A PSYCHIATRIST'S ANALYSIS OF BUSH AND CHENEY IN DEBATES
BUSH AND CHENEY IN DEBATES
Posted By: BenjaminFranklin
Date: Thursday, 7 October 2004, 9:50 a.m.
A psychiatrist, with years of clinical experience,
who works for the local government, offered the following
clinical analysis of the conduct of President Bush
and Vice President Cheney in their respective debates.
On Bush: The President clearly suffers from a severe
paranoia that causes him to greatly fear situations in which he
is exposed to people hostile to his delusional viewpoints. Bush
entered the debate exhibiting this paranoia, which caused him to
enter a thick "shell mode", rendering him incapable of responding
to events or personalities. "Bush was in his own world, his own
protective psychological shell. To `get through to the other
side' [to make it through the debate--lsw], he essentially
blotted out all reality, proceeding from some kind of programmed
response to prompts; when the expected prompts did not occur, he
could not formulate responses and was reduced to mumbling repetitions
of memorized formulations."
The source said that the debate format
-- especially the lack of any audience response
that might have been positive to his mumblings -- locked him
deeper into this shell. In this state, Bush was completely
unaware that his infantile reactions were being witnessed by
millions, nor did he have any control over them. "It would not
have mattered even if the lights went off while he was speaking,
his paranoid fear had left him so unaware of the world outside his shell."
Individuals such as Bush, the source stated, despite their
bravura, need to be constantly reassured, and absent that
reassurance, tend to fall apart. This type of psychopathological
behavior is characteristic of a person "who is easily manipulated
by those who offer reassurances, who reinforce their delusions."
The source said that Bush is a clinically pathetic case, who
cannot think about any actions or decisions in a stressful
situation, but must act from within a paranoid shell, who is the
easy prey of strong-willed people, on whom he must depend.
On Cheney: This man is a sociopath -- he is devoid of both
conscience and access to his emotions, other than pure rage. As
such, it is the most dangerous type of disorder, since such
people are not human in any way that a normal person can
understand: they might look human, but are incapable of relating
to people as human beings. This is clear from his eyes and facial
expression: the glare lets us seek through the mask, to the
intense rage beneath it. Edwards was freaked out by this -- it is
unlikely that he had ever sat down so close to this type of
sociopath. Think what must be going through his head as he looks
across the table at this monster.
That is the way such people try
control others, with an intense effort to impose their will
through using that monster-like characteristic of their
personalities. Cheney's behavior is cold-bloodedly rational,
uninfluenced by truth, or even the response of the other person(s).
"I feel sorry for Edwards -- someone sat him across a
small table from a killer, who sits there glaring at him. One can
provoke such an individual by standing up to him as one stands up
to a bully, by countering his assertions and lies, but you have
to be prepared for the horrible rage that will explode outward. I
guess he wasn't prepared for that, but I think that, regardless,
many people will come away terrified of Dick Cheney."
Bush misspeaks during signing ceremony:
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we."
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/05/bush.ap/
==========================================Belligerent ignorance, with a willful denial of basic facts!
It is flatly terrifying.
t r u t h o u t - William Rivers Pitt | The Scary Little Man
The Scary Little Man
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 08 October 2004
"He had a feeling that the answer was quite different and that he ought to know it, but he could not think of it. He began to get frightened, and that is bad for thinking."
- J.R.R. Tolkien
George W. Bush, still smarting from his embarrassing performance in the Florida debate, decided on Friday night in St. Louis that volume was a good substitute for strength, that yelling would be mistaken for gravitas. The result was an ugly, disturbing, genuinely frightening show.
In my report on the first debate, I described Bush as, "Shrill. Defensive. Muddled. Angry, very angry. Repetitive. Uninformed. Outmatched. Unprepared. Hesitant." As bad as that display was, it honestly paled in comparison to the frenzied hectoring Bush sprayed at 140 Missouri citizens who had the ill fortune of watching the man come unglued before their eyes.
John Kerry, by comparison, was every inch the controlled prosecutor pressing his case to the jury. It was, perhaps, that calm delineation of Bush's myriad errors which caused the Republican candidate to blow his stack. Exactly 30 minutes into the debate, Bush became so agitated by Kerry's description of the "back-door draft," which is literally bleeding the life out of our National Guard and Reserve forces, that he lunged out of his chair and shrieked over moderator Charles Gibson, who was trying to maintain some semblance of decorum.
"You tell Tony Blair we're going alone," Bush roared. "Tell Tony Blair we're going alone!" The disturbed murmur from the crowd was audible. Bush, simply, frightened them.
More unsettling than Bush's demonstrable agitation was his almost uncanny disconnect from reality.
The voluminous report released by Charles Duelfer and the Iraq Survey Group, compiled by 1,625 U.N. and U.S. weapons inspectors after two years of searching some 1,700 sites in Iraq at a cost of more than $1 billion, stated flatly that no weapons of mass destruction exist in that nation, that no weapons of mass destruction have existed in that nation for years, and that any capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction within that nation has been crumbling for the same amount of years.
"My opponent said that America must pass a global test before we used force to protect ourselves," said Bush during the Iraq phase of the debate. "That's the kind of mindset that says sanctions were working. That's the kind of mindset that said, 'Let's keep it at the United Nations and hope things go well.' Saddam Hussein was a threat because he could have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorist enemies. Sanctions were not working."
What? First of all, the Duelfer Report proves beyond any question that sanctions had worked incredibly well. The stuff wasn't there, because Scott Ritter and the UNSCOM inspectors destroyed it all during the 1990s, along with any and all equipment and facilities to make it. The stuff wasn't there because the sanctions put into place against Hussein prevented him from getting any material to develop weapons. The stuff wasn't there because Hussein stopped making it years ago, because the sanctions were breaking his back. The sanctions worked.
When Bush made the statement about Hussein giving weapons of mass destruction to "terrorist enemies," the needle edged over from 'Dumb' to 'Deranged.' How many different ways must one say "The stuff wasn't there" before George picks up the clue phone? How does someone give away something he doesn't have?
Bush continued in this appalling vein when he said, "He keeps talking about, 'Let the inspectors do their job.' It's naive and dangerous to say that. That's what the Duelfer report showed." Welcome to Bush World, where everything is upside down and two plus two equals a bag of hammers. It is naive and dangerous to point out that the inspectors got the job done in the 1990s, that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever? No, George. It is simply the truth.
The mental disconnect reared its shouting head repeatedly throughout the evening. Bush somehow lost track of where he was at one point and called his opponent, "Senator Kennedy." He told one questioner that he would control the deficit by stopping Congress from spending, only a few minutes after defending the fact that he had never, not once, vetoed a spending bill from Congress.
He made an accountant crack about "Battling green eyeshades," a statement that immediately became a first-ballot nominee for the Gibberish Hall of Fame. When asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he would nominate if given an opportunity, he wandered off along a free-association rant about Dred Scott. Clearly, this President will make sure to nominate people to the bench who are opposed to chattel slavery.
Perhaps the most telling moment came when questioner Linda Grabel asked Bush, "Please give three instances in which you came to realize you had made a wrong decision, and what you did to correct it."
As with his April prime time press conference, in which he was asked a very similar question, Bush absolutely refused to admit to any errors in judgment, beyond a cryptic quip about mistakes in personnel appointments which he would not elaborate upon. He opened himself up to the judgment of history, a sad straddle given the simple fact that no President can avoid such a judgment. That was all he was willing to offer. Ms. Grabel did not hear about three mistakes. She did not even hear about one.
Bush was every inch the angry man on Friday night, which is dangerous enough. But to witness anger combined with belligerent ignorance, with a willful denial of basic facts, to witness a man utterly incapable of admitting to any mistakes while his clear errors in judgment are costing his country in blood, to see that combination roiling within the man who is in charge of the most awesome military arsenal in the history of the planet, is more than dangerous.
It is flatly terrifying.
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know' and 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence.'
- Watch Out for Those Killer Drugs from Canada, Bush Warns —
- Sat Oct 9 15:40
Presidential Candidates Arrested
In St. Louis, Missouri on Friday, 10/08/04
Michael Badnarik David Cobb"They can vote for anyone that they want, so long as I select the candidates"-Boss Tweed of New York City late 19th Century PoliticsThe Commission on Presidential Debates which conducts the Bi-Partisan national events is using public resources to facilitate private, exclusive 'Infomercials' say two of the excluded candidates who were arrested upon attempting to enter Friday's St Louis debate.Below is the blogged account at one of the candidates web site http://www.badnarik.org8:38PM CST
The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.
Fred Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.
As soon as more details are available, they will be posted here immediately.
I just spoke with Jon Airheart on his cellular telephone. He reports that while he could see no handcuffs, both Badnarik and Cobb had their hands behind their backs, as if they were handcuffed. Airheart also confirms that Badnarik did have the papers to serve the CPD in his jacket pocket.
The first AP report just hit Google News:
Just as the debate began, two third-party presidential candidates purposely crossed a police barricade and were arrested. Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik were protesting their exclusion from the debate
My cell phone is ringing off the hook. There is no way to catch up with all of the messages left - and I am sure the memory is full by now. Things are going too fast to keep up with them.
Jon Airheart just reported that he and Fred Collins are catching a taxi to the jail where Mike is currently located. The address is 200 South Tucker Street, St. Louis, MO. Jon stated that there were over one hundred police offices with helmets and shields in the particular line they crossed.
Thomas Knapp just reported that prior to their arrests, Badnarik and Cobb explained to the crowd why they chose civil disobedience to express their message. He stated that Badnarik had to “bodily” push his way through the police line. Once through, he peacefully surrendered, was handcuffed, and taken out of direct site.
10:30 PM CST
We now have multiple audioblogs from Jon Airheart (in chronological order) at:
More news reports:
This quote comes from this St. Louis Post-Dispatch report:
“I have the freedom of speech and they have no authority to barricade that,” Badnarik said from outside the security line.
“Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik pushed his way through the police line at the debate site about a minute after Cobb and was similarly arrested. Cobb and Badnarik have participated in genuine, non-scripted, nonpartisan debates four times in this campaign; a fifth debate is scheduled for October 15 at Eastern Tennessee State University with a number of other candidates.”
Apparently, we have overloaded the facilities at www.audioblogger.com. We will save and FTP the audioblog postings to our site as soon as we can retrieve them.
Jon Airheart and Fred Collins just called. They are at the city jail mentioned above. Jon stated, “What I will now tell you shows the absolute ineptitude of government. They don’t even know, and won’t know for three to four hours, whether he [Badnarik} is in this particular jail.”
Fred Collins said, “He [Badnarik] should have picked a better city in which to be arrested.”
The question which remains is whether Mr. Badnarik is in the city or the county jail.
It is a good thing we changed servers last night - as we have been seriously farked tonight.
The following is reported via e-mail from George Getz, the Libertarian Party communications director about his attempt to serve the CPD in D.C. today:
At about 2pm ET, I hand-delivered the paper called “Arizona Case Order.” I talked to David [Euchner - the lead attorney in the Arizona case] immediately afterward and he said the other papers can be faxed later. I am now back at the office, and there’s no one here, so I’m unaware of any developments.
I will also fax the affidavit, as David and I discussed earlier.
Former LNC Chair and Operations Manager for the Badnarik campaign Geoffrey Neale responded with:
Do you have a signature from anyone at the CPD?
Here is Mr. Getz’s response to Mr. Neale:
Unfortunately, no. But this guy was so hostile there was no way he would have signed it. He wouldn’t even take it in his hand, and made me just put it on the desk instead.
He wouldn’t even tell me his name!?! – he was just “Tom.”
I replied, “Tom, huh? Could you be more vague, Tom?”
However, David (our attorney) was on the phone with “Tom” at the time I came into the office, and overheard the whole conversation, so I don’t think he can deny it. The lawyer is an “officer of the court,” or whatever, and if he tells the judge that’s what happened, that better be what happened. Plus, in my affidavit I described the schmuck and his assistant schmuck pretty well, which would be very odd if I wasn’t there.
Let’s hope for the best.
Nancy Neale (Geoffrey Neale’s darling wife) just sent me the following interesting link while I was being interviewed by some reporter from Missouri:
End of Blog at http://www.badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
Candidate Locked Out from Candidates Debate
Participating in Democracy is Illegal:
Green Party Presidential Candidate Arrested for Civil Disobedience at St. Louis Debate
COBB ARRESTED WHILE ENTERING ST. LOUIS DEBATE
DAVID COBB ARRESTED FOR CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AT ST. LOUIS "DEBATES"
"The real crime is the corporate hijacking of our democracy"
David Cobb, the Green Party's presidential candidate, was arrested Friday night, October 8, 2004, in St. Louis for committing civil disobedience to protest the anti-democratic presidential debates which are restricted to participants from two political parties and sponsored by their corporate contributors. The debates' sponsor, the Commission on Presidential Debates, denied the Cobb campaign's repeated requests to participate in the debates with Bush and Kerry and even denied Mr. Cobb's request to attend the St. Louis debate as an audience member.
Cobb was arrested shortly after the start of the Washington University debate, one of three sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, an organization founded and operated by the two old establishment parties. Cobb was arrested by St. Louis City police officers when he pushed through a line of armed police who were preventing entry to the debate.
"The real crime is the corporate hijacking of our democracy. The corporations sponsoring these restricted, scripted and staged events, and their two-party accomplices, don't want the American people to know about the choices they have in this election. Both Big Business and the duopoly don't want you to hear voices calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, or for health care for every American citizen," said Cobb.
"Debates aren't just about who is going to win an election; they are the only forum where we can have unrestricted dialogue about the critical issues facing us. Third parties have a long history of changing the political landscape of this country. Restricting debates to two parties severely limits our potential for progressive change," said Cobb-LaMarche Media Director Blair Bobier.
"All real social change came about in this country because of the pressure brought by a third party. Slavery was ended because of pressure brought to bear by a third party called the Republicans. The Greenback-Labor Party pressured this country to give women the right to vote. The Socialist Party created the momentum for the creation of Social Security. The Progressive Party brought pressure to bring about the direct election of the United States Senate," said Cobb.
Debates including third party and independent candidates have had a profound effect on recent American politics. Ross Perot's participation in the 1992 presidential debates is widely credited with putting the issue of a balanced federal budget on the table. Jesse Ventura's victory as a gubernatorial candidate in Minnesota was due in large part to the fact that he participated in debates with his two-party opponents.
The Cobb-LaMarche campaign supports debate participation standards which are fair, objective and allow for the participation of more than two candidates. Specifically, the campaign supports debates which include candidates who are on enough ballots to win the presidency. In this election, that would be only six candidates, a very manageable number and far fewer than participated in many of the Democratic presidential primary debates this year. Obtaining ballot access in a sufficient number of states is a very rigorous and complicated process which would serve as a reasonable threshold for participation. "Participation in presidential debates should not be dependent on polls commissioned by the corporate media," said Bobier.
Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik pushed his way through the police line at the debate site about a minute after Cobb and was similarly arrested. Cobb and Badnarik have participated in genuine, non-scripted, nonpartisan debates four times in this campaign; a fifth debate is scheduled for October 15 at Eastern Tennessee State University with a number of other candidates.
Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Presidential candidate
Michael Badnarik is the Presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, by most measures the most successful "third-party" in the United States. You can learn about his campaign by clicking here.
Mr. Badnarik spoke this afternoon with American Politics Today from a march in St. Louis, where he was on his way to either join the Presidential "town meeting" debate between Democrat John Kerry and Republican George Bush or to be arrested trying.
His press office issued this statement:
"Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential nominee, will debate John Kerry and George W. Bush in St. Louis on Friday. Or he'll go to jail instead.
"'A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates,' says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. 'And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities. Bi-partisan is not non-partisan.
"'Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as Senator and President.'
"At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Badnarik, along with the demonstrators expected to assemble in protest against his exclusion, will proceed to the police line erected to keep himself and the other legitimate candidates out during broadcast of the 'bi-partisan campaign commercial.'
"And then he will cross it."
You can listen to Mr. Badnarik's views as he strides towards his encounter with destiny (or at least with some St. Louis police), by clicking here.
Another choice on Nov. 2
Libertarian Michael Badnarik wants your vote for president
BY TYLER WHITLEY
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Sep 16, 2004
Quick now! Who is the Libertarian Party candidate for president of the United States?
That's the problem Michael Badnarik faces daily as he struggles to raise his profile in a presidential race overshadowed by the two major party candidates, George W. Bush and John Kerry.
In the midst of a virtually unannounced, three-day campaign tour of Virginia, Badnarik said his party offers an attractive alternative to the major parties if it could only be heard.
The message of less government, more personal freedom and lower taxes should resonate with Democrats and Republicans, Badnarik said in an interview Tuesday.
"People are frustrated with both parties," the Austin, Texas, computer consultant said. "Although they may not be willing to vote for me yet in November, they are eager to hear other alternatives."
Despite some gains at the local level the Libertarian Party is represented by more than 600 local elected officials across the nation the party still has not been able to make a dent in presidential politics.
In 2000, it received only about 350,000 votes nationwide, including 16,000 in Virginia.
"We believe the vote was extremely small because of a high percentage of people who were insisting they had to vote for the lesser of two evils," Badnarik said.
That's not enough to be a spoiler, as Ralph Nader's Green Party candidacy was in 2000, when it siphoned enough votes away from Al Gore in several key states to hand Bush the presidency.
Badnarik said he is not out to be a spoiler.
"I'm spreading the Libertarian message, which is based on the Constitution, individual rights and private property," he said.
Because the party is liberal on some issues, such as being pro-choice in abortion and against the Patriot Act, and conservative on others, such as supporting lower taxes and gun rights, Badnarik said it could take votes away from both parties.
In New Mexico, at a time when polls showed Bush and Kerry each garnering 50 percent, the party took out a television ad in a major market, Badnarik said. Kerry dropped to 48 percent and Bush to 43 percent, while Badnarik polled 5 percent, the Libertarian candidate said.
The Libertarian Party's big push now is to try to get invited to the presidential debates, he said. He cited a poll in which 68 percent of the people said they wanted the third parties and independents to participate in the debates.
At least two presidential debates are expected to be held.
Badnarik, 50, has been traveling throughout the country trying to spread the Libertarian message, mostly to small crowds. He said he drove 25,000 miles by car before he was nominated at a convention in Atlanta in May and has flown 50,000 miles since.
His trip to Virginia mainly consisted of newspaper and radio interviews and appearances at colleges. He was at Virginia Commonwealth University yesterday.
Badnarik said the Libertarian Party thinks college campuses are fertile ground because "young people like to think outside the box."
One appeal to young people might be the party's stance against the war on drugs.
"We want fewer people to take drugs, but we recognize that the current war on drugs is not the answer," Badnarik said. "Prohibition didn't work. There are thousands of drug laws, but that doesn't stop people from taking drugs or selling them.
In the current atmosphere, people who are addicted to drugs don't seek treatment because they are afraid of being arrested, he said.
The Libertarian Party opposes the war in Iraq.
"We should bring our sons and daughters home as safely and quickly as possible," Badnarik said. "Iraq was a mistake; staying in Iraq will compound that mistake. Ninety-two percent of the Iraqi people consider us occupiers. We are not going to improve our relationship by blowing up buildings and killing innocent civilians."
Badnarik emphasized that Libertarians are not "pacifists."
"We think you should be able to carry a gun to protect your life and your children's lives," Badnarik said. Had the party been in power, its administration would also have responded in force to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington three years ago, he said.
"The attack on Sept. 11 was an international crime, a mass murder."
Badnarik said the party is torn on the issue of abortion.
"You own your own body and the government has no right to tell you what to do," he said. "At the same time, there are many Libertarians who recognize the fact that at some point the baby owns his own body. There is a debate on when this happens."
Badnarik predicted the party would make a much stronger showing than four years ago. It is on the ballot in 45 states, including Virginia.
For the first time in several congressional cycles, however, the party has no congressional candidate in Virginia this year. A spokesman said it could recruit no one to run against the entrenched incumbents.
Badnarik's running mate is Richard Campagna, a businessman and community college teacher from Iowa City, Iowa.
The election is Nov. 2.
Contact Tyler Whitley at (804) 649-6780 or email@example.com
John Edwards makes big business squirm
A scathing report on the CIA--and a big pass for the White House
Kerry vows to restore 'truth' to presidency
American Patriot Friends Network
"...a network of net workers..."
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page