Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

[Matty]

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

“It reminds me of the Nixon days,” says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. “Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That’s the mood over there.”

In interviews with a number of White House staffers who were willing to talk off the record, a picture of an administration under siege has emerged, led by a man who declares his decisions to be “God’s will” and then tells aides to “**** over” anyone they consider to be an opponent of the administration.

“We’re at war, there’s no doubt about it. What I don’t know anymore is just who the enemy might be,” says one troubled White House aide. “We seem to spend more time trying to destroy John Kerry than al Qaeda and our enemies list just keeps growing and growing.”

Aides say the President gets “hung up on minor details,” micromanaging to the extreme while ignoring the bigger picture. He will spend hours personally reviewing and approving every attack ad against his Democratic opponent and then kiss off a meeting on economic issues.

“This is what is killing us on Iraq,” one aide says. “We lost focus. The President got hung up on the weapons of mass destruction and an unproven link to al Qaeda. We could have found other justifiable reasons for the war but the President insisted the focus stay on those two, tenuous items.”

Aides who raise questions quickly find themselves shut out of access to the President or other top advisors. Among top officials, Bush’s inner circle is shrinking. Secretary of State Colin Powell has fallen out of favor because of his growing doubts about the administration’s war against Iraq.

The President's abrupt dismissal of CIA Directory George Tenet Wednesday night is, aides say, an example of how he works.

"Tenet wanted to quit last year but the President got his back up and wouldn't hear of it," says an aide. "That would have been the opportune time to make a change, not in the middle of an election campaign but when the director challenged the President during the meeting Wednesday, the President cut him off by saying 'that's it George. I cannot abide disloyalty. I want your resignation and I want it now."

Tenet was allowed to resign "voluntarily" and Bush informed his shocked staff of the decision Thursday morning. One aide says the President actually described the decision as "God's will."

God may also be the reason Attorney General John Ashcroft, the administration’s lightning rod because of his questionable actions that critics argue threatens freedoms granted by the Constitution, remains part of the power elite. West Wing staffers call Bush and Ashcroft “the Blues Brothers” because “they’re on a mission from God.”

“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “****ing assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

[CarbonCopy]

hahaha oh no the sky is falling!! I don't buy it buddy!

Later,

CC

[Pale Horse]

Great post from an athiest! Best fiction I've read in days.

Liberals!

[Big Rush]

what's the source?

[PurePower]

LOL......Nice slice of bullsh!t pie.

[Matty]

Probably isn't completely true, but then again...funny if it was.

1victor, you'll have to let me know how you found out my religious beliefs. Or was that an assumption that only godless heathens disagree with a neoconservative president. Certainly that wouldn't be the case, right? Along that lines, one might deduce that all republicans from the midwest are closed minded rednecks who'll blindly follow their 'sort of' elected leader straight into the abyss as long as they can keep their guns and f*ck their sisters. Now that wouldn't be right for someone to think, would it?

[ntwrk]

I respect your right to post something like this.............however, I'm going to call this what it is. Gossip bull****e.
If there is ANY part of that article that is fact, I'm more worried about the "presidential aides" disposition towards the President than visa versa.
With "friends" like those, GW doesn't need enemies.
One more thing, this article seems to be centered on GW's faith and religious beliefs. As far as I'm concerned, he is on a mission from God. I am a strong believer that the U.S Constitution was an inspired document; as well as the Declaration of Independence. Personally, I believe that the countries founding fathers would whole-heartedly agree with me. The Declaration of Independence makes several references to God and a higher power.
JMHO

[ntwrk]

PS
The article was a good laugh though

[Matty]

IMO, faith/religious beliefs have no place in organized politics.

[ripped4fsu]

source plz

[CarbonCopy]

source plz

The source is the National Enquirer right under the article about the killer alien sasquatch on the lose and the Elvis spotting in Vegas.

Later,

CC

[Matty]

www.capitolhillblue.com

As stated, probably not entirely true, but still entertaining.

[ntwrk]

IMO, faith/religious beliefs have no place in organized politics.

I definitely can see your side when it comes to the mixing of politics and faith. As history has shown us, a few misguided and arogant political leaders, proclaiming their divinity has had disastorous concenquences. However, I believe that the government is a representitive of the people it serves. Majority as well as minority. If 85% of Americans are in one way or another Chritian in faith, why should the government that serves those persons, their interests and morals, be completely devoid of said religious faith? Separation of church and state, as stated in the U.S Constitution, is all to often misrepresnted and taken out of context. The founding fathers did not want a "Godless", atheist government. They did however relize, because of the rule of the Church of England, that there should not be a state sponsored\founded church. Faith should not be forced on the public.
Good thread though.

[Matty]

I definitely can see your side when it comes to the mixing of politics and faith. As history has shown us, a few misguided and arogant political leaders, proclaiming their divinity has had disastorous concenquences. However, I believe that the government is a representitive of the people it serves. Majority as well as minority. If 85% of Americans are in one way or another Chritian in faith, why should the government that serves those persons, their interests and morals, be completely devoid of said religious faith? Separation of church and state, as stated in the U.S Constitution, is all to often misrepresnted and taken out of context. The founding fathers did not want a "Godless", atheist government. They did however relize, because of the rule of the Church of England, that there should not be a state sponsored\founded church. Faith should not be forced on the public.
Good thread though.

These are good points. One comment I would make is that not all Christians necessarily want religion in their government. I think that is why there are pro-life movements, etc. I think the founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned the world we live in today and therefore I'm not sure how they would react.

[Jeremy34]

I think I read that in Clinton's book, or maybe it was Al Franken's. But then again, I might have heard it on ABC or CNN, I can't remember. This is the kind of stuff the general population reads and believes, GOD help us.

[Jeremy34]

Wait....it was in Clinton's book, right after the chapter "My Strong Moral Character".

[ntwrk]

These are good points. One comment I would make is that not all Christians necessarily want religion in their government. I think that is why there are pro-life movements, etc. I think the founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned the world we live in today and therefore I'm not sure how they would react.

This is true. In more ways than at first percieved. How would of our founding fathers react if in their time, some woman came out and said that she wanted to kill her unborn child because she "didn't want it"? You can bet they'd flip!
How would our founding fathers react in their time if someone proposed to make witchcraft (Wicca) a recognized and protected religion under the U.S Constitution? They would burn that fukker at the stake.
There are many, many things that our society, through desensitization, has become complacant with. Such things as stated above are aborations of our wayward society. Such things like those stated above are not in any way, shape, or form of what our founding fathers had in mind when they wrote and endorsed the U.S Constitution.

[Carlos_E]

Probably isn't completely true, but then again...funny if it was.

1victor, you'll have to let me know how you found out my religious beliefs. Or was that an assumption that only godless heathens disagree with a neoconservative president. Certainly that wouldn't be the case, right? Along that lines, one might deduce that all republicans from the midwest are closed minded rednecks who'll blindly follow their 'sort of' elected leader straight into the abyss as long as they can keep their guns and f*ck their sisters. Now that wouldn't be right for someone to think, would it?

[tryingtogetbig]

funny how all the liberal media can come up with for sources is "some top white house aides"......

they are using un-named aides as their source....give me a break....

[zOaib]

funny how all the liberal media can come up with for sources is "some top white house aides"......

they are using un-named aides as their source....give me a break....

yeah its interesting really , kinda resembles the same way we were lead to believe there exist WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (big badda boom boom ) theory , which lead to an invasion that just needed an excuse , but i am not saying i love saddam , i am glad they caught the SOB ........... but reality is there are niches behind everything , and politics for once is filled wiht lies and agendas the regular public will never know !

[tryingtogetbig]

....saddam had WMD before...even used them...wasn't allowing inspectors access for 10 years.....didn't follow UN resolutions for 10 years.....now it has been proven he had Al Queda contacts......give it up.....

I suppose we should have waited until Saddam attacked the US before we did anything......good thing liberals don't run the country.....IMO....

[Pale Horse]

Matty,

You inbreds in the Carolinas get things confused I understand. When you are thinking all of the crap that flew out of your post that told me all I need to know about you.

You are a liberal a-hole without any beliefs or convictions what so-ever.

(Carlos pick your own fights)

[Matty]

Matty,

You inbreds in the Carolinas get things confused I understand. When you are thinking all of the crap that flew out of your post that told me all I need to know about you.

You are a liberal a-hole without any beliefs or convictions what so-ever.

(Carlos pick your own fights)

Let's see...

Inbreds? Liberal a-hole? Nice touch...but doesn't surprise me. Can we refrain from name calling just once?

If I had no beliefs or convictions, what would you call this little back and forth we are having now? If I had no beliefs would I have posted anything here to begin with? If I had no conviction, would I be disagreeing with you?

[decadbal]

newbie fight.... i got your back matt, i grew up in nc...

[Matty]

newbie fight - now that's funny!

[Animal Cracker]

source- probably CNN, Gay News, BET or some lib-lab journalist.

[Matty]

source- probably CNN, Gay News, BET or some lib-lab journalist.

Yet another well thought out comment. Nice work! See #12 of this post and please notice my comment regarding it. BTW, what would your thoughts be on a liberal gay black man watching CNN?

[Cycleon]

1victor, you'll have to let me know how you found out my religious beliefs. Or was that an assumption that only godless heathens disagree with a neoconservative president. Certainly that wouldn't be the case, right? Along that lines, one might deduce that all republicans from the midwest are closed minded rednecks who'll blindly follow their 'sort of' elected leader straight into the abyss as long as they can keep their guns and f*ck their sisters. Now that wouldn't be right for someone to think, would it?

As to religious beliefs - this is why people tend to assume you are an atheist - there is a clear pattern of it for bush haters

http://67.18.108.244/showthread.php?...35#post1059535

[Matty]

As to religious beliefs - this is why people tend to assume you are an atheist - there is a clear pattern of it for bush haters

http://67.18.108.244/showthread.php?...35#post1059535

Interesting read, however this article does not mention atheism at all. It discusses church attendance which clearly is not the same as atheism. So one cannot believe in god unless one attends church regularly? Does this mean that elderly Christians who cannot attend church are actually atheists because they physically could not make it to church?

[Cycleon]

matty, dont throw out cannards, you know better than tripe about indigent elderly people.

and certainly you can believe in a religious creed without attending church - but it shows that those most serious about their beliefs and associated with those of like thought are likely to support Bush

can you point out many atheists who would support Bush? I dont think so

[Matty]

matty, dont throw out cannards, you know better than tripe about indigent elderly people.

and certainly you can believe in a religious creed without attending church - but it shows that those most serious about their beliefs and associated with those of like thought are likely to support Bush

can you point out many atheists who would support Bush? I dont think so

True, but the point of the article was church attendance and the assumption is that if you don't attend church you are an athiest. I find this assumption to be just that, an assumption. An assumption was made that if one opposes Bush they are an atheist. This goes back to my comment to 1victor:

"...you'll have to let me know how you found out my religious beliefs. Or was that an assumption that only godless heathens disagree with a neoconservative president. Certainly that wouldn't be the case, right? Along that lines, one might deduce that all republicans from the midwest are closed minded rednecks who'll blindly follow their 'sort of' elected leader straight into the abyss as long as they can keep their guns and f*ck their sisters. Now that wouldn't be right for someone to think, would it?"

[Pale Horse]

Matty ,

You started the dung throwing with the screwing your sister comment, and I don't want hear it was an example, it was a veiled comment.

[Matty]

It was an example of a generalization that an irrational person might make, nothing more. I don't know anything about you and therefore would not make assumptions about what you are like.

[Pale Horse]

So it was wrong for me to assume that pasting a God bashing post makes you an athiest, are you or not?

[sin]

Great post from an athiest! Best fiction I've read in days.

Liberals!

great reply. are you required to wear a helmet for daily activities?

[Pale Horse]

Helmet? That is pretty lame, how old are you boy?

[Matty]

So it was wrong for me to assume that pasting a God bashing post makes you an athiest, are you or not?

Please show me where anything I have posted is "God bashing".

[Cycleon]

True, but the point of the article was church attendance and the assumption is that if you don't attend church you are an athiest. I find this assumption to be just that, an assumption. An assumption was made that if one opposes Bush they are an atheist. This goes back to my comment to 1victor:

The data states that if you are an atheist you are less likely to vote for bush - same is if you are not very dedicated in your belief - doesnt mean that if you vote for Kerry that you are an atheist - you were asleep in that freshman logic class?

[Matty]

I really hate to belabor this topic...but the data suggested that those who attend church more often were more likely to vote for Bush. It mentioned nothing about atheism or belief status and simply displays the correlation between church attendance and voting habits.

That's it. I'm done. No mas, por favor.

[Jeremy34]

Matty, just like a lib, can't answer direct questions....I think there was a direct question asking if you are an atheist, because, sorry, but you sound like one to me also.