When the Bubble Bursts … Bush Unplugged

August 27, 2005

Guest post by Ed Stephan

Doug Thompson, over at Capitol Hill Blue, has a wonderful piece on some of Bush’s reactions to recent anti-war demonstrators. It’s very funny to read. Here are a few paragraphs:

“I’m not meeting again with that goddamned bitch,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “motherfucking traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bullshit protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW assholes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

There’s a picture of him flipping the bird, with the caption, “Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.”

Near that is another item:

“Who gives a flying fuck what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I goddamned please. They don’t know shit.”

I’d suggest Lord Acton’s “Power corrupts” bit, but I think this may be more personal psychology (spoiled brat with damaged brain, in over his head) than structural effect (and anyway, Cheney’s the one with the power). Take a look. The guy’s really going whacko. I guess that’s what happens when the bubble bursts. It should make a great TV movie someday.

I’d really, really like to see this side of Bu$h exposed to more of the American people. Those of us on the left have known what sort of person Bu$h is from the start. How can we make those not aware aware? Blogging it up helps but…

(btw, Capital Hill Blue has a somewhat spotty reputation but this rings true to me)

  • The video of him flipping off the camera is priceless, and SHOULD have been sent to every news outlet in America before the 2000 and 2004 elections, and used in ads if necessary. It shows the frat boy unmasked.

    I have NO idea why the Dems were so timid that they couldn’t use this issue to prevent the horror of the Bush presidency.

    The flipping incident can be seen here:
    http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2654327?ifilmp=99&htv=12

    BTW, Capitol Hill Blue needs an editor. Badly.

  • This is quite a counterpoint to the latest AP article posted on Yahoo Headlines, which repeats the tired (and fictitious) mantra, “Bush has said he appreciates Sheehan’s position and understands her anguish, but will not meet with her.”

    I wonder how much of Rove’s time is spent just keeping the muzzle on this guy?

    Dr. Frank’s worthwhile book should be required reading for every MSM reporter and TV anchor.

  • Pre-disclaimer to avoid controversy: I am neither a Bush voter not a Bush supporter. But I have a devil’s advocate question about “Dr. Frank’s worthwhile book” that I’ve asked elsewhere. Why is it OK for Dr. Frank to make a medical diagnosis without having ever met, examined, or treated Bush, and based his diagnosis solely on videotapes and speeches, but it is not OK for Dr. Frist to do the same thing to Terry Schiavo?

    This sort of thing is either wrong, or it is not, and there are a million and one reasons to detest Bush without relying on a crank “diagnosis” and a bunch of uncorroborated material from alleged, unnamed “White House aides.”

  • Capitol Hill Blue has run with this Bush mental illness story for what seems like forever. They’ve got a reputation that’s barely a notch above Drudge’s, so take care with uncorroborated reports from those guys.

  • I agree with the caveats regarding Capitol Hill Blue, Drudge, etc. I went along with these because they seemed plausible in view of long ago published descriptions of Bush’s temper tantrums during his Daddy’s White House years and on the campaign trail.

    As to Phil’s point about long-distance diagnosis, I may wind up offending the psychologists among us, but I think medical diagnosis and psychological interpretation are two very different activities.

    It was wrong of Frist to diagnose Schiavo’s physical condition from an old videotape. I can tell from a photo if you’re missing an arm (presuming the photo hasn’t been doctored), but I can’t diagnose appendicitis that way, much less brain function.

    Whether Frank should be “diagnosing” Bush’s mental condition … I don’t know. That’s partly why I left that stuff out of my posting. We do “analyze” people without direct contact — what were Caesar’s motives? was Alexander gay? was Romeo’s love for Juliet anything like Richard II’s love of his own image? Whether that’s diagnosis, literary interpretation or whatever … it’s not like regular medicine.

    Andrew Salter (“Conditioned Reflex Therapy”) argued that if you can’t prescribe a pill or do some surgery or change a diet to cure a problem then it isn’t medical. He contended that the medical model is wrong in many cases. What the “patient” needs is a guru, not a doctor. He needs someone to show him how to get along in life, that’s all. I’m inclined to agree with that point of view. I don’t object to Frank’s interpreting Bush’s character; I just don’t think there’s anything particularly “medical” or “scientific” about it.

  • Phil makes a good point, but unlike Frist’s politically-motivated Schiavo diagnosis, which was based on a single, years-old, videotape cobbled together to create the impression that she was something more than a vegetable, BUSH ON THE COUCH is based on the voluminous evidence of Bush’s behavior thoughout his political career. And there’s a precedent for this book. During WWII, the US governtment asked a psychiatrist to develop a profile of Hitler, who, naturally, didn’t spend a few hours on the doctor’s couch.

  • So what’s the bottom line on these
    Bush quotations? Unreliable sources?
    Pity. They’d shock a lot of his supporters.
    They don’t seem inconsistent with some
    of the things I’ve heard about this guy.

  • It would be easy to accept these annecdotes attributed to annonymous “aides” because Bush’s public personna shows flashes of similar behavior when he is directly challenged in a serious manner in situations where the authority of his office fails to provide him with the deference to which he feels he is ENTITLED. It is not hard to imagine this man making the types of comments described at “Capitol Hill Blue.” His famed affability has always appeared as a mask to me, but never having met him, I cannot sort out whether this is good intuition or a conclusion that draws from my disdain for his politics and policies. So, while tempted to read the “Capitol Hill Blue” post with a “Oh, would it be true and were it exposed” feeling of vindication of my own intuition and hope that his supporters would at last see the light, I have to be skeptical of it. I was particularly put off by the speculation that Bush might be drinking again. I’m unfamiliar with this site, but it felt less than credible to me. I feel the same way about “Bush On the Couch.” It may make make valid observations and draw sound conclusions. However, I have avoided reading it because there is something about its approach that seems less than fair to me.

  • You’d really have to believe in media conspiracy if this lone guy at Capital Hill Blue is the only guy these ‘administration officials’ would talk to about this, or the only person who would report it. I know the White House press corp is in the bag, but I find it hard to believe that he’s the only guy who’d get this kind of information.

  • As much as I would love to see Bush pop a gasket and drop a few F Bombs on national television, I can’t really say this article was very convincing. In fact, while I was reading it, I was trying to figure out if it was a serious attempt at honest reporting, or if it was just ultra dry satire. The picture it just seemed so absurdly overblown that without named sources, I couldn’t bring myself to accept what this article was saying, now matter how much I want to.

  • I can’t answer for Doug Thompson or his journalism or his sources. He’s got a self-description here. In the CHB article referenced he claims to have long-term journalistic friends and contacts within the White House.

  • I don’t doubt for a minute that the report captures an essential aspect of Bush’s personality. And the video speaks for itself. What a classy guy.

    What strikes me is the classy way in which the classy media responded to his finger-waving.

  • That pic. of him flippin’ the bird is quite old. He hasnt looked that young since the 90s.

  • Racerx,

    Thanks God the Dems didn’t use this video. The Florida recount wouldn’t have been close. There wouldn’t have been a recount for that matter but a slam dunk Bush victory all accross America. Americans love frat boys. They can be tiresome but they’re fun. And remember that the election in 2000 was, sadly, about which candidate was the most likeable, who was the best dude to have a beer with.

    But now, I would love to see his angry outbursts against Sheehan caught on tape. Oh gosh, I would pay a lot for that tape ! That one would work big time. It would scare the crap out of the public. At long last, it would expose the real Bush – the sad deluded bully, not the likeable feisty frat boy – and the f***ing MSM would have to put an end to its commander in chief junk.

  • Didn’t Charles Kraphammer start the trend of doctors diagnosing psychological conditions of politicians with his critiques of Al Gore?

    • Comments are closed.