienates the world (his PolySci must be shaking his head).

I never thought we'd see the day when a cheerleader was President, but we got one now. If it had to be a Texas Cheerleader, I just wish it woulda been one of those from the Dallas Cowboys which look a lot better.

[Tom]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage

..... Your latest link belongs right up there with all the "Penis enlargement" spam going around these days.

Huh? Please forward one of those......asap! :D

[JustRalph]

I would say it can take a toll on any man.........

http://www.s-t.com/daily/05-98/05-01-98/clinton.jpghttp://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/lips/bios/clinton.jpg

[ljb]

Secretariat's link seems to have an excellent biographic sketch of G.W. Bush. I always considered him just a spoiled rich kid. One that always got his way or else he had daddy bail him out.

[hcap]

Sec,

Good post. He looks like he is about to publicly lose his cool. Maybe more time at crawford?

[cj]

Originally posted by hcap
Sec,

Good post. He looks like he is about to publicly lose his cool. Maybe more time at crawford?

Do you have auto reply turned on? Hcap or ljb posts, you automatically reply "Good post, ...". Pathetic really. Its like a three person mutual admiration society.

[hcap]

You guys are losing it. Various right wing lemmings do the EXACT same thing.

Now that public oipinion is AGREEING with us, you cry foul. What goes around comes around. Except now the awful truth is emerging.

[Buckeye]

How would some of you recognize "erratic" ?
Oh, I see.

[Tom]

Originally posted by hcap
Sec,

Good post. He looks like he is about to publicly lose his cool. Maybe more time at crawford? \


He didn't say SImon sez. You're out.

[hcap]

Originally posted by Tom \


He didn't say SImon sez. You're out.I understand the comment about simon. But what is the first comment? Klingonease?
"/ "?

Oh I get it. It is in lemmingease!
Like here are the rightys following their leader in lemmingease...

//////////////////



:p :p

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by hcap
//////////////////

It leans to the right...........

[hcap]

So Tom mispelled it. Big deal.

[Tom]

Progress.............. Congress

/////////////////////// \



BTW \ = fat fingers :p

[ljb]

Reply to JR
quote:Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
The pope had nothing to say about Kerry recieving communion. If you are going to try and spin at least get some of the facts straight.

and jr's response:

Yeah.....like those Bishop's aren't working for the Pope........
Based on your logic I guess we could say Bush is responsible for the actions in Abu Ghraib.

__________________

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Yeah.....like those Bishop's aren't working for the Pope........[/b]
Based on your logic I guess we could say Bush is responsible for the actions in Abu Ghraib.

__________________ [/B]

As Commander in Chief, of course he is. The buck stops there.
W has a serious problem accepting responsibility. It is a flaw he must correct. Luckily, this prison incident is minor enough to take a back seat unitl later on.

[ljb]

Well Tom,
I guess we can sort of agree here. Bush should be responsible. Now if we can just get Bush to take responsibility.

[sq764]

When I wonder about Bush and how the Iraq decision was handled, then I think about the next election... One thing comes to mind..

Do I want to watch a president's speech and see John Kerry's face on tv?? Holy shit no.

Then I quickly remember who I am voting for.

[Tom]

Kerry's face.....would be easy to add it to Mt Rushmore-just need som eblack paint to draw in a pair of eyes on a flat cliff and presto! ;)

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Well Tom,
I guess we can sort of agree here. Bush should be responsible. Now if we can just get Bush to take responsibility.

No, what you want is Bush to come out and do an apology and "accept responsibility" so you and your brethren can cook up a campaign ad for John Kerry. Bush isn't that dumb. He let Rumsfield and those who are truly responsible for the Prison crap take the responsibility and denied you and yours the campaign tidbit you wanted. The media asking him to apologize during the last press conference was a blantant attempt at assisting JFK. They tried to bait him into it and he was smart enough to catch on. If he would have apologized for anything we would be seeing it every day until the election.

[Tom]

Yeah, the Kerry people must getting pretty fed up....all the negatice press Bush is getting in mainstream media and still the polss have the race essentially deadlocked. Kerry should be way ahead by now, if he is ever going to. His people are out there working hards and getting nowhere. Most Bush supporters are not even thinking about an election at this point. Bush is hold ing even and he hasn't even unleashed a campaign yet.
HeHeHe......four more years. How long is that in posted links?

(Don't worry, Fearsome Foursome....we will not rub it in after the election....we will try to mend fences and not gloat.)

[sq764]

Oh, I think Kerry supporters realize there is no way in hell he wins this election..

Bush has done the best he can so far... Has he done everything right? no.. Has he been a good president? I think so.

[ljb]

from the writings of sq764
Oh, I think Kerry supporters realize there is no way in hell he wins this election..

And he probably thought Smarty Jones was a sure thing too!

[ljb]

This is a re-run to JR
Reply to JR
quote:Originally posted by ljb
Jr,
The pope had nothing to say about Kerry recieving communion. If you are going to try and spin at least get some of the facts straight.

and jr's response:

Yeah.....like those Bishop's aren't working for the Pope........
Based on your logic I guess we could say Bush is responsible for the actions in Abu Ghraib.

__________________

__________________

Still waiting for your response to this Jr?

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
This is a re-run to JR
Yeah.....like those Bishop's aren't working for the Pope........
Based on your logic I guess we could say Bush is responsible for the actions in Abu Ghraib.
Still waiting for your response to this Jr?


Ok. The Pope issues edicts to the Catholic representives via the Papacy.......he issues opinion papers and sets policy. The Bishop's who have declared that they will not allow Kerry to receive communion have Church doctrine and policy to fall back on. It is within the written structure of the Church.

The guys at the Prison cannot produce any documentation or policy that President Bush invoked to perform the things they did. There was no edict from President Bush on performing these actions at the prison. The process of humiliating the prisoners is not within the structure of the U.S. Government. There is some evidence that the CIA types may have come up with this plan of humiliation. To compare the two organizations and events you would have to say that some Rogue Bishop decided to invoke a policy in the Catholic Church that was no where to be found in Church doctrine or writing. There is a long history of people being excommunicated from the Catholic Church and in fact falling out of favor with the Church. Per se: Divorced parties attempting to Marry in the Church after being divorced etc.

So, I think even you can see the difference here. If not, I am sure others will.

[sq764]

ljb, plain and simple...

I give you 3/1 odds on Kerry winning the election.. According to those polls, it should be around even money.

You taking it???????????????????????

[ljb]

Sq764,
I'll take that bet. Of course as we all know any earth shattering event could change the election. But as of now I think you are giving me an overlay.

[ljb]

Jr
And I am to assume you have papers/documention of the Pope telling the bishops to deny communion to Kerry?

[Tom]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr
And I am to assume you have papers/documention of the Pope telling the bishops to deny communion to Kerry?

Can't you read?:confused:

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by ljb
Jr
And I am to assume you have papers/documention of the Pope telling the bishops to deny communion to Kerry?

Tom: Apparently he can't read..........


But let me make it a little more clear. The exact Catholic Church Canon is "Canon 915" if you want a primer try a google search. Also try this link.......

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/kralis/040406

Now this link is about the specific Bishop who says he will deny Kerry Communion or the eucharist to be more specific. I think that the Canon's of the Catholic Church fall right into my earlier explanation.

Here is a excerpt from the above link:

On January 8, 2004, Archbishop Raymond Burke, then bishop of La Crosse, promulgated a diocesan 'canonical notification' based on canon 915, saying, "No good bishops could stand by and let this happen. These public legislators are in grave sin." Burke said he would deny Kerry Communion because Kerry's conduct is seriously, clearly and steadfastly contrary to the moral norm (EE n.37). Kerry's own Archbishop, Sean O'Malley, said he wouldn't go that far and would give Kerry the Eucharist.

All ministers of the Eucharist must deny Communion to pro abortion legislators as they are ecclesiastically bound to obey Church law, regardless of whether their bishop or pastor does or does not obey. In fact, canon 915 places the responsibility on the minister — 'ne admittantur' — who, in some canonists' opinion, could be punished themselves according to canon 1389 §2, should he unlawfully administer the sacrament with the consequent danger of scandal.

Of the 195 U.S. diocesan bishops, all except two still refuse to say they would deny the Eucharist to manifest, persistent, obstinate sinners. In doing so, these bishops are disregarding the clearly defined canons of the Church.

The responsibility to issue canonical sanctions against Catholic politicians who support abortion rests with each individual bishop over his diocesan politicians. And, the Pope has the authority to issue a worldwide decree forbidding Holy Communion to manifest, obstinate, persistent sinners under canon 915 until they publicly repent (canon 915 is a sacramental law and applies only to the Eucharist and not to any other sacrament) End of Excerpt

Ball passed back to your court................Still waiting on your answer

[hcap]

Ok, this may not be bushs' erratic behavior alone-(by not stopping this ludicrous event), it sure is the congress' CRAZY behavior, holding this event

Of course bush 41 and junior are close to Rev Moon, but that's another story.

I think this story deserves some attention.

Apparently, there was an "Ambassadors for Peace" awards ceremony, at which Moon gave the keynote address, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, given by the "Interreligious and International Peace Council."

http://www.gorenfeld.net/blog/2004/05/im-and-i-approve-this-messiah.html

Here is an excerpt from Moons' address

http://www.familyfed.org/board/uboard.asp?id=ffwpu_news&skin=board_urim_simple&color=eng&page=1&u_no=516
Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon

" Declaring the Era of the Peace Kingdom"
Address to the United States Congress

March 23, 2004

The United States Capitol, Washington, DC


But in the context of Heaven's providence, I am God's ambassador, sent to earth with His full authority. I am sent to accomplish His command to save the world's six billion people, restoring them to Heaven with the original goodness in which they were created.

The five great saints and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin, who committed all manner of barbarity and murders on earth, and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons. Emperors, kings and presidents who enjoyed opulence and power on earth, and even journalists who had worldwide fame, have now placed themselves at the forefront of the column of the true love revolution. Together they have sent to earth a resolution expressing their determination in the light of my teaching of the true family ideal. They have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent. This resolution has been announced on every corner of the globe.

I think seperation of THIS church and our STATE is duly called for

[hcap]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A30085-2004Jun10?language=printer

Rx for W: Electoral Surgery

By Richard Leiby
Thursday, June 10, 2004; Page C03

We can assure you nobody will be caught perusing this book in the White House. "Bush on the Couch," authored by a longtime Washington psychiatrist who has never met or treated the president, offers "an exploration of Bush's psyche" that delves into such touchy topics as his baby sister's death, his relationship with his mother and father and his drinking history.

In the book, to be released Tuesday, Justin A. Frank, a clinical professor at George Washington University Medical Center, claims President Bush exhibits "sadistic tendencies" and suffers from "character pathology," including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and God as interchangeable

Outsiders view. Never met bush personally, but using public info has found our preznit bonkers.

This story is growing legs.

[PaceAdvantage]

Thanks for the best laugh I've had this morning.

Yup, that book has lots of credibility. You guys truly are desperate. How many psychiatrists are you guys going to need if Bush wins in November? Now that would be a book worth reading!


PS. It's quite disgusting how low some will stoop. This is by far the lowest America has gone to assassinate the character of a public official. As an American, I am truly disgusted by what is going on, and you guys, I fear, are having the OPPOSITE effect on those you are trying to convert to your cause.

Americans don't like bullies. This strategy of extreme character assassination could easily backfire on you folks come November.

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
TThis is by far the lowest America has gone to assassinate the character of a public official. As an American, I am truly disgusted by what is going on, and you guys, I fear, are having the OPPOSITE effect on those you are trying to convert to your cause.

Americans don't like bullies. This strategy of extreme character assassination could easily backfire on you folks come November.

Which Americans are you talking about. Reagan appointee Clarke, Ex-Bush cabinet member O'Neill, Senator John McCain, Bush's own diplomats he appointed (and Ronal Reagan appointed diplomats) who have recently signed a letter condemning Bush's foreign as alienating america from the rest of the world. Or is it Powell who has to admit that the terrorist reports are false?

You miss the point PA, no one has to assasinate the character of Bush. He's doing a fine job of that himself. Hence his very low approval ratings in the polls.

People know in their guts Bush is a big business pawn and could care less about ordinary working people in this country. Because of party affiliations they don't like to admit it, and I get that, but unless he can pull a rabbit or Bin Laden out of his hat by November I think he's in real trouble even with Jeb tryng to fix things in Florida with suppressing the release of who will be purged from voting roles so they might intiate challenges.

[PaceAdvantage]

Bull. A psychiatrist writing a book on the President without ever actually having had him in therapy? Yeah, that's what I would call good judgement....and accurate to boot I'll bet!

[Tom]

He sent me $300. You send me 300 more and I'll sing YOUR praises, too! :eek: