<p>The “Presidential Advance Manual,” dated October 2002 with the stamp “Sensitive – Do Not Copy,” was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004…</p>
<p>Really, don’t you think if Bush had been aware of how much anger and dissent was building up in Americans during his administration, it might have been a GOOD thing for him?</p>
<p>Weenie, it doesn’t bother him because he is SURE he is doing what is right. It doesn’t matter whether it actually IS right. Being sure gives him the confidence (or whatever you want to call it) to ignore anyone who disagrees.</p>
<p>I disagree A.S.A.P. I bet he doesn’t know. Part of the problem with a guy like GWB, who has been “handled” all his life, is the lack of actual feedback from the outside world. Everyone around him is a smiling bobblehead, telling him what a great guy he is, how history will record him as a great leader, etc. It’s a lot easier to believe that than to face the ugly reality.</p>
<p>It’s just possible that he wouldn’t have presided over the numerous and horrendous policy missteps which have slammed our nation if there had just been one guy who looked him in the eye and said, “George, you’re a moron. That will never work.” Remember, GWB has been bailed out of every bad decision he’s ever made. His “business” experience? He failed in oil and then as the “owner” of the Texas Rangers was basically just a front guy for slick deals put together by wealthy friends, who got paid off big time at the expense of the taxpayers. Do you think he even knows that? I’m sure he thinks he was a savvy wheeler-dealer who was personally responsible for putting together a big deal that was good for everyone. Check out the story: <a href=“http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html[/url]”>http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/pearly/htmls/bush-sec5.html</a></p>
<p>When you say “He knows” I honestly think you’re giving him too much credit.</p>
<p>I don’t think he’s malleable by criticism or experience. Not at this point in life anyhow. I’ve posted in another thread, probably long since destroyed, about how much Bush’s behavior resembles that of compulsive gamblers. That personality type simply isn’t sensitive to others’ opinions or to the consequences of actions.</p>
<p>it is so bizarre that he can’t see dissent, it is like a dictator who doesn’t want to see anyone who disagrees in his line of sight, scary stuff</p>
<p>can anyone actually justify this?</p>
<p>I don’t think he really knows, when you watch the news, often the protests are ignored or downplayed, and he doesn’t actually read anything, it is all “explained” to him </p>
<p>compulsive gamblers or alcoholics-he is an alcoholic</p>
<p>I don’t know, Kluge. Reading your article didn’t convince me of his ignorance, just feigned ignorance.</p>
<p>Sure, things are explained to him, but he is of like mind with all his handlers. </p>
<p>What happens to people who try to tell him he’s off track? They “leave.” </p>
<p>I believe he’s aware of his poll numbers, the dissent, the lack of support from fellow Republicans, but he’s not listening. He doesn’t feel he has to.</p>
<p>Yeah, first we had a President who had a compulsive need to feel loved (both literally and figuratively) and was willing to commit genocide in the process of becoming one of the most popular men on the face of the earth. Then we have one who doesn’t seem to care much, though he does believe he will be “justified by history”.</p>
<p>Seems like what often happens with rogue nations.</p>
<p>“I’ve posted in another thread, probably long since destroyed, about how much Bush’s behavior resembles that of compulsive gamblers.”</p>
<p>There’s actually a term for that - dry alcoholics. I’ve heard people make a case that Bush acts like a “dry drunk,” including such things as his obsessive bike riding, etc. I don’t know. I’m not a big fan of psychobabble, but…</p>
<p>Here is one description I found on line:</p>
<p>acting self-important, either
by “having all the answers,”
or playing “poor me.”
• making harsh judgments of
oneself and others.
• being impatient or pursuing
whims.
• blaming others for shortcomings
one suspects in oneself.
• being dishonest, usually
beginning with little things.
• impulsive behavior which
ignores what’s best for oneself and others
inability to make decisions.
• mood swings, trouble with
expressing emotions, feeling
unsatisfied.
• detachment, self-absorption,
boredom, distraction or disorganization.
• nostalgia for the drinking life.
• fantasizing, daydreaming and
wishful thinking or euphoria.
• less participation in a 12-step
program or dropping out altogether.</p>
<p>But just last week, there were articles about Bush getting ****ed off because a Crawford paper poked a little fun at the way he dressed, which suggests he is sensitive to others opinions.</p>
<p>One can be vain and sensitive about one’s personal appearance (like Napoleon) and still not give a hoot who disagrees with your foreign policy.
It’s a common trait with narcissists.</p>
<p>Funny how the Busheviks are almost Maoist in their M.O. They really do believe that they create reality. Well, Pappy Bush spent time in China, so maybe not so strange after all.</p>
<p>This is too funny. All this breathlessness over this issue. Were you equally breathless when Clinton tried to have abortion protestors banned from his innaugeral parade route? I didn’t think so.</p>
<p>I feel kind of sorry for Bush supporters on here. (No, seriously.) They must miss the days when Bush supporters flocked to these threads. So many voices missing, it’s almost hard to have a debate anymore! (And it does feel a bit like kicking a downed horse.)</p>
<p>Tell us FF, what do you think are the high points of the Bush administration?</p>
<p>Nobody could, with a straight face, accuse the Clintons of living in a bubble. At least Bill, unlike the current Doofus, sought ought varying opinions, sometimes <em>too</em> much. Also, unlike the current Doofus, I think he understood the right of protest. I rarely saw him viscerally angry. Whereas Doofus seems to be angry all the time…perhaps he’s channeling Bill O’Reilly.</p>
<p>FF, you can always be counted on to pull out some hoary distorted chestnut regarding Bill Clinton whenever your heroes in the White House are exposed for the buffoons they are. For those of you who are wondering what the heck FF is referring to, it was a court decision regarding the Park Service’s desire to limit anti-abortion protestors who wanted to stand in front of the other spectators on the inaugural parade route with 4 foot tall signs festooned with pictures of aborted fetuses. The result was an order allowing 25 of them as long as they didn’t block too many people’s view of the parade.
That is the event that FF feels is comparable to the Bush Administration’s aggressive rooting out of any sign of disagreement with GWB and protecting him from ever seeing evidence of the fact that most of us think he’s an incompetent, arrogant buffoon who has truly and royally screwed the nation.</p>
<p>Hey FF, which blog fed you that sound bite, anyway? It’s weaker than the usual red herring. Oh!! Oh!! Don’t look at George - look over there - it’s a Clinton!!!</p>