I can't believe this needs to be said

I look at Daily Kos today, and I am filled with fear. I'm not being hyperbolic or dramatic; I'm honestly afraid. Do I even need to say the following? Does it even need to be said? Can we have come so far that we can't even agree on this?

First it was the reaction to the Roberts vote, which caused Obama to chime in. Then, it was the response to Obama. Now, today, it's diary after diary of people getting completely unhinged, getting the vapors on a day when the other side clearly admitted defeat.

I'm going to say the following, and many of you are going to hate me for it. But, unfortunately, it needs to be said. I can't believe it needs to be said, but here we are.

1. The average American is never, never, never going to believe that George W. Bush is a fascist, a sociopath, or a bloodthirsty maniac. And that's not because the average American is an idiot. It's because Bush is none of those things. He's not a fascist; to utter otherwise exhibits a shocking disregard for the real victims of fascism. He's not a sociopath. In my line of work, I see sociopaths on a daily basis. He ain't one, and I challenge anyone to find a psychiatrist willing to make that diagnosis without having met the man (remind you of Frist at all?). And, more likely than not, he's probably not bloodthirsty. Most Democrats I knew, and certainly a majority of nationally elected Democrats in federal government, voted for the war and supported it initially. If you accepted the existence of wmd (which Bush clearly did), invading Iraq was a defensible position. The lack of wmd is Bush's fault, to be sure. He was in charge at the time. But given that the head of the CIA told him it was a slam-dunk case, and given that Bush is an idiot, do we really have to go all the way to questioning his humanity? Can't we just agree that he's unfit for his office and leave it at that? Because if you continue calling him Chimpy McSlaughter, you're not going to rally anyone to your cause. Remember that song about going around carrying pictures of Chairman Mao? Same deal;

2. Most Americans believe this is a great country. Not could be, not should be, not would be but for the other side...but is. You're not going to convince many Americans that America is not the #1 source of good in this world. If that's your goal in life, be prepared for a difficult, fruitless, isolating experience. No one is going down that road with you. And why should they? 1620, a bunch of laypeople set out for Virginia, and ended up in Massachusetts. They had to take handouts and charity from the resident native population. Perhaps half their number died that very winter. 150 years later, the descendants of that stock, left to die in a cold unfamiliar wilderness, invited the king of the world's only superpower to  a rousing game of hide and go fuck yourself. And with nothing more than grit, determination, and squirreling guns, they beat the British. That is the American story. That has always been the American story, and it will be there still when we are all laid in our graves. The American story was there on both sides at Gettysburg, when Pickett's boys left the comfort of the woods to take the long walk for home and hearth, and the blue on Seminary Ridge discharged their duty in turn. The American story was read aloud at Normandy, in the snow drifts of the Bulge, it was imprinted on the Frozen Chosen who were abandoned by their country after Inchon, and yes, it was there in spirit when American marines defended Khe San. The results weren't always positive. In fact, much of the time, the results were stupid, pointless, or even downright evil. But we did not strike out on behalf of evil, and we never will. Ours is a story of men and women of the possible, as they saw it. No, we are not an infallible people. No men are. But if a problem must be solved, and its only solution is ingenuity, sweat, determination and blood, there is no other people most Americans would want on their side but their neighbor;

3. To that end, the war in Iraq is not unpopular because it's immoral. Most Americans don't not support the war because of the lack of wmd's. They don't support it because we're losing. If we'd won the war by now, most Americans wouldn't care about much else. Winning in Iraq would certainly be significant, so significant that it would, in most Americans' minds, put all the war-related controversy to bed once and for all. Think about it: were we really justified to go into Lebanon? Panama? Somalia? Granada? But we either won in those places or got out before we really lost. Ergo, most American's can't find those places on a map;

4. A united America, conservative, liberal, independent, and totally apolitical, is all to the good. Not just in some bright, shiny postcard sense, but in the sense that we are all more intelligent when we talk to one another, work out our differences, seek the tough compromise over the easy insult, and see the job through until the job is done;

5. Most conservatives probably know that Bush is a failed president. They may fight it now because of the divided nature of our country, but they know it. How many conservative principles has held to? Budget discipline? Strong military, when enlistments are down and most of our enlisted are bogged down? SCOTUS? Cutting the size of government? Not only has he been a failure in every time of crisis and need since 9/11, he hasn't even held up his end of the bargain to his core;

6. The damage that this administration has done isn't the damage that a conservative government would do. No, this is plain old, boring incompetence. If it was just conservatism that was the problem, we'd just vote the bums out and be done with it. But our problems go beyond just voting in liberals. What we need is all people of good conscience and ability to find commong ground and find solutions.

7. Another 20 years of cold civil war will destroy this country. We cannot continue to talk to each other this way. If we simply trade barbs and attacks, meanwhile holding party loyalty above ingenuity and compromise, no matter the issue, no matter the circumstances, Pax Americana will die at our hands. And, folks, it won't be pretty. It will be uncomfortable, slow, ugly, maddening, and painful. How will you feel the first time we send Americans to die on some foreign land because another more powerful ally demanded it of us, and we are no longer in a position to tell them to sod off? How will you react when your kid falls further and further into debt serfdom because even the service economy has faultered in deference to the third world? Because, people, that is what will happen if we don't right the ship. We are a few decades of infighting and indifference from being just another country;

8. Somewhere in the central midwest tonight, a middle-aged mother is getting home from work. She's not terribly political, but she watches the news. Turning it on tonight, her first response is `Bush did it again, put in one of his friends.' She generally votes the straight Republican ticket, but is increasingly frustrated with the direction of the country. What are you going to tell her? That she voted for Adolf Hitler last time? That she's a Bible-thumping psych-Christian who's too stupid to understand the theory of Evolution? That she deserves to be defeated in an active, real, shooting civil war, so we can take power and finally feel what it's like to win? Or are we going to engage her in discourse, not just talk, but listen to her concerns, her fears, and come to understand that she has just as much of the American story right as we do? Because, friends, if we assume to have the entire American story right, are we any better than those who claim to have God on their side? And if we demand fealty on every issue from our leaders, aren't we automatically abdicating the American story, which is one of independence, new ideas, and sweat, to the other side for all time?

•  Sorry, You're Wrong

  The Bush White House fixed the intelligence on WMD. They twisted arms to make that case happen. If Bush were fed the WMD line by faulty intelligence and went along like all the Democratic Senators who did (mostly hedging their bets it would be another Gulf War "cakewalk" and look bad if they voted against it facts be damned)... That would be one thing. But the Bush White House concocted it all. Went into Iraq for greed and to cause harm, willfully, nihilistically. That's the accepted, academic evaluation the world over.

  by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 03:34:39 PM PDT

  •  You are the problem,

    do you really believe Bush is Evil?  He may be proud, stubborn, and foolish but he is not the Enemy.  Come on people.  We say these things but do we really mean them?  We have a country to hold together here, 40% of whom think Bush is great.  

    by beartooth on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 03:36:48 PM PDT

    •  Enough With The Absolutist Judgments

      About good and evil. Do I believe Bush thinks he is Evil? EVIL? No. But very few people ever do. Is he clinically psychotic? Who cares? We aren't defense lawyers trying to get him off a murder rap.

      What matters is what he has clearly, obviously, manifestly, done. Call it evil, or merely criminal, or merely cretinous, but it is real.

      YOU ARE THE PROBLEM because people like you make it possible for "The American People" (TM Barack Obama) to overlook, forget, gloss over, and/or get over this fact, by setting such a bad example.

      No, Bush isn't even that special. Christmas Bombings. Kissinger. Dresden, Nagasaki, Japanese Internment. IG Farben. McCarthy. Trail of Tears. Pinkertons. On and on. The question is: Will this new medium be effective as a way to help people wise up, even just a bit? Or will it join old media, and simply help put people back to sleep.

      You are just trying to recover from the brink: The brink beyond which real commitment, real change, would be required. Which is tempting I know since that change doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Well, we aren't even a year into Bush's second term. We have a long way to go. We have generations to go, keeping the anger alive. You are a wet blanket on the torch that can light the way to progressive change for years to come.

      Embrace reality and tell the voices that are trying to calm you down and lull you back to complacency to shut up.

      Tactics electorally are one thing. Accepting the status quo, of utter BS, a world in which a disgusting number believe Saddam was behind 911 etc. ad infinitum, is unacceptable.

      by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 03:58:15 PM PDT

      •  don't see it

        You know, I see nothing about complacency or accepting the status quo in this diary. What I see is a request to tone down the rhetoric in the name of trying to actually communicate to those who aren't on this blog, those who see things differently than we do, so that we can actually put someone other than these incompetents in office for a change.

        by Buffalo Girl on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:17:19 PM PDT

        •  He Makes Factually Incorrect Statements

          About how poor Georgie was duped by mean WMD intelligence, which is utter BS. I almost threw up when I first saw that utterly false spin being paraded out to the public well after the invasion.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:24:47 PM PDT

          •  breathing

            Ok, but if you seriously want to persuade someone who doesn't currently believe this, I doubt they will be inclined to consider what you have to say if

            1. you call him Georgie or poor Georgie or evil or a sociopath.
               
            2. you don't calmly inventory the facts with credible sources indicated for your case against Bush.

            If you don't believe me, then go try it and let us know how it works out. Name one person that has been persuaded by THIS SORT OF RHETORIC who didn't already believe Bush sucks. People HAVE changed their minds, but it's because of thoughtful, persistent and respectful conversations like RenaSF has had with her Republican friends, or from seeing images of Katrina or Iraq that are indisputable in their horror, or they have been personally effected like Cindy Sheehan by the loss of loved ones.

            Nobody here, by the way, is condoning that any of us should calm down and stop acting to get rid of these knuckleheads and just let it all go.

            by Buffalo Girl on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:57:23 PM PDT

            •  You Know What?

              Ever person on this site for any period of time is here because people speak the truth here strongly.

              Out in the "real world" people disengage politically in between elections and often during them, and have no clue what is done in their name, with their tax dollars, or to them in the air the breath preventibly.

              I'll take this model, right here, as one of success, versus the business as usual model of trying to "convince" someone of something with platitudes and a snakeoil salesman's charm and affability. All that convinces people of is that there can't be all that much to worry about, and that the gravelly tones one raches when hinting about "untruths" and how Bush "might not have been entirely forthcoming" are just, you guessed it, political BS.

              Because if anything that bad really happened, such as a president lying, wouldn't all the Senators be up in arms! Wouldn't the news medi be hunding him? Wouldn't my neighbors tell me? Wouldn't the American People (TM Barack Obama) Demand justice? If at this very hour more American People were dying in Iraq for a lie that our generals have now sworn is only going to get worse and worse as our presence and nothing else fuels the insurgency?

              by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:05:03 PM PDT

              •  no

                I didn't come here to be persuaded. I was already in the camp before I came here, LONG before that. I come here because there is information here that I don't get elsewhere or at least not as fast. How many of us came here to be persuaded, as opposed to find like minds and people to snark with?

                And you know you can very effectively persuade people and move people to act with firmness and urgency that isn't soaked in venom and rhetoric and anger and hatred. It's not sugar-coating or mis-representation of the facts. Quite the opposite.

                by Buffalo Girl on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:12:01 PM PDT

                •  Who Comes Here To Be Persuaded?

                  The persuaded and the trolls come here. People point there friends here if they believe them persuaded enough to bother. People may come here out of curiosity now and then from the coverage but I really don't think the RX of toning down, not the rhetoric, but the reality and the real, righteous outrage, is one for success. Yawn.

                  by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:21:34 PM PDT

                  •  I agree.

                    The moment we tone down the truth we begin to lie. We will never convince anyone to feel differently about this administration with watered down carefully worded pseudo truths. They are going to have to be hit over the head with damning factual "in your face" truth.

                    For example, the Freepers were utterly stunned when they learned that there were over 100,000 people at the anti-war rally, and only 400 at the pro-war rally. Those numbers did something to those folks that carefully reasoned arguments never will.

                    by John West on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:32:56 PM PDT

                    •  ...sick..

                      ..of hearing this tone it down nonsense.  Since the Obama diary we've been seeing a lot of that.  Look, yes, there may be some over the top diaries, but please don't lecture us all about it. Write one of your own that refutes it, and not one that tries to say there's something wrong with the whole community.  Just sick of seeing all these diaries like, "I want all of you to stop it now!"  Stop what?  Who stop? If you have a problem with somebody, then go to them.  Stop wasting space with imposing your own rules on the rest of us.  Be good enough to see that strong criticism and opinions expressed to push the limits of our thinking are GOOD things.  

                      by sandmancan on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 05:21:09 AM PDT

                  •  you're wrong

                    people do come here to be persuaded

                    and by the dint of credible links, news coverage and strong analysis, they leave persuaded and daily kos addicts

                    overheated rhetoric turns everyone but the inmates off

                    by The Exalted on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:15:51 AM PDT

            •  Sorry

              
              --just cannot agree with you...politeness just covers the urgency of where we are.  I understand that we should be CIVIL and not personally attack people who support Bush.  But polite - no.  The time for politeness was way back when we counted the vote from the last election that had the majority (barely) of people with their heads buried firmly in the ground.  Should we also follow them underground?

              I actually want to send these people a bill in my weaker moments.  They made a horrible selection that is taking us all to hell.  Sorry - I tend to be less than polite when someone chops a hole in the bottom of my boat. I tell you what...you put those people in YOUR boat.  You talk to them and try to politely convince them to stop chopping the hole.  I wish you well.  I'm going to try like hell to keep from going down with these people.

              by SwimmertoFreedom04 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:30:20 PM PDT

              •  that is a brilliant idea

                why don't we send these people a bill? the cost of burying nearly 2000 soldiers. the cost of treating 15,000 wounded. the lost $1 billion in iraq reconstruction. let's not wait for our children to pay it.

                i'd love to see a savvy politician or pac send "bills" to those people who voted in this trash. i'd like to be a fly on the wall as they opened the mail.

                by quixotic on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:16:05 AM PDT

            •  Unless...

              Unless these people are willing to be convinced--in other words, unless they're actively engaged in seeking the truth--nothing can or will convince them. Period.

              You can be as nice as you want to--to water down reality until it's in a form they're willing to swallow--but it won't have any effect. They're only willing to accept what has been pre-ordained and what has been pre-ordained is lies.

              That's the problem: the people investing in the status quo aren't just selling something that is the opposite of our political positions, they're selling passivity, disengagement, entertainment, and stupidity and people are buying.

              You can scream at them or be all nice-nice with them and it won't fucking matter until and unless you can "activate" their brains again.

              And once you do that you've already won.

              by Shapeshifter on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:41:39 PM PDT

              •  It's Not Black And White Like That

                Go ask an evangelist.
                You can turn people because they never once heard it before.
                You can turn people because of the side of the bed they woke up on in the morning.
                You can turn people because its the 99th time they've heard it, or the thousandth.
                You can turn people because current events have left them open and they just never listened before.
                Now is not the time to shut up and go back to post-convention campaign mode, which did us in.

                And unlike evangelists, the palpable facts are on our side.

                Now that said it is not all black and white and just as the extreme you offer of no one ever listening to anything they don't want to hear is wrong, so would shouting in every instance. Be polite where possible, shout when needed. Knowing the difference is tact. These days shouting is more necessary than in better years.

                by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:23:04 PM PDT

                •  I disagree...

                  The intellectual detachment is an absolute bar.

                  For someone who has fallen victim to that detachment, unless it is first overcome, it doesn't matter what you say becase it will be brushed off with the great motto of our new generation: whatever!

                  by Shapeshifter on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:35:09 PM PDT

                  •  We Don't Need Everyone For Politics

                    The Whatevers don't vote much. I know plenty of Whatevers. I give them hell.  Sometimes it works. It doesn't make them information-seeking people, but it can reset their low-maintenance opinions. It helps to be persuasive and empassioned without belligerence, and to find some common ground.

                    But at the end of the day the important thing is that you don't make your message "whatever" on the pretext that "whatevers" are going to say something other than "whatever" to that.

                    Go for people who care, about something, who care about things period. For every Dennis Miller and Christopher Hitchens there are plenty of rehabilitated wingnuts, but they don't brag about it so much on this side because treachery isn't a badge of honor here.

                    And go for making people who care out of the slabs of unconcern. It can be done. Nothing ventured nothing gained.

                    Of course, proper tactics are necessary, as well as reading people right.

                    by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 11:25:33 PM PDT

              •  We're Fringe because Dems suck

                Look, we would not be considered the fringe if the Democrats actively pursued things like torture, Downing St. Memo, and actively used our rhetoric in a coordinated way, to destroy these Republican extremists at the polls.

                Republicans go to where they are by demonizing the opposition. We have a lot more evidence on our side. Redstate is furious about Miers. They want people to overturn Roe v. Wade. When a few of us said, in '04, said that Roe V. Wade was at risk, nobody believed us. When a few of us said G.W. promised, in a oblique way, to overturn Roe V. Wade, nobody believed us.

                We, DailyKos, etc., are not the problem. The Democratic party is. We need a coordinated message. And that message sure as fuck better not be, "George Bush, well, you know, he's not the best president, but he means well. God bless America!"

                BTW -- Redstate has been shitting all over itself because Miers hasn't shot any abortion doctors <hyperbole>. It doesn't seem to be hurting THEIR cause at all. Blogs are for the decided and the curious. If you want to convince undecideds, look to your party.

                by al Isqut on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 06:46:03 AM PDT

                •  RedState's venting...

                  The thing is that the RedState peeps aren't going to actually change their behavior, they're just blowing off steam.

                  The Republicans aren't going to "sign on" to their extremist agenda but they think they can force the Republicans to do so. But the Republicans are playing them for fools and they fall for it every single time.

                  This isn't the first time the Republican bloggers have said "Enough is enough, we're done forever!" and every single time they've gone straight back to voting Party-line and spouting the Talking Points.

                  So it's just the cognitive dissonance getting too much for even reality-deniers like RedState to handle. But don't worry about them: in a little while things will be back under control and they'll be back to their usual levels of nonsense.

                  by Shapeshifter on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 02:29:27 PM PDT

        •  What You Say Has Some Truth In It

          Yes, we need to be aware of the problem, like I replied to another below, that the whole truth is too much to take at once.

          But I suggest you look at your own experiences getting into, if not radical, energetic politics as we have here. What got you here? Mild concern? Mild concern looking for more mild concern, with some platitudes and reassurance about American exceptionalism? I doubt it.

          We are all here, I will wager, because of a combination of personal epiphanies but also exposure to opinions on this side (if not this site) that were like a bucket of arctic water in the face.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:31:37 PM PDT

      •  To call the Bush Administration a failed

        administration is all that needs to be said.

        It has failed from top to bottom. No psyhciatric analysis needed -- flunking on policy alone gets this crowd an F-minus.

        It's all about damage control now for the poor suffering bastard that has to mop up after him.

        by towit on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:11:24 PM PDT

        •  However....

          Had the Bush Administration succeeded at prosecuting an unjust war, fueling its popularity by doing so, torturing, lying, covering up, polluting, selling public lands for logging (no, giving it away), putting nukes and more in space....

          Then it woudl be, what, if not failed? Good? No... Normal... No... Evil? You don't seem to think it would be worth pointing that out It would.

          Because we don't want people voting for a competent wingnut, either. And all hyperbole aside, it's because we don't want manufactured apocalypse, not because we are partisan.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:22:35 PM PDT

          •  No one, not even that deviously clever Bush

            Administration -- to a fault deviously clever -- can "succeed at prosecuting an unjust war." When the facts catch up to the injustice, it's doom-time.

            by towit on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:34:51 PM PDT

            •  Maybe on TV.

              Ask the Mexicans if they believe what you said. Or the Native Americans.

              by perro amarillo on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:29:44 PM PDT

            •  u loco man.

              Americans have been waging unjust wars for awhile now.

              by MetaProphet on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:26:30 PM PDT

            •  I was thinking

              of rating you comment, but we don't have blind ignorance as a category.

              by hardleft on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:22:20 PM PDT

        •  They've been stunningly successful...

          at transferring an obscene amout of wealth from us to them via tax (mid & low income) and siphon.  That's why they came to DC and that's what they're doing.

          With loyalist SCOTUS appointees, Bush has nothing to fear with regard to legal culpability in the future.

          I've said this before.  It's not incompetence.  They are quite competent at their real objective, getting our money delivered into their pockets.  They simply don't care about the things we think our government should do well, and think they can get away with making a shambles of things.  They're too busy with the main objective to worry about the little stuff.  Anyway, they have lots of low level loyalists to peg into those Government Service appointments.

          I can't wait for all the pardons January 19 2009.

          by jps on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:53:10 PM PDT

      •  In a word, Bush is incompetent, n/t

        by boilerman10 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:52:21 PM PDT

        •  And If Competent, Then What Would He Be?

          AOK? Acceptable? One of the guys? A fine specimen of the "distinguished opposition?"

          I beg to differ. I happen to believe Bush's competence is underrated and that this disaster (all of it, that is) is largely part of his intent, but that he hoped to be able to manufacture greater popularity for himself.

          But the point is, competence or no, he is an bad, bad man. Don't want to call him evil? Let's put it this way, he has put a lot of innocent people to death in Texas, he has sent a lot of innocent American soldiers to death over lies he approved of in Iraq. He is financially extorting prize contracts for his cronies from American taxpayers by playing on their fear. He is pushing a morally bankrupt conservatism, which competent or not is corrupt as hell.

          There is no competence that can redeem a person who would let a child die of disease so that his buddies can have a little extra cash to light their stogies with on the golf course.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:58:36 PM PDT

          •  I haven't thought of this much before now

            but if you look at Bush ifrom the point of view of Hannah Arendt when she talked about the banality of evil, it kind of puts things in perspective.  No, he doesn't have horns nor does he foam at the mouth---but that doesn't mean the man's not evil.

            by mimi9 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:46:33 PM PDT

            •  By their fruits

              You judge a person good or evil by their actions and the results of their actions.

              Biblical quote: "By their fruits you shall know them. Does a good tree bear bad fruit? Does a bad tree bear good fruit?"

              by psyched on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 01:29:34 AM PDT

          •  calls for speculation.....

            Bush is incompetent, and that is fairly undeniable in light of the persistant failures in the ONE SINGLE AREA A NORQUISTIAN CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT MUST EXCEL AT  and that is in military affairs.

            Afghanistan is a failure, and is becoming the new "forgotten war," which is ironis as Afghanistan was the war the public could agree on as being the one worth fighting for.

            Iraq is a national catastrophe both here and in Iraq.

            Saber-rattling set back progressive cjhange in Iran decades and reinstalled hard line mullah-crats that had been easing slowly out of public favor, leading to a hardening of the Iranian position.

            Bush has failed in the one arena he was supposed to succeed at.  I call that incompetence.  

            by boilerman10 on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:21:43 PM PDT

      •  Great mini-rant

        For your "Enough With The Absolutist Judgments" I am giving you a 4, and writing your nickname onto the next ballot that I cast.  I know you are not going to win, but I liked the speech that much.  So when you see that you got .0001 % of the vote in some election you knew nothing about, you will know.

        by BostonJoe on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:59:48 PM PDT

        •  Well Now My Pollsters Tell Me

          Now that I've cracked .0001% in the early polls for some election I know nothing about, It's time to sell out.

          All I'm aiming for is speechwriter, that kind of thing. It's so funny to me how people online never seem to remember that few politicians write their own speeches.  The goal would be to put politicians in the position where it sounds good, they know it will go over, they've got to say it, and then maybe sometimes they've got to do it.  

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:46:27 PM PDT

      •  100% agree

         I agree 100% New Direction. It more of the same. Its just easier for people to gloss over ugly realities rather than face them. It really can't come as much as a surprise however in a country that pops prozac like pezz.

        by threecents on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:01:41 AM PDT

    •  Yes, bush is the enemy

      He's Osama's best asset----whether intentionally or not, I don't know.

      by BoringDem on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:34:27 PM PDT

      •  Karl Rove is the enemy

        So are Grover Norquist, Robert Novak, and Judith Miller, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

        by patsy on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:45:15 PM PDT

        •  Rove, Norquist, Novak, Miller, Limbaugh, Hannity

          Sometimes I think these people write Daily Kos comments with fake names and cause trouble, just for the sport of it.

          Why else would there be so much of the classic "gorilla dust" and "red herring" propoganda confusing the logical arguements and making us unorganized.  

          by Thea VA on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:58:21 PM PDT

          •  Their propagandist is our dummy. n/t

            by macdust on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 12:20:52 AM PDT

      •  Osama's the fuckin' enemy!

        And to think otherwise makes you a dumbass! I happened to like the diary myself. To me, it showed an elevated level of thought. Instead of all the usual bickering found in most, this one was actually original.

        BTW Diarist: Its Frozen Chosin...Marines are anal about that stuff. That whole "attention to detail" thing.

        by RetreatHell on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:22:10 PM PDT

        •  Osama Took Out Four Planes, Two and a Fifth Bldgs

          Bush destroyed thousands of American lives in Iraq and in the mismanagement of Afghanistan, not to mention the civilian toll in Iraq, Afghanistan, and for that matter Haiti.

          Bush lost an entire US city through willful neglect and corruption, which continues today. Bush who has taken a sharpie and scribbled and scratched all over the Constitution. Bush who has plunged us far deeper into debt than we have ever been, and who decided to pretend airborne mercury isn't poison. Who let loggers into EVERY acre of our public forests. Who decided miners on public lands could use as many acres as they like for dumping grounds (Want a million? It's not against the law!)

          Osama is the head of Al Qaeda, not Bush. Osama is the foreigner whom it is okay to wish ill health upon. But it is Bush whose address we know, and who ostensibly works for us. Thus, whether you call Bush an enemy or not, you should be aware he views you as his enemy. And no amount of being nice about that will get you more than a kiss on the cheek (Lieberman) before he resumes ramming his vile... Yes VILE agenda.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:48:18 PM PDT

          •  Osama murdered 3,000 people

            Bush murdered between 40,000-100,000 people for a pack of lies. Do the math.

            by Dana Garrett on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:26:34 PM PDT

            •  amen

              Bush, due to his position of power, is so mind-numbingly more dangerous than a petty terrorist like Osama. I don't fear Osama or any terrorist. They can only take my life. Bush and his administration can take my life, my liberty, and my country.

              by DavidHW on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:40:56 PM PDT

              •  well said

                by Dana Garrett on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:31:04 AM PDT

        •  Oh And Before You Get All Nineleveny On Me...

          ...I live in New York.

          Just yesterday I heard for the first time that my next door neighbor, mother of my son's playmate, was in the first tower, seven months pregnant, on a high floor, when the plane hit, and had to walk down and out through a courtyard of blood and body parts, and over the bridge to Brooklyn.

          I have no love for Osama. But Bush can barely bring himself to mention Osama's name. Invoking Osama in Bush's defense as contrast is a little lame, given that. Bush evidently doesn't think Osama is the enemy. Not enough to follow the birdie on that case.

          by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:52:18 PM PDT

          •  He's never going to catch Osama...

            not because the US government is incapable of it.

            But because then the specter of terrorism goes away and they can't play us on our fears.

            by jaywillie on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:03:10 PM PDT

            •  can't catch Osama

              'cause he's dead, even simpler.

              by peglyn on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:42:08 PM PDT

              •  But Bush...

                will never acknowledge he's dead.  Even if he did catch him, I don't think he give up his favorite, pliable Boogeyman.

                by jaywillie on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:02:29 PM PDT

          •  Well, I still don't

            think Bush is evil at all. I honestly believe that he got duped along with everyone else about the faulty intel on Iraqi WMD's. Call me naive, but I think Bush was doing the right thing at the time concerning Iraq. I served and was permanatly disabled in Iraq back in April 03, and I'd do it all over again if I could.

            And the reason I brought up Osama, even though I don't think there's any comparison, is because when I think of evil that's who I think of. Among others, even some criminals here in the US, like child-molesters, rapists, and murders and such. But I don't think Bush is evil, not what I consider evil anyways. But I would say that he's a fuck-up on some things and some issues. But not evil. I only thought he was evil one time in the past.....you see, Pres. Bush was supposed to call me on Thanksgiving day, 2003. I was supposed to go to my grandparents house in TX(I live in Okla), for dinner and all. But I stayed home all by myself and waited for W to call. This was a VERY big deal. Officers in the Marine Corps called my buddies from my unit and asked them what W should talk to me about. They got a hell of alot of intel on me so W and I could have a good 5 min long conversation, and so it could go smoothly and all. Anyhoo, so I waited and waited....finally the White House called and told me to "stand-by" the phone and wait for the call. Then they finally called again and that's when they told me I wasn't gonna talk to W, I would be talking to Cheney instead. I thought Bush was evil for about 1 hour, until I saw that he made a surprise trip to Iraq to spend TG with the troops. But since then I haven't thought he was evil. BTW, Cheney's themost boring person I've EVER fucking talked to.....Peace out!

            by RetreatHell on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:20:14 PM PDT

            •  Then You Believe Wrong

              Because there wasn't any faulty intelligence, that intelligene was Bush Adminstration "intelligence." They supplied that junk, they were not fed it. There is a clear enough trail, and well documented. I'm going home but a little clicking around online should steer you right if others here don't.

              by NewDirection on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:25:50 PM PDT

            •  God, I admire your service.

              And I'll add you to my prayer list on hearing of your disability. But, yeah, you are naive, IMO. Bush was fixing the intel to do what he wanted to do, and good people like you shouldn't have suffered for that.

              by Magenta on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:30:43 PM PDT

              •  It's all good,

                I'm not suffering. I just live life a little different now, that's all. And thanks for the prayer, but if you could please do me a favor: Pray for the families of Cpl Jerimiah Baro, and Lcpl Jared Hubbard instead. They were two of my closest friends that died Nov 4, 2004. They need it alot more than I do. But I appreciate your kindness though:)

                by RetreatHell on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:35:49 PM PDT

                •  I'll pray for them.

                  And I'm glad to see you've been blessed with such a great attitude and generosity of spirit.

                  by Magenta on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:48:37 PM PDT

            •  IF you haven't read anything

              about the Downing Street memo, then you sure need to. It's pretty much an open & shut case that the "intelligence" was fixed to the intentions regarding the WMDs.

              There've been other credible witnesses who talked about Bush wanting to create plans to attack Iraq almost immediately after he was inaugurated in 2000.

              Sorry.

              by murasaki on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:54:48 PM PDT

            •  Didn't it bother you that Bush was already

              pulling Special Forces and other troops out of Afghanistan in 2002?  Long before he supposedly made the decision to go into Iraq? Before all "the intel" was in?  If he was really analyzing this move, why did he damage the mission in Afghanistan so early?   Why did he let Osama bin laden slip away at Tora Bora because he didn't have the troops on the ground to corral him?

              Wasn't the whole point of the War on Terror to get Osama?  If Bush was duped along with the rest of us, why did he not get Zarqawi when he had the chance to bomb his camp before the war?  Why was the head of British Intelligence sure that "Intelligence would be fixed around the policies" and that the Iraq invasion was going to happen in mid 2002?

              I admire your service and sincerely hope you are doing well now.  Bush wanted this war badly and he got it - for reasons we are only starting to understand.  Please don't stop looking at what went down before the war began.

              by etatauri on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:05:48 PM PDT

            •  I know Dick Cheney

              He's evil to the core.

              by Ed in Montana on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:34:41 PM PDT

            •  "Call me naive"

              OK.  You're naive.

              by Boston Boomer on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:18:15 AM PDT

          •  great word: Nineleveny: I like that n/t

            by RumsfeldResign on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:30:47 PM PDT

        •  Depends on your Definition of Evil

          How many inhumane acts does George W. Bush have to commit/order/ or allow to happen in order to be termed "evil"?

          

          Oh, & here's some more photos from Abu Ghraib in case the 1st one's not evil enough.

          And we know from recent rulings in Bush's favor that there are more photos they are supressing. Maybe those will cross the line to get Bush "official" Evil Status.

          "We don't do body counts"
          General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

          Bush didn't do anything to prevent 9/11 from happening... evil or pathetically ineffective? Only Bush knows the answer to that question.

          Bush couldn't prevent Katrina, but he could have reacted in a humane way. He acted in the opposite direction.

          This is just a small example of the things he's done (that we know about).

          Evil
          -Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
          -Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
          -Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
          -Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
          -Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.

          by Ranting Roland on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:03:16 PM PDT

          •  just a few bad apples?

            Torture approved at the highest levels of our government, with "extraordinary rendition" disappearing people the Prez sez are "terrists"... if that doesn't smash American mythology then nothing can. (And it won't, which is the sad thing...)

            by tiggers thotful spot on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:16:13 PM PDT

        •  Such a narrow definition.

          As if Osama in blowing up buildings has done more to damage the American society than our reaction to it.  Bush encourages us to hate our own people and to destroy our way of life. He's an ally of Osama. Not in a "conservatives are terrorists" kind of way. That's stupid. But there is a lot to "we have met the enemy and he is us." Our way of life is more in danger from people here than it is from anyone who might attack us. That's always been true, though. It's not unique to our generation.

          by Magenta on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:11:55 PM PDT

        •  asdf

          "to think otherwise makes you a dumbass!"

          Very high-minded, civil discourse....

          by Boston Boomer on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:24:24 PM PDT

        •  Osama and Bush are brothers

          They both think they have the inside dope on God. They both think people who disagree with them are evil. They both come from very wealthy families. They both have no compunction about killing innocent people. They both live in strange universes that defy rational thought or any belief in science. The only difference I can see is that Bush has killed a lot more innocent people

          by Jlukes on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:03:41 PM PDT

        •  And how did Osama get to be the enemy....

          dumbass?

          by MetaProphet on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:28:14 PM PDT

      •  They couldn't say it if it wasn't true...

        ...to think otherwise makes you a dumbass...

        Fascinating retort. Ignorance of truth and arrogance of opinion are our enemies also.

        En garde.

        by EKO on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:01:58 PM PDT

    •  The answer to your first question

      is YES, and yes, he and his ilk are the enemy.

      About that 40%, you should qualify that with the word, only.  That means that 60% of the citizens of this country don't think he's great and don't believe a word he sputters.

      by nupstateny on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:50:30 PM PDT

      •  Trouble is...

        Not enough of that 60% decided they liked John Kerry better.  Politics in America is a two team sport, like it or not.

        by rashomon on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:39:15 PM PDT

      •  60% is not good enough

        If we could strip off another 5% or 10% (approval ratings being 30-35%) that would be extremely valuable.

        We need more than 60%.

        With 70% we can change the world.

        by Aquaman on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:45:09 PM PDT

    •  I am not going to rate your comment

      but I will tell you that your comment sounds naive.  The term "evil" is subject to interpretation but the general definition of the word is applicable to Bush's intentions. That much is clear.  And when "we say these things"-that Bush is a liar, incompetent, opportunistic crony with the I.Q. of a wombat, you're damn right we mean them.  You haven't been at Kos long so you may not understand that yet.

      by exiledfromTN on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:53:59 PM PDT

      •  Wasn't Jeff Buckley simply wonderful?

        If you're really really sick of all this Bush crap and need a nice little break, go find Jeff Buckley's cd "Grace" and give it a good listen. The most magnificent voice you'll ever hear.
        

        by MuldraughTim on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:08:16 PM PDT

        •  Thanks for the advice.

          By the way, I have everything Jeff Buckley ever made.  What an angel.

          by exiledfromTN on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:05:43 AM PDT

    •  I disagree with this comment

      But except for the subject line, I don't consider it trollish.  Subject may be mildly trollish, but is not a serious attack on the person to whom this poster responds.  Zeroes seem like overreaction.

      by RunawayRose on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 04:54:01 PM PDT

    •  Bush IS a Sociopath

      Notice we say "sociopath" and not "psychopath." Functioning sociopaths are everywhere in our society. For instance a shady used car salesman that will lie about everything is a perfect example of a sociopath.

      Bush lies about everything. In fact, I dare you to give examples of when he tells the truth. This is pure sociopath behavior.

      by Bailey Savings and Loan on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:05:22 PM PDT

      •  Psychiatrist who thinks

        Bush is a sociopath: Justin A. Frank, author of Bush on the Couch.

        by Boston Boomer on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:18:39 PM PDT

        •  Who is Dr. Frank?

          Justin A. Frank, M.D., is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center. Since 1980 he has been a teaching analyst at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. He is past president of the Greater Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Dr. Frank lives and practices psychoanalysis in Washington, D.C.

          Or, perhaps the question should be, "Who is George W. Bush?"

           

          More on the author.

          by shmooth on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:54:26 PM PDT

      •  Another "mental health profession"

        who thinks Bush is a psychopath:

        http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/08/con05291.html
        

        by Boston Boomer on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:47:18 PM PDT

      •  One in the same...

        Sociopathy and psychopathy are synonymous...Psychopathy tends to be more in use in Canada...ala Robert Hare...whereas sociopathy is more in use in the USA...

        The more accurate term for Bush is "character disorder"...

        by Stagger Lee on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:16:37 PM PDT

        •  Personality disorder is the formal term.

          And I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't suffer from sociopathy but from a closely related disorder, narcissistic personality disorder. It fits his actions and reactions very exactly.

          Other people have called him a "dry drunk" (or not so dry, maybe), but I think that's a symptom. His alcohol and cocaine problems were attempts at self-medication. Narcissists are not happy people.

          by Canadian Reader on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:40:46 PM PDT

          •  asdf

            Babs must have been one helluva a mother....

            No wire hangers EVER

            by distributorcap on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:28:49 PM PDT

      •  Character Disorder by J. Kent Griffiths, DSW

        This is a list of the traits of people with character disorders. http://members.aol.com/dswgriff/chardisorder.html
        

        1. Emotional immaturity. Behavior is not age appropriate.
           
        2. Self-centeredness. He comes first and foremost. Is insincere about real interest in other people.

        3. Little if any remorse for mistakes.

        4. Poor judgment.

        5. Unreliability, undependability, irresponsibility.

        6. Inability to profit from experience - does not learn a lesson from making mistakes.

        7. Inability to postpose immediate gratification - what he wants, he wants now. Impulsive and demanding.

        8. Conflict with, or defiance of, authority.

        9. Lack of appreciation for the consequences of his actions.

        10. Tendency to project his own shortcomings on to the world about him - frequent blaming. Never at fault.

        11. Little if any conscience.

        12. Behavior develops little sense of direction - often uninfluenced by concepts of right and wrong.

        13. Gives lip service to professed values and beliefs.

        14. Often involved with illegal or unethical acts.

        15. Shallow interpersonal skills - inability to experience and verbalize deep feelings and emotions.   Often insensitive to the needs and feelings of others. Cannot identify with how others feel.

        16. Ability to put up a good `front' to impress and exploit others.

        17. Low stress tolerance with explosive behavior.

        18. Can `con' to get what he wants to meet his needs, often at the expense of others. The  behavior is highly repetitious and many people are used.

        19. Sees others as pawns on the chess board. Maneuvers people around for his own purposes. When done with them,  they are `checkmated' or rejected.

        20. Ready rationalization - rarely at a loss for words - twists conversation to divorce himself from responsibility. When he  is trapped, he just keeps talking or changes the subject, or gets angry.

        21. Incapable of maintaining genuine loyalities to any person, group, or code.

        22. Chronic lying.

        23. Does/did poorly in school with attendance, grades, attitudes, and relationships with teachers. Was in conflict with  parents over school performance.

        24. ` Chip on shoulder' attitude - cocky and arrogant.

        25. Rebellious to parents authority. Violates standards of the home frequently.

        26. Cancels commitments without sound reason or warning.

        27. Uses friends for money, transportation, favors, time, attention, etc.

        28. A taker - not a giver. Gives for show but expects something in return.

        29. Glimpses of integrity and emotion are seen - but short lived. Gives you hope he's changing, but returns soon to deviant  behavior.

        30. Lives life of avoiding responsibility vs. Getting the job done.

        31. Poor self-motivation - often described as lazy and listless. Lacks ambition. Not helpful with  routine chores.

        32. Fun is the cornerstone of his life.

        33. Sexually curious or active. Places great importance on his sexual abilities. Female sexual   partner often feels used and demanded of.

        34. Lacks well-defined values.

        35. Comes across initially as caring and understanding and reads others `like a book' because he   makes his business   knowing how to maneuver people.

        36. In a trust relationship, inevitably betrays and violates the commitments and gets blocked emotionally when gets too     close to those he says he loves.

        37. Angry mood most of the time.

        38. Uses sex to control, cover his insecurity or make up after a fight.

        39. Has no concept of open sharing of ideas, feelings, emotions.Conversation goes per his direction. He has the last word always. He determines how, when,where we talk, and about what he wants to talk about.

        40. Can show real tenderness of feeling, then return to customary behaviors. Two (or more) vastly different sides to his personality are seen.

        41. Poor planner with time and activity.

        42. Is very slow to forgive others. Hangs onto resentment.

        43. Excessively concerned with personal appearance, eg, hair, weight, care he drives, clothes,   having money to flash, career dreaming.

        44. Seems to enjoy disturbing others. Likes to agitate and disrupt for no apparent reason.

        45. Feels entitled to the `good life' without working for it.

        46. He never seems to get enough of what he wants. He leaves others drained and confused.

        47. Others get upset when in his presence. There's a feeling of guardedness, caution, and suspicion that he creates in others.

        48. Moody - switches from nice guy to anger without much provocation.

        49. Poor work history - quitting, being fired, interpersonal conflicts.

        50. Repeatedly fails to honor financial obligations. Does not pay the bills in a responsible and timely way.

        51. Unable to sustain a totally faithful relationship with loved one of the opposite sex. Flirtatous, overly friendly. Make inappropriate sexual comments to/about other women.

        52. Seldom expresses appreciation. Again, is thinking of his needs vs.needs of others.

        53. Grandiose. Convinced that he knows more than other people and is correct and right in almost all he says and does.

        54. Clueless as to how he comes across to others and to how he is viewed.Gets defensive when confronted with his behavior. Never his fault. May be apologetic and seem sincere but soon repeats offensive behavior without appearing to have learned from it.

        55. Motive for behavior is usually self-serving and he does not recognize it.

        56. Can get very emotional, even tearful, but behavior is more about show or frustration rather than contrition or sorrow.

        57. He breaks woman's spirits to keep them dependent.

        58. Survives on threats, intimidations to keep others chained to him.

        59. Sabotages anything that makes his spouse/girlfriend happy. Wants her to be happy only through him and to have few/no outside interests/friends/family.

        60. Highly contradictory. He loves me, he hates me. He threatens me with poverty, then indulges me or our relationship.

        61. He is always working somebody over - either subtly or aggressively for a favor, deal, break, freebie, discount, etc.

        62. Double standard. He is free to do his thing, but expects others to be what he wants them  To be/do. He doesn't let others be themselves.

        63. Convincing. Successful at getting other people to believe in his perception of a problem. Is adamant that people side with him vs. Allow them to feel/believe differently.

        64. Hides who he really is from everyone. No one really knows the real him.

        65. Scorns everyone/everything that he disagrees with. Does not allow for differences to be respected. Scorns the responsible world.

        66. Difficult to pin him down to a certain level of integrity that you can live with. Resists all efforts to define his values, behaviors, standards.

        67. Kind to you usually only if he's getting from you what he wants.

        68. He has to be right. He has to win. He has to look good.

        69. He announces, not discusses. He tells, not asks.

        70. He does not discuss openly before hand. You get to deal with "after the fact" information.

        71. Controls money of others but spends freely on himself and others.

        72. You end up feeling responsible for the problem. He gets to your feelings. No matter what, he wins, you lose.

        73. He wins at the expense of your feelings. Thinks only of the end result without considering your feelings, needs in the process.

        74. Attitude of "I"ll meet your needs if you meet mine. If you don't, I'll find someone else who will or I will not meets yours".

        75. Unilateral condition of, "I'm OK and justified so I don't need to hear your position or ideas"

        76. Does not take responsibility for his behavior.

        77. The hurt he describes is because he got caught or he's mad that you're mad, and not because he believes he made a mistake.

        78. Secret life. You're often wondering what he does or who he is that you don't know about.

        79. Always feels misunderstood.

        80. Most of the time you feel miserable living with this person. When it's good you relish the peace but that is usually short lived. He is so skilled at making a mountain out of a molehill   and you become so tired of the conflict. It drains all of your energy, love, and hope.

        81. Is usually through listening once he's made his arguments.

        82. We talk about his feelings, not mine.

        83. Unchallenged by people because they seem to be put off by him, afraid of him or he eludes them.

        84. Is not interested in problem-solving openly.

        85. Seems very interested in discerning personalities, so that he can strategize how to manipulate them.
            

        by Stagger Lee on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:38:38 PM PDT

        •  wow--what more need be said

          I bookmarked this comment and will refer to it frequently.  thanks.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:27:32 PM PDT

        •  Wow, thank goodness...

          ...that there's nothing on that list that afflicts me. Or anyone I know for that matter.

          Can you imagine people that do stuff like that?

          by Noodles on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:47:51 PM PDT

          •  Sadly, my ex-husband

            has about 80% of these traits.  

            by Cecile on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 04:44:18 AM PDT

      •  i say this all the time

        I ask Bush supporters to give me an example of some area of importance where they feel he has told the truth.

        The look on their faces when they try to come up with one is priceless.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:50:33 PM PDT

      •  Mark Crispin Miller

        In his 2001 book, The Bush Dyslexicon comes to the conclusion that Bush may be a sociopath.

        by Ed in Montana on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:44:31 PM PDT

      •  Yes, he definitely is,

        And I penned an essay on the subject for Digby's Hullabalo on the subject over two years ago:

        [...]

        Giles Whittell, writing for the Times On Line, interviewed Dr. Robert Hare, who, along with his colleague Dr Paul Babiak, will publish a book called Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go To Work later this year. Hare defined psychopathy for modern scientists with an exhaustive questionnaire called the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Introduced in 1980 it has become an internationally recognized tool for identifying psychopaths. From the article:

        ". . . the PCL-R revealed that psychopaths are everywhere. Most are non-violent, but all leave a trail of havoc through their families and work environments, using and abusing colleagues and loved ones, endlessly manipulating others, constantly reinventing themselves. Hare puts the average North American incidence of psychopathy at 1 per cent of the population, but the damage they inflict on society is out of all proportion to their numbers, not least because they gravitate to high-profile professions that offer the promise of control over others, such as law, politics, business management ... and journalism.

        [...]

        Hare and Babiak will also produce a new diagnostic tool based on the PCL-R but designed to help businesses to keep their recruits and senior management psychopath-free.

        Enter the B-Scan. It won't be available to everyone, and it won't be free. If you are B-Scanned, it won't be you answering the questions. [emphasis mine] It will be your colleagues, grading your personal style, interpersonal relations, organizational maturity and antisocial tendencies according to 16 buzz words, none of them uplifting. They include the following: insincere, arrogant, insensitive, remorseless, shallow, impatient, erratic, unreliable, unfocused, parasitic, dramatic, unethical and bullying."

        [...]

        Not having access to the specific B-Scan test or the ability to personally interview administration colleagues I'm going to use the next best thing, a recent article in USA Today [link expired - hey this was over two years ago] describing Bush by those close to him that can be run through the filter of  The serial bully: Identifying the psychopath or sociopath in our midst.

        USA Today: He rarely jokes with staffers these days and occasionally startles them with sarcastic putdowns."

        TSB: - is frequently sarcastic, especially in contexts where sarcasm is inappropriate and unprofessional

        USA Today: ''He's got that steely-eyed look . . .'' says a friend who has spent time with the president since the war began.

        TSB: - often reported as having an evil stare, sometimes with eyes that appear black rather than colored

        USA Today: He's infuriated by reporters and retired generals who publicly question the tactics of the war plan. Similar complaints continue, and some people outside the administration are pressing current Bush advisers to urge him to retool his war plan. The president's aides say he's aware of those efforts but ''discounts'' them.

        TSB: - displays a compulsive need to criticize whilst simultaneously refusing to value, praise and acknowledge others, their achievements, or their existence

        USA Today: His history degree from Yale. . .

        TSB: - often fraudulently claims qualifications, experience, titles, entitlements or affiliations which are ambiguous, misleading, or bogus

        USA Today: . . . makes him mindful of the importance of the moment.

        TSB: - has a short-term focus and often cannot think or plan ahead more than 24 hours

        USA Today: He's a critic who sees himself as the aggrieved victim of the news media and second-guessers.

        TSB: - feigns victimhood when held accountable, usually by . . . claiming they're the one being bullied and harassed

        and, - presents as a false victim when outwitted

        USA Today: Bush, who was drilled in corporate style while earning his MBA at Harvard, prefers his days to be structured.

        TSB: - is fastidious, often has an unhealthy obsession with cleanliness or orderliness

        USA Today: Bush has imposed an almost military discipline on himself.

        TSB: - finds ritual important and comforting, and frequently indulges in ritual and ritualistic activity

        USA Today: He understands that he is the one person in the country, in this case really the one person in the world, who has a responsibility to protect and defend freedom.

        TSB: - is selfish and acts out of self-interest, self-aggrandizement and self-preservation at all times; everything can be traced back to the self

        and, - is convinced of their superiority and has an overbearing belief in their qualities of leadership but cannot distinguish between leadership (maturity, decisiveness, assertiveness, co-operation, trust, integrity) and bullying (immaturity, impulsiveness, aggression, manipulation, distrust, deceitfulness)

        plus, - wraps himself or herself in a flag or tradition and usurps others' objectives, thereby nurturing compliance, reverence, deference, endorsement and obeisance; however, such veneration and allegiance is divisive, being a corruption for personal power which exhibits itself through the establishment of a clique, coterie, cabal, faction, or gang

        Nothing, nothing Bush has done since I wrote that has accomplished anything but confirm what should have been obvious to even the most casual observer. Bush is absolutly a textbook example of a sociopath, and don't let anyone tell you different.

        by Thumb on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 07:40:31 AM PDT

    •  Label shrub as "Evil" --Most definitely

      Perhaps you don't. I would label him evil now.  Maybe not before the war, maybe not before Fallujah, or before Katrina, but now, --yes, he is evil.  His legacy is on par with the worse that humankind has delivered up to "leadership" through history.  Oh, he may be in the sub-par group or in the second tier, at this point in time, but he is still a decrepit human and morally bankrupt.

      He has deliberately, with pre-meditated cunning and guise, opened a Pandora's Box of death, misery and suffering for millions of people. For generations yet to come...

      He is not the village idiot, he is the village monster. And no one can cage him.

      Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshall

      by bronte17 on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:08:08 PM PDT

    •  Don't know if you deserve a four, but

      you don't deserve all the low scores you got.  Why do people give zero ratings and 1s to opinions they don't agree with?  We need a dialogue, not a diatribe.  Here's a 4 for you.

      by brandido on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:15:10 PM PDT

      •  Nothing to do with not agreeing.

        "You are the problem" is trollish in response to someone who pointed out the obvious fact the Bush administration lied about the intelligence. That's becoming increasingly obvious to even previous Bush supporters. That poster most certainly is not the problem, and that's why I thought beartooth deserved a zero, which isn't something I often give.

        by Magenta on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:18:29 PM PDT

    •  Jesus

      All the man (or woman) said was that Bush was not the enemy, which is his/her personal viewpoint.  There was nothing inflamatory in the post, but people rated him like he called for the execution of kittens.  I've seen people on this site get higher ratings for saying Americans deserved to get attacked when going oversees or when they've called active duty Kossacks baby killers.  Let's be fair to people who express a different viewpoint than us.  You can disagree with/hate their viewpoint as much as you want, but please don't censor it (Downrating can get people banned, therefore it can sensor).  As defenders of free speech we should know that.  

      by laughing gas on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:19:56 PM PDT

      •  Bush isn't the enemy?

        Is he your friend?  Maybe you'd find more agreeable discussion on a right-wing blog?

        by Boston Boomer on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:26:16 PM PDT

        •  Bush is my enemy.

          He's not the poster I responded to's enemy.  But believe it or not, just because we disagree on that fact, doesn't mean he's an awful person who shouldn't be given a chance to express his oppinion.  
          If you knew me, you'd know I was extemely anti-bush. Don't make judgements about things you don't know.

          by laughing gas on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:31:33 PM PDT

          •  I'm not judging you.

            But I have no problem judging Bush.  He's certainly an enemy of democracy and representative government.  He's an enemy of our constitution.  Therefore he is my enemy too.

            by Boston Boomer on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:37:43 PM PDT

    •  Come on folks.

      This is NOT a trollish statement.  I don't agree with it but it was respectfully posited and therefore did not warrant the 0 ratings.

      by RenaRF on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:27:01 PM PDT

    •  Yes, I do.

      Why is it difficult to believe the man is evil?  There have been plenty of evil leaders in the world.  Is it too much to imagine our leader is evil?  Yes, even Americans can be wicked bastards.

      by The Bulldog Manifesto on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:27:43 PM PDT

    •  And now to reply to your comment.

      I think evil vs. not evil is largely irrelevant.  Whether I run a person down on the road on purpose with the evil intent to murder him or distractedly run him over and kill him doesn't make much of a difference to him.  He's still dead, right?

      So evil vs. incompetent, in my book, yields the same results.  Dead Iraqis, dead US soldiers, dead Gulf state residents, desperate and despairing middle class and poor - what does it matter if he meant it?

      by RenaRF on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:31:13 PM PDT

      •  How about evil AND incompetent?

        That's the Bush admnistration.

        Not an attractive combination.

        And, yes, they are fascists. Bush and Cheney look at the accomplishments of Hitler and Mussolini with undisguised jealousy that they can't do the same thing.

        Yet.

        by Tony Seybert on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 06:21:49 PM PDT

        •  Man

          we're all pissed off.  :-D  I have been more pissed off since Katrina than I can ever remember!!

          by RenaRF on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 08:03:03 PM PDT

    •  Bush is performing so badly

      that if you try to forecast him you look insane. That is very convenient for Bushies - the more they are going to screw up, the more lunatic opposition might seem.

      For example, the last Krugman's column would look just that lunatic in a normal world:

      Miserable by Design
      
      By PAUL KRUGMAN

      The Bush administration is trying to treat Hurricane Katrina's victims as harshly as the political realities allow, so as not to create a precedent for other aid efforts.

      But sadly, these conclusions are very reasonable given the facts.

      We don't have to paint Bush in darkest colors. But if we play just as respectful and hopeful as Kerry did last year, we are fooling the folks as well.

      by das monde on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:46:51 PM PDT

    •  Yes Bush is fucking evil he is also proud,

      stubborn and foolish. Any body that will lie and take us to war by choice not as a last resort, causing the death of 2000 of our brave men and women is one evil SOB and the Enemy. You are the problem not NewDirection.

      by Lawdog on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 05:59:20 PM PDT

    •  Regarding Enemies

      They come in two types, each of which must be dealt with in different ways. Those two types are:

      1. Foreign
         
      2. Domestic

      Bush falls under the second category. But, as far as the constitution goes and defending it from threats both foreign and domestic, Bush and the Right, generally, is indeed the greatest threat to the constitution that this country has seen SINCE the Civil War.  You are afraid of a civil war