Jump to content
Clubplanet Nightlife Community
Sign in to follow this  
igloo

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Recommended Posts

Bush Derangement Syndrome

Charles Krauthammer

December 5, 2003

Diane Rehm: ``Why do you think he (Bush) is suppressing that (Sept. 11) report?''

Howard Dean: ``I don't know. There are many theories about it. The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is?''

-- ``Diane Rehm Show,'' NPR, Dec. 1

It has been 25 years since I discovered a psychiatric syndrome (for the record: ``Secondary Mania,'' Archives of General Psychiatry, November 1978), and in the interim I haven't been looking for new ones. But it's time to don the white coat again. A plague is abroad in the land.

Bush Derangement Syndrome: the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush.

Now, I cannot testify to Howard Dean's sanity before this campaign, but five terms as governor by a man with no visible tics and no history of involuntary confinement is pretty good evidence of a normal mental status. When he avers, however, that ``the most interesting'' theory as to why the president is ``suppressing'' the 9/11 report is that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, it's time to check on thorazine supplies.

When Rep. Cynthia McKinney first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former Rep. McKinney. Today the Democratic presidential front-runner professes agnosticism as to whether the president of the United States was tipped off about 9/11 by the Saudis, and it goes unnoticed. The virus is spreading.

It is, of course, epidemic in New York's Upper West Side and the tonier parts of Los Angeles, where the very sight of the president -- say, smiling while holding a tray of Thanksgiving turkey in a Baghdad mess hall -- caused dozens of cases of apoplexy in otherwise healthy adults. What is worrying epidemiologists about the Dean incident, however, is that heretofore no case had been reported in Vermont, or any other dairy state.

Moreover, Dean is very smart. Until now, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) had generally struck people with previously compromised intellectual immune systems. Hence its prevalence in Hollywood. Barbra Streisand, for example, wrote her famous September 2002 memo to Dick Gephardt warning that the president was dragging us toward war to satisfy, among the usual corporate malefactors who ``clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq,'' the logging industry -- timber being a major industry in a country that is two-thirds desert.

It is true that BDS has struck some pretty smart guys -- Bill Moyers ranting about a ``right-wing wrecking crew'' engaged in ``a deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States way of governing'' and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, whose recent book attacks the president so virulently that Krugman's British publisher saw fit to adorn the cover with images of Dick Cheney in a Hitler-like mustache and Bush stitched-up like Frankenstein. Nonetheless, some observers took that to be satire; others wrote off Moyers and Krugman as simple aberrations, the victims of too many years of neurologically hazardous punditry.

That's what has researchers so alarmed about Dean. He had none of the usual risk factors: Dean has never opined for a living, and has no detectable sense of humor. Even worse is the fact that he is now exhibiting symptoms of a related illness, Murdoch Derangement Syndrome (MDS), in which otherwise normal people believe that their minds are being controlled by a single, very clever Australian.

Chris Matthews: ``Would you break up Fox?''

Howard Dean: ``On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but ... I don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. ... What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one.''

Some clinicians consider this delusion -- that Americans can only get their news from one part of the political spectrum -- the gravest of all. They report that no matter how many times sufferers in padded cells are presented with flash cards with the symbols ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times -- they remain unresponsive, some in a terrifying near-catatonic torpor.

The sad news is that there is no cure. But there is hope. There are many fine researchers seeking that cure. Your donation to the BDS Foundation, no matter how small, can help. Mailing address: Republican National Committee, Washington DC, Attention: psychiatric department. Just make sure your amount does not exceed $2,000 ($4,000 for a married couple).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps igloo, PERHAPS they did have something to do with it.

American leaders have had a habbit of well, erm, how shall we say. Lying.

It seems that Bush's Whitehouse do want to suppress the investigation into 9/11 - Let's not forget they first appointed Henry Kissinger to head up the enquiry, an attempt at whitewashing so blatent he had to leave sharpish...

read this, doubt any of it'll go in Igloo, but why not consider it...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3830.htm

While the administration of President George W. Bush is aggressively positioning itself as the world leader in the war on terrorism, some families of the Sept. 11 victims say that the facts increasingly contradict that script. The White House long opposed the formation of a blue-ribbon Sept. 11 commission, some say, and even now that panel is underfunded and struggling to build momentum. And, they say, the administration is suppressing a 900-page congressional study, possibly out of fear that the findings will be politically damaging to Bush

"We've been fighting for nearly 21 months -- fighting the administration, the White House," says Monica Gabrielle. Her husband, Richard, an insurance broker who worked for Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the World Trade Center's Tower 2, died during the attacks. "As soon as we started looking for answers we were blocked, put off and ignored at every stop of the way. We were shocked. The White House is just blocking everything."

Another 9/11 family advocate -- a former Bush supporter who requested anonymity -- was more blunt: "Bush has done everything in his power to squelch this [9/11] commission and prevent it from happening."

Thus far, the administration has largely succeeded. Its stonewalling has gotten little news coverage, and there is scant evidence that the public is outraged. The national discussion has moved on -- to Iraq, to that country's still-missing weapons of mass destruction, to Laci Peterson. But there are increasing signs that White House efforts to blunt a full inquiry into the domestic failures that preceded Sept. 11 could emerge as an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign, in which Bush and his handlers hope to exploit 9/11 for maximum political advantage.

Sen. Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat and former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has raised the profile of his presidential campaign with sharp criticism of Bush for both his administration's intelligence failures before Sept. 11 and its attempt to paper them over since. "The public has the right to know what its government has done and is doing to protect Americans and U.S. interests," Graham told Salon Monday. "Potential embarrassment isn't a good enough reason to keep these government materials secret."

Other Democrats almost certainly will realize that the issue is one way to counter the public's belief that Bush has been an effective leader in the war on terrorism.

Perhaps it was fear of a backlash that provoked Bush's staff to invite the Sept. 11 families to the Mueller seminar. But by the accounts of several people who attended the briefing at FBI headquarters, in a wing named after Bush's father, the mood was often contentious as the FBI chief and Department of Justice prosecutors answered questions for more than two hours. One flash point came during a sharp exchange about what the FBI had -- or had not -- done with several internal memos filed by field agents detailing concerns that al-Qaida operatives may be training at U.S. flight schools. Mueller confirmed that weeks before the Sept. 11 attack, one young FBI agent had seen two such memos but that she did not act on them.

According to family representatives, Mueller defended the agent, saying she did not have the proper training or tools to take action on the information. But when pressed on how such egregious oversight was able to occur, the director grew defensive and then demanded: "What do you want me to do, fire her?"

The remark was meant to be rhetorical, but in unison family members responded audibly: "Yes!"

"We're the most skeptical audience Mueller will ever have, and I think it showed," says Sept. 11 widow Beverly Eckert, whose husband, Sean Rooney, died in the twin towers. "We want answers."

Just over a year ago, the families' questions were at least being asked. During May 2002, controversy swirled when CBS News reported that five weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush had been briefed about an active plot by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida operatives to seize civilian aircraft. The revelations stood in stark contrast to White House spin in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks that nobody in the administration or the intelligence community had "specific information" about a possible hijacking plot.

Into that combustible mix came revelations that FBI special agents in Phoenix and Minnesota had warned their superiors about suspected al-Qaida operatives training at U.S. flight schools. For the White House, the "what did Bush know and when did he know it" narrative was its first real political crisis after Sept. 11, the first time the press along with Democrats were asking pointed questions -- and gaining traction by the day. Even the New York Post, usually a reliable White House ally, ran a headline that declared "Bush Knew"; the conservative Weekly Standard warned that "the administration is now in danger of looking as if it has engaged in a cover-up."

But the White House, aided by global circumstances and a distractible news media, conspired to change the subject.

First, a succession of senior administration officials made dire warnings about the certainty of suicide bombers striking inside America. Then, on June 6, 2002, the administration abruptly reversed itself and announced it was backing the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, as first proposed by Democrats. And the White House made the historic announcement the same day FBI agent Colleen Rowley testified before Congress about her famous Minneapolis memo, ensuring that the Department of Homeland Security was the next day's top headline.

Then, by last August, the Capitol was abuzz in talk of war with Iraq, and the buzz persisted for the next nine months. "Iraq changed everything with the press," says one victims' advocate whose wife died in Tower 1. "Nobody cares about this after Iraq."

"It was a successful attempt to change the story," notes John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a nonprofit defense policy group. "From the White House's perspective, no good can come of these [9/11] investigations. So I think their approach has been entirely predictable, and easy to understand."

Adding insult for some family activists was the fact that Bush used the 9/11 attacks as a justification for the war on Iraq. "I sat and listened to the State of the Union speech [last January] when Bush mentioned 9/11 12 or 13 times," recalls Kristin Breitweiser, whose husband, Ronald, was killed when United Flight 175 slammed into Tower 1. "At the same time, we were having trouble getting funding for the independent commission."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This comment "perhaps igloo, PERHAPS they did have something to do with it"...and the rest of your post goes to show you know NOTHING, and again, demonstrates you are a dispicable anti-american cunt............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except that there are some extremely shadowy people operating around governments around the world.

the bush family, and people in his administration have links to some extremely dodgy goings on to do with CIA stuff during the 80s, and before.

give this a read if you don't believe american foriegn interests could possibly be put ahead of regard for human life.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_01_01/U_S__Officials_Proposed_Stagin/u_s__officials_proposed_stagin.html

"According to documents obtained for Body of Se crets, [then-Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Army General Lyman] Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs proposed secretly to stage an attack on the Ameri can naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba-and then blame the violent action on Castro. Convinced that Cuba had launched an unprovoked attack on the United States, the unwitting American public would then support the Joint Chief's bloody Carib bean war. After all, who would believe Castro's denials over the word of the Pentagon's top military commanders? The nation's most senior military leadership was proposing to launch a war, which would no doubt kill many American servicemen, based solely on a fabric of lies. On January 19, just hours before [then-President Dwight] Eisen hower left office, Lem nitzer gave his approval to the proposal. As events progressed, the plan would become only the tip of a very large and secret iceberg.

"Lemnitzer, a self-described "imaginative planner," kept his initial plan in cold storage. However, after the new Kennedy administration's Bay of Pigs fiasco, which left Fidel Castro stronger than ever before, Lemnitzer reinvigorated his scheme under the name "Operation Northwoods." Bamford reports that:

"The plan, which had the written approval of the chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnister and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.

"What makes this so additionally disturbing is that this was not some wild scheme by only some "mad bomb ers" inside the military. In Bamford's estimation, "the idea may actually have originated with President Eisen hower in the last days of his administration."

"Bamford reports that Eisenhower was determined to invade Cuba and that if Castro did not provide an excuse prior to the inauguration of newly-elected Presi dent John F. Kennedy, Eisenhower suggested that the United States "could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable."

"What Eisenhower was suggesting, writes Bamford, was "a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president." Lemnitzer, Eisenhower's protegé since World War II days, was eager to carry out the plan."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by bigpoppanils

all i have to ask is why is the Bush administration so eager to supress 9/11 evidence?

if Bush acted properly and had no prior knowledge of the attack...why not release the report and squash all rumors?

Some can't be released because of national security reasons (stated by both Dems and Reps).....but I think the biggest reason is the Saudi's...

But for anyone to imply, infer, conclude, or dream that Bush had prior knowledge is at best on Mars, and at worst, a repulsive human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by xpyrate

it was on the cover of nearly every newspaper and magazine that "bush knew", even conservative papers like the new york post had that as their headline in big bold print

:laugh: :laugh:

Son.......please......stick with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish .......if you conquer that, then perhaps Lego's or even a talking Barbie doll (with accessories!)....

Add them to your Santa list

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by xpyrate

it was on the cover of nearly every newspaper and magazine that "bush knew", even conservative papers like the new york post had that as their headline in big bold print

We receive THOUSANDS of threats a day..

Think about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by igloo

:laugh: :laugh:

Son.......please......stick with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish .......if you conquer that, then perhaps Lego's or even a talking Barbie doll (with accessories!)....

Add them to your Santa list

I admire how you prove xpyrates points with your repulsive retorts igloo. When are you gonna grow up and accept the fact you've been shot down and admit you are wrong?

Prehaps it's you who should be sticking with one fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish, legos and barbies with accessories. Perhaps you should be dressed like barbie.

Originally posted by mr mahs

We receive THOUSANDS of threats a day..

Think about that.

Too bad they've been nothing but hoaxes and made up lies to keep the people in fear and under control so they are forced to be dependant on an idiot son of an asshole from Texas.

Retitled thread:

DBSS

Delusional Blind Sheep Syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×