News What if Bush and Cheney ARE delusional?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What if Bush and Cheney aren't delusional is a better question I reckon.

 

[denverdoc]

The horns of a devilish dilemma as to whether so or not. Methinks Cheney is your average sociopath.

 

[Astronuc]

Ex-Aide Says He’s Lost Faith in Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html

AUSTIN, Tex., March 29 — In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.

A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

I can appreciate someone being disappointed with Bill Clinton - a lot of people were, including myself.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.” . . . . continued

I think a lot of people who supported Bush have become disillusioned.

Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Mr. Dowd’s criticism is reflective of the national debate over the war.

“It’s an issue that divides people,” Mr. Bartlett said. . . . .

He said he disagreed with Mr. Dowd’s description of the president as isolated and with his position on withdrawal.

Well - no surprise there. The White House counselor is not exactly objective, and certainly would not concede that Bush is isolated.

The problem is that Bush cannot face the fact that he was wrong and that he lost Iraq the moment US forces became an occupation force, with no feasible plan to quickly restore the nation.

Of course, Bush claimed he wasn't going to be involved in nation building. What he didn't mention in 2000 that he was planning to destroy a nation and maybe others.

 

[denverdoc]

I was thinking about this thread this w/e, wondering, given, Bush's increasinly isolated stance and over my dead body kind of talk, that he is again under divine influence, and still sees Iraq as a new Crusade. (The fact that the invasion was originally named such may have been an accident, if one believes in such).

Smart thing would in act of political concilaition, sign the bills while muttering, I think this isn't in theirs or our best interest. They then disown the problem and like a hot potato throw it to the dems.

Then when things go to hell in a handbasket hurry following withdrawal next september, the rebublicans can assert the mess is the dems fault. Had we stayed the course...Even if things stabilize, and the withdrawal goes smoothly, the reps can take credit for it. Win/win.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm having difficulty fathoming how a "political strategist" (whatever that means) could be so spectacularly naive. The word "cooperation", to a politician, any politician, means you cooperate with me. Better yet, with a Republican controlled legislature, cooperation was us cooperating with me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm having difficulty fathoming how a "political strategist" (whatever that means) could be so spectacularly naive. The word "cooperation", to a politician, any politician, means you cooperate with me. Better yet, with a Republican controlled legislature, cooperation was us cooperating with me.

Ad hominem aside, I think your statement is blatently false. Any good politician know that politics is the art of what's possible. Political skill is not about abusing power, it about finding a consensus.

 

[Tiger2Lover]

Simply put: bush is INSANE!
There is NO doubt to this FACT, just millions of idiots that believe anything this lying, unintelligent, unaccomplished, failure of a coward says!
He should be in jail forever!

 

[denverdoc]

as they say, tell us how you really feel?

 

[edward]

I think to a great extent that Bush had a few key people constantly telling him: "Hey you are the president you can do anything." What ended up happening was that they enabled Bush to progress from the unusual in the beginning to the totally bizarre after 911.

When I say "they", I would put Rove, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld on the short list. We will probably never know who all of the "players" were.

911 had to be one hell of a psychological shock to this group. Instead of confiding in the people as FDR did during WWII, Bush turned to his secretive inner circle.

 

[Astronuc]

911 had to be one hell of a psychological shock to this group. Instead of confiding in the people as FDR did during WWII, Bush turned to his secretive inner circle.

Interestingly, I heard a comment today about the secrecy of the Bush administration. They have gone to the point of reclassifying, secret, top secret, . . . for things that are not or have nothing to do with national security, . . . Such documents do apparently have to do with adminitration decisions, which may be of questionable legality. Now, not only are documents being made secret, but the process of making things secret is secret, apparently even from Congress.

 

[edward]

For some reason these guys are even reclassifying as ,secret, documents that had previously been declassified. It is almost as if they are trying to re write history to show us in a better light or not prone to making mistakes.

They are reclassifying documents that show how many Minute Man and Titan II missile silos we had in the 60's for instance. These numbers were let out of the bag years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/20/AR2006082000625.html

The one below caught my eye and it is truly an example of rewriting history.

Another reclassified document that Mr Aid had copied gives the CIA's assessment on 12 October 1950 that Chinese intervention in the Korean War was "not probable in 1950" - two weeks before Chinese troops crossed into Korea.

This document has now been reclassified?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4735570.stm

People at the George Washington University are wondering what is going on. They have a search-able security archive of every document ever declassified.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/

 

[denverdoc]

Regarding the original thread,
Bush is delusional and Cheney a psychopath. Bad fit.

 

[edward]

Regarding the original thread,
Bush is delusional and Cheney a psychopath. Bad fit.

Well OK, we could put it that way too.

 

[GTdan]

So is this thread running on the assumption that Bush and Cheney ARE delusional? Because I haven't seen any support or proof being offered. Only bashing and occasional insinuations.

I don't think supporters should be called delusional either. I supported Bush only because I believed the other option was worse. Should Bush admit the war has gotten pretty bad? Yes. Is it as hopeless as many Democrats say it is and should we withdraw immediately? No. We have 2 extremes here people. Reality is most likely somewhere in the middle.

So delusional? Hardly. Made some bad decisions? Probably. If someone wants to maintain their opinion or claim that he is starting WWIII and is crazy, etc, then that's ok. But I think that if there are people here who have different opinions, there should be some effort made to point out that much of what was already said here has very little factual basis.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For starters

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us." - Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18094428/

There certainly was doubt and plenty of it. I think the record shows that the man is either incapable of or unwilling to tell the truth. In the former case, it would seem that he is delusional, but our on-board psychiatrist [Denver Doc] argues that Cheney is a psychopath. Take your pick - liar, delusional, or psychopath.

If he is just a liar, then tell me what lie could be worse than the one he [above all others] has fed the US - a war based on nothing. What kind of person could do that?

 

[turbo]

So is this thread running on the assumption that Bush and Cheney ARE delusional? Because I haven't seen any support or proof being offered. Only bashing and occasional insinuations.

Well, calling Cheney delusional may be more polite than calling him a liar. He repeated his assertions last weekend that Saddam Hussein was involved with Al Qaida and was involved in the 9/11 attack. That's wrong on so many levels that I cannot begin to explain my revulsion with the man. Next weekend, he'll probably claim that we found WMDs in Iraq. Bush keeps telling us that we had to attack Iraq and fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here. He never mentions that aside from a couple of Egyptians, the alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, the royal family of which and the leading industrialists of which (Bin Ladins) his family has very close relations to. Those two are liars. They are not delusional - they are repeating lies that have been debunked by investigation after investigation in the hope that some percentage of the US populace is stupid enough to reject the evidence and believe their lies instead.

 

[denverdoc]

GTDan,

My reference to Bush was not based so much on contempt for the man, as his self avowed knowledge of God's will which has been reported in the media on more than one occasion. Either you believe that he does, in which case he is not delusional, though you might be, or you don't, in which case he is delusional. Certainly God works in mysterious ways, but this would be a joke of cosmic proportions...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, I meant to say sociopath, not psychopath! Sorry denverdoc, it must have been a Chenian slip.

 

[edward]

There was a book out a few years back titled "Bush on The Couch". The term megalomaniac was mentioned several times.

http://www.harpercollins.com/book/index.aspx?isbn=9780060736705

Then there were the 04 debates where he appeared spaced out in the first and hyper in the third.

 

[Astronuc]

According to a drug and alcohol counselor I know, Bush exhibits the classic symptoms of an alcoholic (he has confirmed his excessive use of alcohol (but lied about his drunk driving on occassion), which Laura forced him to give up, assuming he did) and drug abuse, of which there have been allegations and some hearsay.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdmv1.html

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

 

[GTdan]

Ivan Seeking: That quote you are providing (which I see is also in your sig) was from 2002. If you recall, the majority of Congress voted for the war (including many Democrats), and other countries went to war with us (although some probably just to suck up to us). Maybe I am nitpicking but I don't think you can call a man delusional for something he said 1 year after 9/11. It's not like he is saying that same thing now.

turbo-1: I guess I just seem to be missing every time these guys say things like that then because ever since they released that report claiming Saddam was not involved with Al-Qaida or 9/11, I have not since heard them say such a thing. Maybe I am watching the wrong channels? But since you mentioned this and WMD, let's all take a step back and recall the Iraq Resolution which Congress passed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

WMD and connection to Al-Qaida and 9/11 were NOT the only reasons we went to war. They were simply the only reasons emphasized by the media. Many other reasons for the war were because of the condition of the civilian population, Saddam's intent and hostility towards the US (with or without WMD), noncompliance with the 1991 cease fire conditions and the resolution cited The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. There were other justifications in the resolution too. This wasn't all about WMD. So if you take that into perspective, Bush is right in saying we should keep trying to create a democratic government there-because that was the intention according to the resolution and apparently was in the works since 1998.

Denverdoc:

Can you provide me a link where he says he knows God's will. I remember hearing about it but not stated that way. In any case, I see nothing wrong with a man admitting his religious experiences. Also, I don't exactly remember him saying that God told him to go to war so why call him delusional just because he freely professes his faith? Anyway, if you can give me a link to exactly what he said, I'd appreciate it. I doubt the extent of your claim.

 

[turbo]

turbo-1: I guess I just seem to be missing every time these guys say things like that then because ever since they released that report claiming Saddam was not involved with Al-Qaida or 9/11, I have not since heard them say such a thing. Maybe I am watching the wrong channels?

Perhaps you don't pay attention when any non-FOX news commentator flaps his jaws. I can provide more examples of the lies, if you wish, but I shouldn't have to. You can compile your own from the nightly news and the Sunday talk shows. These guys are pathetic chronic liars with no remaining credibility. Please illustrate one glowing comment about how "we are achieving victory in Iraq" that you believe, and for extra credit, please explain what "victory in Iraq" is, (if it differs from the absolute destruction of the infrstructure of the country and the collapse of its government). If your definition of victory is different from mine (and I hope to god that it is!), please let us know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm

 

[denverdoc]

Denverdoc:

Can you provide me a link where he says he knows God's will. I remember hearing about it but not stated that way. In any case, I see nothing wrong with a man admitting his religious experiences. Also, I don't exactly remember him saying that God told him to go to war so why call him delusional just because he freely professes his faith? Anyway, if you can give me a link to exactly what he said, I'd appreciate it. I doubt the extent of your claim.

well the search for "bush god knowledge will" led to 1.6M hits on google. I gave up after searching the first 60 or so. But I am not exaggerating the claim, I remember during his first term reading this in two different media contexts, neither of which could be remotely construed as liberal press. I think he has toned that down considerably. And,no I have nothing against religious belief or spiritual guidance except when it arguably affects the 6G humans living here and all other species. What would you say about a president who drops acid every weekend and as a result has insights into the planets problems and solutions? Is this any less valid than a religious experience? Or even an Islaamic adherent who is equally convinced of the right path? I think all three are nonsensical bases on which to form policy.

Aside from the issue of delusional, he's got to be about the dumbest president we have ever had. And no amt of religious fervor can compensate for just plain dumb.

So you combine what I consider as meeting textbook criteria for delusional, a profound ignorance of just about everything, an arrogance for the law and the constitution, what's there not to like? Astronucs's buddy nailed it IMO.

 

[GTdan]

Perhaps you don't pay attention when any non-FOX news commentator flaps his jaws. I can provide more examples of the lies, if you wish, but I shouldn't have to. You can compile your own from the nightly news and the Sunday talk shows. These guys are pathetic chronic liars with no remaining credibility. Please illustrate one glowing comment about how "we are achieving victory in Iraq" that you believe, and for extra credit, please explain what "victory in Iraq" is, (if it differs from the absolute destruction of the infrstructure of the country and the collapse of its government). If your definition of victory is different from mine (and I hope to god that it is!), please let us know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6533367.stm

Well, I'll get back to you about the lies until I read more for myself. But if I don't then I take back my statement on there being no proof of Cheney being delusional (however, that doesn't even go close to say they are starting WW3).

Victory in Iraq to me would be to get these people to work together enough where they have a democratic government that can hold its own against the insurgents and terrorists in their own country. Also a government that will provide better for the innocent people there than Saddam did. After all, that was what was implied in the resolution. Are we achieving victory? Well, we got the first half right. We booted Saddam. Constructing a new government has turned out to be harder than expected. I don't think the solution is withdrawal yet though. I have my hopes set on this last boost in forces there. If that doesn't fix the situation, I think we will all have to settle for the next best thing. There is something that Bush said in one of his recent radio addresses that I think fits here.

"But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success."

(IMO, withdrawal does not ensure anything good for Iraq, or for us in the future for that matter).

well the search for "bush god knowledge will" led to 1.6M hits on google. I gave up after searching the first 60 or so. But I am not exaggerating the claim, I remember during his first term reading this in two different media contexts, neither of which could be remotely construed as liberal press. I think he has toned that down considerably. And,no I have nothing against religious belief or spiritual guidance except when it arguably affects the 6G humans living here and all other species. What would you say about a president who drops acid every weekend and as a result has insights into the planets problems and solutions? Is this any less valid than a religious experience? Or even an Islaamic adherent who is equally convinced of the right path? I think all three are nonsensical bases on which to form policy.

Aside from the issue of delusional, he's got to be about the dumbest president we have ever had. And no amt of religious fervor can compensate for just plain dumb.

So you combine what I consider as meeting textbook criteria for delusional, a profound ignorance of just about everything, an arrogance for the law and the constitution, what's there not to like? Astronucs's buddy nailed it IMO.

Well don't fault me for believing you are exaggerating. I distinctly remember debating this on another forum and clearly pointing out to others that he simply said he prays every night and feels that God speaks to him. The others took it as he was saying God told him to make the decisions he made. It seems clear to me that you are jumping to the same conclusions if you believe this is what has brought him to make the choices he has made (which you could not find proof of). I agree with the idea of separation of church and state so I would feel a bit disturbed to find out that we went to war because the Prez had a special feeling. But we didn't. We went to war for all the justifications stated in the Iraq War Resolution. And I stick to the claim that he never said anything like that, directly or indirectly.

 

[Cyrus]

My dear dan,

The world was better with Saddam Hussein.



Are you really just listening to what comes out of Bush's mouth, or do you look at it with a grain of salt...because he will lie to your face.

 

[denverdoc]

Well, I'll get back to you about the lies until I read more for myself. But if I don't then I take back my statement on there being no proof of Cheney being delusional (however, that doesn't even go close to say they are starting WW3).

Victory in Iraq to me would be to get these people to work together enough where they have a democratic government that can hold its own against the insurgents and terrorists in their own country. Also a government that will provide better for the innocent people there than Saddam did. After all, that was what was implied in the resolution. Are we achieving victory? Well, we got the first half right. We booted Saddam. Constructing a new government has turned out to be harder than expected. I don't think the solution is withdrawal yet though. I have my hopes set on this last boost in forces there. If that doesn't fix the situation, I think we will all have to settle for the next best thing. There is something that Bush said in one of his recent radio addresses that I think fits here.

"But those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success."

(IMO, withdrawal does not ensure anything good for Iraq, or for us in the future for that matter).



Well don't fault me for believing you are exaggerating. I distinctly remember debating this on another forum and clearly pointing out to others that he simply said he prays every night and feels that God speaks to him. The others took it as he was saying God told him to make the decisions he made. It seems clear to me that you are jumping to the same conclusions if you believe this is what has brought him to make the choices he has made (which you could not find proof of). I agree with the idea of separation of church and state so I would feel a bit disturbed to find out that we went to war because the Prez had a special feeling. But we didn't. We went to war for all the justifications stated in the Iraq War Resolution. And I stick to the claim that he never said anything like that, directly or indirectly.

OK, I'll recant and say that's he is not delusional, and simply just stupid. Either way, you want this guy at the helm? Iraq has been an iceberg for a long time, and under our captains skill and guidance, steered right into it.

iraqis by and large were better off under Suddam than now, he had the brass balls to keep the peace, we have not been able to achieve same, and have killed more than he ever did. But we got the sweet deal on the largest oil reserve worth about 10^12$$ in our back pocket. For this I thank Cheney.

 

[GTdan]

My dear dan,

The world was better with Saddam Hussein.

Are you really just listening to what comes out of Bush's mouth, or do you look at it with a grain of salt...because he will lie to your face.

For the record. I never said I was completely satisfied with Bush's job and I am ready for a new President. But I think I hear enough Republican/Bush/Administration bashing. Bush didn't single handedly take us to war. Congress passed the resolution where many democrats also voted for it.

I suppose you think we should have left Saddam so he could execute another 600,000 civilians over 24 years? At least the people dying now are dying for a hopefully better Iraq.

OK, I'll recant and say that's he is not delusional, and simply just stupid. Either way, you want this guy at the helm? Iraq has been an iceberg for a long time, and under our captains skill and guidance, steered right into it.

iraqis by and large were better off under Suddam than now, he had the brass balls to keep the peace, we have not been able to achieve same, and have killed more than he ever did. But we got the sweet deal on the largest oil reserve worth about 10^12$$ in our back pocket. For this I thank Cheney.

Read the last paragraph above. And actually, we have not killed more than he did. Google it. You will find that the numbers look around less than 100,000, probably closer to 70,000. Saddam has killed over half a million.

I don't mean to debate every minor detail but...I just simply disagree with how bad things are always portrayed. Just to mention some things I am not satisfied with about Bush so I don't sound like I think he is perfect:

I HATE the fact that we completely neglected the search for Bin Laden and stopped wiping out Al-Qaida. This should have come first and should have been our highest priority (not Iraq).

Bush needs to communicate with the people (us) more on what's going on. US citizens are left in the dark too often.

He needs to get the US off of its oil dependence.

and some other things.

 

[Cyrus]

No, not really. Bush flat out LIED and skewed the evidence from the CIA, hell even IGNORED people in the CIA who told him he was full of sh!t. The congress relied on the president to give them accurate information, which he did not.

Yes, I do. Because we have done no better than Saddam. The people now are not dying for a hopeful Iraq, dispite what Bush has been telling you. They are dying in a pointless civil war. We put them in prisons and torture them, raid their houses and destroy their city. We're doing a good job winning the hearts and minds over there. /sarcasm.

Iraq was the worst policy mistake in the history of the United States GTdan, everyone admits that in Washington.

 

[denverdoc]

For the record. I never said I was completely satisfied with Bush's job and I am ready for a new President. But I think I hear enough Republican/Bush/Administration bashing. Bush didn't single handedly take us to war. Congress passed the resolution where many democrats also voted for it.

I suppose you think we should have left Saddam so he could execute another 600,000 civilians over 24 years? At least the people dying now are dying for a hopefully better Iraq.



Read the last paragraph above. And actually, we have not killed more than he did. Google it. You will find that the numbers look around less than 100,000, probably closer to 70,000. Saddam has killed over half a million.

Well we could argue this number from here to eternity, Lancet put it at over 100k a year or more ago, and some estimates combining DU, sanctions prior to war, and war itself at a million or more.

 

[GTdan]

Well we could argue this number from here to eternity, Lancet put it at over 100k a year or more ago, and some estimates combining DU, sanctions prior to war, and war itself at a million or more.

I'm only including deaths due to the war. I don't see how anyone can say we are responsible for deaths because Iraq was sanctioned. That seems like these numbers were just tacked on to make it bigger and not rational. The 600,000 by Saddam included the Iraq-Iran War and 100,000 Kurds he killed. In any case, I agree with you that this could go on forever. We may have to agree to disagree.

It is simply my opinion that things aren't as bad as they seem and it is a fact that the White House AND Congress are (both Repubs and Democrats) to blame for any problems resulting from this war.

Btw, see my comments on my previous post about what I am not satisfied with (so that you don't consider me delusional or at least not as much)

cyrusabdollahi:

I see no point in arguing with you. You seem to be just throwing out random comments about everything and anything.