Is Bush Delusional? Part III

[Winstonm]

Which model yields the most credible conclusions?

 

1) The Scientific Method which takes all known facts and constructs a hypothesis that fits those facts and then tests that hypothesis.

2) The Political Method which establishes first a hypothesis and then tries to mold the facts to fit while ignoring any fact that disproves it.

 

From Ron Susskind:

 

The White House celebrated as one of the war's major victories the capture of Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002. Described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations even after U.S. and Pakistani forces kicked down his door in Faisalabad, the Saudi-born jihadist was the first al-Qaeda detainee to be shipped to a secret prison abroad.

 

Abu Zubaydah, his captors discovered, turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure they supposed him to be.  Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was "echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President. 

 

And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as "one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States." And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques.

 

'This is why George W. Bush is so clear-eyed about Al Qaeda and the Islamic fundamentalist enemy. He believes you have to kill them all. They can't be persuaded, that they're extremists, driven by a dark vision. He understands them, because he's just like them. . . .

 

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

 

Seriously, what is the difference between this thinking and the thinking of the supposed enemy? Bush ignores science and fact in order to follow his "instincts" and his faith. Isn't this what the Iranian leaders do also?

 

The Bush administration has consistently been distorting the findings of scientific committees, ignoring their conclusions and otherwise mismanaging national scientific research to partisan political ends, a group of more than 50 scientists, including three University professors — two of them Nobel Laureates — said yesterday.

 

"This has been done," the statement continued, "by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government's own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice."

 

When you searching the world over looking for insane madmen, Mr. President, you may want to start off my looking in the mirror.

[luke warm]

When you searching the world over looking for insane madmen, Mr. President, you may want to start off my looking in the mirror.

that seems a tad strong, don't you think? what is the source of your seeming deeprooted hatred for bush?

[Winstonm]

I have no regard for Bush either way - no hatred whatsoever. I only pose the question: is he delutional - do the thinking processes in the quotes both by and about him indicate a sound mind or one who has come to believe that his decisions are infallible? A faith, rather than fact based, judgement of the rightness of his own causes and disdain for anyone who opposes those ideas.

 

Should anyone of this apparent mindset have this kind of power - and more pointedly - how far into denial would he go in order to protect his beliefs?

 

And if his presidency is faith based, how does that differ from a leader of another nation whom holds a different faith? Both cannot be right.

[Winstonm]

Guess I'm not the only one asking this question:

 

But it wasn't only endangered Republicans who have been calling for Rumsfeld's ouster who may have blanched. Andrew Sullivan, the conservative writer who was once a key media supporter for the Iraq war, denounced the latest Bush statement on CNN on Wednesday night, stating that the president is so delusional, "This is not an election anymore, it's an intervention."

 

Sullivan said the president was "so in denial," comparing the Rumsfeld endorsement to applauding the job FEMA's Michael Brown did on Katrina: "It's unhinged. It suggests this man has lost his mind. No one objectively could look at the way this war has been conducted, whether you were for it, as I was, or against it, and say that it has been done well. It's a disaster."

[the saint]

Isn't Bush using his Christian faith to form his judgement a violation of the US constitution which calls for separation of church and state?

 

Oh, and on the question of is he delusional - yes. No need any other comment.

[cherdano]

Isn't Bush using his Christian faith to form his judgement a violation of the US constitution which calls for separation of church and state?

No. Next case.

[the saint]

Isn't Bush using his Christian faith to form his judgement a violation of the US constitution which calls for separation of church and state?

No. Next case.

Ok, well how about going to war because God told him to?

[Winstonm]

Concerning the president's faith, here is more from Ron Susskind:

 

''This is why he dispenses with people who confront him with inconvenient facts,'' Bartlett went on to say. ''He truly believes he's on a mission from God. Absolute faith like that overwhelms a need for analysis. The whole thing about faith is to believe things for which there is no empirical evidence.'' Bartlett paused, then said, ''But you can't run the world on faith.''

 

That a deep Christian faith illuminated the personal journey of George W. Bush is common knowledge. But faith has also shaped his presidency in profound, nonreligious ways. The president has demanded unquestioning faith from his followers, his staff, his senior aides and his kindred in the Republican Party. Once he makes a decision -- often swiftly, based on a creed or moral position -- he expects complete faith in its rightness.

 

The disdainful smirks and grimaces that many viewers were surprised to see in the first presidential debate are familiar expressions to those in the administration or in Congress who have simply asked the president to explain his positions. Since 9/11, those requests have grown scarce; Bush's intolerance of doubters has, if anything, increased, and few dare to question him now. A writ of infallibility -- a premise beneath the powerful Bushian certainty that has, in many ways, moved mountains -- is not just for public consumption: it has guided the inner life of the White House.

 

Again I ask - what is the difference betweem Bushian faith and other faiths of other country's leaders? Is reliance of "faith" of your rightness a form of self-delusion, no matter if it is Christian faith or Islamic faith?

[Winstonm]

When you searching the world over looking for insane madmen, Mr. President, you may want to start off my looking in the mirror.

that seems a tad strong, don't you think? what is the source of your seeming deeprooted hatred for bush?

Seems others share this concern:

 

Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.

 

 

The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.

It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.

The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.

[helene_t]

Again I ask - what is the difference betweem Bushian faith and other faiths of other country's leaders? Is reliance of "faith" of your rightness a form of self-delusion, no matter if it is Christian faith or Islamic faith?

Could be. It could also be that Bush and Bin Laden just pretend to be religious because they know that their audience want a religious leader. This was obviously the case with Sadam Hussein.

[pbleighton]

"Ok, well how about going to war because God told him to?"

 

This is a war crime ( any war not fought in DIRECT self defense is a war crime under the Geneva conventions), but it is not a violation of the constitution per se.

 

Peter

[cherdano]

Isn't Bush using his Christian faith to form his judgement a violation of the US constitution which calls for separation of church and state?

No. Next case.

Ok, well how about going to war because God told him to?

I seriously think you are just on the wrong track here. The constitution can only regulate segregation of state and church at an institutional level. In a democracy noone can be forced to make his own personal judgements/decisions in any way.

 

Only the American voters can decide whether they want a president with faith-based decisions. The reality seems that "they" DO want a president with a strong faith.

 

As for Winston's original question, I sort of don't care whether Bush is delusional. I care about the decisions he makes, and the people he chooses to make decisions for him. If your view is (like mine) that he has chosen a bunch of misguided ideologists as his advisors, has made horrible mistakes in his foreign policy, has done nothing you agree with on any controversial inner-American issue, then why should you care whether this is due to being dumb, having a misguided faith, or because the big green monster tells him to do so?

If your view is that he has done alright, then why should you care whether this is due to his intelligence, his faith or just because he is a good man?

[Winstonm]

"Ok, well how about going to war because God told him to?"

 

This is a war crime ( any war not fought in DIRECT self defense is a war crime under the Geneva conventions), but it is not a violation of the constitution per se.

 

Peter

This is a reason in my mind for the question of dilusional or not - the U.S. is such a position of world power that none dare bring Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to world court on charges of war crimes; if no other countries can do so, is it not then up to the U.S. to self-regulate its own morality?

 

This to me is the bad joke behind the American throne - it is a faith based assumption that their cause is right and therefore anyone or any fact that disagrees with that hypothesis must surely be wrong. The Bush statement that "You are either with us or with the terrorists," leaves no middle ground, no gray areas of self-doubt.

 

I grew up surrounded by these types of closed-minded, fundamental Christians and observed over and over when the questioning made too much sense, when the facts did not fit the beliefs, the fall-back answer was always the same - you have to have faith. What could never be explained, never really discussed, was why their faith was superior to another's opposing faith.

 

If one needs this type of closed minded acceptance to give meaning to one's existence that is certainly fine as each must find alone a pathway through life - but when this thinking is used as a basis for war, for national morality, and decisions that affect the entire world it becomes dangerous.

[luke warm]

would you explain this, winston?

 

"The Bush statement that "You are either with us or with the terrorists," leaves no middle ground, no gray areas of self-doubt."

 

can you give me an example of what you mean by "middle ground" or "self-doubt?" iow, i'd be interested in knowing in what way(s) one would be "with" the terrorists

 

as for the rest of your argument, it seems to be based on an appeal to authority, iow it seems to me that you are accepting as true a premise (bush's decision are faith based) because someone has asserted that to be true

 

arend is, in my opinion, correct... bush's decisions may or may not be right, and they may be either of those based on his own reasoning or the reasoning of his advisors... they either are or are not in the best interests of a sovereign u.s., as perceived by the elected president of this country...

 

"If one needs this type of closed minded acceptance to give meaning to one's existence that is certainly fine as each must find alone a pathway through life - but when this thinking is used as a basis for war, for national morality, and decisions that affect the entire world it becomes dangerous."

 

that may or may not be true (you haven't proved either, merely made your assertions), but it seems to me that it's circular reasoning... one of your premises makes up, wholly or in part, your conclusion

[Winstonm]

"The Bush statement that "You are either with us or with the terrorists," leaves no middle ground, no gray areas of self-doubt." would you explain this, winston?

 

Hi, J: Be glad to let you into my thoughts on this - feel free to disagree.

 

My personal impression of this statement - now in hindsight - is that the "us" Bush spoke of was the executive branch - that one either agrees completely with whatever is declared by Bush to be true, and if one disagrees or simply asks for proof of the claims then that makes one in favor of the terrorists. The statement is black and white - but the real world is made up in shades of gray. Questioning decisions, asking for proof, doubting the truth of what we are told is not the same as being "with the terrorists". But that is what it seems Bush is saying.

 

(This concept seems to me have been validated by Bush's recent tirade against the Democrats as somehow being support for terrorists when they expressed concerns over Bush's Iraq war policies.)

 

 

can you give me an example of what you mean by "middle ground" or "self-doubt?" iow, i'd be interested in knowing in what way(s) one would be "with" the terrorists

 

This has nothing to do with being "for terroists" - what it has to do with in my mind is the "demand for loyalty" from Bush - it strikes me as being in the same manner of a father talking to a child - Why. Because I say so, that's why.

 

To me, when the evidence did not support the claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it would be only normal to have some self doubt about the rightness of my cause. Suppose my child tells me that a neighbor has stolen his bicycle, and I angrily confront the neighbor only to find the bicycle never had been stolen but lost - and my child had deceived me. At that point, I would not then still angrily confront the neighbor because his grass was too long or the paint on his house was old - no, I would doubt my own reasons for first accosting him.

 

Isn't it odd that when WMD were proclaimed in Iraq, the U.S. (led by Bush) wasted no time in going to war. Yet when North Korea tested a nuclear weapon, there was no invasion to disarm this member of the Axis of Evil - so it seems the Bush administration found its own middle ground and stopped short of war.

 

Of course, I wouldn't dream to think it had anything to do with the vast oil reserves in Iraq verses the fact that China befriends North Korea and the U.S. is dependent on Chinese dollar return to sustain the economy - would you?

 

that may or may not be true (you haven't proved either, merely made your assertions), but it seems to me that it's circular reasoning... one of your premises makes up, wholly or in part, your conclusion.

 

You are certainly correct here in that I am not attempting to prove but simply stating my own opinion on the reasoning process. It gets back to the original premise of which is more credible, the scientific model or the political model?

 

Because it is opinion, it may indeed apply circular reasoning. My opinion is that the anectotal evidence paints a picture of a president who relies on snap decisions, moral certainty, and instincts to make world-altering decisions based on the political model of forming a judgement first and then ignoring any facts or opposition to that opinion.

 

I believe this to be dangerous when the person in that position has increased presidential power to include the ability to confine the citizenry without charges (The Military Commission Act) and to override posse comitatus and declare martial law on his order alone. (The John Warner Defense Authorization Act).

 

The anecdotal evidence suggests a president for whom loyalty is interpreted as "blind faith." Even when the evidence says otherwise, are we still to accept the rightness of the original decision because the president "said so"? Are we no longer free to ask for proof?

 

"You are either with us or with the terrorists."

 

Notice how in this statement there is no room for self-doubt - that is, a middle ground between war and capitulation.

The middle ground might ask, what if we supported a Palestinian state, would that ease tensions? What if we had not armed Suddam Hussein and then declared him our enemy? What if we hadn't ushered in the Shah of Iran but allowed Iran their own choices? A middle ground includes one's own shortcomings.

 

Middle ground asks the quetions: what is my part in this? What have I done wrong to escalate the events? Could I do something differently now?

 

"You are either with us or with the terrorists."

 

If the world were only so simple - but it is not. It is not black and white but a world in shades of gray. Claiming otherwise is ignoring truth. But it does make for a good T.V. news film clip.

 

If Shakespeare were still alive, he would have to re-write this passage:

 

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more: it is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound(bites) and fury,

Signifying nothing."

[luke warm]

ok, i understand (now) that you're simply stating your opinion, it's just that the form your argument takes is not one i'm comfortable with...

 

for example, i've taken some unpopular stands here on the forum, but i honestly can't recall (maybe my memory is faulty) ever resorting to ad hominem attacks when doing so... also, you seem to equate whatever faith bush has with closedmindedness... he may or may not be closeminded, but even if true there's no causality between that and faith

 

i disagree that the "with us or the terrorists" remark was meant as, "you're either with me and rumsfield and powell or you're with the terrorists"... i think he meant "us" as in america... i also feel that it's your personal dislike of bush that leads to some of your opinions... i certainly understand that, my personal dislike of any number of people help form my opinions; however, i try not to let my opinions get in the way of logical discourse (sometimes unsuccessfully, admittedly)

 

in any case, i don't think it's necessary to embrace all policies set forth by whatever chief executive is elected... i've never agreed with all policies regardless of who was in office - never... but there's a difference, imo, between disagreeing with policies and in intimating some nefarious motive(s)...

 

my opinion is that bush's decisions are not faith based, he doesn't feel some desire to do God's work from the oval office... he may be working from a flawed paradigm, he may be receiving poor advice, he may even be overruling sound advice... he could even be right... i don't know, i only have opinions... this is because neither you nor i are privy to the data available to him...

 

maybe either one of us could do better with what he knows... maybe we couldn't

[Winstonm]

ok, i understand (now) that you're simply stating your opinion

 

That is correct - but I am also attempting to show that I am not alone in that opinion (There are equal numbers of quotes, etc., that are opposing my views).

However, it seems to me that the mainstream media has ignored many of the details over which I express my concerns. That is why I post the quotes - you have to dig out the information and some may not have heard or read the other side.

 

i also feel that it's your personal dislike of bush that leads to some of your opinions

 

You may feel that way but I assure you it is not true. What I do not like is the secrecy and arrogance of the Bush team - it's dishonesty and attempts to hide the truth. The only other presidency in my life I have seen come close is the Nixon presidency - and I had no use for that bunch of scoundrels, either.

 

he may or may not be closeminded, but even if true there's no causality between that and faith

 

You may have noticed I prefaced that remark with a comment about having been reared in that type environment - what I alluded to was a small sect of extreme fundamentalists who believed every word in the old testament was fact - even when presented with hard, scientific evidence that it could not be so - and would then end any further debate with the comment, "It's a matter of faith." That was closedmindedness and I see similarities in what is reported about Bush - that once he makes a decision no amount of contradictory information can dissuade him from his belief - even if the initial belief is subsequently proved wrong.

 

imo, between disagreeing with policies and in intimating some nefarious motive(s)...

 

I am not going to disagree that my slant is toward possible misuse of power - and it may be Bush believes himself right and good and within the boundaries of the constitution to do what he is doing for the nation's good. Regardless of motives, the acts signed into law since 2001 and the presidential power increases are imo not in the nation's best interest.

 

After Nixon surveilled U.S. citizens, Congress passed law making this illegal - and the Supreme Court backed it up. Yet Bush ignored this law when allowing wiretapping without judicial approval. It is this thinking that the president somehow knows more than Congress or the Supreme Court about how to protect this country that I find so dangerous - al Quaida is a short term threat in historical perspectives, but the Bush changes in law challenge the basis of the republic itself.

I only hope that Congress or the Supreme Court can nullify these misguided attempts at security because the greater danger comes not from our enemies but from ourselves.

 

Without a true and working balance of power between the branches of the government, we are exposed to the threat of real - not perceived - tyranny.

[luke warm]

Regardless of motives, the acts signed into law since 2001 and the presidential power increases are imo not in the nation's best interest.

i fully agree... it's a tough line to draw, but i'd prefer to err on the side of freedom...