New book: "Bush on the Couch"

New book: "Bush on the Couch"
Inside the Mind of the President



Here at Iddybud, I'll soon be reviewing this new book by Dr. Justin Frank. It's already generating a lot of conversation. Dr. Frank, 35 years in practice as a psychoanalyst, is a clinical professor at George Washington University Medical Center. He traces the development of George W. Bush's character from childhood to the present day and relates this development to Bush's hampered ability to manage his emotions. His psyche, according to Dr. Frank, is charged with restless anxiety. Dr. Frank shows how Bush's life-charted psychological development has conditioned him to view the world in the black-and-white terms that have so evidently shaped his administration (and our nation's ultimate destiny).

For the past four years, there has been a record of violence and cruelty which has seemed to be increasingly dependent on the unstable psyche of the man at its center.

Dr. Frank begs the all-important question (too-often unspoken) in this book:

Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?


I cannot wait to read this book and share my thoughts with my readers.

Related sites:

Official Site-Harper Collins
Salon
Washington Post
Sify.com
Daily Kos
Anonymoses
Billmon

NOTE:
You may wish to read Dr. Frank's unforgettable satirical piece on Kenneth Starr

The Rumor: Howard Dean as VP

The Rumor: Howard Dean as VP
O.K.

I'll play the gossiping little blogger.

Word is, on Blogdom Boulevard, that Howard Dean helps neutralize potential dissatisfaction with the Democratic party's left and might be on the V.P. A-List.

See Daily Kos.

Pass it on.

Move Over, Osama: It's al-Zarqawi-The Bushites' New Bogeyman

Move Over, Osama: It's al-Zarqawi-The Bushites' New Bogeyman


It seems that Abu Masab al-Zarqawi is the last man the Bushites can try to use as the Saddam-connection-to-terror "bogeyman" link. They love to summon up his fear-producing name. His terrorist moniker makes us shudder.

The name al-Zarqawi pops up everywhere..his fingerprints are allegedly on every act of Iraqi terror, according to the Bush administration. He was allegedly present at the beheading of Nicholas Berg (although, strangely, the person alleged to be al-Zarqawi didn't have the identifiable al-Zarqawi ill-fitting wooden leg). He is alleged to have been the mastermind behind every defiant act against the U.S. in Iraq, it seems...even the one that occurred today.

The Bushites do not like to talk about Iraqi nationalist insurgents fighting the Western power they perceive behind the new Iraqi government. They want you to believe all the terror is coming from outside Iraq. It looks better for their war.

To infer that some of these people are fighting for their own version of national identity undermines the fact that we're trying to "free them".

Have you ever walked into a lion's cage and tried to explain that you were there only to set them free? Why, they'd tear at your limbs, then proceed to eat you alive. After you were digested, they'd seek their own level of freedom and would claim to have never needed you to give it to them. I don't see this war as any different. This nation, Iraq, was a wild land. Saddam Hussein had not fostered a civil society among these poor people. We entered as savages dropping bombs over civilian's heads rather than utilizing every possible bit of diplomacy with our friends around the world. There was never a heart or a mind to be won by attacking an already-weakened country while killing the ones we didn't like (and, indiscriminately, the ones unlucky enough to be in the way).

The 9/11 Commission reports are revealing the folly of Bush's shock and awe upon Iraq. In a recent CPA poll, just 2% (that's TWO percent) of Iraqis believe we came as liberators.

Only 1 (that's ONE) man with any possible connection to "terror" in Iraq in recent years was...guess who? You've got it!

Abu Masab al-Zarqawi.

The bogeyman.

In questioning the extent of any ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the commission weakened the already spotty scorecard on Mr. Bush's justifications for sending the military to topple Saddam Hussein.

Banned biological and chemical weapons: none yet found. Percentage of Iraqis who view American-led forces as liberators: 2, according to a poll commissioned last month by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Number of possible Al Qaeda associates known to have been in Iraq in recent years: one, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose links to the terrorist group and Mr. Hussein's government remain sketchy.

*Sketchy..always sketchy...*

[LINK]

Walter Shapiro Dismisses Moore Film as Snide, Immature

Walter Shapiro Dismisses Moore Film as Snide, Immature

[LINK]

I found Walter Shapiro's review of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" to be intellectally insulting.

Shapiro asks:

Does anyone seriously believe, as Moore suggests, that the United States invaded Afghanistan primarily to pave the way for a natural-gas pipeline? Or that the war in Iraq was a single-minded effort to win new contracting business for Halliburton?

Primarily? When did Moore say "primarily"? These are Mr. Shapiro's words.

I think this is dissemination on Mr. Shapiro's part. We'd be pretty naive to think a new free market in Afghanistan would not benefit us greatly when it came to opening a go-ahead path to the pipeline. Like most of us, Moore wasn't born in a turnip patch. The very name of his film, containing the numbers 9/11 make it quite obvious why we began a campaign in Aghanistan. It would also be very naive of us to believe Halliburton did not benefit greatly from this war in Iraq. One look at a factual breakdown of DOD contracts made for Iraq reconstruction will tell you they received sweet corporate welfare from U.S. taxpayers.

Mr. Shapiro seems to miss the "joke" entirely as Moore places a French product in his pre-9/11 scenario:

A single sentence captures the filmmaker's cheap-shot style. Describing George W. Bush's trip to Florida on Sept. 10, 2001, Moore gleefully declares in his voice-over, "He went to bed that night in a bed made with fine French linens." The way Moore presents this tiny detail conveys the impression that stalwart Democratic presidents such as Bill Clinton slept only on the cheapest sheets available from Wal-Mart. Maybe Moore and his fans can call this hitherto unreported Bush scandal "Linen-closet-gate."

Huh?!
I wonder if Mr. Shapiro simply didn't "get it" or worse..if he's feigning disgust at Michael Moore's so-called "snide" commentary to keep his cushy job with USA Today?

At a time when the nation's problems seem so daunting, it is tempting for voters to derive nourishment from moviemakers and radio personalities who offer entertaining theories about how the world really works.

Oh!
You mean, like, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh?

But it does raise troubling questions about the ability of voters to render mature judgments about America's role in a hostile international environment. What does it say about our democracy when Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live are regarded as respected sources of political commentary?

Actually, Jon Stewart betrays 50 times as much truth in 30 minutes than FOX News in a whole day. Saturday Night Live is politically irrelevant these days. Jay Leno is a Bush-man. FOX News is a comedy every time they claim to be balanced. The big-lipped blonde FOXette Laurie Dhue knows how the world works? Give me a break!

I think Mr. Shapiro has given Moore a very unfair shake, considering the deep sh*t we have to wade through every single day in the world of right-wing talk radio and cable TV news.

Bill Clinton's Very Personal Reflections

Bill Clinton's Very Personal Reflections
In '60 Minutes' Interview, Ex-President Calls Affair 'Terrible Moral Error'
By Howard Kurtz/Washington Post
[LINK]

Clinton's greatest accomplishment, in his opinion, was the creation of 22 million jobs.

Dan Rather said Clinton was "supportive" of President Bush on Iraq and that "it will surprise some people."

I don't plan to be overwhelmed or impressed by the "support" Clinton will throw to Bush. Anything he offers will probably be a security blanket for Hillary's political future. Iraq was an unnecessary war and the American public was used badly by a lying administration. Bush alienated our nation from the respect of many of our allies. His Iraq folly drew resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda. The Iraq war caused an increase in membership to terror groups and probably will for years to come. We've only succeeded in spending hundreds of billions of dollars while actually decreasing our security. More than seven hundred Americans have been killed and thousands have been seriously injured.

If Bill Clinton says he clearly supports any of those things, I'll eat my hat and howl at the moon.