PDA

View Full Version : Psychiatrist explains Bush Derangement Syndrome.



LWW
07-04-2011, 10:34 AM
A bit long, but well worth the read ... and the psychiatrist makes quite the clinical case for what we have witnessed the last 10 years or so.

I had never really thought about this actually being the case, but the shrink makes a compelling case what appears to be insanity to the layman.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... The Instapundit is exactly right about this. It has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."</span>

What is going on here--I mean, besides the usual opportunist agenda of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist remnants of the last century? I have discussed this issue several times in this blog, but the dynamics bear repeating because the lies keep getting repeated; and so the hysteria continues.

The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate.

They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule.

But what about the average person on the street who has, or has come to have a visceral hatred of President Bush? Perhaps they simply didn't vote for him in 2000, believing the media propaganda or caricature of his intellect and capabilities; or perhaps they simply didn't like him because he was from the opposition party, or a Texan. or any other number of normal reasons.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>It seems to me that the Democrats and the Left have used their continuous propaganda well, but there is a also a strong personal psychological factor involved in being able to convince normally sane people that the source of all evil in the world is George W. Bush.

After 9/11, in many cases, even a mild dislike of "W" rapidly morphed into the ferocious Bush hatred we are now all familiar with. The opposition to a conservative Republican; and reasonable disagreement with his policies became a swooning hysteria; and an unmitigated, deranged hatred with all the accompanying paranoid delusions.</span>

Virginia Postrel recounted this insight:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. 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. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."</span>

That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. <span style='font-size: 11pt'>You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush.</span>

The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement".</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>This explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world, while they trash the US and particularly Bush. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the "rights" of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions (thier actions, by the way are also Bush's fault, according to those in the throes of BDS). Our soldiers in Iraq are being killed because of Bush--not because of terrorist intent and behavior. Terrorist activity itself is blamed on Bush no matter where it occurs.

It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to blame 9/11 on Bush. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. They temporarily spare you from the painful reality around you and give you the illusion that you are still in control.

This is exactly the illusion/delusion circulating in the minds of many of the Bush Haters. They want desperately to forget that there is a tidal wave of terror reverberating around the world and to pretend that everything is America's and Bush's fault. If that is true, then they will still be in control of events.</span>

So what do they do? They lionize terrorists like Zarqawi ("freedom-fighters"). They explain away the horror and brutality by refering to them as "insurgents" and "militants". They support Palestinian suicide bombings as justified and see the Palestinians--not as independent agents acting of choice, but as victims of America and Israel.

They sincerely believe that Osama is a reasonable person and seek dialog with him; but that Bush is not. They threaten violence toward Bush and hold demonstrations; and placate and enable those who would implement Sharia Law in their country without a qualm. Hundreds of their fellow countrymen are murdered by terrorists, but they demand that troops be pulled out of Iraq (thinking that if they hadn't cooperated with the evil BushHitler, their countrymen would have been spared).

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>Rather than blame the terrorists; rather than admiting they have to take action against them; their fear is transformed to anger and displaced onto President Bush. If everything is his fault, then the reality of what happened does not have to be faced (this also explains the intense psychological denial that these same individuals tend to have about 9/11).

Bush becomes the "criminal mastermind", so devious, so evil, that everything he says is a "lie", everything he does is part of a vast global consipiracy. His family has intimate ties to Bin Laden and the Saudis; He is trying to enrich his oil business friends; He is trying to avenge the insult to his father by getting rid of Saddam; He plans world domination etc. etc. I could go on an on, but you get the point.
</span>
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.

They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick).

They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved!</span>

It would be a foolproof defense against the threat, except...except...if it weren't for ... reality. It would be foolproof, except that the REAL horror; the REAL evil will just not go away. The REAL evil just gets bolder and more aggressive. Like the Nazis in the last century, the REAL evil will not be appeased, and is aware of this psychological weakness inherent in their enemies. In fact, they count on it - because by exploiting it is the only way the terrorists can win.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, those who are mindful and deliberate in their attacks and are using them for personal political gain; or to advance a totalitarian agenda are simply evil. But there are many people who normally have some degreee of goodwill and sense. Those are the people I am trying to wake up. Think and ask yourselves-- what you are doing? Look around at what is going on in the world.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>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.

It is the cold-hearted ruthlessness of a fanatical ideology that intends to wipe our civilization off the map. It will not be appeased, and the more you feed it with appeasement, the stronger and bolder it gets. Please note, that since 9/11 there have not been any direct attacks on the U.S. homeland. They have settled for smaller "hit and run" targets of opportunity. Why? Because they rightly fear what we might do if another attack occurred (and besides, they have the MSM and the Left to wage their attacks on the homeland).</span>

This is not to say that such attacks might not occur when the enemy has the sense that America will never fight back. There are many who give them that assurance daily.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>As a psychiatrist I work with patients who use maladaptive psychological defenses all the time. The goal of treatment is to help them develop insight and self awareness and begin to take responsibility for their own lives and actions; and to face reality--no matter how painful or unpleasant--not to close their eyes and hope and wish it will go away.

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

As long as they focus all their energy on hating Bush and act like the whiny petulant and angry child, who expects daddy to instantaneously make everything better-- or else they won't like it; then they don't ever have to act like mature adults and cope with reality in a mature fashion. It is soooo much easier to blame everything on daddy.</span> </div></div>

DISPLACEMENT! (http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/11/lets-discuss-bush-derangement-syndrome.html)


METHINKS THE DOC NAILED IT!

You can see the exact dementia they refer to in the childish tantrums of Keith Olbermann, in the ridiculous bleatings of Rachel Madcow, in the incessant <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> we see daily from numerous members on this very forum.

Soflasnapper
07-04-2011, 02:43 PM
This reminds me of the old Soviet Union's treatment of dissidents, where they used state psychiatry to proclaim anyone who had a problem with their system, insane.

Charles Krauthammer is a particularly prolific user of this meme, and he has a long history of trading on his previous psychiatrist profession to pronounce clinical judgments on people he knows only through news coverage. When it's done about an individual, I think that amounts to medical malpractice, and a violation of professional ethics. (And that's what Krauthammer does.)

Here, this psychiatrist diagnoses an entire class of persons, which is probably illegitimate as well, but probably not an actual ethics violation or medical malpractice comparable to Krauthammer's tricks.

The way I see it, people like politicians and presidents who become unpopular get the flip side of popularity-- hatred-- fairly often. It's not a malfunction, it is apparently human nature, at least here in our culture. Think of all the lusty hateful booing that goes on at sporting events, against people who didn't even waste $3 trillion on unnecessary wars or blow up the economy!

We have the foreign examples of what happened to Mussolini at the hands of his people, and Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife at the hands of their people. At least we don't form lynch mobs and execute hated leaders all that much, Joseph Smith an exception from long ago.

I think it's shameful how this psychiatrist finds no rational reason for such vehement distaste, even though considering W's low approval numbers in his last years (low 30%s, maybe high 20%s), A LOT OF PEOPLE AGREED, possibly even a majority. We're all delusional? Probably not.

But what about the similar rage held now towards current president BHO? Would those holding this piece up as an accurate characterization of those opposing W equally agree that it's true of many of those who oppose BHO in similarly vehement fashion?

LWW
07-05-2011, 04:10 AM
So to deny the psychiatric analysis you create a world ... existing only on your mind ... where the O-cult are dissidents?

That's precious ... simply precious.

Qtec
07-05-2011, 04:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to <u>blame 9/11 on Bush</u>. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. </div></div>

Maybe if GW had been in the WH instead of on vacation................

Is it insane logic to hold the POTUS responsible for the worst attack on US soil since pearl harbour?
Who was the Decider?

Q

Q

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:06 AM
Thanks for proving the author correct.

Soflasnapper
07-05-2011, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So to deny the psychiatric analysis you create a world ... existing only on your mind ... where the O-cult are dissidents?

That's precious ... simply precious. </div></div>

Just trying to help you understand is all.

I presume you would call the fear and loathing of Obama and his presidency fully warranted, because of how bad his policies are.

A similar analysis can be made of those who feared and loathed Bush-- that his policies were so bad that the reaction was rational and warranted.

In some questioning of Bush administration counsel concerning the reach of the power of the unitary president during wartime, I think it was Yoo who was asked, could the president legally order the crushing of the testicles of a child? I believe the answer was, it depends on why he wanted to do it.

NO IT DOESN'T. That is a monstrous doctrine which besmirches the entire history of this great country, and any president promulgating it is a disgrace.

LWW
07-05-2011, 05:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I presume you would call the fear and loathing of Obama and his presidency fully warranted, because of how bad his policies are.</div></div>

I honestly don't know anyone who loathes Obama, much less people who blame him because their shoe came untied as the far left has done.

I do know many who loathe his policies and see them as destructive.

And, for you to even make this insinuation shows incredible amounts of delusion on your part.

The far left hated Bush for <span style='font-size: 11pt'>everything</span> ... and now that Obama has continued most all of the Bush programs, they cheer Obama for doing so ... while still hating Bush for the same thing.

Simply pay attention to Q, H, and G ... they honestly believe the Bush deficits were disastrous while seeing nothing wrong with deficits several times larger.

That is completely irrational.

There are several more examples I could give ... but I don't think you actually want to understand it.

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 12:14 PM
The posters depicting Obama as a Nazi and Mussolini and a Maoist, as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, as a pimp in full O'Keefe regalia, are purely policy disagreements, and nothing personal?

When the man is identified as someone who hates white people and white culture, everything about the traditions of our country, a dedicated far-leftist whose direct plan is the destruction of our economy to enslave us, all that, too, is purely a policy statement of disagreement, and there is no animus against the man as these charges are turned into slurs?

A man portrayed as an enemy of our state, as an ally of those who wish our destruction, as someone who wants to destroy Israel, still is well regarded personally by those thinking that, and they no more dislike still less hate him than they do any other regular politician?

Really? Not IMO.

ugotda7
07-07-2011, 12:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to <u>blame 9/11 on Bush</u>. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. </div></div>

Maybe if GW had been in the WH instead of on vacation................

Is it insane logic to hold the POTUS responsible for the worst attack on US soil since pearl harbour?
Who was the Decider?

Q

Q </div></div>

Yeah, it is insane logic. Those responsible are those who attacked us.

Just how freakin' stupid are you?

Soflasnapper
07-07-2011, 04:44 PM
Yeah, it is insane logic. Those responsible are those who attacked us.

Not exactly, or at least, not entirely the whole picture.

Yes, those who attacked us are responsible, primarily.

However, if it had been possible under a reasonable person standard for the government to have stopped the attack, they bear their own burden of partial blame as well.

9/11 commissioners and others privy to more of the details have said these attacks were quite preventable, and should have been prevented, not in some mind-reading psychic best case scenario, but based upon the knowledge that was in the system.

That they were not means people screwed up, and careers should have ended over this, if not jail time in addition. Instead, everyone who made the wrong decision out of negligence or incompetence GOT PROMOTED, and in some cases, awarded presidential medals of honorable service which carried cash bonuses of up to a half-year's salary or so.

It's wrong in my view to put most of this on the president. He was poorly served by the person Larry Wilkerson agreed was the worst National Security Advisor of all times-- Ms. Condaleeza Rice. But she failed upwards, and was promoted to SecState.

LWW
07-08-2011, 03:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The posters depicting Obama as a Nazi and Mussolini and a Maoist, as a witch doctor with a bone through his nose, as a pimp in full O'Keefe regalia, are purely policy disagreements, and nothing personal? </div></div>

You mean like these:

http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/Bush-hitler-blair-mussolini.jpg http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110130055826/uncyclopedia/images/archive/d/de/20110130060811!Mussolini-monkey.jpg http://members.optusnet.com.au/sjbhill3/Webpage/images/Pics/funny/Pimp%20Bush.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_1lx63WQfc1c/SGU5Un4pNzI/AAAAAAAAAKM/dIRyLgoo0S8/s400/s-HARRY-SHEARER-large.jpg


Oooops ... I forgot, those were patriotic dissent weren't they.

Grow up dude.

Seriously.

LWW
07-08-2011, 03:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to <u>blame 9/11 on Bush</u>. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. </div></div>

Maybe if GW had been in the WH instead of on vacation................

Is it insane logic to hold the POTUS responsible for the worst attack on US soil since pearl harbour?
Who was the Decider?

Q

Q </div></div>

Yeah, it is insane logic. Those responsible are those who attacked us.

Just how freakin' stupid are you? </div></div>

I'll take "COMPLETELY OFF THE CHARTS!" for $800 Alex.

LWW
07-08-2011, 03:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9/11 commissioners and others privy to more of the details have said these attacks were quite preventable, and should have been prevented, not in some mind-reading psychic best case scenario, but based upon the knowledge that was in the system.</div></div>

Why don't you elaborate further ... such as who put the policies in place that kept the different agencies from sharing data ... and who decided that we should cease and desist from human intel in the region ... and who was complicit and then ended up as a key player in the banking collapse ... and what was it Sandy Burglar stole inside of his socks?

What's that?

You can't?

It would expose a prior leftist godking as an incompetent hillbilly?

LWW
07-08-2011, 03:51 AM
Isn't it amazing how a thread about the mental psychosis behind blaming Bush for everything quickly devolves into the leftists proving the author wrong ... by defending dear leader and blaming Bush for everything.

Soflasnapper
07-08-2011, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9/11 commissioners and others privy to more of the details have said these attacks were quite preventable, and should have been prevented, not in some mind-reading psychic best case scenario, but based upon the knowledge that was in the system.</div></div>

Why don't you elaborate further ... such as who put the policies in place that kept the different agencies from sharing data ... and who decided that we should cease and desist from human intel in the region ... and who was complicit and then ended up as a key player in the banking collapse ... and what was it Sandy Burglar stole inside of his socks?

What's that?

You can't?

It would expose a prior leftist godking as an incompetent hillbilly? </div></div>

Must. Not. Cast. Pearls.

This should be looked at as to what the W administration did, and did not do.

Surprisingly, what they actually DID is almost as troubling as what they didn't do.

Since the early '60s days of hijackings to Cuba, JFK's waiver of FAA regulations to allow pilots to carry sidearms onto the plane and into the cockpit had stood through all presidencies, including gun-control favoring presidents like Clinton. About May of 2001, the W administration cancelled this waiver, disallowing that practice.

Under Clinton's presidency, local air commanders drilled on how they could order interceptions of errant planes on their own. Multiple such exercises took place. As of W's first year, this discretion was removed, and instead the requirement that the SecDef approve them was put in place. On that day, Rumsfeld studiously kept himself out of the loop and evidently unreachable by phone (although he was at the Pentagon), and therefore no one was able to give that order until too late. Although the prior year saw 60 scrambles and interceptions on a routine basis, on that day, none of these errant planes was intercepted. After the Pentagon was hit, Rumsfeld busied himself with helping victims, although he was a key man in the national security structure and needed elsewhere.

When the FBI apprehended the so-called 20th hijacker, Moussaoui, the agents in charge wanted to search his laptop, which we later found out contained details, names, etc. of the other 19. They asked that a FISA warrant be applied for, which had a probability of 997 out of 1,000 of being granted (the prior record for such requests). Their supervisor denied their request. When French intelligence named him as a terrorist, those FBI agents tried to use that as a reason to have the FISA warrant obtained. They were disciplined, and still told no. Agent Colleen Rowley wrote to Director Freeh and explained that they half-joked among themselves that Al Qaeda must have a mole working with them in the FBI hierarchy. The man who blocked the FISA warrant repeatedly was promoted and honored with a presidential award which carried a half-year's salary monetary bonus.

Just as W came into office, a 2-1/2 year anti-terrorism blue ribbon task force headed by Warren Rudman and Gary Hart finished its official report. W declined to accept any of its findings, shut down Congressional responses to the recommendations, and instead appointed Cheney to do a whole new study from scratch. As of 9/11 that year, Cheney had yet to hold even one meeting of his task force (possibly never even appointed anyone to it, forget at this late date).

After the whole summer had red lights flashing, Tenet running around with his hair on fire (was the phrase), and the August briefing 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US' was delivered to W, National Security Advisor Rice had warnings made to overseas US installations, but no warnings to the FAA or domestic airports about a heightened risk of terrorism.

W had also ordered the FBI to back off the Saudis, and two of the hijackers lived with an FBI informant but couldn't be located.

I could go on, of course. None of these things were predetermined to be the case by any action of Clinton's. It's rich to see you resort to the tactic you otherwise reject, but I guess it depends upon whose ox is being gored.

Qtec
07-09-2011, 04:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A bit long, but well worth the read </div></div>

Only if you are a wingbat moron.

What's next, a psychic?

Q.......pathetic.

LWW
07-09-2011, 06:13 AM
Seek help.

hondo
07-09-2011, 06:36 AM
"I honestly don't know anyone who loathes Obama..."


ROTFLMFAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
Thanks for the laugh, DL.
Your funniest post in many a month.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 02:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seek help. </div></div>

Which part do you disagree with?

It's all factual, and if you value reality, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with this evidence. Or work to disprove it, if you find it so disturbing.

LWW
07-09-2011, 05:07 PM
You make the doctor's point better than he did.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 07:33 PM
Only if you regard factual evidence that W and/or his administration f'd up to be false, only believed out of irrational refusal to look at the real facts, and impervious to change upon new information.

Which appears to be your position on what I've said are facts. But you haven't looked into it, or you would find that what I've said is true, and then what would you conclude?

You're too emotionally invested to admit you might not have found out these facts, and that there may be excellent reasons to find the W administration, and W himself, personally culpable for these decisions.

BTW, none of these moves were the doing of Congress. They were all executive branch decisions, for which the chief executive bears responsibility, if not possibly to stop everything his people may be doing, but at least to discipline them by firing them when they screwed up so badly.

Qtec
07-10-2011, 02:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Only if you regard factual evidence that W and/or his administration f'd up to be false, only believed out of irrational refusal to look at the real facts, and impervious to change upon new information.

Which appears to be your position on what I've said are facts. But you haven't looked into it, or you would find that what I've said is true, and then what would you conclude?

You're too emotionally invested to admit you might not have found out these facts, and that there may be excellent reasons to find the W administration, and W himself, personally culpable for these decisions. </div></div>

Got to say it, "didn't I warn you?" LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're too emotionally invested </div></div>

Spot on.

Q

LWW
07-10-2011, 04:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seek help. </div></div>

Which part do you disagree with?

It's all factual, and if you value reality, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with this evidence. Or work to disprove it, if you find it so disturbing. </div></div>

Actually ... it is almost entirely devoid of truth. As has been noted by others, you have a history of making stuff up.

This one is a classic example:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the FBI apprehended the so-called 20th hijacker, Moussaoui, the agents in charge wanted to search his laptop, which we later found out contained details, names, etc. of the other 19. They asked that a FISA warrant be applied for, which had a probability of 997 out of 1,000 of being granted (the prior record for such requests). Their supervisor denied their request. </div></div>

Now, for the reality:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation.[19] Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[19]

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[20] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act)</div></div>

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui)

Now ... what was the problem?

LEARN (http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-gorelick-wall-redux/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 11pt'>At issue is the pre-Patriot Act “wall” that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators</span> — a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant “the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail.” The Attorney General explained:

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.</span>

“When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al-Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>“At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, ‘Whatever has happened to this — someday someone will die — and wall or not — the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’”</span> </div></div>


So, in short, what stopped the investigation was an insane policy put in place by the Clinton regime ... and in specific, Jamie Gorelick.

And, as is typical of the far left, they blame Bush for not doing what was illegal before the Patriot Act ... and then blame Bush for doing what they say he should have done, before it was legal, after it was made legal by the Patriot Act.

What is ironic is that you would paste this completely illogical Bush hating in a thread about illogical Bush hating as "PROOF" that the far left isn't guilty of illogical Bush hating.

As a footnote, what did Jamie Gorelick do after savaging US abilities to fight against terrorism?

She joined Franklin Raines at Fannie Mae ... and walked away with $26M in pay for administering a $10B accounting scandal which brought down the US mortgage market.

This is where you irrationally blame Bush.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"Wall" Predated Gorelick -- She Did Not Create It

Congressional Report: "Wall" Constructed Over 60 Years And Did Not Originate In Clinton Administration.

A joint report from the House and Senate intelligence committees on pre-September 11 intelligence failures did not find that the "wall" originated in the Clinton administration. The report states: "The 'Wall' is not a single barrier, but a series of restrictions between and within agencies constructed over 60 years as a result of legal, policy, institutional and personal factors." [Report of the Joint Inquiry Into the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001, Page 363; retrieved 3/23/11]

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Traced "Wall" To 1980s.

Similarly, a ruling by the top-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review -- when it met for the first time in 2002 -- traced the origin of the "wall" to "some point during the 1980s," when the Justice Department began to read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 "as limiting the Department's ability to obtain FISA orders if it intended to prosecute the targeted agents -- even for foreign intelligence crimes." [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, retrieved 3/23/11]

9-11 Commission: 1995 Justice Department Memo Was "Misunderstood and Misapplied." From the 9-11 Commission Report:

In July 1995, Attorney General Reno issued formal procedures aimed at managing information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI. They were developed in a working group led by the Justice Department's Executive Office of National Security, overseen by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. These procedures -- while requiring the sharing of intelligence information with prosecutors -- regulated the manner in which such information could be shared from the intelligence side of the house to the criminal side.

These procedures were almost immediately misunderstood and misapplied. As a result, there was far less information sharing and coordination between the FBI and the Criminal Division in practice than was allowed under the department's procedures. Over time the procedures came to be referred to as "the wall." The term "the wall" is misleading, however, because several factors led to a series of barriers to information sharing that developed. [9-11 Commission Report, retrieved 3/23/11]

Ashcroft Deputy In August 2001: "The 1995 Procedures Remain In Effect Today." From Ashcroft's April 12, 2004, testimony before the 9-11 Commission:

SLADE GORTON ([Republican Senator] 9-11 Commission member): Your second issue is a severe criticism of the 1995 guidelines that, as you say, imposed draconian barriers to communications between law enforcement and the intelligence communities, the so-called wall.

I don't find that in the eight months before September 11th, 2001, that you changed those guidelines. In fact, I have here a memorandum dated August 6th from Larry Thompson, the fifth line of which reads, "The 1995 procedures remain in effect today."

If that wall was so disabling, why was it not destroyed during the course of those eight months?

ASHCROFT: The August 6th memorandum of Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson made possible significantly more information sharing by mandating that those individuals involved in intelligence investigations who came across information relating to a felony federal offense immediately provide notice of that felony federal offense to people on the criminal side of the house.

It was a step in the direction of disabling the wall. It was a step in the direction of lowering the wall, providing for greater communication. [9-11 Commission hearing, 4/12/04]

9-11 Commissioner: Gorelick "Had Nothing To Do With Any 'Wall' Between Law Enforcement And Our Intelligence Agencies."

From a 2005 letter to the editor from former Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9-11 Commission:

[T]he assertion that the commission failed to report on this program to protect Ms. Gorelick is ridiculous. She had nothing to do with any "wall" between law enforcement and our intelligence agencies. The 1995 Department of Justice guidelines at issue were internal to the Justice Department and were not even sent to any other agency. The guidelines had no effect on the Department of Defense and certainly did not prohibit it from communicating with the FBI, the CIA or anyone else. [The Washington Times, 8/15/2005]
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FBI Agent Colleen Rowley's 13 page letter (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,249997,00.html) blamed FBI senior Washington officials and a particular FBI Supervisory Special Agent for blocking the investigation of Moussaoui: . So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.
&lt;snip&gt;
5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose jobs it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause. In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!

Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities. The NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/politics/26FBI.html) brought in the name David Frasca: The senators, who released a copy of the letter to news organizations, asked Mr. Mueller to explain how the head of the bureau's Radical Fundamentalist Unit, David Frasca, dealt with the information from Minnesota and Phoenix.My hope is that we will have all the real answers PDQ, but it may be fun to guess in the meantime:
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Times [conservative Nixon loyalist] columnist William Safire blames the Ashcroft/Mueller regime for a continuing effort at cover-up. Why did F.B.I. Director Robert Mueller desperately stamp "classified" on last week's memo to him from the Minneapolis agent and counsel Coleen Rowley?

Answer: Because he is protecting the bureau's crats who ignored warnings from the field before Sept. 11, and because he is trying to cover his own posterior for misleading the public and failing to inform the president in the eight months since.
&lt;snip&gt;
Intimidated by the brouhaha about supposed ethnic profiling of Wen Ho Lee, lawyers at John Ashcroft's Justice Department wanted no part of going after this Arab. F.B.I. Washington bureaucrats were, in agent Rowley's words, "consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis F.B.I. agents' efforts."
</div></div>

What did the memo from FBI special agent Colleen Rowley say? She was highly qualified, as she writes: "<span style='font-size: 14pt'>As an FBI division legal advisor for 12 years</span> (and an FBI agent for over 21 years),...," very knowledgeable therefore about what the 'wall' so-called allowed and didn't allow, and entirely of a different opinion from HQ's decisions on this matter, as she details.

Most of it reproduced here in the Time Magazine cover story (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term "cover up" would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. </div></div>

[...]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> feel that certain facts, including the following, have, up to now, been omitted, downplayed, glossed over and/or mis-characterized in an effort to avoid or minimize personal and/or institutional embarrassment on the part of the FBI and/or perhaps even for improper political reasons:

1) The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point. The decision to take him into custody on August 15, 2001, on the INS "overstay" charge was a deliberate one to counter that threat and was based on the agents' reasonable suspicions. While it can be said that Moussaoui's overstay status was fortuitous, because it allowed for him to be taken into immediate custody and prevented him receiving any more flight training, it was certainly not something the INS coincidentally undertook of their own volition. I base this on the conversation I had when the agents called me at home late on the evening Moussaoui was taken into custody to confer and ask for legal advice about their next course of action. The INS agent was assigned to the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and was therefore working in tandem with FBI agents.

2) As the Minneapolis agents' reasonable suspicions quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui's arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama Bin Laden, they became desperate to search the computer lap top that had been taken from Moussaoui as well as conduct a more thorough search of his personal effects. The agents in particular believed that Moussaoui signaled he had something to hide in the way he refused to allow them to search his computer.

3) The Minneapolis agents' initial thought was to obtain a criminal search warrant, but in order to do so, they needed to get FBI Headquarters' (FBIHQ's) approval in order to ask for DOJ OIPR's approval to contact the United States Attorney's Office in Minnesota. Prior to and even after receipt of information provided by the French, FBIHQ personnel disputed with the Minneapolis agents the existence of probable cause to believe that a criminal violation had occurred/was occurring. As such, FBIHQ personnel refused to contact OIPR to attempt to get the authority. While reasonable minds may differ as to whether probable cause existed prior to receipt of the French intelligence information, it was certainly established after that point and became even greater with successive, more detailed information from the French and other intelligence sources. The two possible criminal violations initially identified by Minneapolis Agents were violations of Title 18 United States Code Section 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries, which, notably, includes "creating a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States") and Section 32 (Destruction of aircraft or aircraft facilities). It is important to note that the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th was based on probable cause of a violation of Section 32.1 Notably also, the actual search warrant obtained on September 11th did not include the French intelligence information. Therefore, the only main difference between the information being submitted to FBIHQ from an early date which HQ personnel continued to deem insufficient and the actual criminal search warrant which a federal district judge signed and approved on September 11th, was the fact that, by the time the actual warrant was obtained, suspected terrorists were known to have highjacked planes which they then deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. To say then, as has been iterated numerous times, that probable cause did not exist until after the disasterous event occurred, is really to acknowledge that the missing piece of probable cause was only the FBI's (FBIHQ's) failure to appreciate that such an event could occur. The probable cause did not otherwise improve or change. When we went to the United States Attorney's Office that morning of September 11th, in the first hour after the attack, we used a disk containing the same information that had already been provided to FBIHQ; then we quickly added Paragraph 19 which was the little we knew from news reports of the actual attacks that morning. The problem with chalking this all up to the "20-20 hindsight is perfect" problem, (which I, as all attorneys who have been involved in deadly force training or the defense of various lawsuits are fully appreciative of), is that this is not a case of everyone in the FBI failing to appreciate the potential consequences. It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. Even without knowledge of the Phoenix communication (and any number of other additional intelligence communications that FBIHQ personnel were privy to in their central coordination roles), the Minneapolis agents appreciated the risk. So I think it's very hard for the FBI to offer the "20-20 hindsight" justification for its failure to act! Also intertwined with my reluctance in this case to accept the "20-20 hindsight" rationale is first-hand knowledge that I have of statements made on September 11th, after the first attacks on the World Trade Center had already occurred, made telephonically by the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts (see number 5). Even after the attacks had begun, the SSA in question was still attempting to block the search of Moussaoui's computer, characterizing the World Trade Center attacks as a mere coincidence with Misseapolis' prior suspicions about Moussaoui.2 </div></div>

LWW
07-10-2011, 03:46 PM
You have now stooped to Charlotee's leve.

Cutting and pasting something akin to the length of "WAR AND PEACE" doesn't change reality.

As an addendum, you should at least read it yourself. If you had you would have noticed:


July 1995, Attorney General Reno issued formal procedures aimed at managing information sharing between Justice Department prosecutors and the FBI. They were developed in a working group led by the Justice Department's Executive Office of National Security, overseen by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. These procedures -- while requiring the sharing of intelligence information with prosecutors -- regulated the manner in which such information could be shared from the intelligence side of the house to the criminal side.[/b]

Now, I know ahead of time you will furiously read it looking for an out.

Please, don't embarrass yourself further by using the Clintonista defense that the rule was misunderstood from the start ... because the Reno DOJ obviously did nothing to correct the supposed "CONFUSION" which is de facto evidence that the confusion is simply a myth inserted for spoon feeding to the far left after the fact.

Your insistence on defending the indefensile is astounding.

Reno was undoubtedly the worst AG in the history of the republic. Waco ... Ruby Ridge ... 9/11 ... pardongate ... and much, much more can be traced back to <s>Bill Gates</s> Janet Reno and the DOJ of that era.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 05:27 PM
You have now stooped to Charlotee's leve[l].

Cutting and pasting something akin to the length of "WAR AND PEACE" doesn't change reality.

It is the relevant reality, which CYA partisans covering W's liabilities have wholly botched in the telling (which you copied to me). I already spent my time writing the same things off the top of my head, referencing my Wackopedia sources.

I thought showing that what I said was the finding of various official US inquiries carried a little more weight. Evidently not, but the relevant inquiries trash the supposed claims you cited, as you can see.

Colleen Rowley knew full well what the FISA requirements were, and what was allowed and not allowed under the so-called wall (which Gorelick didn't create, but summarized out of the 30-60 years of rulings on the subject had created the de facto law on this as far as the courts were concerned).

Rowley was a 12-year legal counsel in the FBI. It is her direct statement to the director of the FBI, as cited and linked to, that the facts originally already merited and would have been awarded with the FISA warrant grant, if not immediately, then as soon as the French intel became available. In fact, she says, even after the attacks of 9/11, her supervisor STILL stonewalled her request to make this application to the FISA court. When the FISA warrant was finally applied for, the stated reasons did not go beyond what had already been in the case from the beginning, tending to show her analysis was right, and that they'd have obtained the FISA warrant originally, IF THEY'D ONLY ASKED FOR IT.

If 'the wall' was a misinterpretation, the new DOJ was fully able to re-write any instructions upon their review. Didn't happen, and they apparently instead wholly endorsed this summary memo as accurate as to the state of the law. Which didn't apply in this case, according to a 12-year long FBI legal counsel.

LWW
07-11-2011, 03:26 AM
Repeating the myths do not make the myths true.

Soflasnapper
07-11-2011, 02:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Repeating the myths do not make the myths true. </div></div>

An excellent statement of truth, to which you should pay more attention.

I notice you haven't even tried to say the other points are inaccurate.

As they ARE accurate, what do we conclude from them? That W and Co. did EVERYTHING imaginable to avoid the attacks, or perhaps they did NOT do everything to avoid them, and more than once, did things that ENABLED them?