Dr. Sanity

Looks like the magic bus of 'peace, love and undertanding' has ran out of gas and the riders are pissed because they have been left in the desolate desert of defending genocidal peace of justice of dictators.

That magic bus was polluting the planet by appeasing tyranny.

Funny, when I was 20 something whenever I heard John Lenin's song "Imagine" I got all gooey-eyed. Now, 25 years later and a lifetime of seeing how the real world operates when I hear John Lenin's song "Imagine" I cannot help but think of those 100 million lives who were slaughtered under Communism.

Lenin is dead, my intent is that he remain that way.
susan | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 9:11 am | #

Mark Styn turned a phrase in a recent article that rang this bell as well, 'societal Stockholm Syndrome'.
Steve | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 9:24 am | #

Dr.Sanity:
Your most recent post reminded me of reading about Jews who were living in Germany and the occupied countries before the Holocaust really started. It was something to the effect that despite the clear signs of growing and imminent danger from the Nazis, many Jewish people had a tendancy to focus on the small details and irritants of life; it was as if to escape the overwhelming danger facing them from outside, they retreated into the familiar world that gave them security. Unfortunately, this also had the result of preventing them from facing and escaping that same overwhelming danger, which sounds remarkably like many Americans in dealing with Islamic Fascism.
Vikingstar | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 9:38 am | #

Thank you...displacement. Last week I finally got sick of two long term friends ganging up on me at social events for my strong support of Bush and vigorous opposition to terrorism. I finally blew up ending the two friendships of over 20 years. What got my cork was lionizing Saddam - saying how admirable and persistent he was to stand up to his accusers. I said that supporting such a man was immoral - I'd had it. It was denied of course, it immediately was said that Saddam is a tyrant etc. I got up to go, and was told to get out. It turned out they were just as sick of me as I was of them. End of story. I was less angry than I expected as I walked away..I have had a life long tendency to anger, and have no trouble admitting it. It was there all right but it didn't feel as personally focused as it should be. It was more frustration at being unable to break through. But break through what? Yes, denial, but something more also. I've often thought of these two and many of the people you speak of as suffering from Stockholm syndrome and I believe that dynamic is present here too. Terror terrorizes. Violence works. My current favorite example: the recent withdrawal of piggy banks by UK banks so as not to offend Muslims. In an ironic contrast in the same week school authorities allowed the publication of an essay, written by a British school boy about the Holocaust from the perspective of Hitler, and justified it as simply an example of technical writing. I've also found myself explaining to myself that people hate Bush because there are no violent consequences for doing so and that he is at least theoretically controllable, unlike Osama and his gang. I'd gotten that far, but yes, displacement, that nails it. Of course by saying something directly provocative I became the target of that displacement for a moment. It hurt, but that is nothing compared to what Bush, Blair and Howard have to endure. Or our soldiers in Iraq. Bless them all for standing up where it really counts. And thank you for clarity and helping me better understand myself.
lgude | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 10:27 am | #

Excellent piece - the psych points are compelling.

Anyone out there who has read the Harry Potter books - remember Mad-Eye Moody's motto re: dark forces and evil generally - "Constant vigilance."

Only constant vigilance will stop the combined tide of insanity from Islam and its aiders and abettors, the far-left and the mainstream media.
Pay closer attention to elections at every level. Vote at every level, not just at the four-year cycle of presidential elections. Pay tight attention to who is getting into House and Senate. Be vigilant. Stay busy on blogs.

Interesting yesterday - I participate on a messageboard which has zero to do with politics.
Someone started a thread recognizing Veterans' Day and thanking ALL Vets for their service. Very simple. The thread was neither pro-war nor anti-war. Not one, not ONE of the lefties on the board even acknowledged the thread. They did not possess even the basic class required to simply acknowledge those who fought and died to protect THEIR freedom to say whatever they like.
Laura | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 10:38 am | #

My favored explanation has always revolved around the culture war, and the belief that the left has that the progress toward the New Era by electing Bill Clinton was "stolen" from them, sending on the return road to the Bad Old Days.

I still think that has a part, but you are quite convincing that displacement is the stronger element. I suppose they are not unrelated, also. Like the joke about looking for your keys where the light is better, the SuperCaring organizations of the left, e.g. Amnesty Int, focus their anger on the smaller ills so that they can hope to achieve something and not be totally useless.

David's Medienkritik records the lack of protest in Germany at the visit of President Hu Jintao of China.

There was a popular campaign theme last year about how unified we all were after 9-11 and had the love and support of the world, but Bush had ruined it. Re-examine that thinking interms of displacement, and you will see what happens when people allow reality to pierce their defenses.

All neurosis is an avoidance of short-term suffering, causing more suffering in the long run.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 10:59 am | #

Laura, re: Harry Potter,

You might also note the similarity in the incredible denial that Voldemort had returned; the frenzied attempts to discredit anyone who claimed otherwise; and the demonization of Harry and Dumbledore as, in fact, the REAL problems.

Art imitates Life.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 11:04 am | #

I could not agree more with your analysis of BDS. But my question is what causes it? These people have obviously lost their poor minds! I have an older brother, who prior to the 2000 general election, was never really politically inclined - never really stood for any political cause. Which is fine - I'm not knocking anybody who avoids politics - in this day and age it the wise person who does so.....
HOWEVER, since that time: "Al Gore was robbed of the presidency", "Bush is a dry-drunk or idiot controlled by Rove", it goes on and on and on, as I'm sure you have all heard the mantras - it's quite hilarious actually. Back to my question - what causes this obvious disconnect with reality? I mean, I understand your displacement concept and yes this can be applied in my brother's case. But is it the media that constantly pounds mis-information into his head or what? Like I said - he used to be rational now he's a "BDS freak-a-ziod"
Outrajus1 | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 11:46 am | #

Dr. Sanity -

Yes! Exactly right. A parable for its time and for the ages, no question.

Thank you so muchfor this site and for your work. It's places like this which are S-L-O-W-L-Y waking people up. Slow, but sure.
Laura | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 11:56 am | #

Dear Dr Sanity,

I have this friend I'm worried about. He's a liberal but I'm pretty open minded about that. I think he must have some sort of Tourette's, because when talking he'll suddenly shriek VALERIE PLAME! or PREWAR INTELLIGENCE!! It's causing problems with his marriage & his work. He has a respectable job as a security guard at an abortion clinic, but when he's goose-stepping out front bellowing SCOOTER LIBBY! or BUSH LIED! he's sometimes mistaken for a common street lunatic & jailed. Can this be cured?
jeff | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 12:06 pm | #

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about - although my brother is not goose-stepping ....Yet.
Displacement explains what is happening on the personal/individual processing level. But what or where are the external forces coming from that push these people to such extremes? Its unreal.
Outrajus1 | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 12:18 pm | #

I think it's time for modestly sane and mature adults to come together.

Let's start with something that can't be denied.

Ted Kennedy is a buffoon who has absolutely no business in the United States Senate.
Old Dad | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 12:19 pm | #

Outrajus- Defense mechansims are automaticaly deployed to protect the fragile psyche when threatened by reality. Some can be healthy if they help you cope with that reality in the long-term. But displacement (which is neurotic) and denial & projection (which are basically psychotic)are used when the fear of the reality grossly exceeds the perceived ability to cope. Psychologically, it makes the person feel "safe" for the short-term; but in the long-run, it makes you more vulnerable. In other words, it is a short-term stragegy for coping that decreases the chances of survival in the long-term.

It is not a "disease" or mental illness (although it may be a symptom of one) since defense mechanism are used by everyone. So, they can only be "cured" or altered if the person using it is willing to look at the meaning of his/her behavior and engage in some introspection. We call this the development of "insight". With insight, a person can stop any inappropriate behavior that will hurt him/her in the long run; and by facing the reality or the fear, CHOOSE to respond in a more productive and mature manner.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 12:28 pm | #

Unless this has already been done by the good Doctor, and my apologies if it has -

I'd love to see a piece on yet another weirdness - American feminists. Even if they are not rabid or ardent feminists, they are ALL left-wing females/feminists. They are de facto supporting the eventual triumph of a religion which suppresses, represses and mistreats women by the millions.

I challenge my leftie acquaintances with this and they have no answer. They squirm. They get uncomfortable (that's good). They try to turn the subject to other things. (Bush Is Bad ad nauseum.)

What are the psych elements of this fascinating example of the total illogic of the left?
Laura | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 12:29 pm | #

In agreeing with the logic of BDS and the diagnosis of Displacement, I am left with feelings of helplessness in the face of a huge population of, shall I say it, insane people who are my riends, neighbors, brothers and sisters, many of whom seem otherwise rational. Would you, Dr. Sanity, please initiate, or refer me to, a discussion of ways to alleviate this kind of mass delusion? Is there some historical precedent for treating such massive dysfunction, or are we faced with a future of inevitable violent resolution?
Eric | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 12:50 pm | #

That is why the lies and distortions MUST be countered aggressively by all decent people. Bush and the White House must do as they did yesterday--communicate directly to the American public who has been marinating in a vile cauldron of disinformation provided by the MSM. Information should be declassified and shared now. The truth must be told and the liars confronted with their lies. You will never reach some--they are beyond insight. But the vast majority of Americans are fair and decent people who want to do the right thing. I have been very upset that the White House hasn't more aggressively and proactively defended the Iraq War and discussed more openly the stategy for winning against terrorism. The success in preventing attacks on the homeland has resulted in folks here becoming detached from the reality of terrorism. Also the whines of the Left in trying to prevent the President from even mentioning 9/11 and screeching when he does is ridiculous. What if the memory of Pearl Harbor or the Alamo had been deliberately suppressed during those wars? WE ARE AT WAR. Let us begin to act like it.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 1:17 pm | #

One point I would add to this discussion is that those who are predisposed to 'buy-into' far-left ideologies are inclined to think in terms of an ideal, as opposed to recognizing and accepting realities of how things work. That is also the source of their moral superiority to begin with.('How can you even think to argue with me? Can't you see how much better off we would all be if...[insert favorite platitude]?)
But back to the original point, I submit they (liberals) are willing to accept theory or ideals as reality to begin with. The derangement only becomes highly volatile when a clear and unambiguous force (Bush) comes to the fore in everyday life. And they are forced to face it. And they don't like having to do that. So they turn it around and 'project' their unreality onto the object of their obsession.
garbro | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 1:19 pm | #

Amen! Sistah Docta Sanity!
Harlequin | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 1:35 pm | #

Love your analysis Doc!

My analysis of the Left's obsession with Bush and WMD intel is a little simpler:

the Left is STUCK ON STUPID!

Seriously, I've got MORE PSYCHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS HERE; (I'm NOT a shrink, but I was a Leftist - with many Leftist friends, so I know of what I speak!):

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.co...tics- youre.html
reliapundit | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 1:41 pm | #

Outstanding. Its also a defense mechanism to believe American intelligence, in concert with other intelligence agencies, could've captured Bin Laden and neutralized Saddam without corresponding military intervention. To believe this is a way of reassuring oneself that one is in control - when the reality of the deep lack of control becomes too scary to contemplate.
gcotharn | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 2:10 pm | #

Good grief! I have heard repeatedly by unhinged folk that Bush and Co., as well as Conservatives in the Republican Party, are simply means for Southern Baptists and Pentecostals to turn America into some kind of Right Wing theocratic state. And these accusations are coming from supposedly well-educated people! Go figure!
onlineanalyst | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 3:10 pm | #

I read the following article yesterday:

From the Lofty Kant to Lefty Cant

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/
Barbara C | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 3:26 pm | #

The concept of Displacement seems to explain a lot. Still, Democrats holler and flail because Republicans are not sufficiently anti-religious. Is that because "Democrat" has become a religion in competition with the others? Has anybody else noticed how Democrats march in lock step with the official party line, acting as if it came right out of a Holy Writ? How they hold press conferences and behave as if they're at the pulpit speaking as Voice of God? They remind me more of a cult than a political party. It's all about Control at any cost. Scary. What role does Displacement play in cult psyche?
willem | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 4:04 pm | #

> They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are openly fighting with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia".

I haven't read through the whole thing, much less all the comments, yet, but there is one unfortunate additional difference about these local barbarians:
They get to vote.
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 4:44 pm | #

> What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil

I think the cognitive disassociation over how all Republicans/conservatives are just plain stupid, yet somehow they keep outsmarting The Left time and again is another sign of this, by the way.

Being certain your opponent is an idiot in the face of clear, undebatable evidence to the contrary is a sure sign of a failure to have a connection to reality.
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 4:50 pm | #

> In other words, to act like mature adults and deal with it.

OK, that does it!!!

Talk about avoiding reality, Doc!!!

[snort!] Like these overgrown children would ever do anything like *that*.

(8-9
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 5:04 pm | #

> Kos: "We all looked at the same intelligence". Once again, this is complete and utter bullshit and it's intentionally misleading.

Yeah, OK -- now it's "Well, they MIGHT have known something others did not!!! They LIED!!!"

Geez. Stuck on stupid", indeed.
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 5:10 pm | #

> Funny, when I was 20 something whenever I heard John Lenin's song "Imagine" I got all gooey-eyed.

I confess to the same muddle-headedness in my youth... nowadays I listen to that song and I realize that, not only is it some sort of oddball pseudo-utopian ideal, it's really obvious that the only place that fits the bill would give Hell a run for its money for worst place to exist.

Let's disect some of the lyrics:

[snip]
,i>Imagine all the people
living for today...
No future, nothing to look forward to... AT ALL.

[snip]
Nothing to kill or die for,
No children. No love. No lust, nor passion. Just cold, emotionless existence. No beauty, warmth, or compassion (those are certainly worth killing and dying to protect)

[snip]
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
It's not hard. Naked, vulnerable to any threat nature throws at you. It's the base state of humankind before civilzation.

...In case you can't figure it out, there's a reason why we created civilization. It's better

Oh, and, no possessions, so nothing worth working to create or produce.

I think walking into the nearest Sam's Club or Price/Costco and look around... then contemplating the typical Soviet citizen standing in line for hours to buy a roll of industrial-grade toilet paper says enough here. Widespread alcoholism among Russians under Der Kommissars should add the punctuation.
"No possessions"="Grey, dreary existence"

[snip]
No need for greed or hunger
How are you going to feed anyone without possessions? Have you ever considered the massive die-off of humanity which would need to occur in order to return to the sort of non-industrial agrarianism this thing supports? Further, as far as "greed or hunger", you'll have a lot of it, being subject to the rather capricious whims of Mother Nature.

The True State of Nature is Might Makes Right. The Law of the Jungle and Kill or Be Killed.

As Hobbes put it in Leviathan (emphasis mine): "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Civilization, for all its flaws, represents an effort by Humanity to define a better rule -- one where Might Makes Right does not apply with an endless certainty in all cases.

Women benefit from this even more than men do.

*We* get to take a leak without really worrying about that guy walking in behind us bashing us over the head.

Women get to decide not just when they'll have kids but with whom and how it'll happen... Yet more lefties are women than men. Go figure that one.
Oh Bloedige Hel | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 5:50 pm | #

Liberalism is a kind of religion, willem, yes.

The question was raised above why Bush was chosen as the target of displacement. While his position as the Daddy of the US is clearly part of this, I have a secondary explanation.

A pet theory of mine is that paranoid schizophrenics wrap their unusual experiences around whatever is in the air at the time of their first break. When I started in the 1970's most paranoids had CIA fixations. The Godfather movies came out, and we started seeing young people focussing on the mafia as their persecutor. These days it is likely to be satellites beaming information, or computers controlling things. In religious cultures, demons were a likely culprit.

Perhaps a similar thing happens in the neurotic defense mechanisms, that whatever is at hand as a likely explanation recommends itself. If it appears to be a popular explanation, one has an automatic defense against suspecting one is not fully rational -- so many others are sharing the irrationality. I imagine that opposition parties and political movements have been riding this for years, attracting support for nutcase explanations by the confluence of fear, volume/intensity, and amorphous or ill-defined problems.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go. The Freemasons are poisoning the wells again.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 8:28 pm | #

Displacement seems to be simply a more refined classification of a particular kind of cowardice. A cowardice that denies personal responsibility. A tenet seemingly embraced by so many these days. Cast too critical an eye another, and you must then look at yourself with the same kind of scrutiny. But paint them as sufferers just like you, and in them, you suddenly have a vehicle whereby you can move further away from self examination. Of course someone must be to blame. And so impersonal bodies are targeted. Society, religion, an “ism” (race, sex or other, just insert your personal preference), or, the figure head of a belief system (Bush). This cult of victim hood, appears to be relatively recent (the last ten years or so). Why did it arise to this prominence?
Craig | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 8:34 pm | #

Displacement, projection; hmm. I remember a D/A counselor, John Bradshaw. He kept repeating the terms "soul murdered" and "otherating" or "otheration". These terms stuck with me, having seen him on PBS back in the late 80s. I never quite took to Bradshaw's "wounded inner child" stuff, but his identification of "otherating" behavior struck me as a fresh concept. The BDS crowd - so many of them maladjusted lawyers, displaced liberal arts graduates and distempered union members. They seem to "otherate" through their hatred of Bush. It fills them up. That's where the "soul murdered" part comes in. How many of the Bush haters are recovering addicts and alcoholics; not just drug addicts, but the whole litany of addiction; people with abuse backgrounds. I look at John Dean, Al Gore, Paul Begala, David Corn, Dan Rather, Mo Dowd, Al Franken, John Edwards, Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Boxer, Pelosi, Hillary, Obama, and I think of John Bradshaw saying:"soul murdered."
willem | Email | Homepage | 11.12.05 - 11:37 pm | #

I work for a free-market-oriented think tank that concentrates on issues of telecom, tech, and intellectual property law and policy, and we are constantly at odds with leftists based in academia, the foundation world, and the government.

I think many suffering from BDS are also subject to other forms of DS -- and a common factor is that they live in a non-market world. A virtue of the market is that it delivers regular feedback on the nature of reality. Those who are supported by endowments administered by people like themselves are never forced to adjust their beliefs. I see this regularly in the form of people who think, for example, that we could abolish all intellectual property and still view an infinite number of movies that would be made because "people like to create."

To a person, they hate Bush, too.
J.V. DeLong | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 1:48 pm | #

Get over it.

Most of the "Bush hating" that I have experienced personally is pure unadulterated bigotry.

Just as so many people can't believe that one jerk with a gun could shoot JFK, they can't bring themselves to believe that this guy, that they see as their intellectual inferior, is their President.

We are already experiencing the "magic bullet" that Bush was able to misled the entire Democratic side of the Senate and House. Next will be the "grassy Knoll" of CIA, DIA, NSA et al intelligence that was withheld.

Ockham's Razor would have us believe otherwise, but no matter, just hate Bush instead.
Neo | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 1:58 pm | #

willem, I have a similar take on Bradshaw.

A key worry for me is the inability of the Bush critics to operate from any balanced perspective. A person who is able to weigh costs and benefits is a person you can discuss things with. To take the "no, he's an idiot, they're all liars, it's all about oil" approach is just nuts.

I disliked Bill Clinton, but I can acknowledge several things he did well. It's really not that difficult, and when people are unable to see any good in the foreign policy actions of the Bush administration, it's a sign that something pathological rather than rational is in play.

I never understood how the most educated and sophisticated nation in the world could go insane in the 1930's, but I understand it now.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:20 pm | #

There's a factor I don't see mentioned that I think is an important ingredient in the genesis of BDS.

BDS sufferers are overwhelmingly members of the intelligentsia, at least as self-defined: academics, "artists", and the commentariat, and related wannabees. They have in common membership in a subculture that is, geographically, largely confined to cities and the Northeast, and tends strongly to be passed down in families.

George W. Bush had every opportunity to become one of them. His father is a member in good standing of that culture; his mother is a Pierce. Absent malign influences, a reasonable person could have looked at young George and predicted that he would grow up to be, for all practical purposes, John Kerry.

Instead he went off and actually joined the "red staters", complete with religiosity and drawl. Apostasy always causes heartburn in the Faithful -- the fear that, if it happened to him, it could happen to them or their descendants, too. How could such a thing happen? Shun him! Shun him!

Not the only influence, but I think it's a large one.

Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:24 pm | #

There seems to me a similarity between those suffering from BDS as described by the good doctor and those suffering from battered spouse syndrome.

The sufferer blames everything and everyone but the batterer.

Particularly the sufferer blames those who see through the batterer's many strategems to continue the battering, and those who try to get the battered to a safer place which usually means out of the batterer's presence.

Although those brave people are trying to help the battered individual, generally, they absorb the victim's irrational hostility.
Jim Rhoads (vnjagvet) | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:25 pm | #

When I was going through my divorce, my wife became fixated on LIES. If I told the kids I was going to take them to the ballgame, and then it rained and we went to a movie instead, she would throw it up to me that I LIED TO THE KIDS.

This is what I think about every time I hear that BUSH LIED. These people are acting like spurned lovers.
John | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:50 pm | #

Thank you, Dr. Sanity, for addressing this issue again, as the current mutation of BDS threatens to run out of control.

A question:

I have often thought that the Left's rabid reaction to Bush is actually a reaction to some Jungian style Archetype of whom he is simply the personification. What do you think of this idea?
Jeff M | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:51 pm | #

Have you seen the poll numbers recently? It looks like BDS is sweeping across America faster than fear of bird flu. Jeepers even white males don't trust that GWB will keep us safe anymore.

As for me, I've never hated GWB. How can you get angry at a wooden puppet?
wren | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 2:54 pm | #

One thing not mentioned so far is that the leftwing in this country has seen their religion fail.

Very little of what they have advocated and achieved has turned out the way they hoped. Reality and unintended consequences are a real nuisance. Just one small example: Single motherhood. Once this was advocated by the left, now it is the single biggest social problem in this country. There are other examples.

So, instead of abandoning their religion for new gods, they furiously attack anything or anybody which threatens their world view. Since they cannot defend their religion rationally, they become irrational and demand obedience to their dogmas. Just read the history of the Catholic church.

Not complicated, really.
joel | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:15 pm | #

THIS particularly virulent Cell of minions of the World Allied Conspiratorial Kongress of Idiotarians Everywhere ( W.AC.K.I.E. for short ) has been in desperate need of analysis, and explanation, for quite some time.

This Syndrome is actually, I believe, a strain of Reagan/Bush Deraingement Syndrome, and I look forward to someone doing a study on the connection, and how the disease mutated in the 1990's. ;-D
Kiril Kundurazieff | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:24 pm | #

I think irrational hatred of Bush is indeed a problem, because there are rational reasons to be worried. The decision to invade Iraq was a judgment call based on available intelligence. Inadequately preparing for what happened after the victory was simply bad planning - it's dangerous to assume things will go according to your plan. Cutting taxes while you're fighting a very expensive war is not good for public finances in the long run. Torturing people is not a good way to win hearts and minds. Etc.
diablito | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:28 pm | #

A book that I have found quite useful in explaining the wacky machinations of the Left is "Explaining Postmodernism: Skepticism and Socialism from Rousseau to Foucault" by Stephen R. C. Hicks. Others might also find it enlightening. There is a post about this book, and a link to the Introduction, which is posted in it's entirety on Amazon.com, on my blog:
http://moveonindeed.blogsource.c...l? post_id=15150
Jeff M | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:35 pm | #

This post refers repeatedly to "Them" "The Left" with almost no specific references to particular people or words (outside of Glenn Reynold's in box).

I think I'm one of the faceless nameless "Them" of which you write, so let me ask a couple theraputic questions:

In the spirit of facing reality--no matter how painful or unpleasant--is it possible that our current President is doing a bad job?

If an American belives that her democratically elected officials are doing a bad job, what should they do? Should they close their eyes and hope and wish it will go away, or should they speak out?

Do you have any comments regarding Bush Genius Syndrome?
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/ 011183.php
zota | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:40 pm | #

I think BDS is a result of the media propaganda onslaught over the last few years.People are acting like a herd: swallowing unquestioningly the lies, bias and distortion thrown at them by the TV and newspapers. Previously, I had no idea that people do indulge in groupthink, that people love a witch hunt, that expressing hatred would become so socially acceptable.
The Terror leaders are playing the West,dividing society in a way unthinkable until recently. Each atrocity puts up a mirror to our response: every hysterical assault on the President emboldens the enemy.
Julie Cleeveley | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:41 pm | #

joel, you seem to have come closest to a real diagnosis.

I'm not buying this displacement to bush; he is too remote (just like bin laden).

seems there are two types:

lefties with an agenda
and
people who are twisting in some mental abyss, have found "friends" in the lefties, who are clinging to their lefty "mothers"
bluemartin | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:47 pm | #

The President should also lay out a timetable for how long American troops will be involved and when they will be removed.
- George W. Bush, June 4, 1999

Follow-up question:
Is it physically possible for Bush to commit an act of hypocrisy? Or is the perception Republican hypocrisy merely another symptom of derangement?
zota | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:48 pm | #

Just to be fair...the Republicans used a similar derangement syndrome over the Monika Lewinsky affair. Presidents and politicians had been sleeping with interns for centuries (millenia actually). Then the "party out of power" decided to capitalize (for the first time in 6000 years in terms of politicians sleeping with interns) on "family values" and the natural repulsion that women would have to the idea of a husband abandoning them for a younger woman. They couldn't get Clinton legally for letting a gorgeous 22 year old show her attraction to him...so they decided to do what the Democrats are now trying to do in the CIA/Plame Affair: Go after the administration for "perjury" in denying something legal but uncomfortable for them to admit.

In American politics, the party out of power encourages its adherents to go into derangement syndrome. I can imagine that if John Kerry won the election and then went to war against Iran...the Republicans would be screaming that Kerry was "creating terrorists" and should have let diplomacy have a chance.
Jim Peterson | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:51 pm | #

zota,

please read president's speech. OK, criticize war or execution of --

but, use facts and logic --

otherwise YOU are in throes of BDS
bluemartin | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:52 pm | #

Also, Bush himself encourages the derangement syndrome by not touring universities around the world to actually talk with the lefties directly about their syndrome (its not about Iraq) and not confronting journalists directly regarding their biases. Most lefties are simply people who believe the evening news or believe in garbage ideas such as abortion being the number 1 reason to vote on anything. My mother is one of them. She voted for Bush in 2004 only after much agonizing about whether young women would be denied the rights to an abortion. I finally helped her decide for Bush when I said that any woman could fly to Canada for an abortion...but the same women could not come alive again after dying in a nuclear attack.

Most people have an opinion about a war that has nothing to do with the merits of the war itself but on their other agendas. The Republicans hated Clinton for pacifying Yugoslavia, ending the perma-war in Europe that had been going on for hundreds of years.
Jim Peterson | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 3:59 pm | #

I voted for Gore in 2000 because Bush seemed to be against peacekeeping in Bosnia and seemed not to have a clue on the Russian need to stop the Chechen terrorists by finding them and killing them. I voted for Bush in 2004 because Gore seemed to be against the very principles that I voted for him in 2000. Meanwhile Bush had killed hundreds of the toughest Chechen fighters in Afghanistan where Gore, when he had power, had not done so.
Jim Peterson | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:03 pm | #

I look forward to your post about the Clinton Haters of the 1990s.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:03 pm | #

The funny thing is, I live in the UK and before 9-11 I thought Bush was an idiot. The BBC was constantly mocking him, and it became in in-joke that an idiot was being elected to power in the US. I guess I was critical of America in general, though I knew very little about the people or politics of America.

9-11 changed everything. Americans seemed vulnerable for the first time - more like real people, and less like Frenchmen. Since 9-11, I have made an active effort to find out more about America and Bush. I've read blogs both Democrat and Republican, and the more I find out about him the more I begin to admire the man. I have been particularly impressed with the smart, precise arguments of Republicans against the strident but seductive Democrats.

My conclusions is that Bush was the right man for the job. His decision to go into Iraq came out of left-field, but I backed him and Blair at the beginning and I back them now.

I guess that means I've finally fought off the mind-control of the BBC and liberal left in the UK and formed an opinion based on facts. I still find some of the Democrats social arguments persuasive, but when it comes to the War On Terror, I back Bush and Blair to the hilt.

But then again, I'm a diagnosed schizophrenic ...(true!)
Daniel Polwarth | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:12 pm | #

I finally helped her decide for Bush when I said that any woman could fly to Canada for an abortion...but the same women could not come alive again after dying in a nuclear attack.

This could be called Poverty Denial Syndrome, you know.
Brenda | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:26 pm | #

It's nice to think this might be an involuntary psychological condition, but don't rule out simple malice. After all, one of mad bad old Saul Alinksky's first Rules for Radicals was to Personalize Your Opposition. Don't opopose an idea, oppose an individual, and that individual is a Villain, and that Villain is a Monster. That's why "US Out of Vietnam" was never as popular a chant as "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?"
richard mcenroe | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:42 pm | #

What exactly has Bush done, Robert and others, that he should be despised so much? Clinton had a seedy extramarital affair with an intern in the Oval Office and shamed the office he held; Ted Kennedy killed a woman and thinking only of himself didn't even report the accident until the next day. I don't hate either of them, but I do feel contempt for them. The whole Bush thing is like Dr. Sanity says--totally out of proportion to the reality. Bush is just an ordinary man who tries to do his best. He's far from perfect and he has never claimed to be a saint. There are some people who despised Clinton but it NEVER took on the kind of hatred that Bush has had to endure. Clinton was never deemed responsible for Tsunamis and hurricanes. He wasn't held to account for WTC one; or for other terrorist attacks.
Jan | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:44 pm | #

Up until 9/11 I was clearly a Democrat. 9/11 was a wakeup call to me. The left's message (program) didn't change. To me that was insane, this country had changed. I started educating myself about who the enemy was. When President Bush decided to go into Iraq I applauded him. He had the guts to do it. If there had been a Democratic President, I doubt things would have turned out the same. The years of appeasement backfired on 9/11. The left is a group of preprogrammed puppets who refuse to use common sense when it comes to reality. I'm glad I did.
EXDemocrat | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:46 pm | #

Jan:

Hell, President Clinton wasn't even held responsible for Ruby Ridge or Waco!!!
Jeff M | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 4:53 pm | #

I agree with your analysis of the left, but I think that what they are really afraid of is not the terrorists, but the fact that their world view is coming apart. Multiculturalism has been shown to be a total farce and the left just can't deal with it.

The recent events in France has hit the left hard. Here one of their Socialist dream states has been exposed as racist and they just can't stand to even discuss it.
Sam | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:00 pm | #

As the guy who wrote the above-quoted snippet to Glenn (who I've known since before he was Instapundit and who I used to respect a whole lot), allow me to say: hahahahahahaha!

Yes, you've found me out! I want to institute a...what was it?...a collectivist utopia! That's why I buy my clothes at Banana Republic and my books at Amazon, because I'm such a anti-materialist socialist you see. Gimme a break, dude. I don't like Bush because I don't like his policies. I don't like the way he and his advisers exploited the real problem and threats of crazy Islamic terrorism and Middle Eastern instability to pursue a bunch of their own utopian dreams of a New American Century (their phrase, not mine). I don't like the way they've been willing to gay-bash and indulge would-be theocrats. I think their fiscal policies are completely short-sighted and damaging. I think they're just basically not very bright or competent. And I think that their reflexive mewling about their critics being "unpatriotic" is, like Sam Johnson said, "the last refuge of scoundrels."

I don't HATE any of these guys. I don't wish them ill health. I want them to have long, happy lives on their luxury ranches or wherever they like to hang out. I just really wish they weren't running the country. That's all. And I'll be glad when they no longer are. This is about policies, not people.

But hey, carry on with your BUSH-CRITICS-ARE-COMMUNIST-SADDAM-LOVERS hysteria, if it makes you feel better.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:30 pm | #

Also, I don't know anyone on "the left" who has ever thought of France as a Socialist utopia, or a utopia of any kind. I don't know many people on "the left" who think about France at all. Chirac is a right-winger, in case you guys didn't know. And anyone who's been paying any attention to that country's economic stagnation, long history of racism and problematic relations with its immigrants could hardly be surprised by anything that's happened recently. Anyway, the American right-wing's obsession with France is really weird. It's like you guys have an inferiority complex or something. Did a French guy steal your girlfriend?
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:40 pm | #

So, Mr Derangement, you deny that Islamofascists are real? That Bushco made them up out of whole cloth? All so they could elect Jerry Falwell in 2008?

I think, "dude," that you just made Dr Sanity's point for her.
JABBER | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:42 pm | #

Mr. Derangement

I think the analysis fits you to a tee. You refuse to see the danger that Islam poses to the West.
You should be prepared to be out of political power until you are willing to wage effective war against our enemies.
Sam | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:42 pm | #

Doc,

Pretty much hit the nail on the head, didn't ya? Very well analysed. And I see you even have some examples of the syndrome in your comments.

Good on you Doc. Now I know what to call it, and a little on how to treat it. Thanks.

Subsunk
Subsunk | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:47 pm | #

I am respectfully disappointed in your post. Based on your political opposition to a particular point of view, you attempt to "diagnose" an entire group of people holding that persuasion, (actually a stereotype), based on observations of various things that these people wrote.

There are several problematic things in your approach: First, one would think that a proper diagnosis of a "condition" would consist of an observation of an actual patient or group of patients, followed by a scientific cataloging of their allged symptoms. Instead, you follow in the great tradition of Dr. Frist, who diagnosed a woman in a Flordia hospital based on an edited video tape provided by persons directly interested in the case. Not exactly scientific.

Second, you, as is typical on many of the right wing blogs, use a straw man in your argument. You take the crazy few who say words in support of insurgents and then assume that that viewpoint is shared amongst all of us who share a dislike of Mr. Bush.

Third, you appoint yourself an expert on a subject that I submit you know next to nothing about: The strategic mindset of America's enemies. You really do not have the ability to understand why terrorists have chosen or not chose to attack the United States. Unless you are (1) in direct contact with the terrorists themselves or (2) reviewing actual intelligence reports about them, you have no idea about what is going on amongst the terrorists.

Finally, you ignore acutal evidence for the manipulation case, instead choosing to attack the messenger. The facts are as follows. Bush acted on a National Intelligence Estimate. The estimate contained guesses as to what Saddam had and was trying to do. The NIE contained estimates of WMD in Saddam's possession, as well as counter-arguments provided by those who thought the reports of Saddam's WMD programs grossly inflated. The administration showed these to two top Democrats, then provided a new version to the Congress with the doubts relegated to footnotes. It then provided a much shorter summary to Congress which fully ommitted the caveats and disagreements in the intelligence community. This is, in every legal sense of the word, lying by ommission. It is distortion of the intelligence--and is being widely reported in a number of top newspapers and not denied by the White House.

That's lying. Please address the substance of the charges instead of foolish and unscientific analyses of stereotypes generated by your political bias. You do a disservice to both your profession and the political debate.
Rob W | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:50 pm | #

Yes, I refuse to see the danger. How many times have YOU been to Ground Zero to pay your respects? How many times have you looked around a subway car nervously wondering if anyone has a bomb? How many times have you looked frantically for a cop or MTA employee to alert them to a large unattended suitcase propped against a pillar in Grand Central Station? Have you ever considered whether you should move out of the city you live in because of the actual real possibility of terrorist attacks? Don't lecture ME about the dangers of terrorism. I can't walk to work without passing public buildings and synagogues surrounded by blast barriers. Has it occurred to you that the reason that New Yorkers voted overwhelmingly against Bush is because we think he has made us more vulnerable, not less? It's not that we don't see the danger -- believe me, we see it -- it's that we don't like the so-called "solutions" being offered. I wouldn't trust these guys to wash my car, much less protect my country.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 5:51 pm | #

Oh, please, Mr D, please do enlighten us with your wisdom. What would you do if you were President? You obviously have all the answers...please share them with us benighted Red Staters!
JABBER | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:03 pm | #

I was a Red Stater myself not long ago, and will be again someday, so don't get all More-Heartland-Than-Thou with me. But no, I'm not running for president. What do you want, a 75-page foreign policy proposal? There are a zillion things that could have and should have been done better from 9/11 onward, and you've heard them all before if you've been paying any attention at all. But you just ignore them and write it all off to "Deranged Bush Haters" because that's easier than dealing with complicated issues. If you want just the most obvious one, though, take a look at that bit of 9/11 porn Dr. Sanity has running to the left there. You know where it says "Never Forget Who Did This" and then shows a picture of a certain tall bearded guy? That would be a place to start.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:14 pm | #

Couldn't these arguments of so-called Bush Derangement also apply just as well to Clinton Derangement?
Tillman | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:16 pm | #

"First, one would think that a proper diagnosis of a "condition" would consist of an observation of an actual patient or group of patients, followed by a scientific cataloging of their allged symptoms."

Easy, Rob W, just go to DailyKos...it's there in plain sight, and that's but a microcosm of the scale of the BDS epidemic.

"Instead, you follow in the great tradition of Dr. Frist, who diagnosed a woman in a Flordia hospital based on an edited video tape provided by persons directly interested in the case. Not exactly scientific."

Actually, Rob W, symptoms are symptoms and any good physician can narrow the pathology pretty remarkably, even at a distance. Hell, we've got medical historians diagnosing Napoleon's halitosis!

"Second, you, as is typical on many of the right wing blogs, use a straw man in your argument. You take the crazy few who say words in support of insurgents and then assume that that viewpoint is shared amongst all of us who share a dislike of Mr. Bush."

See my earlier point about DailyKos...I would hardly characterize them as "a few."

"Third, you appoint yourself an expert on a subject that I submit you know next to nothing about: The strategic mindset of America's enemies. You really do not have the ability to understand why terrorists have chosen or not chose to attack the United States. Unless you are (1) in direct contact with the terrorists themselves or (2) reviewing actual intelligence reports about them, you have no idea about what is going on amongst the terrorists."

Geez, Rob W, you really ought to get out more. Osama and company have published their intentions all over the place. Try Google.

"Finally, you ignore acutal evidence for the manipulation case, instead choosing to attack the messenger. The facts are as follows. Bush acted on a National Intelligence Estimate...."

You then go on to make your case for how "Bush lied." Uh, Rob W, have you ever made a case for something? At home? At work? You tend to emphasize what helps you and deemphasize what hurts you. It's up to the opposition to call you on it. And don't throw back that crap about "we didn't have the Intell that Bush had!" That's the Dems job! It's called "checks and balances," and if they didn't do the checking and the balancing, that's their failure, not Bush's. The Robb report reveals that no political pressure was used. Fact. Every leader/intell agency in the Free World believed that Saddam either had WMD (not just nuclear, by the way) or was clearly after it.

Also, don't dismiss that there were other reasons for war against Saddam. UN Resolution 1441 stands out. The guy jerked the UN around for 12 years until W finally called him on it.

Pat's analysis still stands, Rob. But there's hope for you, since you can still MAKE an argument. Congratulations.
JABBER | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:22 pm | #

First, the elucidation of a psychological defense mechanism that is being used in a particular case is not a "diagnosis". All people use them all the time to cope with reality. Some defenses are healthy, some are not. You might know this if you knew anything about psychiatry or psychology.

Second, By no means is displacement the only psychological defense in use by people who rabidly hate Bush. Denial, projection and paranoia are also very common. Displacement is one of the "healthier" ones, but dysfunctional nonetheless.

Third, I am an expert in psychiatry and in observation. I use the examples for purposes of explication, but I have made the same observations. I observe the behavior of both the Left and our enemies and I am perfectly capable using my expertise in making a judgement about both.

Fourth, there is no evidence of manipulation. There are footnotes in intelligence reports ( a way for the CIA and others to always have the CYA option).

Finally, I think it is fortunate that a majority of your fellow citizens voted to keep President Bush in office, whether you like it or not. Live with it.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:22 pm | #

I have been following Saddam like he was a football club since the 1970s. My grandfather, a doctor, went over to Iraq to treat the then President Al-Bakr. Saddam Hussein, then Vice president, gave my Grandfather two gold Rolexes, inscribed on the back, in gratitude for the medical care given. The following year, Saddam had Al-Bakr killed. After that I followed the news on Saddam without fail. All thru the Nineties, the consensus of opinion was that Saddam had not disarmed.If you think about it, a dictator in the middle east with territorial ambitions and no WMD is about as likely as a bacon sandwich at a bar-mitzvah. The politicians, as the level of attacks is ratcheting up, are politicking.God help us all.
Julie Cleeveley | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:26 pm | #

I think you are leaving out the alpha male dynamic.

The tendency of any tribe to split - half in favor half against.

If there are no big questions to split on, small ones will do. If truth doesn't help then lies will suit.

It is not a left/right thing. It is biological.
M. Simon | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:51 pm | #

The alpha male fear is because strong supporters and the very young children of the previous alpha male got killed when the new regime came.

You see this sort of behavior in humans all the time. Thus the hysteria if the current alpha male is not of the same tribe.

You saw this a lot during the Clinton years.
M. Simon | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 6:58 pm | #

Wow. Bravo. Excellent post.
Widgett Walls | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 7:00 pm | #

Is it me, or is "Dr. Sanity" suffering from multiple personality BDS?

Seems clear the same person is posting as Dr. Sanity, Rob W., and a few others... and is definitely showing signs of mania.

Wow! Loosen up "Dude"
SaddamHadNukes | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 7:24 pm | #

I agree that Rob makes a reasonable argument and deserves a reasonable answer.

Not all of us are doing that, btw.

I think if all were known, a judicious person might conclude that the administration did not separate its advocacy and evaluation functions. I give that out only as a possibility -- there is some evidence that suggests that, but there is other evidence that suggests they were as fully dispassionate as necessary. The tension arises because a president does not have the luxury of a 100% abstract evaluation. Not only is there a time to cease deliberating and lead, there is also the necessity of leading while the deliberation is going on.

Which is to say, it might seem reasonable for a person to say "I haven't decided. Sometimes it looks one way, sometimes it looks another," it would be irresponsible for president to do that. Finding the balance between keeping options open and communicating confidence is not simply difficult -- it is impossible. Each leader approaches the middle ground as best s/he can, but all eventually miss in one direction or the other.

Adding to the confusion, it is always difficult to discern which of your critics are the Loyal Opposition and which are just trying to screw you. It is now clear to the rest of us that the parts of the CIA are not fully behind the president and have tried to undermine him. This was proabably known to the president then. He trusts Tenet. He partly trusts the CIA. Tenet is supposed to have his finger on the pulse. How much weight to you give reports?

The information you identify was relegated to footnotes. That might have been advocacy, but could also be their honest evaluation of the importance of the caveats. The world of foreign intelligence always carries implied caveats.

To several others: the accusation that the Republicans were equally deranged about Clinton just doesn't hold up. I read conservative magazines and books throughout that era. I certainly ran into a few people who just hated the guy, and enjoyed hating him. But that was rare. What I recall is a mounting anger against him, as dishonesty piled on dishonesty. I can still get worked up about those 900 FBI files and Hilary Clinton closing off Vince Foster's office to the FBI after he was found dead. Disbelieve if you will, but National Review repeatedly tried to pull the focus from escapades with an intern to the underlying legal issues of a woman bringing civil suit against the president. There was a lot of Monica-talk, but the right wing wasn't driving it. For that you can thank the MSM, who got a twofer: they got to be obsessed about sex AND accuse the conservatives of being obsessed about sex.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 8:14 pm | #

What is misleadingly termed "liberalism" today is indeed a psychological phenomenon, a bipolar disorder rooted in solipsistic narcissism. Largely a Boomer generation syndrome (1946 - '64), on which see Christopher Lasch and others.

"Bipolar" takes the form of an overweening "self-esteem" evinced by in-groups such as feminists and homosexuals in compensation for real-world behavioural deficits: Contributing nothing to anyone, both drain from the gene pool, bleating piteously as misunderstood victims of their serial debauch.

In public realms, "bipolar" represents the long-standing Leftist fixation with collectivist Statism-- death-eating dictatorships that T.S. Eliot's "Hollow Men", Eric Hoffer's self-loathing "spoiled personas", Orwell's Ministry of Truth find so appealing. This is no guarantee that they will not win out... as Nietsche put it, nihilism has attractions (Zarathustra).

The book on decades of escalating mass-media campaigns against free-market individualism, opposing every principle that demonstably defends a polity against murderous tyranny from Stalin and Mao to Kim Jong-il, has yet to be composed. This generations-long drumbeat of self-abnegation and defeatism is most certainly irrational, a degrading tropism endemic to infantile-regressive temperaments whose adult mentalities combine dependency with monomania.

Militant Islam, with its vicious resort to barbarism, is psychologically akin to just this syndrome. The Saudis' Wahabi death-cult personifies cultural sterility, political regression. Those who truckle to it would be laughable in their naivite, except that their deluded cowardice affects us all. Let's just hope that no "man on horseback" suddenly appears, capable like Napoleon and Hitler of inverting the temper of the times.

Our circumstance are not "interesting"
but truly dangerous. Imagine President Al Gore's address to the nation on re-election in 2004... when actual survival is at stake, dismissing 3 - 5 annual 9/lls as "traffic accidents" on the road to "understanding Islam" would provoke more of a reaction than we care to visualize.
John Blake | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 8:24 pm | #

I was having trouble understanding the level of bitterness you find at the so-called "lefty" websites. Stopped visiting many of them because they couldn't write a sentence without using unnecessary profanity. Very juvenile and always a sign of a weak argument.

I also got tired of the I'm always right and you're always wrong attitude. Just like teenagers. Impossible to have a friendly, intelligent discussion. Maybe they'll outgrow that attitude just like my kids finally did. I sure hope so.

One thing always missing - any concern whatsoever for the repressed people of Iraq who had to endure that murderous butcher for 30 years.
Michael | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 8:26 pm | #

47% of Americans in one poll express "strong" disapproval of George W. Bush. Are they all suffering from some type of "displacement"? Is anyone who feels strongly in a way that is counter to the way you feel "mentally ill"? I think attempting to diagnose from distance is always a risky proposition (see Schiavo, Teri) but to attempt such a feat with about 80 million people is flat out ridiculous.

Clearly, I live in a very different world than you do as EVERYONE I KNOW despises Bush at a level that makes it painful to watch him on television. That includes my 70+ year-old aunt who is a daily churchgoer and does not fit the stereotype for socialist/communist. (Although she does find it spiritually uplifting to help those less fortunate than herself. Is that also a pathology?)

I'm sorry to report this to you, but a lot of very sane people simply do not care for Dear Leader. If he were a sitcom instead of a joke, he'd be cancelled. Unfortunately the country must suffer through another 3 years of his "leadership" but thankfully he does not have the political capital to do much more harm. He's simply not competent.
TPurcell | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 8:46 pm | #

Dr. Sanity, your explanation fits the circumstances quite well in terms of *what* is going on. The question of why BDS afflicts so many is then key to finding a solution - if one exists.

I sense there are degrees of BDS affliction, like a cancer, metasticization in the host can be localized or widespread. Just yesterday on a popular blog I had a several hours long back and forth with a "Bush Lied" person, who at the end of our discussion (he/she was 95% civil throughout, so not wholly consumed with BDS), admitted that he/she wasn't actually *sure* that Bush Lied, but rather believed it to be true. That is quite a confession for a BDS sufferer to make. So, some are recoverable, some may not be.

I do though worry about what it means to our nation that so many can be so pathetically afflicted.
Rock Boulder | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 8:50 pm | #

I liked the article, thanks.

I'm no psychiatrist but I had thought of this before; that people blame Bush because it's something they know and something they can strike out against, and because they can actually change who is president-- but there is so little an individual can do about the giant, amorpheous cultural and religious blob of people planetwide who want to do horrifying things because we don't share their religion.

Regarding the fellow who commented that the doc couldn't know "why" the terrorists were terrorizing: as another rightly pointed out, they've been very public with their intent and alleged reasons (they are infinite) for decades. However, the more important point is that it does not matter why; when they announce that well yes, they saw off schoolgirls' heads and blow up children and really, it's because they're pissed off about the Crusades, my feeling is: "So what?" I'm supposed to go back and time, and cause them to NOT overrun, kill and enslave most the region so as to have caused the first Pope to respond by asking for help? You (you as in 'anyone') declare war openly, you commit acts of war openly, you kill everybody you can from innocent children to thousands of civilians, and any nation of people with half a shred of self-respect and survival instinct is now at war with you. "Why" you do those things is beside the point, especially when the 'reason' and 'cause' amount to, "anything and everything we can just make up" as well as the First Reason: "They are infidels."

It is simply part of the nature of Islam, is the tragedy of it; and I know Muslims who "ignore" the violent and barbaric parts of that religion just as Christians ignore some of the things in their own holy book frankly, and who are good people. Islam needs a Martin Luther in a BIG way, to lead a splinter to sanity. That no such person would be allowed to survive is too bad, because I think it puts the entire religion in a status of "kill or be killed as an infidel," which makes anybody sane around them a little wary. The denial that this is the case is "the frog and the scorpion" tale playing out in real life.

I spent an entire year attempting to have online discussions, with groups of people I knew, about politics. The irrational--and I mean, foaming at the mouth hysterical ranting namecalling level of irrational--response regularly took my breath away. I would say, can we discuss just ONE given thing? You pick it. Any topic, any situation, any instance. We will just discuss that thing and look at the facts. You may be right. And they could not, would not. It became apparent that it was an outright pathology -- it was literally like trying to talk with a person who is in immensely obvious denial about some personal problem. They couldn't stay on topic, they couldn't refrain from making some world-spanning accusation (bush lies!) that to them ended all argument, nor could they back up any argument with any fact that couldn't be refuted 12 ways to Sunday. I ended up leaving the company of a ton of people online I had known a long time and really liked. Really a shame.

What makes me feel kind of sick is the idea that their pathology literally puts them in the position of making themselves an actual enemy of the country, when they openly work against what I see as needed for our survival. When people are family and friends, this is a really complicated and frustrating situation.
McTANK | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 9:34 pm | #

I voted for Clinton in 1992, and shortly afterward became a Clinton basher because I was wrong in my analysis of him. I became exuberant at times in my dislike for him, because I felt that he supported policies that were dangerous for the country and threatening to my traditionalist worldview. I never approached the hate-mongering that I've seen on the internet and in the news, especially close to the election time, but I can see how the intense, over-the-top contempt for Pres Bush could develop from his election.

Politics has become more black-and-white lately, with little room for compromise. The political parties define themselves to a great degree by being against what their opponents favor, in an "us vs. them" dynamic. Where has this come from? Is this a further manifestation of displacement, fear of a worldview under attack? It is very threatening to a "progressive" world view to see unions losing their power and influence and their ability to guarantee middle-class affluence to marginally skilled workers; to see majorities of fellow citizens rejecting initiatives like universal health care and gay rights. There's kind of a siege mentality now that Republicans have gained public favor and control agendas, and this has fostered a sense of unity and "specialness" from belonging to a group. So is displaced anger fostering this sense of community, or is this sense of community fostering the personification of this displaced anger? I can't tell. It does approach a cult or religion in some quarters.

Thanks for the insightful post.
LittleJ | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 9:42 pm | #

Personally, I'm not a fan of long-range psychoanalysis, whether or not it's directed towards a group that includes me. I think the best response so far is John's at 2:50 pm.

I guess I'm more cynical than Dr. Sanity and don't believe this has arisen spontaneously or subconsciously. My own idea (which is complete speculation) is that the policy of "Get Bush" has been decided and directed from the highest levels of the Democratic Party. The only thing wrong with my idea is that I am utterly bewildered as to how anyone could think it could have the desired effect.

Many people on the left seem to deliberately and feverishly work themselves into a frenzy of Bush hatred. Why heretofore rational people do this is completely beyond me.

zota wrote, "In the spirit of facing reality--no matter how painful or unpleasant--is it possible that our current President is doing a bad job?" Have you forgotten Harriet Miers?

"If an American belives that her democratically elected officials are doing a bad job, what should they do? Should they close their eyes and hope and wish it will go away, or should they speak out?" Speaking out is not: comparing him to Hitler, calling him a chimp, attempting long-range amateur psychoanalysis, US celebrities saying publicly in foreign countries they're ashamed of him, making a "documentary" (containing major errors of fact) claiming he was complicit in 9/11, celebrating that "documentary" and ignoring the errors, etc.

"Do you have any comments regarding Bush Genius Syndrome?
http://powerlineblog.com/archive...ives/ 011183.php" Yes. One claim does not constitute a syndrome. Implying that it is is in itself a symptom of so-called "BDS".

"Or is the perception Republican hypocrisy merely another symptom of derangement?" When Democrats never admit their own hypocrisy, yes.

Jim Peterson wrote, "Just to be fair...the Republicans used a similar derangement syndrome over the Monika Lewinsky affair."

Yes, let's be fair and remember there is context here that was a central issue. Sexual harrassment was the big thing at the time. It could get a man fired. And this included stares and lewd comments. Tammy Bruce, former president of the LA chapter of NOW, tells the story of an executive who included in his evaluation of a female subordinate that she should "be nicer". She thought there was some harrassing subtext in this and made an issue of it. The matter escalated, and eventually he was fired and his career was ruined.

IOW, even a small thing could be construed as sexual harrassment, and this could destroy the life of an average man. All right, even harsh rules can be lived with. But Clinton has a sexual liaison in the White House, and the left does a 180 and says it's not important.

I had been a Democrat, and at that point I realized they would go back on their most cherished principles and deny they were doing so and sacrifice ordinary people when their own power was threatened. I became a Republican. You call this derangement?
Jim C. | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 9:49 pm | #

May I suggest a new acronym (I actually thought of this after last years election). These people are suffering from WRETCH or Wide Ranging Emotional Trauma Caused by Hatred. This can be used in casual conversation as in "That Michael Moore sure is a WRETCH".
Michael S | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 9:56 pm | #

I see BDS a little differently. The left is trying to keep alive a world view that was destroyed on 9/11, i.e., a picture of so-called corporate, imperialist Amerika
as the worst influence in the world. After 911, if what the U.S. is doing in the world is viewed as fighting totalitarians and the enemies of civilization on behalf of freedom, then their will be no leftist ideology left, because it will have no credibilty. To the left, the U.S. must remainn the source of evil for their ideology to have any meaning. The hysteria on the left is not displacement, it's desperation.
They hate Bush and US policy because if
successful it will not oo
tony | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 10:08 pm | #

I also think people hate Bush because they think he disapproves of them. They think because he's a reborn Christian, he lets morality play a large role in his life. Morality involves right and wrong. I'm okay, you're okay is the tacit agreement many people have made. Bush messes with that.
Andrea in NY | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 10:28 pm | #

This is all quite interesting. Does this diagnosis also apply to Clinton-hatred?

And how would you diagnose the opposite of Bush hatred which is Bush sychophancy? Those delusional people who see Bush as a God-like figure who can do no wrong. Sort of like cult members blindly following their leader.
Ellen | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 10:31 pm | #

I think we don't like Bush because his supposed Christianity is phony, played up for political purposes. How else do you explain inviting pornographers at a GOP gathering once he safely secured a second term?

I personally have the utmost respect for those who truly live their lives by a moral code based on their Christianity. What I despise are hypocrites.
Ellen | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 10:36 pm | #

You may believe "Imagine" was naive and perhaps it was, but I think it's abominable that you are glad John Lennon is dead.
Ellen | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 10:40 pm | #

Nicely done!

Bravo!

Thank-you for the insight.

Please, Please keep up the good work.
I am a fan of psychology...

And now a fan of your site!
Greg(WhatCapitalism?) | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:14 pm | #

AVI,

I liked Clinton - never voted for him though. I was going through my Libertarian phase. Which followed my post communist phase. Which followed my communist phase.

Any way. I liked bubba. He seemed like the perfect President for the times.

I like Bush. Voted for him in ought four.

From my position BDS looks a lot like CDS.

Every time Clinton would say Osama - the Rs would say: Osama who? And BTW you lied to the FBI about where you put your dick. And we have proof. Well sure enough they did have proof. And an impeachment too. And a disbarment.

The Rs sure didn't do much to make the political climate conducive to dealing with Osama. I have to tell you that at the time, to me, Osama seemed like a distraction. It turns out wag the dick was a distraction and Osama was the real deal.

Didn't the R senators and congressmen have a sense of the threat?

Didn't see it. CDS. Just like BDS. And from the same motive. Monkey politics.
M. Simon | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:29 pm | #

Ellen,

I was under the impression that Jesus preferred the company of sinners.

But, I do dig your point about hypocrites.
M. Simon | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:33 pm | #

M. Simon

we disagree, but thank you for your gracious reply.

Ellen, don't pretend to mind read. It's never convincing.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:36 pm | #

Very interesting. I've been trying to understand the psychology behind Bush-hating for years now. It's especially painful when a loved one succumbs to this condition. The thing I keep wondering is: what will they do when their great white whale is gone in 3 years? What do you do with all that anger? I'd be interested in your observations.
Steve Brady | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:43 pm | #

Doc: To learn about the talking points of BDS, one only has to read the columns at http://www.commondreams.org/
The screeds therein are indescribable.
onlineanalyst | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:52 pm | #

This post and the comments in it mostly make me sad, the same way a lot of posts and comments on left-wing blogs do. There are so many bizarre caricatures of the opposition (on both sides) that it's like listening to people describe two entirely different planets. To take just one example from this thread: the idea that people on "the left" (however you define that) are some kind of closet Marxists. This is crazy. Your average American liberal, like me, is a happy member of the consumer society, maybe willing to put up with slightly higher taxes in exchange for a better civic infrastructure but in no way interested in Leninist rhetoric and deeply suspicious of concentrated state power. Most of the liberals I know score way to the libertarian side on the authoritarian-libertarian axis. Sure, we see a healthy community-minded public sector as a counterbalance to the every-man-for-himself predations of the private sector, but we like the private sector too. Most of us work in it. I work for a big publicly traded company, and believe it or not I want that company to make a nice big profit. To go around pretending that the goal of American liberals is commmunism is just ridiculous. It's like saying (and yeah I know, there are people on the left who say this) that everyone who votes Republican is a closet fascist.

I just don't think that that kind of discussion is a "discussion" at all. It's just the convenient erection and demolition of straw men (which is what I accused Glenn of in the series of emails from which he excerpted that quote). Calling liberals communists, or suggesting they "don't understand the threat of terrorism"...I mean, we all saw Sept. 11, you know? Maybe some of us who actually knew a little of the recent history of the Middle East weren't completely surprised by it -- those of us who already knew what bad news the Taliban were, those of us who already knew bin Laden had more or less declared war on the United States, those of us who knew that most of the world (not just the United States) had turned a blind eye to a lot of things in the Middle East for years as long as the oil was flowing. But that doesn't mean we weren't horrified. You think I don't want to see bin Laden brought to justice? Bring him! But the ways and means of countering that threat, that's where we have some serious and honest disagreements. And I just wish there were more places online -- SOME places online, any places -- where people who disagreed could talk about these things reasonably. Heatedly, OK, but without these cartoonish vilifications that accomplish nothing but make people feel better about the superiority of their "tribe" (as one astute commenter said above). So yeah, like I said to Glenn, I don't like this administration. I think they've executed their War on Terror very badly, I think they've behaved like the goonlike bullies the rest of the world likes to see us as anyway -- to no real lasting gain for any of us who live in this country. And I also think their domestic agenda is a low-level disaster, punctuated by easy resorts to bigotry and religious dogma. But I don't HATE them, or the people who vote for them. Almost all of my in-laws (and there are a lot of them) are hardcore lifelong Republicans, and they're very happy with Bush. I disagree strongly with them, but they're still some of the best people I know in the world and I'd do anything for them as they would for me. I just wish there was a little more sense of that in these online echo chambers, that we all really do live in this country and we really do care about it and just because we disagree is no grounds for questioning anyone's "patriotism" or Americanness or whatever.

And I don't think diagnosing half the electorate as "deranged" contributes anything at all useful to any discussion. I don't care how much psychobabble it's backed up with, it's just another way of calling names.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 11:59 pm | #

Hell, President Clinton wasn't even held responsible for Ruby Ridge or Waco!!!
Jeff M 11.13.05 - 4:53 pm

Clinton was not president during Ruby Ridge (August 1992). Bush I was.

And how would you diagnose the opposite of Bush hatred which is Bush sychophancy? Those delusional people who see Bush as a God-like figure who can do no wrong. Sort of like cult members blindly following their leader.
Ellen 11.13.05 - 10:31 pm

The "sycophancy" label is better applied to the Clinton Cultists. Unlike the Left, there actually is a lot of diversity of thought on the Right. A lot of conservative/libertarians are very vocal about their unhappiness with Bush II; just as they were with Bush I. I don't recall any dissent from the Left about Clinton.

Another difference between the Clinton haters and the Bush haters is that the Bush haters have the main-stream-media on their side.

There was a lot of Monica-talk, but the right wing wasn't driving it. For that you can thank the MSM, who got a twofer: they got to be obsessed about sex AND accuse the conservatives of being obsessed about sex.
Assistant Village Idiot 11.13.05 - 8:14 pm

Partially true. The Religous Right did talk about Monica a lot, thus aiding the Left/MSM in moving the focus away from the legal issues which should have led to Clinton being removed from office. It was pretty much a slam-dunk case, but the Religious Right wanted to muddy the waters by preaching about their morality.

Sexual harrassment was the big thing at the time...
...IOW, even a small thing could be construed as sexual harrassment, and this could destroy the life of an average man. All right, even harsh rules can be lived with. But Clinton has a sexual liaison in the White House, and the left does a 180 and says it's not important.
Jim C. 11.13.05 - 9:49 pm

Clinton was not a victim of some "vast right wing conspiracy," but of the laws and policies that he and his political allies supported.

As somebody else noted at tht time, What happend to him was bad (invasion of privacy, humiliation, etc), but the man who vetoed tort reform should be the first person subjected to as many frivolous lawsuits as possible.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:11 am | #

Gosh, you want to know why people don't like Bush? Look at who does like him: Watch Pastor John Hagee on nationwide TV talk about how God closed New Orleans because Israel closed some settlements. Listen to superChristian Pat Robertson call for an assassination of someone legally elected, but who doesn't happen to like us. Today James Kennedy said the founders of this nation were the Puritans. Even as he said it he had this look on his face like, "Did I just say that?"

There's a creepy theocracy sneaking up on us that won't be too different from living in an Islamic state, minus the beards and headwrap. If you think that it won't ever happen, look at Israel, these right-wing religious zealots' spiritual base. It's a theocracy. I just wonder what's going to happen when true conservatives in this country have to pay the piper for using the religious right to bring Geo. Bush and his ilk into power.
Michele | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:26 am | #

I don't recall any dissent from the Left about Clinton.

There was plenty. He got grief from the left wing of his party for his "Don't Ask Don't Tell" compromise, for signing NAFTA, for welfare reform, for taking too much money from corporate interests, for not really seeming to have any principles that he wouldn't sell out for a bump in the polls. There were plenty of people who liked Clinton, sure, but there were a LOT who didn't too (and who still don't). You must not have been around many leftists in the '90s.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:28 am | #

And Michele, I share some of your alarm, but I honestly think this country is self-correcting enough to keep the religious right from getting anything like the power they want. There just isn't a majority for government-by-Scripture here, and I don't think there's likely to be. Which doesn't mean they can't create some havoc, insert "intelligent design" into a few textbooks and so forth, but I think they're holding a losing hand in the long run. They'll even lose on gay rights eventually because the bigotry they're pandering to on that is going to die off. I don't like the religious right, but I don't really think they're going to manage to add the Ten Commandments to the Bill of Rights. I'm much more worried about the longterm economic prospects of the country, and I wish more people were talking about that and spending less time calling each other Saddam-lovers and Rethugnicants.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:34 am | #

Mr. D,

There is a concerted and successful effort by born again christians to enter low-level politics and bubble up to where it counts. Thus a totally screwed up US House of Representatives. If you don't think teaching intelligent design, the morning forced prayer, the plaque at the school door taht says "In God We Trust" is a sign of things to come, you probably should.

Those religious peeves are MY particular reason for not liking Bush. Because he has milked those folks for the votes. And I don't think he considers himself one of them for one second. But he's going to find out he's let the lion out of the bag on this one.

Other people who don't like this guy with their own complaints: environmentalists, those 40 percent of the country with no health care, my dad, a 3-war vet who thinks Bush needs to go to the front.
Michele | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:43 am | #

Sometimes we're never more wrong than when we're right. It is entirely possible what we happen to call "BDS" actually represents a willfully and carefully constructed rhetorical series of mechanisms.

Rhetorical devices which are created/invented, unrelentingly repeated, cadenced and "packaged" to be scaled by media constitute a form of 'weaponized speech.'

What we see happening among the minions is the warlike fervor 'the weapon' engenders.

No other business or form of commerce could lawfully ask for or collect money based upon such fraudulent information offered up with such flagrant guilty knowledge of the concealed falseness of the claims used to generate income and investment taken from others.

However, the incitement sweet-spots being stroked and poked-at by the Democrat elite are same glands that produce the venom that makes for poisonous mob behavior. Is not the commons now full of such venomous acrimony?

lt may not be wise to trivialize the dangers inherent in such willful and calculated cognative jamming. Mass psychogenic crisis within the political commons is no small threat to national stability. What does one properly call a polemical-political derivative of delusions of parasitosis? Do we not now find a type of political Tarantism in the symptoms of BDS?

At some point, the fraud and predation break the social contract a well as the psyches of the useful idiots. At some point the malicious mischaracterizations constitute Sedition. These are extremely dangerous experiments in rhetoric being conducted by the Democrats; dangerous and without conscience.

The shameless clairon call to abandon conscience, to me, is the most troubling aspect of all. The willfulness of the protagonists is really quite disturbed.
willem | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:49 am | #

See, there you go -- "sedition." "Treason." Unpatriotic! Un-American! You know what? I've never called another American "unpatriotic" just because I disagreed with them, much less "treasonous." I think that kind of rhetoric doesn't help anyone. There is such a thing as treason, and we prosecute people for it; political disagreement with this president -- or any president, including Bill Clinton or FDR, who was subject to plenty of political criticism in the midst of a war -- is not treason. It's political disagreement. Nearly half the electorate voted against this president's re-election. They weren't being treasonous, they were being citizens of the United States.

There is a long history of people questioning the patriotism of their political opponents, but it's not a proud one. It's one of the oldest political smears in the book.
Mr. Derangement | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 1:04 am | #

You're the only voice of reason on this thing tonight, Mr. D.

Time to sign off here.
Michele | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 1:10 am | #

Great post! Let me share with you my wife's run in with one of these Bush haters. Check this: Peace Activist Attacks Housewife
Kevin D. Korenthal | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 1:18 am | #

At some point, the fraud and predation break the social contract a well as the psyches of the useful idiots. At some point the malicious mischaracterizations constitute Sedition. These are extremely dangerous experiments in rhetoric being conducted by the Democrats; dangerous and without conscience.
willem | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 2:17 am | #

Wow.

That's all pretty retarded.
salvage | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 9:03 am | #

Mr. D, your defense of "liberals" is fine and good as far as it goes, but you miss Glenn's (and many others') point. Glenn is NOT saying that being against Bush is unpatriotic. What he IS saying is that dredging up the "Bush lied!" meme over and over and over again can ONLY be construed as tearing down the president and country be damned. Bush did not lie to get us into war, period (and, by the way, if he did, this in itself would be a sorry indictment of Democratic leadership), so to continue to insist otherwise is to be "unpatriotic." You're free to bitch, complain, and rail all you want about how this or that is going in the war effort, or how Bush is (truly) screwing the pooch fiscally, or how Bush's social agenda is wanting, but DON'T insist, YEARS later that he lied to get us into war. Like any politician, he presented a case for war, the Congress went along, and here we are. When a Jay Rockefeller goes on the air Sunday and says that he wasn't responsible for his vote, he's tearing down the country, plain and simple. He's being unpatriotic. He was even more extreme than Bush (Iraq, he said, back in '02, was an "imminent threat.") Now he claims that Bush mislead him. Bull! He's pandering to his anti-war base and to hell with "supporting the troops."

The decision was made. We're at war. Give him hell privately but line up publicly behind him. THAT is patriotism that is true to American-style dissent. Has the Left learned nothing from the debacle of the anti-Vietnam war years?
JABBER | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 10:05 am | #

What is so sad is that careless remarks (or are they calculated, politically inspired ones?) with inflammatory rhetoric and unsubstantiated or refuted claims by Democratic "leaders" like Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Pelosi, Durbin, etc. become grist for the terrorists' mill. These statements create the headline news in areas where we are engaged in a psychological war against the enemy. That's why the patriotism of these critics is suspect. They talk like partisans first, not Americans.
onlineanalyst | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 10:29 am | #

political disagreement with this president -- or any president, including Bill Clinton or FDR, who was subject to plenty of political criticism in the midst of a war -- is not treason. It's political disagreement...
There is a long history of people questioning the patriotism of their political opponents, but it's not a proud one. It's one of the oldest political smears in the book.
Mr. Derangement 11.14.05 - 1:04 am

Tell that to the president.

* * *

"[W]e can't love our country and hate our government."
-The President of the United States
weekly radio address

* * *

I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.

I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.

But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.

[T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

-Remarks by the President of the United States
Spartan Stadium, Michigan State University
after the worst terrorist attack in the United States
Robert | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 10:50 am | #

D'oh. For some reason, the indication of edits ("[snip]") in my post above were cut out. Lack of preview function strikes again...
Robert | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 10:56 am | #

Irrational Bush hatred correlates closely with secularism.

Liberalism and environmentalism are replacements for religion, which is why the left can't discuss them rationally.

The problem is that the liberals are lacking the sort of comfort and reassurance that a belief in God formerly provided for them. Hence their panic.

In their religion, Bush is the devil.

Does this make sense?
Dick Sears | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 11:37 am | #

I'm interested in the "ownership" thing the lefties have going on. I encounter this everywhere, both online and in actual life.

They "own" moral and intellectual superiority. They "own" caring for the downtrodden, for the arts, for conservation, for the environment. They "own" not being racist. They "own" tolerance.

Not only is this not in fact accurate or true in Real Life among Real People, but lefties have become to a one the most intolerant group of people in this entire country. They will tolerate nothing and no one who has any view or philosophy other than theirs. They will not tolerate discussion. On non-political messageboards lefties will shout down, attack, insult, and foul-language to death anyone not of their ilk. It goes on all the time.

On one non-political board, post-Katrina, one guy started 13 separate Hate/Blame Bush threads, complete with all the foul language unfit to print. 13 threads.

Clinton is not my favorite person in the world, to put it mildly, but I didn't spend my days insulting the left and spewing hate while he was in office.

The left's claim both outright and by inference to superiority in all things, maybe it fills a void for them. Maybe it's another psych problem. Whatever it is, it's blind, false and destructive, most especially to themselves.
Laura | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 11:39 am | #

Islam already has a Martin Luther.

His name is Osama bin Laden.

There are differences between Osama bin Laden and Martin Luther, but they share the same goal: to overthrow the corrupt leaders of their religion and establish a new version closer to the original words of their holy texts.

The difference is that the Catholics actually did enforce a stranglehold on Europe, stifling economic and cultural growth, whereas bin Laden seeks to stifle these things himself, though he will gladly tell any who will listen that it's Israel and America that are stifling him... another lie in the sea of lies his organization surrounds itself with.
Tatterdemalian | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:06 pm | #

Martin Luther never intended to bring down the church. His theses were intended to be an in-church discussion but the powers that be over-reacted and, when Martin sought refuge, local princes saw an opportunity to break free of Rome's control.
Osama is much closer to the Austrian Corporal. He was at odds with the secular government of Saddam Hussein much like A.H. was with the communists of 1930's Germany and Soviet Russia but he would have been more than happy to make a deal to hurt the democratic West (see Molotov-Ribentrop Pact)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. That is why the Left sides with such horrid allies.
At this point a Leftist is hitting respond to counter with "what about Pinochet?" or "what about Kai-Shek?"

You will note that the right eventually pressures their less than democratic allies to reform (Spain, Chile, Indonesia, Taiwan) whereas the left will not question theirs (Cuba, Cambodia)
GW Crawford | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:46 pm | #

Howard Dean is one of the root causes of BDS. Sometimes it sounds as if he gets his talking points from Berkeley bumper stickers.

Dennis Prager is ripping him a new one right now going over his Tim Russert interview. Howard Dean is a joke.
Matt | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:51 pm | #

It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over.

It's called "displacement behavior" -- when reality overwhelmes you and everything is spiraling out of your control, find something you can control and micromanage it to death.

25 years ago, the company I work for was going under; while everything melted down, top management spent thousands of man-hours in Important Meetings working on the company dress code, even sending VPs out on inspection trips with rulers to measure male employees' hair length and make sure all neckties were properly knotted.

(The FEMA top-level manager who dropped the ball so bad over Katrina also followed this pattern; a lot of the e-mails released about the crisis show him very concerned with FEMA office dress codes.)
Ken | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 12:58 pm | #

Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. Zar-cow-wee is just a bogus replacement for the bogus bin Laden in the whole bogus mythology.
ShadoGovernment | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 1:26 pm | #

Great post, now all we need is something that explains why people get unglued because of lying by politicians at all. There never has been a completely honest politician, never will be one. That is why an educated citizenry is so central to the workings of a strong and vibrant democracy.
tyree | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 1:44 pm | #

ShadoGovernment...
Has watched to many Supermarionation TV shows. SHADO doesn't exist, heck that show wasn't even done with puppets, although they had cool models. Besides, only the hate filled socialists and anarchists use puppets in their protest marches and they arn't as good as the puppets on TV. Remember, there are no UFO's and no SHADO, they are a myth. Global Islamic Terrorism, on the other hand, will kill you. Myths don't kill. I hope that makes it easier for you to understand, ShadoGovernment.
tyree | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 1:53 pm | #

Dr. Sanity,

Theroughly enjoyed your writing and may suggest it to others. I can imagine the reaction of the Bush haters being cited for a psychological disorder, but you know what when you recount the detail you have, by damn, many of these people do look ill. Remember after the 2004 election and many activist Dems needing to be treated for post-election depression.

The problem of course is that there are many around the world that are inflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome. How do we go about curing those folks that deserve to be 'cured"?

Excellent analysis. I am beginning to see your points further on this, the raging hatred, the vitriol spewed by these people. I never recalled this level of animosity in my 50 years, there has to be something deeper to it and you may very well be right with this.
WK | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 3:28 pm | #

Bush is the worst president we have ever had. Period.

Listen to him talk. Listen to the things he says. He's a fucking moron. He isn't fit to lick Bill Clinton's soiled shorts.

And this sad sack of human garbage is leading the most powerful country on the face of the earth? It's so sad it makes you want to fall down and weep.

Torture. Raping the environment. Dropping ordinance on innocent civilians. Destroying a country. Severing ties with our trusted allies. Ignoring true dangers to our country. Lining the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of our poorest citizens. Gutting our civil liberties.... It just goes on and on.

The Bush presidency is just one long disgusting nightmare of evil. It's a new Dark Age. Bible thumping, prayer breakfasts, false platitudes, and somewhere in the background are a bunch of fat, pasty-faced fratboys laughing it up.

I love America and I'd defend it against any enemy. But we aren't at war - we're just spending our money and our blood on some fool's errand.
The Raven | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 8:09 pm | #

All BDS points have just been proven beyond any shadow of any doubt.
Laura | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 9:10 pm | #

Mr. Derangement, your appeal goes to my heart. Yet as I scroll through the rest of the posts, I think you can see why those of us now on the Right have strong counter-reactions to what is being written. Michele thinks some theocracy is brewing, someone else compares Osama to Luther, and a couple of late posters hit every insulting, pointless stereotype without adding anything to the discussion.

I will try to ignore them and attend to you and any others attempting to post with constructive criticism.

Now, to my points: If I thought that the lunatic accusations came only from the 10% lunatic fringe, I think I could just write it off. My concern is that these words are coming from the Democratic mainstream: Durbin, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, and Harkin, for example. Additionally, they have only very recently begun to be seriously challenged by the general media in their nutcase statements. I have a congenital inability to let people fight unfairly in my presence (you can imagine how popular I am in some circles). As a social worker, I am surrounded by intelligent liberals who are completely starkers in the bigotry that drops from their mouths. To them, it is just conversation, and showing that they're in the know. Nice people, really. But when you (okay, I) analyze the content of their comments, you hear a deteriorated political discourse that I do not wish to see continued. Unarguably, there is unfair idiocy directed leftward, even here. But I do not hear that unfair idiocy being directed at anyone on the left by the administration, Frist, Graham, McCain, or Giuliani, nor in my circle of conservative friends and acquaintances.

Until Democrats who wish to engage in serious debate tell their own leaders -- plus money-raisers and advocates like Moveon and PFAW -- to shut up, I feel perfectly justified in painting the whole group with the same broad brush. Here in the NH primary, the sane Democrats only got 11% of the vote. Republicans have to publically distance themselves from nuts and charlatans all the time.

Single point about criticism. Just because many people have secretly hoped to subdue all criticism by declaring some criticism illegitimate does not mean that A) Bush is doing that, or B) no criticism is illegitimate. You may suspect anyone's agenda all you like, but I find no shade of reason that your assessment is correct.
Assistant Village Idiot | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 9:42 pm | #

A more interesting phenomenon to explore would be the psychological makeup of the Bush Lover.

(clue: It ain't a river in Egypt)
concerned citizen | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 11:01 pm | #

Torture's Terrible Toll
By Senator John McCain
Newsweek

25 November 2005 issue

Abusive interrogation tactics produce bad intel, and undermine the values we hold dear. Why we must, as a nation, do better.
The debate over the treatment of enemy prisoners, like so much of the increasingly overcharged partisan debate over the war in Iraq and the global war against terrorists, has occasioned many unserious and unfair charges about the administration's intentions and motives. With all the many competing demands for their attention, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have remained admirably tenacious in their determination to prevent terrorists from inflicting another atrocity on the American people, whom they are sworn to protect. It is certainly fair to credit their administration's vigilance as a substantial part of the reason that we have not experienced another terrorist attack on American soil since September 11, 2001.

It is also quite fair to attribute the administration's position-that U.S. interrogators be allowed latitude in their treatment of enemy prisoners that might offend American values-to the president's and vice president's appropriate concern for acquiring actionable intelligence that could prevent attacks on our soldiers or our allies or on the American people. And it is quite unfair to assume some nefarious purpose informs their intentions. They bear the greatest responsibility for the security of American lives and interests. I understand and respect their motives just as I admire the seriousness and patriotism of their resolve. But I do, respectfully, take issue with the position that the demands of this war require us to accord a lower station to the moral imperatives that should govern our conduct in war and peace when they come in conflict with the unyielding inhumanity of our vicious enemy.

Obviously, to defeat our enemies we need intelligence, but intelligence that is reliable. We should not torture or treat inhumanely terrorists we have captured. The abuse of prisoners harms, not helps, our war effort. In my experience, abuse of prisoners often produces bad intelligence because under torture a person will say anything he thinks his captors want to hear-whether it is true or false-if he believes it will relieve his suffering. I was once physically coerced to provide my enemies with the names of the members of my flight squadron, information that had little if any value to my enemies as actionable intelligence. But I did not refuse, or repeat my insistence that I was required under the Geneva Conventions to provide my captors only with my name, rank and serial number. Instead, I gave them the names of the Green Bay Packers' offensive line, knowing that providing them false information was sufficient to suspend the abuse. It seems probable to me that the terrorists we interrogate under less than humane standards of treatment are also likely to resort to deceptive answers that are perhaps less provably false than that which I once offered.

Our commitment to basic humanitarian values affects-in part-the willingness of other nations to do the same. Mistreatment of enemy prisoners endangers our own troops who might someday be held captive. While some enemies, and Al Qaeda surely, will never be bound by the principle of reciprocity, we should have concern for those Americans captured by more traditional enemies, if not in this war then in the next. Until about 1970, North Vietnam ignored its obligations not to mistreat the Americans they held prisoner, claiming that we were engaged in an unlawful war against them and thus not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions. But when their abuses became widely known and incited unfavorable international attention, they substantially decreased their mistreatment of us. Again, Al Qaeda will never be influenced by international sensibilities or open to moral suasion. If ever the term "sociopath" applied to anyone, it applies to them. But I doubt they will be the last enemy America will fight, and we should not undermine today our defense of international prohibitions against torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners of war that we will need to rely on in the future.

To prevail in this war we need more than victories on the battlefield. This is a war of ideas, a struggle to advance freedom in the face of terror in places where oppressive rule has bred the malevolence that creates terrorists. Prisoner abuses exact a terrible toll on us in this war of ideas. They inevitably become public, and when they do they threaten our moral standing, and expose us to false but widely disseminated charges that democracies are no more inherently idealistic and moral than other regimes. This is an existential fight, to be sure. If they could, Islamic extremists who resort to terror would destroy us utterly. But to defeat them we must prevail in our defense of American political values as well. The mistreatment of prisoners greatly injures that effort.

The mistreatment of prisoners harms us more than our enemies. I don't think I'm naive about how terrible are the wages of war, and how terrible are the things that must be done to wage it successfully. It is an awful business, and no matter how noble the cause for which it is fought, no matter how valiant their service, many veterans spend much of their subsequent lives trying to forget not only what was done to them, but some of what had to be done by them to prevail.

I don't mourn the loss of any terrorist's life. Nor do I care if in the course of serving their ignoble cause they suffer great harm. They have pledged their lives to the intentional destruction of innocent lives, and they have earned their terrible punishment in this life and the next. What I do mourn is what we lose when by official policy or official neglect we allow, confuse or encourage our soldiers to forget that best sense of ourselves, that which is our greatest strength-that we are different and better than our enemies, that we fight for an idea, not a tribe, not a land, not a king, not a twisted interpretation of an ancient religion, but for an idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

Now, in this war, our liberal notions are put to the test. Americans of good will, all patriots, argue about what is appropriate and necessary to combat this unconventional enemy. Those of us who feel that in this war, as in past wars, Americans should not compromise our values must answer those Americans who believe that a less rigorous application of those values is regrettably necessary to prevail over a uniquely abhorrent and dangerous enemy. Part of our disagreement is definitional. Some view more coercive interrogation tactics as something short of torture but worry that they might be subject to challenge under the "no cruel, inhumane or degrading" standard. Others, including me, believe that both the prohibition on torture and the cruel, inhumane and degrading standard must remain intact. When we relax that standard, it is nearly unavoidable that some objectionable practices will be allowed as something less than torture because they do not risk life and limb or do not cause very serious physical pain.

For instance, there has been considerable press attention to a tactic called "waterboarding," where a prisoner is restrained and blindfolded while an interrogator pours water on his face and into his mouth-causing the prisoner to believe he is being drowned. He isn't, of course; there is no intention to injure him physically. But if you gave people who have suffered abuse as prisoners a choice between a beating and a mock execution, many, including me, would choose a beating. The effects of most beatings heal. The memory of an execution will haunt someone for a very long time and damage his or her psyche in ways that may never heal. In my view, to make someone believe that you are killing him by drowning is no different than holding a pistol to his head and firing a blank. I believe that it is torture, very exquisite torture.

Those who argue the necessity of some abuses raise an important dilemma as their most compelling rationale: the ticking-time-bomb scenario. What do we do if we capture a terrorist who we have sound reasons to believe possesses specific knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack?

In such an urgent and rare instance, an interrogator might well try extreme measures to extract information that could save lives. Should he do so, and thereby save an American city or prevent another 9/11, authorities and the public would surely take this into account when judging his actions and recognize the extremely dire situation which he confronted. But I don't believe this scenario requires us to write into law an exception to our treaty and moral obligations that would permit cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. To carve out legal exemptions to this basic principle of human rights risks opening the door to abuse as a matter of course, rather than a standard violated truly in extremis. It is far better to embrace a standard that might be violated in extraordinary circumstances than to lower our standards to accommodate a remote contingency, confusing personnel in the field and sending precisely the wrong message abroad about America's purposes and practices.

The state of Israel, no stranger to terrorist attacks, has faced this dilemma, and in 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court declared cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment illegal. "A democratic, freedom-loving society," the court wrote, "does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering truth. The rules pertaining to investigators are important to a democratic state. They reflect its character."

I've been asked often where did the brave men I was privileged to serve with in North Vi
David | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 11:22 pm | #

(and, by the way, if [Bush] did [lie], this in itself would be a sorry indictment of Democratic leadership)

Here, JABBER grasps for the Homer Simpson defense: "Lisa, it takes two to lie: one to lie and one to listen."
Cyan | Email | Homepage | 11.14.05 - 11:49 pm | #

WOW...(sigh)

Just finished both Dr. Sanity's article AND every single comment made here (including the ones containing profanity).

I have to confess I'm just about out of steam on this whole BDS subject. Not because I believe it's a faulty argument. On the contrary, I know for a fact it exists, having myself been on the receiving end of it a number of times over the course of the last year. Rather, the public discourse in this Republic has degenerated into two distinct factions (IMHO, mind you):

1) The Radical Left, who see fit to stifle, by any means necessary, any form of dissent, and
2) The Mousy Right, who find themselves either unwilling or incapable of presenting their ideas and defending their policies effectively, thereby giving a larger, albeit painfully shrill voice to the former.

Both of these factions leave me thoroughly depressed, although I wish to state EMPHATICALLY that not everyone who describes themselves as liberal or conservative belong to either of these factions by default. Nay, I myself, being proudly conservative, find myself longing for the "salad days," serving in the Army in Germany under President Reagan. Far better days indeed, than these in which we live, as the current President spends us into oblivion, while simultaneously declaring that the survivors of Katrina can, indeed, count on BIG GOVERNMENT to fix all that ails them. A staunch GWB supporter, I am not.

However, what I truly long for nowadays can best be illustrated by my family's relationship with our next-door neighbors, Dave & Laura. You see, we moved here a little over two years ago, and immediately struck up a wonderful friendship with these people. My wife and I, Jewish and Catholic respectively, seemed to click with Laura & Dave, Catholic & Jewish respectively. A really nice coincidence, I must say.

In any event, we all found it interesting then, during the last Presidential election, when Dave & Laura displayed Kerry/Edwards yard signs and bumper stickers, while we posted Bush/Cheney declarations. I am proud to say that not a foul word or otherwise remotely uncomfortable exchange ever passed between our two households. In fact, the morning after my tires were slashed, it was Dave & Laura who came out and offered me a lift to work. I know what you may be thinking here, but it REALLY isn't Dave's style. LOL

This is a wonderful example of how civilized Americans can disagree, without resorting to all forms of profane and ignorant hate-speech, or, for that matter, the sheer cowardice and lack of conviction as evidenced by those who would claim to represent our interests. Both fail, but as we all know, only one gets all the really great press.

It might be fair to describe my point of view as folly and/or naivete, but nevertheless, the present climate is one more result of that terrible day in September of 2001. It is also one more consequence I can't seem to accept, being as how I never asked for it. Ask Dave, and he'll likely say the same thing. He and I, as firm as we are in the validity of our opposing positions, do now share one important, albeit sad view: that of a small, rather insignifigant neighborhood in Southern California having become one of only a few bastions of true sanity left in America.

"I LOVE NY - especially without the WTC" - a handpainted sign observed at an anti-war protest this weekend in Berkeley. Just thought I'd get that off my chest.
EricWO | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 12:10 am | #

Priceless! Doctor, your rant has been saved for my own future amusement.

The tummy ache definition you give more closely matches 'acting out'.

'Displacement' would be becoming angry at someone (like Osama), but because you can't (or won't) do anything about it, you direct that anger at a third party (Iraq).

Only repressed emotions are displaced. Why can't we hate terrorists, but we can hate Bush? Everyone supported the war in Afghanistan.

Your theory rests on the idea that we feel somehow safer with the idea that Bush is evil.

Here are some better examples of wrong thoughts which make some people feel safer.

"We are turning the corner in Iraq. We are winning and we will win. The insurgency is in it's last throes. Mission Accomplished. We do not torture. []...we don't have to fight them here at home."

All of these are designed to make you feel good, whereas "Your president is an incompetent tit", is not.

You should go back to your mechanisms page (or a good one) and re-read the definition for 'projection', while remaining mindful of 'denial'.
Railroad Stone | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 1:28 am | #

As my posted name implies, I used to be a Democrat. A staunch Democrat. The left's ongoing "policy" of appeasement and standing up for the rights of dictators who kill and torture their people while at the same time "claiming" that they are for peace, turned my stomach. When 9/11 happened I hated the terrorists, but my initial reaction was extreme anger at our government for the many years they "appeased" the dictators. Do we think that we are the only country that should have the right to freedom? Can we just go on as if nothing is wrong while hundreds of thousands of people around the world are being murdered by their government? The Democrats are suppose to be the "peaceful" ones? Yet, they stand up for the rights of murderers? Somehow terrorists are right to be blowing up people and cutting off heads? But, for some reason it is the end of the world when our soldiers are blowing up terrorists and murderers? Or putting underwear on someones head? I am an intelligent person who loves doing research. I do not take things at face value, I look at the facts. And the fact is, Bush did not lie. The fact is, Bush had every right to go to war with Iraq. The democratic party politicians who are backing the Bush lied storyline are the ones lying now. I would care alot less, and be alot less upset if this wasn't so important to the security of our country. It really doesn't matter what Bush or anybody in the Republican party says now because the left will come up with some way to prove it wrong or bad. Doesn't bother me in the least to call those that act like they hate our country by continuing this "program" unpatriotic and unAmerican. Unless you wake up and look at everything in a realistic, rather than political way you will be sorry later. Why do those of us who support the war in Iraq and the war on terror act so upset? Because this is MY life and MY country that is at stake. Whine, complain and bicker all you want about gays, SS, the environment, religion, the economy, oil, ect, ect. I don't care. But leave the safety and security of MY country alone!!!!
EXDemocrat | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 4:07 am | #

They'll never, never understand:

One can think Bush is an incompetent goof,

One can be nauseated by the Abu Ghraib Follies,

and still not favor precipitate withdrawal from Iraq.

Hint: this position is John McCain's (with the first point implicit - but c'mon, you know what he's thinking).

So if you quote the good Senator as an authority on the torture issue ... why not try listening to the rest of what he has to say?
Knemon | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 6:19 am | #

Maureen Dumb made the comment about Bush being on his ranch again, and is pissed about it. You would think, considering they think Bush is such a baffoon, that they would be happier with the more time he spent there and allowed his staff to handle decisions.
(sarcasm fully inteneded)
ron kallungi | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 10:53 am | #

The problem Bush faces is not rabid leftists. And when he and his defenders ignore a long list of critics General Zinni... General Scowcroft, Colonel Wilkerson and pretend that the 2/3rds of critical Americans are not there; it gives rise to pessimism.

Many of us are concerned about mistake afte mistake fed by an edited reality. And as Falwell's points out Bush and his supporters ignore one of our biggest issues, has his policy detracted from the War On Terrorism?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost...wN5bnN1YmNhdA--

If you are going to categorize veterans such as myself as simple leftist Bush haters you are going to undermine any belief we might have that your sort possesses intelligence or integrity.

Bush is being questioned by the middle and calling them commies will not work.
patriot | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 2:11 pm | #

6% of americans hate Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS...1/14/bush.poll/

That's it. Unfortunately, only 50% of the public have any semblance of sanity, and report that they dislike the president. If there ever was a time for a Dr. Sanity, the time is now.
John Mc | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 2:35 pm | #

I was an US military exchange officer in the Netherlands during the election of 2000. I witnessed the MSM feed BDS. Bush was guilty of destroying the world before he even came into office. My wife even had to go to a second post office to mail our absentee ballots in after the postman refused to mail them if they were for Bush.

As for other veterans complaints about mistakes being made in the War on Terrorism, describe to me a war (or any other global endeavor) that hasn't had its share of mistakes. For every retired general that criticizes the current gameplan, you find many more who are active in the fight and fuly support it.
Bill | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 3:18 pm | #

First, anyone who actually thinks that Communism was a viable political force in America during any time period, much less in the current day and age, has a at least a few serious psychological pathologies of their own.

My view of public opinion is that the avoidance mechanism used by most of the American public remains purposeful ignorance. Most people in this country do not vote, do not read the news, and have no opinion other than both parties are corrupt and practically the same. That still hasn't changed.

More to the point, I have yet to meet a single person claim that Osama is a reasonable person or suggest negotiation with Al-Qaeda. As far as I can tell they do not exist. Just because someone opposes Bush does not mean they embrace his enemies. It is quite possible to hate both. Also, questioning the tactics of the war on terror doesn't equate to opposing the war.

You also claim that a sign that anger directed at Bush is the result of displacement because it is out of proportion. If you believe that the war in Iraq has hampered our fight against Al-Qaeda, exactly what amount of anger would be appropriate without overdoing it? If you believe that Halliburton and other contractors are being allowed, nay, encouraged to inflate government contract costs for the reconstruction in Iraq, cheating both the American taxpayers and the Iraqis, what is the proportionally correct amount of anger?

This anger is expressed at Bush first not because he is more worthy of it than the Islamic terrorists, which he is not, but because our government is more tangible. Have you ever seen how worked up a neighborhood activist can get about putting in a traffic signal on a dangerous intersection? Important? In the grand scheme of things, no. Tangible? Yes. People don't rail against what they don't think they can change. The common man sees terrorism not as something he can fight personally, but something the government must fight. This makes the government the conduit for all opinions regarding the war on terror whether you disagree completely, agree completely, or disagree on the tactics. We focus on the government, and its head, President Bush, because it is far more tangible. I think you misread the psychology.
Chris D | Email | Homepage | 11.15.05 - 8:32 pm | #

IF you called anyone anything for six or seven years on every occasion and opportunity, THEN "polled" for opinions, what would you get?

You would get the same results defaming anyone in the world.

The so-called polls are not truly polls at all, and the thing they speak least to is opinion of Bush.
citizen | Email | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 1:31 pm | #

Enjoyed the post Chris - you may agree with the Dr. more than you may realize.

Your phrase below provides a key clue to understanding the mindset of the typical BDS sufferer: they don't think they can play a role in changing the outcome of the War on radical Islam, since their only paradigm of "change" is by government proxy and by bitching from the safety of their own living rooms -- and clearly that's not going to defeat Osama. About the only thing it will do is defeat George Bush. So here we are... when it comes to resisting an existential threat to Western civilization like Islam, which requires fighting (not bitching) to resolve, such people are even more clueless than normal. That mindset is the key to unwinding the BDS pathology (or as you might put it, "righteous/worthy anger").

People don't rail against what they don't think they can change. [Bingo.] The common man [BDS sufferer?] sees terrorism not as something he can fight personally, but something the government must fight. This makes the government the conduit for all opinions regarding the war on terror whether you disagree completely, agree completely, or disagree on the tactics. We focus on the government, and its head, President Bush, because it is far more tangible. I think you misread the psychology.

A grain of truth in there somewhere, but I also think you're rationalizing. Remember that what we and the Dr. are so dismayed over isn't the "anger" of BDS sufferers, but the blame and culpability they bring to the table -- even to the point that they ascribe elaborate, deliberate, devious intent to their objects of hatred: "Bush lied". "Bush concocted a war in Texas for political gain." "Bush and Cheney fought a war for Halliburton." "Bush knew about 9/11 and played dumb." "Jews were tipped off to 9/11 and escaped the towers before they were hit."

I could go on...clearly Americans aren't the only leftists that feed into the overall BDS equation.

More to the point, I have yet to meet a single person claim that Osama is a reasonable person or suggest negotiation with Al-Qaeda. As far as I can tell they do not exist.

Like I said...been to France lately?

More to the point: The good Dr. is not suggesting that those "empathizing" with bin Laden, or trying to "understand" him, necessarily insist that he can be "negotiated" with. Even for those people, it's not important whether bin Laden's a "reasonable" Western materialist or an incorrigible scamp - their point is, WE made him that way. Or at the very least, WE made him irremediably popular. (As if being "unpopular" would have stopped 9/11.) Because we've obviously done something to "enrage" his support base. And naturally, that is prima facie evidence of our evil.

Message: if only we Westerners treated the impoverished 3rd world better (Saudi Arabia? The bin Laden family?), then big monsters like us wouldn't create little monsters like him... This notion - at best a theory - is sopping with patronizing arrogance as it reveals not only an exaggerated opinion of our own importance to others and their beliefs, but also our belief that we modern amateur psychologists understand people so well that we can manipulate them into friendship and passivity by our "understanding" them. Got someone who's sworn to vanquish you for the last 1,400 years? No problem - surely there's something he "wants". Get to the root of the "problem", and then you own him... just don't fight him, don't coerce him for information, and don't "descend to his level", because that would undo all of the "congratulations" we've already heaped upon ourselves for having "progressed" beyond naked confrontation...

You also claim that a sign that anger [, blame, and claims of devious intent] directed at Bush is the result of displacement because it is out of proportion.

C'mon... Bush, his "pal" Osama, the CIA and John Ashcroft all working together for the express purpose of undermining civil liberties? Pat Robertson in the shadows waiting to take over de facto control of U.S. nuclear weapons stockpiles? Perle and Wolfowitz taking their orders from the Elders of Zion? It's not just the volume, it's the pitch of the BDS "sound" that provides the clue (and that of its close int'l cousin: Zion Derangement Syndrome, or ZDS).
sa | Email | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 5:03 pm | #

I've been teaching my students about Fallacious Reasoning this past week. One of the ways to do this is by name-calling; attacking the person or reputation of the person with a viewpoint different from your own, rather than the viewpoint itself.

This post, and so many of the comments that follow, from both the "Right" and the "Left" do just that.

Just because I don't agree with someone does not mean their beliefs aren't valid.

Why is it either/or? Why must someone be a Facist or a Communist simply because he or she has different views?

I love my country like I love my family; it doesn't mean I agree with everything it does.
jhsteacher | Email | Homepage | 11.19.05 - 4:32 pm | #

Could this be the same phenomenon as those who claim that HIV does not cause AIDS? As an incurable virus slowly destroys their bodies, some prefer to believe that their symptoms are caused by the antiviral drugs prescribed by evil or misguided doctors. You can't sue a virus or impeach al-Qaeda, so they must not be the real enemies.
Dave Coffin | Email | Homepage | 11.23.05 - 1:54 pm | #

So in other words, anyone who dislikes Bush is a leftist traitor who wants to turn the world into a Communist re-education camp or collective. Talk about bombastic, paranoid, dishonesty stereotyping!
Jakealope | Email | Homepage | 11.23.05 - 7:59 pm | #

Stop being so hysterical Jakelope. The operative word is derangement. Dislike all you want. I disliked Clinton, but he was the President (he didn't act like it, but he was). You are putting words into the Dr's mouth. Can you deny that a large proportion of the lunatics who scream in rage and prance about with Bush=Hitler signs are deranged? Or that the people behind ANSWER UPJ and other extreme left wing movements aren't Communist or collectivists (if you do, go check on who funds them). You are one who is stereotyping what the Doc has said. If the shoe fits, then I guess you are wearing it.
LLB | Email | Homepage | 11.23.05 - 8:22 pm | #

Wonderful, warped evaluation.

You hide well behind intelligent-sounding analysis and rhetoric while attacking those who disagree with the policies and poor leadership of George Bush and his Republican Guard.

Perhaps this too is indicative of something.

In psychology, you have, no doubt, also heard the defense mechanism where the abused wil protect the abuser at all costs and against all logical reason?

Well, it seems that Republicans are just as unreasoning intheir defense of George W. Bush as some Democrats are in their dislike of him.

As for "unreasoning" dislike of George W. Bush though, I cannot speak for anyone else except myself; a 5th Generation Texan and military retiree, and I do not think my dislike of the man is unreasoned. In fact, I have very specific reasons for disliking George, his 5 deferrment partner, and the rest of his unmerry, run the country behind closed doors, give teh breaks to the rich and ignore the rest of the people, band of neer-do-wells.

My reasons go like this:

I have always had a dislike for liars, dopers, and those who received preferential treatment based on being the child of a politician.

So, I dislike George W. Bush for one very, very simple reason. He got into the Texas National Guard because of his father's political connections, he is a deserter from that same Texas National Guard, and he is a doper whom I have personally seen doing cocaine in "gentlemen's clubs" on Richmond in Houston in the early 1970's. What is more, he is a liar about those activities, about Weapons of Mass Destruction, About Saddam's Chemical and Nuclear Weapons that were supposed to be an immediate threat to us, and many other aspects of what is going on in his "regime" among his own, personal, Republican Guard.

I volunteered to serve in the military during the Vietnam era, and I did my 20+ years honorably, without any telephone calls from family or friends, special deals, or coverups. I have all of my records and can prove exaclty where I was throughout my career.

Sweet and simple. If George cannot show the paperwork or even find one person who can remember him, then it is because he was not there. Which means, since he wa smissing more than 30 days, he deserted his post.

So, for me, as Texan, retired Navy Chief, and true-blue American (remember, red stands for Communism), once a deserter, always a scumbag.

But, republicans want to ignore this, and pretend like it never happened, or that it is not true.

Republicans are so two-faced about it that a woman who has never served one day in the military attacked a decorated military veteran who stood and fought and implied to the world that he was a coward. Yet, that same woman and others like her defend George W. Bush even though he is a proven coward who deserted a simple, protected post safe and sound in mainland America.

And, that is why I personally dislike George W. Bush; he is a coward, a liar, and a military deserter, and his lies have cost the lives of good men and women who do serve our country honorably for no good reason.

Short, sweet, and simple.

Yes, cowards run, and a deserter is a cowardly scumbag forever.
drs J.E. Atkinson, US Navy - r | Email | Homepage | 11.24.05 - 9:32 am | #

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I will let my friends in the national guard know you think they are deserters and cowards for daring to serve their country in that fashion. I will tell Clinton that you think he is courageous for going to Canada during the same conflict; and, since he is a admitted doper, as well as a convicted liar, I'm sure you feel very intense dislike for him, too. Also, since his lack of action in the 8 years he had in office led to the deaths of some 3000 innocent Americans (who weren't even in the military ), I'm also sure that you appreciate how his administration cost the lives of good men and women. Yes, cowards run from taking the necessary action--I completely agree. That's why I stand behind a man who didn't run and who did what was necessary to protect his country. Happy Thanksgiving. I'm giving thanks that your distortions (as exemplified by that heroic vision of manhood Kerry--did I mention he also served in Vietnam?--isn't President.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 11.24.05 - 10:01 am | #

Dr. S, I also think there is a HUGE disconnect in the Left about Vietnam.
The Left wanted the US "out now."
The US got out.
Then there was SE Asian genocide, violations by N. Viets of the 73 "Peace deal", and hundreds of thousands murdered.

Denial of any responsibility for this result of following the "out now" policy is also partly driving the Bush-hate.
Tom Grey - Liberty Dad | Email | Homepage | 11.25.05 - 10:54 am | #

You know, they don't hate Bush because he's in their way. They hate Bush because his election has caused them to doubt that their victory is really historically inevitable.

They pretended to themselves that Reagan was a fluke. But Bush and Republican majorities in Congress and Republican majorities in the majority of state legislatures has the beginning to realize that the tide of history has been flowing away from collectivism for the last 30 years at least.

Or it would, if they could respond rationally to these issues. But since they can't, they've gone into deep denial, with all of their misgivings and insecurities focused on the one individual - George Walker Bush.
Jeff Dege | Email | Homepage | 11.26.05 - 10:52 am | #

After reading the piece on "displacement", one name and face came to mind...that of Cindy Sheehan.
Jack | Email | Homepage | 12.02.05 - 12:55 am | #

Look Doc, How do you know any better about the agendas of the current administration than anyone else? How do you justify your ignorance and one-sided opinion? How about stereotypes and labels? Sooo many unanswered questions. The corruption of politicians is so well known as to be the butt of many jokes. So why shouldn't we doubt the ethical or moral values of those that lead us into a crusade?
PETE | Email | Homepage | 12.06.05 - 12:19 am | #

Bush Sr has been implicated in JFK's assasination, Jr has been implicated in JFK Jr's. Of course the former head of the CIA has some skeletons in his closet. Did we not go into Iraq for oil? The "Bush Haters", don't hate Bush so much as those that pull his strings. It is no coincidence that Condi was on the board of EXXON, Rumsfeld owns millions in Tamiflu stock and Cheney on the board of Haliburton. Just a coincidence that these are three of the biggest beneficiaries of the administrations latest moves? How unlikely. Having served 6 years in the army, myself, I have always had total faith in our political system, but there are way too many of these coincidences for even the most complacent sheep to overlook. Don't you want answers too? Or are you hiding in your closet too scared to ask questions for fear of your world being turned upside down? The sheep are always happier. No displacement here, just curiosity.
lee harvey | Email | Homepage | 12.06.05 - 12:32 am | #

wHAT?! Where did you get your education? How can you sit there and stereotype 10 million americans? People hate Bush, because he makes his good ole boy buddies rich at the expense of the country through lies, deciet, and coercion. To be fair, I don't think people hat Bush, they hate the big box philosophy of our greedy government. Stick that between your couch cushions and sit on it.
DANA CARVEY | Email | Homepage | 12.06.05 - 12:49 am | #

Wow, this was a worthy hour and a half read of both the blog by the Dr. and all posters. I figure I have now earned my 2 cents here.
I am a Political Science Degree: Public Policy, Foreign Relations holder who has worked in length with both parties on the NYS Board of Elections and other forms of elected representatives. This by no means elevates my opinion, but I wanted to clarify that for a few reasons, namely the way I view politics in general, including political parties, elections and the social ramifications that are the result of all 3, regardless of my own Republican party and conservative ideology identification. I do agree that some form of psychological syndrome is at play here because regardless of the topic, we are all individuals within a society, differentiating "psychology" and "sociology". It has been my experience that it all comes down to winning and losing, which supports the dynamic of "us vs. them" When a person loses anything, they will always look to find a solution - ones healthy "reasons", others unhealthy "excuses"; or defense mechanisms. We do it in our personal, professional and even "dreamy" lives. Ultimately lack of both history and knowledge feed the BDS behind everything from mindless name calling to conspiracy theories to illogical comparisons to past historical events. All in all it is a desperate way of trying to influence others, without realizing you can't possibly influence them with said tactics. That is clearly a psychological syndrome. We all know the old adage "Insanity is doing something over and over, while expecting different results" In politics today, those "swing" votes are the target, so each side is bombarding the airwaves in an attempt to sway and influence the minds of those people. A very select few actually have the true integrity and ability to change thier mind, when presented with a tangible argument, debate or facts. The rest scream louder in that useless , insane attempt to change a person's mind - and will resort to outlandish theories or accusations to make their point and hope to change a person's mindall because the Reps are winning. Winning the Executive, Legislative Branches, State Gov's and potentially the ideological make up of the Supreme Court. This result, given to us by elections (indirectly for the Supreme Court)within a Democratic Republic has forced the losers to literally throw the kitchen sink at the winners, in hopes they will reclaim the "win" I could go through thousands of similarities throughout all parties in American history, but ultimately those who lose need to blame anything, whether tangible or intangible. The difference is the degree of blame. It is everyone's right to question our Government. It is not everyone's right in how they do it. Kerry has stated "our troops are terrorizing Iraqi women and children at night" in a recent interview. Dean has claimed we are losing the war. (and the bastard had the indecency to state 25,000 died in Vietnam, when the actual number is 52,485) Schumer votes 3 months before a SCOTUS nominee is anounced, he knows it won't be a liberal, etc. It is those very tactics that in my opinion are a psychological syndrome. Supply and Demand run just about everything - and Dems will continue to state the things they state because they don't believe they will have anything to lose (remember if they lose an election, its because of the redneck, sheep, uneducated, etc Reps who are the "wrong majority"), their party demand will not only support them blindly, but will not even publically denounce a single word from their ilk. As a comparison, the Reps during Clinton's tenure not only went after him legally, but resulted in his impeachment, lose of law license, $1M fine, and many beleive lost the Dems 2000. Dems trying to pay back that lose has created the very Syndrome the Dr. has opined on. The ability of an honest debate concerning our foreign policy and current administration is intentionally being side tracked by the outlandish and illogical Dems at the top of the party, not Bush or even any true mistakes he may have made in the past 5 years. The waters are so muddied, again intentionally by the Dems, that they have in fact created their own insanity or as the pro calls it BDS. Regcognizing it exists is the frst step in the Dems "winning" Continuing to avoid it will only compound that very insanity and losing result. At some point we the people of both parties need to demand the end to this irrational behavior through voting or petition. We are a better nation than this and our future needs it.
Patrick Lucy | Email | Homepage | 12.07.05 - 6:21 pm | #

Thank you for the insightful reading. I'm fairly sure that BDS is clear to everyone (even those afflicted with it).
The Fastest Squirrel | Email | Homepage | 12.07.05 - 7:10 pm | #

When the Democrats had Johnson in office, the liberal “sophisticates” cringed every time the man talked. I’m privy to considerable evidence that he was a damned crook since the day he first ran for office. He never got a majority of votes in his home county in any election. And, of course, he had the Vietnam War to deal with. Democratic pride paid the price even among the drugged-out, nutzoid bunch of hippies who all grew up to be liberals.
Then Nixon beat their sweet, sensitive, non-country-bumpkin God’s gift to liberals candidate George McGovern. That started the first wave of blind hate. Watergate fueled their hate to dizzying proportions. Most liberals climaxed when Nixon was impeached.
Then they got Carter. What else can I say? Impressively, they actually survived that massive humiliation.
That humiliation from Mr. Peanut finally ended with the election of Reagan. They gleefully rubbed their hands together, anticipating letting this certified idiot ruin the very concept of Republicanism in the eyes of all voters. It had become just a matter of time for them. Then Reagan won the cold war. Oops.
Then Bush 41. Nice man, zero charisma. Liberals fell off their chairs laughing at Quayle. They gained hope. Unlike Kennedy and Reagan, who proved the benefits of low taxes, Bush hid his lips and raised taxes. Bang! Recession. He turned that around quite nicely; the recession ended well before the next election, and resulted in an unprecedented eight years of a booming economy. But it was too late. Clinton openly lied his way to the presidency.
Liberals wet their pants. Nirvana had finally arrived. Hillary could not be stopped from plunging into the plan to nationalize 14% of the nation’s economy – our health care system. But when the public saw her creation, the most grotesque, frightening model of the ultimate socialist bureaucracy, it pretty well killed any thought of socialized medicine in this country for decades. Clinton’s Wall Street insider at Treasury left to itself the thriving economy he inherited, instead of pushing new tax laws and creative economic controls to redistribute all wealth equally among all deadbeats. Which left the Clintons with nothing else to do but to disband our military, and our intelligence services. Liberals were in hog heaven. Ah, but then, the third time the Republican House presented Clinton with a sweeping welfare reform program, his guiding light (the polls) told him to sign it. He started losing liberal supporters about as fast as welfare recipients started actually going to work and earning a living.
Then along came Monica (and the other cuties). Clinton stood boldly in front of TV cameras and shook his finger at us, swearing to a fact to be reputed later by a certain black dress hanging, as he spoke, in a closet somewhere in Washington. His cabinet pitifully crawled in front of more cameras and swore that they trusted and believed every word he said (making them into liars, too). The rest is history. Most liberals were, once again, humiliated, except for the increasing number of insane liberals, who were merely defiantly incoherent.
Then it’s Bush 43 against Gore. When Bush got tired of seeing Gore demanding one recount after another in Florida until one showed him the winner, he properly called on the U.S. Supreme Court to put a totally constitutional end to the madness. That’s when Bush Hate erupted. And it began insanely, because it was preceded by 30 years of the most frustrating, demoralizing political experience in history.
Then 9/11 and on to the war with Iraq. The uncontrollable Bush Hate had yet to find an effective means of expression until it became clear the WMD were not to be found in Iraq. Thus the birth of “Bush Lied, Kids Died”.
I’ve made a point of gently asking a number of my various liberal friends: “Are you actually of the opinion that Bush had access to some form of intelligence (such as a scan of every square foot of Iraq down to 200 ft below ground level) that provided him with proof that WMD did not exist there?”. The response was usually just a curious look, until I rephrased it: “How did Bush KNOW there weren’t WMD there before the war? Or, do you perhaps think that he actually was convinced they WERE there?”
After some delay as my friends looked for a trap there somewhere, their response was almost identical: “Oh, yeah, he probably DID really believe they were there, the dumb (bleeping) (bleep).”
Then we discuss the definition of a lie: The case where one makes a statement, avowing it to be true, when one knows it is not true. Bush’s claim of WMD in Iraq was NOT a lie if he really believed they were there. Eyes blinked. I pointed out an example a lie was Clinton’s telling the nation he’d never had sex with “that woman”. Faces flushed. When they call Bush a liar, when they know that he believed WMD were there, they are making a statement, avowing it to be true, while they know it is NOT true. They are the real liars in this scene.
The hate is driving them, sure enough. But they lost all objectivity and ability to make credible statements ‘way back in the 70’s, and, if we’re lucky, they’ll never regain it.
deona | Email | Homepage | 12.07.05 - 9:43 pm | #

What many on the left fail to understand is that though many people disapprove of Bush's handling of many affairs, as I do, the thought of Kerry leading us is worse.

If polled, I would answer that I strongly disagree with Bush. The underlying reasons would probably not be polled.

Still, it would be a cold day in Hell before I voted in a Dem. I would not cut off my nose to spite my face.
Rodolfo | Email | Homepage | 12.08.05 - 12:42 pm | #

Dude...why didn't you save us all the trouble and just post a link to the editorial?

You took 10 times as many words as you had to.

Don't quit your day job!
Chris Austin | Email | Homepage | 12.08.05 - 7:26 pm | #

Check out a site dedicated to the absurdity and satire nature of saying "It's All George Bush's Fault!"

http://www.itsallgeorgebushsfault.com

Regards,
Notta Libb
Notta Libb | Email | Homepage | 12.15.05 - 7:34 am | #

Why do liberals react with anger on such a visceral level to everything Bush says and does? The answer should be obvious and does not require the assumption that 3 or 4 out of every 10 americans (a fair wager as to how many "strongly disagree" with Bush and his policies) are forced to rely on "maladaptive psychological defenses" to interpret the world around them.

Simply put, we disagree with virtually everything Bush does because he does virtually everything exactly opposite to the way we would do it. Argue all you want about the merits of either side's approach, it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong, the level of animosity towards Bush has reached its current level because he has consistently pursued a very conservative agenda and approached all issues from a very conservative perspective. For people who have very strong beliefs on the opposite side, is it really that hard to figure out why five years of watching the world seemingly fall apart around us while the man in charge does things exactly opposite to how we would have done them has left us feeling rather angry and vindictive? Please.

The Left is no more rooting for the terrorists than the Right. Anyone who says differently really IS deranged. We're all Americans here, none of us want more Americans to die needlessly, or for Islamic extremism to spread. We attack Bush at every turn because his way of doing things is completely contrary to our way. Whether our way of doing things would have actually been better is completely irrelevant, we're dealing with people's passionately held beliefs here and those who are not in power when things are going wrong will always believe things would have been different had THEY been in charge.

Furthermore, the reason that things have seemingly been getting more and more spiteful and the Left has been getting angrier and angrier is twofold. Firstly, the events of the last few years have been so important and have had such universal impact that everyone, whether on one side or the other, has had to stop and really figure out what they believe. Bush's side has very aggressivly pursued its agenda and that agenda, whether right or wrong, is suffciently universal that anyone who disagrees with part of it soon finds themselves disagreeing with ALL of it and, as I alluded to above, disagreement with those in power over vitally important issues (from the war to tax cuts) tends to evoke passionate reactions.

Secondly, the Left is particularly angry because we have seen NO change in Bush's approach to dealing with these issues. It seems that his solution to everything is to apply the same old rhetoric to evolving and changing circumstances. It is this seeminly absolute certainty that the Bush administration applies to every issue that really annoys us. The world is a complicated place and absolute certainty should be relatively rare, which to us says that Bush is either naive or simply does not feel that we (the liberal public) are important enough to to merit an explanation. It is clear now, that at least on some level, mistakes were made and while that fact has been noted by the Bush administration, the rhetoric has not changed and his policies have not changed, so it sounds very much like he's simply paying us lip service.

Thus, and I apologize for my longwinded post, the Left is not angry and blaming Bush for all the world's ills because we are silly, spiteful children, what we are witnessing now is the collective frustration of sitting on the sidelines, watching terrible things happen, while the Right has had complete control of two branches of government. I'm not going to argue that we would have done any better, all I'm saying is that we WOULD have done things differently. Aside from the occasional filibuster, Bush has pretty much had free reign and with that much authority comes a LOT of accountability for the results of how HE did things. The Bush administration has had universal control over what happens in this country for the last five years, so when things go wrong, fair or not, we're going to blame the person who was in charge. By accepting that role, by wielding that much control accross the board in government, Bush has opened himself to attacks from any direction and for any failure.
Erik Snyder | Email | Homepage | 12.15.05 - 1:00 pm | #

While I certainly agree that there are some who are more then a bit prone to overreaction, I don't believe that we can describe the majority of people who have a great deal of issue with the Bush administration to be suffering with this problem. This same sort of overreaction occured in a few on the right side of the fence when Clinton was in office as well, and quite a few of us on the left incorrectly accused all of you of this exact same problem.

The reactionary and particularly loud members of our two groups are the ones who get the press, and thus the ones who get "picked" to be our spokesman, no matter how much any of us may not like the reactionary or loud...

The truth is that wrongdoing occured. Plain and simple. However, wrongdoing has occured in the office of every single president this country has had since my grandmother was born, and I don't particularly see that trend coming to an end anytime soon.

I think the majority of us that have a particular dislike of Bush and his administration have plenty to dislike without even having to resort to the war. The economic and social policy he and his people have come up with alone, could keep us against him for the rest of our days. Which of course is only the tip of the iceberg.

As always happens though, the important details get ignored, and the reactionary focus on the wrongdoing.
Rich | Email | Homepage | 12.16.05 - 1:45 pm | #

Wow, you all are blind.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 12.20.05 - 1:22 am | #

It’s funny that you should use “displacement” in broad generalizations to anyone who finds fault with the chucklehead who sits in the office of President of the United States. Well, not so much funny as sad and ironic.

Is it not obvious that you too are displacing your anger at the extremists toward the Democratic party and those whose views lean still further left? Is it not obvious that the divisions that are so painfully apparent are what breeds extremism. Ranting about the left, and including the Democratic party simply because they have a different view than yours propagates the same hatred, and can or rather is the same extremism you purport to be opposed to.

Extremism is extremism is extremism. Regardless of your faith or political party, if you promote hatred you are an extremist. Where are your Christian values? I don’t hate the Muslims I fought against in Iraq. They had a different opinion than I did.

Though I’m not sure this will have any sort of effect sadly. You are so far into your world of hate and extremism, anything said in difference to your opinion is immediately rejected as valid. The sheik in Fallujah used to do that too.

If you remember anything remember this quote from the Special Operations Warfare Center at Ft. Bragg N.C. “If the world were of one opinion save one. We would have no more right to silence the one, than the one has to silence the world.”
justaguy | Email | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 12:57 pm | #

What about the irrational hatred of all things Saddam?
To be aginst Saddam, one has to be irrational.
Don't tell me its his actions you're against (because most who are against Bush are against his actions as well).

One more piece about Saddam.
On trial for torture during wartime?
I think its been argued many times here that the leader of a soveriegn nation owes it to his people to protect them from terrorists during wartime by any means necessary.

So, why does the right hate Saddam?

I think you could write this same piece about those kooky neocon's petulant hatred of Iraq's former leader.

Also, you should have been alive during the 90s if you wanted to see irrational "mouth- frothing" hatred of an American President.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 3:26 pm | #

I too am sick of all of these left wing America Haters that want to see the US go down in flames, just so that they can say that they have "won" their hollow victory of making Bush look bad. Recently I had the unfortunate opportunity to see one of those videos of a be-heading that was recorded by some terrorist group. What I suggest is that everytime a left wing wacko says something about pulling out of IRaq, they should be forced to view that video, and they should have to show it to their families too. Maybe then they would get the point that the war is worth fighting after all.

GOD these lefty fools make me want to VOMIT!

Rj
Rob | Email | Homepage | 12.21.05 - 3:35 pm | #

I read your analysis concerning why people hate daddy (Bush). I agree with it.

But, tell me now why are YOU so "pro-daddy"?
Zigmund Freud | Email | Homepage | 01.19.06 - 2:18 pm | #

Keep on whistling! It's starting to get a little dark over there in Bushville.
CapitalistImperialistPig | Email | Homepage | 03.04.06 - 10:18 pm | #

Normally out here in Kansas, we don’t get much of Bush Derangement Syndrome. However recently President Bush did a Landon Lecture at KSU and it smoked the moonbats out of hiding. Well, the Kansas version of moonbatism, we really don’t make as good a moonbats out here as they do in California. A friend of mine was being recruited by our local moonbat group, MAPJ (Yes, that’s Peace and Justice) to go make signs and scream at the crowds. Fortunately she decided to go to the lecture instead, and we got into a discussion later (at georgfelis.blogspot.com) where I tried to dispute the wild accusations that get flung around when talking to victims of BDS.

The best treatment for BDS that I have found is three questions. What would you do in that situation if you were President? And Isn’t that the same thing Clinton did as President? And the immortal, Where did you hear that?

--Georg
Georg | Email | Homepage | 03.05.06 - 9:28 pm | #

Wow, you silly Fascists make me giggle. Just rampage with fear and surround yourselves with altruisms. If it is so important to go kill terrorists, then why are you sitting at home...go over there and kill some of them! And for all of those who think the Left lionizes terrorists and Saddam Hussein, look at how you treat Bush! We've killed more Iraqis than Saddam ever did. We've been killing them since 1991.
Truth is, America has been executing military operations for political and economic gain since Big Ike. Ask the Guatemalans and Jacobo Arbenz. Ask Fidel Castro, whose revolution was known to be funded with arms by the CIA and Eisenhower's Washington. Ask Clinton and Bush Sr. and Reagan about funding Osama Bin Laden in their Fight against the Soviets.
Why are we now repudiating "friends" as "enemies"? It's because there is no such thing as international solidarity when it comes to United States foreign policy. We go to war when we want, we decide who is good and who is evil, and at the end of the day, we can go home and have anal sex with our homemakers.
If we continue to spend and spend on this contradictory War on Terror, extending to theaters like Iran and North Korea, one of two or both events will occur.
One: We will eventually become economically overpowered by nations like China or India. As our national debt continues to increase at alarming rates and American jobs go to slaves under a red capitalist sun, this event would probably be feasible by 2015. And to think that the War on Terror would be over is ludicrous. Another 10 years of war is not obscene, and by then, it will be too late.
Two: The United Nations may get off their ass and declare a multilateral war against the United States. People think the attacks on 9/11 were horrible, imagine that happening in every major city, being bombed politically. Would we declare the United Nations as a terrorist cell?
For those that are simply convinced that the war on terror is working because we have not had a major terrorist attack in nearly five years, be prepared. For every one Middle Easterner killed, five terrorists are being born. The solidarity between Muslims is loose, but has the possibility of being strong. Pan-Arabism may rise again, and this time not to fight the wrongful take over of Palestine, but against Yankee Imperialism.
How do you like that for fear? The Islamophobia you are experiencing may as well be real, because they are an enemy we have created, and they are an enemy that will fight back, and will continue to fight until we submit. Vietnam Anyone?
I put it to you, vicious Nazis, what are you blitzkrieging linguists going to do when all our dealt arms rain on us and our Freedom Fighting people? Who will be the insurgents then? Who will be the terrorists then?
Gonzo | Email | Homepage | 03.16.06 - 11:49 am | #

Fascinating.

Where can I find your analysis of the *Clinton Haters*?

It would be interesting to compare the two groups.
ArthurStone | Email | Homepage | 03.17.06 - 6:59 pm | #

I have come to the conclusion that you haven't made it in the eyes of lefty-loonies until you have =HITLER attached to your name. When the Russo-German Non-Aggression Pact was signed in 1939, did the angry members of the American Communist Party carry signs that read "STALIN=HITLER!"? I think everyone should study the history of the SDS and the Weathermen; when you are not connecting with the average Joe and Jane, don't raise the volume and smash things, learn how to present your position in a rational fashion, and learn how to listen!
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 03.18.06 - 10:36 am | #

Why look any further? The reason we, concerned citizens, hate Bush is because he has made horrible choices regarding Iraq. It is that simple. There are men dying because of his choices and these deaths are not needed. The war on terror is a farce. Bin Laden remains free while Iraqi civilians pay an enormous price. This is why Bush is hated. It is not irrational. Any thinking person would and should respond with disdain for a man who did not have the forsight to see what would happen in Iraq.
daisy | Email | Homepage | 04.26.06 - 11:34 pm | #

Dr. Sanity,

I have a brother and a sister who have really severe BDS. However, they are not liberals; they are conservatives! Where does the BDS come from, you ask? Well, it comes from their belief in Conspiracy Theory. You see, you said:

"It is not Bush who is lopping off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia. It is not Karl Rove who is exhorting mindless minions to explode at wedding parties in Jordan. It is not Bush's policies that have induced immigrant Muslims to riot in France."

However, my siblings believe just the opposite. They believe that Bush has the CIA out there all over the world secretly organizing all of these things so that he can use them to scare Americans so as to justify war in Iraq and to stay in power.

I tried to explain islamofacism to my sister. I mentioned the riots over the Muhammed cartoons. She replied that there were no riots; it was all a CIA plot masterminded by the moron George Bush (yes, she thinks he's a moron, but also somehow an evil genius) to justify the war in Iraq and his plans for global domination. After all, Bush did plot and carry out 9/11; that whole thing was a massive CIA deal too, you know.

It's not just liberals who have BDS. There are far-right conservatives who have totally bought into conspiracy theory. And you can't tell them ANYTHING. If you try, they just say you've been brainwashed by the US government.

In case you were wondering, George Bush controls the US media because it is run by Jews. That's why there is never anything negative about George Bush in the media. Didn't you know that? And all teachers are agents of the US government and they are brainwashing everyone.

It amazes me that my sister and brother buy into this conspiracy garbage; if they actually turned on a TV and saw all of the hatred spewed at Bush by the MSM, they'd realize that the "pro-Bush Jew-controlled media" portion of the theory is a lie. Surely that realization would make them question the rest of it.....

I've tried to open their eyes, but they have serious BDS.....
Gail | Email | Homepage | 05.01.06 - 1:15 pm | #

Both sides are guilty of just making stuff up. Review the facts. Research. Confirm. Check your sources. Think of it as the most important term paper of your life.

And abandon the name calling - it only obscures the real data.

While I can agree with much of this article... there are always people who look for someone to blame their problems on... It seems that you lump a great variety of people into one group: "whiny petulant children". I'm fairly well convinced that the people in this group are the ones who have a view that is at odds with you're own.

I am of the considered opinion that our president and his men are profiteers, and that the bad guys are indeed real enough - there seems to be plenty of evidence to support these ideas. That leaves us, the American people, between a rock and a hard place. And from this stems all manner of desperation.

It seems that your argument is full of black and white issues, when in reality these issues we are now faced with are remarkably complex. And there is no lack of finger pointing and name calling either.

Many believe (myself included) we got here by bad leadership, and that removing that bad leadership is a good start. While it's convenient to blame the current leader(s), it takes more than a few years for this sort of situation happen.

In times of war and lawlessness, a vote of no confidence may find a solider lobbing a grenade into a superior's tent. But that soldier, criminal though his actions may be, doesn't not abandon the military... He looks to preserve his own life and his way of life. That act is one of desperation and a sincere belief that his own life will be forfeit if he does nothing. He feels he has no choice - he is a desperate man, indeed. His options are limited and he is in a panic.

Fortunately, our national method of handling bad leadership doesn't involve the criminal action of murder - we have impeachment, which people who believe in the country and upholding its laws will use as their recourse. And I would wager that most Americans are happy to be Americans, current problems aside. But the act of impeachment requires a larger commitment - finding someone who can undo the damage - and that damage is extensive, and possibly irreversible. Nonetheless, it starts with a vote of no confidence. Clearly, we're on the road to that vote.

While Bush may not be personally lopping of the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, he is not effectively managing the country, nor is he representing the values and wishes of the American people as a whole - it would seem that his concern (and a strategically sound concern for a profiteer) is in taking care of the affluent before the poor huddled masses. He assumed leadership under questionable circumstances and undertook a course of action that is both bankrupting the country and giving great wealth to a chosen few, through non-competitive bidding on any task required to run this war. And even in a national crisis, non-competive bids were the reason that Halliburton was a big named contractor in the cleaning up of New Orleans - and what a debacle that was.

In short, he is failing. There are no Doug MacArthurs or Lucius Clays in Iraq - no exit strategy has ever seen the light of day, and the country went from ZERO debt to the largest debt of all time, with no end in sight. Unemployment is high, many people (if you think over 5 million is many) have lost their healthcare, and Latino's are now being demonized as the source of unemployment woes, etc., despite the relatively small numer of illegals in this country (11 million). People are desperate and they say desperate things. Eventually, talk will give way to action and God help the common man, in our non-gated communities, with our well armed neighbors.

Our country is way off course, and the first rule of management is "it's always your fault". That finds our leader in a bad position, and people will talk.

I think it's a ridiculous notion to think that people who are desperate are going to behave in a rational manner - Bush is evil, Bush is a liar, Bush is in cahoots with the UFOs.

Sure.

But it's a symptom of a bigger problem - the country is foundering under his leadership. All conspiracies aside, he's done a terrible job.

It's arguable that another facet of BDS are people who will march beside him regardless of what he says or does.
Stick to the facts | Email | Homepage | 05.09.06 - 7:37 pm | #

I remember having displaced feelings in the 60's. Actually it was a Ghandi thing. I hear it over and over now. "If there are no soldiers to fight there will be no fighting." This was carried to extremes against soldiers coming home from VIetnam, but I remember feeling this because of friends I had lost in Nam. I think part of this displacement is actually enjoyment in being involved in a huge God inspired action against evil as seen through very simplistic lenses. The thing that really struck me recently was the remark by a protest that he didn't care that his protest was hurting his cause, but that he just enjoyed what he was doing. Really.
Greg | Email | Homepage | 05.25.06 - 11:32 pm | #

Could someone please link to Chris Hitchens', Mark Steyn's, Charles Krauthammer's , etc. essays on how they were aginst Saddam's dictatorship and were absolutely horrified that Rumsfeld was supporting a dictator who gassed his own people?

BTW, please make sure these were written or spoken prior to August 1990.

It'll make it a lot more believable to me that they are against tyranny, and not just trying to cover their tracks for supporting a failed war.

Thank you for your assistance.
Robert | Email | Homepage | 06.05.06 - 11:07 pm | #

This is NOT just "bash Bush"...
My take on this is WE THE PEOPLE
pay big bux to have a system in place
that includes a Commnader 'n Chief and
a DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. My question is can we say that we got our moneys worth? On Sept 11th, President Bush was notified that "America is under attack" did he excuse himself from the photo-op? or did he sit on his ass?

After the attack was finished, he said
"nobody could have anticipated hyjackers using airliners as wepons"
THAT IS A LIE!
Bush is either stupid, or he trying to snow the American public.

Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to push through legislation that would NEVER have even been considered if not for the attack. Its VERY important to ask LOTS of questions about 9/11.

QUESTION EVERYTHING
Questions are Patriotic!
Capt.Phrogpheatherz | Email | Homepage | 06.26.06 - 5:12 pm | #

What a moronic article.

I guess it's okay for Bush to lie to people and put the US in unprecedented debt, but feeling negative to Bush is "deranged".

Your thinking would be right at home in Iran.
Mark C | Email | Homepage | 07.10.06 - 10:06 pm | #

This phsyco babble would be laughable if it were not so dangerous. How can anyone on the right dismiss all of the failures of this administration as "blaming evrything on daddy?"
If it were Gore or Clinton with even a fraction of similar situations you all would be howling louder and much more irrationally at the same things you are in denial about today.
It seems to me that you are all "STUCK ON STUPID" after all, how smart is the guy who with his mouth full of buttered roll is completely unaware of being recordet talking SH*T? Who makes us a laughing stock world wide by giving unwanted back massages to the German Chancelor?
only to name a couple...

The right in my honest opinion is in denial in the most unconciable way and you all need some therapy...QUICK

TAKE SOME PROZAC AND QUIT WITH THE COOL AID BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE FOR ALL OF US.
bb | Email | Homepage | 07.24.06 - 10:02 am | #

LMAO...many of the liberals who have responded to this article have proven Dr. Sanity's point yet they don't even realize it.

You are all equating things such as disagreeing with the President, or calling some of his decisions/policies into question with the true BDS that the author is talking about.

I think it's a safe bet that a good deal of conservatives aren't 100% behind the President. The point is that when people start blaming hurricanes, hangnails, their recent breakup and so forth on the President, they are no longer thinking rationally and are simply looking for something to blame their ills on.

Nobody is saying that you have to agree with the war or anything like that. However, if you think the President lied to get us to go to war then you simply haven't been paying attention. EVERYONE....dem., rep., American, foreign....all of them claimed that Saddam/Iraq were a big problem and that something had to be done.

Now we have a President who has the balls to take action and all of the sudden he is the only one who believed all of this stuff, but he was able to convince everyone else to agree with him (depsite being a moron, of course). Yeah....sure.

As for those saying "name calling isn't going to do any good" or what have you.....that is the entire point of the article.

Instead of calling President Bush Hitler or saying that he lied (despite a lack of ANY evidence whatsoever) y'all should be pointing out what should be done. Instead you all defend BDS as though it is rational. It's kind of like John Kerry's platform which consisted of "I have a plan....I won't tell you what it is but I HAVE A PLAN!" and "we will do the same things this administration has done...only better!"

Open your eyes folks.....Dr. Sanity is right on the point.
db | Email | Homepage | 07.31.06 - 4:36 am | #

Your discussion of DBS is a masterpiece.
In reading the comments, I’m struck by how many are as confused as I am by what now passes for opinion from so many sources.
We read that crowds marched in San Francisco and New York yesterday in support of Hesblollah. What sort of insanity is that? Were it a lone nut in San Francisco it would be one thing but to see hundreds or thousands marching? Are our universities turning out citizens who cannot tell right from wrong or perhaps day from night, up from down?
I fear academia has bred the fight out of the American race and replaced our warrior heritage with pacifism, Statism and environmental extremism. Welcome a new dark age.
Prentiss Davis | Email | Homepage | 08.13.06 - 5:34 pm | #

How can you call yourself a scientist? You have no objectivity; you seem to want to "displace" all your own strong feelings onto what you refer to as "The Left."

At least have the decency of leaving your own personal fanaticism at the door when you make an attempt at proving a point which might otherwise be better received.
Karl | Email | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 3:23 am | #

It's John LENNON, not Lenin. And if you feel you can't even be civil enough to represent someone's name without overloaded rhetoric, get a life and don't vote.
John | Email | Homepage | 08.14.06 - 3:33 am | #

Wow, I'm in awe of your carefully thought out position of shameless stupidity. I found your witless diatribe by searching for the words psychology, politics, and displacement in an effort to better understand the dark musty recesses of conservative thought, and all I can say is "Wow, so that's how a Bush disciple's mind works".
The only liberal who reads thi | Email | Homepage | 09.09.06 - 3:37 pm | #

I find it kind of funny that I never heard this level of complaint about "hatefulness" when Republicans we were trying to impeach Clinton for lying about having a mistress (who, by the way, wasn't a sixteen year old page. When will Mr. Foley be tried for that crime and why hasn't he resigned or been thrown out of his office? At least we Democrats know what a consenting adult is...)
This is a perfect example of the far right's convenient forgetfulness when it comes to the "sacred moral standards" they are always seeking to impose on everyone else but not on their own. Apparently "thou shalt not lie", etc., only applies to Democrats and other people they don't like?
When Clinton lied no one died.
Angela Class | Email | Homepage | 10.05.06 - 12:05 pm | #

My left-wing credentials were impecable. Then deep in the bowels of free love, drug use, hate the man/stick it to him sickness, I awoke to the realisation any normal but misled utopian usually discovers. I want to own nice stuff, and the "Man" really didn't care if I pursued happiness. My fellow red-anti-anything, took a different view of my discovery. These people are bums, they want a welfare state they beileve will allow them to live free and stoned. They are pot addled. This is the source of BDS, I'm serious, they want no part of responsibility but demand an hourly recognition of their incredible intellect (check the bckgrnd of most of these deviants: you will rarely find a college degree, no true source of income and incredible misery and deep rage.) and an odd narcissim. Now it's 30 -40 years later everthing they thought would pass is not even close to realization and this is their ONLY chance to matter! They are now dangerous and make no mistake, ruthless! the ends justify nothing. They want retribution now! And that's why we stay out of their way, two months after taking power they will prove to America what was always suspected: these half-wits not only talk complete nonsense they are incapable of rational thought...then the ultimate justice will be served. Wilderness screaming every step off the way their life-long mantra it's someone else's fault...something they probably told their mothers regularly, because their very nature is cowardice, delusion laziness and whining at the top of their lungs! Or their sentence could be Canada or worse....France.
riverdan1900 | Email | Homepage | 11.13.06 - 4:28 am | #

"despite a lack of ANY evidence whatsoever"
LMAO - I almost choked on my pretzel. Hating Bush is like hating Richard Nixon or Joe McCarthy, um, completely justified. As to remaining civil and not getting "personal" how quickly would that Jackass Joe McCarthy have been put in his place if people had been quick to calling him what he was, an alchoholic windbag looking to make a name for himself by tearing others down. Similarly George Bush should be called out for what he is a spoiled child never called to account for, and certainly never forced to pay for, his mistakes.
STParker | Email | Homepage | 11.19.06 - 1:58 am | #

I really like thiswebsite.That was a great article.
Bog | Email | Homepage | 12.03.06 - 1:44 pm | #

Dr. Sanity, you are a fucking idiot!
e. | Email | Homepage | 12.18.06 - 4:31 pm | #

Whatever your complaint, I agree.

I blame George Bush.
John Fembup | Email | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 1:53 pm | #

What do you expect Dr Danity. These same left wing moon bats who blame George Bush for spreading AIDS in Africa. How? Cos he apparently withdrew funding for condoms to Africa... Yeah right! As if the same Africans who are happily engaged in unsafe sex with multiple partners are going to wear a condom. What next, George Bush to be blamed for not helping the African men put on their condoms????
YMC | Email | Homepage | 02.22.07 - 11:11 am | #

I dont think there is a single left wing post with such a flawless logic. I challenge anybody reading this to link one.
Nice one | Email | Homepage | 03.01.07 - 3:46 pm | #

Hahahah I hope you get paid good for your propaganda . Leading the sheep astray and having them warm up to dictatorship .hah you are not kidding anyone but yourself.
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 06.01.07 - 6:21 pm | #

The scariest thing is: Let's just say for the sake of argument (if not reality), that the hatred of Bush is *justified* and a reaction to seeing the ruination of our country's rational decision-making and lawful democracy, the shaming of our name in the world, the facade of "War for Peace" (right out of Orwell's 1984 turned into Rovespeak), etc. etc. Let's say all this plus the destruction of the national economy (from boom to bust under Bush), the pitiable social net in our own country as we send billions to Halliburton etc, to support our continued sending of young men to be cannon fodder in between to warring factions, etc, etc.

Let's just say Bush *deserves* the contempt of the 66% people who are disgusted by him and ashamed as Americans when we are able to travel abroad (and afford it).

Let's say the hatred is clearly a rational reaction. What does that say about the very small minority (this page?) who *believe* we are doing good by blowing up generations of US and Iraqi soldiers, ignoring our own democratic ideals in order to support Bush's delusional ideas about world order and his own missionary mission?

What if everyone in the world, practically, *except* a small number of people who waste bandwidth for the purpose of glorifying Bush and pathologizing those who see the emperor's clothes are missing, what if it's actually YOU that are as insane as they get, and everyone else sees the truth?
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 06.17.07 - 11:16 pm | #

There is no such thing as BDS.

People's clear thinking had been badly damaged by ideology before Bush came around and it will be so long after Bush and Cheney will have been gone.

Only because Bush symbolizes the US capitalist system that many disgruntled hate so much, he got to become the focus of this ideological insanity.

Cheney is even a greater irritation for that matter. That's why I call the attitude toward him "Cheney-induced Apoplexy".

But as I said, Bush and Cheney will be gone tomorrow, and the pathology will stay, looking for a new target.

The true diagnosis is:
"Homo ideologicus disgrunticus" and it's about a new species. The brain functions differently.

(See my merrier BDS explanation at: http://www.veschristoff.com/BDSp...lustrated.html)

Cheers,
Ves | Email | Homepage | 08.30.07 - 9:18 am | #

And WTC 7 collapsed how? And he sat there like a dope reading a book about a goat. Good job deflector. Bravo.
Kevin Clay Gardner | Email | Homepage | 09.18.07 - 7:05 pm | #

Bush is un-Christian. No true Christian ever operates from fear and lies. A true Christian would give Christ's teachings a chance. They really work.

Bush is the opposite of a Christian. And as John Grisham recently said, "These are bad men with evil intent."

"By their fruits you shall know them."
lydia cornell | Email | Homepage | 09.23.07 - 3:06 am | #

'War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.' John Stuart Mill
Anita | Email | Homepage | 10.15.07 - 10:21 pm | #

Dear Doc, absolutely fantastic, exact and surgical. Bloody bravo! I now have a rap sheet and Modus Operandi for the busloads of "BushIsHitler!" twerps in my inner city neighbourhood.

As we know, Islamists simply LOVE inner urban cosmopolitans and artist types etc.

All the best from Colonel Neville.
Melbourne Australia.

colonelrobertneville.blogspot.com
Colonel Robert Neville | Email | Homepage | 11.03.07 - 4:26 am | #

I was a Republican who worked on the Bush campaign, and I think he organized 9/11 after looking at the evidence. There are too many convenient coincidences, history is full of this type of thing and America is primed for fascism. It is not a joke. He is planning on attacking Russia and China because he is a delusional maniac. Hitler would have appeared the same way in 1938, right before he took everyone off the cliff. This is not naive psychology. 9/11 was the Reichstag fire, a manipulation of elements of the Community and Saudi Intelligence. Look at Bush's background, and it is obvious if you have an open mind.
Don A. Rich | Email | Homepage | 12.04.07 - 9:33 pm | #

Jeebus Christ...you people are batsh*t crazy insane! Do you actually believe the sh*t this "Dr" spews? It must really suck to wake up every morning and realize that all you believe in, all you hold dear, is base on lies, ignorance, and intolerance.

You people are pathetic...I really pity you. F*ck each and every one of you. May God have mercy on your small, bitter souls.
Jeebus | Email | Homepage | 12.27.07 - 1:57 am | #

Dr. Drivel.
MarPan | Email | Homepage | 12.27.07 - 7:19 am | #

This has got to be a satire site. I mean, even Jonah Goldberg isn't this blatantly stupid.

Really. Idiots who have supported an idiot and his disastrous, murderous policies, making up cute little psychological pet names to stick on reasonable, rational human beings who recognize a man for what he is: the son of gross privilege, who's never had to work a day in his life, and when he did work, he drove those companies into the ground.

Oh, and Bush is about as much a Texan as I am a New Guinean. He's a Connecticut Yankee who ended up in Sam Houston's court, and now has defiled our nation in a manner that we may never recover from.

Fuck you and fuck the idiot King of the right wing.
HumboldtBlue | Email | Homepage | 12.27.07 - 11:06 am | #

Bin Laden determined to attack America. Ring a bell?
Anonymous | Email | Homepage | 12.27.07 - 2:15 pm | #

Behold, I am the source of all "argumentation" supporting BDS- Bush Devotion Syndrome
Dick Cheney's Colon | Email | Homepage | 02.01.08 - 10:16 am | #

No way, this is another ploy by neocons to attempt to undermine those who disagree with the administration's policies and wars. It's just a more sophisticated "you're unpatriotic" attack
Illiterati | Email | Homepage | 02.12.08 - 3:32 pm | #

What about PNAC and the World Trade Centers in cross hairs written in 2000 by authors Bin Bush, Condy, Rummy??? PUT THE REAL TERRORISTS BEHIND BARS.
Bob | Email | Homepage | 03.10.08 - 2:13 pm | #

One step forward and two steps back might describe recent "progress in America" - as Bush took the reins in 2001 and undid most of what Clinton did.

If Obama does the same - and undoes what Bush did - America will have spent 16 years doing and redoing efforts to make progress - with little or nothing accomplished except the waste of time, and the harm to the idea that politicians elected should be doing something positive for the nation.

Few could look at the last 8 years as anything but parochialism and zero-sum gain for America - in public policy or in economics.

It may well be a lesson - for America - in how to go backward while going forward.
Pat | Email | Homepage | 11.09.08 - 11:35 am | #

Bush Derangement Syndrome? Ya, I got it and I got it bad. Maybe the reason I got it is because over 4,200 of our troops have died in Iraq and over 1.3 Million INNOCENT Iraqi's have died. Why? Because Bush/Cheney lied to Congress and the American people that there were "weapons of mass destruction" when he knew full well that there were not! If I had my way, both Bush and Cheney should spend the rest of their miserable lives in Federal Prison. They will NEVER be able to wash the blood off their hands. I just hope and pray that our enemies don't attack us because WE have WMD's. At least they would be right!So, ya, I got BDS. To Bush, don't let the door hit you on your way out. I am counting the minutes.
Joy | Email | Homepage | 11.20.08 - 12:41 pm | #

GOD HAS CHOSEN PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO BE ON OUR SIDE. THE FUTURE WILL KNOW BUSH WAS OUR GREATEST LEADER. HE IS THE USHER OF THE END TIMES. WE MUST DESTROY THIS WORLD SO WE CAN HAVE A BETTER WORLD. YOU UNDERSTAND DOCTOR DON'T YOU?
Kenneth Copeland | Email | Homepage | 12.27.08 - 12:48 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan.com