I protest.

I think you are spot on in your assessment.

Here is the thing. Bush knows the truth about himself. He can hide the records about his arrests, his AWOL status, his business failures, etc. But inside he knows that he is a failure at nearly everything he has tried to do in his life.

How does he deal with this?

Well, it is well known that males who are in a social hierarchy and are high on the list have higher rates of testosterone in their blood stream than lower ranking males. The office of President has a remarkable ability to change a person's behavior.

Since he knows internally that he really does not deserve to be President, and he recently had this conversion experience, it is very likely that he has put two and two together and decided that God has put him in this position for a reason.

This mission from God will color everything.

Oh, and don't forget that top Bush Co. were talking about invading Iraq just after Bush took office. The idea that Iraq could be a good base of US geo-political power is part of the PNAC blue print.

While I know this is highly stereotypicaly, I find the majority of people I run into who consider themselves "born again" to be a little off their rockers. George is no different.

I think you're really on to something here. I've been thinking along these lines for awhile but haven't been able to put it into words like you have.

george rocks, you just can't handle the thought of a man who acts on his convictions and forms policy based on what's good for america instead of what pleases the rest of the world

Actually, I would love "a man who acts on his convictions." But, more importantly, tell me this: In what way has the invasion of Iraq been "good for America?" It has not stopped terrorism, it hasn't made the US any safer and it has cost American lives. (This is not about Saddam Hussein, by the way, this is about your "good for America" assertion.)

This site must be the long-lost-home of the unknown super achievers.
"I suspect" permeates, what does that mean?. It appears that the primary posting and comments come from those who oppose action on any level and revile those who are able to recognize a problem and "my God" do something about it!
The humor in the post and the comments is pervasive (perversive?) but the joke is beyond your understanding and I don't have the time or inclination to explain it to you.
Ken

Ah, yes, the ever-popular rhetorical tactic of proof by assertion. What can I do to persuade such a towering intellect to grace us puny beings with his presence?

Ken, that was sarcasm. Just so you know. And to answer your other question:

sus·pect
transitive senses
1 : to imagine (one) to be guilty or culpable on slight evidence or without proof <suspect him of giving false information>
2 : to have doubts of : DISTRUST
3 : to imagine to exist or be true, likely, or probable
intransitive senses: to imagine something to be true or likely

Ah Frank,
I will never question your imagination, ......OK, maybe when you "imagine" your arguments are driven by logic rather than hate.
Logical thinkers start with an hypothesis and draw a conclusion from the facts available. You start with a conclusion and create the facts to support it.
On the other hand, "whatever floats your boat". You strike me as a non performer whose delusions are unlikely to become problems for others.
Ken

You know, Ken, it would be a lot easier to take you seriously if you would bother to address the argument itself rather than personally insulting me. Argumentum ad hominem will win no arguments around here. If I'm wrong, show how I'm wrong; show me direct (hell, even indirect) evidence that contradicts my hypothesis and I'll reconsider it. Unlike some I might name, Ken, I do actually think before I start typing. If you don't start addressing the argument directly instead of just being insulting, though, you will have shown yourself to merely be one of those incoherent people of whom I wrote last night.

I suspect *grin* that GWB is not so weak as to use any emotional event he may have witnessed as a crutch to support any personal failings. There actually are folks in this world who take responsibility for their actions instead of looking for excuses, or others, to pin them on.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is lawyer/shrink (the, dare I say, vast LEFT wing conspiracy) talk for "I don't want to work but need some money so I'm going to sue you".

cough, whiner, cough

PTSD is a well-known and fully documented disorder that is recognized worldwide. Only the ignorant would characterize it as an "excuse for laziness" and one who suffers from it as a "whiner." The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) defines Posttraumatic Stress Disorder thusly:

1. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:
   
   
   1. the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others
      
      
   2. the person's response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behavior
   
   
2. The traumatic event is persistently reexperienced in one (or more) of the following ways:
   
   
   1. recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts, or perceptions.
      
      
   2. recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may be frightening dreams without recognizable content.
      
      
   3. acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur on awakening or when intoxicated).
      
      
   4. intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolize or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event
      
      
   
   
3. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
   
   
   1. efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma
      
      
   2. efforts to avoid activities, places, or people that arouse recollections of the trauma
      
      
   3. inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma
      
      
   4. markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities
      
      
   5. feeling of detachment or estrangement from others
   6. restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings)
      
      
   7. sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life span)
   
   
4. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (not present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following:
   
   
   1. difficulty falling or staying asleep
   2. irritability or outbursts of anger
   3. difficulty concentrating
   4. hypervigilance
   5. exaggerated startle response
   
   
5. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C, and D) is more than 1 month.
   
   
6. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

You can "suspect" all you want, but your comment shows your ignorance of psychology in general and PTSD in particular.

You cite a book, written by those who have a vested interest ($$$$)in legitimizing the need for their services.

bah...Snake oil and sulpher.

Psychology is simple -though all those quacks would like everyone to believe otherwise- here it is: you had a horrible experience in your life...so what, join the club. Everyone has had crappy experiences get over it and be a usefull member of society. Quit your belly aching, suck it up.

Um. A "vested interest?" And I suppose you're Mr. Objective, eh? Do you know anything about psychology, about the DSM-IV or about neurophysiology? I conclude, based on your response, that the answer to this question is a resounding "no."

The utter, complete ignorance and denial to which you cling notwithstanding, PTSD is a real malady. I suppose that you consider clinical depression, schizophrenic psychosis and the rest of the DSM-IV diagnoses "snake oil and sulpher[sic]," too, right? And you base this opinion upon what, exactly?

Besides the idea that "if I don't see it, it doesn't exist," I mean.

Frank,
You blast those who you view as attacking you personally but so far all the arguments you have made are personal attacks on those who disagree with you.
There was absolutely nothing objective in your original post, it was based on heresay, innuendo and your imagination. Perhaps it relates to your lack of adequate recovery from post traumatic stress, perhaps your hatred of those who disagree with you or have a different perception of reality than you do. Who knows?
The bottom line is that Bush, right or wrong, is the only person in the last 100 years who has actually made an effort to purge the "boil of the Middle East".
Your comment that it has not stopped terrorism or made America safer, is as I stated previously, naive.
When reality finally takes over you will notice that it takes years, perhaps decades for most changes of the type started by Bush's policies to take effect, not days or weeks.
He may be 100% wrong or 100% right but an objective evaluation cannot be made for either case at this point. In addition the results are dependent more upon what is done in the next 10 years by Bush and his successors than it is on this act alone.
Stop the personal attacks and make some objective ones for a change, there is certainly room for criticism of many of the President's decisions without the need for an amature psychoanalysis.

Ken, here is a personal attack:

You are an idiot.

Got it yet?

I'm finished with this argument. It is obvious that you're not interested in facts, you're only interested in your one-dimensional view of the world in general and of "Bush the Saint" in particular. You claim that I make personal attacks? In the same breath, you claim that my article was "based on heresay[sic], innuendo and [my] imagination," using "lack of adequate recovery from post traumatic stress," and "hatred of those who disagree with [me]" as excuses for your claim. And this is not a personal attack? It is not only a personal attack, it is one rooted only in your own imagination and in not even the most tenuous kind of "fact." I love it that you accuse me of making personal attacks while directly insulting me on the basis of nothing at all. This smacks of hypocrisy to me.

I'm "naive?" And I suppose that the terrorist bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca recently just didn't happen? I suppose Ridge didn't raise the "alert level" a couple of weeks ago? I suppose that we're so much safer that we can dispense with the intrusive "security" measures and the "no-fly" lists? I Don't Think So, Cisco.

If you would read a little history, you would learn that Bush is not the "only person in the last 100 years" to try to conduct some kind of "purge" of the Middle East. They were as successful as he will be, in the long run. Look at Iraq today and tell me this "purge" was a "success." Hussein may be gone but the chaos left behind, chaos we caused and have yet to remedy, is eating people, including our own soldiers. How many American kids will die this week, Ken?

Just who is naive here?

If you want "objective," how about this: Your wonderful President lied about the presence of "weapons of mass destruction. He lied about Iraq being a clear and present danger to the United States. And these days, I'm not the only one saying this. It's coming from the floor of the Senate, not to mention from other parts of the government.

When examining the motivations of a public figure, the reasons behind their actions, one can only speculate based on the evidence available. A subject as public as the President is fair game, the more so since his actions affect my life, the lives of those for whom I care and the lives of millions if not billions of others. Several thousand of whom were extinguished during his recent "purge" of that "boil" you were talking about.

Now, if you have anything further to say, I suggest that you put it in concrete terms. If you refute what I say, refute it with facts, citing your sources and those sources had better be online so that I can confirm them. I will play this game no longer. Further comments such as your latest will be removed without notice.