Chemtrail Central
Register
Login
Member's Area
Member List
What's Popular
Who's Linking
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Gallery
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Polls
Search
Research
Flight Explorer
Unidentifiable
FAQs
Phenomena
Disinformation
Silver Orbs
Transcripts
News Archive
Top Websites
Channelings
Etcetera
PSAs
Media
Vote
  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Dubya Bush...'Losing it'?

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author
Topic:   Dubya Bush...'Losing it'?

Topic page views:

Mech
Commitees of Correspondence


The Minuteman State
5951 posts, Jun 2001

posted 06-18-2004 06:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

New Information Shows Bush Indecisive, Paranoid, Delusional

By TERESA HAMPTON
Editor, Capitol Hill Blue
Jun 17, 2004, 08:47

The carefully-crafted image of George W. Bush as a bold, decisive leader is cracking under the weight of new revelations that the erratic President is indecisive, moody, paranoid and delusional.

“More and more this brings back memories of the Nixon White House,” says retired political science professor George Harleigh, who worked for President Nixon during the second presidential term that ended in resignation under fire. “I haven't heard any reports of President Bush wondering the halls talking to portraits of dead Presidents but what I have been told is disturbing.”

Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President's mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion on his sleeve.

Although supporters of President Bush dismissed the reports as “fantasies from anonymous sources,” a new book by Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many similar questions about the President's mental stability.

"George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction," Dr. Frank writes in Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President . "Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies."

In addition, a new film by documentary filmmaker, and frequent Bush critic, Michael Moore shows the President indecisive and clearly befuddled when he learned about the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

While conservative critics who have not yet seen Fahrenheit 9/11 dismiss the work as an anti-Bush screed, Roger Friedman of the normally pro-Bush Fox News Network has seen the film and calls it “a tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty — and at the same time a indictment of stupidity and avarice.”

Friedman also says the films “most indelible moment” comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first informed of the 9/11 attacks.

“Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11 minutes,” Friedman says. “Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you that no one who sees this film forgets this episode.”

Dr. Frank says the episode is typical of how Bush deals with death and tragedy. He notes that Bush avoids funerals.

“President Bush has not attended a single funeral - other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore some possible reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am less interested in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in thinking about its meaning both to him and to the rest of us,” Dr. Frank says. “He has spent a lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought.”

In his book, Dr. Frank also suggests Bush resents those in the military.

“Bush's behavior strongly suggests an unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen, whose bravery puts his own (nonexistent) wartime service record to shame,” he wrote.

Supporters of President Bush dismiss Frank's book as the work of a Democrat who once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, but his work has been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.

Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees with most of Dr. Frank's conclusions.

“I find the bulk of his analysis credible,” she said in an interview. “President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior.”

Ryan Reynolds, a childhood friend of Bush, concurs.

“George wanted to please his father but never felt he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb,” Reynolds said.

Dr. Williams wonders if the Iraq war was not Bush's way of “proving he could finish something his father could not by deposing Saddam Hussein.”

But Bush's desire to please his father may have backfired. Former President George H.W. Bush has remained silent publicly about the war, saying he will only discuss it with his son "in private." Close aides say that is because he disapproves of his son's actions against Iraq.

"Former President Bush does not support the war against Iraq," says former aide John Ruskin. "It is as simple at that."

While current White House aides and officials would not allow their names to be used when commenting about Bush's erratic behavior, others like former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confirm concerns about Bush's mood swings.

O'Neill says Bush was moody in cabinet meetings and would wander off on tangents, mostly about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush, O'Neill says, seemed more focused on Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and would lash out at anyone who disagreed with him.

Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President's behavior.

“We saw the same thing in the Nixon years,” he says. “What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the President's mental condition. That says more than anything else.”

Dr. Frank, the Democrat, says the only diagnosis he can offer for the President's condition is removal from office.

Dr. Williams, the Republican, says she must “reluctantly agree.”

“We have too many unanswered questions about the President's behavior,” she says. “You cannot have those kinds of unanswered questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world.”

© Copyright 2004 Capitol Hill Blue



[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 06-18-2004]

IP Logged

tachyon
Senior Member


48 posts, Jun 2004

posted 06-18-2004 09:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tachyon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm sure we can all appreciate the imminent copy and paste of liberal news reports by none other than forum administrators... (bare with my sarcasm here)....

but for crying out loud do any of you think that Bush ever really "had IT"?

It's a no-brainer.. as Einstein would say.

IP Logged

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


1085 posts, Nov 2002

posted 06-18-2004 10:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tachyon:
I'm sure we can all appreciate the imminent copy and paste of liberal news reports by none other than forum administrators... (bare with my sarcasm here)....

but for crying out loud do any of you think that Bush ever really "had IT"?

It's a no-brainer.. as Einstein would say.



References courtesy of a Goldwater Republican, not a forum administrator;
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001042.html
Is Bush 'Nuts' ?
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001218.html
Delusional---> George Walter Mitty Bush

(in it's origional CC context) http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000440.html

IP Logged

tachyon
Senior Member


48 posts, Jun 2004

posted 06-18-2004 10:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tachyon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by shatoga:
Originally posted by tachyon:
[b]I'm sure we can all appreciate the imminent copy and paste of liberal news reports by none other than forum administrators... (bare with my sarcasm here)....

but for crying out loud do any of you think that Bush ever really "had IT"?

It's a no-brainer.. as Einstein would say.
References courtesy of a Goldwater Republican, not a forum administrator;
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001042.html
Is Bush 'Nuts' ?
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001218.html
Delusional---> George Walter Mitty Bush

(in it's origional CC context) http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000440.html


First and foremost, the links you posted still do not incite any original publications but only link to more liberal news reports.

Addittionaly it is my ultimate conclusion that 'Bush, never had IT'. Which ultimately is in concurrence with original claims, although none of which claims were actually authored by anyone on this site.

I think what has happened here-in is that you have misinterpreted my consensus. Such consensus which is relative to my skepticism of original idealogy based on the actual posters of external written messages. (are you confused? You should be. It's obvious the minute grip on english that copiers and pasters actually have)

I do not disagree with such claims, only with the pretentious manner in which such claims are posted by people who seem incapable of merely writing their own dissent, much like yourself. If you notice, I speak for myself. No article or newsletter need speak for me.

P.S. In all honesty I would say that squeeky won that debate. He was the one that was actually the editor of his own posts. Although I never agreed with Squeeky, I'm beginning to appreciate his (now banned) presence based upon sincerity, which many of the others LACK. If you have compassion or belief in somthing, why copy and paste the words of some other. Be REAL. Speak for yourself. I do.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by tachyon on 06-18-2004]

IP Logged

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


1085 posts, Nov 2002

posted 06-18-2004 11:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by tachyon:
First and foremost, the links you posted still do not incite any original publications but only link to more liberal news reports.

Conservative news tends to ignore facts and functions to form collective opinions rather than report events or present individuals' opinions.
By the definitions of conservatives, any news that merely reports, and allows the reader to form their own opinion is "liberal" news.
By default an honest look at(not merely cheerleading for)Bush
cannot come from any conservative source.
eg: Cult members are not free to criticize their leaders. Barry Goldwater, for example.
"I didn't leave them they left me." (the Republican Party)Myself likewise.
quote:
Originally posted by tachyon:
Addittionaly it is the my ultimate conclusion that 'Bush, never had IT'. Which ultimately is in agreeance with such claims, although none of which were actually authored by anyone on this site.

Nobody else posting here considers themselves qualified to make such professional evaluations. Thus we quote qualified professionals.
quote:
Originally posted by tachyon:
I think what has happened here-in is that you have mis-interpreted my consensus based upon my skepticism of original idealogy based on the actual posters of external written messages.

Are you sure you mean what you think you said?
quote:
Originally posted by tachyon:
I do not disagree with such claims, only with the pretentious manner in which they are posted by people who seem incapable of merely writing their own dissent based upon which they disagree, much like yourself. If you notice, I speak for myself, no article or newsletter need speak for me.

I bow to you on pretentious manner.
You shall be awarded the cake.

As far as that closing comment:
>I speak for myself,<

How many times I've read that same template wrapped around talking points!
A good Team Leader always reminds his team to claim each talking point (rephrased 'in your own words') is origional. http://www.rnc.org/Newsroom/TalkingPoints/default.htm

Ah!
Tachyon,
Thanks for another reminder of the good ol days, when I was a Team Leader myself. http://www.gopteamleader.com/




[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 06-18-2004]

IP Logged

tachyon
Senior Member


48 posts, Jun 2004

posted 06-18-2004 11:14 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tachyon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ah well, no need for parsing!

If you read my original response to you and the replies which were added by myself, you will see that they are not verbatim. Perhaps you are editing my response for some reason? Who knows.

Anyway, how would you know for sure who is 'qualified' to say what. Furthermore if you believe in political 'qualification' then you are simply part of the proble. Do you really think bush is 'qualified' for anything? I had individuals on my high school baseball team that could recite a speech better than Bush, LOL (I think is something we can both laugh at).

Look, I'm not trying to make enemies, but it seems like everytime I try to express myself I do. I am only speaking my beliefs.... and I get irritated when I see a blather of copy and paste with no remark by the editor, that's all.

I am not trying to get into some type of proverbial pissing contest.

IP Logged

shatoga
Agent Provocateur


1085 posts, Nov 2002

posted 06-19-2004 12:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Copy and pasted:
[ QUOTE ]Originally posted by tachyon:

[ /QUOTE ]
In order to respond point by point.
That is NOT editing your response.
(You called me "paranoid", as we may recall)
I also note you added a new last paragraph.


You are 'quoted entire' here so we can read the MS to which I respond:

quote:
Originally posted by tachyon:
Ah well, no need for parsing!

If you read my original response to you and the replies which were added by myself, you will see that they are not verbatim. Perhaps you are editing my response for some reason? Who knows.

Anyway, how would you know for sure who is 'qualified' to say what. Furthermore if you believe in political 'qualification' then you are simply part of the proble. Do you really think bush is 'qualified' for anything? I had individuals on my high school baseball team that could recite a speech better than Bush, LOL (I think is something we can both laugh at).

Look, I'm not trying to make enemies, but it seems like everytime I try to express myself I do. I am only speaking my beliefs.... and I get irritated when I see a blather of copy and paste with no remark by the editor, that's all.

I am not trying to get into some type of proverbial pissing contest.



Copying and pasting articles, and providing references are part and parcel of debate.
Demanding mere opinion, with no resort to sources (on which we may have based our own opinions) is demanding nothing more than a donnybrook.

"Oh yeah? So's yer old man!" type of comments are the inevitable result.

State your opinion by all means.
If you have any courtesy for the rest of the world, give sources upon which you base your opinion.
Articles usually provide qualifications (if any) of the author.

BTW/ "pissing matches" are considered (by experienced RNC/Bivings"Team Leaders") preferable to losing the debate.
Anything that distracts from or prevents further debate not advantageous to "the party" is preferable to losing.
Including pissing matches.

It becomes easier to get respect, if you give respect.
Let us have no pissing contests here.

Your tone here reminds me often of my tone at Free Republic. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b524dbf7963.htm
Or the sister website
Democratic Underground (which I personally find reminds me always that: )
"The best way to handle the opposition is to control it ourselves." VI Lenin



[Edited 1 times, lastly by shatoga on 06-19-2004]

IP Logged

tachyon
Senior Member


48 posts, Jun 2004

posted 06-19-2004 01:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for tachyon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Believe me Shatoga I know all about etiquitte.... however these are emotional issues to many of us... and if anything can really screw up the human psyche it is EMOTION. I realize I am bold in my claims but I simply speak my beliefs. I realize some may not agree with me, and perhaps I AM WRONG, but nevertheless my beliefs are my own and they are completely SINCERE.

As far as posting other articles in regard to third party confer-ence, I would much rather just cite evidential claims. Sure, other opinions may help to present any given case of study, but only evidence can truly elucidate realistic notions.

I am not one to bend over backwards to explain my position. I believe that the information is out ther, which i've spent years learning. I've been an activist of liberty and freedom for over a decade. I've been doing research on everything from implants to chemtrails to surveillance to telemetry to electromagnetics/physics to politics for the same amount of time. It would likely take me hours to add footnotes to every post I make. I would rather just speak for myself and let the logic do the talking. I know perhaps it may seem arrogant but I allow my words to incite further evidence of my claims. Again I know what i'm doing and saying and either you look into or you don't. Either way I am not a "personal" informant, only a general one, attempting to create sparks of interest among the masses. I believe I could explain many things to many people, but by doing nothing less than writing several books. That I am working on...until then my claims and beliefs are just that. It is not my intent to force accepatance to anyone

IP Logged

Mech
Commitees of Correspondence


The Minuteman State
5951 posts, Jun 2001

posted 06-19-2004 09:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"liberal" huh?

Ummmmm NO.

A Constitutionalist.

I point out what Bush JUNIOR is up to more than the other politicians becausse he is a SICK, sadistic, lying SOB and I think he should be impeached.

When I see articles like the above...it only makes me smile.

Since WHEN is Capitol Hill Blue a "liberal" news media outlet?

PLEASE DO TELL.

Otherwise..I think you are a NEO-CON who calls himself an activist. Probably a closet Bush Admin/System..NEW WORLD ORDER backer/supporter as well.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 06-19-2004]

IP Logged

tachyon
Senior Member


48 posts, Jun 2004

posted 06-19-2004 09:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tachyon     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mech,

You are entitled to your beliefs as am I. To say I back Bush is hilarious to me. I completely concur that he should be impeached. However, as far as the concept of 'new world order' is concerned... perhaps I am in favor of a new order. However the order I am in favor of is not one dictated by the current administration, but one dictated by equality. As i've mentioned before my ultimate wish is to have NWO by revolution. A NWO that is not made of covert operations and exploitations, but that is made by sincere people fighting for what is right and just. THis does not include occupying nations such as IRAQ on a masquerade motivated by the energy industry i.e. oil. Perhaps you should attempt to understand me before you so quickly pass judgement based upon your perception of my intent and/or opinions.

IP Logged

Mech
Commitees of Correspondence


The Minuteman State
5951 posts, Jun 2001

posted 06-20-2004 08:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Tachyon: "As i've mentioned before my ultimate wish is to have NWO by revolution."


No thanks.

I will fight against ANY attempt at a corrupt global government.

Having One Currency, One Army, One Religion, One Dictator, One everything, will be 100% hell on earth.

Last time I checked..HITLER wanted a NEW WORLD ORDER and killed millions of Jews, Russians and hundereds of thousand of others to try to get it. I for one..an NOT going to stand for a REPEAT of history.

The only thing that seperates us (USA) from any other dictatorial nation is the Constitution and the bill of rights.

We lose those and weve lost everything.

National sovereignty I am 100% in favor of.

The day UN troops or any other troops set foot in this country (USA)...its going to be a bloodbath. Plain and simple. Just ask any American who took a constitutional oath of Military service. They are obliged to repel any foreign invader.

I know I will.

Looks like you and I will be on opposing sides. See you on the field.

[Edited 3 times, lastly by Mech on 06-20-2004]

IP Logged

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:








Contact Us | Chemtrail Central


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c