I spotted this article on another political forum site, and became extremely alarmed. Our president, according to inside staffers, is becoming increasingly erratic and paranoid, reminiscent of Nixon in his final days in the White House.

The whole story can be found here. Below are a few quotes:





At first I thought "this can't be real", but then I took a look at the man's credentials. He was a journalist in Alton, IL in 1976, who after an hour long inteview with Ronald Reagan, went to work for Reagan as a staffer for both elections. He also worked as press secretary for two Republican members of Congress, Chief of Staff to a third and then Special Assistant to the Ranking Member of the House Space, Science and Technology Committee.

The story on his time with Reagan, shortened for his story on Reagan's death, is here, and his bio, at the same website, is at this page.

The questions for debate are -

1. If true, why hasn't anyone else reported this, even in the "liberal" press?

2. If true, would this change your mind on whether or not to vote for Bush for a second term?

3. If true, what problems would you forsee in this country, if Bush is elected again?

I can understand, even as I am alarmed. Everything's falling down around his head - Iraq still isn't under control, he can't travel out of the country without absolutely extraordinary security and meets protests everywhere he goes (500,000 in Italy), he's had to hire a lawyer for the Plame grand jury, the prison abuse scandal, Chalabi's collapse, 9-11 report due out, his poll numbers are still dropping like a rock and he's staring another one-term Bush presidency in the face.

For the first time in his entire life he's made a mess and nobody - not Daddy, not his friends, not his $200 million war chest, not Rove, not Cheney - nobody can fix it or get him out of it and make everything all right. A reaction like the one that article describes wouldn't be at all surprising. But it is scary.

As far as I am concerned, until this is substantiated, I am going to assume that it is untrue.

If it is true, it will become evident in public at some point. I sincerely hope it is not true, but just extreme partisan propaganda.

I would agree with you NiteGuy about it does seem to have truth in what has been happening. All you have to do is look at all the people that have left this administration and have come out against them. What was always the response? Attack them like you would attack your enemy. What seems so ironic is this administration has brought this all upon it self, for not excepting things that went wrong rather they think they never do wrong and if anything is done wrong it is by someone else that is out to get them............. like the liberal bogeymen. Frankly I hate to say it but what goes around comes around, unfortunately they can't blame a democratic congress on all these investigations they did it to them selves.

Even when I heard about Tenet I thought that their was something behind it, not saying I believe in this article but all the information out their about how Tenet was against Chaliby and several neocons going to Rice last week to speak how great Chaliby is and should not be let go. Speaks volumes for me on a all of a sudden resignation a week after that meeting.

And that's the problem. An article such as this one immediately polarizes without giving any evidence that what the writer says is true. Not a good idea.

Edited to add: When the Fourth Estate determined not to reveal its sources in order to protect them, it not only made it possible to divulge truth anonymously; it also made it possible to anonymously spread rumors.

1. If true, why hasn't anyone else reported this, even in the "liberal" press?

I saw this same article two days ago here;

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publ...icle_4636.shtml


2. If true, would this change your mind on whether or not to vote for Bush for a second term?

I'm not really qualified to answer this since I'm not American nor would I ever vote for either Bush or Kerry.


3. If true, what problems would you forsee in this country, if Bush is elected again?

More of the same I suppose.

I can imagine the US and world economies will chug along as usual, but that Bush will take re election as validation of his extravagant military spending and will sign into existence the SDI and missile defence systems the hawks in Washington have long dreamed of.

Also, the fight against terrorism will never end. A whole lot of people will die and the Bush administration will continue despite every indication of failure. Various hearings and investigations will bring in their verdicts against the various crimes and human rights violations we have seen so far and it will make no difference.

If re-elected, Bush and his deputies will never stop and neither will their 'war'.

I don't see anything close here to a psychological breakdown being proven or effectively argued.

Our president has engaged in his affairs in a fairly secretive manner and I htink that is being refelected in this article. That is an issue which should be wrestled with by the electorate.

But I don't see any evidence to turn this issue from being one of operating in a close to the vest, my way or the highway style into being an issue that clinicaly questions the presents sanity.

I think if Bush is reelected we will see four more years of the same type of relative secrecy and a continued period of animosity toward the press.

I'm not one to dis' a source because I think its a weak debating tactic, hoooowever, has anyone here checked out Capitol Hill Blue?

Here's a couple of quotes from the FAQ page:



I don't believe this story. I think it is either made up as satire or for vengfulness. There is no way we wouldn't have heard about this from a legitimate source. The story didn't even give the name of one person - they only listed "aides".

There are too many things in this article that could be easily debunked, however, with regard to Bush's treatment of others, the stories we do hear are the exact opposite of what this writer has described.

After reading this I could see why he might be a bit on the edge ,or I should say holding on by his fingertips. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...06/ixworld.html Why hold back this information unless the war was a lie. More good news ,you and I are paying for Iraq's civilians gas, But thats o.k some lucky company is making millions from it. I misunderstood when someone said Iraq's oil will pay for the war, I didn't think it meant higher prices inflicted on us would be the way. I wonder now if ross perot was president if all of the middle east would be occupied. I don't think our oil minister has gone over the edge YET. Sorry I mean president. So no to the article for now.

1.)I believe that the media knows about these things more than they would like to admit. People who have close contact with the president-secret service agents, white house employees, and cabinet officials know them a lot better than the rest of us do. Every president has had their problems, and I believe that it doesn't get covered because no one cares about presidential temper-tantrums, very minor events. I read a book a few years back about Hillary throwing items at Bill, Nancy Reagan yelling at a secret service agent for fending off a prized dog, as well as other amusing observations of Nixon and Johnson.

2.)I didn't plan on voting for him anyways, so it really doesn't affect me that much. It does however, confirm my suspicion that he thinks he's some modern day Joan of Arc-on a mission from God. I just loved the "blues brother" comparison cited in the article about white house nicknaming Ashcroft and Bush after the famous blues duo.

3.)This administration prides itself in what they don't do. They don't read newspapers, talk with people who disagree with them, keep cabinet officials who aren't "echoing" the line that they want to hear, and they don't let little things like facts get in their way.

We should give Bush some credit though-think of his job. He has one of the most stressful jobs in the entire free world. Even as pigheaded and irrational his policies are, it's still a grinding job. We shouldn't be shocked at his use of vulgarity or explosions of rage at aides-everyone else would too if they had to deal with what he does on a daily basis.

Actually Beladonna if you actually gave more information or looked for yourself you could see that they ex-newspaper and some current news people.

Who, or what, is Capitol Hill Blue?



Doug Thompson



Just like Nebraska and even the FAQ's that you must have skimmed over show them posting articles that other newsoutlets don't have the guts to report. Now I am not saying this is an accurate story, but rather you can not discredit out right, because with some of the stuff happening within the administration this is definitely plausible story.



Hmm wonder why Beladonna maybe because they are working within the WHITE HOUSE and there are stories all the time of anonymous source within the white house are we to discredit all those stories also? Like about the leak of CIA agent from someone within the white house which Robert Novak quoted as being told from white house sources. I don't think Mr. Novak is working for the Democrats so do you believe his story that white house sources told him of about the CIA agent name? Give me a break Beladonna just because a story does not give a name but only listed them as aides within the white house does not make this story discredited. Or how about Watergate no one was ever named their just someone by the name of deep throat, guess I will be looking in the yellow pages for someone by the name of deep throat.

1. If true, why hasn't anyone else reported this, even in the "liberal" press?

Has it even gotten distribution beyond this page?



If it is indeed not just made up, did it come from a wire service or from "whoever can get to the keyboard on a given day"? I think that if it came from a wire, someone like The Nation, TomPaine.com, Slate, or someone else would have just latched onto this. The only thing is: they didn't. This leads me to believe that it was gleaned from those who "still work for the newspapers or who are retired". I'm just judging from their FAQ page that they don't exactly have the credibility of the aforementioned news media. Perhaps this does have some basis in fact, but if I were an editor at a reputable news medium, I wouldn't pick this story up.

2. If true, would this change your mind on whether or not to vote for Bush for a second term?

Well, maybe this question would hold more validity if I could vote. But allow me to rephrase the question as follows:

2. If true, would this change your mind on whether or not to support Bush for a second term?

No, absolutely not. I made my decision not to support Bush about three weeks into his administration. I gave him a chance, and he just didn't cut it.

3. If true, what problems would you foresee in this country, if Bush is elected again?

Ha! You're kidding me... is there some sort of word limit on these posts? Let me address this question as it relates to the issue, and not to the broad question of "What problems will the country have if Bush gets another four years?" I think that, to some degree, these sort of outbursts should probably be expected. I'd probably curse like a sailor if I was under that much stress, too. It's really frightening that he chooses to label people who disagree with him as being "un-American" and such. Perhaps this is just an overall representation of the feelings of the administration in general. A bit of the good ol' L'état c'est moi! But, I think the dismissal of those who simply disagree with him or fail to hold to his ideal of rabid loyalty is indicative of the secrecy and tight discipline that is simply unhealthy for the administration and this country.

Please cite an example of George W Bush labeling someone Un-American.

As for this story, I am skeptical of this site, just like I'm skeptical of most of the other not-quite-news sites, whatever their politics. It doesn't appear to be quite on par with real news to me. I'm not willing to answer questions on 'if true' what would it would mean based on that IF.

I provided a link to the Capitol Hill Blue in my post. I am not sure what further information I could have "actually gave", but I obviously looked for myself, Cadman. As I stated in that post, I rarely dispute a source - I think it's a lazy tactic in debate - but this one smells.

.

I didn't skim over the FAQs. I read them all.



I have a little motto, if they can't site the sources, be leary of the subject, especially stories like this one.

what convinces me that this is very likly true is this story




who do we have to worry about launching nukes at us that we would need to instantly launch ours back? this makes me think bush is paranoid china or russia or somebody else might nuke us. the idea of the nuclear "football" was thought up during JFK's presidency, when nukes sat 90 miles off our shores and an instant response may have been needed.



now, I wouldn't call it paranoid if the marine major was sitting outside the vatican in an SUV or something, but right in the next room? and I would bet bush thought THAT was too far away, but comprimised with the pope.

also the whole doctrine of preemptive war smacks of paranoia. "we need to get them before they get us, which if we don't they WILL attack us" kind of thing. if he isn't paranoid, his advisors are. that worries me. what happens when bush (or whoever) becomes convinced that the only way to keep N. korea (or anyone) from using WMD (esp. nukes) on us, is to get them first?

On the local scene, the Clear Channel country radio station I used to listen to, is so supportive of President Bush's remarks about The Dixie Chicks, that they still refuse to air their music.


1. If true, why hasn't anyone else reported this, even in the "liberal" press?

PE and I looked at this story, and our first reactions were:

Is there any credibility to the source?

Can we verify this story from another source?

We're retirees with no financial assets or particular credibility that we need to protect to stay in business. If I was the editor of a newspaper sold in every city in the state, I might assign a reporter to look into the story, but I wouldn't risk the newspaper's credibility and assets by publishing such a story if I couldn't back it up in court. The legend is that it was a lawyer from Philadelphia who argued that it wasn't libel if it could be proven to be true. Until that court decision was made, a newspaper could be sued for libel every time it could be shown, that what they published damaged someone's reputation. There may yet be a story here, and it may be published by a legitimate newspaper, liberal or conservative; but I don't see it reaching wide syndication until it can be proven. That may not be possible until GWB has left office.

2. If true, would this change your mind on whether or not to vote for Bush for a second term?

After an absence of nearly thirty years, George W. Bush has already caused me to plunk down the cash to join the Democratic Party. I don't need rumors or allegations, it is hard enough to watch his ads as he shakes his head left to right while saying, "I believe in the American people." His "body language" is so transparent, that for the first time in my life, I am beginning to learn what is meant by the phrase.


Earlier on Saturday, the day that Former President Ronald Reagan died, President George W. Bush was speaking in France. Prior to his speech, an author was speaking on "The Brainwashing of America." He argued that, "The Liberals in college learn to listen to the Professor, parrot back the message, and get an A. They don't learn to think." The ensuing live coverage of the President's speech on CNN left me with the feeling that a sound technician had intentionally sabotaged Bush. (The later excerpts, on CNN at least, were edited; and the news of Reagan's death brought an abrupt end to the coverage of that speech.) Looking away from the French President, and straight at the camera, we listened as first the Public Address system made a statement, and then President Bush echoed it. Eventually, he removed the earphone he was wearing and set it down. It became very evident that reading a TelePrompTer is too much effort for this President. When I gave up listening however, was when they got to the end of his "prepared remarks." "Mr. Engel," he was prompted, and he called on Mr. Engel. A question was then read to Mr. Engel over the PA system, and Mr. Engel duly parroted it back to the President. The President's response was then read to the President, who then repeated the prepared response to the prepared question as well as he could. A few times during the speech, the President was unable to keep up with the oral prompter.

3. If true, what problems would you foresee in this country, if Bush is elected again?

If Bush is elected again, I can only foresee more of the problems he has already created.

Compulsory military service for every adult 18 - 26 years old. See Should women be required to register for a possible draft?

The loss of International respect for this country. His administration has already referred to the Geneva Conventions as "quaint." A heated debate between Senator Joseph Biden, and Attorney General John Ashcroft was excerpted on CNN. (Expanded story here) Is prisoner abuse a standard policy of this administration? How many ways can an attorney say, "I'm pleading the Fifth Amendment for my client."?

In the past, in periods of national mourning, Presidents have gotten up before the cameras and told us how long to fly the flag at half staff. Former Republican President Ronald Reagan, who Bush's supporters would have us believe was George's role model. died over three days ago, and I have yet to hear even an acknowledgment of that fact from "President" Bush. On Monday, we were noticing that many businesses had not yet lowered their flags to half staff. They have grown so accustomed to public buildings in the state lowering a flag to half staff every time that a Michigan soldier dies, that they likely ignored the flags at half staff as "routine." But it gives me reason to worry if businessmen are not only too busy to read a newspaper, but too busy to watch television over the weekend. It wasn't like you had to turn to a news channel to hear of Reagan's death...

We have seen a general paranoia growing in this country as our rights as Americans slip away. Five years ago, I could walk into the Credit Union I joined in 1966, reach a quick verbal agreement on terms of a loan, have it approved, sign for it, and leave with the money in my account in 2 or 3 minutes. Purchasing a new car was a little more complex, they had to read over the paperwork from the dealership and reach a conclusion that I had received a fair trade-in value for my old car, and call my Insurance company to get a proof of Insurance forwarded to them. If I got there after about three in the afternoon, it could take overnight. The USA PATRIOT act requires that the Federal Government is now involved in that process, and they need a photo ID. I've dealt with my Credit Union for 38 years. Loan officers have known from personal experience where I live, work, shop, and worship, but that is no longer an adequate identification. I might be a member of Al Quaeda, the Michigan Militia, or the Democratic Party. A (nosy, prying) inquiring government has a need to know...

Or as another poster said in response to this question:

Bush is doing what every president since JFK has done, so he must be paranoid. That seems to be stretching it to me, but at least he hasn't left it lying around recently. Clinton drops nuclear football
BBC News Monday, April 26, 1999 Published at 06:49 GMT 07:49 UK
Every president travels with this thing.
The Nuclear Football


Please cite an example of George W Bush labeling someone Un-American.

Curmudgeon



I'm not sure how much its related but you may find this article of some interest with regards to Aschroft and 'torture'...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,...1230539,00.html

TennesseeLeftWinger said: It's really frightening that he chooses to label people who disagree with him as being "un-American" and such.

carlitoswhey said: Please cite an example of George W Bush labeling someone Un-American.

Curmedgeon said: On the local scene, the Clear Channel country radio station I used to listen to, is so supportive of President Bush's remarks about The Dixie Chicks, that they still refuse to air their music.

Did you mean this to be an example of GW labeling someone unAmerican? Radio stations are privately owned and as such can play or ban any music they please.

Curmedgeon said: Earlier on Saturday, the day that Former President Ronald Reagan died, President George W. Bush was speaking in France. Prior to his speech, an author was speaking on "The Brainwashing of America." He argued that, "The Liberals in college learn to listen to the Professor, parrot back the message, and get an A. They don't learn to think." The ensuing live coverage of the President's speech on CNN left me with the feeling that a sound technician had intentionally sabotaged Bush. (The later excerpts, on CNN at least, were edited; and the news of Reagan's death brought an abrupt end to the coverage of that speech.) Looking away from the French President, and straight at the camera, we listened as first the Public Address system made a statement, and then President Bush echoed it. Eventually, he removed the earphone he was wearing and set it down. It became very evident that reading a TelePrompTer is too much effort for this President. When I gave up listening however, was when they got to the end of his "prepared remarks." "Mr. Engel," he was prompted, and he called on Mr. Engel. A question was then read to Mr. Engel over the PA system, and Mr. Engel duly parroted it back to the President. The President's response was then read to the President, who then repeated the prepared response to the prepared question as well as he could. A few times during the speech, the President was unable to keep up with the oral prompter.

Curmedgeon, what you saw and heard was the result of sound traveling faster than picture or something to that effect. I know I am not explaining this very well so maybe someone else can give it a shot. Mr. Engel wasn't being given a question. That was his voice you heard twice. It was the US President's voice you heard twice. It was the French President's voice you heard twice. The sound was taveling through the airwaves faster than the picture and then repeating itself.

Curmedgeon said: In the past, in periods of national mourning, Presidents have gotten up before the cameras and told us how long to fly the flag at half staff. Former Republican President Ronald Reagan, who Bush's supporters would have us believe was George's role model. died over three days ago, and I have yet to hear even an acknowledgment of that fact from "President" Bush.

I am perhaps too young and a President's death is so few and far between so I am not aware that telling US citizens how long to fly their flags at half staff is protocol. Bush did in fact make a statement that was aired immediately - within minutes of Reagan's death.

As a former television satellite transmission engineer I can tell you that Bella is kind of correct here. This was a screwup in the master control room and it happens from time to time. Occaisionally you might see a television reporter pulling their earplug out of their ear in the middle of a broadcast? That's a sign that something called the "Mix-minus" has been messed up on their IFB. The IFB is the way people communicate back and forth on a one way transmission, and it goes over the phone lines as opposed to over the satellite and it has a different delay. Mix minus takes the signal returning over the satellite and subtracts it from the rest of the audio broadcast signal that goes out on the IFB so the person listening doesn't get an echo. If it gets messed up what happens is that the Reporter will say something like, "Hello, Ted, this is David Wright in Los Angeles" and 2 seconds later David will hear that over his IFB like an echo. Drives people nuts when that happens. So, no conspiracy here, just a technical glitch.




The flags over the White House and Congress was lowered almost immediately. President Bush issued within an hour or so an official proclamation lowering the flag at all US government installations for a period of 30 days which is the maximum period traditionally used for the death of a President.

I must admit I remember hearing about this story, and can understand the reporter's frustration. As someone who has traveled extensively for my employer though... Can she not place ANY blame on the newspaper that sent her to America without knowing about the new visa requirements? If they were printed on the form, surely these changes were announced to major foreign press? Just a thought - I would be furious at my employer if this were me.

Aside from the fact that it's a dumb law

carlitoswhey



Perhaps, I don't know whether or not the newspaper is too blame since I don't know whether or not the change was announced. I get the impression that it was not announced, but I really don't know.

However, what strikes me as significant about this woman's tale is how a journalist was treated for a what really amounts to nothing more than a mistake. If this is how the domestic US security forces are interpreting the message from above, then just how far amplified is that message in a stressful combat zone half way around the globe?

People interpret what they hear in different ways, and it seems to me that this story, if its true, indicates that many people have interpreted the message from Bush and Ashcroft in a very hard and agressive way. Given the ambiguity of the Bush administrations stance on such things as the Geneva convention and human rights, then is it any surprise that we see prisoners being raped and tortured in Iraq at the same time as a journalist is being kept in such discomfort for filling out a form incorrectly?

I don't know if Bush is breaking down or not. Personally I don't think he is. I think he has deliberatly fostered a culture of fear and paranoia to get what he wants.




Yes... we have lots of those

Wow! As scary as this sounds, it seems to jive with what is happening in the Bush administration.

1. If true, why hasn't anyone else reported this, even in the "liberal" press?

Well there is a lot of very current information mentioned in the article. Time will tell how this story unfolds, and who will tell it.


2. If true, would this change your mind on whether or not to vote for Bush for a second term?

No. I had no plans to vote for him, and this does not change my mind.

3. If true, what problems would you foresee in this country, if Bush is elected again?

N/A