The author of this article seems to think there is cause for concern.
Check it out.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4636.shtml
What is ‘Capitol Hill Blue’? Is it respected journal, or a scandal sheet? Because there are absolutely no cites in that article, all of the ‘staffers’ this guy talked to were anonymous, and he offers no other evidence for this proposition.
I’ve got to type this fast, before I faint for agreeing with Sam Stone implication that the story is garbage. It appears to be a leftish scandal sheet with a habit of never backing up its stories with actual facts. So I would say the story is garbage.
Maybe he and Gore can be committed to the same hospital. Maybe there’s one there that has a politician’s wing.
Well, december used to link to it, so it can’t be too out there. 
Seriously though, the quality of information at Capitol Hill Blue varies widely. Sometimes they have the real dope on the latest scandal well before anyone else, and sometimes they get kind of off-the-wall. While not exactly ‘fair and balanced’, CHB does take both the lefties and the righties to task.
This particular Bush article looks pretty out there to me, but given Blue’s history, there might be a grain of truth to it. Let’s wait and see if debkafile corroborates it.
True.
However…
Bush had about the same number of credible cites for Iraq’s WMD and its Al Qaeda connection. Didn’t stop him from taking us to war, though, did it.
But Bush had the CIA. You know, the one that missed the Chinese entry into Korea, the closing of the East German border, the Berlin Wall, the Soviet entry into Hungary, the collapse of the Soviet Union, just to mention the ones I can come up with off hand.
So is every thread which contains the word “Bush” now to be hijacked into another anti-Iraq diatribe?
Not at all, Manhattan. There are plenty of threads that don’t have the word ‘Bush’ in the title that have been hijacked into an anti-Iraq diatribe.
The story may or may not be accurate, but the results are the same as if it were, aren’t they? The lack of focus except on a couple of obsessions, the hatred of opposition or even questioning, the refusal to honestly face error, the staunch religiosity, all that is hardly revelatory even to us outsiders.
manny and sam, it’s also impossible to avoid that Iraq is what *defines * this administration, and is its primary obsession. If the subject is the administration’s overall behavior, there’s no way to avoid it. And to get into it is hardly always a “diatribe”, although it’s certainly much easier for you to dismiss any assertion you don’t like in that way than to face it.
Actually, I was just going to do just that by pointing out that this rag got conned last year into using a crappy source that alleged all sorts of things about the yellowcake/niger story but turned out to be an utter fake. Story here:
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=19&num=2529
They may have issued a big mea culpa on that one, but that doesn’t mean that they necessarily learned anything. Furthermore, this sort of story is pretty despicable. You can make anyone sound crazy if you hint hint hint in recounts of normal human stress. Even if the claims were true, I wouldn’t say that it meant Bush was crazy: most of the claims could have easy explanations or be leaving out key events or information that make sense of the behavior. I’m not doctor, like all the pundits who diagnosed Gore with severe insanity for his dully delivered speech attacking the Bush administration, but I’d say Bush would be crazy if he wasn’t a little stressed out right now. But stress != crazy or even falling to pieces.
That hardly qualifies them for derision. All sorts of rags, left, right, and mainstream, got conned into publishing wild allegations last year. It wasn’t just the rags either.I hear Colon Powell isn’t too pleased with how his endorsement of the yellowcake fraud turned out either.
Er, but this wasn’t just any con. Did you read the article? They got conned by a guy using a name that didn’t even exist in the supposed position he was occupying. This is significantly worse than believing Chalabi, who at least could plausibly be in a position to know about WMD, even if he was biased. They trusted someone who was basically a prankster with a phony name, as they could have established if they had done any sort of research at all.
Regardless, this paper is a bit of a gossip rag nonwithstanding. Think of it as the washington themed drudge report.
Well, remember, as Bush himself continues to remind us, we are a nation at war, and that carries special civic duties.
Well, if this is true:
Doesn’t it have more impact then just being “stressed out”?
Couldn’t it be possible that the stress combined with brain damage from when Bush was an alcoholic and cocaine-sniffing young hothead be catching up with him?
Do you really want to have the guy that is having paranoid delusions of being on a mission from God with the finger on the launch button for the nukes?
No. For all we know there was some particular reason why Bush couldn’t give that meeting as much attention as he’d like to that the source doesn’t know or forgot to mention. Like I said, it’s VERY easy to imply that a person is crazy just by incompletely telling you about them and their actions.
Republicans in 2000 managed to get the spin “Gore doesn’t know who he is” into the mainstream media just by claiming that he wore different clothing at different sorts of engagements (gasp! that’s like, bi-polar disorder it is!)
This is not Democrat organized attack on Bush, but supposedly reports from his own aides… Now, you can choose to believe that these aides are really saying this or not, but if the aides are worried about the sanity of their employer, it is quite different than your Gore example where the Repubs have an obvious advantage at this…
My worry is that if this article reports the comments from the aides truthfully, it is probably a scale worse then “worrying” - you can’t expect them to come out and say “he’s batshit crazy” when they are working for the guy.
So either the article is true or not (no way to know at the moment really), but I posit that it is possible and the consequences could be apocalyptic.
I hope the leftist, like Doug Thompson, like who is he?, continue to underestimate the MAN, affectionately called “Dubya.” The economy is booming after the disastrous economic aftershocks of 9/11 and, unless your in coma from watching Kerry speeches, we are well on our way to winning democracy and freedom for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With these victories. we will also continue to win the war on terror. Even Chirac is now coming around! Watch for the new UN resolution on Iraq coming next week. The military loves GW and Rumsfeld. Not only is he not going over the edge, Bush will win a landslide victory this November!
That Bush is an ass is a poorly-kept secret. He’s rude, thoughtless, & has no sympathy for anybody; which the right has tried to sell as a good thing, under the guise of “toughness,” but which translates into viciousness & self-righteousness. Multiplay that kind of character’s power over the most powerful military in the world, & you get the present war. The GOP didn’t vet this guy when they let him buy the election.
Urk! :smack: Multiply, not multiplay.