Bush's Arab Dream Palace
Is it Narcissism?
Bush said again on Monday that he would keep US troops in Iraq until 2009 and argued that for the US to withdraw would send a bad message to reformers in the region. He said he is concerned about that talk of civil war in Iraq and seemed to admit that he isn't very happy most of the time about the way things are going, but added that he doesn't expect to be joyous in wartime. He admitted again that Saddam Hussein did not "order" 9/11, but went on to again link Baathist Iraq to the threat of terrorism against the US, an unproven charge.
I am not a psychiatrist and don't play one on t.v., so treat what follows as political satire please, and nothing more.
But what strikes me about Bush's Monday appearance is how consistent it is with what I understand of the symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Let's look at it this way:
'1. An exaggerated sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements).'
Bush is not content to be the most powerful man in the world. He thinks he is on a mission from God, and has decided that he is going to "reform" the Middle East, and turn Middle Easterners into something else. He is the Great Transformer of these other peoples' lives. The reason he has to stay in Iraq until the end of his presidency (it is all about him) is that he cannot admit that he did not succeed in being the great Transformer of the Middle East, that in fact he screwed up the Middle East royally. Because such an admission of any slightest mistake, much less a major series of failures, would fatally threaten his sense of grandiosity. Thus, he can't pull troops out of Iraq not because of practical military considerations, but because it would send the wrong signal to regional "reformers," i.e. Bush's mini-me's, the people fulfilling his sense of grandiosity.
Nobody else is in the picture here, just Bush. He doesn't ask any sacrifice from the US public for the war, as Bill Maher and others have noted. The heroics are his alone. The rest of us should go shopping (so as not to interfere with his self-image as Atlas of the Middle East.)
' 2. Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love. '
Bush suffers from T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia") syndrome. Lawrence, despite polite denials, clearly thought that he led the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire during World War I and wrote:
' All men dream: but not equally, Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did. I meant to make a new nation, to restore a lost influence, to give twenty millions of Semites the foundations on which to build an inspired dream-palace of their national thoughts. So high an aim called out the inherent nobility of their minds, and made them play a generous part in events: but when we won, it was charged against me that the British petrol royalties in Mesopotamia were become dubious, and French Colonial policy ruined in the Levant. '
Bush, like Lawrence before him, imagines that he is inspiring a people to accomplish things they couldn't do without him. (That is why he can't admit that the Lebanese have been having elections for decades, and has to pretend it all started with him.) And all he gets for his inspired Transformation of others' lives is carping about the expected oil contracts in Iraq not being there. There is even prickliness from the French. Lawrence might have sympathized.
3. Believes he is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 4. Requires excessive admiration 5. Has a sense of entitlement.
He is the Decider. He doesn't need Security Council resolutions to start wars. He doesn't need warrants for wire taps. He is entitled. He is the War President (never mind that he chose to go to war in Iraq and so made himself into the war president, and that the war presidency would be over with by now if he were any good at it.)
' 6. Selfishly takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends. 7. Lacks empathy'
Bush only "worries" that eventually there may be a civil war in Iraq. He doesn't admit that he made a whole country of 25 million people into guinea pigs, and that as a result 3,000 are dying a month in civil war violence of the most brutal kind. '
8. Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him 9. Shows arrogant, haughty, patronizing, or contemptuous behaviors or attitudes. '
Saying that he can understand that having over 2600 of our troops come home in body bags and over 8,000 come home seriously wounded, with limbs gone or brain or spinal damage, is a cause of "anxiety" to the American "psyche" is patronizing. He knows better about why this has to be. The inferior people are a little upset, but that is because they don't understand that he is the Transformer. What they're upset about is just the side effect of the Transformation. They don't believe. They can't see the Transformation before their eyes. They are inferior.
posted by Juan Cole @ 8/22/2006 12:40:00 AM
|
Facebook
39 Comments:
This is not inconsistent with what Dr. Justin Frank had to say about Bush in "Bush on the Couch" (2004).
What always strikes me is how often he says, "I know that." Is he trying to reassure himself? Maybe he's just an insecure little boy playing with some very dangerous toys.
Perfect. I recommend a read of Frank's "Bush on the Couch" as well. The man's a mental case.
The analysis is worrying. Bush's symptoms are generated not only by his own personality but also by a bunch of people like him (the neo-cons) and endorsed by foreign head of states like Blair and American citizen whenever the war rethoric is inflated along patriotic lines. Did the US become a huge psychiatric hospital? There are reasons to believe that sometimes nations and states behave like individuals and can show pathological conditions. If this is the case then we have a greater subject to worry about because last time a nation and its leader showed a pathological condition, it was Nazi Germany.
Bush's personality disorder, whatever label one uses, was captured perfectly by Fareinheit 911. Maybe that is why the administration went after him so hard. To protect himself he had a team of 12 attorneys set up before he released the movie and the team was headed by former govenor Murio Como.
Maybe there is also a personality disorder in the cabel news networks who don't cover the story about the loss of democracy at home, nor the loss of the US position as a force for good in the world. The best "news" is the "fake "news"" on the comedy channel. Time for Juan to appear on the Daily Show.
If I may add another sin to your rant.
Before the first Iraq War, several political scientists specializing in the Middle East, felt Iraq was ready for its democratic transition. It had many elements that research shows us to look for, most especially a substantial middle class and a growing articulate civil society that was masqued by certain elements of the authoritarian regime. Many hoped that these elements would survive the sanctions in tact enough for a regime change. With the understanding that this phenomenon could only happen successfully from below, by the people of Iraq.
The sanctions caused flight of some of the middle class and desperate conditions for many. But, the second war has more severly impacted these necessary elements of democratic regime change. How can an economy operate in these conditions? Only 4 hours of power a day. People are now looking at protecting what they own and survival. And, it is not only a dialogue of Iraqi civil society, but all groups that have invaded the country and think they should have their say. The fact is, this war does not aid their transition to a more liberal regime. Bush's war severly damages the Iraqis ability to attain successful regime change. Being rid of an authoritarian leader and elections are not the only components of regime change.
I know Bush has no use for science and research. He tends to disregard it. Democratization theories, Balance of Power theories, who needs them when you rule the world? But, it is a sin to take away the right of the Iraqis to complete these transitions through the elements that they built in their society and find stability.
Hi Juan,
This is my first post and I have to say I love your blog. It's at the top of my list- first thing I read most days.
While the President certainly exhibits narcissistic tendencies, how about analyzing his behavior based on what we know about him: untreated or partially treated alcoholism.
Some choice sections from Alcoholics Anonymous would seem to fit:
... and the alcoholic is an extreme example of self-will run riot, though he usually doesn't think so.
Selfishness, self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our problems.
First of all, we had to quit playing God. It didn't work.
Lack of power, that was our dilemma.
and from the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions :
Defective relations with others have nearly always been the immediate cause of our woes, including our alcoholism.
I think you are really on to something on this one. It is said that Adolph Hitler suffered from the same thing. Hence all the narcissist rages and the attempt to take over the entire world.
Where that leaves us is debateable. Certainly the situation in the Middle East doesn't look like it's gonna get better any time soon.
LINK
Juan, you are the best. Telling the truth with great courage, and attacking those who rightfully need to be shown for who they are (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, etc.) Backing your statements with the best Middle East research in the blogosphere.
Americans owe you a great debt as one of the best sources of light shined on the Middle East in a time when our leaders are treasonously mendacious and catastrophically inept and our press a bad and embarrassing joke.
I'd encourage you to take donations for your work. I'll contribute, and I bet others will too.
Bush can still be right, simply by being the least wrong. People may cease to support the war, but also reject those who call for withdrawal without any assurance this will not bring chaos. Voters picked Nixon in 1972, because he promised "peace with dignity" in Vietnam. The GOP lost support in 1976 in part because the 1975 exit from Vietnam was perceived as a disgrace. Candidates in 2006 and 2008 will not be assessed on how pretty Iraq looks, but by adhering to some reliable stance. The Dems will be assailed as partisan naysayers, ridiculed for hurting morale, and lack of constructive alternative. Woe to the "realist" of either party who wins and then has to fix the unfixable. Unlike the case of France in Algeria, there is no NLF to hand the keys of Baghdad.
The personality "disorders" you attribute to Bush may in fact be essential traits to anyone who aspires to public office. Invincible self-esteem (aka egotism or pig-headedness) is indispensable. Humility, introspection, and modesty don't get one far. The meek may inherit some heavenly kingdom, but sure don't rule this world.
Watch. In 2008, US voters will pick a president who promises to fulfill, not negate, the "Bush vision," and who makes the most dire warnings about any failure to stand tall and resist terror. Then, in 2009 or 2010, as the financial burdens of an unwinnable stalemate become urksome, watch that same person steer public attention to some other issue. Then, when the occupation wanes and hell ensues, Americans can view it as some distant earthquake and allow the president simply to quote Captain Renault that he is "shocked, shocked" and leave it at that. Fresh arms shipments to all friends will quell any impressions of going soft.
Prof. Cole you may think you've written political satire but honestly, it's dead-on. This president would prefer more Americans die to satisfy his fantasies rather than to admit that he was wrong.
Juan, I am a mental health counselor with 30 years experience. The diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder is on the mark. I would only add that GWB also has features of an Anti-Social Personality Disorder. The closer he gets to losing power the more dangerous and desparate the actions will become in my view. I think the next two years will be perilous indeed. And there is no guarantee that there won't be some orchestration to call off the '08 election.
Yes, you are not a mental health professional but I am a clinical psychologist with about 30 years experience and, although I've never given much thought to Bush's diagnosis, you have done an admirable job. I've always thought that his need to appear "tough", with great "resolve", to never be seen as "backing down", his snearing attitude toward intellectuality at Yale when he went there, his competition with his father, that all these things and more represent an internally relatively insecure person to whom the APPEARANCE of being big, tough, macho, swaggering, etc. are evidence that "the gentleman doth protest too much"; that inside he feels like a little guy with narcissistic wounds who has to blow himself up to be a BIG guy. Since I'm working on a book about why pseudo-conservative "tough" foreign policy really is mostly bluster and in reality is weak, perhaps I'll be able to use this, thanks Juan.
I agree with your analysis of his narcissism. This is one reason he says things like, "I think about Iraq every day." As if we are supposed to be grateful the "great man" spends part of his (limited) thinking time on Iraq.
The reason he will not let the troops come home, "out of the field", is that they make him the Commander In Chief which is the rationale for all his assertions of exceptional power. So with judges telling him he is not an exceptional King and 60% saying the war is "wrong track", his rationales are closing down.
I THINK, ERGO I‘M RIGHT:
(God confirms)
One of the results of excessive alcohol intake over many years is the "Desires Equal Expectations Psychosis (D.E.E.P.)," also known as "Simply Hoping isn't Truth (S.H.I.T.)" or 'wishful thinking syndromitis.'
Imagine a corporation where the marketing division has co-opted all the power. Hopeful fancy pronouncements of success, glory and marvelous products issue forth daily while the core entity hemorrhages cash, loses customers and is an irreversible decline.
Why am I not surprised that America under Bush’s leadership is an eerie reminder of the fantasy structure that once was Enron?
Well, I am a psychotherapist. You could be right...it's certainly one possible explanation...the only quibble I would have with the diagnosis is that he really only seems to care about being in power rather than being liked...most narcissists crave admiration, not just power. He sure does lack empathy for others though, and he definitely has a sense of entitlement...
Juan - it's too close to the bone to be satire. You've nailed him!
There is some solace that the president, who is in all ways truly beneath contempt, is a young man. If he stays (sort of) on the wagon and continues to whack weeds in Crawford, he could live to see history's judgment. Even then however, I suspect one would have to tie him down and force his eyes open.
Most of his enablers, particularly the D.C. political hacks and their craven democratic clients will learn their fate a lot sooner. If they don't change their tunes now, they'll lose in November (again).
It is good riddance to the lot of them.
Imagine what it must be like to be surrounded by people telling you how great you are, and how right you are, everyday, twelve months of the year.
It would make anyone lose touch with reality.
We the american people have created a monstrosity.
in a sense Mr. Bush is a foil, a patsy; nothing more than a Yankee carpetbagger come to call on the base instincts of the Cow States ~ all dressed up in a Howdy Doody costume. If he believes that he sits on a throne, then truly he himself is delusional (but, does it matter, really what he thinks, even about himself?)
Because not unlike the character he plays, "Howdy Doody", do you not get the impression that in reality he sits on the lap of "Cowboy Bob"...?
nous sommes celui qui nous feignons pour etre :-/
The question, really , is not "Who is George Bush?" and "How does he see himself, and what he does?" Rather...
...who is Dick Cheney ?
I also believe that Bush can be seen as a classic psychopath. Consider his inappropriate touching incidents, the most egregious being the unwanted shoulder-rub of Chancellor Merkel. His "joking" is really designed to put people in their place. His famous nicknames objectify other people, turning them into cut-out actors to place on his stage.
Bear in mind that psychopaths are not all killers - some succeed as entrepreneurs, in sales, and are merely an annoyance to others rather than a threat. Unfortunately, this one is particularly dangerous, as he has ascended to the most powerful position on earth where his drive to dominate has resulted in untold suffering and death at home and around the world.
I find this article very insightful. Bravo!
I wish people would stop criticizing Bush. Its his policies and actions that have caused so much domestic and international chaos.
In my view Bush is intellectually incapable of formulating and executing these things. Its done by others. the reason Bush's defenses of administration policy are so shallow, weak, and repetitive is that he is not the author, just the pitchman.
The conservatives gained power not by attacking liberal individuals (although they did plenty of that), but rather by attacking liberalism. they managed to make liberalism - the driving force behind the modern egalitarian state - into a dirty word.
To get the country headed back in the right direction, conservatism will have to be seen as a dirty word. Changing the hood ornament, aka Bush, will not get the job done.
I still think we have missed a golden opportunity to get rid of Mr. Bush once and for all. It's a stretch, but worth a shot:
Bush said that we were going after terrorist nations and nations that support terrorism. It could easily be argued that Lebanon supports terrorism by allowing Hezbollah to exist within their borders. Bush has pledged 230 million in aid to Lebanon after the dust up with Israel.
By giving a nation that supports terrorism 230 million dollars in aid, is he not guilty of treason?
Juan, as a social historian myself, I usually avoid this line of thought; I make sure, esp. when talking about Bush to say "the Bush Administration" -- and not just because I don't want to be dismissed as a "bush hater."
Whether your diagnosis passes muster with the shrinks or not, it certainly comes near the mark. But most important right now is what it might tell us about what Bush might do in the near future (even if, as many believe, he is merely Cheney's pawn).
I have been thinking more and more about these personality aspects lately because I think they tell us that Bush MUST attack Iran in order to maintain his vision of himself.
A key tip off for me was when Bush claimed Israel defeated Hezbollah. That was not merely spin or lying or stupidity. He HAS to believe that in order to move to the next step (as Sy Hersh tells us). Maybe saner minds will prevail, but I wouldn't count on it. Bush is psychologically prepared to invade Iran whatever the evidence says.
Bush is certainly narcissistic, although the grandiosity seen with Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a bit confounded by the fact that he actually is the President. What happens to a narcissist when all of his grandiose fantasies are actually realized? Bush also has some Antisocial Personality traits as well, in particular, a lack of empathy and remorse for his actions and of course the alleged frog/fireccracker incident. Then there is the drinking problem.
As a psychiatrist (which I am), with the limited information I have, I might give him this as a diagnosis:
Axis I: Alcohol Abuse
Axis II: Narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder traits. (Axis II is for the personality disorders). It would be difficult to justify a complete diagnosis of a personality disorder as that generally implies some inability to function in society. No matter how much help he got, he has made it to President of the United States. The other question, really, is whether his alcohol abuse is in remission as he claims, or not. I rather doubt it.
It would take a team of psychoanalysts to catalogue the many and varied mental pathologies of George W. Bush and his henchmen in the U.S. government. The point to keep in mind is that in this time and in this place the capitalist system needed people in power capable of carrying out insane and grotesquely inhumane policies, up to and including nuclear warfare. Capitalism, like the HAL 9000 computer onboard the spaceship Discovery in the film 2001: A Space Odyssey, is out of the control of its makers. The system now has only human sentinels, best represented by the so-called Neo-Conservatives in ruling circles.
Having had to deal with two people with NPD, one in business and one in a private setting, for the last five years. I think I can say that there are multiple people in the Bush Administration with NPD, in fact this disorder is prevalent in America.
You know when you are dealing with a person with at least the appearance of NPD when you ask them if dropping a two thousand pound bomb on a crowded Baghdad restaurant isn't terrorism - and you get a blank look (total lack of empathy) in return.
I am a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst, and although you might be right about Bush's diagnosis, there may be a bigger issue here:
If you examine US foriegn policy over the years, what we see during Bush's reign is more or less an exaggerated, over-the-top version of what previous administrations have been doing. This administration is much less inhibited in its demonstration of the "narcissism" that has infiltrated many aspects of American culture.
Narcissism, in its subtle but pervasive essence, has become a virtue in America. The American identity depends on the core belief that America is the best country in the World.
It never failes to amuse me how Americans find it surprising that people in other countries may surpass them in one aspect of life or the other.
What this leads to is a tendency for the masses to actually elect the more narcissistic candidates. It is, in a way, a self-fulfilling prophesy. Although many in the US intelligentsia, like Professor Cole, have a more realistic evaluation of America vis-a-vis the rest of the World, the cultural narcissism is too pervasive for those select few to be able to have an influence on the electoral process.
Narcissistic/Borderline Personality Disorder with anti-social tendencies.
You need to include the part about where people he encounters are either "all alright" or "totally evil."
Then there is the impulsive behavior (trips to Baghdad, could not wait to bomb Iraq, playing guitar while NO flooded) and the twisted reality.
Yup, the man is unfit for office.
Still very informative and stunning analysis, after being around for some time: "The Culture of Narcissism" by Christopher Lasch. Should be followed by "The Revolt of the Elites." Should be required undergrad reading, but isn't of course.
let's not forget the Karla Faye Tucker business where in an interview with Tucker Carlson, Bush mocked Tucker's pleas for clemency.
The man is sick. Definitely a narcissist.
Professor Cole and many of the posters made alot of profound observations about Bush, the man, the personality. A few others made important caveats not to rely too much on "personality-disorder" as a method of understanding social-history and ideology. As instructive as the exercise was, Professor Cole *did* provide a disclaimer that it was a "satire".
Sometimes, one satire is worth a thousand analyses. I believe that's the reason behind the current popularity of comedians on fake-news-shows. I believe it was Graham Greene who satirized "The Quiet American" (a novel of his by that very name), when US decided to send in the early "advisers" into Vietnam, looking for prospects, as the French were facing a resistance movement. I think Greene used the term "evangelicals", to decribe the fool-hardy nature of American exuberance combined with an arrogant lack of understanding (or interest) of native culture and history in its early adventure in French Indo-China.
I believe Greene's satirical observations of American idealists sent to French-Indo-China to "promote democracy" were an early harbinger of things to come with the current crop of "Neo-Cons". pResident Bush is certainly of the evangelical-fundamentalist mold. He merely represents a conservative social-movement gone awry in middle America. The "Neos" (aka: recent converts)have a different agenda than the other variety of conservatism disparagingly called "Paleo-conservatives". The latter has a coherent rationale to their opposition to the Neo's imperialist tendencies. I am reminded that it is not just the left that has a coherent worldview against such imperialist adventurism.
Some of the ultra-orthodox Jewish sects inside Israel also have a similar revulsion towards Israeli adventurism and settlements. I am also reminded that there are sectors of Islamic societies who have opened another ideological front (within Islam) to confront the militant, ultra-nationalist, religious-chauvinistic vision exemplified by a Bin-Laden.
In other words, Professor Cole, isn't it correct that there *IS* a "Clash of Civilizations" taking place? I am thinking of the ones inside the boundaries of each culture and nationality. NOT the cliche-ridden one mindlessly promoted by ethno-centric Neo-conservative observers (like the former military-analyst on the Newshour yesterday debating Professor Rashid, by claiming the current morass in the Middle-East is "due to" the "collapse of a dying culture" represented by "so many failed-states".
Pundits engaging in self-fulfilling prophecies, of which Bush and Cheney are stellar examples. Yesterday's Press-Conference was one such example. Peppered by questions challenging his "vision" of Iraq, squirming yet defiantly confident, Bush looked to me like Greene's Alden Pyle, who was having his moment of tantrum in response to reality's "inability" to conform to his "vision" of "democracy".
But don't count him out just yet. Just because Bush's war was wrong from the start, don't mean the Dems are right in calling for a precipitous pull-out. I think John Koch is right when he observes that Bush at the Press-Conference, may be pulling a Nixonian "Peace with Honor" number, playing to the "born-again" electorate who still believes one *can* (if done right) "deliver" democracy with the "shock and awe" of 2000 pound bombs. Didn't Nixon escalate the bombing of Hanoi after he won in 1972 with "peace and honor"?
Isn't Bush's "narcissism" and "personality disorders" merely an individual allegory of the larger social disorder and pathology? Aren't the classical socio-political terms "national-chauvinism" and "ethnocentrism" appropriate here? Isn't that the current "ruling ideology" in the "narcissistic" worlds of Olmert's Israel, Bush's Amerika, and Bin-Laden's Islam? Hegel had a pejorative term for it. He called it "Beautiful-Soul".
The scuttlebutt is that that the Pentagon told Bush thay won't attack Iran, despite his orders. It's believable. Look at all the trouble Iraq has given them. And Iraq was in BAD shape when the U.S. invaded. They'd been bombed like everyday during the 90s. Embargoed. Iran hasn't had all that and is larger and more populated. Imagine the trouble Iran would be.
Dubya will have the final laugh on all of us after the world community decides to try him for war crimes. Just like the rest of the sniveling right-wing crowd, he'll rely on a technicality - his illness - to justify the reason he shouldn't spend the rest of his days in a prison. Instead, he'll get home care back on the Crawford spread until he finally turns toes up.
I think you have to take into account two other aspects.
First is John Dean's recent setting a light upon the personality disorder of authoritarians, which is at the core of all fascist and proto-fascist movements, of which the Neocons are most definitely.
Then take a closer look into what Neocon's actually believe, not the academic Neocons, but the ones out in the world. It is inherently elitist, and hierarchically elitist, which is going to attract both authoritarian personality disordered people and people who happen to be an elite.
Neocons believe that society should be ruled by Philosophy/philosopher's, a sort of neoplatonic school of thought. However, Neocon's believe the study of philosophy leads to athiesm. The problem with athiesm is once the masses discover that God is dead, society will degenerate into decadence and barbarism. (Nevermind that places like Japan, Sweden and Western Europe overall are both largelly unreligious yet have more civil societies with less crime, poverty, incivility, ignorance, illiteracy and longer life expectancy etc...).
What this means is that only an 'uber-person' can handle the role of the athiestic philosopher King. Elites.
The rest of the masses have to be controled by excessive religiosity. And it really doesn't matter what religion - thus we have a movement that sees fundementalist evangelicals, protestants, Catholics and Jewish Orthodox (Lieberman) all walking in lock step. And the conservative take over of religious organizations has been funded by wealthy families and their foundations, such as Pete Coors, Almanson, Olin foundation, Schiaffe of the Mellon's inheretence, Koch's of Wichita etc....
NOte, when Bush is talking to elites, he sounds like an athistic elite, such as when he told elite journalist Bob Woodward, "in the end we're all just dead" (spoken like a true Neocon athiestic elite). And when he's talking to the masses he sounds like a born again christian. He represents the Neocon strategy, structure and outlook.
What the Straussians want, In essence this is a society that looks alot like a Banana Republic or even Saudi Arabia.
Bush, then, is no different than the wealthy merchants of the late middle ages that found Calvin's doctrine of predestination as attractive: "there is no surer signt of God's good favor then wealth." This meant that the wealthy merchant didn't have to give money to the poor, because poverty was a sign of moral failure and God's disapproval.
Where you stand on an epistomology depends upon where sit.
Bush and his cabal are all elites or elite wannabes. This attracts them to authoritarianism and the rest is history. Once they enter into the tunnel of Neoconism, they are likely to turn out being Narcisistic, social path, bullies, and suffer from anti-social personality disorder, simple because they stepped into a realm that considers others as sub human which really means, inhumane and from there the rest is easy.
The irony, in the effort to stear humanity away from barbarism, they are impellilng humanity headlong into barbarism and ruin.
are there any petitions to have Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld tried as war criminals? I'll sign. I hope they are hounded by magistrates the rest of their lives and are forced to remain inside the US like Kissinger, for fear of being detained.
I found this comment so good, I had to paste it again:
"In my view Bush is intellectually incapable of formulating and executing these things. Its done by others. the reason Bush's defenses of administration policy are so shallow, weak, and repetitive is that he is not the author, just the pitchman."
Honestly, I dont think Bush is as smart as people are making him out to be. And I dont think he's narcissistic. He is a man with little sophisticated knowledge of the world outside Texas, and coupled with the ambitions of the neocons who have been his puppetmasters since the get-go, it makes for a little cowboy trying to fill big ideological shoes.
I always wince at his answers to reporters at press events, because I know he is going to have to rely on his limited knowledge and vocabulary, rather than on the set of minds that guide his usual oratory. (although I find their speechwriting repetitive as well.)
Very interesting post. I independently noticed how Bush fits the profile of someone having narcissistic personality disorder: check out this post from 2 July 2006. Notice the study that shows how narcissists are quick to initiate a war---and how they then lose...
Post a Comment
<< Home