What is the worst thing you have ever done? Did you flagrantly violate the law? Directly or indirectly cause physical harm to someone? Knowingly lie and engage in acts of deception? Betray the trust of others? Allow yourself to be blinded by stubborn pride? What?
Whatever you may have done, it can only pale in comparison to the offenses of President Bush, who has done all of the above and more. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine King George making any more of a royal mess of things. His ill-advised, ill-managed, and ill-fated foray into Iraq has caused immeasurable harm. The cost in human lives, in dollars, in national credibility and security is staggering. How must it feel to have screwed up in such a monumental fashion? And to be confronted with the enormous error of your ways? Can you imagine?
The human psyche, like the patience and understanding of the electorate, has its limits. Pushed to the brink of what is tolerable, the mind engages in defensive maneuvers to protect itself. A soldier who is confronted with the horrors of war may seek to emotionally disconnect from such or repress the memories of what he has seen and experienced or deny the occurrence of events. An individual who is confronted with less extreme but no less intolerable horrors will respond similarly. When someone is unable to fully accept or integrate certain life experiences—because to do so would unleash a potentially devastating flood of anxiety or shame or despair—they will utilize whatever defenses they have at their disposal to keep their psyche from drowning. This is what George W. Bush appears to be doing currently.
How could any person—particularly one as persistently coddled, developmentally arrested, and intellectually unsophisticated as Mr. Bush—manage to confront the terrible reality of what he has done? Whatever his intentions, by invading and destabilizing Iraq he has caused a tragedy of historic proportions. And, ironically, like the lead character in a tragedy, he remains oblivious to the impact and likely outcome of his actions. He cannot accept such. Instead, he defends himself, desperately, as Mr. Bush did again yesterday in a press conference. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, he asserted that “the reinforcements we’ve sent to Baghdad are having a impact” and then insisted: “I believe not only can we succeed, I know we must succeed.” Indeed, he must succeed, lest confirmation of the tragic error of his ways overlap the brittle levees of his psyche. And so Mr. Bush remains in denial, unable or unwilling to manage the growing tide of evidence and opinion that has turned against him. Until the time arrives that he is better equipped to confront reality, he will continue to strenuously defend his actions—and to be defended against his actions. There’s the rub.
Kmareka.com 
Issues are interesting if they are of substance and dealt with as such. However, conceit and smugness are poor excuses for discussion. Although I am no fan of politics or politicians, I find it amazing that those who have never held public office, for good or ill; never served for not one, but two Presidential terms, dealt with more diverse issues in one hour than anyone else in the nation confronts in a lifetime, are so esasily given to use insulting and demeaning language. It also strikes me that during the last campaign, Mr. Bush is held to be less intellectually gifted than Mr. Kerry, yet apparently Mr. Bush had a higher GPA than Mr, Kerry at Yale. It is ironic that much the same nonsense befell President Truman (he never went to college) and ironically President Reagan (certainly the opposite end of the political spectrum). The reality is that leaders make choices for all kinds of reasons. Some are good and some are bad, but they need to be made. Mr. Bush’s errors were based on the same misinformation available to the entire world and viewed as accurate by the world. The same information was available to Mr. Clinton and viewed as being accurate. They were all misinformed. Mr, Clinton took half-hearted actions; Mr. Bush went the whole 9 yards. In their own way, they were both wrong. Mr. Clinton could have nailed Osama, he did not. Mr. Bush could have as well, but was diverted by Iraq. It seems to me, responsible writing would even out the blame, and resorting to silly arguments about intelligence, is a position of weakness. Quite frankly, I find Mr. Gore to be less than “intelligent” and Mr. Kerry is not the brightest light in the shop…gee, his GPA was lower than that of the President.
Mr Wolberg, I protest. Check the credentials after Mr Jaffe’s name. He is a licensed mental health professional; making assessments of personality types is his job. That being the case, I find your dismissal to be the true example of “conceit and smugness.”
Secondly, to equate GPA with intelligence–as you do–is simply foolish. No further comment is required.
Third, Mr Clinton may have had the same information as Mr Bush, but Mr Clinton wasn’t so foolhardy as to invade Iraq, was he? It was Mr Bush who displayed the bad judgment. Plus, it has been shown, time and again, that Mr Bush withheld crucial information from Congress when it was time to “debate” the invasion, so to say “they all” had the same misinformation is simply false.
As for Mr Gore, I suggest you read the speech he gave in the fall of 2002, months before the first shot was fired in Iraq. In that speech, Mr Gore anticipated most of the problems that we have encountered. And he did this two years out of office, without the vast apparatus of the intelligence community at his beck and call. Again, Mr Bush had the advantages, Mr Gore knew what Mr Clinton knew, and which of them decided to invade?
As for Mr Clinton’s “half-hearted” actions, even those evoked a fury of protest from the Republicans, who claimed that the minimal retaliation for the embassy bombings was “wagging the dog.” If you recall, the Republicans were in the middle of impeachment proceedings, and couldn’t be bothered to give any attention to matters of real import.
And it wasn’t Mr Clinton who was given the brief stating “bin Laden determined to strike in the US.” And it wasn’t the Clinton administration that cut the FBI’s anti-terrorist budget–on 9/10, 2001.
The Bush administration did this despite the warnings that the departing Clinton administration tried to pass along to Mr Bush & co. But Mr Bush was more interested in Iraq. They held meetings about that in January; they didn’t try to schedule a meeting on terrorism until–you guessed it–September, 2001.
And, btw, Mr Bush is now providing support to a group affiliated with Al Qaida that is attempting to undermine the Iranian gov’t. That makes Mr Bush a state-sponsor of terrorism. Just as Mr Reagan was when he funded Osama bin Laden–and Saddam Hussein–in the 1980s
“Responsible writing” does NOT even out the blame. It weighs evidence, and assigns blame, in varying degree, to the parties that are most blameworthy. That is a basic principle of law. The person who pulled the trigger is usually the one considered most responsible.
Finally, no one–except you–called Mr Bush “unintelligent.” The term was “intellectually unsophisticated.” And, given the non-curiosity Mr Bush has shown about so many topics, given his adamant refusal to re-think his positions in light of new evidence, and his insistence on seeing everything in black-and-white strong evidence that Mr Jaffe’s assessment is pretty much accurate.
Mr Bush will be treated harshly by history, and so will all those who continued to make apologies for him.