November 16th, 2005

Apollo 4 on column of fire

The Bush breakdown

Very disturbing story about Bush's state of mind in the Wash Times magazine
by John in DC - 11/15/2005 05:26:00 PM

The Washington Times, you may know, is an "independent" newspaper that
is basically the mouthpiece of the Republican party. For that reason,
it sometimes gets inside scoops as to what the GOP is thinking, and
even what's going on inside the White House. For that reason, their
latest story on Bush is extremely disturbing:

President Bush feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and
advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office,
administration sources say. The president's reclusiveness in the face
of relentless public scrutiny of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and White
House leaks regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame has become so
extreme that Mr. Bush has also reduced contact with his father, former
President George H.W. Bush, administration sources said on the
condition of anonymity.

Matt Drudge adds on his site:

[Who cares what Matt Drudge adds.]

So basically Bush is melting down. (Or, at the very least, the number
one propaganda organ of the GOP wants us to think Bush is losing it -
that's just bizarre on its face, and shows had bad things are for
Bush, and the party.) This is rather disturbing in view of the
increased chatter about Bush, an alcoholic who never sought treatment,
now reportedly drinking again.

This man is running our country. And he won't speak to anyone - ANYONE
- - other than Condi Rice, his mom, and Karen Hughes? That leaves out
the entire Dept of Defense - kind of important during war time - the
CIA, every other agency and the entire White House staff.

It honestly sounds like he's losing control.

And he's in charge of our country.

Not just worst president ever. But quickly becoming scariest president

Capitol Hill Blue was reporting a long while back about such a
breakdown. My interpretation is that Capitol Hill Blue mostly made it
up, realizing that it was close enough to the facts that they could
take credit for whatever happened, at least with credulous readers
(such as Mike Malloy, unfortunately).

Now the whispers are all over the place, so something is going on.

The Moonie Times is not a reliable source of information, and
(contrary to John Aravosis's assertion) it does not serve the Bushist
Party, it serves Sun Myung Moon. However, when Bush does further break
down, I would expect him to blame others for his fate and to turn
against them; you are either with George W. Bush or you are against

It is curious that Bush's Veterans Day speech was a vicious assault on
his fellow USA-ans. I think Karl Rove is an idiot who knows a handful
of propaganda techniques that he uses again and again, versus people
who defend only against the conventional, but is Rove dumb enough
to sign off on that speech? I wonder if Bush is no longer
asking for input from Rove (and Lord Vader), and instead has Karen
Hughes work on his speeches alone. Hughes is clueless enough to have
written such a speech; lectures she delivered herself recently were
just as dumb.
Apollo 4 on column of fire

Daily Kos: Joe Biden: Edwards is Mistaken, but I'm Not

Joe Biden: Edwards is Mistaken, but I'm Not
by DavidNYC
Wed Nov 16, 2005 at 12:25:26 PM PDT

- From today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Former Sen John Edwards of North Carolina rcently said his vote to authorize the war was a mistake. Biden's reaction:

"I think he did make a mistake. He voted for the war and against funding it, I think that was a mistake.

Sigh... so if Edwards had voted for both things, then it wouldn't have been a mistake? And yet, Biden manages to very nearly contradict himself with his very next statement:

"The only regret I had voting for the war is that I never anticipated how incompetent the administration would be in using the authority we gave them to avoid war.

Oh no - but this is not a "mistake." This is merely a "regret." It's espcially frustrating to see Biden unwilling to make the same admission as Edwards, considering there is actually not that much daylight between their two stances. Consider the following recent remarks:


He said the American people are starting to "catch on" that they were at least partially "snookered and tricked," though he said that's not the administration's greatest failing.


The argument for going to war with Iraq was based on intelligence that we now know was inaccurate. The information the American people were hearing from the president - and that I was being given by our intelligence community - wasn't the whole story. Had I known this at the time, I never would have voted for this war.

Back to that Post-Gazette interview, we see where Biden is actually coming from. Sigh again... he imagines that there is still some "possibility of succeeding."

"Everyone kind of second-guesses us right now and I realize there is big pressure on Sen. Edwards, and me and anyone seeking the nomination because 80 percent of the Democrats say, leave now, basically, or get the troops out ... what I look at is how is it going to look like in 2008, not 2006. So if we pull out in 2006, prematurely, when there's still some possibility of succeeding, if we pull out of Iraq in 2006, and it devolves into the civil war I fear ... then what happens when that terror is exported, which I guarantee it will be -- and by the way, it never existed before. ... the idea that Iraq was exporting terror, was an Islamist base was simply not true. It's become that. We've attracted them just like Afghanistan attracted them."

This point of view makes Biden sound like he's living in two-years-ago land. I guess some people just get so invested in the decisions they make that they simply can't admit their mistakes.

I suspect it's more than that, because Al Franken has a similar,
sickening 'we can't leave' attitude even though he probably, unlike
Biden, considers the war a mistake. I have to conclude that for many
people it is difficult to accept 'least harm' as a 'positive'
outcome. It's another and subtler form of George W. Bush's
narcissistic division of the world into 'for me = 'good'' and 'against
me = 'evil''—sharp verbal distinctions coloring actual life
circumstances of 'less harm' versus 'more harm'. We must leave now and
let the least harm proceed.