Is President Bush mentally ill? Sharon Begley is a senior editor for science at Newsweek, which apparently entitled her to conduct a tired psychoanalysis of President Bush and his state of denial about the war in Iraq, suggested earlier in his life by his comforting his mother as his sister Robin died of leukemia at age three, and his alcohol abuse as an adult. It "could all be dismissed as psychobabble," Begley wrote, but she marshaled experts to diagnose him from afar for his "pathological certainty that things are going well."
In an article titled "The Truths We Want to Deny," Begley, a longtime Newsweek writer (recently returned to the fold after five years at the Wall Street Journal), overcame the awkwardness of diagnosing mental illness from a distance:
Denying the evidence of your eyes is the most extreme form of the coping mechanism called denial. But denial comes in milder forms as well. Parents refuse to believe their child is on drugs; that baggie under his bed contained oregano. A husband maintains his wife cannot be cheating; those late nights she spends with a friend are purely platonic. A wife denies that her husband is gay; he's just been too tired for sex with her these last few years.
And a president who insists that a war will succeed despite setback after setback? It's risky to put a politician on the couch, but that has not kept President Bush's critics from charging that he is "in a state of denial" about the situation in Iraq, as Sen. Harry Reid said last month. The phrase was the title of Bob Woodward's latest book on the war, and in January, USA Today editorialized that Bush is "in denial about the insurgency that has plunged [Iraq] into civil war."
This could all be dismissed as psychobabble, except for one thing. Psychology researchers, including some who advise politicians, have reached the same conclusion. "I do think there is denial on Bush's part in his running of the war," says Kerry Sulkowicz, clinical professor of psychiatry at New York University Medical Center. "He seems unmoved by the extent of the evidence that things are far worse than he believes. The tip-off for denial is perpetual optimism, a pathological certainty that things are going well."
Bush could, of course, know full well that the United States cannot achieve its goals in Iraq. If so, then he is lying not to himself but to us (for reasons scientists would have a field day with, but that's another story). But while it's always risky to psychoanalyze a politician from afar, a few things in his past are consistent with the capacity for denial. When he was 7, his baby sister died of leukemia. Bush, while certainly not denying her death, tried to cheer up his grieving mother, saying everything would be OK. Also, those who abuse alcohol, as Bush has admitted doing, typically need to see the world in black and white in order to stay on the wagon. "It's how they control their addiction," says Sulkowicz. "It reflects an inability or refusal to see shades of gray."
People resort to denial when recognizing that the truth would destroy something they hold dear. In the case of a cheating partner, denial lets you avoid "acknowledging evidence of your own humiliation," says New York psychoanalyst Leon Hoffman. Short of catching a spouse in flagrante delicto, evidence of infidelity is usually ambiguous.
This is an obvious entry point for Begley to write about Hillary Clinton and her remarkable capacity for denial about a cheating spouse, but somehow, Begley can't seem to be bipartisan with her amateur diagnoses. Begley even suggests partisanship in closing as she hailed John F. Kennedy for admitting his Cuban fiasco:
In their new book, "Mistakes Were Made," psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson argue that self-justification and denial arise from the dissonance between believing you're competent, and making a mistake, which clashes with that image. Solution: deny the mistake. Similarly, if a political leader believes himself competent and wise, and a decision has disastrous consequences, the only way to reconcile self-image with failure is to deny the failure. As Tavris and Aronson write, a president who believes "he has the truth becomes impervious to self-correction." He blinds himself to information that might make him doubt his decision. There are exceptions, however. When the Bay of Pigs proved to be a fiasco, JFK said responsibility was "mine and mine alone." No denial there.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Could you give us a little mo
May 14, 2007 - 23:54 ET by maggieqpublicCould you give us a little more information about Ms. Begley’s credentials. Her column reminded me of some required reading I had back in the 70’s…. Erik Erikson psychohistory stuff about Martin Luther and Gandhi. At the time it struck me as curious that we were putting these two historical giants “on the couch” in a history class. This “analysis” is a stretch and an embarrassment (in my opinion) for Newsweek.
Look, who cares what their credentials are?
May 15, 2007 - 02:12 ET by SportPoliticsLook, who cares what their credentials are?
If you're a msm liblove psychologist or psychiatrist, you're pretty much a Freudian moron, and closely related to the insane left wackosphere, and a Bush hater. I don't care if they had 25 Hollywood movie stars on their couch, the reason the left loves it, is because any layperson has enough public training in this crap to make it all up themselves pro or con in the case of any person whatsoever.
Everyone knows if you're getting analyzed, the big question is, " How crazy are you ?"
So, we actually need to start there, and throw these morons off the side of the ship.
( Oh, sorry for displaying the hidden inner rage and desire to lash out and drown people. It must have been that championship baseball in 3rd grade I didn't recieve, even though I thought I should have been the MVP)
Look, the society is saturated with these psychoanalytic freaks, and it's pop-culture cool to make sure you know all the Dr. Phil and Sally and Oprah "mental causes" for what anyone does at any time in their lives, and especially when it comes to anyone on TV, or any big personality, and the answer has been established " they're all a little crazy" - it's a "human condition" - and of course that supports the idiot liberal belief system that nothing is ever verifiable or factual. ( except Bush caused global warming and evolution is headed for another extinction, and this time it's a terrible mistake forced by big oil inhuman monsters ).
My gawd, most average Americans could open an office with a couch and make hundreds of dollars per hour, and never run out of willing customers getting wonderful help to manage their lives through the psycho looking glass. If they had a drug license, they would be successful. In fact, that's really all they need, a license to write a scrip, the rest is common knowledge already.
Yeah, I'm sick of the psychos ( known as liberals) and their thousands of analytical freak jobs running around making their intent and motive guesses for endless hours on the nightly news shows.
See " Bush is Hitler" , and Bush is a Nazi, and Bush-neocon , for the latest craze in " pop- psychology " being the main line in political discussion nowadays.
"Everyone" has a hidden angle and a motive, and after that is instantly established (in leiu of even the basic facts of the matter at hand) in all cases of any nature whatsoever, the rest of the discussion is " what are they really up to, and why are they doing it ?"
Then comes the endless speculation, about "what are they really doing ?"
So, now we have 33% of the public thinking 911 was an inside job.
See " Bush is Hitler&q
May 15, 2007 - 04:31 ET by motherbeltSee " Bush is Hitler" , and Bush is a Nazi, and Bush-neocon , for the
latest craze in " pop- psychology " being the main line in political
discussion nowadays.
You forgot "Bush is a dry drunk", but that's understandable, it was way back in his first term. Liberals can't understand that someone could give up booze on his own, with God's help. To them, the only way is to go to AA and call God your "higher power." Some movie star, I forget who it was, actually did use that rationale....said Bush was not recovered because he never "did the steps."
lol
May 15, 2007 - 05:01 ET by SportPoliticsYes, remember when they were going insane claiming they just knew for sure Bush was hitting the sauce. lol
Then they had a fit when they failed to nail Cheney for drunken and disorderly hunting. lol
AA teaches there are cases of religious sobriety, but they are rare, and often are found in the great one in a million type person.
My opinion is Bush never was an alcoholic, but saw his heavy drinking could cause problems and he decided with God's help, to quit.
AA teaches about those types of drinkers, social drinker, spring break drunk, heavy drinker, alcoholic...
Since Bush is so disciplined in his personal life I find it unlikely that he ever crossed the edge into alcoholism. His excellent health, the best of any President ever, is another indicator. He keeps a strict schedule, also an indicator he is not a recovered alcoholic.
I think the libs real complaint is " iron willpower " - something that is definitely a standard and cherished American asset and virtue, that the libs like to call "stubbourn" - or shriek "he doesn't listen" ( which means he doesn't take orders from crybaby liberals who weren't elected President twice and aren't President currently but want to pretend they are. )
Yeah, my mom tried to get m
May 15, 2007 - 05:03 ET by liberal_bug_zapperYeah, my mom tried to get me to go to an AA meeting with her a couple of weeks ago. I stopped drinking years ago because it became boring. I never feared drinking, and although I may have been over served a few times, I never let it get out of hand... it's something that I like to call 'self-control'.
What is so sad about the baby boomers like my mother is that they grew up rejecting the idea of having to suffer consequences of their bad choices. They preached the 'Consequence-Free' lifestyle and even went so far as to stop teaching personal responsibility and being accountable for your actions. The evidence is everywhere... for example, in the abortion debate, the choice for them is whether or not to kill a baby.... it's not to be responsible and teach children abstinence and to say that the choice is to say 'No' to sex. Nooooooooooo we can't have that! That would bum their high. That would take away the anarchical freedom they so desire. The freedom to do anything with no no consequences.
Does anyone else think that the baby boomer's generation has done more damage to the concept of being responsible for one's actions than any generation before them? I mean let's look at all the friggin syndromes they come up with to excuse their actions.... I'm an alcoholic... I have an addictive personality, I have ADHD or I'm manic-depressive... and so on and so forth. What a bunch of pap. It's like people have decided to abdicate all responsibility for themselves to an invented malady or trauma because it's easier than actually standing up and facing reality which can be hard. They whine, bitch and moan about the unfairness of it all.... meanwhile, life passes them by. Time stops for no man, and yet, they spend a good amount of time complaining about those who are rich, or those who are successful as if those people didn't actually work for what they have.
I realized long ago that many baby boomers have refused to grow up and accept responsibility for their success or failure. Why they think that anyone other than themselves can be responsible for them being total losers is beyond me. A perfect example is what my mother said about Wal-Mart... she blames Wal-Mart for her failure in selling hand made tiles. She said that everyone shops at Wal-Mart and no one buys her tiles. It's not true, but she believes it because it means she does not have to face the possibility that her product sucks, or that she sucks as a sales person. Either way, this is the modern day liberal... always blaming someone else for their screw-ups.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Liberal_bug_zapper
May 15, 2007 - 06:02 ET by SportPoliticsThat was hilarious.
I've got one for you. My "disadvantaged" friend. Now he's not a liberal, since on occassion he actually exhibits common sense, and can't stand and doesn't follow politics, but he has problems.
Anyway, he calls one day a few years back and somehow the conversation turns to his prior work history. He was working for some park district, mowing. So he and one or two other guys are on the job mowing and clipping and such, and one of the guys started razzing him. He tells me he told the fellow in a very calm yet firm manner to cut it out. The guy didn't cut it out. So he told him again to stop it. The guy still didn't listen. So, says my friend, he picked up one of the tree cutting hatchets, since he warned the guy, and wielded it issuing some kind of comment or look to the effect that he might have to use it to straighten things out. He emphasized to me, he told the guy to stop, first.
Well, he continues that the incident reached the supervisor, and he was fired/ let go. Then started the complaining, that noone can get ahead unless someone gives them a break. He blamed the supervisor, the other fellow, and entirely excused everything he did, noting that he got razzed, and that is wrong, and that he gave the warning to cut it out, and it wasn't stopped, and on and on.
You can't get ahead unless someone gives you a break. He says it in various ways over and over, and since he isn't part of some old boy network, and apparently hasn't met a kind person willing to lend a hand up his entire life, he is currently in another state in public housing on the dole.
It took me half an hour, in various fashion and form, to break through the wall of ignorance and denial, to point out to him that wielding a small ax and threatening to use it against a fellow employee isn't something a park worker supervisor is likely to easily dismiss, especially when you tell tell him you did it, and how justified you were in your actions, and how it solved the problem - lol .(apparently expecting a raise for initiative in getting along with fellow workers)
I'll add I'm certain his lack of personal hygiene -missing spots of beard, scraggly brown hair, tipped to one side glasses taped at the bridge or the temple, and general looks was also a disturbing indicator of the likelihood of a lizzie borden like redux amongst the public nature trails. LOL
Yeah, I finally got an admission of sorts, when I pointed out that if someone else had raised an ax and made him think he was going to be the next twig to be preened, after repeatedly prior insulting the ax wielder, he would have a tendency toward "firing" instead of "giving them a break" - and wouldn't buy for a second that the fellow "never was given the chance to make it". Yeah, he finally laughed, not an evil laugh, but a laugh like he got it, he finally comprehended what had happened, and why he didn't get "his big break" - "Yeah, I can see what you're saying".
LOL - Man, it was amazing.
I mean let's look at all th
May 15, 2007 - 06:48 ET by motherbeltI mean let's look at all the friggin syndromes they come up with to
excuse their actions.... I'm an alcoholic... I have an addictive
personality, I have ADHD or I'm manic-depressive..
You got that right. They take any set of behaviors, lump them together, and call it a "syndrome." That makes it a medical or psychological "condition" which means the person is not responsible for their actions. Never occurs to them that a set of behaviors is simply that....behaviors, that can be changed.
In the movie "The Bodyguard" I remember the Whitney Houston character says that you get a reputation as a bitch, and pretty soon you become one. The Costner character says very simply that you can be as you choose to be. It's an act of self-discipline.
But these days no one wants to practice self-discipline. Any impulse that is not resisted is called an "irresistible impulse."
Funny, though, that you never
May 15, 2007 - 07:03 ET by bretzysdudeFunny, though, that you never heard the media ask in the late 90's, "Bill Clinton: does he have a sex addiction?"
The hand made tile story is s
May 15, 2007 - 10:20 ET by maggieqpublicThe hand made tile story is so wonderful, it can’t possibly be true! And the hatchet story!
Well, I'd say it's pretty eas
May 15, 2007 - 06:51 ET by LeonWell, I'd say it's pretty easy to give up Booze when you get a DUI and your entire future is on the line.
I'd say it's more likely Mr. Bush quit with the Law's help, not so sure God played that large of a role.
The DUI may have been the c
May 15, 2007 - 07:37 ET by motherbeltThe DUI may have been the catalyst, but Bush himself said that he gave up the booze and fixed up his life with God's help. You can believe that or not. And some people don't give up the booze even though their entire future is on the line.
Uhh PATHETIC try Leon
May 15, 2007 - 08:07 ET by SportPoliticsUhh PATHETIC try Leon, you smart aleck lib.
You should recall, since i'm sure you cherished every juicy tidbit - that back then - Bushy went down to cop central - sat there for an hour or two in the lobby, paid his fine, and was on his way.
It wasn't until the years of the insane mad mamma lib movement of grieved and unfairly slaughtered children by drunken male wife beating jerks that the law started frowning much more on drunken driving. Certainly the dense mass of seething liberal pits known as big cities and their insanely clogged avenues and streets created part of that "new world order DUI murderer" set of laws.
And,one would be remiss not to remind you, that Tedd the drunken *uck Kennedy, managed to kill his young girlfriend while sloshing behind the wheel - and even after his courtroom appearance, and the total destruction of his chances for the Presidency over that - is saucing it up to this very day.
So mr Leon, the smart aleck lib, you couldn't have been more wrong if you tried.
Leon
May 15, 2007 - 08:54 ET by JimboIt's PRESIDENT Bush, Leon.
You mental midget!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Actually, Leon, as an attor
May 15, 2007 - 09:51 ET by KaysguyActually, Leon, as an attorney who represented many people with DUIs, it is not easy for them to give up Booze, nor is it easy for them to give up Booze and driving.
If the President had a drinking problem, he ended it by force of will. If religion helped, so be it. If the law helped, so be it. The point is, he succeeded where so many others have failed.
Doesn't care
May 15, 2007 - 10:29 ET by Mr. BishopYou're really wasting your time with Leon. He doesn't care why something happened. He doesn't even care that something happened. He only cares that it is an example in which he can try and insult Bush with.
"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" - Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"
Dude... lighten up..
Her Newsweek biography only s
May 15, 2007 - 05:26 ET by Tim GrahamHer Newsweek biography only says she earned a B.A. (in what?) from Yale. (Honorary degrees don't count.) She is also married to Ned Groth, a liberal activist at Consumers Union.
Ahh, also married to aliberal activist at Consumer's Union
May 15, 2007 - 06:41 ET by SportPoliticsAhh, also married to aliberal activist at Consumer's Union. LOL Oh man.
Ok, so I have my theory, thanks to help from the Rosie conspiracy thread.
The libs actually need people that are losers, in every shape, fashion or form. They need the molested, the lesbos, the transgendered, the confused, the beaten by parent(s), the opressed, the downtroodden.
It works like this: The prospective lib must have some terrible tragedy befall them, preferrably by birth, or by some horrendous monster of some sort - a beater, a bad boss or spouse, an accident, something, anything. Then the indoctrination may proceed.
The future lib is fed the idea that they now carry with them a lifelong unfair disadvantage. It generally comes in the form of a lifelong scar, starting with "condition and circumstance at birth" - that could be race, retardation, medical condition, parentel unit(s), neighborhood, secarian section, breast or no breast feeding, and the list becomes more and more expansive as life years continue- adding gradeschool bullies - or classmates putdowns - to the type of clothes one doesn't or does have - what the mirror says - acne troubles - the list is endless.
Anyway, it is drilled into the now sad nearlibs head, that they got a bad deal, their lot in life has mentally and inwardly scarred them for their entire life, and those that don't have this disadvantage - are actually making it and have a good life - money -power - control - happiness, and that furthermore, since they remain with the upper hand, they will do all they can to retain that - never to be touched by the lot of life the indoctrinated liberal now understands is their sentence here on earth.
All the rest follows. Of course, the liberal mind never is free of the opression of the circumstance they were born into - or because of the deck stacked against them - wound up in. Can you say "vic" ?
Now, the other part of this equation is the thing where libs want to let child molesters and murderers and criminals go. Part of the lib philosophy is they became an abuser because of their circumstance( that would make them a lib eventually) - but of course that excuses them- and the libs need more and more "vics" who have been abused by the deranged and the let loose, so they open the floodgates of the prisons, excuse the molesters and murderers, and their glorious indoctrination chain continues.
Hmm, and GWB is supposed to be deranged ?
LOL - I haven't heard Bush claim victimhood yet - keep working on it libs .... maybe he'll crack and turn into a lib nutball.
I wonder what Sharon Begley w
May 15, 2007 - 00:21 ET by jdhawkI wonder what Sharon Begley would say about the following: AlBore telling the boys in the coach section of the press plane that his Harvard romance with Tipper was the basis for Erich Segal's tearjerker, Love Story. The airborne scribes expressed some disbelief (inasmuch as the morose brunette Ali MacGraw died in the movie, but the blond and vivacious Tipper is quite alive!), and the veep eventually 'fessed up that he had fabricated a bit, but reminded them that he had, after all, dated Tipper at Harvard.
Sharon Begley: No denial there!
"love is never having to
May 15, 2007 - 00:36 ET by maggieqpublic"love means never having to say you're sorry"
remote psychoanalysis
May 15, 2007 - 02:38 ET by m1xramYou can kind of get an idea of the type of people she deals with. A person who believes in morals may be outside her field of experience.
m1xram
Well, not only that m1xram
May 15, 2007 - 02:57 ET by SportPoliticsWell, not only that m1xram, the bag under the bed is obviously the post 60's parent's latest score of columbian redhair, the husband is angry because he hasn't been invited to his wifes lesbian lover's den this week - and can't tell the psychologist the truth and the psychologist is in denial, and the 350 pound desperate housewife is a paying customer so sanity demanded the psychotherapist didn't tell her the awful truth, so they both pretended neither of them knew why.
What bothers me about all o
May 15, 2007 - 04:21 ET by liberal_bug_zapperWhat bothers me about all of these psychobabbling liberals is that they demand perfection from us because they say we are hypocrites, but because they claim no such moral superiority, they can do and say anything and get a pass.
The war is going swimmingly well if past wars are anything to judge this war by. And if we are just to go by death rate, less than 800 killed per year in a WAR is amazing.
Wars are not like regular public work projects where you can plan for most contingencies. Wars change daily and the other side does not follow your schedule or fight by the rules. Tactics change on a daily basis as does war planning. The fluidity of war planning must be that with every loss or victory, the plan must adapt and change to reach the ultimate goal of total victory.
Of course we all know that Liberals do not understand victory in the way that conservatives do, and they have such a vitriolic hatred for conservatives that they would rather give a victory to Al Qaeda than see George W Bush proven correct.
The liberals again prove they are the enemy within. They are those we take the oath about. They are the "Domestic Enemies of the Constitution".
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
Look how insane the Newsweek article is
May 15, 2007 - 08:36 ET by SportPoliticsLook how insane the Newsweek article is:
{Bush could, of course, know full well that the United States cannot achieve its goals in Iraq. If so, then he is lying not to himself but to us (for reasons scientists would have a field day with, but that's another story). }
Ok, so these kookball Newsweek article writers, ever since we found out that jackass dem LBJ knew VietNam was a lost cause, have assumed that this other Iraq situation is "operating on the same plane - where the President won't publicly express his prediction of the future failure - even though we know by decades ago experience in another war run by a piece of crap democrat-he solidly has it".
Worse than all that, insurgencies have been beaten, and a reporter at Newsweek, who is so BDS absorbed, that doesn't know that after the years of the press obsession with Iraq, is immensely ignorant and a flunking slow learner. How about to obsessed and deranged to learn the basics in 4+ years Sharon Begley, you freaking fool.
Finally, the idiot claims that ( obviously looking back to LBJ's exposed lies on tape for her opinion on Bush) - "scientists" would have a field day telling us why Bush might lie even though he knows the future.
Well, that's what passes for liberal thought nowadays. They never out the piece of *hit dem they have in mind, for their " historical context research speculation" - then they give us their opinion - and claim "scientists" would have a field day agreeing, except the whole matter isn't about science at all, but about bleating imaginations concerning motives ( all of which are well known from the LBJ tapes that idiot lib liar reporter won't dare mention - but assumes is NOT true today - implying a Bush mental illness is the real cause now- vs- then).
So, Bush can know the future - and he would be lying to us if he does- as you believe - and Bush is crazy, because you know he knows the future.
You draw your massive knowledge - from the piece of crap demotrash president LBJ - who lied his a** off to us- while you of course believed him. Now you have a warning for the incompetent and ignorant- such as you were- so many many years ago.
LOL- Sharon Begley - you are PATHETIC.
If idiot dem lip flapping retards like Sharon Begley had a clue, they would fully realize that our major goals for Iraq HAVE ALREADY BEEN MET.
1. Saddam gone
2. Search for WMD (remember that was the MAIN reason, right - libs ? You've been screaming it was)
3. New government elected.
________________________________________
I submit that Sharon Begley and her type are so insanely deranged by their focus on President Bush that they cannot see the simple truth that the major goals for Iraq have already been met. In other words, the mission has been accomplished.
Of course, the libs say the mission is lost, and we must flee. So, I'd like to ask the libs, who are insane by any standard look - professional or otherwise, what goals of the Iraq war have not been met ? Why is the war "a failure" ?
Was Saddam removed ? Was WMD checked for, and the area cleared ? Was the new government elected ?
So libs, if the war is lost,and Bush hasn't told us - as you have claimed you insane gasbag loon Sharon, what would you further have as " the war goal" ?
LOL- Tell me oh wise and honest libs...
After your answer comes, I will be glad to check the record for that war goal - when "Bush" invaded.
Denying the evidence of your
May 15, 2007 - 04:42 ET by ArchConservativeDenying the evidence of your eyes is the most extreme form of the coping mechanism called denial. But denial comes in milder forms as well. Parents refuse to believe their child is on drugs; that baggie under his bed contained oregano. A husband maintains his wife cannot be cheating; those late nights she spends with a friend are purely platonic. A wife denies that her husband is gay; he's just been too tired for sex with her these last few years.
Hmm. I think that this woman has a lot of issues that she hasn't dealt with and to make herself feel better, she bashes President Bush (yea, that's real courageous). She's putting her own short-comings and fears into an article critical of the President to tell herself that she is still a good person. Physician, heal thy self first. And quit throwing those stones at glass houses.
Just another example of how a strong and vibrant leader scares these liberal women. If you are rubber-kneed and always apologizing, then that is considered to be a wonderful trait. The feminization of America continues...
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
I don't think he's mentally
May 15, 2007 - 04:49 ET by sarcasmoI don't think he's mentally-ill (or Hitler, etc.) but I do think Bush's decisions reflect the wisdom of my idea: Let's make all future Presidential candidates play the all-American game -- poker -- for an hour or 2. Win or lose, it would tell us a lot about each of them. IMO Mr. Bush is vastly underestimated by those who think he's "stupid" (as smart as Kerry at least, IMO) but he's also obviously one of those people who will never win the WSOP. And I'm left wondering if there's a relationship I can draw between his refusal to fire many generals and his refusal to veto any spending bills the entire first term, despite immense pork?
JMR
I agree on the pork and tha
May 15, 2007 - 05:06 ET by liberal_bug_zapperI agree on the pork and that he should have vetoed many a spending bill in his first term... I disagree that any general should be fired and if I were him, I never would have fired Rumsfeld. The plan is working, it's hard, but you have to stay the course and keep killing the enemy. They'll run out of bodies soon, and we should stay in Iraq until we invade Syria and Iran... as we're plainly going to have to do that.
____________________________________________________
"We can only reason from what is; we can reason on actualities, but not on possibilities." ~ Thomas Paine
We're so far-apart on war-i
May 15, 2007 - 05:13 ET by sarcasmoWe're so far-apart on war-issues that it's pointless to even discuss it now, but what do you think of the idea of forcing all the candidates together more often for stuff like a big game of Texas Hold'em? I think watching them lose and win would tell us a lot about them, and because poker is actually a series of small games to win or lose, it will tell us a lot more about them in the exact kind of much less scripted way I'm sure all their high-priced advisors will absolutely-hate. Plus, the idea of forcing Russert's ilk to deal at least one hand per question simply appeals to me...
JMR
President Bush would not win
May 15, 2007 - 08:34 ET by ArchConservativePresident Bush would not win Texas Hold 'em because he doesn't bluff and he doesn't lie. That's because President Bush is actually someone who has honor...unlike Edwards, Kerry, Hagel, etc. It seems to me that you would prefer someone who can look you in the eye and raise you everything even though he only has 3's and 4's in his hand. I guess you like to be lied to.
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."
- President George W Bush September 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress.
Bubba - Poker Champ
May 15, 2007 - 08:57 ET by JimboBill Clinton would be the undisputed poker champion. Hands down. No questions asked.
There is talk about President Bush's mental health? I firmly believe that Bill Clinton exhibits all the classic traits of a pathological liar.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Nah, he cheats at golf. Unl
May 15, 2007 - 09:11 ET by sarcasmoNah, he cheats at golf. Unless he could psychologically use that to his advantage, he'd be a goner early-on IMO. Of the Presidents in my lifetime, the best at poker would have probably been Nixon, with perhaps Bush's dad or Reagan coming in a (distant, IMO) second.
JMR
I disagree completely. Afte
May 15, 2007 - 09:13 ET by JimboI disagree completely. After all, Bubba bluffed his own wife into beleiving that the whole Monica thing was a vast right wing conspiracy, right?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
You think she believed that
May 15, 2007 - 09:18 ET by sarcasmoYou think she believed that? I'd agree only that she said it...And both parties, at the time, were trying desperately to hide the Mena-cocaine scandal by calling it "a conspiracy theory," and since it was a conspiracy it was an excellent lie-with-the-truth strategy which worked.
JMR
Brass Bluffing Balls
May 15, 2007 - 09:23 ET by JimboSo you admit that Hillary lied to the American public when she said it? Now I think we are getting somewhere!
And as for Bill being a good bluffer, you need to have a brass set of bluffing balls to get on National television, address the American public, and lie to every citizen in the country about something you AND your wife know is completely true.
But putting truth and safety of America as a distant second to their own political careers has been standard operating procedure for both of them for many years.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Admit??? That's gonna take
May 15, 2007 - 09:27 ET by sarcasmoAdmit??? That's gonna take me denying it first, and you'll need to find an instance of that, since I sure as hell can't! I'm a libertarian, remember? I upset them just as much as I upset you people -- probably more!! And I still say Tricky would beat Slick one on one or in a tournament. Both were obviously capable of large scale lies/bluffing, but Tricky was a once in a lifetimer...
JMR
We're again poles-apart. To
May 15, 2007 - 09:08 ET by sarcasmoWe're again poles-apart. To me, taking on the Iraq adventure during another war/manhunt definitely smacks of an all-in bluff. Not a wise one, either, something like queen-nine off suit...And your assumptions about who I'd prefer are wrong, but I'd definitely want someone who'd call that kind of bluff...
JMR
Sarc - please clarify
May 15, 2007 - 09:11 ET by JimboWhen you are saying "Iraq Adventure", are you referring to the surge? If so, do you consider the surge a bluff?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Nah, the whole thing, but I
May 15, 2007 - 09:12 ET by sarcasmoNah, the whole thing, but I do think the surge is misnamed, since numbers-wise it's about the same as the previous max, right, and it's really just a change in strategy to 'whack the capital-city mole,' but everyone hates when I call it that.
JMR
Sarc - LOL
May 15, 2007 - 09:16 ET by JimboSo the entire Iraq campaign has been a bluff? The surge isn’t really a surge? And the surge doesn’t represent a change in strategy? I MUST be missing something.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
1. Yeah, at least going in
May 15, 2007 - 09:19 ET by sarcasmo1. Yeah, at least going in with bad cards.
2. I called it whack a mole, which it resembles.
3. I never said that, it's still the wrong (one country instead of three) strategy which has been modified somewhat.
4. Yes, you're too imaginative and creative.
JMR
Actually, I see you as anothe
May 15, 2007 - 09:25 ET by JimboActually, I see you as another liberal praying for a loss in Iraq, nothing more than that.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
You're free to remain full
May 15, 2007 - 09:28 ET by sarcasmoYou're free to remain full of it, as far as I'm concerned.
JMR
schizo
May 15, 2007 - 05:19 ET by oldmanobanI am schizophrenic.....
and so am I
If GWB is mentally ill, then
May 15, 2007 - 07:11 ET by Senior ChiefIf GWB is mentally ill, then so do I...He never blame anyone- he was presented with the evidence that led to the war. He already acknowledged that there was a mistake in handling the Iraq war, but he understand the consequences that leaving Iraq now will mean big trouble ahead for America and the rest of the world.
As a military man, I would rather have GW as my Commander-in-Chief than any other self-defeating/cut-and-run/enemy-friendly/white-flag-weaving-surrender democrack ANYTIME. If my life is taken as a result for preventing or in slowing down the progress this war with terrorism to happen in our soil, that's because Pres. Bush is a realist. My family and your families will enjoy life for a little while but will soon, if America don't deal with the situation, experience the horror of this fanatics will bring to our country.
These terrorists and jihadist will not sit down until all civilized world bow down to their religion, and until all non-Islamic people are converted. If the democracks wins the White House, the progress will escalate at a faster rate and they'll blame of course, George Bush. Oh by the way, I don't have an Ivy league education, mine was from a third world country. George Bush is "mentally" ill, and so do I...
I have been wondering who the
May 15, 2007 - 08:05 ET by msh1973I have been wondering who these crazy liberals are going to bash and complain about after GWB goes back to the ranch. It will be interesting.
Applying their method to themselves...
May 15, 2007 - 08:24 ET by c5thenMost of the editors in the MSM exhibit classic patterns of Paranoid Schitzophrenics. They are constantly trying to equate issues that no sane person would even concider related and are always tying anything that they concider "bad" or "wrong" back to the same individual, even where no link can logically be drawn.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.
I wonder how psychologists Ta
May 15, 2007 - 08:41 ET by GalvanicI wonder how psychologists Tavris and Aronson would pscyho-analyze George Washington. Here was a man who aspired to be a military officer all his adult life, yet from the French & Indian War (1754-1760) right up until the Battle of Yorktown in 1781, he lost far more battles than he won. How would Tavris and Aronson explain Washington's behavior as he and his troops suffered terribly as they wintered over at Valley Forge, and again at Morristown the following winter. Was Washington in denial? Wasn't he demanding that his army suffer because he refused to accept the negative information that disputed his delusions of success?
I'm not saying that Bush Jr. is a 21st Century Washington, but it's quite a stretch for a couple of psychologists to base analysis on the acceptance of a political assessment -- that Bush is denying that he's losing a war that he thinks he can win.
It's unfortunate that TIME would resort to one of PRAVDA's old tools --- declaring that the political opposition is mentally ill.
"It's unfortunate that
May 15, 2007 - 08:59 ET by c5then"It's unfortunate that TIME would resort to one of PRAVDA's old tools --- declaring that the political opposition is mentally ill."
Are you kidding??!!! That's where they get most of their opperations manual.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic.
What is even more troubli
May 15, 2007 - 09:12 ET by marvlWhat is even more troubling is that the editorial management at Newsweek approves this steaming pile of bovine excrement for publication. Psychoanalysis by even the best professionals is barely a step above nonsense like Scientology. It is completely irresponsible for an untrained amateur to be dabbling in it.
There is an incredible irony here: these people seem to suffer from an extreme anti-Bush nerosis. They should be the ones on the couch with a pill bottle in one hand and a 12-step program in the other. Why is there no plethora of articles about the incredible mental problems of people on the ideological left?
"Denying the evidence of
May 15, 2007 - 09:28 ET by JohnM"Denying the evidence of your eyes is the most extreme form of the coping mechanism called denial. But denial comes in milder forms as well. ... And a president who insists that a war will succeed despite setback after setback? "
"setback after setback"? Yes, in wars things don't always go as planned.
For example, check out this 2004 report of reconstruction efforts in Iraq. It explains how funds earmarked for reconstruction had to be diverted to security, as we encountered more terrorist attacks than anticipated. (a setback)
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20041007-1382.html
But that report also details all the schools built, roads constructed, water and sewer treatment plants built, bridges built, and so on... (NOT setbacks)
From the way that Begley and the rest of the msm IGNORE all these SUCCESSES, it would seem that by her own definition (ie, by "denying truths"), Begley and her liberal naysayers are "mentally ill".
OK, now all you libs in the media, go commit yourselves to the nearest psychobabble instution... Oh wait! You're in the msm; you're already there!
Typical hate-filled liberal
May 15, 2007 - 11:02 ET by StogieGuyTypical hate-filled liberal MSM hit piece. Ever hear of "Bush derangement syndrome"? It's the mental illness that has reached epidemic proportions in the MSM.
This is merely a case of role reversal from wishing too hard.
The only mentally ill man to
May 15, 2007 - 12:02 ET by bigtimerThe only mentally ill man to be in the Presidency in my lifetime is Bill Clinton.
That is putting it politely too.