Comments for George W. Bush

Material posted here is intended for educational purposes only, and must not be considered a substitute for informed advice from your own health care provider.

Courtesy of Dr. Irene Matiatos   Copyright© 1998-2001. The material on this website may be distributed freely for non-commercial or educational purposes provided that author credit is given. For commercial distribution, please contact the author at Doc@drirene.com

B1: Submit

S1

Trubble

I vote you for president. You're cute and cuddly and I bet you would never give a long boring speech like those human critters. Good choice! Love, *Trubble*

Maybe us humans need to know that there are other creatures just as important as us. Besides, our human issues are getting way too complicated and out of hand.

Trubble for prez! :)

Asha

p.s. what about the other 50% of time when Trubble isn't a "top aid". Would that be reserved for trout fishing? Actually no. Trubble spends the rest of his time helping me with the site and posing for pix. He relies on the fresh Trout and fresh Salmon contributions (flash-frozen) his supporters send in.

B1: Submit

S1

Ummm, uhhh, welll, let's see......oh I know! Lets all read Kadie's new book " A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing...How to spot a predator" and then have this discussion....... :o)....and this is from a non-political person I might add. They all talk good......and they aren't stupid people. Sure they are spiritual......but aren't wolves in sheep's clothing wooly?? Just very leery here..... 

Laura    I think Laura you have expressed the unfortunate state of the majority of people: an inability to see through the facade. Call me overconfident, presumptuous, whatever you want. I saw through Clinton instantly (and his wife, more recently). Prior to the primaries, having little familiarity with the players, I was largely anti-Bush. After the primaries, as Gore fully revealed who he is, I shuddered - and reluctantly defaulted to Bush. (My quick take on Gore: A self-righteous type, doing the "right" thing, but not really because he is not centered. The  self-righteousness is the facade cloaking his egomania.) Seeing George W. in action changed my mind.  I am certain we are in good hands with this man, and am willing to go on record. I am not saying he won't make mistakes or that I necessarily agree with his views. I am saying I believe this is a principled and internally-connected man who will not sell out. Once again, my assessments are purely about the man, not the ideology. As far as I am concerned, the man is the important variable, the views, politics, etc. are secondary.

B1: Submit

S1

"I venture to say that our new President personifies that which I talk about becoming on this site." Really? How horrifying. Except for the Stepford Wives. He is the antithesis of what I would want for my daughters, friends, sisters. And so is Bill Clinton. "Spiritually evolved"?  Cringe.    I'd be interested in hearing why it is that you feel this way.

B1: Submit

S1

As I understand politics, if Trubble is the top aide then he is really the one who is running the country. Send Trubble to the UK and let him loose in our parliament question time. Then we will see what Bush is made of. Actually he is an improvement on that Clinton guy, but as I don't want to follow any man. I will settle for Trubble as my role model.  Yay! Love, *Trubble*

As for moral leadership? Too early to tell.

Jay

B1: Submit

S1

Thank you, Thank you. . .Thank you. You expressed my sentiments exactly, about Bill Clinton and about our new President "George W.". I truly thank God that we may be able to restore decency and honor to the Presidency and hopefully it will seep out into the rest of the country. President Bush has chosen a strong cabinet of strong people because he is secure with himself, and will value the judgment of others and doesn't need to surround himself with "Yes men". Furthermore I believe Mrs. Bush will again bring dignity to the Whitehouse as did the former Mrs. Bush and Jackie Kennedy.  

B1: Submit

S1

Bill Clinton always reminded me of a little boy caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The little boy might be very bright, but that's beside the point. He is only interested in the moment. George W. - on the other hand- comes across as a man. A man who has faltered in the past, but owns up to his mistakes and has become stronger- not someone who tries to justify and excuse everything ( example from Clinton's behavior- finger pointing in our face- "I did not have sex with that woman!!") George W. has character. He's not a 'character'. Nice!

As for being a Christian- a 'true' Christian as your husband says has a relationship with God, not religion. Just because you go to church doesn't make you a true Christian. Some of the most amoral people are 'church-going Christians'- I think in part because they can excuse their behavior by saying, "I go to church!". Clinton used Christianity as a front while George W. seems to hold it up as his standard.

I do hope the days of patriotism and being proud of our country and president are back. I hope that George W.'s sense of ethics can hold up in a city that is know to chew up the moral fiber of men and spit it out and that Laura can remain strong as well. He has asked publicly that we pray for him and I shall. Thank you.

B1: Submit

S1

Hmm.. My immediate response to your heartfelt, yet naive editorial about George W. Bush is one of astonishment. From a purely religious standpoint, George W. Bush as "Buddha"? Please study up on your Eastern Religion. Bush made a well-publicized comment heard through the public address system at a school event this summer? He described a journalist as a "major league #$%^*" Is that the talk of a spiritually evolved human being? Buddha would never talk that way about another living thing. (How would you know?) Maybe Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell.. that must be who you were thinking of.  Nope. You just have to read the site and the Buddha board to understand that I use "Buddha" as a metaphor to denote an individual who is imperfectly human yet self-correcting, grounded in the Self and not inclined to sell the Self out for immediate gain. 

B1: Submit

S1

I think your editorial is political. I don't agree with most of what you said. I believe you are a Republican. I happen to be a Democrat. I'm not saying that that Bill Clinton is the most wonderful President we have ever had, but I don't trust George W. either. In this case I believe you have let subjective thinking lead into a political analysis. Besides, how can you truly analyze any person without meeting them? That was your response to an email about my brother.  I could list several behaviors and yet you said you couldn't analyze. You only "know" George W from what you hear in the news. I have found this site to be very helpful. However, this editorial is great disappointment to me. It is obvious you voted for Bush, but he wasn't running against Clinton. He ran against Gore. Where is your analysis of Gore? Self righteous, rigid, and arrogant. I view Gore as a deeper thinker and much more ethical that Bush. I really hope we can stay away from the politics on this site. That's is my opinion, thanks for asking. Sis Oh boy, are you mad! The politics are not the focus of the article; the focus is on how I perceive the integrity and "wholeness" of the players. I draw judgments from having read behavior reported by different sources over time and draw conclusions on level of moral development, ethics, personality style, etc. This is not a diagnosis nor a clinical assessment. This is my opinion of how seated these people are in the Self.  I cannot provide info about your brother because as a single source of information, your questions are more a function of you than of your brother. By understanding the difficulty you have dealing with a given individual, I can propose solutions for you to try and can make general comments about the other person. I cannot analyze an individual I haven't met or corresponded with.  

B1: Submit

S1

I agree! While I did my share of chuckling over the misadventures of our former Pres, I was also mighty embarrassed! And I am disgusted at how he --and Hillary who I used to admire--seem to be able to evade any responsibility for their shady dealings. Their innocent act when confronted about the unethical pardons is disgusting. Evidently these people have a grandiose sense of entitlement, and the belief that the rules don't apply to them.

I think it's time we get back to some "rules" and, as you point out, ethics. Even if I don't agree with him on all things, at least it seems I can trust him to be guided by a true desire to do what is right. The next four years will tell...... .

Go Dubya!!

Becky

Trubble, I hope Socks the cat didn't leave any messes behind! No. They left Socks here, if you can believe it. We're grand buddies. Love Trubble

B1: Submit

S1

Oh my! I have to disagree with this editorial. It is the first time I have disagreed with you, but I do disagree strongly with this. First, I know you said this is not about politics. But I disagree with you that the man is more important than what his particular views are. You are certainly entitled to. On issues such as the environment I feel this man's views are nothing short of dangerous. I feel the same way about a lot of his other views. Clinton, on the other hand, was is clearly a bad apple as a MAN, but as a President, he did a good job in many ways. Though I have to agree he certainly would have done a MUCH better job had he not been such a limited human being.

I have no idea what the depth of Bush's character is. I know that I do not personally sense any depth at all, but I have tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on that because I do not know him. He could simply be an awkward man. But that is the most I can say for him. I can tell you that my FEELING about him is that he is immature and smug. The famous smirk bugs me, and I think it says alot about him. I took his discussion, or rather his refusal to discuss, his youthful misbehavior, as arrogance, and as a sign that he is shrewd. But, he did discuss it. Once. I also cannot agree that Dick Cheney or Ashcroft are the best minds in the country at this point. They may be among the most closed minds in this country, in fact, based on their records.

Regardless of our disagreement on this, I LOVE your site, and have benefited enormously from it. I can truly say it has changed my life, and I am grateful to you for that. Maggie Thank you Maggie. I respect your opinions and thank you for writing. Why? You come from a place of reason and modulated emotion. You have not made the too common mistake of allowing yourself to be ruled by impulse and emotion. Here's a lesson gang: Maggie, whether or not she was inflamed at reading my editorial, "sat on it" long enough to express her disagreement well.

B1: Submit

S1

Hmm..."youthful misbehavior"...some of it QUITE serious, in my eyes.

That whole drunk driving conviction really bothered me, for instance. Now, admittedly, having lost a close family friend in that way, the issue is very close to my heart. But still. It's not that I don't believe in his ability to change, or that I think he'd do it again, but his past doesn't say wonderful things about his character. And as far as spiritual evolution goes, IMHO, when you consider the circumstances Clinton started in and what he's managed to do with them, and consider the same for Bush Junior, a lot of people would come to the opposite conclusion from Dr. Irene's. And I'm definitely one of them.

Then again, I'm also very fed up at the moment with the American tradition of anti-intellectualism, and Bush's election is a PRIME example of that. We live in a society that seems to consider it too much to expect schoolchildren to use the brains they were born with, unnecessary to make it possible for the William Jefferson Blythes of the world to ever rise above the circumstances of their birth (while all the while loudly proclaiming that anyone who makes the effort can do it!), and perfectly logical to replace funding for education with funding for incarceration. (In my state, at a nearly 1:1 ratio, money was drained from our public university system and reallocated to build prisons....) Ouchhh!

I'm not a Friend of Bill's, either, so don't be deceived. I've actually voted for Ralph Nader in both of the Presidential elections since I turned 18. *shrug* But when I "see through" Clinton, I see someone who is flawed, in ways I don't particularly care for, but who has done an amazing job given where he started from and honestly WANTS to help others do likewise, by listening and honestly hearing their concerns if nothing else. Yes, I agree that he wants to help others; needs to be liked and admired. Not a bad guy, just a guy who does bad things when he sells the Self out... When I "see through" Bush, I see someone who has overcome personal flaws, again ones that I don't much like, but who *doesn't* want to help others do the same beyond saying "See, if I can do it, so can you!" And I don't like that. At all. 

Astrid, who has probably said way too much... Not at all Astrid. Thank you for your opinion.

B1: Submit

S1

http://www.georgebush2000.com/

B1: Submit

S1

I must say I wholly agree w/ sis, Maggie, and Astrid, above. I see this editorial as an abdication of professional responsibility. Many will vehemently disagree with the good doctor's political opinions, and I think she harms her credibility as a psychologist by airing them here. 

The APA Code of Ethics stipulates that "Psychologists rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making scientific or professional judgments or when engaging in scholarly or professional endeavors."

See: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code.html#Principle C

This is sloppy work, Dr. Irene. In this editorial you're using your platform as a bully pulpit. How can you meaningfully separate out the character of a politician from the platform he runs on? Wasn't that the core concern with Ashcroft's nomination?

Over the course of the past year, I have found this to be a terrific site. It works because posters respect a common set of guidelines concerning a) subject matter and b) restraint and courtesy in presenting one's view.

Now it looks like a Republican booster site. As Dr. Irene would say, "ouuch", or possibly, "yuk".

Dr Irene wrote, <<I am writing about George W. because his ethical behavior, including his decision not to pursue the White House damage matter, *belie* his rational and balanced underlying thinking and motivation.>> Dr Irene: the word 'belie' means 'show to be false'. What are you saying here?

She additionally wrote, <<I venture to say that our new President personifies that which I talk about becoming on this site.>> What a terrifying thought. If that's the case, I'm outta here.

Best regards from another Doc (Ph.D. History).

Oh boy, another angry person! This is an editorial Doc, by definition an opinion. The high level of your anger over an editorial makes me wonder what you're really angry at...

B1: Submit

S1

Usually don't comment on these things but I am sick of the selective memory of the United States. Does anyone remember Iran-contra? Does anyone remember the Savings & Loan Bail out. Regan and George Bush both lied and W was a part of failed business ventures that directly benefited from some of these policies.

I agree that Clinton did something wrong in lying, but in the over all picture of the world I don't care if he had sex; it was none of my business, or anyone else's. Do you care about pardoning drug dealers and thiefs? I resent that millions of dollars were spent on special investigators. Do you resent the millions of dollars we are going to spend on the post-Office goodies of a (young) former President - who perhaps should have lost those privileges in impeachment? Think what that money could have been used for. Yes, think. I do care when a President(s) condones arms sales and turns a blind eye to drug trafficking and uses the money to fund further killing by our so-called allies. Monica is alive and well in California, thousands of Nicaraguarian men, women and children are not. CAT  Thanks CAT. 

B1: Submit

S1

Hi All,

Isn't an "editorial" supposed to represent the opinions of the editor in a newspaper, as distinct from new items? Opinions don't have to be scientific or scholarly. 

Ziggy

ps Would the History-Doc be a friend of Voice in the Desert?  

B1: Submit

S1

Dear Doc (PhD History)

As a human being Dr Irene can use and express any viewpoint she wishes.

As another human being (actually I vote for the green party every time in the UK elections but am also a Christian (born again). I can have whatever opinion I want.  

I think Dr Irene had a reason other than Bush administration for her post. (Yeah! The real inside scoop is that FakeMommyDoc is on Georgie's payoff list. He's already preparing her pardon! Love, *Me*

Note the discussion. Dr Irene starts with a conversation with her husband. The two of them disagree. "I countered"...seems like a good way of disagreeing without getting to think all disagreements are an argument. So here she is a role model. 

Nobody could deny Clinton has done stuff he has admitted and been taken to court for -  and he also goes to church.

Dr Irene expressly says she actually disagrees with much of Bush's ideology but she is also able to make a decision to support him because compared to Clinton he comes across to her with integrity.

In fact, I think Dr Irene is more interested in how whatever leader you have acts as a person. He could be from the Disneyland party but if he was the one who presented with the most upright character he would get her vote no matter what his political beliefs were. That's exactly my point.

Moral integrity is more important than politics.

She contrasts Bush and Clinton NOT as political leaders. One acts in a self serving way and the other does not therefore the non self serving person is best fitted to run the country.

One takes responsibility for his actions. He does not justify them and the other justifies. With Clinton, to  me in the UK he always seemed sorry....BUT.  In other words he is not sorry at all.

In other words Dr Irene does say "the jury is still out." One is a healthy human being and the other is not.

The post is drawing our attention to what is involved in healthy non codependent, non abusive living.

Whatever it is I do not think that Dr Irene's motivation is political.

As another human being with a right to yet another point of view, I think the editorial may have been a mistake. I think that Dr Irene can make them just like the rest of us. The mistake was in posting any reference to a political issue. In doing so she laid herself open to just the 'slap on the wrists you give her.'

but:

"The APA Code of Ethics stipulates that "Psychologists rely on scientifically and professionally derived knowledge when making scientific or professional judgments or when engaging in scholarly or professional endeavors."

The whole point of the editorial was to bring our attention to what Dr Irene sees as an example of what she writes about on this site. In other words she points out a role model. She has used her professionally derived knowledge and is not unethical merely perhaps a little too brave.

Written from the city of dreaming spires from someone married to a doc (not medical) with a PHD ....(deleted).

(Now you will all know where I come from.) Jay I should have known. Thanks Jay. 

B1: Submit

S1

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with your assessment of President Bush. He strikes me as a being willing to do anything he has to in order to get what he wants (i.e., the smear campaign again John McCain in SC during the primaries) and I don't think he will unite our nation (i.e., appointing John Ashcroft as AG and Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior). I think much of his talk is pure rhetoric with little substance or follow through behind it.

Unfortunately, I don't believe honorable, thoughtful men such as John McCain or Bill Bradley stand a chance of being elected to our nation's highest office. Actually McCain was the guy I was originally rooting for. Bradley would have worked too. As a society, we are easily taken in by charm and flash, aka Bill Clinton. Men of integrity and thoughtful candor can't compete in an age of sound bites and 30 second images. We agree. Why Powell won't run. That's one of the reasons I was surprised to find myself thinking Bush was OK...

B1: Submit

S1

Jay wrote,

<<the whole point of the editorial was to bring our attention to what Dr Irene sees as an example of what she writes about on this site. In other words she points out a role model. She has used her professionally derived knowledge.>>

Jay, let me walk you through this. Assessing someone else's motivation and character is a fraught enterprise, as readers of this site know well.

When Dr. Irene suggests that we should all:

<<Think about Bill Clinton as “the abuser” who thinks he’s a victim, and George W. as “Buddah,” the healthy, spiritually-evolved Self>>

That's quite an assertion to make about a newbie president. If we are properly to contrast W. to <<his scandal-a-week predecessor>>, shouldn't we give W. at least a month in office before we rush to judgment? Scholarly responsibility would suggest so. One thing about FakeMommyDoc: she loves controversy! Trubble

To the poster who wonders whether "editorial" equals "opinion". Yes, you're right in a general way, but do you see that the context is important? Dr. Irene presumably wants to preserve therapeutic neutrality as far as possible. I do? A political editorial, on very shaky evidentiary grounds, delivered to readers on a professional psychology advice site in the argot of therapy, just doesn't make the grade. After the election?

Jay, I don't think you're in any way <<a slightly lesser mortal>> for not having completed graduate work. Dig dig dig! Ouchhh! This will sound harsh, but it's cheesy to poach on the authority of your husband's degree, whatever it is (the "dreaming spires" school doesn't give out Ph.D.s, but rather D. Phil.s, so I'm a little confused on that point). I have a doctorate from a fancy school too, y'know. I have a PhD from a not-so-fancy school. 

I'm offering criticism of Dr. Irene's editorial in a professional (though heartfelt) spirit. This site has helped me enormously. :) But I know that if I'd encountered the W. editorial when I first arrived here, I'd have run away. Then I'm real happy you didn't see it back then and am delighted you are using it to help yourself.   

To the poster who wants to know if I'm connected to the Desert person: no, I'm not. I'm just an aggrieved, recovering co-dependent who thinks that someone needs to scream a particular word in this thread, so I'll volunteer:

BOUNDARIES!!!   Heard! Are you so mad at me because I support your wife? Who is she? Am I wrong? Great! Tell me why. 

B1: Submit

S1

Dear Doctor of History,

I wrote tongue in cheek concerning qualifications. You were using yours. Really they were irrelevant to the discussion and that is why I wrote as I did. however I just checked and my husband does have a PHD (Oxford). I live in the UK. He is clear he is not D. Phil. but PHD in title. Oxford is known in the UK and to many Americans as 'the city of dreaming spires.'

The term "lesser mortal" was also tongue in cheek. I do not think I am a lesser mortal. If I wanted to,. I couldn't have got my own qualifications at what is known as Oxford University. I chose a vocational and not an academic path. There are two Universities in Oxford. On used to be called a Polytechnic but the government made all the Poly's into universities in the early 1990's or thereabouts.

I actually thought you were presumptuous to comment using your doctor title on another discipline.

I stand by my comments and do not need to be patronized by being 'walked through' anything.

It is O.K to disagree.

Personally I think Dr Irene used the role models she had at her disposal. I have worked in therapeutic settings and one thing I did learn is that words alone are for many people not enough. Role play is the best, as then people do see how they affect one another: but clearly that was out of the question here; so Dr Irene looked for role models that we even those of us not in America might be able to relate to. That was a second best and it had to do. I think Dr Irene was trying to make what she had to say visual and that was a pretty tall order. We have not all read the same books etc. The US presidents were the only common denominator. You give me too much credit. I wrote about Bush because I found myself actually feeling good about our President, a totally unexpected feeling made even sharper after 8 years of *&*&&^^%^&.  I wrote about why I felt good about him.

PGCE actually does stand for Post Graduate Certificate in Education, in my case, adult education, and I have taught a lot of adults.

We all learn in different ways and this site is here to educate us. I presume like me you are here as you want to learn to overcome your codependency.

In my view Dr Irene addressed a need for those adults who do not find the written word easy to learn from. Whether it is about codependency or cooking, we all have different leaning styles. If you want any group of adults to learn effectively then you have to use a variety of teaching styles. Otherwise you lose some on the way.

Anyone who seeks to educate has to work with the tools available to them. In this case it may not have been a perfect best: but where else was Dr Irene to go if she was to include us all?

It was based on the evidence so far as Dr Irene saw it and she was clear about what she did see. She was also clear it was about the characters of two men as she perceives them.

Oh boy! have I made some assumptions about Dr Irene here. Yep. Nice, but my motives are interpreted as much  higher and loftier than they really are. Most of the stuff on the site is written because I feel like writing it;  For whatever reason, when I want to do something, I do it. That's all. It's fun.  If I treated it as job that had to get done or as my duty to educate people, I think I would have burned out a long time ago. If it's fun, it is likely to continue as well as evolve in fits and spurts over time. A win-win.

In ethics, you sometimes have to choose the lesser of two evils. Things are never cut and dried. So you're basically saying you're not nuts about Georgie W.  No problem. Just say so.

Dr Irene tried to get as close as she could. She did not write about politics she wrote about people.

It was unfortunate that she had to include politicians. it may have been a mistake: but hasn't she cleverly given us some more stuff to consider within ourselves! And my mistakes are clever too! Gee whiz, I'm sooo talented!

Jay

Oh help has this got me going........not sure where. I can sense a blue pencil hovering over both of us! Yep.

Jay Why are you working so hard to defend me? (So hard in fact that you step into my head at times...) You want my support and thanks? You have it. You'll get even more when you stop working so hard. You have one heck of a head on your shoulders. Excellent mind. But, you go all over the place instead of staying inside your own skin, evaluating every ounce (gram) of data as it comes in as to how it affects you as opposed to how it affects how the other person will view you. 

B1: Submit

S1

Well the markets don't seem to trust him. Hail to the Thief! Giggle!

B1: Submit

S1

Doc of History

Would you believe me if I said I've got Ph.D. too? Well actually D.Phil. But it doesn't really matter, does it?

You say:

>A political editorial, on very shaky evidentiary grounds, delivered to readers on a professional psychology advice site in the argot of therapy, just doesn't make the grade.

But the editorial states:

>This editorial is not political.

You state that:

>I'm offering criticism of Dr. Irene's editorial in a professional (though heartfelt) spirit.

Yet a phrase like "sloppy work", the dig about the use of the word "belie" are not consistent with a heartfelt spirit.

Why did you sign off as "another Doc (Ph.D. History)"? Perhaps calling yourself Doc is a covert put-down ("I've got one too so get off your high horse"??). I smelt a covert put-down.  I didn't get that.

I suggested you could be an ally of Voice in the Desert, because you seem to share the same desire to tear down this forum. If you are a recovering codependent, you may have read: codependents are not angry when they should be and angry when they shouldn't be. Your academic training sharpens your skills at critical reasoning but it is a waste of talent to employ them here.  

Ziggy, Ph.D./D.Phil. or whatever  Ohhhh... Why are you so mad at him? Point out inconsistencies or your disagreement, but check out your anger at this poster, for your own sake. Thanks Doc Ziggy. Boy, talk about Piling it Higher and Deeper on this board! Giggle. 

B1: Submit

S1

That's kind of silly, to assume that someone is an Ally of Voice in the Desert simply because s/he doesn't agree with Dr Irene's editorial. I strongly disagree with the editorial. I have worked in politics for twenty years; including campaign staff, legislative assistant, even founding and directing my own political action committee. I happen to be a Democrat, but I can tell you that there are as many sleazy Democrats as there are sleazy Republicans. You bet. E.g., rhymes with Coot? Giggle. I know how political campaigns work. Dr. Irene does not really "know" George W Bush as a person. Frankly, he scares me. I see sleaze, not Buddha. Politics is a tough game. I truly believe that Dr Irene let her subjective views take over the editorial. I, too, would not have been as enthusiastic about this site if I had seen that editorial as a newcomer. Sis Thanks for the input Sis.

B1: Submit

S1

Well, alas, you're deleted from my favorites, Doc. This elitist thief from Connecticut royalty couldn't even steal the election with dignity, even with the help of his brother the Governor and the Former Director of the CIA. Buddha executing the mentally ill? He begrudges welfare families $8,000 a year, but fights for the Trust Fund preppies to inherit tax free? Taking my tax dollars to pay for Bible studies and prayer meeting to foster "employability" in the homeless when drug treatment is needed? Please check your sources regarding "damage" in the White House (looks like one copier cord was cut, couldn't that happen moving, no? No; lots of damage according to the NY Times.) Drilling wilderness as a response to the price gouging in power shares trading? I'd say that smearing our Vice President's reputation is akin in baseness to prying into someone's personal sex life. Truly, it's far more amoral for elected officials, such as those favored by Jr., to shut down the government they were elected to run (Hello, Newt? He deserves his own editorial. Giggle!) than any sexual shenanigans that fool Clinton was up to, as if that was anyone's business. The whole impeachment was a waste of time, as imminently proven by history, and the reign of "W" (aka Bush's Eventual Victory of '92, only eight years too late), will likewise be famous for utter waste and failure. God truly protect our nation from the devastation from these ill- conceived policies of this Harvard frat brat. The market already knows an idiot's at the wheel, guided by the Texas Oil consortium. Didn't we just LOVE Desert Storm? Let's bring back those glory days! Maybe our technology will advance enough that we can zap ol' Abe back to life... 

B1: Submit

S1

I moved from Texas to South Carolina a few months ago. I miss George W. a great deal. I have had the privilege of seeing him in action and what he can and has done. The liberal media can twist anything to make something bad out of something good. George W. DOES have character. I hope that the ones who disagree with the doc will take time to watch George W. with an open mind and to think for themselves.

B1: Submit

S1

Maybe you should keep an open mind, too. Sis

B1: Submit

S1

If you think George W. is so ethical you should read "Shrub" by Molly Ivans.

B1: Submit

S1

I agree that he is a more moral person. However, he is in way over his head. He is already on his way to undo many of the past administration's accomplishments - his tax cut will certainly not help pay down the debt. Personally we agree.  Although I don't think I could personally have an abortion- the choice should still be mine. Personally we agree. This man will attempt to overturn Roe V Wade in the next four years.  Personally I'd hate that. I am sadly certain of that. I added my personal opinions here to "show" that my editorial is not about politics. It's not even about the player's values. It's my take on the "centeredness" of the men.  It's about the player's ability to not sell out the Self. That's my definition of integrity. That's all.

B1: Submit

S1

I think that Bush is a true colored AMERICAN. It simply amazed me that he stood there, looked at the newscaster when questioned about his past, and honestly had the guts and be man enough to say "I did it, I'm not proud of it, but I PAID my time". Now take Clinton who does not inhale, DENIED HIS COUNTRY, AND GAVE THE WORLD A VIEW OF A WIMP, BUTT KISSING, IDIOT. Giggle! (Ooops on me: Sense of personal satisfaction noted at reading comment.) God have mercy on Bush as he tries to sort through the MESS the Clinton's made of the country. I believe Bush will come through as an honest, hard working, TRUE AMERICAN. The difference between Bush and Clinton... Clinton hides behind mommy, Chelsea or Hillary's skirt, while George W. stands in the front and faces the music. Dr. Irene is right in stating that some of the things about Bush, but there is still 4 years ahead for him to change peoples mind about him. Clinton hid behind Hillary and let her make the decisions. However, BUSH himself went and picked out some top men to help him run this country. Colin Powell is experienced in helping Bush restore the military Clinton foolhardedly destroyed. (Wonder who paid him to do that?). ANYWAY, I SAY GO BUSH! HE HAS MY SUPPORT 100% AND I HAVE EVERY FAITH THAT HE IS GOING TO DO A GREAT JOB IN RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. I am sure there will be times I won't agree on some of the things he will do, BUT THANK GOD WE GOT SOMEONE IN THERE WHO IS WORKING ON BRINGING OUT THE BEST IN AMERICA. YES BUSH, GOD BLESS AMERICA, AND GOD ESPECIALLY BLESS YOU!

B1: Submit

S1

This whole topic is a string of political viewpoints. Obviously, Democrats or Greens will disagree with Republicans. To Republicans, Bush looks wonderful. To others, not so good. From what I've seen, I would never call Bush a moral model. I'm not saying Clinton was a moral model, but politically I think he did a lot of good things for this country that Bush will try to destroy. However, those are politic viewpoints, and that is what many who have posted are now arguing about.

Simply speaking of the persons involved; yes, Clinton did some immoral things, but how much do we really know of Bush? As far as I can tell, he executes mentally retarded people and states that he has no doubts about his decisions. That scares me. "Executes" the mentally retarded?

I've spent over two decades involved with politics. All politicians do media spins. And I also disagree with what has been said about Gore's moral character. We don't really know him either, but from what I "know" about Bush and Gore, I believe Gore is the more moral of the two. "Moral," we agree. But disconnected from Self and totally unaware of what he's about under his facade. My personal take. As in "editorial." But, all politicians are "dressed up" by their political consultants for the rest of us. I really wish this site would stay away from religion and politics. Sis Hey, why Sis? Look at all the great commentary generated!

B1: Submit

S1

Hi Doc,

Anne here. I haven't posted for quite some time, but I just wanted to say that I hope you are right. So do I! To be honest, though, the man scares me on a lot of different levels. I am an environmentalist me too (not fanatical, just deeply concerned and saddened by the things we humans are doing in the name of money, "progress", convenience, etc.), and I believe we are going to see much damage done in the next four years, especially with Gail Norton in the picture. Probably. But unless we start operating out of a system that is not economically-based, this is unavoidable... George W. Bush "seems fair and feels foul" to me, to put it in Hobbit terms, so I guess I too am disagreeing with you for the first time. Good! It's easy to hear you because you don't "shout." 

I say we save ourselves alot of grief and elect Trubble for President! What do you say, Trubble? That's exactly *My* plan. More: GeorgieCat is really my long lost RealDaddy. I'm sure of it now. As a top aide, daddy's taken me under his wing. We're talking about 2008. Love, Trubble

Love,

Anne

B1: Submit

S1

Love your site, Doc, but couldn't disagree with you more in your surprisingly naive view of President Bush and politics. For the record, I can't stand Clinton for many of the reasons you cite, and I take an even harsher view of his manipulative ways. Bush is candid? Ask him about Bob Jones University, the confederate flag, campaign finance reform, etc. You'll see more waffles than I-HOP could create in a day! A man of integrity? The man used to take only 15 minutes to review and decide whether someone is fit for death? Trubble will look into this immediately!

B1: Submit

S1

Clearly we are all agreed on one thing. The US should be run by a pussy cat called Trubble. Only please can we borrow him for the UK elections first! Hmm....now what does Dr Irene make of Tony Blair? Dear Jay, Washington needs Trubble. But sadly, Doc lives up to the negative American stereotype that we know little outside our own boundaries. Sorry.

Jay

B1: Submit

S1

AMEN

B1: Submit

S1

Well said...and a wonderful insight on Clinton's "abuser" personality. As a foster parent who's' worked with troubled and abused kids, your insight is right on the money.

And it's too bad few of the "Mainstream Media" are smart enough to see it... they still seem intent on giving Bill all the attention he so obviously craves, even though he's out of office and has been shown to be a liar and a cheat more times than I care to remember. 

Good work...keep it up! Thanks.

B1: Submit

S1

I have five words that come to mind when I think of George W. being in the White House - "Be afraid, be very afraid." He has no business being president of a major Super Power in this day and age. Only in America... Clinton was not perfect, and I would venture to say neither is Bush. Who is??? Your site has just been deleted from my Favorites List.  Amazing how important it is for people to "agree."  Agreement feels good for sure, but we cannot broaden our horizons if we don't look elsewhere as well. 

B1: Submit

S1

Finally, someone has put "it" into words...dittos, doc, and thanks!

B1: Submit

S1

Men are worthless pigs. We need a woman in the white house. Angry at hubby? Check it out...

B1: Submit

S1

I find it disturbing that a site devoted to emotional & verbal abuse has become a platform for political views.  This definitely detracts from your credibility, doc. And, although I feel that politics should not be present here, I wonder if you're still comparing Bush to Buddha after his bombs dropped on Iraq....

But, that's beside the point. Please, let's keep politics out of this site. I come here for emotional support, not political discourse. And, I'm sorry to say, my opinion of this site has dropped a few notches. Good thing FakeMommyDoc doesn't rely on opinion polls! Giggle!

Dee 

B1: Submit

S1

I don't like political content on these boards. Calling Bill Clinton an abuser and Bush the Buddha is inflammatory and partisan. I pretty much disagree with everything you said about it, and I don't understand at all what the purpose of posting it here is.  The purpose of the post was explained in the article. OK to disagree with all of it. This is certainly a  hot topic!  

B1: Submit

S1

Just some comments -

- I believe that Christianity promotes and nurtures narcissism, and George W. Bush is a class A narcissist. - I also believe that if you look close enough into any major political figures private life, you will find the same abuses of power, even with Bush. Clinton just got caught. - Voting for someone to run your country and and ultimately your life with whose views you do not agree with is like being a codependent. Gotta watch those Christians! 

skh

B1: Submit

S1

Dr. Irene,

You had guts putting this on your sight. I applaud you! I, personally, also saw through Clinton when he was campaigning at my college for his first term. He seemed false then, and he proved me right. Didn't inhale, what a joke! Dr. Irene talks about trusting our intuition, as sometimes we sense the real person underneath the facade, possibly some of us should do that more.

I ask anyone this (who would say that the fling with Monica was between 2 consenting adults): would you have a job if you took your intern (who is half your age) into your office and had her/him perform oral sex? Why was he allowed to keep his job? She was young and a student, he was the President of the United States (a very powerful position) and should have known better (no, not should have, he DID know better, but chose his course).

I am sick of hearing people back up and stand up for Bill Clinton. He is slime. I hope that George W. will prove to be a better man.

Thanks Dr. Irene, you are a true human being with confidence to voice your opinion. I commend you! Certainly a Hot topic. Thanks Em.

Em

B1: Submit

S1

<Any comments folks?> Mr. Bush may or may not have repented from his alcoholism and likely cocaine abuse. It's clear you believe he has. Yes. His agenda definitely does NOT "clearly include restoring dignity...etc." His is a Republican agenda. If you are into that, I'm sure you will swallow all his hype. I don't. Be sure only about yourself.

B1: Submit

S1

I admire anyone with the nerve to step in behind Bill Clinton. I too look forward to seeing what our new President has in store for our country. I think most of the country probably feels the same. You're right about one thing, Bill Clinton is the "abuser", but he is not the "victim". Sure he is. He's his own victim despite that we are all his victims. How do you think this guy feels now: abandoned by his friends, little power, less influence, (probably lots of money in a secret Swiss account)? I think he's not a happy camper, but he may still have too many goodies to provoke the "life crisis" he would need to put him in the position of re-examining his life.  The whole country suffered because of his actions. I work at a Women's Shelter that just took on a new Director. Our agency was in a mess due to poor leadership and the only ones that suffered were our residents and clients because of the lack of attention given to the true cause. I'm proud of our new leader and the changes she is making to help them. I stand behind her 100% and it's a pleasure serving our community now knowing things will get done right with the proper support and influence. Anything less would simply be "revictimization".

B1: Submit

S1

If Bush is a faithful Christian (although still human, and still allowed to make errors) his relationship with God could indeed lend him to be ethical. Not to say Jewish folks, etc cannot be ethical of course! But one's relationship with God can influence one's character... and thus one's stance on being ethical... or not... so I tend to agree with your husband that he is ethical because he is a Christian. In fact, I know this to be true... 

As for Mr. Clinton, although Clinton may be a Christian (believer in Christ) he too being HUMAN is allowed to make errors ...and seemingly is choosing not to follow Christ or live as an example of Him....

This is the trouble I believe people have with Christians in general, they can look around and point out one they know and say SEE HE IS BAD, and since this person by claiming to be a Christian and a representative of Christ is "bad" he gives Christianity a "bad name" so to speak... 

All fall short of the glory of GOD , key word being ALL! Good thing, or we wouldn't need him;)

The difference between a Christian and non Christian is simply that with Christ the sin is taken off your chest and God has covered it away with a prayer of repentance...   Religion: another HOT topic. This one's too hot even for me because I sincerely don't want to offend anybody on a topic so close to the heart. Too political for me. But I'm all for discussing spirituality, devoid of the emotionally charged references. 

B1: Submit

S1

Yes I do have a comment. I understand your opinions on Clinton's personal behavior, (and I do agree with them), but why didn't you write anything on what he has accomplished while in office. The welfare system has been reformed, he had the guts to tackle the military base closures, etc. The country has taken a posture and a holier than though attitude on Clinton's personal behavior... "why do you talk about the splinters of others when you have a plank in your eye?"... Because the article was not about accomplishments!  Nevertheless, and this is what I think you're asking between the lines:  I admit being personally biased against him given his conduct. And, your point is well taken; I thank you for it. Doc.

B1: Submit

S1

So closing down military bases and causing lots of military people to lose jobs is a good thing? There is always another side to a story. Now we're talking politics; it really isn't where I want to go.

B1: Submit

S1

Dear Doc,

Where are you? I miss your presence on your website...

Ziggy Thanks Ziggy. Just doing other stuff for a while cuz I feel like it. This is play and recreation or else it can't be at all...

B1: Submit

S1

Dr Irene,

I am a big fan of George W. I think he will do a great job as president and I think that it is great that the country has finally gotten rid of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Now we have to get rid of Hillary. Giggle!

Frank DeGennaro Hi Frank. Good to "see" you here. Irene

 S1

AMEN FRANK! HILLARY HAS GOT TO GO!

B1: Submit

S1

Since Hillary is being brought up, she needs to be one of our focuses. Ten to one, her plans are to serve New York, then go on to run for president in the next race. She knows exactly what she is doing. Don't all deceptive people? My husband (a New Yorker) swore the New York people wouldn't let her in. He lost the bet...Since New York let her in, look out America, then the whole U.S. will be voting her into the white house, and once again, Bill will be back in. Look out America, the beast is rising. 

B1: Submit

S1

What is it that people find offensive about Hillary? I can see offensive behaviors in B. Clinton and G. Bush . . but what is it about Hillary that is so offensive? (I am assuming it is not her choice of partner . . . as we wouldn't want to judge someone on that . . well, I try not to)  

B1: Submit

S1

Because most of the folks responding are giving their political values instead of staying with the subject of discussing the individual personalities. Republicans don't like Democrats, including Hillary. That's why the political comments about Hillary, and a perfect example of why this website should stay away from politics and religion. Sis You have an excellent point Sis. But, overall, I think people have stayed on topic, more or less. 

B1: Submit

S1

Well Dr. Irene, Looks like we need another board for the political controversy.

BTW Hilliary wears the pants in their family which may explain why bill likes to chase the other women (and Hilliary likewise). I mean really...The world has already gone to the pits, and Clinton put America there, it's going to take George Bush to pull her out. Watch it everyone, Colin Powell is not going to sit back and let Saddam make those comments. Bush and Colin will react.

Wonder how many Kennedy's are in the Clinton's family tree? Seems they run the same boat to me. Hmmmm, Sis, your point is becoming more and more excellent. I take responsibility for the off-topicness since I've been away too long.

B1: Submit

S1

Like anyone on this board can afford to throw stones at someone else's family!! If I have learned anything reading through this site, it is the fact that no one has all the answers. How many of us - any of us - would measure up if our lives were made public? What I have found discouraging about the angry posts is the amount of judgment. About people you do not know. Doesn't ever really sound like an informed political discussion (I agree, Sis, who needs that here). And what would be the point of personal attacks? Dr. Irene doesn't know the Clintons, the Gores, or the Bushes. She knows what we know - the political platforms. She knows what she reads or views via the media. None of us have "insider" knowledge (some may - we are anonymous, thank goodness). Can't we just empathize with people who suffer? And vote for the people whose political platforms best represent our interests?- and we will disagree on that. But - and Sis is right! - not on this board.

B1: Submit

S1

"The common denominator, I believe, is a deeply-felt sense of ethics. George W. strikes me as a man who is in tune with himSelf, does not compromise the Self, does not sell out; and certainly does not sell his soul for any cheap thrill. What a stark contrast to his scandal-a-week predecessor."

Welcome to true Christianity, and not religious babble.

B1: Submit

S1

Dr Irene you may be well informed on other issues, but I am going to take a lot of convincing that you know about George W. Bush.

I am not an American, so please help out here if I get things wrong. Some people here think I'm not too knowledgeable either! Giggle...

Didn't the long-running investigations into the Clintons started with an investigation to see whether Hilary Clinton had a shady association with a failed "Savings and Loan". WhiteWater...

These Savings and Loan associations, we don't have them under that name up here in Canada. My understanding is that they are like the building and loan organization that Jimmy Stewart heads in "It's a wonderful life", i.e., providing many of the services of a chartered bank.

My understanding of Hilary Clinton's role is that she was the lawyer for, or a director of, a corporation that got a big loan, to buy some undeveloped real estate. My understanding is that that real estate did not rise in value, and that the corporation either sold it at a loss, or it went bankrupt. And particularly, the loan was never repaid.

The key thing that gave the appearance of scandal was that Hilary Clinton took home handsome fees even though the loan was not repaid. 

If Ken Starr had been able to prove that the Clintons entered into these business arrangements knowing that the loan would never be repaid then that would have been a true scandal. Starr wasn't able to prove that though, was he? 

My understanding is that "Whitewater" was not an isolated incident.

The Reagan administration was continually advocating the value of "free enterprise". This was used as a justification to de-regulate various American industries, like the airline industry. Are American's happier with the deregulated airline industry? Established, reputable airlines fell by the wayside, and shoddy, corner-cutting start-ups, like Value-Jet and Alaska airlines had a chance to compete on price alone. And then those corner-cutting start-ups had crashes because they were able to get away with cutting corners on maintenance and parts. So I think I would agree with those who argue that the de-regulation of the airline industry in America did not serve the American public in the long run. 

The Reagan administration used "free enterprise" as a justification for removing regulations from the savings and loan organizations.

My understanding is that the American Federal government had to step in pay out 600 billion dollars to pay back those who held money in savings and loan associations that made dubious loans and then went bankrupt.

At the time of the S&L bailout I watched a documentary on Canadian TV that explained this bailout for Canadians.

It said that crony-ism was behind many of these dubious loans. That with the government regulations removed directors of the S&L organizations were able to make dubious loans of their investors money. Sweet-heart loans at ridiculously low interest rates -- or loans for very risky enterprises -- secure that making the loan was earning them political brownie points at no personal cost to themselves.

Many of the S&L organizations failed.

Hilary Clinton may have made money even though the S&L that made the loan she was associated with failed.

But this documentary said many highly place insiders profited. The most highly place insider the documentary named was George W. Bush, who you characterized as an obviously ethical man.

The documentary said that his profit from the failed loans he was associated with was enormous. I don't recall the exact amount. I remember it being eight or nine digits long though.

And I think that his father was Vice President when he took advantage of this legislation makes it all a lot more corrupt. 

Thank you for taking the time to compose a post that while entirely political is so well written, I point to it as a model of how to skillfully disagree. 

  OK. That does it. I just read through a series of political posts by one individual. Each post was more emotional and angrier than the last. While I will leave "older" posts, beginning immediately:

Dr Irene.  

B1: Submit

S1

Takes me enough time to work out what our own politicians are up to. LOL I just realised my knowledge of American politics at present is based on what is printed here. This is why I support that Trubblesome cat for president and want to import him here. (He says he is too busy and too American.). Now I can't stop assigning cat types to politicians.

But if I was in the US I would still vote for the cat in the hat. jay  *MY* AuntieJay!

B1: Submit

S1

Sorry my last post looks inane this morning. No AuntieJay! Your last post looks Grreeat! 

Hmmmm....Humankatkid says at least Clinton is human as he has affairs??????? (OH help he is 13 and neither parent ever had an affair.. What so they teach them at school?!!!) 

He also says both Clinton and Bush dropped bombs on Iraq and are bad as each other. In that respect, even though the editorial is non political I have to say I can respect neither. (too many Kurdish friends.) 

I confess that this has nothing really to do with the editorial. It is just a personal view. But it is sort of indicative as to why I think politics is always about choosing the lesser of two evils.

I guess the thing is that nobody is ever perfect and there are degrees of imperfection. it's about the way you acknowledge the imperfections.

If we all felt safe enough to do so then a lot of relationships would get healed.

And turning it on it's head about the way we acknowledge our goodness.

Many people don't feel safe with that either.

Jay My AuntieJay can say anything she wants. So there.  Trubble

B1: Submit

S1

Dear "Doc", I was referring your excellent site to several people in another online recovery situation and saw your comments about George W. Not only do I agree with most of his policies but I certainly agree with your comments about his character and his motivation. Since I have not been exposed to many balanced people in my adult life, I am happy to know someone like yourself agrees that when we see someone behaving like him that it is what I was hoping to be-rational behavior. This helps me to understand what to work on for myself and to look for in others. He is going to have many challenges in presenting and accomplishing his political beliefs because of the traditional irrational methodologies and thinking already in place in our gov't. He could become the best Prez. for us in a long time but he will need our prayers (as we know that to mean) and backing in whatever way we feel comfortable in giving to him. Thank you for pointing out a balanced person because I needed to confirm my picture of just that! PM

B1: Submit

S1

Jay again.....Just now, being a Christian, I am getting emails from friends who want to have a day of prayer for GB. We will have elections soon. Many of them contain covert messages that I should be praying everyone should vote conservative. I won't. I will look at the men and vote for the one that appears to have most integrity and I won't base it on who wants to support free radio (there was a case that went to the European Court of Human Rights. The right of Christians to have a National radio station was blocked and of course this inhibits religious freedom. Nobody seems to have noticed that this would equally apply to Muslims and politicians are now tapping into the religious vote. All at a time when the country is at the brink of national disaster about foot and mouth disease and probably we should all be praying for the farmers (danger of suicide). Quite neatly, we leave out integrity. Quite neatly and subtly we all produce our own political view as God's own view. Actually we should pray for non religious freedom Christianity grows under persecution and so logically we should then vote for the party least in sympathy with Christianity! In the end, Nobody can predict which political leader will be the best one and like Dr Irene I therefore have to end up with what does the man do. Hague seems t be doing god stuff and supporting Christians; but did he do this BEFORE elections came into view? That is more the point. What does the life show previous to that. Anyone can get on a political bandwagon. It will HURT if I have to make the choice to vote conservative as that man ends up as more moral than major. But conscience should dictate looking at the Life of the man which is why much though I wish to vote anything BUT conservative and I won't be swayed by prayer meetings or anyone else. The most important thing is does the man's life (Ah if only a woman.....) meet the credentials of integrity and honesty. I do hope this isn't a political post; but Dr Irene actually helped me clarify my thoughts with this editorial and reassess my own moral position. Probably I will end up voting for the Green party even though I know this will be a lost vote just because in the end I have no idea WHO I should disrespect. Meantime I guess whoever meets the needs of farmers recognizing the financial implications is probably a more important topic than religion! I hope this isn't a political post it wasn't meant to be but one thing the editorial did make obvious is how when politics are mentioned then people get on a high horse whether or not politics is the issue.

I am not sure if this makes sense. And in the end the issue for me and it would have been the same in the US if I was a US person is about personal integrity and nobody can form an opinion in the light of the evidence they don't see. We only ever do that in the light of evidence available whether it is the leader of the country or the person next door.

Actually I once had to make that choice. I woke up one morning to find the word's "Rapist" and an arrow pointing to the house of male neighbour. You don't want your kids living next door to rapist! But why were those words there. I felt really worried for me and my daughter. But the man himself had presented with integrity over a long period of time and it turned out what had happened was he had unknowingly bought a car from a rapist. Now think of all the suffering that man and his girlfriend went through because of course then judgments get made without investigation into the evidence.....

I am not sure if I wandered from the point a bit; Just another long involved Jay post.......

What your post did Jay is remind me that just because I live in a place that takes religious freedom for granted, not all readers have that same luxury. 

I was in Athens some years ago. There were few cabs and I ended up sharing one with two Lebanese men from my hotel. They were so proud of themselves! One was Christian and the other was Muslim. They were business partners and best friends. The other thing I remember about that ride was their insistence that I was naive if I didn't think religion "really" was a powerful political influence even where I live, in the liberal New York area. I came away thinking that I was not in fact naive, but was privileged to live someplace where religious freedom was not a concern. For them it was such a fact of daily life, they could not fathom living somewhere it was not! That's why they were so proud of their ability to overcome prejudice.  I liked those two.

So, in my little space on the web, where I admittedly run my own little kingdom, religion - and race - and sex - are not issues.  Neither are political views. Your views are your views and that's cool - as long as whatever your views are get expressed in a more or less palatable manner.  Doc.

B1: Submit

S1

Hello Irene.

I was thinking...is it possible that the contrasting of such a self-server as Clinton to anyone else makes that anyone seem like an angel? Or...is it possible that you desire, long for, decency in a leader and that you are wishful thinking?

I find it hard to trust anyone who has the father G junior had.

I saw a good documentary about the manufacturing of American consent for the shellacking of Iraq. It showed how Americans were hooked up to brain probes and tested as they watched Father Bushes pre-war speeches. Their reactions were used to find the exact "heart-string" for Bush to pull so Americans would condone the brutal attack on Iraq.

In the same show it showed how the magazine "The New Republic" took a photo of Saddam Hussein and doctored it. They trimmed his mustache to look more like that of one Adolf Hitler. Then they pasted it on the cover of their rag. Then the various media began the demonizing campaign, comparing Saddam to Hitler.

Incidentally, are you aware that General Electric owns NBC? And GE is the largest manufacturer of weapons in the world? I wonder what their shareholders would say if NBC ever said "no, I don't think we should go to war...", or "we should stop selling arms to Iraq and Iran at the same time..." etc...Yuk, what a disgusting company... fully supportive of any war between anyone at anytime. I bet they have reps in the gov, drumming up war on a daily basis.

No...too much deception in this game for me to pronounce anything until a post-mortem is done.

I saw that clip of G junior swearing...I could see no dif betwixt him and Burn-em-up-Bill Clinton (reference to Waco).

Anyways, where I come from we don't think of our leaders as our leaders. We think of them as our followers. Our subservient priests of a dark religion called money... Ain't that the truth...

:)

B1: Submit

S1

B1: Submit

S1

Thank you for your comments regarding President Bush. I, too, feel he is a good man. Having been raised in an extremely disfunctional, abusive family, I am hypersensitive about how people come across to me and I sensed 'the true Bill Clinton' before I knew anything about him. I also sensed 'the true George W.' I admired his father, too. I just wanted to let you know that I have visited your website a few times and have found much information that has been helpful and insightful to me. Thank you and God bless.

B1: Submit

S1

I also am impressed with the Prez and believe that his faith is a major part of who he is, what helps to keep him strong in the face of life in general. He is not afraid to speak out about what he believes in and even Democrats are openly praising him for expressing anger over security leaks. He is not afraid to be himself and not afraid to give credit to his wife where credit is due. The Clinton analogy is right on. As far as being a practicing Christian- he obviously doesn't listen to his pastoral advisors. He probably creates his own "Christian" reality and likes being photographed holding his bible. Debby

B1: Submit

S1

Hillary is the abuser, Bill is the abused. Both severely messed up !!! I hated Hillary as President. I think that Bush will bring us back, He has approval ratings way higher than Clinton ever had. Good to see that even the liberal biased press (abusers) can't keep people from leaving. (Note: the popularity of a balanced news ,like Fox, versus the severely declining popularity of liberal news that force their veiws down your throat without seeing the other side of the picture. I used to be angry, now I just watch FOX news). Martin

B1: Submit

S1

I do not believe that any of us can assess the "character," "honor," "decency," or "integrity" of Bush, Clinton, or any other public figure for the following reasons: - these are emotionally loaded terms which mean different things to different people, even though we all think we have the "right" definition - we do not know these public figures personally.

I can attest, however, that I have known both Bush's daughters and the Clinton's daughter. Chelsea is extremely together, well balanced, and true to her self. The Bush daughters, frankly, are messed up and very disassociated from their true selves. To me, this said a lot about their parents.

B1: Submit

S1

I do not believe that any of us can assess the "character," "honor," "decency," or "integrity" of Bush, Clinton, or any other public figure for the following reasons: - these are emotionally loaded terms which mean different things to different people, even though we all think we have the "right" definition - we do not know these public figures personally.

I can attest, however, that I have known both Bush's daughters and the Clinton's daughter. Chelsea struck me as extremely together and true to her self. The Bush daughters, frankly, are messed up (multiple problems with alcohol and drugs, more so than reported) and very disassociated from their true selves. To me, this said a lot about their parents.

I would also like to attest to one further fact which you contested. The Clinton administration's alleged vandalism never took place. This was attested to by the General Accounting Office, which was responsible for the White House's furniture, and by the Commanding Officer of Andrews Air Force Base, who repeatedly stated that no vandalism ever took place on Air Force One.

B1: Submit

S1

One of the comedians on television said that George W. is like a donut hole that is smart enough to surround itself with a donut. But anyway Sargeant Mousie is mad at Slick Willy for selling out to the Chinese. She read on the internet that they now have our technology and a whole bunch of missles pointed right at us. The Chinese are a lot smarter than Saddam. But Sargeant Mousie gets mad at George W. when he gets on Israel for blowing a few terrorist houses up in Palestine each time they get attacked. They don't target civilians on purpose. Sargeant Mousie laughs when she reads that it will deepen the hatred that the Palestinians have. They're strapping bombs to themselves and dance in the streets when Isrealis get killed. Now how are you gonna deepen that? Anyway if you can show Sargeant Mousie that George has no personal interest in oil then she will salute him. But Sargeant Mousie is glad that he is president during this conflict. At least he's not under the desk trying to get Monica unhooked so he can speak to the Arab governments without moaning.

B1: Submit

S1

Oh Mousie got here by accident again. She was just admiring the pictures of Trubble and ended up here again and she wasn't even signed in. Now Sargeant Mousie ran her big mouth and thought because she wasn't signed in you couldn't have a post show up. Mousie must print a big retraction disclaimer so she does not hold herself accountable for anything Sargeant Mousie says. Okay Mousie loves Chinese food. She is a regular customer at the Happy Wok and the Giant Panda. But the Happy Wok went out of business at the mall so she knows George closed it down because she is too fat and he wanted her to get in shape. Mousie voted for McCain but she can't tell you that because it is political. Bill Clinton did not inhale. Monica did. Bill Clinton plays saxophone better than Mousie (which is no big compliment.) Hillary kept Bill around so he could help her get a job besides a housewife. Can you blame her? Who wants to be caught up in a Dishwater scandal. George W. stopped drunk driving. Mousie doesn't drink but still runs over curbs with her car. Mousie thinks all the presidents kids are traumatized and are going to lose all their values and run for president in 200+. If Trubble becomes president Dr Irene will have to close down the catbox site because she will be too busy doing all the political cartoons of the president. Who needs character in the president anyway. If you need a character, there's plenty to pick from on this web site. Mousie does not mean that in a bad sort of way, she means like fun characters so don't yell at her.

B1: Submit

S1

Mousie has been wondering about something. Since we are speaking about the character of the president, what do you think about Ronald Reagan? Mousie thinks he must have either been well liked or congress had more character back then when he was in. They must have known he had altzheimers and yet they all kept it quiet and backed him up even when people were making jokes about his forgetfullness. Now if that had been Bill C. they would have had it out all over the press and tossed him out in a minute. And as far as George goes, the democrats would leak it out about him and try to get him out because of an election coming up. Al Gore is already out there bad mouthing the republicans. And the republicans bad mouthed him so they could get in. So unless Nancy was more powerful than the mob, was it character that kept Mr. Reagan in or what?

B1: Submit

S1

B1: Submit

S1

Admire Bush? leader of the worlds most criminal organizaton and world controlling body? www.commondreams.org "Oh Lucy, You've got some reading to do."

B1: Submit

S1

now who is that who said Bush owns up to his past faltering? Does he really? Bush has never answered one correction directly, or even half-truthfully. Don't forget, he was instilled (or installed, whichever you prefer) and not elected. DUI, Cocain (which Daddy bought for the CIA to distribute, using planes designated for the forest service to import the stuff into the counrty to gain capital to buy weapons to covertly give to Iran, while selling weapons openly to Iraq, which happens to be Iran's sworn enemy, and Iraq our ally, i bet you didn't know that the bush family made their fortune selling weapons since at least WWII, not off of Oil as some people would like to think. Bush as a believer of God, cares not of the commandments, only in populations returning to the submissive and ignorant ways. fact : there is no God counter fact: if there is a God, then bush sr and jr and both the Anti-christ and Devils advocate.

B1: Submit

S1

I cannot agree more about George W. I met him in person on the campaign trial and xomething in his eyes -- and I always look deep into a person's eyes if they look directly at me when they speak -- and he did -- shone out that this wonderful, sincere, man had a depth of character that would be tested in time and that he would lead this nation into a new century where America -- The United States needed to leea other nations out of the muck and mire that was becoming out new world.

B1: Submit

S1

wow. I just came upon this particular link. I have been reading other sections of your web site, and would like to echo some of the other comments by saying that it has been very helpful to me. I have really appreciated its existence. However, if this had been the first site I had found, I would have ran like the wind as well. Bush is far from Buddha. And at this junction in our country's fight against terrorism, I would have to add inflexible, arrogant and condescending. I do see your point about him being a man who sticks to what he believes, and while that is admirable, the question behind that point is-what does he stand for? It reminds me of an email sent around a couple of years ago. It started with a comparison between a man who didn't drink and who didn't eat meat versus a man who was an alcoholic and who did eat meat. Basically, when you read it, you immediately admired the sober vegetarian. Turned out that was the description of Hitler and the alcoholic man was Churchill. Some men look better on paper.

B1: Submit

S1

B1: Submit

S1

Yuk and dubble Yuk! Dr. Irene, I love the work you do, but I don't agree when it comes to this! When I watch W. speak, I see an angry, abusive tyrant like the one I used to be married to. I hear him ranting and raving the same way--"We (the U.S.) are NEVER the problem, we do everything right!It's always those other guys (countries--Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Germany, France, the list is endless) that are to blame! They better [fill in the blank] or we're going to go kick their ass!" Talk about lack of responsibility. And before you bow down to kiss his feet again, consider his past--busted for cocaine and drunken driving, allowing his family to get him out of it. Admitting that he "might have drank too much" in his earlier years and he "had an anger problem", but never admitting that he was an alcoholic or might still need some work with emotions. Avoiding military duty during Vietnam so he can run for Congress. Making money as CEO of his company and then bailing out right before it goes sour. Doesn't sound like the kind of guy I'd like to be married to, and especially not the guy I want running my country!

B1: Submit

S1

Comparing George W. Bush to Buddha? I think not. And, yes, your "editorial" was all too political. The man has shown the marginalized socio-economic classes that he is morally bankrupt. He has done plenty to help those who don't need it. Bill Clinton may have had questionable personal ethics, but who else has even tried to reform the health care system in this country? He cheated on his wife....not the entire United States. Did you speak of the "MORAL WITCH HUNT" that costed the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars? Thank You Republicans. What would we do without you? Your blanket generalizations by way of "comparing" the two Presidents makes you seem like an intellectual midget. Then again, I doubt than anyone will be shocked that a Doctor is a hard-line Republican willing to toe the line in the face of blatant incompetency. No one comes to this website to hear your political bias. It is sickening.

B1: Submit

S1

Oh, how nice. I see that people's responses to your posted opinion have been altered....they include little editorial "remarks" that you have added. You must think of yourself as a very important person.