New Information Shows Bush Indecisive, Paranoid, Delusional

[Grebdron]

By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 17, 2004, 08:47
Email this article
Printer friendly page

The carefully-crafted image of George W. Bush as a bold, decisive leader is cracking under the weight of new revelations that the erratic President is indecisive, moody, paranoid and delusional.
“More and more this brings back memories of the Nixon White House,” says retired political science professor George Harleigh, who worked for President Nixon during the second presidential term that ended in resignation under fire. “I haven’t heard any reports of President Bush wandering the halls talking to portraits of dead Presidents but what I have been told is disturbing.”

Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President’s mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion on his sleeve.

Although supporters of President Bush dismissed the reports as “fantasies from anonymous sources,” a new book by Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many similar questions about the President’s mental stability.

"George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction," Dr. Frank writes in Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. "Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies."

In addition, a new film by documentary filmmaker, and frequent Bush critic, Michael Moore shows the President indecisive and clearly befuddled when he learned about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

While conservative critics who have not yet seen Fahrenheit 9/11 dismiss the work as an anti-Bush screed, Roger Friedman of the normally pro-Bush Fox News Network has seen the film and calls it “a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.”

Friedman also says the films “most indelible moment” comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first informed of the 9/11 attacks.

“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says. “Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.”

Dr. Frank says the episode is typical of how Bush deals with death and tragedy. He notes that Bush avoids funerals.

“President Bush has not attended a single funeral - other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore some possible reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am less interested in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in thinking about its meaning both to him and to the rest of us,” Dr. Frank says. “He has spent a lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought.”

In his book, Dr. Frank also suggests Bush resents those in the military.

“Bush's behavior strongly suggests an unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen, whose bravery puts his own (nonexistent) wartime service record to shame,” he wrote.

Supporters of President Bush dismiss Frank’s book as the work of a Democrat who once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, but his work has been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees with most of Dr. Frank’s conclusions.

“I find the bulk of his analysis credible,” she said in an interview. “President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior.”

Ryan Reynolds, a childhood friend of Bush, concurs.

“George wanted to please his father but never felt he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb,” Reynolds said.

Dr. Williams wonders if the Iraq war was not Bush’s way of “proving he could finish something his father could not by deposing Saddam Hussein.”

But Bush's desire to please his father may have backfired. Former President George H.W. Bush has remained silent publicly about the war, saying he will only discuss it with his son "in private." Close aides say that is because he disapproves of his son's actions against Iraq.

"Former President Bush does not support the war against Iraq," says former aide John Ruskin. "It is as simple at that."

While current White House aides and officials would not allow their names to be used when commenting about Bush’s erratic behavior, others like former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill confirm concerns about Bush’s mood swings.

O’Neill says Bush was moody in cabinet meetings and would wander off on tangents, mostly about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush, O’Neill says, seemed more focused on Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and would lash out at anyone who disagreed with him.

Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President’s behavior.

“We saw the same thing in the Nixon years,” he says. “What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the President’s mental condition. That says more than anything else.”

Dr. Frank, the Democrat, says the only diagnosis he can offer for the President’s condition is removal from office.

Dr. Williams, the Republican, says she must “reluctantly agree.”

“We have too many unanswered questions about the President’s behavior,” she says. “You cannot have those kinds of unanswered questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world.”

© Copyright 2004 by Capitol Hill Blue

[Scarface98.9]

That's a really interesting read, especially about the video shown in Fahrenheit 9/11. I really need to see that movie soon

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Scarface98.9
That's a really interesting read, especially about the video shown in Fahrenheit 9/11. I really need to see that movie soon

I'm seeing it on July 2nd. With 15 family members.

[badberry]

Can't really say I'm surprised. Though it is still pretty disturbing that a person like that is in charge of the world's most powerful military force. Time to go, Mr. Bush.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Grebdron
Friedman also says the films “most indelible moment” comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first informed of the 9/11 attacks.

“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says. “Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.”

If I remember correctly, they showed this footage on CNN a few days after 9/11. Bush could very well be a crackpot, but what exactly was he supposed to do during this situation? Panic the children? I believe that he was in the middle of reading to the class. Should he have dropped the book, screamed bloody murder, and informed everyone that the apocalypse was drawing near? I'm sure that he was rattled by the news, but why alarm an oblivious throng of 8-year-olds? He was right to keep his cool.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by countchocula
If I remember correctly, they showed this footage on CNN a few days after 9/11. Bush could very well be a crackpot, but what exactly was he supposed to do during this situation? Panic the children? I believe that he was in the middle of reading to the class. Should he have dropped the book, screamed bloody murder, and informed everyone that the apocalypse was drawing near? I'm sure that he was rattled by the news, but why alarm an oblivious throng of 8-year-olds? He was right to keep his cool.

I see what you're saying, but I disagree. It would have been perfectly acceptable for him to excuse himself from the classroom, and confer with his advisors.

[countchocula]

Fair enough. I don't see how this reflects poorly on his character, though. I don't know what I would have done in the same predicament. Eleven minutes aren't cataclysmic in the grand scheme of things. It's not as though he jumped for joy when hearing of the hijackings. This seems like a rather desperate attempt to further vitiate Bush's public image, which isn't to say that I like the guy.

An obvious aspersion is that Bush never seemed genuinely empathetic after 9/11. He never bemoaned the loss of thousands, and I didn't buy his "day of remembrance." I'll remember in my own way, thank you very much. He was too eager to don a superhero costume to declare war on terrorists.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by countchocula
Fair enough. I don't see how this reflects poorly on his character, though.



It doesn't reflect poorly on his character, just his capacity to perform his job.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Grebdron
“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says. “Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.”


I wonder if he thought that by staying still and being quiet long enough, everyone would forget he was there and go away.....

I wonder.

[electriclite]

You know, I've been watching disturbing films since I was a very young kid and I can say un equivocally that what I just read has to be the scariest thing I have ever laid my eyes upon (Carrot Top a close second).

I almost feel sorry for the guy, especially after reading the aspects of his childhood. It proves most people's early criticisms: that the man was more a figurehead for the Republican Party then an actual force.

It also proves my old Nero comparison.

We REALLY need to beef up our standards when it comes to electing our officials. I mean, its scary to hear people say they'll vote for a politician on superficial categories, likes looks, or, most likely Bush's (and Al Gore's) case, name recognition.

Maybe a nice psych work up should be a requirement for any party member's Presidential candidate? Just a thought.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by electriclite
Maybe a nice psych work up should be a requirement for any party member's Presidential candidate? Just a thought.

I think it was Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker's Guide) who said, (and I paraphrase)

Any man capable of getting himself elected president should in no account be allowed to have the job.;)

[JCR]

The thing I kinda have the problem with is bush, while never coming out and using the word 'alcoholic' did say he "realized that alcohol was beginning to crowd out my energies and could crowd, eventually, my affections for other people"- which is him pretty much saying he was an alcoholic. Now the problem with alcoholism is it never ever goes away. It doesn't matter if it was 25 years ago and he's been clean, it will still be with him, and he is of course under a great deal of pressure, meaning I'm sure he's been tempted, you know, find out if the answer to the world's problems lie at the bottom of that bottle of JD. And if he does/has cracked that will turn him into nixon mark 2.

God this is depressing. Think I need a drink. ;)

[ANavissi500]

That was a fascinating article and it kind of says some stuff that I have been wondering - I do think that deep down in his little mind Bush really feels as if he is doing a good thing and he seems so genuine at times that its scary because he is acting within his own twisted mind.

[Thrizzle]

I dunno the evidence presented in the article was a little thin. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but to think a President is mentally ill is a bit much for me.

I just think he's easily influenced by Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Ashcroft, who are all borderline fascists.

[BubbaStrangelove]

Originally posted by Thrizzle
I dunno the evidence presented in the article was a little thin. I hate Bush as much as the next guy, but to think a President is mentally ill is a bit much for me.



That's a bit unfair to the mentally ill. There is no reason for the mental to be in the league as Daffy Duck or the Son of Sam.

I mean, to be fair, he has an admited history of cocaine use. One of the most common long term effects of coke use is paranoia.

But just because Bush is paranoid doesn't mean their not out to get him.

[Tom Samborski]

I was watching CNN the other day, and I looked closely into Bush's face as he spoke with another leader in the White House. He always tries to look confident, but I looked closely and I could clearly see that his eyes were saying, "We're in deep shit".

[Lynn7]

I am a devout Christian and I admire Bush so much. The things he says and does are so reflective of the biblcal teachings. Most Christians I know talk the talk but fall short when walking the walk (myself included!) I am so uplifted when I see Bush- he is torn down repeatedly and viciously by his detractors and he never takes a swing at anyone. He always takes the high road.
I have never seen him act erratic or in any way unstable. I worked in psych for many years so I think I would notice the signs :D He is at times inarticulate but I'd rather have a president with clear thinking than a slick smooth talker.

Anyway, I can understand where people who do not study the bible might be afraid of a devout Christain leader becasue they have only heard teachings that are taken out of context but taken as a whole, the bible's teachings are what made this country so great and just, IMO. Lincloln was also a president with devout Christain beliefs who was anti-slavery. Even our court system can be seen founded in the history of the bible.

I know many will disagree with me but I watch Bush all the time and I think he is a genuine man. As far as attending all of the funerals of servicemen, he would be a poor leader if he got distracted with that. It is enough that he writes letters of condolence and meets with the families at the bases when he visits. The country is represented at the funerals by the military and local and state leaders. Bush does not micromanage the government. He believes that you hire the very best people and let them do their jobs. That is also a biblcal principle, LOL! So in sum, I do not believe Bush is going mad- I believe he is not understood.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I- he is torn down repeatedly and viciously by his detractors and he never takes a swing at anyone. He always takes the high road.

Really? Take a look at this...

"You fucking son of a bitch. I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget this."

-George W. Bush to writer and editor Al Hunt, 1988

Anyway, I can understand where people who do not study the bible might be afraid of a devout Christain leader

Petrified, more like. I don't mind someone who has religious values. But attempting to force them on the country, nay the world, makes him a very dangerous man.

Enjoy him till November, Lynn.

[Lynn7]

LOL!!!! I will and hopefully beyond.

A quuote form 1988 is one that is a lifetime ago in a Christian walk. I see this guy has evolved in his beliefs and his actions from that time. I would love to see the source of that quote just to put the whole thing in context but I do know from his own words that he was very upset at his fathers' presidential defeat in 1992- he was frustrated that so many people had treated his father unfairly. When the Dems had convinced Bush senior to vote for what they said was a needed tax hike they repaid him by campaining that he had broken his "No new taxes"Promises. Many Repubs betrayed bush Senior by being passive during the campaign. Anyway, since these things happened later than that quote, it shows that he was capable of anger in 92 as well as in 88. but now I watch in wonder as he refrains form insulting people who have personally smeared him as a liar and a murderer and have even compared him to Hitler. He has earned my admiration!!

I don't beleive that he has inflicted his Christain beliefs on anyone- he consistently says that Islam is a great world religion- especially right after the 9-11 attacks when many Americans might have used that time period to strike out against American Muslims. He set a positive tone when he could've poisoned the country with hatred.

as far as the issue of abortion or stem cell the majority of Americans have reservations about these issues so his beliefs on these things cannot be attributed to Christian beliefs forced on anyone, IMO anyway. The slippery slope is a very real thing and he is well aware of that.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
A quuote form 1988 is one that is a lifetime ago in a Christian walk.

A live microphone picked up an aside in which Bush described a
New York Times reporter who had written critically of his campaign as "a major-league ass hole." The microphone also recorded Cheney's rejoinder of "Oh yeah, he is, big time."

---Naperville Sun - 09/06/00 -

Is that recent enough for you? Keep in mind, this is AFTER he had "found Jesus."

[Lynn7]

I remember that and I thought it was funny (being an imperfect Christian, myself). I guess he ISN'T perfect, LOL! Although I do stand by my admiration for his extreme restraint in the other circumstances I mentioned.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I remember that and I thought it was funny (being an imperfect Christian, myself). I guess he ISN'T perfect, LOL! Although I do stand by my admiration for his extreme restraint in the other circumstances I mentioned.

His blatant, bald-faced, DOCUMENTED lies don't bother you?

[BakeTheMooCow]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't beleive that he has inflicted his Christain beliefs on anyoneReally? What about his calls to implement a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by BakeTheMooCow
Really? What about his calls to implement a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

Or this quote...

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/...sID=0&listSrc=Y

[Lynn7]

Sorry Greb- your link didn't work. As to your earlier quote of Bush's to do with God he hasw stated publically that he prays about everything. This is not unusual or weird- most Christians pray as do people of all other religions. I beleive God answers my prayers and have expereinced personal responses many times so I don't have a problem with what he said as long as the responses seem reasonably able to apply to what is biblical. For example God would never tell someone to do something that is unbiblical. War is biblical and even common in the bible. Anyway, Bush is not acting in a vacuum. This is a divided government for a good reason. His actions seem logical to me and many other Americans and illogical to many others. Different ideologies at work.

Bake the MooCow-(why can't I think of screen names like this? *g*)The constitutional ban to gay marriage is simple. In the history of the world there has never been gay marriage until a MAssachusetts court (4 judges in a split decison- actually decided by one single vote if I'm not mistaken) to overturn the law. The constitutional amendment will go down in defeat becasue it needs to get a two thirds vote to suceed. Two thirds vote on anything is impossible in today's climate-Gay marriages will stand. Bush knows this but its important to let the people's representatives vote on this law and not have a court make up new laws. If he was so anti gay he would not have had Cheney as his VP who has a daughter who is very much gay. I think Bush is very reasonable and kind toward people who do not share his religious beliefs.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
His blatant, bald-faced, DOCUMENTED lies don't bother you?

I hear people saying he is a liar but I do not think he has lied. anyway not to get inot a tit for tat but the people who are always sayign he is a liar continually supported Clinton in his many discrepancies. As you might know I used to be a liberal but the Dem party has become very hypocritical in the last 10 or more years. It seems like all they care about is winning elections and getting out the vote. They have often forgotten the very values they swear they support.

The Paula Jones case is an example of this. When the Anita Hill charge came out I was really aghast at Clarence Thomas' transgressions until no one else came forward to support Hill's claims and it became a he said/ she said. TheDems were outraged that someone like Thomas who had talked dirty to an underling could get away with this kind of behavior. That is why I was totally appalled when the Jone's accusations came out and so did the Willy, Lewinsky and the nursing home lady who was afraid she'd lose her government contract "in" if she stood up aginst Clinton.

Then the Dems did a totally outrageous thing by saying it was all about his personal life. Having sex with underlings (or coming onto them) was a feminist issue from way back that I totally agreed with. It is a misuse of power to have sex with underlings casue they feel unfairly pressured and also what about the employess who do not have sex with the guy?They become disadvantaged for promotions and rasies I know these things happen- clinton is no the first guy to have had sex with his underlings but I was amazed at the Dems giving up everything they said they beleived in over partisan politics. They are supposed to stand for the little guy. Their actions over the years have belied this.

I have switched from voting all Dem to all Repub (not over this issue but this certainly cemented any feelings I once had for the party. A lot of prominent Repubs were once Dems that have left the party- Bill Bennet is one I can think of offhand and now Zel Miller has agreed to speak at the GOP convention. He will remain a Democrat but feels the party has left him. Many of these ex Dems said that the party has left them. Meanwhile, over theyears the Repub party has been transforming into a party that is more like what the Dems used to be. They are much more measured than they used to be IMHO. I used to hate the Repub party but now I have come to respect them for the most part (there are crackpots on both sides after all)

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Grebdron
According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

I really don't like the idea of a president acting on God's will. I believe it is symptomatic of delusional behavior. It also indicates a lack of inner strength. To paraphrase David Cronenberg (who may very well be the anthropomorphization of God, assuming that he exists :D), society doesn't want the world as it's given to them. We don't want to believe that this is as good as it gets, so we fabricate religion, medicine, and technology to spruce things up a bit. Christians need God to fill a void that they're unable to fill themselves. Hey, if life sucks, it's okay. I'm going to heaven!

In my book, a proposed amendment to ban gay marriage is an upshot of theological beliefs. There's no reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to engage in matrimonial bliss, aside from the fact that homosexuality is deemed "immoral" by Christians. Religion shouldn't influence political decisions, period.

[Lynn7]

It occurs to me reading your comments and also Greb's that much of our country's political divisions have their roots in the religious realm. It seems that most of the liberals that I discuss things with have a great disdain for deeply held religious beleifs while conservatives think releigion is a normal way of life and that there is nothing exceptional about communicating with God in prayer.

Most Christians see Bush as good right and normal while most liberals see him as a delusional lying crackpot. The country is more evenly divided than ever. There is no clear majority for either viewpoint. But here is something you may enjoy- in the bible it says that it is actually God who picks the leaders. You can believe it or not. It's funny but during that nasty election with all of the commotion over the votes, it seems to me in retrospect that God might have been developing Bush to be a stronger leader by putting him through the ringer, maybe in preparation for what he would hvave to do regarding 9-11. King DAvid of Israel was put through tons of crap in preparation for his kingship and Joseph was also perepared for his leadership through many hardhips too (his brothers sold him into slavery and he was unjustly jailed for many years).

That is a Christian perspective (my own)but I'm sure people who do not beleive in this stuff with think it is all a bunch of crap. The basis of all of my beleifs comes form the bible. I think Bush feels like this too. That is why I do not think he is a delusional guy but maybe that is why you do. I used to think that way too until I started actaully reading the bible myself instead of having it interperted to me by others.

Many of our founding fathers beleived in the same biblical principles. Don't you think it's weird that in 200 years our country went on tho become the superpower of the world where as other counries that are thousand of years old are stuck in the dark ages? I think it is becasue our country was founded on Judeo-Christaian values- these things really do work! (After all our people aren't smarter than any other country's people)

That is why I really do trust Bush. The minute he begins to misquote the bible or acts in an unChristian manner, he will lose my support becasue I will know he's gone off track. However, having said that, it doens't mean I will hold all presidents to the same standard- just the ones who CLAIM to be devout Christains.

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Don't you think it's weird that in 200 years our country went on tho become the superpower of the world where as other counries that are thousand of years old are stuck in the dark ages? I think it is becasue our country was founded on Judeo-Christaian values- these things really do work! (After all our people aren't smarter than any other country's people)

We're just the quickest to kill our opposers. And plenty of Americans are still in the Dark Ages. In fact, anyone opposed to gay marriage is still in the Dark Ages. We're not nearly as liberated as we think we are. Bush is supposed to represent America, a country whose citizens abide by a number of different denominations. He shouldn't make decisions based on his religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on conservatives. All politicians are marionettes, regardless of the party that they consent to.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by countchocula
We're just the quickest to kill our opposers. And plenty of Americans are still in the Dark Ages. In fact, anyone opposed to gay marriage is still in the Dark Ages. We're not nearly as liberated as we think we are. Bush is supposed to represent America, a country whose citizens abide by a number of different denominations. He shouldn't make decisions based on his religious beliefs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not picking on conservatives. All politicians are marionettes, regardless of the party that they consent to.

Some in our country have made bad decisions (the Indians, slavery, etc) but over time the good people will always rise up and try to right things. Many people gave their lives becasue they believed slavery to be evil. They did not conveniently turn the other way when it counted.

As far as the gay issue goes gay people were very marginalized and discrimintated against as recently as 20 years ago. Since the AIDS issue most American people have accepted that gays have the right to thier life style- if that were not true there wouldn't be so many tv shows (successful at that!) about gay people. This marriage thing came up suddenly in an inappropriate way. I have said for years that I couldn't see why they weren't allowed to get married-my religion does not condone gay marriage but I am well aware that not everyone wants to follow biblcal teachings. The bible says that God gives people the choice of whether to beleive or not so who am I to argue with God? I think the Americans have been very good about changing over time to accept and to help people. Not so good at first but always willing to right itself.

Aside form the gay marriage issue, Bush hadn't said anything bad about gay people. In fact I seem to remember that he said something positive about them but that he does not beleive they should get married. Many Repubs are against gay marriage because they are afraid that it will open the door to other alternative lifestyles like bigamy, incest etc. They fear that the institution of marriage will be weakened and that children will be at risk. I don't fear that but I have seen the abortions issue move from only in the first 3 months to partial birth abortion- that is one heck of a slippery slope. We can't always forsee the way the slippery slope will go and so I don't hold it against Bush for being cautious in proceeding with things like Gay marriage or stem cell research.

You know, Bush's detractors always paint him as a crazy religious zealot but he is a Methodist- not exactly a wild and crazy sect of people *g* The Methodists have a reputation for being very loving and helpful to others.

Bush detrators always try to present him as hungry for oil and money but he is not like a Hollywood celeb or a Rockefeller with gold faucets and luxury yachts. His favorite place is a ranch inCrawford Texas where he spens time cutting wood and he likes to go out on a fishing boat with his father. Yes he is rich but he certainly doens't seem married to that life style like others are. I never see Laura dripping in diamonds like so many of the Bush critics.

On the other hand Kerry does belong to that rich group and does have a yacht and mansions around the world. I am from his home state and one of the Boston radio show hosts has an occasional segment about people who have met Kerry and it is funny to hear as they always say he always cuts in front of people in line "do you know who I am?" and he never pays his bills at restaurants. He often takes the bill and signs the BILL and not the charge card daring people to challenge him! When one funrniture store refused to give him a discount (store policy) he ran around wriitng the furnitures' order numbers and left in a huff- he was going to get the furniture elsewhere. As if he can't afford it?
The point is that he is the one who acts in the way the Dems are always trying to portray Bush.

[electriclite]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But here is something you may enjoy- in the bible it says that it is actually God who picks the leaders. You can believe it or not. It's funny but during that nasty election with all of the commotion over the votes, it seems to me in retrospect that God might have been developing Bush to be a stronger leader by putting him through the ringer, maybe in preparation for what he would hvave to do regarding 9-11. King DAvid of Israel was put through tons of crap in preparation for his kingship and Joseph was also perepared for his leadership through many hardhips too (his brothers sold him into slavery and he was unjustly jailed for many years).

That is a Christian perspective (my own)but I'm sure people who do not beleive in this stuff with think it is all a bunch of crap. The basis of all of my beleifs comes form the bible. I think Bush feels like this too. That is why I do not think he is a delusional guy but maybe that is why you do. I used to think that way too until I started actaully reading the bible myself instead of having it interperted to me by others.


And the Egyptians and ancient Chinese believed that their leaders were actual living representations of the gods or gods themselves, but we don't we go by their example do we? But they're pretty much similar to your example.

What you are pretty much alluding to is known as "Divine Right of Kings". But Bush isn't a king, and this isn't a serfdom, this is a democracy, where the people choose. A concept created by a pagan civilization, but we still dig it; Christian and non-Christian alike.

God had to choose the leaders in the Bible because they were not elected, they were born into power. Meaning the best way to keep the people at bay, even if the king was an ass was to have the people believe that this man was chosen by God, and who wants to talk shit about God's right hand man?

And David stumbled as a leader when he had that woman's husband killed when he had him sent out to the front lines so he could have his wife for himself. So if he was a leader picked by God to that man who died God sucks.

It is my belief that using God as reason for anything puts God in a bad light. As I often say, God needs a better publicist. Bush saying "God told me to do it." is exactly like saying "Slavery made me kill that white man", "Being abused as a child made me rape little children." etc.

Bush just makes himself seem like the middle man with no real control or influence....... kinda like the Republican party treated him to begin with. The man has a fondness for being everyone else's bitch it seems.

And just now I heard from a friend in Ireland that the CIA was going door to door tearing down anything that would offend Bush during his visit to Ireland.

Yes, the guy is a pillar of fortitude and confidence.

Just because the guy believes the same things as you does not mean he's qualified for his job. Same as just because I like Morrissey doesn't mean I'm gonna like all his fans.

[Lynn7]

The basic beleif of Christainity is that no man is "good" as compared to God. We are all "sinners".


I didn't mean to imply that Bush felt entitiled to be president because he was a Christian. When the bible says that God picks the leaders it doens't mean he always picks out "good" men. According to the Christian beliefs, there will be good and bad leaders but all have a part in God's plan in working toward HIS purposes. I realize not everyone will agree with this point of view. It is Christian ideology.

The thing that is funny to me is that people criticize Bush for forcing his Christian beliefs on everyone (in that he doesn't beleive in abortion or gay marriage) but isn't the converse true? That people who are agnostic or atheist or of other beliefs are trying to force their own viewpoints on society? I don't believe this but I beleive all people have their own viewpoint on these things and there needs to be discussion-then the public will speak through the represntatives they select. but it is wrong to say Bush is trying to impose his views.

Do you know that ultrasonographers are often forbidden from showing an ultrasound picture to a woman who is scheduled to go for an abortion- even if she asks? It makes it too hard for her to go through with it becasue if she sees the fetus jumping around she might be conflicted and upset. Who is trying to hide information from who?

In all of the public debate on the issue of abortion they never seem to show an ultrasound while discussing abortion. It can't be done- it would change everything. The abortion thing was passed before ultrasound was in practice. IF a woman can't feel the baby moving until 18 weeks she might feel it must not be active but it actually is moving around by 7 weeks. There are two different points of view on this issue that don't have to be condemend just on religious grounds.

Ahh! I just found this on ultrasound. They say 12 weeks but I know from first hand experience they are moving at 7 weeks.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm

[countchocula]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The thing that is funny to me is that people criticize Bush for forcing his Christian beliefs on everyone (in that he doesn't beleive in abortion or gay marriage) but isn't the converse true? That people who are agnostic or atheist or of other beliefs are trying to force their own viewpoints on society?

No. I'm an athiest, and the only time I discuss my beliefs offline is when a Christian tries to convert me (unless I'm talking to a friend who shares my sentiments).

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The thing that is funny to me is that people criticize Bush for forcing his Christian beliefs on everyone (in that he doesn't beleive in abortion or gay marriage) but isn't the converse true? That people who are agnostic or atheist or of other beliefs are trying to force their own viewpoints on society?

No, "us" people are asaying that all people should be able to make decisions for ourselves that don't cause harm to other people. If my g/f gets an abortion, it's none of your, Bush's, Kerry's, or the fucking Supreme Court's business.

And if Adam and Steve want to marry each other, why does that bother you, or anybody else?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
No, "us" people are asaying that all people should be able to make decisions for ourselves that don't cause harm to other people. If my g/f gets an abortion, it's none of your, Bush's, Kerry's, or the fucking Supreme Court's business.

And if Adam and Steve want to marry each other, why does that bother you, or anybody else?

I agree on the issue of Adam and Steve. I beleive God gave us the choice to follow his teachings or not to- some take some of the beliefs and throw the others out- some throw them all out and some follow them all. We have to be responsible for our own decisions regarding this matter. I do see this as a religious issue that the state should probably not be involved in- the tricky thing is where is the line drawn- is it Ok if there is bigamy or incest in marriage? That will be tricky for the state.

The abortion issue is different. I used to be 100% pro choice. when I was in nursing school I was one of three students who chose to spend the day in the abortion unit. I believed the thinking that there was nothing there- it was just a glob of tissue- alkthough I was kind of puzzled to see a young girl waiting for her saline abortion to be "delivered" because she was past 12 weeks pregnancy. The slimiest doctor came in to check on her. He was dressed in the most beautiful suit and his nails were manicured and his attittude to the girl was nothing short of contemptuous. It was creepy.

Anyway, the thing that changed my mind on abortion had nothing to do with religion (that hadn't happened yet) but my own ultrasound when I was pregnant. I was shocked to see my baby at nine weeks gestation jumping around and being extremely active. I realized then that there had been a lie perpetuated by the prochoicers. He was not a glob of tissue. Then for my second baby I needed an ultrasound at 7 weeks. i told my husband not to come cause there would probably be nothing to see- wrong again. He was little more than a torso but he was moving around too.

Here's the thing- I beleive that if the choice is between two people the mother and the baby's life the mother's life should always take precedence. But maybe it is your right to terminate your own child since an atheist may not have a problem with that but at least make an informed decison. The prochoice community has effectively hidden vital information from people about what they are really doing. if they see an ultrasound and then decide to abort anyway well. I guess.

But then does the baby have rights? At what age is it right to stop aborting? And if the baby is moving around does the baby feel pain when it is aborted? Should it be anesthesized? certainly in the case of partial birth abortion- that is totally barbaric- as long as you kill the kid before it is born it is considered an abortion and not infanticide. Stabbing a baby in the brains is not an OK thing even for non-Christians I would think.

But I could remove my Chrisstianity from the issue of abortion and still see it as a problem, if that answers your question.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
But then does the baby have rights? At what age is it right to stop aborting? And if the baby is moving around does the baby feel pain when it is aborted? Should it be anesthesized? certainly in the case of partial birth abortion- that is totally barbaric- as long as you kill the kid before it is born it is considered an abortion and not infanticide. Stabbing a baby in the brains is not an OK thing even for non-Christians I would think.

IMO, a baby has rights, of course. But a fetus is not a baby, to me. And if a woman can live with herself having an abortion, I don't care how far along the pregnancy is. It has no effect on me. And if something has no effect on me, why would I waste my time caring about it?

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Grebdron
IMO, a baby has rights, of course. But a fetus is not a baby, to me. And if a woman can live with herself having an abortion, I don't care how far along the pregnancy is. It has no effect on me. And if something has no effect on me, why would I waste my time caring about it?

Your atheism is showing. ;)

[Cyclonus]

Okay, before I post my own thoughts here, I'd like to point out that this thread is getting off topic. Remember that we're supposed to be discussing Dubya's mental state. ;)

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Your atheism is showing. ;)

Loud and clear.;)

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by Cyclonus
Okay, before I post my own thoughts here, I'd like to point out that this thread is getting off topic. Remember that we're supposed to be discussing Dubya's mental state. ;)

Sorry- I'll show you the way my brain was connecting... I was addressing the fact that people say Bush is infliciting his crazy religious views on America- I am just saying that it is possible to be pro-life or against gay marriage without bringing Christianity into it at all.

[Ultrahumanite]

Originally posted by Grebdron
IMO, a baby has rights, of course. But a fetus is not a baby, to me.

If a fetus is not a baby, why is Scott Peterson being charged with a double homicide?

Anyway, back on topic, I can't put too much stock in that stuff. After all, they did the same thing to Bill Clinton:


But it is nonetheless significant that the president's fractured cognitive state is so widely known that it is being publicized in a major newsmagazine and chattered about in cyberspace, and that it will inevitably run its course through the media. The White House aides, State Department officials, and others who are now whispering about Clinton's inability to concentrate would do better to realize that they don't just have a secret on their hands, they have something resembling a public relations emergency.

Clinton's fractured attention span, his acute distractibility, his incessant talking, are further manifestations of his compulsive disorder. He is undoubtedly accurate when he describes himself as "compulsively overactive." This diagnosis is yet another way of looking at his cognitive damage. It provides further evidence that we have a mentally impaired president in the White House...

At the opening of this article I said that a psychological perspective on Bill Clinton should contribute to one's understanding of him, of his presidency, and of the political events of the past two years. I now add that it should contribute to one's thinking about the political future.... He was not psychologically qualified for the presidency, and he is not now able to save it from the corrosive effects of his own psychology.

This profile does not exhaust the subject of Clinton's psychological problems. He has others I have not discussed, such as grandiosity, and I have scarcely mentioned the first lady, save to say that she is in far better cognitive shape than Clinton. But even this discussion of a few key problems should suffice to tell the reader that the California trio--Leon Panetta, the new chief of staff; Tony Coelho, the new de facto head of the Democratic party; and political consultant Bill Bradley--will not solve Clinton's problems with managerial reorganization and Reaganesque appearances in the Rose Garden.

Coelho has been quoted as saying that all the White House needs is "some old pros who know the town." Clearly, he does not know, any more than Gergen knew, what he is walking into. "Old pros" cannot heal the fractured cognition of the man in the Oval Office, whose morning ritual includes vomiting out his terror of the burden he cannot carry.



Anyway, you get the idea.

[Grebdron]

Originally posted by Ultrahumanite
If a fetus is not a baby, why is Scott Peterson being charged with a double homicide?

When I first heard he was going to be charged with murder for the baby, I was all for it. After some analysis, however, I quickly changed my tune. That's a dangerous precedent to set. It just gives anti-abortionists ammo, which is never a good thing.