How original...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/IN226761.DTL

Really stretching the armchair psychoanalysis with this one - sounds like someone's been hanging out with the PSY101 students a bit too much.

Just like with the rampant conspiracy theories, it's really easy to read a lot more into something you don't really know about. But I do admire the sheer amount of time you dedicated to this. Lots of circular logic and finger-pointing. Take the issue of the economy - it's real easy to lay blame on Bush, but I don't see a bit of commentary about the man who is really responsible for the state of the economy today: Clinton. Were it not for his administration, the stock market would have never soared to the unrealistic heights that it did. It may never recover, but that is not due to Bush but to the fact that the market can stay artificially stimulated only so long before it collapses.

I really wonder how all the anti-Bush folk are going to take it when he is reelected in 2004. You all seem to base so much worth in the belief that EVERYONE agrees with you, when Bush's approval rating is still quite high. If the "middle-east road map" initiative works out, you can write off any hopes of kicking him out of office - you know this, right?

Clinton seemed to take great pleasure in the Presidency as well, although it seemed to me the attention was what he thrived on.

For Bush it seems to be the exercise of power that gets him off. Secrecy, arrogance, suprises...oh, yeah, and war.

Would any of you consider it vaguely possible that Dubya is not primarily motivated by cheap psycho-problems, but that he really thinks he is doing the best, smartest things he can do to help the country? Is that a possibility?

Al,

Yes, it is within the realm of possibility.

There is, unfortunately, a vast amount of evidence to indicate President Bush and others in his Administration are willing to lie to the American people, conduct the people's business in secret, wage an unnecessary war, allow undue influence by campaign contributors, look the other way at criminal behavior and abuse the powers of the Justice Department to maintain their grip on the White House.

Still, it is still technically POSSIBLE that George W. Bush is acting in the best interests of the nation.

It is also possible that O.J. Simpson is still interested in finding the "real killers."

Brian, I'd just like to promote a little clarity of thinking. By the OJ line at the conclusion, you are clearly unwilling to accept as a serious possibility that Bush is making what he at least thinks to be an honest effort to do what is best for the American people.

Are you saying that he's crazy, mentally disturbed, like the premise of this piece? Or are you simply saying that you think he's a crook, purposely acting against what he knows to be the proper interests of America in order to benefit himself?

Al wrote:
"Would any of you consider it vaguely possible that Dubya is not primarily motivated by cheap psycho-problems, but that he really thinks he is doing the best, smartest things he can do to help the country? Is that a possibility?"

Sure, it's a possibility. And ask any practicing alcoholic if he/she "is doing the best, smartest things he can do", and they'd probably say "yes" too.

Their best thinking got them where they are today.

That said, one doesn't have to be practicing to display "alcoholic behavior". It's an addiction mindset, often amplified by the drug of choice.

Whether that be alcohol, illegal drugs, or power.

To Aaron: There are no original ideas, only the recycling of old ones. No matter what you say (or write), chances are somebody else has already done it.
It's what you do with those ideas that counts.

"There are no original ideas, only the recycling of old ones. No matter what you say (or write), chances are somebody else has already done it."

That's ridiculous. Maybe new ideas build on old ones, but "recycling?"
I wouldn't call the "dry drunk" hypothesis an old idea. van Wormer's piece ran Sunday. This piece was posted Tuesday.

just to clarify, i thought that unilateral meant, "Performed or undertaken by only one side." and yet, everyone refers to the war with Iraq as unilateral. i was pretty sure we HAD allies, but maybe every country except france and germany are all considered "one."









[and i know that france and germany were not the only countries opposed, but i was making a point. by the way, this is a "preemptive strike"]