Help !!!! I cannot decide, is bush merely a HYPOCRITE, or has he got PSYCHOPATHIC tendencies

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 3:25 AM GMT
    First order of business on this subject is definitions. (1) Hypocrite = a feigning to represent what one is not or to believe what one does not, one who affects virtues or qualities he does not have. (2) Psychopathic (personality) = An emotionally and behaviorally disordered state characterized by 'clear perception of reality' (not so sure he's clear on reality-hmmm-maybe "he's a real no-where man" the beatles sung about) except for the individual's social and moral obligations and often by the pursuit of --- gratification in criminal acts. OK !!! now before you republicans turn me in as one of his "ENEMY COMBATANTS" because I vehemently disagree with and despise his actions, please note that there are writings out there in print by spychologists who suggest the latter of my two options above. SO PLEASE TURN THEM IN FIRST !!! YOU SEE ITS THEIR FAULT FOR INFLUENCING MY THINKING!!! I'M LIKE YOU REPUBLICANS ARE TOWARD BUSH---HE (and I) SHOULD'NT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS (my) ACTIONS. now that we have this agreement, lets discuss what led to this. You see bush is constantly telling about how other country's leaders should uphold basic human rights issues and freedoms, you know the "VIRTUES AMERICA STANDS FOR" Well fella's I just have a devil of a time putting his promoting these virtues toward other countries about these issues, together with his being disliked by the whole world over, for torturing, rendering prisoners (and lieing about doing so through other country's airports) not granting Habeaus Corpus Rights to his "ENEMY COMBATANTS", particularly at Quantonimo Bay (which is on the property of a communist country whom he wants to influence to become a "FREE" democracy), he also broke our laws of privacy/surveilance (FISA), under the guise of "FIGHTING TERRORISM", he Totally circumvents our democratic constitution separation of powers by signing statements, executive orders, hiding the truth behind "STATE SECRETS" and "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE" to avoid the truth of his lawbreaking from being exposed in hearings. Lied about his basis to go to war with Iraq, and the list goes on, and on and on and on. I could keep my mouth shut to some degree except when I read that he chided the Olympic competitors at the white house that they represent out great country's, "VIRTUES OF UPHOLDING BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, AND FREEDOMS" when they compete in China. Then today I read that he vowed to take the "MESSAGE OF FREEDOM" to Beijing, during a meeting with Chinese dissidents, and to use the olympic games as an opportunity to "MAKE THE POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES CLEAR--HUMAN RIGHTS ---- SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO ANYONE" per the whitehouse spokeswoman on bushes behalf, and she went on to state his belief that the olypic games "presents the Chinese with an opportunity to demonstrate compassion on human rights and freedom" (These articles appeared in my Yahoo News Alerts re; bush) There was more, but I'm already at the point of wanting to gag over this duplicity of bush's words and actions while representing our AMERICA and we CITIZENS to a great country like china that we want to influence to do better with regard to freedoms, and human rights issues. GAD DUMN this idiot infuriates me !!!!!!!!!! WHAT THINKING IDIOT COULD HELP BUT WONDER ABOUT THIS BUSH??????? SO WHICH IS IT - HYPOCRITE or PSYCHOPATHIC ????????

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 4:36 AM GMT
    Oh come on Dad, this one's too easy.

    Psychopath. Dry drunk. Smirking frat boy. Spoiled, petulant, worthless son of privilege.

    I grew up in Bloomfield Hills and I can't tell you how many boys EXACTLY like that I grew up with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 4:42 AM GMT
    I'm one of those liberal centrists that right wingers love to hate. Yet, I actually do NOT believe Bush is a hypocrite nor do I believe he is psychopathic, nor do I believe he is evil.

    Sorry to say, I believe Bush is dumber than a door knob, and the poor guy actually DID believe his cabinet...Cheney, Ashcroft and the rest of the gang...when they fabricated the WMD argument.

    Further, I believe that he has the hubris of simplistic thinking....thinking that Saddham was evil (which he undoubtedly and unequivocally was) and that justified everything this Bush administration has done AND would excuse all the lies/deception perpetrated by them.

    Listen, I wouldn't even be mean enough to call someone stupid if it were not for the fact that this stupidity has had such great cost, taken so many innocent lives on both sides, without the bare modicum of a plan to reconstruct the country, its economy and political systems. Further, this idiocy has allowed those who perhaps can be graded a bit more into the "evil" category such great power.

    It makes me nauseous to think that this country villified Clinton because of a blow job, and lying about that, and is so willing to excuse abysmal stupidity which has cost so many lives.

    And the fact that some call those of us who hate what has happened unpatriotic (as what's his face did call Obama in the Obama thread), is a stunning indictment on the intellectual blindness that is ongoing in our country.

    John
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 4:50 AM GMT
    Bothicon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 4:56 AM GMT
    jprichva saidOh come on Dad, this one's too easy.

    Psychopath. Dry drunk. Smirking frat boy. Spoiled, petulant, worthless son of privilege.

    I grew up in Bloomfield Hills and I can't tell you how many boys EXACTLY like that I grew up with.


    He's both, all that you mention JP, and the result of ignorant and manipulative ministers in the public forum, not to mention very powerful advisors. He's become Czar Nicholas II and Rove is no better than Rasputin. There are numerous comparisons I can make between these four [now] historical figures, but I'll leave it at this: We're only lucky that we haven't taken advantage of these events and started an even more foolish revolution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    Try Megalomaniac on for size. That pretty much sums it up.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:21 AM GMT
    Hyper rant + No seperate paragraphs = couldn't read it.

    Watching a horror movie right now anyway...icon_cry.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:23 AM GMT
    RyanReBoRn saidHyper rant + No seperate paragraphs = couldn't read it.

    Watching a horror movie right now anyway...icon_cry.gif


    Good point. Miss(ter) Manners says run-on sentences and lack of white space make Dick and Jane very sad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:23 AM GMT
    My friend's beagle that I'm babysitting dropped a present on the sidewalk today that has better leadership skills, is smarter and probably smells better that chimp faced hemorrhoid circling the bunghole of humanity that we have in charge right now.
  • metalxracr

    Posts: 761

    Jul 31, 2008 5:24 AM GMT
    RyanReBoRn saidHyper rant + No seperate paragraphs = couldn't read it.

    Watching a horror movie right now anyway...icon_cry.gif


    Exact same thing I thought!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 6:41 AM GMT
    http://www.backwardsbush.com/

    Countdown to the end of the bush presidency

    172 days 21 hours 20 minutes and counting
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 6:46 AM GMT
    The question is not whether he is a HYPOCRITE, a PSYCHOPATH or is he just stupid, the question is whether we will survive him.icon_rolleyes.gificon_cry.gificon_evil.gif
  • kinetic

    Posts: 1125

    Jul 31, 2008 8:19 AM GMT
    I say psycho, hypocrite, moron, douche-bag, mildly retarded -Hell I'll just cut it off there, I could go on forever...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 9:33 AM GMT
    I've always considered him a super-dupe who got dragged into this by Cheney who orchestrated this whole thing for the money for his corporations like Halliburton.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jul 31, 2008 9:33 AM GMT
    I just find it amazing that he doesn't seem to comprehend what he has done to this country. There is an element of "cluelessness" there besides everything else.....
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jul 31, 2008 9:59 AM GMT
    From the 2004 book: Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of a President

    "Bush displays signs of poor mental health which makes him particularly ill suited to rule the most powerful nation on earth. Bush might suffer from megalomania, that he is probably not only incapable of true compassion, but actually shows a tendency towards sadism.He also manifests the symptoms of a dry drunk, principally irritability, judgmentalism and a rigid, unadaptable world view."

    But he's got the power of an entire political party that is still willing to bid his do
  • cowboyathlete

    Posts: 1346

    Jul 31, 2008 11:39 AM GMT
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BncNpB6IZ9I
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 1:33 PM GMT
    ruck_us said
    RyanReBoRn saidHyper rant + No seperate paragraphs = couldn't read it.

    Watching a horror movie right now anyway...icon_cry.gif


    Good point. Miss(ter) Manners says run-on sentences and lack of white space make Dick and Jane very sad.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Re: paragraph separation--could someone give me some clues as to why I cannot get my computer to separate paragraphs, it annoys me worse than it does you, and I've tried several suggestions, but to no avail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as to this being a RANT !!! your right!!!! I've reached the point of maximum disgust with this idiot in the white house !!!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 2:13 PM GMT
    He's not as stupid as many may think...he is "just stupid enough" to get away with a lot of things.
    A couple business associates of mine are ex CIA and are still connected to "the company", and are also currently US Trustees and still very much in "the loop" of what is going on in DC. Believe me, the stories they tell me are incredible. If people only knew what that guy and his cohorts are up to.
    Basically, "W" is only out for himself and really doesn't give a fuck about anyone or anything else.
    No matter what or who that damages.
    He has been very spoiled and "Senior" has taken care of him and set him up for a long time through many "agreements" and "arrangements".
    Like I said...if people only knew what was REALLY going on behing the scenes and the UNREPORTED stuff with Cheney, Bush, and Paulsen...oh my god...people would be outraged.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 4:15 PM GMT
    Nonsense, President Bush is doing a fine job of it. We're lucky to have him for a president.

    President Bush is faced with a unique set of circumstances. No other country on earth can challenge us on a conventional battlefield so, some dirtbag extremists try to use other methods, like terrorism and insurgency. President Clinton faced these circumstances and chose to ignore it.
    Their (terrorists) goal is no different than that of the Nazis or the imperial Japanese. These dirtbags are able to use our own freedoms as a propaganda weapon against us, and you whiners do a fine job of helping them out. As far as I'm concerned the Guantanamo bay facility is way too humane a treatment for the inmates, they should never have left Afghanistan alive.
    President Bush has been very successful at protecting the Republic and deserves a lot of credit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 4:47 PM GMT
    John43620 saidPresident Bush is faced with a unique set of circumstances. No other country on earth can challenge us on a conventional battlefield so, some dirtbag extremists try to use other methods, like terrorism and insurgency. President Bush has been very successful at protecting the Republic and deserves a lot of credit.


    This is so obtuse it boggles the mind.

    In short, what John43620 is admitting and extolling, is exactly the near-criminal behavior in Iraq that many of us believe makes Bush impeachable.

    John43620 is admitting that the war is contrived. There were no WMD, there was no link between Hussein and 9/11, Iraq never supported the terrorists financially or in any other meaningful way. Yet....

    ....wink, wink....

    ...who cares that the excuses were lies. Because them thar Iraqis are arabs, and arabs are terrorists, and god bless the old USA for protecting us against the terrorists, who are Iraqis who are arabs who are followers of Islam. Those dirtbags.

    And, all of you, John43620 is displaying the same xenophobic logic that many who voted Bush into office manifest. It's frightening to read that last sentence captioned above and see it connected by xenophobic logic to the first.

    So, let me set the record straight again. Bush HAS been very successful at somehow obscuring the fact that the US was never at risk from Iraq. Then, by cloaking that series of lies in a veneer of phony patriotic fervor, he has, as you can tell from John's statement above, created the illusion that he is "...protecting the Republic..."

    Now, John, if you separate out the US behavior in Afghanistan from its behavior in Iraq, then we'd at least suspect that you have intellectual honesty. Because purusing Al Quaeda into Afghanistan and waging a war against the Taliban is arguably an example of having a moral high ground. Unilaterally invading Iraq under contrived circumstances is not. If he were a "man" Bush would admit publically that the French, Germans and Russians were right...and he was wrong.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:20 PM GMT
    Bush has gone out of his way to destroy democracy in the US.

    What's that called? What's that word when you try to destroy your own country? Um, damn, what is that word? Oh, yeah, TREASONOUS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:24 PM GMT
    Vincent Bugliosi went as far as calling him a MURDERER and has given fed prosecutors all the tools they need to string up the sonofabitch. Will they do it? No because their balls are even smaller than bush's morals.





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

    The Nation
    Law & Justice

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bugliosi v. Bush
    By Brett Story

    June 19, 2008

    Email
    Print
    Share
    Buzzflash
    del.icio.us
    Digg
    Facebook
    Newsvine
    Reddit
    What is this?

    Take Action
    Web Letters (12)
    Write a Letter!
    Subscribe Now
    Text Size
    A
    A
    A
    In early June, a much-awaited Senate committee report formally concluded what had already become common wisdom: that President Bush and members of his Administration made false claims about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to build a public case for war.


    Related
    Also By
    Send Karl Rove to Jail
    Law & Justice

    Brave New Films : This sounds like a dream, doesn't it? Well, it's not. We have a unique opportunity right now to send Karl Rove to jail, but only if we take immediate action.
    More Meddling at Gitmo
    Guantanamo Bay

    Ross Tuttle: New evidence sheds light on the inappropriate and corrupting influence of Brig. General Thomas Hartmann on the military commissions process.
    The Ongoing Persecution of Sami Al-Arian
    Law & Justice

    Alexander Cockburn: The US government's shameful auto-da-fé of Sami Al-Arian enters a new phase.
    Polygamists' Kids in Their Own Private Gitmo
    Law & Justice

    Richard Wexler: A mass detention. Vague legal charges. Emotional abuse. Hostile overseers. This isn't Guantánamo--it's Texas. And the victims are children the state wants to protect.
    Washington at War
    Law & Justice

    The Petraeus hearings reveal a political class--Democrats and Republicans--trapped in concentric circles of imperial myopia.
    Two Angry Men
    Law & Justice

    Robert Perkinson: Beyond the sensationalism and the sound bites, the Duke rape case reveals the perils of unchecked prosecutorial power.
    » More
    Bugliosi v. Bush
    Law & Justice

    Brett Story: The famed prosecutor wants to see the President tried for murder in an American courtroom.
    Justice for Sean Bell
    Civil Rights Activism

    Brett Story & VideoNation : Protesters decry acquittal of three New York City police officers on trial for firing 50 bullets at an unarmed man.
    The People vs. Michael Chertoff
    Mexico

    Brett Story: To build a fence on the US border with Mexico, the Department of Homeland Security seized land without trials or negotiations.
    The Working-Class Vote in Ohio
    US Politics & Government

    Brett Story & VideoNation : What issues matter to Ohio's blue-collar voters? JoAnn Wypijewski reports from the campaign trail.

    These are grounds for impeachment, some argue--adding that it's not too late. Democratic Representative Dennis Kucinich introduced thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush on June 9, accusing the President of war crimes and deceiving the public.

    But famed prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, foreshadowing the Senate committee report with much of the same damning evidence, argues in a new book that Bush "deserves much more than impeachment"--a penalty he considers incommensurate with the crimes committed. In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, the New York Times bestselling author and prosecutor lays out the legal case for prosecuting President Bush in a US courtroom after he leaves office.

    Bugliosi writes, "4000 young Americans decomposing in their grave today died for George Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney." His book is not only a scathing indictment of the President and his Administration but also a blueprint for holding him criminally accountable. Bugliosi accuses Bush of taking the nation to war in Iraq under deliberately false pretenses and thus holds him culpable for thousands of subsequent deaths, detailing in The Prosecution the legal basis for such a case and laying out what he argues is the requisite evidence for a murder conviction.

    While at the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, Bugliosi successfully prosecuted twenty-one murder convictions without a single loss, most famously that of serial murderer Charles Manson. He also penned a number of best-selling true-crime books, including Helter Skelter and Outrage.

    The Nation spoke to Bugliosi in a phone interview from his home in Los Angeles about his new book and the political challenges of bringing its title trial to realization.

    You begin your book by acknowledging its controversial premise and the difficulty people will have with the argument, as you lay it out, that George Bush should be put on trial for the murder of the nearly 4,000 American soldiers who've died fighting the war in Iraq. What do you think is so contentious about the idea of prosecuting a President, past or present, for murder?

    The average American instinctively feels without having read my book that if an American President takes his nation to war under any circumstances, he can't be prosecuted for murder. Related to that, people find it very hard to believe that an American President would engage in conduct that is so extremely criminal. You just don't expect that of a President.

    Americans just can't believe an American President would engage in conduct that smacks of such criminality, and thus the whole notion of taking the President to court for murder is a revolutionary one.

    In order to make the legal case for murder the prosecution, you write, would have to show that George Bush had a criminal state of mind--in legal terms, "malice aforethought"--when he led the country to war. That strikes me as no easy task. Can you explain how exactly you would go about arguing such a mindset?

    To satisfy the main elements of murder--murder being an unlawful killing of a human being with the requisite state of mind--the following question would have to be answered: Did George Bush, or did he not, take the nation to war in self-defense, as he claimed, as a pre-emptive strike? Bush said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was therefore an imminent threat to security of the country, so we had to pre-emptively go to war against him. If the prosecutor can show that President Bush did not take the country to war in self-defense but instead under false pretenses, then all the killings that have taken place would be unlawful killings, and therefore murder.

    Without getting into legal complexities and technicalities, which I do in the book, let me give you just one example of the kind of evidence that could be used to make just such an argument. In President Bush's first speech to the nation, on October 7, 2002, from Cincinnati, he told the American people that Saddam Hussein was great danger to our nation, either by Hussein attacking us with WMDs, or by giving these weapons to a terrorist group to do so. Bush said this attack could happen on "any given day," meaning that the threat was imminent. The only big problem for Bush in a trial is that on October 1, just six days earlier, the CIA sent Bush its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, a classified, top-secret report, that represented the consensus opinion of all sixteen US intelligence agencies on the issue of whether or not Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of this country. On page 8, it clearly and unequivocally says... that Hussein was not an imminent threat to the security of this country; that he would only be a threat to us if he feared that America was about to attack him. So we know--not think, but know--that when George Bush told the nation on the evening of October 7, 2002, that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of the nation, he was telling millions of unsuspecting Americans the exact opposite of what his own CIA was telling him. Even if we have
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 31, 2008 5:26 PM GMT
    John, why even waste your energy. The mindset of the left will never get IT, they don't want to get IT, and their minds cannot be changed. It will obviously take something even bigger than 9/11 to open their eyes to the reality of what we are truly facing with the war on terrorism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 31, 2008 5:29 PM GMT
    ...nothing else at all, this alone shows that Bush took this nation to war on a terrible lie, and therefore all the killings of American soldiers in Iraq were unlawful killings and therefore murder.

    You call the hypothetical case you've just laid out a case of "first impression"--a case for which there is no legal precedent. What are the implications for such a trial, if it were ever to be held, for American politics and American democracy?

    What it does is tell future Presidents in no uncertain terms that if they commit a horrendous crime, they can be held accountable, just like any other private citizen.

    There is no murder statute at the state or federal level that says it only applies to certain people--not Presidents, or golf pros or hair stylists. It applies to everyone. And there is no statute that says murder has to take place in a certain place, and not a battlefield. So President Bush has no immunity from prosecution.

    No other American President has been prosecuted for any crime--there's no history of it. That doesn't mean they can't be. The closest we came to it was in 1974, when Nixon resigned and there was a great demand that he be prosecuted for the crimes he committed while he was in office--obstruction of justice, wiretapping, perjury. The threat of this was so real that President Ford stepped in and pardoned him. I think that was closest we ever came. Clinton was tried in the Senate and acquitted. I'm talking about putting George Bush in an American courtroom, where next door someone might be on trial for killing a liquor store owner. He cannot be charged as a war criminal because the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction here, so it would have to be an American courtroom.

    At this very moment, in fact, there is a documentary being produced for the big screen based on my book. And the filmmakers are about to reach out to prosecutors throughout the land to find a prosecutor willing to prosecute George Bush. So what I'm talking about here is very real. I've established jurisdiction in this book for prosecutors on a state or federal level to go after President Bush. With the literally hundreds of prosecutors out there and the powerful evidence of guilt I've set out, it's hard to believe there's not at least one prosecutor, maybe more, courageous enough to say this is America, and in America no man is above the law.

    I've also drafted a letter to DAs across the country offering my services. I'm dead serious about this. With my record as a prosecutor with twenty-one consecutive murder convictions, I would never in a million years argue for a prosecution against the President of the United States unless I knew I was standing on firm and strong legal grounds.

    I'm going after Bush and I'm not going to be satisfied until I see him in an American courtroom prosecuted for murder.

    You are, of course, famous for your prosecution of Charles Manson, the notorious cult leader and mass murderer who was found guilty of conspiracy to commit the Tate-LaBianca murders. What similarities, if any, would you expect to encounter in preparation for the trial of President George Bush compared with someone like Charles Manson?

    Well, with Manson we're talking about seven murders. With Bush it's hundreds of thousands. But in a general way I'd prosecute the cases similarly, even though there are great differences. Neither Bush nor Manson participated in the act, physically, of murder. So in both cases I'm going after someone who didn't themselves commit the act. But both, in their leadership, can be argued to hold responsibility through the rule of conspiracy for the deaths of innocents.

    It has to be said, you also just seem to really hate George Bush. You state that your aim in writing this book is not political, and yet there is a palpable anger, which you admit to, that comes across powerfully in certain passages. For example, you call Bush a "spoiled, callous brat who became President only because of his father's good name" and Rove a "pasty, weak-faced, and mean spirited political criminal." Where does this anger come from?

    The anger is based on one thing, and one thing only. These people deliberately and knowingly took this nation to war under false pretenses, and therefore they are murderers. I don't like to see anyone get away with murder, never mind over 100,000 murders. O.J. Simpson got away with two murders, and I was outraged, so I wrote a book about it. I do not like people who commit murder.

    In the [Scott] McLellan book which just came out, he called the war in Iraq a serious strategic blunder. A blunder is a mistake, and people who make mistakes are innocent and not guilty. George Bush, I believe and I argue, is guilty.

    Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
    If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.
    About Brett Story
    Brett Story is a freelance journalist and independent documentary filmmaker based out of Montreal and New York City, and a 2008 spring intern for The Nation. more...