Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:37 pm

Or is it just his speech writers? Seems there is a lot of speculation on the net that Bushie does in fact have some sort of mental disorder. My own personal money is on a narcissistic personality disorder, but I'm not the expert. Just saw this and thought it was very interesting: <a href="http://www.willthomas.net/911/Bush/">www.willthomas.net/911/Bush/</a> "....Miller's judgment - that an unelected president might suffer from a clinical personality disorder - is much heavier than being called the global village idiot. "He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge. When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller mentions. "It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes." Bush even has trouble repeating comforting clichés. "Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you," Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me - can't get fooled again!" While the world was laughing, Miller saw something darker. "What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude," wrote Miller. Miller says that Bush saying, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family" is not 'cause he's stupid, but "because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table." When Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him. "When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," Miller observes. According to Miller, this is why GW is so closely watched by his handlers. "Not because he'll say something stupid," the Star paraphrased, "but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels." "'He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy," Miller says. "He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper." Adds this media expert, "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs.'" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **wolf pauli** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:27 pm

Capitol Hill Blue ran some articles on this in '04. The Will Thomas piece links to one of them (1st item below) but the link's broken. These should work: Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0604-13.htm">www.commondreams.org/head...604-13.htm</a> Prominent DC Shrink Diagnoses Bush to be a Paranoid, Sadistic Meglomaniac <a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=32&num=4687">www.capitolhillblue.com/c...2&num=4687</a> New Information Suggests Bush Indecisive, Paranoid, Delusional <a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=32&num=4704">www.capitolhillblue.com/c...2&num=4704</a> Bush Taking Anti-Depressants to Control Mood Swings <a href="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=5141">www.capitolhillblue.com/c...3&num=5141</a> Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World <a href="http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=2212">bellaciao.org/en/article....ticle=2212</a>

by **seemslikeadream** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:03 pm

Had great fun with that article at DU. <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=602189">www.democraticunderground..._id=602189</a> note post # 142

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:05 pm

In the beginning, I thought Bush was just an extreme case of arrested development. Most of those types outgrow much of that by his age, though. But I figured he never was forced to, having always been protected by his family's position from the fruit of his mistakes. But the more I hear, the more disturbing I find his functioning. I wonder if there is anything new since the election. With all these articles having been written prior to the election, it could be argued that they are simply partisan mud slinging, especially with all the anonymous sources. Although, with Clark, Clarke, and O'neil's testimony, there sure seems to be a lot of independent substantiation. Hmmm, so why did Ashcroft go? Always felt there was a heck of a story there going unreported. "Too many make the mistake of thinking Dick Cheney is the real power in the Bush administration," says one senior Homeland Security aide. "They’re wrong. It’s Ashcroft and that is reason enough for all of us to be very, very afraid."

by **PeterofLoneTree** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:59 am

Don't neglect to check out Paul Levy's essays on this subject on his website <a href="http://www.awakeninthedream.com/html/">www.awakeninthedream.com/html/</a> particularly "The Madness of George W. Bush": "George W. Bush is ill. He has a psycho-spiritual dis-ease of the soul, a sickness that is endemic to our culture and symptomatic of the times we live in. It’s an illness that has been with us since time immemorial. Because it’s an illness that's in the soul of all of humanity, it pervades the field and is in all of us in potential at any moment, which makes it especially hard to diagnose. Bush's malady is quite different from schizophrenia, for example, in which all the different parts of the personality are fragmented and not connected to each other, resulting in a state of internal chaos. As compared to the dis-order of the schizophrenic, Bush can sound quite coherent and can appear like such a "regular," normal guy, which makes the syndrome he is suffering from very hard to recognize. This is because the healthy parts of his personality have been co-opted by the pathological aspect, which drafts them into its service. Because of the way the personality self-organizes an outer display of coherence around a pathogenic core, I would like to name Bush's illness ‘malignant egophrenic (as compared to schizophrenic) disease,’ or ‘ME disorder,’ for short. If ME disorder goes unrecognized and is not contained, it can be very destructive, particularly if the person is in a position of power." (etc.)

by **gwbushmalecheerleader** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 5:23 am

Well, I read the "new" link, quite interesting, quite plausible. Certainly Jung had a lot of things dead on regarding 1930's Germany's fascination with Hitler, and ours Bush. Yes, all true, and very insightful. But, ya know what? I'm no genius, but I say it isn't 100 paragraphs long to explain: Bush enables Idiots. And that's all there is to it. "Hynotized", or whatever, he appeals to fools, and makes them feel intelligent, for the first time in their lives.

by **tabasco1776** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:44 am

Did Bush have a stroke? : <a href="http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_10_americablog_archive.html#109771869703473521">americablog.blogspot.com/...9703473521</a> Video: see Bush's mental deterioration over time: <a href="http://www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm">www.adbuzz.com/bushbuzz.htm</a> Bush’s “cognitive functioning” worries observers: <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity101704.html">www.unknownnews.net/insanity101704.html</a> Bush believes in the Rapture: <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/apocalypsenow.html">www.unknownnews.net/apocalypsenow.html</a> "God told me to strike at Al-Qaida": <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity7.html">www.unknownnews.net/insanity7.html</a> Bush prepared to use nukes: <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity5.html">www.unknownnews.net/insanity5.html</a> "The president's feet are not to touch the dirt": <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity031104.html">www.unknownnews.net/insanity031104.html</a> Bush on the Couch by Justin A.Frank: <a href="http://www.curledup.com/bushhead.htm">www.curledup.com/bushhead.htm</a> Video: Bush is losing his mind: <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/15/20363/328">www.dailykos.com/story/20.../20363/328</a>

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:11 am

Have anyone else noticed that Bush's attitude toward Saddam is almost that of competitiveness, as if Bush feels himself to be in some sort of sport with Saddam, as if they are equals? Iraq is personal for Bush in a way that most of his supporters don't understand.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:53 am

Followed one of your links to this, Tabasco. Very interesting what happened after the Irish journalist's interview with Bush: <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity062804.html">www.unknownnews.net/insanity062804.html</a>

by **Starman** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:10 pm

Thanks Chiggerbit for pointing-out the Interview-link Tabasco provided, I might have missed it; VERY instructive -- and as a US citizen I AM embarrassed and alarmed and disgusted ... Just shows (again) how seriously FUBAR the American political scene is -- How could such a dangerpously-deluded megalomaniac dim-wit be in such a powerrful position, he can't even toe-to-toe with a competant, well-respected journalist asking necessarily tough qiestions about critically-important issues? What came across more than any possible 'new' information is the President's (sic) inability to convey his thoughts and feelings in a compelling manner -- he most assuredly did not convey competance, clarity, comprehension or sincerity -- despite having had three days to prepare and practice for the interview. That the White House raised strong -objections' for the interviewer's combative tone and 'frequent interruptions' -- that's outrageous, a form of childish petulance and vindictive snippiness -- but then, entirely consistent with what we know about the character of the Bush Admin. Is the President (sic) a moronic automaton being 'managed' behind the scenes? I tend to think so -- I DON'T think he's really alone in the driver's seat of his person, but only THINKS he's in control -- a handy illusion which fits the necessary US political model. THAT'S a damn frightening idea, but not esp. new in these RI parts. Starman From the site <a href="http://www.unknownnews.net/insanity062804.html">www.unknownnews.net/insanity062804.html</a> Commentary: On the scale of this president's absurdities and atrocities, this might seem trivial ... but it's frightening when you actually read the interview, and even more frightful when you watch the President's "Forest Gump" facial expressions. Is the American president out of his mind? Seriously: Would anyone who's NOT a megalomaniac formally complain to a foreign nation's embassy about these questions? Is this what YOU would consider a "disrespectful" interview? The audio-video is here, and I've transcribed the interview below. Ask yourself as you read or listen, are these unreasonable questions, asked unreasonably ... or are these just unreasonable answers? Bush has little experience with real reporters, as they're quite rare in America, but that's what Carol Coleman seems to be. She asks real questions -- not even particularly tough questions. She's presumably accustomed to receiving reasonably thoughtful answers, and Bush gives her pabulum instead, repeating his favored clichés and memorized talking points. But even as the answers drone on and on, making less and less sense, the reporter's exasperated follow-up questions are respectful. I daresay, Coleman displays inordinate patience, by never asking, "Mr President, are you kidding?" By never once rolling her eyes, or making loop-de-loop circles around her ear. If Mr. Bush can't take this tiny amount of 'heat' then his mental condition must be questioned. But wait, there's more: Atrios, a prominent blogger, quotes the reporter as saying: "The policy of the White House is that you submit your questions in advance, so they had my questions for about three days." There's no source cited, but also no reason to doubt Atrios -- after all these years, he's a reliable source. If it's true (and even if it's not), all Americans should be embarrassed ... and worried. =H&HH=

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 1:57 pm

I had read the interview before, but DSL only came to this piece of sticks in the last couple of months so was only now able to watch the video. It's clear that Bush had his talking points and was going to give them no matter what questions she was going to ask. It was the reaction AFTER the interview that is significant, mental health wise, I think, in getting even with her for daring to ask hardball questions by denying her an already-planned interview with Laura. The whole situation demonstrates his grandiose attitude, his attitude that it is my way or no way, that attitude that if I can't be the best, I'll be the worst (see Sylvia Rimm). What always surprises me is that he has no clue that others see through this. Remember how the protesters are always kept inside fences? At first, I thought it was just for PR purposes, that it didn't go well with the propaganda they were presenting to the public. But I am coming to wonder if it isn't really his instability, that he can't handle confrontation. I'm not sure if it is his ego or his psyche that is so fragile. Scary.

by **Sweejak** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:11 pm

The Madness of George Bush. <a href="http://www.awakeninthedream.com/georgew.html">www.awakeninthedream.com/georgew.html</a>

by **Ferry Fey** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:22 pm

Rivka at the Respectful of Otters blog has run a coupke of columns on why it is highly unethical for mental health professionals to be publicly diagnosing a patient they have never met. The comments sections give some useful perspectives. Initial article here: <a href="http://respectfulofotters.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_respectfulofotters_archive.html#108695655124202757">respectfulofotters.blogsp...5124202757</a> and follow-up article and comments are on June 16, 2004 in the archives (I couldn't find a direct link)

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:27 pm

I'm thinking that some of the delicate ego/psych has to do with pride. Pride is a funny emotion, has much to do with self esteem. Take these parenting "experts" who are always yammering on about how it is a parent's responsibility to "give" self esteem to their children. Self esteem isn't "given", it is earned through achievement. Well, there are a lot of people out there who are proud of their status and did nothing themselves to achieve that status, through marriage, inheritance, etc. That kind of pride is very brittle, hence vulnerable. The Bush has never achieved anyting on his own. It has all been "achieved" for him by others. The foundation of his self esteem belongs to the achievement of others, and he kind of senses that, but doesn't understand it, which is why his ego is alwasy on guard, terribly defensive, ready to attack.

by **chiggerbit** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:45 pm

It has occurred to me that it is not professional ethics for them, Ferry Fay. It might have been better for those writing about Bush's mental health to have "couched' (sorry, couldn't resist) their observations by citing behaviors rather than "diagnosing". Separation of professional ethics and partisanship? Reminds me of fourth estate argument that is brewing right now in the Plame leak. Are these limits absolute? If not, where is the line?

Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Re: Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Re: Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Capitol Hill Blue

Re: Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Re: Re: Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Re: Re: Does the Bush Have a Mental Health Problem?

Bush and Saddam

Bush

re: Bush Interview Follow-up

Irish journalist

Paul Levy

Unethical speculations

pride

Ferry Fey

Who is online