This is good reading, if you can stand it.

I love those pop-psychology analyses of George. You need a large pinch of salt to go with them, though. They're driven, I guess, by the fact that Bush's decisions are becoming so bizarre and unsupportable that people are desperate to find some kind of rationale for them - even if only in his sibling rivalry, or some such.

I wonder about that idea of the person in power being fooled by his or her own propaganda. That's partly what led to Thatcher's inglorious downfall, too, I think.

Another two articles picking over the presidential psyche:

A Risky Game of Risk

Surging From Kenai: Bush's Sacrificial Americans

Here's another. It must be nice to for George to get all this psychoanalysis for free, and without having to lie on some bearded quack's couch:

'The president has included an extraordinary fatal flaw in his plan for additional US troops in Iraq, a fact that may not make much sense to his advisers and allies, but is psychologically understandable in terms of a mechanism that governs his inner reality.

The escalation plan's strongest proponents warn that his requirement dictating two separate and independent command structures for Iraqi and American forces portends disaster, according to Mark Benjamin of Salon.

Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the US forces commander in Iraq, has agreed with Senator John McCain that "I know of no successful military operation where you have dual command." American Enterprise Institute's Frederick Kagan, the neoconservative architect of the "surge plan" itself, says this provision means "the plan is going to fail."

Lt. Gen. William Odom sees Bush repeatedly making mistakes like this that are "so painfully clear that sometimes I think I might be crazy."

Pundits may rationalize that the self-defeating element of the surge derives from political expediency to get the Iraqi prime minister on board, but that's hardly a sufficient explanation.

As with many other aspects of the president's sometimes odd behavior, the root of this new self-subverting plan lies not in political expediency, in the advice he's received, or in his intellectual abilities as such, but in a psychological twist that begins with his long and well-documented history of failure...' truthout.com

What medications are Bush/Cheney on? I think we have a right to know - is their bizarre behavior the result of some side-effect or other?

Has our boy lost it? He never had it!

This is actually bad reading.

George Bush's record will leave him in a very favorable place in history based on his accomplishments while in office.

It always astounds me how educated people can be so ignorant of the "big picture", and it infuriates me that any American can hold their own president as guilty at all costs. Yet liberals in the US throw to the ground all goodness and common sense in favor of partisanship and temper tantrums.

You should endeavor to set a higher standard for yourself, for your own sake.

quote:

Originally posted by Veteran of OIF OEF and OSW:
George Bush's record will leave him in a very favorable place in history based on his accomplishments while in office.

What? With the lowest public opinion ratings in history? And the decision to engage our military in an unpopular war?

The man couldn't run for President again if he wanted to.

Oh, sorry - that was Harry S Truman

Well, 'fuse, you might admit that History sometimes judges people as good or right when their contemporaries or the masses thought them bad or wrong.

Some historians must think Richard III has been traduced, and as for poor King John . Are there any princes in a tower in the White House ( interestingly the Princes were buried in the White Tower in the Tower of London)? And what's the current President's record for signing charters declaring the rights and liberties of the people and admitting these rights have been infringed ?

On the other hand, some might claim 'The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones' ,so there's no guarantee

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:

What? With the lowest public opinion ratings in history?

The lowest opinion ratings in history are subjective, but they belong to the Democrat Congress. (Funny how liberals never want to talk about that.)

quote:

And the decision to engage our military in an unpopular war?

The war is only unpopular among liberals who always overhype themselves.

Among the poeple who actually have an opinion that counts, our service members and the Iraqi people are mostly in favor of the war.

Among the American people, war is always unpopular, but opinion surveys show an overwhelming majority want us to stay until the job is done.

quote:

The man couldn't run for President again if he wanted to.

Oh, sorry - that was Harry S Truman

The man will actually have an extended presidency if things continue as they are now. (Honestly, do liberals ever think about the consequences of their own actions?)

Hillary wants the presidency so badly she will bully her way into the convention. She has already threatened law suits.

Folks, there's only a few months left and litigation takes time. What do you think will happen if November comes, and the Democratic nominee is still being settled in a court room?

(Won't the only president elected by the people be forced to remain in office?)

Vet, you have an unusual way of responding to someone who has just supported your position. That, or my sense of humor needs a tune-up.

I do find it funny that the Democrats took control of Congress running on an anti-war platform. How many single votes have been cast by Democrats to end, or to end funding for, the war in Iraq?

"The war is only unpopular among liberals who always overhype themselves."

Either you don't know what you are talking about, or you have no idea what you are talking about. Over half the American people have view the war as an unpopular one for quite some time now. But over half the people are not Liberals. (I should know; they are never present at the meetings.)

quote:

Originally posted by coldfuse:
I do find it funny that the Democrats took control of Congress running on an anti-war platform. How many single votes have been cast by Democrats to end, or to end funding for, the war in Iraq?

The anti-war issue in & of itself is not how the Democrats regained control of Congress. The Democrats, along with their willing accomplices in the media, played the PR game. They got the electorate in the frame of mind they wanted, many of the Republicans playing the game of "go along to get along", the Democrats took advantage and got their poer back.

Many such as myself are disgusted with the Republicans because of their lacking the will to fight in the political arena. We certainly don't need two Democrat Parties, which is pretty close to what we have right now.

LOL, I've just read more of Vet's post. I see there is no need for anyone to take exception to what he says; he does that quite well all by himself.

"The war is only unpopular among liberals who always overhype themselves."

Among the American people, war is always unpopular..."

Vet, were you at one time ambassador from the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?*



The Duchy of Grand Fenwick's flag held a double-headed eagle, with one head saying, "Yea" and the other saying, "Nay."

I guess opinion polls are only meaningful if they go your way, huh?

Part of being a liar is allowing intentionally falsified information and passing it on yourself. Integrity demands you examine a little more closely before you move on it; but if you're a liberal, that's too much work.

Getting back on topic:

“‘Kick ass!’ [Bush] said, echoing Colin Powell’s tough talk. ‘If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! We must be tougher than hell! This Vietnam stuff, this is not even close. It is a mind-set. We can’t send that message. It’s an excuse to prepare us for withdrawal.
“There is a series of moments and this is one of them. Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course! Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out! We are not blinking!’” Presidential Bloodlust

quote:

Originally posted by Village Idiot:

The war is only unpopular among liberals...

Oh my God. Dude you need to go and stand in a corner for a while. No listening to Rush or Hannity for a week.

And try to make a post without using the term "liberal"!

quote:

Originally posted by GarColga:


And try to make a post without using the term "liberal"!

------------------------------------------------

Hi GarColga:

I'm curious,why are Liberals so touchy about being called Liberals???

It's almost as if you're ashamed of the term Liberal.

If you call a Conservative a Conservative,they'll say "Hell yes ,I'm a Conservative and damn proud of it!.

Why your reluctance to be called a Liberal ,or your to allow anyone else to use the term,Liberal???

Don't you believe in freedom of speech??

I thought that's what this country was all about.

Just curious.

hippolips

Hippo, I've not seen Liberals being sensitive about identifying themselves as such. I think what Gar was saying was that the poster had, in almost every one of his posts the name "Liberal". If one were to take him seriously (which, I imagine, few do in the real world just as few did here), Liberals are responsible for everything from bush's poor speaking skills to Cheney's baldness. (He also must believe in some form of voodoo, since, according to him, our failures in Iraq are due to bad thoughts by Liberals. Or should I have said Bad Juju?)

Now, if you want to talk about people being ashamed to (or afraid to) identify themselves accurately, take a look at a lot of the old posts in here, and see how many people claim to be an independent or a Libertarian, yet oppose 99% of anything a Democrat says and agree with 97% of what a Republican says. If being a Republican is an honorable thing, why are those people denying what is so obvious to everyone? As someone once said, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,...." (Please note that I am not saying that being a Republican is not an honorable thing, nor am I saying that all Republicans try to hide their beliefs. My comments were solely about some people who have posted in AP at one time or another. It's my guess that the current Republican party, under bush, is responsible for the shame these people seem to feel, but I may be wrong. Maybe the fact that the "family values" party was lead for over 12 years by people who cheated on their wives with aides, hit on underage pages, and took bribes and kickbacks.)

Just to be clear, I have never shied away from identifying myself as both a Liberal and a Democrat. But I also have never shied away away from calling a thief a thief, or a liar a liar, regardless of political position. If those names fit more of one party than the others, it seems to me to be the fault of those that voted for the thieves and liars, not mine.