Excellent political song by a fantastic N.C. songwriter.

[gerryhatrick]

Chuck Brodsky, wonderful product of the US!!

http://www.chuckbrodsky.com/music.html

it's the albumn at the top. Click on the little speaker beside the title.

This link has a different section of the song...and is a better sounding link I think:

http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/cbrodsky3

And here's the lyrics:

Liar Liar Pants On Fire

Liar liar, pants on fire

See you squirm, see you perspire

Not a word you say is true

There's never been one out of you

Smoke & mirrors, bait and switch

You and your friends are getting rich

Picking pockets, pulling strings

And other more dispicable things

Liar Liar, pants on fire

Preaching only to the choir

Photo op in front of the steeple

How did you manage to fool these people?

Talk the lingo, dress the part

Even put your hand on your heart

Bomber jacket, emperor's clothes

You can't even reach the end of your nose

Liar liar, pants on fire

Chain of command doesn't get any higher

Orders come down from the top

Punish the guy who pushes the mop

Throw away the key and forget about bail

The likes of you ought to rot in jail

Guilty! Guilty of the highest crimes

And the lowest ones at the very same time

Liar liar, pants on fire

Teleprompter, hidden wire

Who's this G-d that speaks to you

Who would authorize the things you do?

Bend the rules, twist the facts

Make excuses, cover your tracks

Why won't you let anybody see

The flag-draped coffins on tv?

Liar liar, been found out

Whistleblowers talked about

How you classify & cook the books

For the benefit of a bunch of crooks

Great song, huh!? Guess who it's about?

[Teddy Ballgame]

Great song, huh!? Guess who it's about?

- Since you are clearly and dangerously and annoyingly obsessed with US president Bush and manage in your Bushwhacking psychosis to work pretty much any topic around to Bush and one of his myriad of sins and failings as you see them, obviously the song can only be about Bush.

- Here is an interesting read for you and perhaps it might motivate you to seek professional help. It is from one of the more interesting political blogs, one lead by a psychiatrist who dubs himself "Dr. Sanity". The purpose of the blog is to throw some light instead of heat on the global political scene and the psychology of the true believers of both left and right. This entry offers up several interesting and credible insights into the fevered minds of those on the hard left lunatic fringe who have a hard on of hatred for W. and for anyone with whom he is associated. In reading this as well as your unending stream of anti-Bush crapolla, I am reminded of Churchill's famous observation that "a fascist is someone who won't change his mind and won;t change the subject." There are, as your mirror will tell you, fascists of the hard left persuasion as well as the hard right kind.

Dr. Sanity

Shining a psychological spotlight on a few of the insanities of life

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Let's Discuss Bush Derangement Syndrome Again

Glenn Reynolds discusses the hate mail he has received since his comments that I linked to in the previous post:

This bit of hatemail, though, seems to carry the flavor best:

Did you ever really think you'd be the kind of person who would be calling dissenters from a right-wing, gay-bashing, anti-evolution, incompetent war-making administration "unpatriotic"?I'm not sure where evolution or gay rights come into this (I've "dissented" on those points myself, after all), but I think this illustrates that the "Bush lied" issue has more to do with anti-Bush sentiment than with anything having to do with the merits of the war.

The Instapundit is exactly right about this. It has to do with an unreasoning hatred of Bush, or as Charles Krauthammer put it in his definition of Bush Derangement Syndrome:

"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay -- the very existence of George W. Bush."

What is going on here--I mean, besides the usual opportunist agenda of the Leftist/Socialist/Communist remnants of the last century? I have discussed this issue several times in this blog, but the dynamics bear repeating because the lies keep getting repeated; and so the hysteria continues.

The psychology of some of the Bush Haters is pretty cut and dried. They hate Bush because he stands between them and the implementation of their collectivist "utopian" vision. I have no time to waste on them, except to note that their intentions are deliberately and decidedly malevolent toward this country. They want it to fail at anything and everything it does and they openly cheer for the barbarians at the gate.

They are indistinguishable from the barbarians we are actively fighting, with the only difference being that they have different ideas about which group of thugs will be in charge of the "utopia". They prefer themselves--a more secularly-oriented set of thugs--to rule.

But what about the average person on the street who has, or has come to have a visceral hatred of President Bush? Perhaps they simply didn't vote for him in 2000, believing the media propaganda or caricature of his intellect and capabilities; or perhaps they simply didn't like him because he was from the opposition party, or a Texan. or any other number of normal reasons.

It seems to me that the Democrats and the Left have used their continuous propaganda well, but there is a also a strong personal psychological factor involved in being able to convince normally sane people that the source of all evil in the world is George W. Bush.

After 9/11, in many cases, even a mild dislike of "W" rapidly morphed into the ferocious Bush hatred we are now all familiar with. The opposition to a conservative Republican; and reasonable disagreement with his policies became a swooning hysteria; and an unmitigated, deranged hatred with all the accompanying paranoid delusions.

Virginia Postrel recounted this insight:

When I was in New York a few weeks ago, a friend in the magazine business told me he thinks the ferocious Bush hating that he sees in New York is a way of calming the haters' fears of terrorism. It's not rational, but it's psychologically plausible--blame the cause you can control, at least indirectly through elections, rather than the threats you have no control over. I thought of that insight today when I glanced at Maureen Dowd's column and read this sentence, "Maybe it's because George Bush is relaxing at his ranch down there (again) while Osama is planning a big attack up here (again)."

That is the voice of a petulant child, angry that she has a tummy ache while Daddy is at work or Mommy is visiting a friend, or the voice of a grouchy wife angry that she has a migraine while her husband is out coaching the kids' baseball team. You're upset that you're in pain (we've all been there), so you get mad at someone whose presence wouldn't make the pain any better. No mature student of politics believes the president of the United States goofs off on vacation. It's not the kind of job you escape. George Bush may be completely insane to voluntarily. spend July in Texas--as opposed to Bill Clinton's favored coastal retreats--but Osama bin Laden is no more or less a threat than in Bush were in Washington. But if blaming Bush makes people feel better, safer, or at least able to focus their anger on someone they can hurt, they'll blame Bush.

The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement".

One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.

This explains the remarkable and sometimes lunatic appeasement of Islamofascists by so many governments and around the world, while they trash the US and particularly Bush. It explains why there is more emphasis on protecting the "rights" of terrorists, rather than holding them accountable for their actions (thier actions, by the way are also Bush's fault, according to those in the throes of BDS). Our soldiers in Iraq are being killed because of Bush--not because of terrorist intent and behavior. Terrorist activity itself is blamed on Bush no matter where it occurs.

It isn't even a stretch of the imagination for some to blame 9/11 on Bush. This is the insane "logic" of most psychological defense mechanisms. They temporarily spare you from the painful reality around you and give you the illusion that you are still in control.

This is exactly the illusion/delusion circulating in the minds of many of the Bush Haters. They want desperately to forget that there is a tidal wave of terror reverberating around the world and to pretend that everything is America's and Bush's fault. If that is true, then they will still be in control of events.

So what do they do? They lionize terrorists like Zarqawi ("freedom-fighters"). They explain away the horror and brutality by refering to them as "insurgents" and "militants". They support Palestinian suicide bombings as justified and see the Palestinians--not as independent agents acting of choice, but as victims of America and Israel.

They sincerely believe that Osama is a reasonable person and seek dialog with him; but that Bush is not. They threaten violence toward Bush and hold demonstrations; and placate and enable those who would implement Sharia Law in their country without a qualm. Hundreds of their fellow countrymen are murdered by terrorists, but they demand that troops be pulled out of Iraq (thinking that if they hadn't cooperated with the evil BushHitler, their countrymen would have been spared).

Rather than blame the terrorists; rather than admiting they have to take action against them; their fear is transformed to anger and displaced onto President Bush. If everything is his fault, then the reality of what happened does not have to be faced (this also explains the intense psychological denial that these same individuals tend to have about 9/11).

Bush becomes the "criminal mastermind", so devious, so evil, that everything he says is a "lie", everything he does is part of a vast global consipiracy. His family has intimate ties to Bin Laden and the Saudis; He is trying to enrich his oil business friends; He is trying to avenge the insult to his father by getting rid of Saddam; He plans world domination etc. etc. I could go on an on, but you get the point.

What is most funny is that these psychologically naiive individuals simultaneously think of Bush as this "criminal mastermind"--a genius of evil; and also as a complete moron who isn't capable of uttering a sentence without making a hash of it; or that his brain is controlled by the equally evil Karl Rove.

The cognitive dissonance required to have all these contradictory beliefs swirling around in one's brain is astonishing. But besides the primary function it serves to erase from consciousness what is happening in the world today, it is serving a secondary purpose--it makes them feel in control of what might come.

They can predict with the complete accuracy of the delusional mind that whatever happens--whatever horror is unleased by Al Qaeda or Hamas or Islamic Jihad--was caused by President Bush's actions/inactions/intentions (take your pick).

They can conduct a brave protest march against the evil Bush...but clearly they don't dare protest real terror or terrorist acts the way that the Jordanians or the Lebanese did, for example. The terrorists are simply poor, misunderstood individuals who have been oppressed by...Bush. Get rid of Bush (or America; or Israel) and voila! Problem solved!

It would be a foolproof defense against the threat, except...except...if it weren't for ... reality. It would be foolproof, except that the REAL horror; the REAL evil will just not go away. The REAL evil just gets bolder and more aggressive. Like the Nazis in the last century, the REAL evil will not be appeased, and is aware of this psychological weakness inherent in their enemies. In fact, they count on it - because by exploiting it is the only way the terrorists can win.

As I said at the beginning of this piece, those who are mindful and deliberate in their attacks and are using them for personal political gain; or to advance a totalitarian agenda are simply evil. But there are many people who normally have some degreee of goodwill and sense. Those are the people I am trying to wake up. Think and ask yourselves-- what you are doing? Look around at what is going on in the world.

It is not Bush who is lopping off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia. It is not Karl Rove who is exhorting mindless minions to explode at wedding parties in Jordan. It is not Bush's policies that have induced immigrant Muslims to riot in France.

It is the cold-hearted ruthlessness of a fanatical ideology that intends to wipe our civilization off the map. It will not be appeased, and the more you feed it with appeasement, the stronger and bolder it gets. Please note, that since 9/11 there have not been any direct attacks on the U.S. homeland. They have settled for smaller "hit and run" targets of opportunity. Why? Because they rightly fear what we might do if another attack occurred (and besides, they have the MSM and the Left to wage their attacks on the homeland).

This is not to say that such attacks might not occur when the enemy has the sense that America will never fight back. There are many who give them that assurance daily.

As a psychiatrist I work with patients who use maladaptive psychological defenses all the time. The goal of treatment is to help them develop insight and self awareness and begin to take responsibility for their own lives and actions; and to face reality--no matter how painful or unpleasant--not to close their eyes and hope and wish it will go away.

In other words, to act like mature adults and deal with it.

As long as they focus all their energy on hating Bush and act like the whiny petulant and angry child, who expects daddy to instantaneously make everything better-- or else they won't like it; then they don't ever have to act like mature adults and cope with reality in a mature fashion. It is soooo much easier to blame everything on daddy.

[gerryhatrick]

WTF?

Maybe I'll read that later.....or not!

[KrustyKidd]

Don't have to, basicaly says what we all know, that you have a phsycotic obcession with Bush and any post you produce has that at it's core..

[gerryhatrick]

Don't have to, basicaly says what we all know, that you have a phsycotic obcession with Bush and any post you produce has that at it's core..

Oh, thanks for paraphrasing KK! You and him are both stand-on-the-side-of -road-shaking-fist-at-traffic types so it would have been hard for me to understand.

I think this is fitting here:

Tells it like it is.

[KrustyKidd]

You and him are both stand-on-the-side-of -road-shaking-fist-at-traffic types so it would have been hard for me to understand.

When are you going to respond to the points I countered last week? Or is throwing an insult out at Bush the only stuff you have up your sleeve. It is said that if some on the Left did not have the ability to insult, they would be left with no argument. Or, in this case, reduced to using a cartoon for lack of same.

[gerryhatrick]

When are you going to respond to the points I countered last week?

This topic is only a couple days old. If you're pining over points that were not addressed someplace else then you're welcome to PM me the location and I'll either respond or explain why I am not.

Put asside the immature rightwing tactics and be professional.

[KrustyKidd]

If you're pining over points that were not addressed someplace else then you're welcome to PM me the location and I'll either respond or explain why I am not.

Put asside the immature rightwing tactics and be professional.

I don't really expect you to reply as you didn't before which is indicative of somebody who has no answer. Yet, would like to once again, give you the opportunity. In fact, one of them you asked me to give my opinion directly and then just walked away from it.

Here.

Defending someone so obviously dishonest and incompetant who's f'd up things so badly is a thankless job.

Five and a half years and nothing. Yes, so obviously dishonest. Get an argument for crying out loud, this baseless conjecture and emotional drivel makes you look like a troll poster. Wait, why don't you just address the ones of mine you have conveiniently skipped over?

There's this one

It was the offical US policy to effect Regime Change in Iraq.

What is the point of that? So therefore it was OK to lie his way into a war?

Besides the fact that your quote refers to "support efforts" (rather than START A WAR!) it's not relevant.

It was to be done since the signing by Clinton by non military means but, since 911, things changed. So, it would be a deriliction of his duty to NOT attemp to effect this Regime Change it seems, by whatever method he could.

I suppose that Saddam being in violation of resolutions and such and thus becomming a legitimate target for active regime change would then be the recipient of said support. After a decade of trying, the US was forced to act in order to get Iraq to comply.

Of course it can be argued ineffectively they did not have to act as nobody has to do anything. They could stand down the forces they had in theater and allow him to do whatever he wanted or, simply become isolationist and allow the world to go on with whatever it does when controlled by Great Powers such as France, Russia and China and an Iraq with Saddam unrestricted..

Oh, I get it. You meant in case Hondorus effected the regime change the US should have provided moral support in the form of the USO or something. Ok, gotcha.

And this one which was a tag along with Monty affair you didn't address which had some points which challenged your argument

His point is that if Bush knew that he was going to go to war with Iraq no matter what if possible, then he lied to the American people when he stated that war would be an action of the last resort.

And to him, that makes hime happy because it means there is an oppoortunity for Bush to be discredited or even in a fantasy world - impeached.

What he discounts is that Saddam was as predictable as a Musillini run train and that the administration knew he could never come clean even if he wanted to. Hence, it was a virtual given that the resolutions would be breached. And, if not with WMDs, it could and more than likely have been with the ecological reparations, POW returns, repatriation of foreign nationals, war reparations etc. Hence, when none of those had even been acted on in over ten years, one can figure without using a calculator that given that they take years to complete if they are even started at all that he would be in breach of something.

Lo and behold, in the two months that Iraq actually got serious they turned in a document that Blix himself called 'disappointing' containing fake documents and then even testified that the actions by Iraq were not 'immediate and unconditional' which BTW were the exact terms 687 said that Iraq must be in order to be in compliance with 1441 which reiterated the authority that the US and the coalition had to take whatever action was necessary to get Iraq to comply.

It's the stuff left wing dreams are made of is what the point is Monty. Same crowd that are angry for the US invasion killing Iraqs to the tune of thirty thousand while saving on average five hundred thousand from Saddam and his adventures. Very humanistic they try to portray themselves as they have a belief that by having the US leave Iraq as it is comming together, they now wish to have the US leave and watch a further two hundred fifty thousand die by disease and trauma. Very strange words for a group that are argueing that Bush did not give every oppoortunity to avoid war and are now saying that we should give democracy no more opportunity.

Nothing to worry about, go back to Kojack.

And then of course, you never once commented in any way to my speculation of what would happen if the US left Iraq.

You can go here to do so. You were the one who said Iraq would be much better off if the US left Iraq so it should be interesting to see you refute any of the possibilities with reason.

Oh, another argument maybe you can answer what Black Dog could not

Well, Saddam got twelve years of opportunity, why is it the Iraqis themselves only get three? To say sanctions and resolutions were working is wrong as they were not yet the Iraqis, with US help, have come together in a political process with a greater percentage of the population voting under threat of death than those who do in most democratic countries.

So, why is it the left was willing to cut Saddam so much slack when no progress was being made, yet give no time or opportunity to Iraqis when they are actively engaging in the political porocess?

It just seems so hypocritical.

I think this all ties in with the 72% thread and your last post there so won't bother addressing it unless you wish but, the points are here anyhow.

[Montgomery Burns]

Hey Gerryhatrick. Here's another political song for you to listen and watch.

Please move all throwable objects away before you click the above link.

[gerryhatrick]

Hey Gerryhatrick. Here's another political song for you to listen and watch.

Please move all throwable objects away before you click the above link.

Thanks, but I don't run your links.

Oh, and btw, I told you to PM me the location of the topic/post you were wanting a response to. Posting it here is trolling. Therefore, you can continue to b#tch and complain about not getting an answer.

[KrustyKidd]

Oh, and btw, I told you to PM me the location of the topic/post you were wanting a response to. Posting it here is trolling. Therefore, you can continue to b#tch and complain about not getting an answer.

That's OK. I just wanted to stump you a bit in public. You answer everything else with the same Bush schtick so I knew there was a reason why these were not addressed.

Anyhow, why is it the Left were willing to give Saddam a decade and more when he didn't do a thing to adhere to the rule of the world and Iraqis by you and your ilk's measure should only get three years when they have made so much progress?

[Montgomery Burns]

Hey Gerryhatrick. Here's another political song for you to listen and watch.

Please move all throwable objects away before you click the above link.

Thanks, but I don't run your links.

Oh, and btw, I told you to PM me the location of the topic/post you were wanting a response to. Posting it here is trolling. Therefore, you can continue to b#tch and complain about not getting an answer.

Hope you enjoyed that song. It's sure to be a smash hit.

Btw, I have no idea what you're talking about regarding the location of the topic/post and response. I don't take you too seriously as it is easy to see you are inflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome.