I believe that History will ultimately ponder the conundrum of whether Bush was simply a liar or really that stupid.

I don't think it will ever reach a definitive conclusion.

-Dave Adams-

” Faced with mid-term elections whose outcome will either maintain one-party rule or provide a check on his { Bush’s} power” Rove evaluates the options. Here is my analysis of Rove’s conclusion.

Karl Rove will read this articles and a myriad of others in the same vein and say, OK, they are all on to us. The only strategy left to us is the one that worked so well in Ohio in 2004. We must maintain control of both houses of Congress in 2006 by any means. Otherwise there will be investigations that we must avoid at all costs. Call out all possible Diebolt electronic voting machines to the rescue.

Why are the Democrats, Independents, the Bloggers and MSM not making voter fraud and two stolen presidential elections the number one issue? This is the number one crisis in our country. Two presidential elections have been stolen. If this trend continues America will be an empire not a democracy.

To some reading the above article, my response may seem off topic. I believe that it is the topic we must pursue to solve the crisis that faces this country.

Don't do it on a Diebold machine. :-)

"It is unknowable how long that conflict [the war in Iraq] will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."Rumsfeld-Feb.2003

Is it real or is it Memorex? Does Bush himself know the difference? It should go without saying that he's "never been more convinced..."

I think he's a lot like Reagan -- he's gotten to the point where he doesn't remember what actually happened, what the truth is. So many lies to remember. So little time to bike.

My private theory is that he was convinced as a child that "if you believe it, honey, then it's true!" And he never got over it.

The authors of the latest book on Rove (Slater and Moore), in an interview this morning, kept reiterating that Rove is kind of a fun, nice guy when you get to know him. Sure he's a bastard. Sure there's a whole list of people whose lives he's ruined. But he's fun.

Maybe screwing people over and over again is excusable in their time-warp as long as you know how to play like one of the guys during happy hour. But not in my time-warp!

It is true in life, sports and elections. When you lose, you must ask yourself what YOU did wrong, not why the judges or voters are so dumb or voting machines are rigged.

When the Democrats lose the House and Senate, again, in November, they will blame the machines, voters stupidity, promotion of fear by Republicans, etc.

They should realize that Americans simply won't vote for candidates that blame America, blame the President and hope America loses in Iraq, cheer as the American deaths mount and promote a bad economy.

People will cheer the fellow in the stands throwing tomatos at the performers, but when it comes to electing a leader, they won't vote for the tomato-thrower.

. . . a personality that key members of his administration play upon . . . restrict the flow of information to him . . . flatter him . . . constant manipulation . . . exploitation of Bush’s foibles by his closest advisers . . . . Sidney Blumenthal

Nice to know we Dems have a fly on the Oval Office wall.

I don't think Bush nor his speechwriters were lying when Bush said that "Saddam threw the inspectors out". I really think they just don't remember, or just remember things the way they want them to have been. Bush himself, I suspect, only remembers perceived slights to himself or his family. And there's not really a tactical upside to having a historical memory. It's more of a custodial thing, one of the institutional duties of the office, which obviously Bush & Co could give f-all about. The media and the voters don't remember, either, so no one's ever going to call you on such lapses.

I do see that a central theme with these folks is a vicious tenacity. When it comes to making tax cut permanent, circumventing Geneva Convetions, persisting in the present course in Iraq, accusing Democrats of being soft on terrorism, keeping Bolton at the UN, etc, etc... to them it is stay the course at all levels come what may. Apparently this stubbornness in the face of negative results holds some macabre fascination with the American people. It has some degree of resonance and Karl&co. are betting that if they simply "stay the course" on all these things--including their campaign strategy--they will prevail politically and ultimately in the greater world. I think it is more likely they will prevail in the former than in the latter case.

Nope. My guess is that Democrats WILL win at least the House this November.

Then they'll have two years in which to watch the Democrat controlled House splitting over issues that can be presented as "blame America, blame the President and hope America loses in Iraq, cheer as the American deaths mount and promote a bad economy".

That should be a great run up for the next Presidential election.

If the Democrats lose that, they will be reinforced in their belief that their opponents, like the public, are incredibly stupid.

Far too stupid to have made it really difficult for even the Democrats to not win control of at least one House this November and thus be confronted with having to either decide to fund and take responsibility for the war in Iraq or to cut off funding and accept responsibility for defeat.

Its pretty obvious from discussions here that quite a few Democrats actually believe their incredible cleverness is what will hand them a victory in the House elections.

I think observations about Bush's conduct and what it indicates about what type of person he is, is cogent as long as it comports with the facts. That is if a guy goes out and rapes your wife and burns your house down I think you have a right to--among other things--conclude that he is a vicious asshole. So this whining about "personal attacks" on Bush are really tedious and just sour grapes.

kosmotropic:

You appear to be saying that perhaps Sid Blumenthal was saying that Bush does know that he was lying and that Blumenthal's style of wondering whether or not Bush knows the difference is merely a tongue in cheek way of saying that he does.

You also appear to be saying that Sid Blumenthal might have been indicating that Bush "actually did believe all that malarkey".

Finally you quite unequivocally ARE taking objection to my having pointed out the content free nature of Blumenthal's speculations, claiming (falsely) that this was an objection to making personal comments about the President and resolutely defending an entitlement to speculate.

This appears to contradict that you yourself saw two directly contradictory propositions that Blumenthal might have been arguing.

Elsewhere you claim that truthful statements should correspond to a "fact of the matter".

Do you wish to make any statement, speculative or otherwise, as to what the facts of the matter might be:

1) Bush knows that his statements were false, or
2) Bush "actually did believe all that malarkey"
3) Sid Blumenthal believes that Bush was lying, or
4) Sid Blumenthal believes that Bush "actually did believe all that malarkey"?

My views are 1) yes, 2) no, 3) and 4) Blumenthal is engaged in entirely content free pontificating. I do not need to subject Blumenthal to psychoanalysis with an injection of sodium pentothal to form that opinion of his post.

What are you engaged in?

In his own mind of course Bush is correct in his policies.  Because he operates under the premise that if a person runs head first into a 1 foot thick concrete wall enough times, trying to punch a hole in the wall with their head, eventually the person's head will triumph over the concrete.  Plus he knows he has two more years of fruitless head banging to go.  So when history points out his folly he can just say he is not to blame...he just wasn't given enough time to defeat the wall, and it wasn't that he tried to take on the wall in a completely ineffective way.

Just like his religion requires "faith" he wants everybody to have the "faith" in his governing which has constantly been divorced from reality.  And no matter how strong a person's/people's "will" is, that "will" cannot alter reality...

Hoo boy! Ron, you raise the big question, and that's why -- all of a sudden -- American leaders need clarification as to what "decent" and "humane" and "appropriate" mean. Not to mention "rules..." I think "quaint" was used to describe those rules.

Is he viciously stupid, or stupidly vicious? Who knows? I often wonder about the passive/aggressive name-calling and mean spirited comments cloaked as "kidding" or "joking". It's really just a sneaky way of bullying other people.

I was curious about the comment made by a British official that Bush was never allowed to meet alone with Blair - Cheney was always "a silent and menacing presence." Is that because his own people think Bush is a loose cannon, or because he's so stupid that Cheney had to be there "just in case...?"

Clever analysis. I do believe, however, it is always best to win EVERY time there is an election.

Wouldn't you hate to be running a Democrat campaign where what is good for America is bad for you and what is bad for the country is good for your candidate?

Even liberal Republicans like McCain are better than "conservative" Democrats like Lieberman.

Because he operates under the premise that if a person runs head first into a 1 foot thick concrete wall enough times, trying to punch a hole in the wall with their head, eventually the person's head will triumph over the concrete.

Yeah, too bad he's not using his own head!

You've almost got.  The whole point of that description in Froomkin of Bush's motivation is the absence of any "foreign policy analysis" in Bush's decision-making.  You must agree that Bush is the "decider" and he is responsible for U.S. policy such as it is.  The question of whether Bush is cynical or not, whether he is principled or not remains unanswerable. One can analyze forever the foreign policy of this administration and it will go nowhere. 

Consider that at this time it seems that the Bush administration has to decide whether its first priority is winning the off-year election or winning in Iraq.  They are mutually exclusive if one considers the increasingly bad news coming from Iraq from inside the U.S. military (Anbar) and underestimated body counts.

Do you suppose more principled or cynical speeches from our President  will fix that or do you expect Bush to reveal serious policy analysis in support of his words.

I think Billmon has it right.  Talking about winning in Iraq is not the same as doing it. 

Iraq is already a defeat. Anbar province is lost, the insurgency grows endlessly, and the puppet government is trying desperately to transfer its allegiance to Iran. Sistani has given up hope. The Turks are now shelling Kurdish areas of Iraq at will. American forces are higher than ever, but less effective than they've ever been. And the reconstruction program is just about over with nothing to show but failure piled on top of failure.

Iraq is lost, there's nothing left but the dying. I figure at least three or four more years of that.

Bush will never allow America out of Iraq while he is President. So, barring disaster in a greater middle eastern war, the official withdrawal will come probably within the first two years of the next presidency.

Funny.

How about waterboarding? Is that torture? Hmmm.

What about drenching someone with ice cold water, chaining them up in a room, and turning the air conditioning on max? Actually, that one sounds kind of funny, eh? Except that at least one guy died.

Howzabout sticking a lit cigarette in someones ear? Maybe not so funny?

Using dogs to tear into a naked prisoner? Oops, well, I guess if the dog actually rips a prisoner up, then thats a mistake.

Sleep deprivation? Starvation? Kidnapping a child as a hostage and throwing that child into the adult prison population.

Yeppers, torture, sure is a funny thing. I'm laughing.

I found the following excerpt in an article entitled “Dangerous Religion” from the Sojourners website (free registration required):

Bush has made numerous references to his belief that he could not be president if he did not believe in a "divine plan that supersedes all human plans." As he gained political power, Bush has increasingly seen his presidency as part of that divine plan. Richard Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying, "I believe God wants me to be president." After Sept. 11, Michael Duffy wrote in Time magazine, the president spoke of "being chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment."

I wonder how much of Bush’s radicalism is bred from religious fervor.  If Bush sincerely believes that he’s been "chosen by the grace of God to lead" at this moment in history, that belief could be part of his obstinately staying the course, not being willing to listen to dissenting opinions, and being intellectually incurious.  Being anointed and divinely inspired carries with it a notion of infallibility but also closes the mind and blinds the eye to other possibilities and outcomes other than the ones you envision.  If he sees himself as directly fulfilling God’s will, he has no need to question his motives or methods or change course because it all comes directly from God and is necessarily perfect and will play out as it should.

Glenn
Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate.-Hubert H. Humphrey

Thanks for sharing this.

What can we do?

The only solution that I think will work is the one proposed at MyDD... WE become the poll workers, elect people who are honest and not republican shills to sec. of state. positions, so that they can fix the system. The only way is to take over the system from the ground up.

Anything else will be easily portrayed as Tin Foil Hattery.

Seriously, Arthur. Iraq's situation is irretrievable. There are no good outcomes, only a series of ranges from bad to spectacularly catastrophic.

The bad options are immediate withdrawal and taking the lumps.

That won't happen. Instead, the future holds a game of delusion and hot potatoes, as no side wants to bit the bullet, but increasingly, it must be bitten.

I think the word is "idee fixe." That's a mental disease, not forthrightness.

People always talked about Lyndon Johnson as being an odd, intimidating, and often times irrational man.

And then in college I had a horribly liberal professor who absolutely loved the man despite the fact that he is the worst ruler in our nation's history.

Ever since Bush started running for president I have never seen the answer to a simple question. Why would anyone vote for him? The Democrats still have no idea, as they cannot understand Republicans enough to even grasp why they support Bush let alone come up with a counterargument.

And even Republicans can't explain why they vote for Bush, even now. Since their explanations make no sense either, the Democrats even after all his disastrous decisions still have no idea how to run a campaign against him. They seem to think Republicans will turn up like zombies in the end and vote what ever he wants. Consequently a rational argument on policy is a waste of time.

Also Rove will just come up some "up is down" nonsense that defies logical analysis, the Democrats will have no answer for it and will lose for "not getting it".

Not only that, no one else in the other countries in the world understands Bush either, just the Republican zombies who vote for him for mysterious reasons.  

Calling Bush an idiot or a madman (though he probably is) is no help because it is an admission they don't understand him. It might have a cathartic effect but it doesn't help in working out how to get rid of him.

But it isn't all about Bush, so why can't Democrats make at least some kind of strategy on the election aspects that have nothing to do with Bush? Winning back the house is not really much to do with Bush, except for the chance to launch some investigations. It's about running the country better, and so far the Democrats are silent about how to do that. They assume that since logic doesn't apply to Bush it doesn't apply to the rest of politics any more either.

Even Republicans in the house seem to believe this now. They have no rational policies any more, and are unrecognizable as conservatives. They think they will slime through somehow at the last minute and then the corruption party will go on as before.

The only sure thing is the Republican victory will be over something utterly illogical. It might be to stop gay marriage which the Democrats aren't proposing. It might be the Democrats won't get Bin Laden though they are the only wants who seem to want to get him. It might be Bin Laden makes some special videos to help Bush out again, so Bush can say Laden wants the Democrats to win. Iraq might collapse completely so Bush can say it is doing too well to allow the Democrats to ruin it. Poor white people might even vote to stop the Democrats raising taxes on millionaires again, while they vote to keep their minimum wage as low as possible. Whatever it will be, it will make no sense and it will work. 

A congress and senate in the hands of Democrats can function as if Bush doesn't exist to a large degree. So if the Dems want to win the election what are they going to do? Can they explain all of it without using the word Bush in any sentence in it? If they can't then they are probably going to lose because they don't have a reason besides Bush to win. 

That's probably one of the most ridiculous political commentaries anyone has written, but unfortunately it seems to be the most accurate so far.

I would add that Brooks is the quintessencial Neocon.

First and foremost he keeps his 'neoconness' a secret. But that is one of the characteristics of most neocons. They almost never walk around saying they are neocons. They like to keep what they really believe a secret. It's not for you to know anyway, as you are not an elite and so don't diserve to know. But if you start looking through some of Brook's work, it jumps right out at you.

For instance, he put his NYTimes column to work writing a review of a new book on Economic history that is revisionist in favor of the role that the catholic church had on economic development of the west. The common view is that the economic rise of the west began with the reformation, which broke the stangle hold on the control of thought - just compare Galileo's life with Newtons, both brilliant scientist, but on opposite sides of the reformation. Galileo was hazed big time. Newton was exaulted as a member of Britain's royal society.

The revisionist thrust Brooks was getting behind is that that Catholic church's hierarchical order protected and spawned learning and technological development and economic development.

This is laying the ground work for making the Neocon case. They believe that philosophical elites should rule, and the masses controled by religiosity. The Neocons like religion, but especially the kind that is hierarchical and authoritarian, that falangist catholic model is the kind that gets their tail wagging.

To bite into the revisionist history Brooks had to over look the Inquisition and the hazing of scientist and the half millenium of a monopoly on literacy in the west. Of course its not his book, so its not his thesis, only his review on a work. Thus Brooks is able to keep himself two steps removed and seemingly objective, all positions neocons like to take. Furthermore, being of Jewish extraction, advocating for a book that is pro-catholicisms role in history ads to the objectiviness he tries to project.

But its just a ruse. Brooks is thick and heavy a neocon of the highest order. And he'll carry the neocon water every inch that he can, though always trying to look reasonable doing it. He believes in tax breaks for the rich, but has a different spin on it. etc....

As for Lowery, I can't say the same for him, I just haven't read as much of his stuff.

I'm incline to believe that Bush believes as much in the God that put him where he is now as Hitler believed in the "providence" that put him in the German Chancellorship.

Bush is first and foremost a neocon. Neocons have two orders: High order is the Right Wing Wealthy and the lower order the right wing religious fundies. Bush is on the lower side of the higher order. That is to say he's a member of the Wealthy elite that believes they should rule society. That elite is an elite because they are capable athiest - what I believe Nietsche called "super man" men who could still be ethical even though they were Atheist. But that same elite, those same athiest keep their athiesm secret because they believe that the masses must be spoonfed religiosity in order to be controled, in order to be molified, in order to better cope with the terrible condition of peasantry and poverty that the elite keep them in. Now accordingly they arrive at that atheism by way of philosophy. But Bush is not a high intellectual Neocon, really capable of philosophy, but just like everyone wants to think that someone else is a nerd, including nerds, Bush wants to think he is capable of higher philosophic thoughts. Else he doesn't deserve to be a ruling elite. Its the money he's born into that put him there, but its the philosophy that's suppose to be the reason he's there. So I am sure that he's put in some time philosophizing just so he can sit at the high neocon table. To wit, during the sixty minutes piece, Bob Woodward said, with a sense of shock, that Bush told him "in the end we are all just dead." Any atheist will recognize this right away, or any one who knows atheist - its what they believe, if they believe anything. I'm sure Bush confused Woodward, as one of the elite Journalist at the time, as an elite, he spoken to him both philosophically and as atheistically as best he could.

What makes Bush unique is he is an atheist to elites, and he's a fellow travelor to religious fundementalist. But would you expect anything different out of any politician? Especially him?

The high neocons keep their atheism a secret. But show unqualified respect for the religious among them. But they really don't believe. Neocons don't want to be identified as to who they are or what they really believe. But the high neocon that takes the job of politician has to really be an atheist to be part of the higher order, but has to be religious in order to rally the base, the lower order - which provides all the foot soldiers willing to do the bidding for the wealthy elite. To do this the Neocon politician has to be a great lier. Not difficult for an atheist. (then again, neither is torture, that is if you are Nietsche man, less than, super - that is once an athiest, prone to barbarism. While the entire continent of Europe proves Nietsche wrong - they are 'godless' but more civil with less crime than us, Bush himself, of pedestrian intellegence, at best, as an athiest doesn't understand the humanitarian and ethical problems of torture.)

Bush's real core skills sets are the ability to lie, blatently and unflinchingly and in a way that is technically not a lie. His second core skill is that he is a pathological bully, that is he only understands one parameter: force. Rule of law, Justice, fairness, that's all transparent to him.

Which is also why he probably really isn't a Christian. To recognize the beauty of christianity, or most post axial age religions is to recognize fairness.

After all, in "Mere Christianity" C.S. Lewis used the universal concept within humanity of the principal of fairness to prove that their is a God and that God is a Christian God. But the principal isn't universal. Nazis, Fascist, Falangist, Neocons, Left Behind Christians, all are of the order of 'non-fairness' types.

In the aggregate, and long term, such types should be locked in a cage as they are threats to civic life. Quite often they are as criminals.

Bush never goes to church, and he doesn't have Sunday services, let alone daily services, in the whitehouse. To Neocons religion is a political utility. Bush is no more religious than the chair I am sitting on as I write this. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with anything he does other than political expediency. His atheism, on the other hand, has everything to do with what he does.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

"A war is won or lost before the fighting begins."

-Sun Tzu, "The Art of War."

This was true in 500bc or whenever it was written.
It was true when Napolean went into Russia,

True when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor,

True when America went into Vietnam (see Graham Green's "the Quiet American" written in 1952, published in 1954 predicting the next 20 years of history in Vietnam).

And it was True when Bush went into Iraq with a skeleton force and no plan for occupation.

He that hath a trade, hath an estate - from Poor Richards Almanac - Benjamin Franklin

Striking the balance between these two goods (humane treatment, foreknowledge of deadly attacks) is difficult, but the Bush administration seems to lean too far in the direction of the detainees.

No expense spared for al Qaeda health care: Some 5,000 dental operations (including teeth cleanings) and 5,000 vaccinations on a total of 550 detainees have been performed since 2002 - all at taxpayer expense. Eyeglasses? 174 pairs handed out. Twenty two detainees have taxpayer-paid prosthetic limbs. And so on.


America has never faced an enemy who has so ruthlessly broken all of the rules of war - yet never has an enemy been treated so well.

Of Gitmo's several camps, military records show that the one with the most lenient rules is the one with the most incidents and vice versa.

There is a lesson in this: We should worry less about detainee safety and more about our own.

Gettysburg.

Certainly, George W. Bush's name is written in very large letters on the list of cowards. Some other politicians are of a different type altogether . Senator Inouye knew war. He voted 'nay' for George W. Bush's war in 2002. A person who cannot tell the cowards from the heroes is the biggest coward of all.

The politically correct regulations at Gitmo are unbelievable.

Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous.

A multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How?

Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

You are correct, Workerbe, some behavior is nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients.

The kinder we are to terrorists, the harsher we are to their potential victims.

Gettysberg,

Cowardice takes many forms. Bush has shown a consistent inability to deal with problems not of his own initiative. Every time a crisis has come, the man has frozen solid.

As for sadism, its not any more speculation than his height, weight or what sort of suit he most frequently wears. A childhood history of torturing small animals is a classic indicator on most diagnostics of a sadistic personality type. Bush's sadism is overt and unconcealed.

Wow. You sure seem to know a lot about Gitmo. Got any cites for these allegations?

It strikes me that you don't know a lot about interrogation techniques. You have this idea that all it takes is to slap em around a bit, waterboard em, and they start blubbering.

In the real world, it just don't work like that. What you get is the hard boys clamming up, and everyone giving you a lot of junk info.