The Command Post - 2004 US Presidential Election - BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome

December 18, 2003

Bush | BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome

By Bird Dog on Tacitus

* * *

BDS

Last week, Charles Krauthammer made a diagnosis of people who make outrageous statements relating to President Bush, giving this ailment a name, Bush Derangement Syndrome. We've seen many examples of this malady in the last few weeks. To wit:

Howard Brush Dean III: "The most interesting theory that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis," Dean replied. "Now who knows what the real situation is? But the trouble is by suppressing that kind of information, you lead to those kinds of theories, whether they have any truth to them or not, and they get repeated as fact."

Put the shoe on the other foot, guys. How would you react if Bush were to say this: "The most interesting theory about Dean that I've heard so far -- which is nothing more than a theory, it can't be proved -- is that he cheats on his wife. Now who knows what the situation is?" Simply put, this type and level discourse is unbecoming someone who desires the most powerful job on the planet. The question about Dean's judgment is a serious one.

HBD the III's weaselly response was: "The difference is that I acknowledged that I did not believe the theory I was putting out." Howard, here's a tip. If you don't believe the theory, don't repeat it. Come on.

John Kerry: "I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f - - - it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did."

Saddam Hussein, AFTER his capture: "I'd like to sit down now. I'm the president of Iraq. You wouldn't treat your own president this way". Uh, bub, let me whisper something to you. You're no longer president! He also predicted that he would win Iraq's upcoming presidential election. Actually, it looks like he's been deranged for a little while.

Cardinal Renato Martino: "Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him," he told reporters. Talk about misplaced compassion.

Hillary Clinton: "I cannot even imagine four years of a second term of this administration, with no accountability and no election at the end." So Bush is going to cancel the 2008 election?!

Madeleine Albright: "Do you suppose that the Bush administration has Usama bin Laden hidden away somewhere and will bring him out before the election?" The mad utterings of a former Secretary of State.

Jim McDermott: "I've been surprised they waited, but then I thought, well, politically, it probably doesn't make much sense to find him just yet," he said. "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing that it happened on this particular day," he continued.

Again, Hillary Clinton: "I shouldn't take it personally. Because what (the Bush) administration was attempting to do was turn back the progress of the entire 20th century." The ENTIRE 20th century?! Holy smokes!

Derrick Z. Jackson: "With no weapons, no ties, and no truth, the capture of Saddam was merely the most massive and irresponsible police raid in modern times. We broke in without a search warrant." I wonder what the "Z" is his middle name stands for. Certainly not Zzzzz.

Again, from HBD the III: "The capture of Saddam Hussein has not made America safer." Those famous nine words. Rival Jilted Joe said it best: "If he truly believes the capture of this evil man has not made America safer, then Howard Dean has put himself in his own spider hole of denial." More from Spinsanity.

(Of course, Saddam and Martino are not Democrats. Just showing examples of BDS. The following paragraphs are specifically addressed to Democrats).

Folks, what in blazes is going on? Lileks suggests that Democrats are mainstreaming the extreme. The Washington Post makes a similar observation. Is that it? Or is it that the party out of power goes a little crazy, as David Brooks suggested a while ago.

In any case, taken as a whole, these comments do not help Democrats, as this Democrat made clear. A final note. As this article, Paranoia Politics: Some Democrats are Nuttier Than a Tin of Almond Roca, observes: "It's a different matter, though, when it comes to politicians. Paranoia does matter, and some liberals need to do a better job of either treating their paranoia or hiding it."

I believe in a strong two-party system, since one party serves as a check and balance on the other. Comments like the above do not help.

* * *

Posted by nikita demosthenes at December 18, 2003 09:04 PM | TrackBack

Comments

“Put the shoe on the other foot, guys. How would you react if Bush were to say this: “The most interesting theory about Dean that I’ve heard so far — which is nothing more than a theory, it can’t be proved — is that he cheats on his wife. Now who knows what the situation is?”“

Wow! I would be shocked* and *awed* and *disgusted. I don’t care who would believe me. But, if I heard on Live T.V. President Bush saying something like that, I would not vote for him.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at December 18, 2003 11:16 PM

Jane Galt’s law: The party in power in smug, the party out of power is insane.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 19, 2003 12:11 AM

Clearly the Republicans should have the right to have these people committed to psychiatric facilities. Just like in communist countries like the USSR and China… After all if you disagree with the goverment then you must be crazy…no?

Posted by: AnyoneButBush2004 at December 19, 2003 05:34 AM

I think it’s difficult for European people to completely understand what’s happening in USA, but for Italian people it’s very easy.
We live in democratic countries (both sides of ocean i mean) and some year ago guys with lot of money (media, televison, oil, it’s all the same after all) buy the election. Here in Italy with Television, there directly with Supreme Court. Ok, maybe we’re crazy just to think something (ready for psychiatric facilities). Maybe. But, but those people Mr. Bush and Mr. Berlusconi played with the limits of democracy (maybe just Mr. Nixon made something like) like anyone before. After all the only “liason” between Mr. Hussein and Mr. Bin Laden it’s Mr. Bush The First. After all in USA the worst limitation to personal liberty come after 9/11. After all for the first time cold war historical allies of USA, notably French and Germany, are against an american president. After all public opinion of Europe is crazy.
BDS: Bush Derangement Syndrome? No, the problem it’s: BDS: Bush Deranged Syndrome.
Those people are spinning us out of democracy. They are crazy.

Posted by: AnyoneButBerlusconi at December 19, 2003 06:53 AM

What are the restrictions in US freedoms? Where has Bush or Ashcroft supressed free speach?

While I admit that when US citizens were shipped to gitmo from the US and labled enemy combatants, it worried me, but I have yet to see one democratic wacko like Dean get sent away. If Bush were following Hitler and Stalin’s plan to rise to power, he should be demonizing Dean, instead we have Dean demonizing Bush. Democrats are the ones one step from Jihad, not republicans.

Furthermore, the worst abuses of our civil liberties came under Clinton. Anyone remember Reno’s shock troopers kicking down a door to kidnap a little kid and return him to poverty and injustice in Cuba? Or Bill’s use of the IRS to audit his political critics? Clinton judical appointees limiting poltical speech before an election? Democratic lawyers trying to throw out votes for Bush in florida while trying to get democratic districs recounted?

And yet you have the gall to state that Bush is supressing civil liberties?
Denial is the first sign of a problem.

Posted by: Brian at December 19, 2003 07:56 AM

We’re arrogant, we don’t listen to other’s opinions, we’re imperialistic, we’re fat, we’re lazy, we’re greedy, we’re evil, we’re ugly, we eat junk food, we have no class, we’re bullies…on and on and on and on.

Guess what?

We liberated Iraq, captured Saddam, and the rest of you sat on your ass, flapping your gums.

Sucks to be you.

:-)

Posted by: jeffers_mz at December 19, 2003 08:09 AM

Jeffers brings up a good point about Clinton and the civil liberties issue. Thus far — three years, a major terrorist attack, and two wars into the Bush administration — do we have anything to compare even remotely to the grotesque civil liberties violations at Waco and Ruby Ridge?

Posted by: Curt at December 19, 2003 01:26 PM

My civil liberties have not been reduced one bit since Bush was put into office. I have not seen or heard any firsthand stories of people treated unfairly or in a way inconsistent with our Bill of Rights.

How can I argue that my civil liberties have been trampled or taken away? I’ve never experienced it nor have I heard about it, except for vague references to people who were performing criminal activities anyway.

Therefore, I will denounce any suggestions that Bush is any worse than Clinton or any democrat in this area. Case closed, as far as I’m concerned, until I can get some solid evidence that this has happened. These days, democrats are throwing every accusation in the book at Bush, but they haven’t made anything stick. Why? Because he’s not actually doing all this stuff that your Democrat leaders are telling you. You are being lied to, but not by Bush.

Posted by: Dalex at December 19, 2003 05:11 PM

Democrats acting like this really are ruining the two party system. The only thing worse than an idiot democrat is a right wing conservative. One will hit you over the head with hemp, the other beats you with a bible.

Posted by: gijoe at December 19, 2003 07:43 PM

“What are the restrictions in US freedoms? Where has Bush or Ashcroft supressed free speach?”

wait! Stop the presses!

I support President Bush whole-heartedly…. But it was the BUSH who singned Campaign Finance Reform into law.

You want to revoke free speech? How about denying every American Citizen’s right to create a radio or t.v. ad 30-60 days before an election about a political candidate.

How’s that for driving a steak through the 1st amendment? Of course it was John McCain and Feingold and the Reps and Dems who co-jointly shoved this through Congress while the American People were sleeping at night.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at December 20, 2003 12:30 AM

GiJoe wrote,

” One will hit you over the head with hemp, the other beats you with a bible.”

Well, I’d much prefer the most historically accurate text in the history of the world than a drug. Especially when this same text has influenced the creation of our great nation.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at December 20, 2003 12:32 AM

Re: “Anyone remember Reno’s shock troopers kicking down a door to kidnap a little kid and return him to poverty and injustice in Cuba?” - are you refering to the time when the right wingers who scream so much about family values started screaming that a father would get custody of his kid instead of the kids more distant relatives? Yeah that rule of law thing sure is tough to deal with.

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 20, 2003 02:20 AM

“My civil liberties have not been reduced one bit since Bush was put into office”
- did you hear what the secret service does with Bush visits- they put all the Bush supporters right near the front and all the protesters blocks away, out of sight, behind a chain link fence. And before you righties tell us all how great you think this all is- its called viewpoint discrimination and its a violation of the 1st amendment. Police are heard telling people- “youll have to step over into the free speach zone” —-apparently America is no longer a free speach zone..
Total/terrorist information awareness- thats where the government can harvest and track all of the information about you on the internet or any database without cause, or a warrant or judicial review.
New secrecy rules- havent you heard- everything connected to government is a secret now- even the agriculture department can declare things secret- wouldnt want anyone to know when the cows come home now would we. Bush has classified more documents in 2 years then Clinton in his last 4…we used to have a reputation for having the most open government in the world. Now???
Right to imprison anyone at any time for any reason for as long as they want- some of it struck down the other day, thank goodness. the rest are working its way through the courts.
lets remember the Florida voter purge- Katheren Harris had the roles purged of anyone who had the same name as a convicted felon. Didnt matter if you just happened to have the same name as a convicated felon- you didnt get to vote.
“it was the BUSH who singned Campaign Finance Reform into law”— well if you had been reading CP or were simply paying attention at the time it passed: “Campaign Finance Ruling Gives GOP Edge”- so that made for some surprise…
“Clinton judical appointees limiting poltical speech before an election?”- and republican judicial appointees rulling on those same laws is somehow different?
Surprisingly civil rights are lost at the edges and then they encroche on the mainstream.

“Or Bill’s use of the IRS to audit his political critics? ” - which scandal was this? could you give me a link?? I must have been distracted by all the vince foster allegations which never panned out..

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 20, 2003 03:12 AM

Wow Anyone, pretty f’n spooky. Bush supporters in front of lines and a bunch of other stuff about Florida I cant even translate into human. Worse than a Stalinist police state huh?

ahem.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 20, 2003 05:59 AM

ABB2004 - What goes on at a ‘Bush rally’ is truly no different than what any other party would do. Clinton’s “Town hall meetings” were invite-only affairs where tickets were issued to NEA and various union members. He only preached to a choir of party faithful. No one in their right mind sits the protesters up front & center unless they really want to ball up a photo op.

If you’re intention is a picnic, you don’t invite the anarchists. This is basic stuff. There’s a big diffference between not allowing you to protest and allowing you to protest in my face. The left, God bless them, doesn’t see the difference. The protester does not have universal God-like rights to dictate what they can do - particularly at private functions. Ask the cops.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at December 20, 2003 10:29 AM

This page has more fun per comment than any other!

Slippery slope or straw man, your argument lacks force.

What if we make the bible out of hemp?

You want to revoke free speech? How about denying every American Citizen’s right to create a radio or t.v. ad 30-60 days before an election about a political candidate.

You obviously were asleep for the arguments about whether it was a violation of personal property rights to broadcast signals through someone’s private property without their permission. Or when people claimed that they should get rent for satellites placed over their land. Or not alive… these were discussions from 50 to 100 years ago, and their answers were not as clearcut as we take them for today. But the upshot is that any broadcasting is hardly constitutionally guaranteed, and not just because the Founders didn’t conceive of it. It’s a sticky issue no matter which way you turn it. We’re just lucky most of the worst parts have been decided already.

Besides, there is nothing (just and fair) that you can achieve with a TV ad that you can’t with a good old fashioned handbill run. And with today’s laser printers… you’re just being lazy in your support if you don’t do it that way.

Well, I’d much prefer the most historically accurate text in the history of the world than a drug. Especially when this same text has influenced the creation of our great nation.

If it weren’t for the absolutely unqualified nature for this statement, I would have serious issues with it. Practically any newspaper archive is more historically accurate than the Bible… no matter how biased the reporting. They have quotes, sequences of events, first-hand sources… it just doesn’t compete. Of course, if you limit yourself to “ancient” documents, I think the award has to go to the Spring and Autumn annals… “In the spring, there was much rain.” And on and on for years.* Limitng yourself to *religious* documents, you clearly are not talking about Genesis. Even taken as a metaphor, the metaphors in the Vedas are closer to “truth” as we know it. Or are you stating it as a premise of faith? “The bible is accurate, and everyone else is wrong”? Which leaves, oh, let’s say Joshua to second Chronicles in Old, and Acts in New (Acts being more verifiably accurate than the other gospels — that actually tries to record history, rather than just being, say, letters to friends, otherwise Paul’s got that “authenticity” thing sewn up.) There, you *might* have an argument to make, but I think I’d rather trust Josephus than the Bible. About the only thing you can really say is that the Bible is the most historically accurate document *for its subject matter*, and since it’s more or less the *only document dealing with its subject matter, that’s not very impressive.

Total/terrorist information awareness- thats where the government can harvest and track all of the information about you on the internet or any database without cause, or a warrant or judicial review.
New secrecy rules- havent you heard- everything connected to government is a secret now- even the agriculture department can declare things secret- wouldnt want anyone to know when the cows come home now would we. Bush has classified more documents in 2 years then Clinton in his last 4…we used to have a reputation for having the most open government in the world. Now???
Right to imprison anyone at any time for any reason for as long as they want- some of it struck down the other day, thank goodness. the rest are working its way through the courts.

Gotta give Anyone props here… the Patriot act is scary, scary stuff. You guys should treat it with more fear/respect. I hope most of it gets struck down.

Posted by: TBox at December 20, 2003 10:33 AM

In a time of war some restrictions on personal freedom is inevitable. It could be worse - rationing, conscription, imprisonment of enemy sympathisers (democrats?). It IS preferrable to defeat. A couple more 911’s and this is what we will see. The enemy is using the West’s legal and social systems against it - abusing the system to destroy the system.

Posted by: Monkey Magic at December 20, 2003 01:02 PM

Some Nevada Feebs play loose with the provisions of the patriot Act and a media frenzy results. Within weeks, parts of the Patriot Act are stricken down, and others ruled unacceptable by the courts.

Yes, I think Ashcroft likes the Patriot Act a little too much, but politicians on both sides prefer getting re-elected more than enabling a power grab that they don’t get to benefit from.

I have a lot more faith in our system to prevent excess than I do in any given politician.

The system is doing its job. The excesses have been and will continue to be curbed. The rest stay in place and help prevent terrorism.

Posted by: jeffers at December 20, 2003 02:33 PM

I wish someone would point out to me the parts of the patriot act that are so scary. Noone seems able to, including Diane Fienstein or the ACLU who were trying awful hard. Meanwhile the federal courts have done some incredibly scary stuff in the last two weeks alone and its barely hitting the radar screen.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 20, 2003 05:28 PM

T-8 says- “What goes on at a ‘Bush rally’ is truly no different than what any other party would do.” Clinton’s “Town hall meetings” were invite-only affairs where tickets were issued to NEA and various union members”

I reply- If the president wants to rent a hall and have a private event thats invitation only that fine. If the president wants to come to Chicago (for example) and people want to line the street with this sign or that- thats not a “rally” thats a public appearance and telling protesters that you can not be anywhere that the press or the president can see you is a civil rights violation. A CITY STREET IS NOT A PRIVATE FUNCTION!

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 20, 2003 11:16 PM

“In a time of war some restrictions on personal freedom is inevitable.” -So thats why were going to loose our civil rights? We’ve got a war on Terror, when will that end? We’ve got a war on Drugs now in its ??? DECADE of existence, we’ve got military actions that we’re commited to and will be comitted to seemingly forever…

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 20, 2003 11:20 PM

ABB2004: Are you a JFK admirer? If so, wouldn’t you have preferred for LHO’s civil rights to be violated, than Kennedy’s ?

Posted by: CERDIP at December 21, 2003 01:58 AM

Sorry, I should have written are inevitable rather than is enevitable.

How long? Maybe a century or more if necessary. But then maybe not that long as It seems that the Bush administration is hoping to transform the Middle East by creating a democratic Iraq and letting it snowball from there. If the entire planet consisted of democratic states we could probably let the police do the job of arresting and detaining the terrorists. Unfortunately we have regimes who seem to foster terrorists or merely pay lip service to the demands of waging a war against the terrorists. Action is required.
Is the democratisation of the ME a hoplessly naive dream? The alternatives seem way less palatable. The dream - quite noble. I’ll put my money on the dream. Bush it would appear is a man of action.

Posted by: Monkey Magic at December 21, 2003 02:02 AM

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/

Posted by: TBox at December 21, 2003 01:15 PM

TB said hey check this out… so I did.

What concerns us dummies here at the command post are these simple words

However, the USA PATRIOT Act retains provisions appreciably expanding government investigative authority, especially with respect to the Internet. Those provisions address issues that are complex and implicate fundamental constitutional protections of individual liberty, including the appropriate procedures for interception of information transmitted over the Internet and other rapidly evolving technologies.

and me make pretty words now.

In 1991, there was a stud design to monitor all radio traffic in ‘the box’ during gulf war I. The study found that there was a huge amount of radio chatter that did and did not go through appropriate channels. In, fact, it was rather like naohs proverbial flood, whearas the people mostly responwsible for the chatter were the coalition forces. Incredibly, they were all across the bandwidth, wearas, the enemy confined his communications to a very narrow bandwitdh which made finding the proverbial needle that much easier.

In other words, we internet whatchimacallits cant keep our mouths shut while the tangoes observe very strict comms rules. Why is this you may ask? Because what we call chatter is specifically these types of channels when they open usually expose them to intense scrituny and may in fact be lethal. Only in the most extreme circumstances are they to be used.

So the next time someone with great concern starts hollering about the terrible usurpation of our natural rights, nodd and smile a little and think of those childrens tales.

But always remember, that the simple matter of being paranoid, does not necessarily mean they aren’t out to get you. Spoof something really stupid and yes, they could be listening. But is that any different than robbing a bank for kicks and publicity?

I could hardly imagine a worse case scenario, for the terrrorists.

Posted by: Sunami at December 22, 2003 09:44 AM

“ABB2004: Are you a JFK admirer? If so, wouldn’t you have preferred for LHO’s civil rights to be violated, than Kennedy’s ?”

Thats a false choice. the comparison is not jfk v. LHO- if this were at all applicable it would be jfk v. every other american. And its not jfk v. anyone. Its the fundamental right to be free from government intrusion and monitoring absent just cause. or even some level of judicial review. Besides, I thought republicans were for smaller, less intrusive government?

Posted by: AnyonebutBush2004 at December 24, 2003 09:56 PM