July 13, 2004
WHAT KIND OF DISTURBED MIND HATES MURDEROUS TYRANNY?:
The Damaged Mind of George W. Bush: The Madness in His Method (KATHERINE van WORMER, 7/01/04, CounterPunch)
In 2004 alone, major commercial publishers have published or will publish at least 25 books attacking the character and policies of George W. Bush. Outstanding among these are: Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's War on Terror in which former counterterrorism adviser Richard Clarke documented how unconcerned the Bush administration was with terrorism, pushing for strikes on Iraq even right after September 11; Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward who in his interviews with Bush and members of his cabinet confirmed the early start on a war plan to invade Iraq and revealed a disturbing statement by Bush implying the world would come to an end; and Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush by former Nixon legal adviser, John Dean who stated in a TV interview that Bush's obsession with Iraq started before 9/11 but "I can't understand why."Missing in all these studies is the answer to that question-why. Why was Bush obsessed with Iraq? My theory is this: We must seek the answer in an ambivalent father-son relationship coupled with the son's almost ferocious drive to prove himself to his father and to outdo him at the same time. Take into account recent scientific evidence of possible long-term brain damage associated with years of heavy drinking and cocaine use.
Elsewhere, Alan Bisbort and I, in articles on Bush as a dry drunk, have documented this phenomenon. Grandiosity, rigidity, and intolerance of ambiguity are the leading characteristics of what AA folks call the dry drunk syndrome. The dry drunk quits drinking, but the thinking is not really sober.
Obsessions with the bottle may be replaced by other obsessions-religious extremism, thirst for power, etc.
Psychoanalyzing the President is all well and good, but misses the really interesting question about the war: why wasn't the Left at least bothered, if not obsessed, by the worst mass murderer of recent times? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 13, 2004 8:05 PM
My goodness, Orrin, you are psychic. I just returned from my favoutite bookstore, as the family is leaving for a few days and I need emergency literary rations. I was astounded and depressed by the number of books that included the words "Bush" and "Lies" in their titles, or may as well have. The section on politics was groaning with anti-Bush screeds. A few Coulters, Kaplans, et. al., but otherwise the section was pretty much a collective character assassination. Hate to say it, but the authors were all American.
The same thing is going on on talk shows and op-ed pieces, a few beautiful dissents notwithstanding. "Bush lied, Bush lied" is the only subject I'm hearing these days. There is no doubt that, among the chattering classes, Bush is far more demonic than Hussein ever was. Let's admit it. The left not only couldn't care less what happened to Iraqis under Hussein, they are coming pretty close to admitting they preferred it.
Posted by: Peter B at July 13, 2004 8:23 PMNot only the left. The antiBush jokes I'm beginning to hear have a real edge on 'em. And I'm hearing them from people of no particular political bent.
I think Rove ought to be aware of it, because these are not the kinds of jokes that pass current about a re-electable president.
The people around the Bushes act like stumblebums. The withdrawal of the felonious non-voter list in Florida is not another example -- from an endless stream -- of the essentially klutziness of the Bush entourage.
Orrin keeps using the '50-0' mantra. I don't see anything close.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 13, 2004 8:42 PMYeah, haven't heard jokes like these since Reagan was in office.
Posted by: oj at July 13, 2004 9:04 PMSure, because Americans always love to see their president viciously attacked. Guys, Bush's polls are up since F911 was released.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 13, 2004 10:29 PMHarry - you're in Hawaii, right? which is heavy Dem despite a GOP governor. I hear the same all the time in MA. I agree with you but also OJ and David so I'm thinking 40-10 for Bush instead of the 50-0.
Posted by: AWW at July 13, 2004 10:45 PMThe thing is; if Bush had ordered Michael Moore shot or hanged (savor the moment) Ted Rall, flayed
(Hey we can dream, can't we) and Gore Vidal; exiled to an Alaskan penitentiary. how would their
claims be any different
Anti-Bush sentiment will hardly suffice to carry The Haughty One into the White House. Simply put, you can't beat something with nothing.
Posted by: Morrie at July 14, 2004 7:17 AMExcept that I'm getting the feeling that a lot of this noise is coming from people who would, if the choice were between GWB and a grapefruit, vote for the grapefruit.
The decibel level is way up there. What wonder about is, is it all just one big, narcissistic, self-satisfying echo chamber? How big is this snowball (based as it is on lies, slander, innuendo and insanity), and how much momentum can it carry up into November?
I'm curious because although it ought to, I don't think it'll simply melt away under the sheer weight of its dishonest perversity.
Posted by: Barry Meislin at July 14, 2004 7:57 AMVote for a 35+ year old grapefruit?
I guess that would work for the Dem's.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at July 14, 2004 10:19 AMHeck, we haven't heard jokes like that since Clinton...
Posted by: Timothy at July 14, 2004 12:58 PMI'm in Hawaii, but my work circle tends to throw me in amongst Republicans.
I tried to take account of obvious partisans and people who would be expected to delight in funning Republicans.
There's a really savage tone in some of the jokes that goes way beyond anything I heard about Reagan.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 14, 2004 5:09 PMNixon in '72.
Posted by: oj at July 14, 2004 7:49 PM