Bush's behavior becoming more 'erratic'

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-06-04 10:53pm

White House aides starting to get freaked out

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 10:59pm

Jesus Christ, the man's turning into Nixon...

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 11:04pm

I'm not sure how of that to trust, but it seems plausible enough.

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

All, I have to say to that is: Gee fucking whiz.

I supported the war yet I can't help but call his handling of it once it begun anything but feckless. I'm a conservative and even I don't want to see another term of the Bush Administration.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2004-06-04 11:07pm

The Kernel wrote:Jesus Christ, the man's turning into Nixon...

Sounds more Stalin to me, actually.

Hopefully some liberal-minded major news network will make this a story on television. Kerry's not good, but he's better than Bush at the moment, it seems.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-04 11:09pm

The article doesn't strike me as being too reliable.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 11:10pm

Master of Ossus wrote:The article doesn't strike me as being too reliable.

It directly quotes aids AND says that the White House refused to comment on the matter. Maybe it isn't 100% reliable, but there is truth in here.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-04 11:12pm

The Kernel wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:The article doesn't strike me as being too reliable.
It directly quotes aids AND says that the White House refused to comment on the matter. Maybe it isn't 100% reliable, but there is truth in here.

You gotta be shitting me. Anybody can "directly quote" a White House aid who refuses to go on the record. It cites no examples of public behavior, and its explanation of Tenet's resignation is... bizarre at best, although I'm not sure there is a more normal explanation for that whole incident.

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-06-04 11:19pm

It's just like with loonie fundie webpages and the parodies of them. It's gotten so hard recently to tell what's real and what's not with this presidency.

But I still love this line, true or not:

West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 11:22pm

The Kernel wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:The article doesn't strike me as being too reliable.
It directly quotes aids AND says that the White House refused to comment on the matter. Maybe it isn't 100% reliable, but there is truth in here.

Frankly, it directly quote a bunch of anonymous people and has nothing that can be publicly verified. It might be the truth, it might not be. It's a plausible story but one totally unverified.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 11:23pm

Stormbringer wrote: Frankly, it directly quote a bunch of anonymous people and has nothing that can be publicly verified. It might be the truth, it might not be. It's a plausible story but one totally unverified.

Granted, but you'd think the White House would at least go through the motions of a formal denial.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2004-06-04 11:24pm

Much as I have contempt for the present occupant of the White House, I'd have to see some corroboration to believe this story.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-06-04 11:25pm

The Kernel wrote:Granted, but you'd think the White House would at least go through the motions of a formal denial.

Even if it was totally, one hundred percent true then the White House would almost certainly deny it immediately. That is, IF they took the story seriously. That's part of what sends my BS-o-meter screaming about this whole story.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 11:26pm

The Kernel wrote:
Stormbringer wrote: Frankly, it directly quote a bunch of anonymous people and has nothing that can be publicly verified. It might be the truth, it might not be. It's a plausible story but one totally unverified.
Granted, but you'd think the White House would at least go through the motions of a formal denial.

Why would the White House bother with a put up job story on an not no account site? I'd be suprised if they knew it existed.

Again it's possible, Nixon went that way, but it's uncorraborated.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-04 11:31pm

I'm going to take it was a lump of salt, since while I can believe it, I see no real evidence for it.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-06-04 11:34pm

Stormbringer wrote: Why would the White House bother with a put up job story on an not no account site? I'd be suprised if they knew it existed.

Again it's possible, Nixon went that way, but it's uncorraborated.

It says that they tried to contact the White House about the story but they refused to comment on it.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-06-04 11:36pm

When he'll reach the Kim Jong Ill level of dementia then you can freak out.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 11:38pm

The Kernel wrote:It says that they tried to contact the White House about the story but they refused to comment on it.

"I called the White House. They denied I existed."

See, I can make things up too.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-04 11:45pm

First of all, no White House would try to deny this story if they were smart. It's not that well known and not much proof is given. If the White House denied it, the denial would (a) give the story more publicity and (b) make them look guilty. When you flat-out deny something, a certain number of people will think it's true. They're probably hoping it will go away.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-06-04 11:47pm

Am I reading this right? People are asking for proof that Bush has been behaving erratically? When has he not behaved erratically?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 11:48pm

Elfdart wrote:First of all, no White House would try to deny this story if they were smart. It's not that well known and not much proof is given. If the White House denied it, the denial would (a) give the story more publicity and (b) make them look guilty. When you flat-out deny something, a certain number of people will think it's true. They're probably hoping it will go away.

Or the editors could have simply slapped that onto a pile of crap as a good tag line.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-04 11:49pm

However, I do wonder if there's anyone in the Bush 2 regime like the late James Schlessinger. When Nixon was about to get impeached, he went bonkers to the point that Schlessinger (Secretary of Defense, I think) told his men to intercept any orders from Nixon to the Pentagon to prevent a possible coup.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-06-04 11:50pm

Elfdart wrote:However, I do wonder if there's anyone in the Bush 2 regime like the late James Schlessinger. When Nixon was about to get impeached, he went bonkers to the point that Schlessinger (Secretary of Defense, I think) told his men to intercept any orders from Nixon to the Pentagon to prevent a possible coup.

That sounds like Bullshit: Extra Chunky to me.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2004-06-05 12:10am

Stormbringer wrote:
Elfdart wrote:However, I do wonder if there's anyone in the Bush 2 regime like the late James Schlessinger. When Nixon was about to get impeached, he went bonkers to the point that Schlessinger (Secretary of Defense, I think) told his men to intercept any orders from Nixon to the Pentagon to prevent a possible coup.
That sounds like Bullshit: Extra Chunky to me.

Try The Arrogance of Power by Anthony Summers. Schlessinger confirmed the story himself.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-06-05 12:25am

Stormbringer wrote:That sounds like Bullshit: Extra Chunky to me.

Actually, I heard from my history teacher (who's no crazy) that there was a while where they possibly thought that as Nixon was coming down, there was a risk of him calling the Marines as Commander in Chief to the White House to prevent his removal and that Schlessinger did in fact take steps to prevent that end.

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2004-06-05 01:54pm

I have to say, plausible though this story is, it does seem to reek of sensasionalism. Perhaps there's a vein of truth in there, but for the moment, I'll take the whole story as an amusing, unverified claim, rather than trying to dig through to find what's truthful about it.

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.

Now, I haven't read other articles by this publication, but this opening sounds more like the typical tabloid report on some movie star, than a substanciated report on the president's mental stability.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Now this paragraph is pretty much the main reason I doubt the article as a whole. The president's stupid, incompetent, and fervently fundy, but a claim like this will need some more evidence than that to convince me he actually did this...

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “fuck over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

...as does this paragraph. I can quite easily believe the 'god's will' claim, simply because there is much corroboration from many of his speeches where he goes on about how his godling is fully supporting his decisions. But the 'fuck over' bit? Perhaps some of the intelligent underlings of his that do most of the work that involves covering up for his stupidity may do this, but Bush himself? I'm far from certain.

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

With the circus of nipplegate, and gay-marriage (ooh, evil!) going on, this I find very plausible.

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

"Fucking assholes" I doubt severely, 'unpatriotic' and 'anti-american' on the other hand, I can believe, once again considering similiar statements in many of his speeches.

As for not responding, I find that perfectly believable. Why give what appears, at first glance, to be mostly sensationalism free-press by acknowledging it?

-Damien