1
   

Is Bush's past now present? Dry Drunk?

 
 
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 06:35 pm
We've had discussions in the past about Bush exhibiting the symptoms of being a "dry drunk." Here is another article about it.
---BBB


Article Published: Thursday, July 15, 2004
Fairbanks News Miner
By Douglas Yates, a Marine Corps veteran, is a writer and photographer living in Ester.

Is Bush's past now present?

Smoke from the nearby forest fires was so thick it obscured the sun and horizon. Not only was Fairbanks at the mercy of fickle winds, but even the experts were stymied. Plotting the fires' direction and extent was impossible because pilots were unable to map the perimeters. The smokescreen effectively crippled people's ability to gauge what was happening on the ground.

Similarly, the smokescreen rising from the White House has blocked many Americans from seeing the true dimensions of George Bush's crimes. Arguably the least experienced of any president, Bush and his gang of neocons cynically exploited anger and confusion over the Sept. 11 attacks by illegally invading Iraq.

In the process, the United States has killed more than 12,000 civilians and 7,000 of Iraq's military. U.S. wounded total more than 6,000, while nearly 900 have been killed.

Since Americans expect foreign policy to be based on truthful assessments and rely on the press to inform and analyze, we might as well have been wearing blindfolds. Lately, however, dirty air is giving way to transparency.

Unable to fool all the people all the time, gaps in the smoke are now revealing the extent of Bush's deceptions. Following on the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, photos of U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners toppled claims of moral high ground. Michael Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," goes further, exposing the lies and misdirection that is at the heart of Bush's rush to war.

Unlike lap-dog journalists, experts in diverse fields are reviewing how we came to this point.

By his own admission, Bush was a heavy drinker for more than 20 years. While more than 10 million Americans are similarly afflicted, only one has been elevated to the presidency. Though it is reported that he stopped drinking in 1986, at the age of 40, Bush's policies and judgment appear linked to alcohol addiction.

A growing number of professionals in psychopathology and alcohol counseling claim that Bush exhibits characteristics of "dry drunk" syndrome. A term adopted by Alcoholics Anonymous, a dry drunk is a person who shows impaired behavior, although not actually imbibing. While technically "dry," such individuals are not truly sober. Dry drunks tend to extremes while also displaying increased anxiety, irritability, resentment, impulsive anger and lack of empathy. They are rigid, judgmental and often present an inordinate sense of entitlement.

Katherine van Wormer, a professor at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of "Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective," points to Bush's language as a way to see through the smoke.

"First there were the terms--'crusade' and 'infinite justice.' Next came 'evil doers,' 'axis of evil,' and 'regime change' ... the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated," van Wormer writes.

Other researchers cite the president's black-and-white view of the world. Although one of the first principles of leadership is the ability to consider opposing points of view, Bush can't muster such perspectives. In regard to foreign policy, Bush has said, "... my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important ... this is evil versus good."

Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of communication at New York University, examined Bush's language for evidence of distorted thinking. Author of "Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder," Miller initially intended an amusing catalog of Bush's verbal gaffes. Played for laughs by many, some view Bush's stumbling speech as an endearing tic.

However, in reading the transcripts of his speeches, Miller realized something more serious was going on. Bush's garbled and confusing sentences may actually reveal a hidden personality disorder.

Miller builds the case that Bush's gaffes occur only when he's speaking about things that mean little to him. Topics such as the poor, idealism or compassion are often twisted beyond meaning.

However, writes Miller, "He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge. When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."

Now that the smoke is clearing, the obvious is visible. The future of the republic is threatened from within. Fueled by prejudice and a single-minded pursuit of power, a demagogue warped by alcohol occupies the White House.

Recovery is possible, but it will take years to regain what is lost. In the meantime, like charred skeletons of houses lost to wildfire, the tattered remnants of American honor and justice twist slowly in the wind.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,090 • Replies: 27
No top replies

 
theollady
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 07:05 pm
BBB,

I knew SOMETHING was wrong with Bush... and this explains it
very well.
Thanks for taking the time to share.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:23 pm
The author quoted above wrote:
... In the process, the United States has killed more than 12,000 civilians and 7,000 of Iraq's military. U.S. wounded total more than 6,000, while nearly 900 have been killed.




Infoshout draws for its civilian toll figures on IraqBodyCount. A persusal of the breakdown therein featured, detailing incident date, location and nature, proximate cause, parties involved, and number of casualties shows the Iraqi insurgents and theirjihadists compatriots are orders of magnitude deadlier toward Iraqi civilians than are Coalition Forces to Iraqis, but you have to dig for that info; IraqBodyCount makes no distinction in their totals separating Iraqi civilian dead due to indigenous insurgent action and Iraqi civilian dead directly attributable to Coalition Forces, but rather lumps all together in the "Min-Max" claim. I should think it only honest to more clearly disclose far fewer Iraqi civilians have died by Coalition action than have been killed by the Iraqi and other associated insurgents. Mr. Yates makes the specific and patently preposterous claim "... the United States has killed more than 12,000 Iraqi civilians ..." , less honest even than the already absurd implication offered buy the aforementioned IraqBodyCount. I note too the author cites a figure of "more than 7000" Iraqi military dead ... an estimate at odds with all I've seen; the only "hard number" of which I'm aware is "in the neighborhood of 30,000", posited by Gen. Franks on April 9th, 2003, The Day The Statue Came Down", and as again referenced Here.

Gotta wonder 'bout the rest of Mr. Yates' facts and references ... sloppy reporting, editing-for-publication without checking data, or just plain bias? Maybe the author just believes everything he reads, or intends that his readers unquestioningly take what he writes for gospel. Or maybe he was just drunk.


Or thinks his readers are.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 08:28 pm
Re: Is Bush's past now present? Dry Drunk?
Douglas Yates wrote:
Fueled by prejudice and a single-minded pursuit of power, a demagogue warped by alcohol occupies the White House.
Shocked
LMAO Laughing This guy must be trying to get a date with Michael Moore. Laughing
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Jul, 2004 09:07 pm
"Arguably the least experienced of any president"

How much experience did Carter have?
He destroyed the economy,allowed our citizens to be held prisoner in the embassy,remember?

How much experience did Clinton have?None of them had any more experience then Bush,and it can be argued that Carter didnt have as much.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 09:21 am
Bush started the war so he is responsable for the deaths in the Iraq war no matter what the number. I have noticed you use this tactic quite often to ty to obscure the true intent of an article. It isent about casulities in the war. Its about the mental state of our president. It is a proven fact that alcohol destroys brain cells. Bush was a heavy drinker for 20 or more years and must have suffered some brain damage. I think the article is very interesting and informative.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:18 am
I submit, rabel22, that call for critical thought, factual consistency and verifiable data do not constitute obfuscatory tactic.

I submit further that the article in question and your commentary re The President's mental health fail to meet any of those three criteria.

I'm not saying your contentions are or are not valid, I say merely that they are not presented in forensically valid manner.

I submit finally that contentions such as those you present and defend are forensically indefensible, and in fact are contraindicated by objective, academically and philosopohically valid analysis of the available evidence.

All that apart, I in no way challenge your prerogative to hold and present such opinions as you find appropriate to your own sensibillities. You, and we all, have the same absolute right to be wrong as does anyone else Twisted Evil
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 03:54 pm
Is this whats known as baffle them with bulls-itt?
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 03:59 pm
LOL, why do liberals expect anyone to take them seriously when all they have is hate and ill formed opinion?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 07:38 pm
rabel22 wrote:
Is this whats known as baffle them with bulls-itt?

Shocked Laughing Which part of what Timber is calling for are you calling bulls-itt? Â… critical thought, factual consistency or verifiable data? Laughing
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 Jul, 2004 10:20 pm
I understand what he said perfectly. He said you cant prove a darn thing because The Bush whitehouse has all the proof classified as state secrets.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:30 am
My, what a shiny hat you've got there, rabel22. Is that Reynolds?
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 03:51 pm
Im not going to pretend that I understand Timber's post. Perhaps he would repost it in a understandable format?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 03:57 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 04:00 pm
http://www.hallucinaut.com/foilhats/taptap.jpg
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 08:11 pm
Im sure this is meant to be insulting but all I get from this post is how ridicules some of you can be in your posts.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 Jul, 2004 09:58 pm
Then I'm sure you can understand how your own interactions come across to the sorta folk as look for probity, evidence, and reality in the posts of others.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 12:15 am
So what we have here is a change in the posting at this site. You have tried to change it from the possibility that Bush is mentally unstable to my being unstable because I pose the possibility of the original post being true. I hate to burst your bubble but this same article was in either the New York Times or rhe Washington post. Does this mean those papers are also unstable. All your fancy rhetoric dosent change the fact that many people think that Bush is unstable and can show that some of his actions show his instability very plainly.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 07:10 am
rabel22 wrote:
Im sure this is meant to be insulting but all I get from this post is how ridicules some of you can be in your posts.
No, not insultingÂ… just humorous. The foil hat was designed to stop extraterrestrials from reading our minds. They are supposedly quite popular with those who are satisfied with statements like "...all the proof is classified as state secrets" as a substitute for admitting they have zero proof of their assumptions. But its all in good fun. Don't be offended. There is no conspiracy to get you. :wink:






(now where the hell did I put that pod)
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Jul, 2004 08:01 am
The article originally appeared in the Fairbanks News-Miner, approx. circulation 16,0000, of Fairbanks Alaska, where ever else it may have been reproduced. Where the article may have been printed and reprinted is immaterial, and a newspaper, an inanimate object, is not a thing capable of being either mentally stable nor unstable, though both of the major papers you mention have a decidedly leftward, anti-Bush/anti-Rebublican editorial stance, a stance reflected in their selection and presentation of actual reportage, BTW, though thats neither here nor there.
I pointed out the article, an opinion piece, an editorial statement, as opposed to factual reporting, was by its author done no service in that the author just plain got facts wrong, and, in so doing made a wholly unsubstantiable assertion. Proceeding from that, the author then takes a flying leap at both the "Bush Lied" and "Bush is Crazy/Dumb/Evil" memes, neither of which are substantiated by anything more concrete and verifiable than the desire of some folks to believe in them. The author further discredits himself by use of stereotypical perjorative hyperbole and further unsubstantiated allegaton and assertion ... hardly an objective, or intellectually honest, approach. It therefore is not illogical to question the probity of the overall piece. Whatever may be said of the papers passing the article on, the author comes off as a loon.

In your defense of the author and the author's assertions, you alledged that my criticism of the author's objectivity, probity and credibility was a diversionary tactic intended to obsure the intent of the article. I contend it is no such thing; rather it is intended to challenge not the intent of the article but the foundation on which the article was based.

Resorting along the way to a few memes yourself, you predictably wrap up your objection to my criticism in the "Conspiracy Theory" meme. Whether or not the central argument of the article, that somebody in a position of responsibility might be mentally impaired due to prior behavior, may or may not be valid, and is irrelevant to the fact neither the article nor your emotional defense thereof are themselves either fact-based or rational. You may believe whatever you wish, and you may express yourself as you find acceptable within your personal philosophy. However, by the evidence and argument so far presented, neither the author of the article nor you have much to go on. Allegations are not evidence, and screed is not analysis.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is Bush's past now present? Dry Drunk?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 11:25:37