George Bush Presenile Dementia Video - Watch & Download

(From the diaries -- kos)

This is the footage that started the story that first appeared in the Atlantic - George Bush from ten years ago - dramatically different than the Bush you're used to.

The big story - "a striking decline in his sentence-by-sentence speaking skills." The reason? One doctor says "presenile dementia" a catch-all term for earlier-than-normal cognitive declines (probably "dry-drunk syndrome"). This video intercuts footage from 10 years ago with recent footage - the difference is dramatic and disturbing. And obvious.

See it yourself at http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm

Show it to your friends who think George Bush is okay. He's not.
Send it to any media people you know. Many are already suspicious that something's wrong with GWB. This proves it.

You can download this video and pass it on to friends - or just forward the link. Need a copy of the video? (It's a 4+MB QuickTime file) e-mail me at [e-mail]

•  Wow

  Quite a difference.  Think it has anything to do with all that coke?

  by Muboshgu on Sun Oct 10, 2004 at 11:56:22 PM PDT

  •  Though, he more likely has Korsakoff's Syndrome

    not 'presenile dementia'

    What is Korsakoff's syndrome?     
    Download PDF file

    Korsakoff's syndrome is a brain disorder that is usually associated with heavy drinking over a long period. Although it is not strictly speaking a dementia, people with the condition experience loss of short term memory. This sheet outlines the causes, symptoms and treatment of the syndrome.

    What causes Korsakoff's syndrome?
    Korsakoff's syndrome is caused by lack of thiamine (vitamin B1), which affects the brain and nervous system. Excessive use of alcohol is often the cause of thiamine deficiency. This is because:

        * Many heavy drinkers have poor eating habits. Their nutrition is inadequate and will not contain essential vitamins.
        * Alcohol can inflame the stomach lining and impede the body's ability to absorb the key vitamins it receives.

    Korsakoff's syndrome may also occur in other conditions where there is severe malnutrition, but this is extremely rare.

    Korsakoff's is part of the Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, which consists of two separate but related stages: Wernicke's encephalopathy and Korsakoff's psychosis. However, not all cases of Korsakoff's are preceded by an episode of Wernicke's. Another term for Korsakoff's is 'alcohol amnestic syndrome', amnestic meaning loss of memory.

    What is Wernicke's encephalopathy?
    An encephalopathy is a disorder affecting the brain. Wernicke's encephalopathy usually develops suddenly. There are three main symptoms, though these are not always present, so diagnosis may be difficult. They are:

        * Involuntary, jerky eye movements or paralysis of muscles moving the eyes
        * Poor balance, staggering gait or inability to walk
        * Drowsiness and confusion.

    Immediate treatment is essential if Wernicke's is suspected. Treatment consists of high doses of thiamine injected into a vein or muscle. If treatment is carried out in time most symptoms should be reversed in a few hours. However, if Wernicke's is left untreated, or is not treated in time, brain damage may result. In some cases the person may die.

    What is Korsakoff's psychosis?
    Korsakoff's psychosis may follow if Wernicke's encephalopathy is untreated or is not treated soon enough. It may also develop gradually. Brain damage occurs in important small areas in the mid part of the brain, resulting in severe short term memory loss. Many other abilities may remain intact.

    Korsakoff's differs from most dementias, in which there is often damage to a large area of the cortex (the outer part of the brain). These dementias affect a much wider range of abilities.

    What are the symptoms?
    The main symptom is memory loss, particularly of events arising after the onset of the condition. Sometimes, memories of the more distant past can also be affected. Other symptoms may include:

        * Difficulty in acquiring new information or learning new skills.
        * Lack of insight into the condition. Even a person with great gaps in their memory may believe their memory is functioning normally.
        * Inventing events to fill the gaps in memory. This is more common in the early stages of the illness and is known as 'confabulation'.
        * Apathy, in some cases, or talkative and repetitive behaviour in others.

    People usually retain skills that they acquired before developing the disorder, so they are often able to manage with appropriate support.

    How is Korsakoff's diagnosed?
    Korsakoff's syndrome cannot be diagnosed until the person has abstained from alcohol for at least four to five weeks to enable the acute symptoms of alcohol withdrawal to subside.

    Psychological tests of the person's memory and other abilities will then be carried out to see whether they may have Korsakoff's or some other condition.

    They will also be observed to see whether their condition progresses without alcohol. If their condition does not change, they may be diagnosed with a form of dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease. It is possible to have both Korskoff's and a dementia.

    Who is affected?
    Those affected tend to be men between the ages of 45 and 65 with a long history of alcohol abuse, though it is possible to have Korsakoff's at an older or a younger age.

    Women can also be affected. They tend to develop Korsakoff's at a slightly younger age than men as they appear to be more vulnerable to the impact of alcohol. It has been suggested that whereas it may take around 20 years for a man to develop Korsakoff's syndrome, it may take about half that time for a woman.

    It is not yet clear why some heavy drinkers develop Korsakoff's syndrome and others do not, although this may relate to diet.

    Treatment
    The progress of Korsakoff's can be completely halted if the person:

        * Completely abstains from alcohol
        * Adopts a healthy diet with vitamin supplements.

    While it remains unclear whether additional thiamine helps people improve once the brain damage has already occurred, it may help prevent further damage occurring.

    Prognosis
    Any improvement usually occurs within a period of up to two years. It has been estimated that about a quarter of those affected make a very good recovery. About half make a partial recovery and need support to manage their lives. Another quarter make no recovery and may need long term care. Korsakoff's is likely to continue to progress if the person continues to drink heavily and has poor nutrition.

    Other problems associated with heavy drinking

        * Alcohol can have a harmful effect on nerve cells in the brain cortex. A wide range of skills and abilities can be affected by this. This is sometimes known as alcoholic dementia. However, deterioration ceases and there is often some recovery over time if the person abstains from alcohol completely. At present, much research is being carried out into alcoholic dementia and how it may overlap with Korsakoff's psychosis.
        * There may be physical disorders associated with drinking, such as damage to the liver or damage to nerves in the legs and arms.
        * People with drinking problems are more likely to have experienced head injuries due to accidents, fights or epileptic seizures.
    http://www.alzheimers.org.uk/Facts_about_dementia/What_is_dementia/info_korsakoffs.htm

    by BartBoris on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:26:10 AM PDT

    •  Note these symptoms:

        * Lack of insight into the condition. Even a person with great gaps in their memory may believe their memory is functioning normally.
          * Inventing events to fill the gaps in memory. This is more common in the early stages of the illness and is known as 'confabulation'.
          * Apathy, in some cases, or talkative and repetitive behaviour in others.

      by BartBoris on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:27:58 AM PDT

    •  plausible

      Some of the symptoms match what we've seen.  But...if he really quit drinking when he said he did, he should have gotten better, not worse.  Unless you think he's been secretly drinking all along?

      I think that neurologist guy is right.  The deterioration we've seen over the past ten years looks like Alzheimer's, or something of that ilk.

      by randym77 on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:53:31 AM PDT

      •  He's been drinking.

        I should know. I've been trying to induce Korsakoff's syndrome in myself so as to obliterate the last 4 years and eliminate George Bush from my consciousness. Realize that Korsakoff's only impairs short term memory -- long term memory is left intact. I figure if I could erase the last 4 years, I'd wake up in the Clinton years, and life would be sweet. But this is tricky business...I have these spells where I am convinced that Nixon is still president, and go raving on about the Cambodian invasion and the Kent State shootings. Someone please help!

        by catullus on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:14:12 AM PDT

      •  Beyond plausible

        And with a heckuva lot more information than the video provides. I'm particularly struck by the "involuntary, jerky eye movements." Holy cats!

        As to the disease not subsiding, the article states very clearly:

        The progress of Korsakoff's can be completely halted if the person:

            * Completely abstains from alcohol
            * Adopts a healthy diet with vitamin supplements.

        While it remains unclear whether additional thiamine helps people improve once the brain damage has already occurred, it may help prevent further damage occurring.

        Prognosis

        Any improvement usually occurs within a period of up to two years. It has been estimated that about a quarter of those affected make a very good recovery. About half make a partial recovery and need support to manage their lives. Another quarter make no recovery and may need long term care. Korsakoff's is likely to continue to progress if the person continues to drink heavily and has poor nutrition.

        Note the "ifs" and "mays". I'm not sure the video is as strong as it could be, though the juxtaposition of Bush now and then is powerful. I have to say I think the case would be better made by physicians.

        by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:45:51 AM PDT

      •  Getting Better?

        No. Alcoholic damaage is permanent.

        by JDavis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 10:44:16 AM PDT

        •  I was talking about this part

          They will also be observed to see whether their condition progresses without alcohol. If their condition does not change, they may be diagnosed with a form of dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease.

          Basically, it's saying that if you stop drinking, and don't improve, it's not Korsakoff's.  Presumably, that means if it is Korskoff's, it should get better if you stop drinking.

          Since this is basically a vitamin deficiency, I find it hard to believe that he's suffering from it now, and not when he was a public drunkard.  He's supposedly not drinking now.  And even if he is drinking again, he's got the best medical care in the world, as president.  They wouldn't let him suffer from a vitamin deficiency.

          Though he's ducked his "official" physical, a medical team travels with him everywhere he goes.  This is standard with any president; they don't go anywhere without a five-person medical team, including at least one doctor, and a bunch of medical equipment.    

          by randym77 on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 11:46:12 AM PDT

      •  Other explanations

        Stuttering, halting speech can also be caused by stress. George didn't have a care in the world 10 years ago.

        by Heraldblog on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:39:35 PM PDT

    •  Is there a Doctor in the house?

      Can we collect some of these diagnostic comments and start to build something with a bit of medical rigor to it - the comments seem to rotate around one or two topics, but with all the committees and advisory groups in this campaign - how do we get a few medical people to help us here?

      by ChicagoBruce on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:29:33 AM PDT

      •  This explains why he skipped his physical

        If he does have some sort of physical, psychological or medication induced condition, it would be fairly certain to turn up in a full physical.

        by JollyBuddah on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:57:23 AM PDT

        •  That sounds like it could effect flying abilities

          I saw some speculation that he was having difficulties landing the F 102 and was switched to two-seaters just before he quit flying.

          As for more recently, I am told that people having difficulties due to senility tend to be short-tempered. they are frustrated and blame others for treating them differently than they used to, even though the individuals does not think he is doing anything any differently. That could explain his temper.

          by Rick B on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:33:21 AM PDT

          •  anger management

            no, bush's anger management skills are lacking because 1) he's a pompous little pussy who never had to lift a finger on his own to get anything and 2) a tremendous increase in his stress level.

            bush is in for the fight of his life because Kerry is stronger at policy (20 years in senate vs. 4 years as president), smarter, and more gracious. As bush watches the "re"-election slip through his fingers, he'll get more and more tense and thus more prone to the kind of manic anger we witnessed on Friday. more administration officials admitting that they knew the intelligence was flawed just fans the flames of this fire.

            by jsepeta on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 05:07:34 AM PDT

    •  Otherwise known in the vernacular as

      "wet brain"
         You can read about Wernicke Korsakoff syndrome here
      http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000771.htm
          But let me just say that some symptoms include..
      Double vision
          Eye movements abnormalities.Eyelid drooping
          Loss of muscle coordination
             Unsteady, uncoordinated walking
      Loss of memory, can be profound
            Inability to form new memories
      and lest we forget....
           "Confabulation (making up stories to explain behavior that have little relation to reality)"
      Hallucinations.
          I really do think this is what we're dealing with here.

      by sula on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:22:09 AM PDT

      •  Symptoms related to Bush's situation

        Double vision: Seeing two terror threats instead of one.
        Eye movements abnormalities. Eyelid drooping: Just look at his face in footage from the last debate. He looks like he's developing palsy.
        Loss of muscle coordination: Might explain how badly he speaks.
        Unsteady, uncoordinated walking: Some call it swagger; others call it "dumbass who took cocaine with alcohol back in the day" is now dealing with his brain damage)
        Loss of memory, can be profound: No need for explanation.
        Inability to form new memories: Same thing.

        and lest we forget....

        Confabulation paint the (making up stories to explain behavior that have little relation to reality)" I swear they've developed a wheel-of-fortune that screws them over sick.
        Hallucinations. Musta had a bad dream, too though he didn't follow up with the insane resolve to kill him because "he made me wet the bed all the time."

        by BullitNutz on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:44:04 AM PDT

        •  This answers the mystery...

          1. of how a guy forgets he owns a lumber company.
             
          2. of how a guy cannot remember a single mistake.

          No wonder he has been postponing his physical...

          by digital drano on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:09:22 AM PDT

        •  He's not confabulating

          the way I understand it. Confabulating means remembering something completely false, like "a ride in an alien spaceship" or "a memory of having eggs for breakfast".

          From what I understand, it doesn't mean distorting and stretching reality to fit one's version of the facts. I think confabulation would sound a lot more like Reagan reminiscing about his World War II experiences, when he'd never left the Paramount backlot. Or like the time my grandmother told us she was 18 (Alzheimer's).

          I think Bush's tenous relationship with reality have more to do with denial and self-delusion. He might even believe his own lies if he repeats them often enough.

          by Helen in MD on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:16:07 AM PDT

          •  Not totally accurate

            Or like the time my grandmother told us she was 18 (Alzheimer's).

            This sounds to me more like she's forgotten everything since that point.  She's not making up that she's 18, she's just forgotten all the time since that point.  Alzheimers is a very sad disease, I'm sorry to say.  

            by Asak on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:51:21 AM PDT

            •  You're right

              I was thinking about faulty memory retrieval, but you're right, it doesn't really fit the pattern of confabulation at all. Alzheimer's has its own particular pattern of degeneration.

              by Helen in MD on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 05:17:35 AM PDT

            •  Alzheimers in my family

              The last time I saw my grandmother outside a long-term care facility or hospital, she was convinced I was 3 years old, in spite of the fact that I was in my 30s. She had regressed to a time about 30 years prior. As the disease progressed, she regressed to her own youth, to a time before her marriage to my grandfather. He would visit her, and she wouldn't remember being married to him for almost 60 years.

              Sad doesn't even begin to describe it. Devastating is probably more accurate.

              Mad Poodle

              by mad poodle on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 11:44:23 AM PDT

          •  Do imaginary WMD...

            ...or connections between Iraq and al Qaeda count?

            by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:51:13 AM PDT

  •  Probable cause of Bush's presenile dementia

    Coke - maybe - more likely "dry drunk syndrome" or "wet brain" as the AA counselors describe it.

    by ChicagoBruce on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:26:56 AM PDT

  •  He was just a part time liar then

    He's a full-time liar now.

    He had a lot fewer big whopping lies under his belt that he had to navigate around in 1994.  Got to be a lot more careful what you say when you're covering up all the time, which tends to slow down your speech.  That's all.

    by BCF on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 09:51:07 AM PDT

  •  Pharmcologically enhanced performance

    Clearly Bush's Friday performance was pharmcologically enhanced. What ever had him by the ass was letting go about two-thirds of the way through the debate. Bet the fly-no-the-wall consensus was that he crashed shortly after.

    by PhilTR on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:57:55 PM PDT

•  Was he

  reading that in 1994?

  If not, there's really something going on here.

  by DastardlyDan on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:01:10 AM PDT

  •  That's what I thought

    His eyes never move from the spot they are intently focusing on.  If he were speaking before a large audience, he would certainly look around a bit.

    In the second spot he starts to mispronounce a word and quickly corrects himself, this is something that often happens when reading, even to totally normal people.

    Obviously, one cannot pick his best performance from ten years ago and compare it with his worst performance recently and make a case for a disease.  We must also keep in mind that his father use to butcher the English language quite regularly too. East coast aristocratic types tend to come from a very small gene pool, which means this could be a genetic problem. That said, all those years of hard drinking could very well have affected his brain and it sure seems that recently he has made many more blunders.  Is it a case that he was managed more efficiently before or that whatever condition he has is getting worse?
    

    by SoLeft on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:41:59 AM PDT

    •  George HW Bush

      The difference is that George I always spoke like that and does it to this day. George W's condition has deteriorated over time. Had George W debated Gore like he debate Kerrey the first time he wouldn't have gotten within a mile of winning.

      by JDavis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 10:48:10 AM PDT

    •  Apples and oranges: is this truly a fair sample?

      I may be wrong, as I don't have the actual source video at my disposal, but it appears to me the "10 years ago" clips are of a portion of the debate that allowed the participants to read prepared materials from a teleprompter. The "current" clip is clearly an extemporaneous answer from the first debate.

      PB has always been an competent reader, if not leader. That's why he is loathe to debate. As long as he can channel text from elsewhere, he comes off reasonably well. But a real question to which he must formulate an answer? Well, that's the problem.

      So are both clips of the same thing? Or is one a sample of "reading a script" while the other is of "answering a question?"

      If the later is true, even the most partisan lefty would have to admit they are not exactly the same thing.

      Don't get me wrong--PB is a dolt of the first rate and totally unfit to be our President. But it is a mistake to make a huge deal of an actual "hard" impairment with faulty "soft" evidence. One need only consider how the Bush campaign was innoculated from the facts of a case via apparently faked documents in the "CBS/National Guard" debacle.

      If you're going to make a charge this, shall we say "pointed," better make sure your evidence is perfect. Otherwise you're just delivering obfuscation ammunition to the fair and balanced hacks on the other side.

      My advice: compare apples to apples and nail the guy. And beware the backfire. After all, Ronald Reagan proved the American people's ability, and even preference, in backing the obviously mentally deficient, but genial, geriatric.

      by canoeten on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 11:57:29 AM PDT

      •  No teleprompter

        there was none in the debate - obviously, he was rehearsed - but that would also be true today - the difference is startling.

        by ChicagoBruce on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:24:25 PM PDT

  •  that's what i thought

    He was probably reading from a teleprompter a speech which he had already rehearsed extensively.

    Also, the inner-ear receiving device he likely utilized in the 1st 2004 debate would help explain that performance.  I mean, talking and listening to a secret voice simultaneously--not an easy task, I'd wager.

    That said, however, I still can't imagine the Bush of today giving such a lucid speech as the one from ten years ago.  Even if he was being prompted in that old footage, he still seemed to have a good grasp of what he was saying (beyond soundbites), which is more than I can say of any recent speeches he's given.

    And by the way, was anyone else as shocked as I was at how much older he looks today?  He looks like he aged twenty, rather than ten, years between those clips.

    Kinda reminds me of the shocking comparisons of photos of Lincoln pre- and post-Civil War.

    by Flagstaff Ian on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:56:25 AM PDT

  •  Thanks

    I want Bush out as much as anyone, but I don't think we need to take the low road.  The truth is bad enough for these people.

    I need more information before I can weigh in on the meaning of that 1994 footage.  What was the venue?  Was he in a debate?  Was he speaking to a friendly press corps?  If he wasn't -- that is, if he could respond coherently while taking the questions of unsympathetic reporters or taking on his opponents -- I think we might be on to something.

    Otherwise, I think this footage is just unscientific, sort of the equivalent of taking "sensitive" or "global test" or "nuisance" out of context to hit Kerry.  Most telling to me: note that we have footage from one, just one, Bush event when he spoke coherently, while we have footage from multiple events where he's speaking poorly.  What could appear to be an effort to increase the data set -- look, Bush can't speak properly many, many times! -- could also be picking-and-choosing the best moments from the last 4 years.  I do realize that the body of readily accessible archival footage from Bush's days as governor or candidate for governor is dwarfed by that from the last few years, but still, I'm suspicious.

    At the same time, I've heard from people who saw Bush's campaign in 1994 and said that he wasn't incoherent then.  So there could be something to all this, then.

    by Karl the Idiot on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 10:40:03 AM PDT

    •  Fair comparison

      The 1994 footage was from a debate - and ALL of it is just like the two examples.

      It seems fairly clear, whatever piece of current footage you choose -blooper, fumble, or run-of-the-mill sound bite, he is DIFFERENT ten years later.

      In fact, a musician friend says his voice tone has changed by a perfect fifth - whatever that means.

      And how is concern over the mental health of a Commander in Chief taking the low road? The point is the point - this person is different than ten years ago - there is "a striking decline in his sentence by sentence speaking skills."

      by ChicagoBruce on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:27:36 PM PDT

    •  Yes we do need to take the low road

      if we want to win. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you don't take the high road when you're fighting Karl Rove. But this thing could backfire. I agree that the video is an apples and oranges comparison. And I would want second, third, and fourth opinions from the best neurologists in the country before I tried to make political hay of this.

      http://www.20six.co.uk/Heraldblog

      by Heraldblog on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:48:08 PM PDT

      •  Think I was Misunderstood

        My point is that if we use bad science, we're going to get burned by it in the end.

        If in fact he was all-around more coherent 10 years ago than he is today, then we're onto something, and we ought to run with this.  I'd just like to see more evidence, but I'm hearing that this video shows something true . . .

        Short version: As much as we'd like it to be so, this video 'proof' just isn't sufficient to make a judgement.  But it may be, owing to other evidence, that the video is correct.

        by Karl the Idiot on Tue Oct 12, 2004 at 05:45:58 PM PDT

  •  This was from the debate with Ann Richards

    This is extemporaneous! I watched this debate and still thought Ann beat him. He "lied" in this debate when he said he would eliminate welfare in Texas for able-bodied men. There was no welfare of that sort at the time - so I guess technically he was telling the truth.

    Nonetheless - he would never have won the governorship in Texas with his current performance. I lived in Texas for 40 years - but their standards are not even that low.

    by Jamais Vu on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:27:25 PM PDT

•  Woah

  I don't think i'd have minded the eloquent speaker seen 10 years ago.

  I'm not sure he'd have fallen for the nutjobs agenda, either.

  by Craziel on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:01:34 AM PDT

  •  Oh yes he would.

    Did you hear the content of what he was saying?  It was the early test version of the "compassionate conservative" with the nutjob just beneath the surface.

    He kept smirking, too.  While talking about trying 14-year-olds as adults, he was smirking.

    by Leslie in CA on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:10:41 AM PDT

    •  not even much beneath the surface

      His thing on locking up 14 year olds as adults, and boot camps, all that nonsense, was just a little crazy, especially when it's been proven that such actions make the situation WORSE.

      by amaranth on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:56:35 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, but still,

      he was quite good. Very eloquent, seemed to be knowledgeable. I think this man wouldn't have given in to his puppeteers so easily as the current Dubya. But then, maybe they preconditioned him for the job as president.

      Like: "Ey George come on, take a line." GWB: "But, no, Karl, I got enough problems with the booze. And after all, this is Camp David. I'm not supposed to do it here."
      Karl: "Eh, Georgie, no problem, nobody will find out. And after all, it gives you the energy to achieve your goals. It helps, you know that. Trust me!"
      W: "Okay Karl, you might be right." Snoooort.
      "Woohooo, that's good stuff, Karl. Now gimme a kiss!" Karl: "But George, Laura will find out!"
      W: "I don't care, I get her to do anything I want. I just give her some painkillers, and whoop, the screamin' and naggin' stops. Now kiss me sweetkarl."

      And that's how it started. I know, I was there.

      Best wishes, Sharon.  

      by cwkraus4clark on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:03:57 AM PDT

  •  He already had.

    Rove was all over him.

    And there are a few verbal gaffes in the "then" clip--but they're subtle. Bush does do better with prepared speeches (on the stump, for example) than we've seen him do in the debates even now. There's a tremendous difference between a rote speech and off-the-cuff responses in what Bush surely perceives to be a hostile environment.

    by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:41:45 AM PDT

    •  Whoops

      It was a debate. But I very recently read an article about his gubernatorial campaign. He was made to stick very, very closely to discussion of only four issues for which there were already bills in the Democratic TX legislature, so he could take credit when they passed, which they were bound to do anyway. Now he has four years of grievous errors to defend on far more than four issues.

      by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:44:56 AM PDT

•  Whatevers Wrong With Him

  It's only going to get worse.

  by JenAtlanta on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:03:10 AM PDT

  •  Evil is what's wrong with him.

    All that pent up evil, just chewing away at his brain.  

    by Tomato Observer on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:16:23 AM PDT

    •  so how come

      Cheney can form complete sentences? :-)

      by Muboshgu on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:17:30 AM PDT

      •  he's turning all his evil energy

        toward his sock puppet.

        by Tomato Observer on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:18:58 AM PDT

      •  The evil

        Cheney's evil focused on his heart.

        Bush's evil focused on his brain.

        by Rick B on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:35:40 AM PDT

•  Interesting

  Where does the footage in the first clip come from?  If it's from a debate or other unscripted speech, then yes, there is quite a difference.

  by dtj on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:04:41 AM PDT

  •  Source of footage - KERA TV Dallas

    It's from the debates where he beat Ann Richards (no slouch) - ALL of the footage has him performing at this level - it's no fluke - whether you like the agenda or not, the degree of competence in speaking and connecting thoughts is startling!!!

    The doctor who made the "presenile dementia" diagnosis noted that is George was OK ten years ago and not OK today, that's a big difference from his always having been this way.

    If he was better ten years ago and worse today, that is an indication that something is organically wrong.

    by ChicagoBruce on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:12:19 AM PDT

  •  The Texas Gubernatorial Debate

    n/t

    by pellucidity on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:13:10 AM PDT

•  If Sinclair doesn't back down

  Run it on November 1.

  by TarheelDem on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:06:12 AM PDT

  •  Excellent sugggestion!

    And it is totally fair because it is simply showing himself, not some second or third hand "account" of something. It would be devastating.

    by Wee Mama on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 10:13:17 AM PDT

•  Use words from 10 years ago against him

  in the clip from 19094, he argued for unsealing juvenile records so that law enforcement could know what they were dealing with.

  Unsealing records makes them public.

  So isn't it time, Mr. President, that all records involving arrests and related subject from your past be released, icnluding the driving records from Texas which you had purged,?  Will you answer the simple question:  how many times have you been arrested?

  by teacherken on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:09:23 AM PDT

  •  Hey Hey Hey

    The sounds like you learned that at the Karl Rove Evil Campaign Management School.

    by JDavis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

•  My god.

  I really had no idea it was that bad.

  What the hell is going on ?

  by jblumes on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:15:54 AM PDT

  •  are you surprised?

    Ronald Reagan was losing it for quite some time during his 2nd term.

    by Tomato Observer on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:17:34 AM PDT

    •  longer, I think

      I suspect he started to deteriorate when he was shot.  

      That is common with Alzheimer's patients.  If you're young and healthy, anaesthesia doesn't do any permanent harm.  It kills some brain cells, but you have plenty left.  Not so people prone to Alzheimer's, especially if they are elderly.  They don't have any brain cells to spare, and the deterioration in their mental function after anaesthesia can be striking.  

      CNN recently had a special on presidents' medical treatment.  They asked their in-house doctor/correspondent, Sanjay Gupta, if he thought Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer's while he was in office.  He hesitated a long moment, then answered, "Yes."  He's a neurologist, so he knows what he's talking about.  I'm surprised he went out on that limb; I was expecting the usual "I can't diagnose him without seeing him" stuff.
       

      by randym77 on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:01:21 AM PDT

•  Recommend this !

  by jblumes on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:16:50 AM PDT

•  Please, get this on the 'Recommended Diaries' list

  And do everything possible to get as many people to see it.

  As all of you are very much aware -- THIS IS NO JOKING MATTER. The dude is dangerous and he may not realize what he is doing -- but those neoconistas pushing their agenda know exactly what they are doing.

  by understandinglife on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:50:12 AM PDT

•  Someone

  else mentioned the following malady as a possible reason for Bush's actions during the debates:

  Tardive Syndromes

  Tardive (meaning "late onset") dyskinesia (meaning "abnormal involuntary movement") is a term used to describe a syndrome occurring as a result of treatment with medications that block the receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine in the brain. Dopamine is involved in producing movement. If the receptors are blocked over a period of time, some individuals may develop uncontrolled involuntary movements. Onset of symptoms can range from a few months to several years after initiation of drug therapy. In contrast to a tardive syndrome (which as the name implies occurs only after extended exposure to a causative agent), symptoms may also occur within a few hours to days after initiation of drug therapy. This is called an acute reaction. Acute reactions are more easily managed and usually completely resolve within a few days.

  Tardive dyskinesia was first described in the 1950s in patients treated with antipsychotic medications. The tardive syndromes can affect anyone exposed to medications that block dopamine receptors; however, women, the elderly and persons with psychiatric disorders (particularly affective disorders) are at increased risk. The incidence is difficult to estimate as symptoms and severity can vary widely and many cases are probably undiagnosed, but it is believed that up to 50 % of persons with prolonged exposure to medications that block dopamine receptors will develop a tardive syndrome. The tardive syndromes include classic tardive dyskinesia, tardive dystonia, and tardive akathisia.

  Classic tardive dyskinesia most commonly appears as repetitive, somewhat rhythmical involuntary movements. Typical involuntary movements include tongue thrusting, lip smacking, lip pursing, grimacing and chewing movements, rocking of the trunk, pelvic thrusting, rotation of the ankles or legs, marching in place, irregular respirations, and repetitive sounds such as humming or grunting.

  Tardive dystonia may also be seen as part of the tardive syndrome. Dystonia is characterized by sustained muscle spasms causing involuntary movement and abnormal postures of the affected area. Some examples include torticollis (the head and neck are turned to the side), retrocollis (the head and neck are pulled back between the shoulder blades) and blepharospasm (the eyelids are squeezed forcefully shut). It can also cause excessive arching of the back. Tardive dystonia clinically appears identical to idiopathic or primary dystonia (meaning "of unknown cause") but is classified as a secondary dystonia since it is the result of a known agent.

  Tardive akathisia is the third type of tardive syndrome. Akathisia refers to a feeling of restlessness often accompanied by anxiety. In milder cases, the individual may complain of a sensation of inner restlessness and be unable to sit quietly without fidgeting . In more severe cases, the individual may actually be unable to remain seated and must pace or march around the room. Their sense of anxiety increases if they are unable to move about.

  While the above tardive syndromes are characterized by excessive movements, individuals may also experience a drug-induced parkinsonism which appears clinically like Parkinson's's disease. With drug-induced parkinsonism, there is an absence of movement. Individuals have slow movements with rigid or stiff muscles and tremor. When walking, a shuffling gait is present with a stooped posture and diminished arm swing. Facial expression is blunted causing a very solemn appearance. Of all the tardive syndromes, drug-induced parkinsonism is the most reversible. It resolves after the medication is stopped, but this may take up to 18 months.

  Some medications that are known to cause tardive syndromes include:

  Medications for gastrointestinal problems:

      * metoclopramide (Reglan)
      * prochlorperazine (Compazine)

  Medications for cough:

      * promethazine (Phenergan)

  Medications for depression:

      * amoxapine (Ascendin)
      * perphenazine/amitriptyline (Triavil)

  Antipsychotics or Neuroleptics:

      * chlorpromazine (Thorazine)
      * thioridazine (Mellaril)
      * trifluoperazine (Stelazine)
      * perphenazine (Trilafon)
      * fluphenazine (Prolixin)
      * thiothixene (Navane)
      * haloperidol (Haldol)
      * pimozide (Orap)

  Diagnosis is based on the patient's history and a thorough clinical examination. The criteria for diagnosing a tardive syndrome can vary but is generally agreed to be exposure of an individual to a dopamine receptor blocking agent within 6 months of onset of symptoms which persist at least 1 month after stopping the offending drug. There is no laboratory test or x-ray to confirm the diagnosis; although, such tests may rule out other conditions if the diagnosis is questionable.

  The longer the drug is taken, the greater the chance of developing a tardive syndrome. Once the symptoms are noticed, the best course of action is to stop the medication if possible. Your physician will work out a tapering schedule to discontinue the drug as most should not be abruptly stopped. With chronic psychiatric conditions, this may not be an option and in these instances the medication should be kept at the lowest possible dose.

  Symptoms may temporarily worsen after the medication is stopped, but avoiding this type of medication offers the best hope for a remission. Symptoms may lessen or even disappear if the medication is restarted or the dose is increased, but movements will eventually break through with an increase in severity and be more resistant to treatment.

  For some, symptoms may first be noticed after the medication has been stopped (withdrawal emergent tardive dyskinesia). Once again, the best course of action is to remain off the offending drug.

  Tardive dyskinesias are challenging both to the patient and medical profession. The best treatment may simply be to withdraw the offending medication and allow the symptoms to resolve on their own. If symptoms are intolerable to the patient, oral medications may be used. Some studies suggest vitamin E may hasten the resolution of symptoms. Benzodiazepines such as clonazepam (Klonopin) may provide some relief of involuntary movements and anxiety. The main side effect seen with this type of drug is drowsiness. Dopamine depleting drugs are probably the most effective medications used to treat tardive dyskinesia. Two commonly used drugs in this class are reserpine and methyldopa. These medications have side effects including depression, apathy, lowered blood pressure and parkinsonism.

  Tardive akathisia may be treated with beta blockers such as propranolol (Inderal). Side effects can include slowed heart rate, lowered blood pressure and depression. It should be used cautiously in persons with certain types of heart and respiratory diseases.

  Tardive dystonia may be relieved with anticholinergics such as trihexyphenidyl (Artane) or benztropine (Cogentin). If is important to note that these medications (while beneficial in some cases of tardive dystonia) will typically worsen tardive dyskinesia. Certain types of tardive dystonia may also be treated effectively with local injections of botulinum toxin.

  Treatment may require trials of different medications at different doses and a great deal of patience. Just as each individual is unique, so must the medication regimen be tailored to their specific needs. While some tardive syndromes are persistent, most individuals gain some degree of relief with oral medications and the natural resolution of symptoms as time off the offending agent increases. Some experts believe the time an affected individual was exposed to the causative medication can be correlated to the length of time needed for symptoms to resolve.

  Research is currently underway in both the treatment and prevention of tardive syndromes. As our understanding of the neurochemistry of the brain increases, new medications are being developed that spare the dopamine receptors involved in syndromes such as tardive dyskinesia.

  by Momagainstthedraft on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:25:06 AM PDT

  •  Thinking of that segment in F9/11

    where Dubya is preparing to go on camera and makes those faces straight on.  How often have you seen a grownup whose calling is other than dramatic arts do that sort of thing?

    by arlam on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:24:57 AM PDT

    •  Making faces in F9/11

      Nah, if it was Tardive Dyskinesia making those faces would be involuntary, and therefore he would be unable to stop making them during his speech.

      The fact is, he was about to tell the country that we had just gone to war, and he was having fun making faces at the camera.

      by Helen in MD on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:39:46 AM PDT

•  I'm not totally buying this but..

  are any of these diseases caused or brought on by stress?

  If there's anything that the Presidency brings, it is stress.

  He might have something, which would be unfortunate, but i'm not totally sure yet

  but then again, I am not a doctor either.

  by RBH on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:33:13 AM PDT

  •  not a chance.

    What all the upstream posts are talking about is a condition called "cerebral atrophy"--basically, shrivelled brain. it's the result of taking too many drugs and drinking too much booze. it also happens to people who get hit over the head too many times.

    It IS progressive, and it is not treatable. it can be easily seen on a simple CAT scan.

    by susanp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:00:46 AM PDT

  •  btw...stress turns your hair grey?

    maybe. but if Bush's severe cognitive decline is caused by stress, it's the drinking to handle it that's the problem.

    remember the pretzel incident.

    by susanp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:02:35 AM PDT

    •  are you saying

      you think he was drunk during the pretzel incident?  

      By the way, are there any other (at least partially) substantiated theories going around that Bush has either resumed drinking or never stopped in the first place?

      by Flagstaff Ian on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:06:56 AM PDT

      •  Absolut-ly.

        after 20+ years working in ERs I think it's safe to say that the most common reasons for facial trauma in males are 1. alcohol, 2. cintact with a fist or 3. both 1 and 2.

        given the lame reasons that were put out to explain the Bush's mishaps I am even more suspicious. healthy people just plain do NOT pass out choking on a pretzel the way it was explained.

        the Bush is well know to continue his habit of drinking non-alcoholic beer, which, by the way contains alcohol. I think it's quite likely that he was on a bender at the time.

        by susanp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:49:46 PM PDT

  •  I agree, its a solid case for stress...

    Bush was the President during the biggest attack and intellegence failure in our countries history.  He waged a war which was virtually proven to be a mistake.  Not to mention any of the economic woes.  Half of the country hates him, and most of the world hates him.  His presidency is quite possibly the biggest failure in this country's history.  Sounds like the most stressful job in the world to me.  

    You know Occam's Razor:
    ``the best model is the simplest one---the one requiring the fewest assumptions and modifications in order to fit the observations''

    by bcorbs on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:29:39 PM PDT

•  What about the Sharpies?

  As long as we're engaging in rampant speculation, would the constant use of Sharpie pens reduce cognitive function?

  by asdf100022000 on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:37:06 AM PDT

  •  Well

    If that's the case, then those of use who have used Sharpies for 20 years or so as laboratory researchers would all be completely screwed up.

    by Plutonium Page on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:00:44 AM PDT

  •  It does for me

    but then, I've been chemically injured, and solvents send me into the stratosphere.  Sharpies aren't the worst by far, but they're worse than ballpoint by a long way, maybe a 4 on a 10-scale.

    If you want a list of things that can cause a decline in cognitive function, find out what kids are huffing.  Honest to God, the purchase of dry-erase markers is restricted to those of ages 18+ at my hardware store -- and I bet it isn't to keep teenagers from making TNT and blowing up their schools.

    by Torquill on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 05:25:09 AM PDT

  •  Fumes

    Sharpies give off fumes!   If I used a fat Sharpie every time I made a note I'd have a headache all day long.

    Ones are for trolls, and the comment is correct, diagnosis is for pros.  From our desk chairs it is difficult to home in on exactly which neurodegenerative problems are affecting George Bush, but we can be fairly sure that all is not right in his head.  I want him both drug tested and given a full physical workup!

    Someone should edit that long movie down to something useful.   It could be really powerful if it cut to the chase in about half of the time.

    by kate mckinnon on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 11:54:06 AM PDT

•  add to that

  do we have footage of 2000 Gore/Bush debates to go by.  I know he wasn't as far gone then as he is now, but it would be interesting to compare 1994 to 2000 to 2004.  Could indicate a slow but noticeable decline in cognitive abilities.

  Remember also that Dean writes in his new book how he got along with Bush back when they were governors, thought he was articulate and definitely NOT stupid, and was always a stand-up kind of guy.  

  And, since we are all speculating out of our asses here, maybe this is the reason he is putting off his annual physical.  Anyone know what kind of tests would be included in a standard Presidential physical that may indicate some type of neurological disorder?

  by ziggy on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 01:45:39 AM PDT

  •  Can we track 1994 to 2000 to 2004?

    This is a good question - I can't really recall any "Bushisms" from those debates - or this hesitancy or "striking decline in his sentence by sentence speaking skills."

    Gore had his own debating inadequacies and Bush was also able to win the personality side of things. Back then, don't think we were quite as worried - sort of a "how bad could it be?" thing.

    Media should get on this and do some comparison and tracking - this is not an unreasonable task for the media - is it?

    by ChicagoBruce on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:12:09 AM PDT

    •  For mainstream media...

      yes, that is asking too much.  Since the whole thing is highly speculative, any media outlet that attempted to do a serious examination of the possibility of a nascent mental disorder in Bush BEFORE hard facts were on the table would be accused of having a partisan agenda.

      Not saying I agree with it.  Just saying I think that's what would happen.

      by Flagstaff Ian on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 06:36:29 AM PDT

    •  The Internets remember.

      BBC, 9/00

      A mother of a list from About.com

      by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:00:59 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to see that, too.

    If it showed he was having more trouble then than in '94, I'll be more likely to agree with there being some kind of medical problem. Right now I just see him as under a lot of stress. He feels persecuted because of all the flack he's (rightly) getting and it's making him insecure and angry.

    This isn't something I want in a president, either, though. It's a stressful job ("hard work!") and we need someone who can handle it.

    by cshardie on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 11:23:41 AM PDT

•  Did you notice the 2nd Gore debate?

  I thought it was odd during the second debate how often George snorted. It was very strange. Like he had just done a line or two.

  by Picasso on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:35:35 AM PDT

  •  I've been snorting a lot the last couple of days

    ... but that's because I have a bad cold.  While it does seem that Bush has gone downhill, I'm not comfortable with long-distance diagnosis, and I don't like it much better when our side does it than when someone like Krauthammer does it for the other side.
    

    by Joe Buck on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:08:48 AM PDT

•  It looks bad for us to diagnose him

  ...since quite honestly, I wonder how many of us here actually have the degrees and knowledge to back up copying chunks of the DSM IV to attribute things like Korsakoff's syndrome and dementia to our president. I agree completely that he is visibly and obviously mentally ill... I remember watching his "omg iraq is in trouble" press conference during or right after the democratic primary, in which my entire household instantly and independently jumped to the conclusion of "wow, he looks medicated." And it's a definite priority to get the message out to the media that Bush is unhinged, as it's an extreme danger to our nation to have a man in charge that isn't mentally fit for the job. But specific diagnosis actually hurts our claims- the diagnosis will invariably be challenged, and gives the other side lots of ammuntion. Remember, the republican strategy in debate is to always argue against the single weakest point ad nauseum, even if that weak point is rather irrelevant to the overall thesis. Bottom line, it's much harder for the other side to prove that bush isn't going nuts, but it's very easy for them to prove that he doesn't have Korsakoff's, for example.

  Almost anyone who sees this video, especially an edited version that removes most of the commentary, will jump to the conclusion that he's gone batsh*t. But if we jump to an unpalatable conclusion for them, they may ignore the greater issue once they've seen that we were wrong about a minor part of it.

  by kapitulouno on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:45:36 AM PDT

  •  he's faking

    this doesn't show that he's getting dumber -- it shows that he's pretending to be dumb to "relate" to "regular folks." remember that he got nailed in his 1978 congressional campaign for saying he'd never been on a farm before. he vowed never to look like an east coast college boy again.

    He's not dumb -- he's smart enough to know when to look dumb. Please read the Dumb Theory:

    http://lasercub.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_lasercub_archive.html

    by lasercub on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:51:59 AM PDT

    •  "Act like a Dumbshit

      ...and they'll treat you as an equal."--J.R. "bob" Dobbs

      by binFranklin on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:03:27 AM PDT

    •  Dumb is in the eye of the beholder.

      I'd agree that he's cunning, but I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the shed by a long shot.

      by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:04:27 AM PDT

    •  I disagree

      While he definitely does employ that fake-farmboy bullshit a lot of the time, this performance wasn't one of those instances.

      If he was taking that angle, he would have been ingratiating, making with the jokes and homespun Tex-isms.  He would have seemed charming and relaxed (for people dumb enough to buy that shit, anyway).

      Instead he came off like a bitchy, menopausal church secretary being drilled about the mysterious disappearance of the Spring Fling bakesale proceeds.

      by Flagstaff Ian on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:21:34 AM PDT

  •  Insist he get a physical

    That is not at all unreasonable.  It wouldn't make anyone look bad to do this.  Write a letter to the editor asking why he hasn't had one recently.

    by Time Waits for no Woman on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:51:03 AM PDT

    •  i concur

      getting a physical and a cat scan would do wonders to make me feel a bit (just a bit) safer with this lying jerkoff in the white house. note how Bush avoided the physical due to his "hectic campaign schedule". he must really be afraid of something if he's avoiding a physical which takes what, a couple of hours at most? it's not like he has to wait in line to see the doctor like the rest of us.

      by jsepeta on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 05:19:59 AM PDT

  •  Particularly w/ the video in question.

    I'll say it again--the juxtaposition of now and then is powerful. If left to itself, it could certainly sway some people, even avid Bush supporters. But the video as a whole doesn't support its own diagnosis. It lacks credibility, somehow (if you'll excuse the expression.)

    by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:09:39 AM PDT

•  Best of Furious George: 90 seconds from debate 2

  Just posted this as a diary, but since it's related I thought I'd post it here too

  Here's my first rough attempt at editing together some of Furious George's best moments from the second debate.

  Streaming Windows Media

  All I did was cut and paste -- and, with the exception of the last clip, everything is exactly in the order it occured in the debate.

  I'm not aiming for any semantic meaning to the flow of the clips, but I am trying for an emotional arc, of sorts.

  Reactions and critique greatly appreciated.
  

  by brahn on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:49:17 AM PDT

  •  Rating you a 4 for the video.

    Superb. Bush as raving lunatic. Very well done.

    by catullus on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:41:20 AM PDT

    •  Sorry, but I think

      Bush's fans and a many leaners would love this aggressively argumentative side of him. Of course the substance is BS, but that wouldn't matter to them.

      by dinazina on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 09:54:40 AM PDT

•  he's faking

  this video doesn't show that he's getting dumber -- it shows that he's pretending to be dumb to "relate" to "regular folks." remember that he got nailed in his 1978 congressional campaign for saying he'd never been on a farm before. he vowed never to look like an east coast college boy again.
  He's not dumb -- he's smart enough to know when to look dumb. Please read the Dumb Theory:

  http://lasercub.blogspot.com/2004_08_01_lasercub_archive.html
  

  by lasercub on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:52:53 AM PDT

  •  You already posted this.

    by Plutonium Page on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:02:22 AM PDT

    •  yeah

      sorry -- didn't see it, then realized after the second post that i'd posted the first as a response to an earlier comment. my bad.

      by lasercub on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:07:01 AM PDT

•  "Wired boy's" Philippine success, not

  Strut'n shrub mentioned during debate 2 progress in places like the Philippines in his war on terror.

  Guess some one down there wanted to send chimper a NOT on that one:

  Philippine Ferry Blast Said Caused by Bomb
  By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

  Published: October 11, 2004

  Filed at 1:10 a.m. ET

  MANILA, Philippines (AP) -- A bomb, likely planted by the al-Qaida-linked Abu Sayyaf group, caused a ferry fire that killed over 100 people in the Philippines' worst terrorist attack, an investigation concluded Monday.

  Abu Sayyaf, which is on Washington's list of international terror groups, claimed responsibility immediately after the Feb. 27 fire aboard the Superferry 14, saying it planted a bomb inside a television set that one of its members carried aboard.

  by understandinglife on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 02:53:47 AM PDT

•  OK

  Wow.  I was impressed by the 1994 George W. Bush.  He had good diction, command of the issues, and seemed vibrant and full of life.

  Now, he seems like a crazy old kook.

  If the 1994 George W. Bush were president, I'd feel a lot better.

  And the "he's acting" hypothesis isn't very good; I mean, he wasn't nearly that bad in 1994 and he got elected; and if he's been publicly taking a dive for the past 4+ years I have nothing but scorn and disdain for the man.

  by Power on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:00:45 AM PDT

  •  Ack!

    I know I wouldn't feel better. It was a blessing to have a much blunted Reagan's brain in office. When RR was governor of California, he was pure, unadulterated evil and SO much scarier because he was ON his game.

    by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:13:11 AM PDT

•  I don't think this really means anything

  I'm not a Bush supported by any means, and I haven't read the article in the Atlantic (though I probably will now), but I don't think this video offers anything conclusive.

  If I had an agenda to make Bush look like he had "presenile dementia", then I would make a video of a few minutes of good speaking from ten years ago to his worst flubs today. That is, I'd make this exact same video, if I had that agenda.

  Education funding and prosecution of teenagers isn't as clear-cut as "war" on terrorism. Not to mention I think Bush plays up his own apparent idiocy so he doesn't look as stiff as his opponents.

  While I believe Bush had his ass handed to him in each debate, I laughed when he would slyly wink at members of the audience.

  by Jesse on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:01:53 AM PDT

  •  correction

    That should be "not a Bush supporter"...

    by Jesse on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:03:01 AM PDT

    •  Lord knows

      None of us are Bush-supported!

      by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:39:12 AM PDT

  •  not entirely convinced....

    First, for me, I wish they'd used better clips from recently. I don't think they are as demonstrative as they could be. There are much more painful moments on tape. Second, what about enormous stress and pressure? The position he is in now is HUGELY more stressful and higher pressure than being Governor.

    I for one can sound like a complete idiot under pressure when I'm feeling insecure, and very articulate and even quite witty when confident and at ease. It can be quite a contrast. I'm not defending Bush or saying he's not an idiot. I'm just wondering if it's a stretch to assume he's got dementia.

    by Hollywood Liberal on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:26:25 AM PDT

    •  Agreed

      Futhermore, in Texas he was the challenger, and there must have been much less material to memorize. As incumbent president, not only is he in the position of defending an abysmal record, but he has to talk about a much wider range of subjects. He doesn't even like the job to begin with, apart from the parts where he gets to tell people what to do.

      Personally, I think there's a mild degeneration due to drugs & alcohol in his past (and possibly a little in the present) combined with stress and in-over-his-headness. Nothing sinister, but nothing to sneeze at either.

      by Helen in MD on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:51:40 AM PDT

      •  And he's dumber than a bag of hair.

        by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:15:10 AM PDT

•  and hes not nasty either

  what he's saying isn't my favorite in terms of policy, but hes not being a jerk and he sounds like he at least knows what he's talking about.

  It's dramatic to see what people's expectations of competence in politicians have degenerated to. We used to expect the competence that th 94 Bush seemed to have, even if we didn't agree.

  by jkennerl on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:02:12 AM PDT

•  Counter-productive

  This kind of baseless speculation is a little childish and counter-productive. There is a similar site showing how Kerry is mentally unbalanced. Anyone can be caricaturized like this, the republicans are trying to dodge the issues and caricaturize Kerry all the time. Bush is just under stress, not crazy.

  by bobrodsky on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:02:31 AM PDT

  •  joke?

    On rereading the original post, maybe it was just meant to be a joke and I missed it.

    by bobrodsky on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:03:27 AM PDT

  •  A while back--

    --there was a thread suggesting that Zell Miller had Alzheimer's, which really was out of bounds, for several reasons. First, there's no definitive pre-mortem diagnosis for Alzheimers, second, Miller's "symptoms" weren't that severe, and third, there are obvious, simple, and crystal-clear ways to explain Miller's political and emotional behavior over the last two years without resorting to armchair diagnosis.

    This isn't that. I'm not a neurologist, and chances are neither is anyone else on this thread, but there are a few important differences that make this a legitimate question.

    First, it doesn't really matter if a senator is crazy. Hell, Strom Thurmond got better the more senile he got, because his comparatively moderate staff was pulling all the strings (and besides, he mellowed out). But it does matter if doctors are noticing things like this in the POTUS. Oh, sure, we all remember when the wingnut medical corps remotely diagnosed Clinton with insanity brought on by a raging syphillis infection--but that was harmless, because it didn't really fit with his observed behavior. All the various neuropathies that people are suggesting here really could be at work--and there's good prima facie evidence that SOMETHING is at work.

    Second, the last time we soft-pedaled an incumbent president's deteriorating mental status, we got Reagan's second term. I don't think it made any of us feel better to say "Aha! I knew it!" when he announced his illness, just five years after he left office, and goodness knows how long after diagnosis. We're talking about this because we have doubts--well, you know, doubts are a reason not to vote for someone.

    And third, and in all seriousness (because I really do respect people who are still willing to be high-minded at this late hour), if we're wronging him, if this really is completely unfair--boo freakin' hoo. If this is all the further we sink into the mud in the service of booting him out of office, we won't even have to change our shoes.

    by Matt on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:52:44 AM PDT

    •  I agree completely...

      ...with your boo-hoo point, but I still don't think this video is the best way to make the case.

      by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:17:55 AM PDT

•  Would this explain

  his horrible errors in judgement?

  It would certainly make him very easy to manipulate, like his Uncle Dick and Uncle Karl are doing.

  by Plutonium Page on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:03:34 AM PDT

•  This line of attack is lame

  Bush has been a god-awful president and needs to go down.  His record of "accomplishments" are all that need to be attacked, imho.

  Cherry-picking clips from now and then to make a point and making armchair diagnoses is something i expect the other side to do.

  by finocchio68 on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:05:43 AM PDT

•  I don't think it's crazy.

  we know he's got a grandiose personality disorder. this is bigger. I think that he probably has frontal lobe dementia (we in Emergency Medicine call it "squash rot"-sorry)
  that affects all aspects of personality, intellect, memory, interpersonal relations. lack of emotional control, regressive behavior and disinhibition are common.

  by susanp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:06:18 AM PDT

•  Implant this meme!

  Dementia?  A back brace hidden under his suitcoat?  What is the status of the pResident's health?

  by jazzmaniac on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:07:25 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, and why did he skip his physical?

    Again.

    by Democarp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:22:54 AM PDT

    •  ...and will stem cells help? n/t

      by arlam on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:32:10 AM PDT

    •  LTEs!!!

      by segmentis on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 07:21:03 AM PDT

  •  And why do his advance people insist

    he have a perfectly flat, level surface on which to walk, even if such needs to be specially constructed for the occasion?

    by Democarp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:49:01 AM PDT

    •  The flat earth society

      Huh? Really? Perhaps they want to avoid Gerald Ford moments. Perhaps they want to avoid Gerald Ford moments being renamed George Dubya Bush moments.

      by Helen in MD on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:58:23 AM PDT

    •  walking carefully

      I notice that when he walks down the stairs from Air Force One, he hangs onto the handrail and carefully observes the steps below as he comes to them.  Like a person older than he is might do.  

      by hawkseye on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 03:59:28 AM PDT

      •  that's nothing

        I do that, and I'm no older than Bush. I've ALWAYS done that. I do it on the steps in my house, and I've lived there 20 yrs. I don't like falling. I don't like feeling like I might fall.

        I'm not a physical wreck, I don't have a balance problem, I'm not arthritic. I just don't want to fall.

        And if I had cameras on me all the time, you bet I'd be really careful not to.

        by mmacdDE on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 11:04:48 AM PDT

    •  the park in NYC

      i remember reading (here maybe) that NYC had to construct a flat plank walkway in one of the park's where Bush was commemorating 9/11 this year.  the city workers made comments like 'fancy boy can't even get his feet dirty in the mud' or something to that effect, but maybe that had something to do with him being on a flat surface at all times.  

      of course, we probably are over-reaching here, but it's kind of fun to speculate.

      by ziggy on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 04:36:37 AM PDT

      •  Flat-Earth Bush

        Right -- I've read a few articles snarking about how Bush doesn't like to have his feet touch dirt, prompting the temporary-but-costly installation of all kinds of ramps and walkways.  I assumed that it was his fondness for ceremony and monarchical touches.  But if it's actually because of this flat-surface thing, hmm, very interesting.

        by FlipYrWhig on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at 12:34:13 PM PDT

        •  When I first read about the walkways

          my first thought was that they enabled him to walk purposefully without having to look down.

          by Democarp on Mon Oct 11, 2004 at