Is Bush on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown?

Washington Times Reports Bush "Reclusive", "Feels Betrayed"
by Hunter
Tue Nov 15, 2005 at 05:56:22 PM PDT
John at AMERICAblog points out a hardcore-Republican source that is pushing a very unflattering portrait of Bush. The Washington Times' Insight says Bush "feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office", according to their sources within the administration.

From the subscribers only part of the article:


The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

This is a president who even in the best of times is insular, out of touch, and completely unwilling to have alternative points of view brought to him. Now, according to administration sources he's kicked out everyone else in his Oval Treehouse except for his mom, and three people who remind him of his mom? Shudder.


For the president, what triggered the break with his father was the interview given to the New Yorker magazine in October by Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor in the first Bush presidency. In the interview, Mr. Scowcroft criticized the administration's handling of Iraq. The sources said the president is convinced that Mr. Scowcroft consulted with Mr. Bush's father prior to delivering the devastating critique of the president's Iraq policy. [...]

Relations between Mr. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, had also become tense in the build-up to the indictment of Mr. Libby. This is due to the fact the president believed his chief aide when Mr. Rove said that he had nothing to do with the leak of Mrs. Plame's identity. The prospect that Mr. Libby will turn state evidence in the Plame case is even more alarming for the White House.

Here's the next thing about this, which John definitely touched on but which I want to stick a big ol' flashing light on top of. These stories -- and there have been a series of them -- have been coming from very reliably Republican sources. The leakproof administration is, unless these newspaper reports are all simply lying, leaking at an alarming rate when it comes to giving stories about Bush's erratic/petulant/belligerent/drinky-drinky/reclusive behavior. The Washington Times would generally rather print their papers on the desiccated skins of puppies than say something bad about a Republican, but they'll print a scoop when they see one. In order to print something like this, it would have to come from an administration source "deep enough" for them to trust and run with.

So to have these stories out there points to at least some (fairly core, we can presume) members of Bush's administration being alarmed at his own behavior. Or it just proves that the Washington Times is full of it, or that there's multiple "administration sources" out there intent on making Bush look like an unhinged, adrift brat. (Let it go, Harriet...) Hey, I'm not sure which I'm rooting for at this point, but I can't say I'm taking much glee in the thought that our president may or may not be having his own personal toga party, with nobody else invited.

Is there anyone out there selling nuclear holocaust insurance? Because I've got this nagging itch like I should be stocking up on duct tape. Seriously, I hope one of the Joint Chiefs has hidden the key to the liquor cabinet.