Do not fear the lack of knowledge, fear false knowledge. All evil in this world comes from false knowledge. - Leo Tolstoy

Rambo Bush

An Art Key Gallery


Care In Whos Loves Torture

Compassionate Conservative

Angry Duck

Suggested Use of Duct Tape

Hero Barbara Lee


The A List

Minister of Satan

Stuck Here In The Middle With You

Melting Glacier from Greeppeace

New images of rapidly melting glaciers released - Mission Possible – Governments must and can save the climate - By: Greenpeace - Published: Nov 2, 2006 at 06:37

Greenpeace today released new photographs of rapidly melting glaciers in Europe to call upon the world's Governments attending next week's Climate Conference in Nairobi to ‘wake up and smell the coffee'. The climate crisis is urgent: the science is indisputable, the moral obligation is unquestionable, and the economic imperative for urgent action is clear.

New photographic comparisons reveal the full extent of Alpine glacier retreat. The comparisons of glacier masses show that melting has accelerated dramatically in the past few years. On average, twice as much glacier mass melted between 1991 and 2004 than between 1961 and 1990. In the period from 2001 to 2004, glacier melting rates rose greatly. Greenland is now losing 240 cubic kilometres of ice each year – three times the rate before 2003.

" These new findings are a yet another wake-up call. The glaciers are literally melting before our very eyes, but the politicians are still doing nothing but giving speeches", said Steve Sawyer, Greenpeace International Climate & Energy Policy Advisor. "Governments have lost their last excuse; they must stop their delaying tactics and heed the call for urgent action to protect the climate. We CAN prevent the worst of dangerous climate change, but we need to act now,"

The spate of overwhelming evidence that has emerged over the last 12 months includes:

· New and compelling scientific evidence pointing to the fact that climate change is upon us and happening faster than anyone could have predicted; we are at the threshold but we still have time to act. But that window will close within the next 10-15 years.

· That the cost of fighting climate change is easily affordable and orders of magnitude less than the economic havoc that will be wreaked by inaction.

· That developing countries are already being hit first and worst by the impacts of climate change, and the legal, moral and political obligation of the industrialized world to take the lead has never been clearer.

· Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies are rapidly maturing and with the right support for massive deployment can and must play the major role in decarbonising our economies.

"Governments need to agree a clear process in Nairobi so that post-2012 action to protect the climate with at least 30% reductions from industrialized countries and expansion of carbon markets to drive clean technologies to developing countries is finalized no later than 2008," said Sawyer. "The 163 governments that have signed up to the Kyoto Protocol need to put aside their short-term interests in favour of fighting this global menace. That is in everyone's long-term interest."


A sinking ship call the U.S.S. George W. Bush

Time for the neocons to admit that
the Iraq war was wrong from the start

by Matthew Parris

HARK — CAN YOU hear it? Borne on the wind, can you hear the sounds of construction — of hammers hammering and woodsaws sawing? And do you detect a note of panic? I do. The good ship Neocon is going down. She has struck the Iraqi rocks, the engine room is awash, and on the deck in anxious pursuit of something to float them away is a curious assembly.

Her Majesty’s Brigade of Neocon Columnists and Leader Writers mingles with much of the elite of British politics. The new Labour Cabinet and its courtiers and most of the Opposition’s front bench rub shoulders with Fleet Street’s finest. Is that David Aaronovitch I see, hammer in hand? Jack Straw is handing him the nails. There’s Michael Gove scribbling notes while Danny Finkelstein rips a blank sheet from a discarded do-it-yourself regime change manual, and ponders a hastily sketched design. Willie Shawcross has the saw and Tim Hames and Margaret Beckett are ripping planks from the deck. Gordon Brown skulks behind the mast as those unlikely bedfellows, Matthew d’Ancona, of The Spectator, and Johann Hari, of The Independent, assemble what timber they can find.

They are building a lifeboat for their reputations. The task is urgent. It is no small thing to find oneself on the wrong side of an argument when the debate is about the biggest disaster in British foreign policy since Suez; no small thing to have handed Iran a final, undreamt-of victory in an Iran-Iraq war that we thought had ended in the 1980s; no small thing to have lost Britain her credit in half the world; no small thing — in the name of Atlanticism — to have shackled our own good name to a doomed US presidency and crazed foreign-policy adventure that the next political generation in America will remember only with an embarrassed shudder.

It is no small thing to have embellished the philosophy, found the prose and made the case for the most almighty cock-up in politics that we are ever likely to witness. They meant for the best, these politicians, dreamers and writers. They didn’t think it would end like this. But it has: more killed than even Saddam could boast, and nothing to show for it but an exhausted British Army and the global energising of violent Islamism on a scale of which Osama bin Laden never dreamt.

Our British neocons have invested heavily in this ill-fated craft, and the wreck is total. How shall they be saved? Never fear. They’ve been working on the elements of a rescue plan. By Christmas all will be singing from the same sheet. All together, now, warrior-columnists and soon-to-be-former Cabinet ministers: one, two three . . .

“The principle was good but the Americans screwed up the execution.”

Oh diddums, guys. Damned awful luck. You had this fantastic plan for invading a foreign country and harnessing a grateful populace behind your ideas for rebuilding an Arab nation along better lines — and then along come the Americans and make a mess of it. Now why in Heaven’s name would they do a thing that? Vandals.

Funny, because I don’t quite recall most of you saying it at the time — some of you wrote columns and some of you delivered speeches declaring that Iraq was making giant strides; most of you blamed the difficulties on “Saddam loyalists and foreign fighters”, and some of you actually visited and returned rejoicing at the progress — but let’s overlook that. Let’s for the sake of argument grant that you worried from the start that the US just didn’t have the hang of this nation-building business. Now, you declare, we know that’s the reason the whole strategy hit the rocks.

Crap. The strategy failed because of one big, bad idea at its very root. Your idea that we kick the door in. Everything has flowed from that.

We were not invited. We had no mandate. There were no “good” Iraqis to hand over to. We had nothing to latch on to, no legitimacy. It wasn’t a question of being tactful, respectful, munificent, or handing sweets to children. We were impostors, and that is all.

So now the liferaft: “Tut-tut, no post-invasion strategy.” Well there certainly was a post-invasion strategy, and just because it didn’t work does not mean a different strategy would have made the difference. The post- invasion strategy was minimalist, based on the belief that Iraqis had the human and financial resources to set up their own administration without too much delay, if given full security back-up.

It didn’t happen. But look at two different strategies that armchair neo- imperialists are now saying would “of course” have done the trick if only the stupid Americans had realised it. First there is what is now said to have been Colin Powell’s preference: to smother the country with troops and bulldozers and bricklayers and engineers. In fact, in the early months huge reconstruction was attempted, much was spent — and more than 100,000 troops is hardly derisory as a military presence — and I have yet to hear why airlifting British soldiers to Basra to shovel up garbage in a city perched on one of the world’s richest oilfields would have swung it for us. Our own troops’ famously sensitive “hearts and minds” tactics turned out to make not a jot of difference when the chips were down. Leaping from their burning armoured vehicle with uniforms in flames didn’t leave British soldiers much time to wave at Iraqi kids.

But what if there had been twice the troop numbers, twice the candy, the dollars and the engineers? Iraqi resentment might have been even greater. When I was there two years ago no Iraqi suggested that they wanted to see more Americans. Such a policy, had it failed, would today have the single-malt sippers at the Travellers’ Club in Pall Mall opining that the mistake the Americans made was not to leave it to the Iraqis, or keep a lower profile.

The other strategy which is now said to have been “obviously” wiser is to have left the Baathist administration and Civil Service more or less intact. You may ask why in that case the huge expense of occupying the place, instead of just murdering Saddam, or inviting him to Switzerland with £20 billion and an amnesty.

Anyway, the idea that you can simply decapitate a regime like his is dubious — as if there had been a Whitehall-style mandarinate there, with a cadre of Sir Humphreys in a Baghdad club, awaiting a memo that a new government had taken over. But the coiled spring driving the clockwork of both the civil and the military parts of Baathist administration was terror and brutality from top to bottom. At the apex was one monstrous dictator. Remove him and all would have fallen into chaos and corruption. An occupying power that tried to slip its bottom smoothly into the driver’s seat while leaving the vehicle (the existing police, army and Civil Service) intact would have found the machine impossible to drive. And today everyone would be grandly pronouncing that of course our mistake was not to have removed at once Saddam’s bloodstained, corrupt and hated state machine.

The former hawks of press and politics now scramble for the status of visionaries let down by functionaries. This is a lifeboat that will not float. Let these visionaries understand that occupation is always brutal and usually resisted; that occupying armies are always tactless, sometimes abusive and usually boneheaded; that in the argument between hands-on and hands-off you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t; and that the first, original and central cause of the Iraq fiasco was not the bad manners of this or that poor, half-educated squaddie from Missouri, nor the finer points of this or that State Department doctrine of neocolonial administration.

The reason for failure was not the post-invasion strategy. It was the strategy of invasion. Blame the vision, not the execution.,,6-2414249,00.html

Question: Asshole Says What?

Evidence To Indict Cheney and Rove of a Neoconservative Neo-Nazi Coup D'etat

Robert Steele Concludes There is Evidence To Indict Cheney and Rove of a Neoconservative Neo-Nazi Coup D'etat

Bring It On Blog | October 20 2006

Robert Steele was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer Central Intelligence Agency. He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. as well as the Golden Candle Society.

I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford's “Pretext for War”), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d'etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of “Crossing the Rubicon” as well as “State of Denial”). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of “Clash of Civilizations” with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.

What is interesting about this statement is that in May of 2004 Mr. Steele argued why he would have voted for Bush.

To the Guy Who Called Me A Traitor

Steve Bell Cartoon with a Bush holding paws with a rummy and a dick, saying he will always stand by them.
Steve Bell


I haven't heard from you for a while. Three years ago you called me a "traitor", just before the invasion of Iraq. You also wrote, "Your voice against our elected government is a voice against its people, a voice against this nation."

I guess I must have set you off with my skepticism about an Iraqi nuclear weapons program and other nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the highly dubious claims being made that Iraq was involved with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.

I am sure that you had every intention to contact me and apologize since you were so utterly wrong about, well, everything. But I suppose you were busy.

As the third anniversary of the war approaches, let's review the fine mess that you've gotten us into.

The war in Iraq has become a horrendous drain of American lives and treasure. With no end in sight, we have already lost over 2300 U.S. soldiers and will spend more than $315 billion through 2006. At least 18,000 American soldiers have suffered devastating wounds, and another 50,000 show signs of acute psychological distress.

Iraqi losses have been staggering. Over the last three years, at least 100,000 have died--most killed by U.S. forces. It is estimated that U.S. troops kill three Iraqi civilians for each insurgent dispatched. As bad as Saddam's regime was, under Bush & Company Iraq has gone from being the one of the most developed and educated countries in the region to a failed state.

The insurgency rages unabated, and civil war looms; coalition forces control only the ground upon which they stand. Amnesty International reports that U.S. troops have detained thousands of Iraqis; many are innocent and many have been abused--all of which further inflames the insurgency.

Wealthy Americans, meanwhile, have been asked to sacrifice precisely nothing. The Bush administration has cut their taxes and put the entire cost of the war on the national tab. Our children and grandchildren will pay the bill. Meanwhile, Haliburton continues to rake it in--$16 billion in Iraq war contracts so far.

From the Geneva Conventions to the UN Charter to the Treaty on Torture, the Bush regime has left the fabric of international law in tatters. Our country has become an international pariah.

And the troops have had it. A large majority of U.S. soldiers in Iraq now say it is time to leave: 72% "think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately." (Le Moyne College/Zogby International, 2/28/06)

Many of us saw it all coming. But we were censured and ridiculed, our competence and integrity questioned, and in some cases our careers were damaged.

But I should not complain. When you denounced me, I joined a distinguished group that included generals Tony Zinni and Bill Odom, hard working UN weapons inspectors, and regrettably, too few brave journalists and academics. Let's salute all who refused to be intimidated.

During another war at another time, Theodore Roosevelt put it well, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president . . . is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

But you, on the contrary, readily gave in to the orchestrated campaign of mass hysteria that was used to manipulate the American public into supporting an unnecessary and illegal war. You choose to give your support to an administration that "went to war without requesting--and evidently without being influenced by--any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq," according to Paul Pillar, recently retired from the CIA.

In blindly following incompetent leaders, you abetted taking our country into what Gen. Odom calls "the greatest strategic disaster in US history". By choosing to be an unthinking disciple you abandoned your responsibilities as a citizen in a democracy.

To the guy who called me a traitor: The one who betrayed our country was you; and the hands stained with the blood of the innocent are yours.

Arnold Oliver is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio. He can be reached at

What Part of Ministers of Satan Do You NOT Understand?

What Part of Ministers of Satan do you NOT understand?

Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. II Corinthians,11:14

His ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

What Part of Ministers of Satan Do You Not Understand

What Is It With Republicans and YOUNG BOYS?

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." - Dr. Joseph M. Goebbels

...and Before I forget

School bus driver accused of giving Bush the finger seeks job back

Note nature of the following

SEATTLE (AP) _ As the president's motorcade drove past a school bus, the children waved. President Bush waved back at them.

The school bus driver wasn't waving, though she was using her hand.

She allegedly gave Bush the finger.

Bush was riding through Seattle back in June with Congressman Dave Reichert (RY'-kurt), whose spokeswoman says the president clearly saw it. She says Bush turned to Reichert -- who missed the gesture -- and told him, "That one's not a fan."

The driver was fired after allegedly boasting about it to colleagues. But now she's filing a union grievance to try to get her job back, alleging she was wrongfully terminated.

The school system says she was sacked not for her political views, but for making an obscene gesture in front of the middle school kids.

Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Watch This and Consider Firing pResident Bush:


President justifies war to parents of dead:


gomma tv

Click for English Translation

Eating vegetables slows down cognitive decline in old age 2006-10-25 09:25:59

BEIJING, Oct. 25 (Xinhuanet) -- High consumption of vegetables -- particularly green, leafy ones -- rather than fruit will protect your brain against decline in thinking ability in old age, U.S. researchers reported Tuesday in the journal Neurology.

The findings by Rush University Medical Center researchers suggest a diet that includes two to three-and-a-half-cup servings of vegetables might boost the memory and protect against Alzheimer's disease.

"People who consumed two or more vegetables a day had a 35 to 40 percent decrease in the decline in thinking ability over six years," said study lead author Martha Clare Morris, associate professor at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago. "That's the equivalent of being five years younger in age."

Morris' team surveyed 3,718 research participants aged 65 or above who live in the south side of Chicago.

The researchers used a complete food questionnaire of 139 different food items. They asked about the participants' usual intake and assessed the frequency of intake. During the six-year study, the participants received at least two cognitive tests that measured their memory and thinking speed.

"By far, the association with a slower rate of decline was found in the group that ate high amounts of green, leafy vegetables," Morris said. Such foods included lettuce and tossed salad, spinach, kale and collards.

Eating lots of fruit, this study found, was not associated with benefits similar to eating a vegetable-rich diet. Morris said it's possible that some fruit may contain compounds that counteract antioxidants but further studies are needed to determine whether fruit is brain-protective.

Other research said fruit did provide similar benefit, so it is still recommended.

Morris suspected that vegetables may help protect memory and thinking speed because they contain high amounts of vitamin E, an antioxidant that can help reduce the damage caused by free radicals, unstable oxygen molecules generated by normal metabolism that can damage neurons in the brain and contribute to dementia.

But she said it's too soon to say for sure that vegetables actually preserve the brain from age-related decline.

"But it's encouraging to see that it appears to slow the rate of decline," she said. "We know that eating vegetables is important for chronic diseases. So this might be one more reason why you should eat your vegetables."

Remember These Guys ?

Back By Popular Demand:

For those Horney, Page Hungry, DC 'Publicans
(4,588,755 bytes)

Mirrored from an old, currently, non working link:

Tony Blair says pulling out of Iraq is a betrayal:

"To do anything else would be a complete betrayal, not only of the Iraqi people but of all the sacrifices our armed forces have made."

George W. Bush says, '"We must stay the course, because the end result is in our interest., This is not "stay the course" but constant motion.," and [click link below] ""Nobody has accused me of having a real sophisticated vocabulary," when asked to justify his branding of Democrats as the party of "cut and run" from Iraq."

Unfortunately Blair and Bush refuse to accept going to War with Iraq was based on their lies.

(In Bush's case, he is the "Commander-in-Chief" (#1) and in charge of the CIA. In turn, if there WAS error within the Intelligence community, or an error within the NEOCON plan, IT WAS HIS ERROR, BASED ON PROTOCOL, and what does Bush do...BLAME SOMEBODY ELSE. Come on folks, this is NOT the sign of a good leader and he controls "THE BUTTON" thanks to an idiotic, lame Congress!


Betrayal, as a form of deception or dismissal of prior presumptions, is the breaking or violation of a presumptive social contract (trust, or confidence) that produces moral and psychological conflict within a relationship among individuals, between organizations or between individuals and organizations. Often betrayal is the act of supporting a rival group, or, it is a complete break from previously decided upon or presumed norms by one party from the others.

Lie (Untruth)

A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. To lie is to say something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by someone else.

How many fine young military and innocent Iraqi people will these CHICKENHAWKS MURDER before the United States people wake up and see EVIL for what it is? [2 Timothy3:13 - Rev. 13:14]

AFP - President George W. Bush insisted that US troops would not pull out of Iraq before "the terrorists are defeated," a day after acknowledging a possible parallel between violence there and the Tet Offensive during the US war in Vietnam.

PRISON PLANET - Government Targets American Bloggers As Enemy Propagandists - Military, Homeland Security, Bush White House strategy sharpen knives against anyone critical of the "war on terror" by Paul Joseph Watson


Pink For October

Matthew Oliphant is asking folks to background their web pages PINK for October because it is

National Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Mathew's Page:

National Breast Cancer Awareness Month:

Oct. 27, 2006 @ 9pm on KQED in San Francisco


PatchWorks Films

"Leave your misconceptions and low expectations behind." That is the message at the heart of "Freedom Machines," a powerful film that had its television premiere on PBS' acclaimed documentary series, "P.O.V." and will be featured on KQED and other the public television stations in October in celebration of National Disability Awareness Month.

"Freedom Machines" reframes our views of disability through the stories of adults and children whose lives are being transformed through access to new technologies - and shows how human ingenuity, universal design concepts, and societal commitment can change the world."ARRESTING" - Psychology Today

"REMARKABLES¹ "Freedom Machines" manages a near-perfect balance of compassion, humor, political insight, and deep admiration for the people it profiles-individuals whose lives have been significantly improved by new technologies that bring hope where none existed before. ***1/2 - Video Librarian

Monday November 6th 2PM - KQED - San Francisco
[via PatchWorks Films]

Granny D Goes to Washington

Granny D Goes to Washington, a half-hour documentary that chronicles the extraordinary cross-country journey of 89 year old Doris "Granny D" Haddock, will be coming to your city in October! Check below for when Granny D will be coming to your city. Also see below for how you can organize a house party!

More About Granny D Goes to Washington:

Passionate about democracy, Granny D walked 3,200 miles from Pasadena, California to Washington D.C. to dramatize the need for campaign finance reform. The film records her travels and conveys the infectious enthusiasm Granny D inspired in the people she met along the way. With her feisty, unrelenting advocacy for participatory democracy, this five-foot-tall great grandmother captured the imagination of millions of Americans and became an American folk hero. Granny D stands up as role model of commitment and passionate engagement for people of all ages.

"I'm doing this for my grandchildren and for all the children in this country who might someday want to run for office. I want to give them back our democracy." - Granny D

"Granny D was a phenomenon all across the country. Her example encouraged and inspired all of us who support campaign finance reform. She has a unique place in American political history. There's no one like her." -Senator John McCain

Will Bush Use Israel to Start His Next War?

by Dahbud Mensch

Was 9/11 Part of an EVIL Neocon Plan?

Bush OK's Israel Attack on Iran
War Without End
The global war against terror from a British perspective

From Google News - Syria Accused of Lebanon Assassination; Denies Involvement

Assault on the Liberty by James Ennes

It appears there was a pre-written speech ready, in advance,  for the 9/11 Attack


YouTube - BBC Ehud Barak 9/11 Video

From Google News - Israel approves more Gaza operations

Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?
The New Yorker 200611.27


Dry drunk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dry drunk is a term used, often disparagingly, by members of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and by substance abuse counselors who subscribe to the AA theory of alcoholism to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking but whose thought processes are considered to continue to be distorted by the thought patterns of addiction.

Addiction, Brain Damage and the President

"Dry Drunk" Syndrome and George W. Bush
CounterPunch - October 11, 2002

Ordinarily I would not use this term. But when I came across the article "Dry Drunk" - - Is Bush Making a Cry for Help? in American Politics Journal by Alan Bisbort, I was ready to concede, in the case of George W. Bush, the phrase may be quite apt.

Dry drunk is a slang term used by members and supporters of Alcoholics Anonymous and substance abuse counselors to describe the recovering alcoholic who is no longer drinking, one who is dry, but whose thinking is clouded. Such an individual is said to be dry but not truly sober. Such an individual tends to go to extremes.

It was when I started noticing the extreme language that colored President Bush's speeches that I began to wonder. First there were the terms-- "crusade" and "infinite justice" that were later withdrawn. Next came "evil doers," "axis of evil," and "regime change", terms that have almost become clichés in the mass media. Something about the polarized thinking and the obsessive repetition reminded me of many of the recovering alcoholics/addicts I had treated. (A point worth noting is that because of the connection between addiction and "stinking thinking," relapse prevention usually consists of work in the cognitive area). Having worked with recovering alcoholics for years, I flinched at the single-mindedness and ego- and ethnocentricity in the President's speeches. (My husband likened his phraseology to the gardener character played by Peter Sellers in the movie, Being There). Since words are the tools, the representations, of thought, I wondered what Bush's choice of words said about where he was coming from. Or where we would be going.

First, in this essay, we will look at the characteristics of the so-called "dry drunk;" then we will see if they apply to this individual, our president; and then we will review his drinking history for the record. What is the dry drunk syndrome? "Dry drunk" traits consist of:

* Exaggerated self-importance and pomposity
* Grandiose behavior
* A rigid, judgmental outlook
* Impatience
* Childish behavior
* Irresponsible behavior
* Irrational rationalization
* Projection
* Overreaction

Clearly, George W. Bush has all these traits except exaggerated self importance. He may be pompous, especially with regard to international dealings, but his actual importance hardly can be exaggerated. His power, in fact, is such that if he collapses into paranoia, a large part of the world will collapse with him. Unfortunately, there are some indications of paranoia in statements such as the following: "We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends." The trait of projection is evidenced here as well, projection of the fact that we are ready to attack onto another nation which may not be so inclined.

Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a Biblical sense. Consider his statement with reference to Israel: "Look my job isn't to try to nuance. I think moral clarity is important... this is evil versus good."

Bush's tendency to dichotomize reality is not on the Internet list above, but it should be, as this tendency to polarize is symptomatic of the classic addictive thinking pattern. I describe this thinking distortion in Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective as either/or reasoning-- "either you are with us or against us." Oddly, Bush used those very words in his dealings with other nations. All-or-nothing thinking is a related mode of thinking commonly found in newly recovering alcoholics/addicts. Such a worldview traps people in a pattern of destructive behavior.

Obsessive thought patterns are also pronounced in persons prone to addiction. There are organic reasons for this due to brain chemistry irregularities; messages in one part of the brain become stuck there. This leads to maddening repetition of thoughts. President Bush seems unduly focused on getting revenge on Saddam Hussein ("he tried to kill my Dad") leading the country and the world into war, accordingly.

Grandiosity enters the picture as well. What Bush is proposing to Congress is not the right to attack on one country but a total shift in military policy: America would now have the right to take military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. This is in violation, of course, of international law as well as national precedent. How to explain this grandiose request? Jane Bryant Quinn provides the most commonly offered explanation in a recent Newsweek editorial, "Iraq: It's the Oil, Stupid." Many other opponents of the Bush doctrine similarly seek a rational motive behind the obsession over first, the war on terror and now, Iraq. I believe the explanation goes deeper than oil, that Bush's logic is being given too much credit; I believe his obsession is far more visceral.

On this very day, a peace protestor in Portland held up the sign, "Drunk on Power." This, I believe, is closer to the truth. The drive for power can be an unquenchable thirst, addictive in itself. Senator William Fulbright, in his popular bestseller of the 1960s, The Arrogance of Power, masterfully described the essence of power-hungry politics as the pursuit of power; this he conceived as an end in itself. "The causes and consequences of war may have more to do with pathology than with politics," he wrote, "more to do with irrational pressures of pride and pain than with rational calculation of advantage and profit."

Another "dry drunk" trait is impatience. Bush is far from a patient man: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize," he said in a speech he gave at West Point, "we will have waited too long." Significantly, Bush only waited for the United Nations and for Congress to take up the matter of Iraq's disarmament with extreme reluctance.

Alan Bisbort argues that Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of: his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Schröder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq) to the exclusion of all other things.

In short, George W. Bush seems to possess the traits characteristic of addictive persons who still have the thought patterns that accompany substance abuse. If we consult the latest scientific findings, we will discover that scientists can now observe changes that occur in the brain as a result of heavy alcohol and other drug abuse. Some of these changes may be permanent. Except in extreme cases, however, these cognitive impairments would not be obvious to most observers.

To reach any conclusions we need of course to know Bush's personal history relevant to drinking/drug use. To this end I consulted several biographies. Yes, there was much drunkenness, years of binge drinking starting in college, at least one conviction for DUI in 1976 in Maine, and one arrest before that for a drunken episode involving theft of a Christmas wreath. According to J.D. Hatfield's book, Fortunate Son, Bush later explained:

"[A]lcohol began to compete with my energies....I'd lose focus." Although he once said he couldn't remember a day he hadn't had a drink, he added that he didn't believe he was "clinically alcoholic." Even his father, who had known for years that his son had a serious drinking problem, publicly proclaimed: "He was never an alcoholic. It's just he knows he can't hold his liquor."

Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to abstain at age 40. About this time he became a "born again Christian," going as usual from one extreme to the other. During an Oprah interview, Bush acknowledged that his wife had told him he needed to think about what he was doing. When asked in another interview about his reported drug use, he answered honestly, "I'm not going to talk about what I did 20 to 30 years ago."

That there might be a tendency toward addiction in Bush's family is indicated in the recent arrests or criticism of his daughters for underage drinking and his niece for cocaine possession. Bush, of course, deserves credit for his realization that he can't drink moderately, and his decision today to abstain. The fact that he doesn't drink moderately, may be suggestive of an inability to handle alcohol. In any case, Bush has clearly gotten his life in order and is in good physical condition, careful to exercise and rest when he needs to do so. The fact that some residual effects from his earlier substance abuse, however slight, might cloud the U.S. President's thinking and judgment is frightening, however, in the context of the current global crisis.

One final consideration that might come into play in the foreign policy realm relates to Bush's history relevant to his father. The Bush biography reveals the story of a boy named for his father, sent to the exclusive private school in the East where his father's reputation as star athlete and later war hero were still remembered. The younger George's achievements were dwarfed in the school's memory of his father. Athletically he could not achieve his father's laurels, being smaller and perhaps less strong. His drinking bouts and lack of intellectual gifts held him back as well. He was popular and well liked, however. His military record was mediocre as compared to his father's as well. Bush entered the Texas National Guard. What he did there remains largely a mystery. There are reports of a lot of barhopping during this period. It would be only natural that Bush would want to prove himself today, that he would feel somewhat uncomfortable following, as before, in his father's footsteps. I mention these things because when you follow his speeches, Bush seems bent on a personal crusade. One motive is to avenge his father. Another seems to be to prove himself to his father. In fact, Bush seems to be trying somehow to achieve what his father failed to do - - to finish the job of the Gulf War, to get the "evildoer" Saddam.

To summarize, George W. Bush manifests all the classic patterns of what alcoholics in recovery call "the dry drunk." His behavior is consistent with barely noticeable but meaningful brain damage brought on by years of heavy drinking and possible cocaine use. All the classic patterns of addictive thinking that are spelled out in my book are here:

the tendency to go to extremes (leading America into a massive 100 billion dollar strike-first war);

* a "kill or be killed mentality;" the tunnel vision;
* "I" as opposed to "we" thinking;
* the black and white polarized thought processes (good versus evil, all or nothing thinking).
* His drive to finish his father's battles is of no small significance, psychologically.

If the public (and politicians) could only see what Fulbright noted as the pathology in the politics. One day, sadly, they will.

O'Neill's Revelations and the Mind of Bush

Dry Drunk Confirmed
CounterPunch - January 22, 2003

Paul O'Neill's revelations, the primary source for Ron Suskind's book The Price of Loyalty concerning the timing of George W Bush's plans to overthrow Saddam in Iraq should have come as no surprise. The ostensible reasons for going to war -- the claimed link between Iraq and al-Queda and the claimed possession of weapons of mass destruction -- have been shown to be without substance. The typical explanation offered by the mainstream press and political pundits was that September 11 was a turning point.

What September 11 did was provide the justification. "From the start," said Paul O'Neill in his book interview, "we were building the case against Hussein and looking at how we could take him out and change Iraq into a new country…It was about finding a way to do it that was the tone of it…the president saying, ‘Fine. Go find me a way to do this.' And how would O'Neill know? O'Neill, as Secretary of the Treasury also sat on the National Security Council.

Even though, under pressure, while O'Neill has tried to tone down his statements, the mass media have continued to highlight the revelations. Missing from all the recent analyses and editorials, however, is any attention to the reason why: Why did Bush have this thing about Saddam? Why the "detour into an unnecessary war in Iraq?" as the U.S.Army War College recently put it.

"He tried to kill my Dad," the President once explained. But I believe there was more to this unnecessary war than that. I believe there was a method in Bush's madness, a method that most likely had as little to do with oil as it did to terrorism. For the answer we need to look deeply in the psyche of the man (inferred from his biography). Earlier several other writers and I likened Bush's personality characteristics to those of a person who, in AA parlance, is "dry" but whose thinking is not really sober. Grandiosity, rigidity, and intolerance of ambiguity, and a tendency to obsess about things are among the traits associated with the dry drunk. The dry drunk quits drinking, but his or her obsession with the bottle is often replaced with other obsessions. Twelve Step programs help their members modify their all-or-nothing thought patterns which associated with the disease alcoholism. "Easy does it" and "One day at a time" are among the slogans; the serenity prayer, similarly, helps persons with addictive tendencies to curb the tendency to excess.

In Bush's irrational patterns of thought lie the clues to his single-minded obsession with Iraq. For the explanation for Bush's vendetta against this one country, we have to look to his biography and to the meaning that Iraq held for his father.

The father-son relationship can be problematic in any family. When the father is considered a big hero, the first-born son, especially one bearing the father's name, identity issues are common. As any chronology of George W Bush's childhood will show, the son was set up to follow in the exact footsteps of his father. Sent away to the very New England prep school where his father's accomplishments were still remembered, the younger Bush became better known for his pranks than athletic or academic achievements. His drinking bouts caused problems during his military service as well. (Remember that his father had been a war hero.) In college there was heavy drinking and other drug misuse, one arrest for a wild college prank and one conviction for drunken driving. A much later religious conversion turned his life around.

George W. Bush's father set him up in business, and his father's presidency helped him get his start in politics. His father, for all his success, experienced failure on three occasions. He was widely criticized for not finishing the job in Iraq-- for not moving the troops in to "take out" Saddam following the Gulf War victory--and he failed to get his bill to fund a NASA flight to Mars, and finally, he lost his bid for re-election.

What a unique opportunity has fallen George W Bush's way. The prodigal son can not only prove himself to his father but he can show up his father at his own game. Remember that for his cabinet and key advisers, he chose some of the same men from his father's regime. He chose people, furthermore, who would be favorable to a return campaign, "a crusade" against Iraq. Given his past history and tendency toward obsessiveness, the temptation to achieve heroism through a re-enactment of his father's war clearly would have been too much for George Bush Jr. to resist. To accomplish his mission he would have to throw caution and international diplomacy to the winds, lie convincingly to the American people, threaten allies, bully members of the United Nations, but in the end he would be able to dress in full military regalia and declare "mission accomplished."

The fact that the targeting of Iraq had become one man's personal crusade even seemed somewhat extreme to the father who was indirectly responsible. Yes, the man who knows George W. best, the person most familiar with his rashness of thought, indirectly sent him a message. In a speech at Tufts University, George Bush Sr. emphasized the need for the U.S. to maintain close ties with Europe and the UN. "You've got to reach out to the other person," he advised. More recently, Bush has raised an unprecedented amount of money for his re-election campaign. And his grandiose (and much ridiculed) plans to launch rockets to Mars (and the moon) could have been predicted. The method in his madness is clear once you understand the pattern. Whether the majority of the American people will ever see the light remains to be seen. The starting point may be Paul O'Neill's revelations, because one is then to prone to ask the question, Why?

Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa and co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective.

dahbud's page