Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security (Annotated)

C. Alan Hopewell, Ph.D., Dr. Leonard Magruder

[Elkiejg]

Many Jews feel Carter and Baker have taken a consistently pro-Palestinian line, and some were worried by Carter's comments at the convention, where he linked the Bush administration's policy toward Israel to anti-American sentiment.

If this is true, why do I continue to read the a vast majority of Jews will vote Democrat?

[Leisler]

bump! I read Unfit for Command and put away the lying, what came through is what a nutter Kerry is.

[Mia T]

THIS Jew will not. Nor will any of her immediate family.

Not even my UWS (upper west side) Columbia PhD ultra-liberal twin brother. (he voted for neither clinton and just to give you an idea of his political orientation, when he recently accosted Kerry in Cambridge MA, he was brushed off as much too liberal!) These days, he never votes dem. he will be voting for nader.

I think it's predominantly older, uneducated, unwired Jews who are intractable dems. the reasons for this are mainly reflex, fear, ignorance and/or stupidity, not necessarily in that order.

[Mia T]

Kerry does have psychological 'issues.' I am planning a kerry deconstruction piece, cracking the nut, if you will. ;)

[Mia T]

I might add that I was recently heartened to hear that an 85-year-old UES (upper east side) family elder is abandoning his foolish ways and voting for nader. I just sent him the Koch article (see above), which I suspect may even push him into the Bush column.

[Mia T]

fyi

[firewalk]

good morning
thanks for the ping
& bttt

[marta R]

Well ofcourse I'm no psychiatrist, but I think kerry has a bit of an algore problem, let's face it, here's a guy who has made up all kind of grand stories about his heroics in battle, the question I wonder is, is kerry a narcissist who would do anything to get power and wealth, or is he a just a liar and an opportunist?

Either way, God help us if he gets elected!

[Mia T]

The Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04

 
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.

Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.

To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

GEORGE TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

• its naivete about the War on Terror,
• its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
• its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

 

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

 

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.

Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.

My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.

Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.

When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.

Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.

Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

 

MORE

 

 

A PRESIDENT KERRY MAY BE ABHORRENT
...BUT IS IT EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL?

getting kerry's goat
john kerry lacks presidential temperament

Two Psychologists on Kerry: Dangerous on National Security

YOO-HOO! followthemoney.org. . .
OVER HERE!

"bombastic ass" is not the antidote to "boorish ass"
(or why Keith Olbermann Cannot Do Cleanup for Chris Matthews)

UNFIT #19:
JOHN KERRY'S "MORE SENSITIVE WAR ON TERROR"

THE COMPLEAT JOHN KERRY
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

Kerry, NOT Bush, paralyzed by 9/11 attacks
Hear Kerry admit he could not think

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES ³
UNFIT #10: 9/10 mindset

THE DEMOCRATS ARE GONNA GET US KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES ₂
KERRY-DEMOCRAT CONTEMPT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY[annotated]

THE DEMOCRATS-ARE-GONNA-GET-US-KILLED (kerry, clinton + sandy berger's pants) SERlES₁

dox in sox on lummox in box on fox

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts)

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

THE MAN FROM HOPE: been there, done that

"Hope is on the way!" (the scoop)

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES: 8/10/04 UPDATE!
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief

JOHN KERRY IS UNFIT SERIES:
taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief

UNFIT #9-JOHN KERRY: DEADLY OPPORTUNIST
SELF-CONFESSED WAR CRIMlNAL MORPHS INTO SELF-PROMOTER WAR HERO

UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL

JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

giant sucking sound
KERRY MAKES DUKAKIS LOOK CONSERVATIVE, SMART + JUDICIOUS

Q ERTY6 ^{utter failure}_BUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

 

 

MORE

[Mia T]

bump

kerry's algore problem:

the left's jihad against America is killing our troops,
aiding + abetting the terrorists + imperiling all Americans

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

john kerry:
quintessential effete leftist vacillating metro dilettante
with phallic-stage issues (the father figure? JFK, not daddy. )

 

 

 

"'Al has a way of looking at you like his eyes are kind of burning,' said Nashville Tennessean reporter John Warnecke.You would get that when you mentioned his dad'.

Asked in a 1987 interview about relations between father and son, Tipper Gore said:'You remember Oedipus? She quickly added that she was kidding, sort of. 'You had a very powerful father - a hero to many people - and a son coming to maturity and learning to find his own dignity.'"

Inventing Al Gore by Bill Turque, p. 30

 

 

 

 

[Delphinium]

Was that Koch article posted anywhere else on FR?

[Mia T]

Yes.
Here's one written by koch:

Why Bush Must Be Re-elected

Edward I. Koch
Thursday, July 22, 2004

I support the re-election of President George W. Bush. Why? Because I believe one issue overwhelms all others: the presidentís strong commitment to fight the forces of international terrorism regardless of the cost or how long it takes to achieve victory.

I do not agree with President Bush on a single major domestic issue, but in my view those issues pale in comparison with the threat of international terrorism. Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the evil poster boys of mass murder, are revered and supported by millions of Muslims throughout the world. The stated goal of al-Qaida and its supporters is to kill or convert every infidel, and that means Jews, Christians, Buddhists and everyone else who will not accept Islamís supremacy.

These terrorists are convinced that non-Islamic nations do not have the will and courage to persevere in this ongoing struggle, which could last decades. They believe the democracies are weak-willed and will ultimately yield to whatever demands are made upon them.

By withdrawing their troops from Iraq in response to terrorist attacks, Spain and the Philippines have already shown that, tragically, terror tactics, including suicide attacks, car bombings and the beheading of innocent civilians, do work.

The terrorists also intend to destroy moderate Muslim governments that want to live in peace with countries that are not Islamic.

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush announced his commitment to the struggle against Islamic fanatics, who believe they can destroy the values of Western civilization and democratic governments everywhere. On entering this war against terrorism after 9/11, President Bush said, ìWe shall go after the terrorists and the countries that harbor them.î

This Bush Doctrine rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which limited the colonization efforts of foreign powers in the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which contained the spread of Communism. President Bush has proven that he is prepared to keep to his commitment to fight terrorism.

If John Kerry were to win this presidential election, would he stand up to terrorism to the same extent as George Bush has? I donít think so. Regrettably, my party, the Democratic Party, now has a strong radical left wing whose members often dominate the party primaries. Those same left-wing radicals have an anti-Israel philosophy, reviling that democratic state which shares the values held by a majority of Americans.

Kerry is a patriotic American who performed heroically in the Vietnam War. Regrettably, he surrendered his philosophical independence to the left wing in the recent primaries in order to prevail over the original darling of the radicals, Howard Dean. Kerry owes his nomination in large part to the supporters of Dean and the support of Senator Ted Kennedy.

Kennedy sadly demonstrated his loss of any sense of decency with his crude attacks on President Bush using unacceptable, abusive language. The hatred deliberately stirred by Kennedy directed at President Bush is contemptible and dangerous. It encourages our terrorist enemies with whom we are at war, and it incites the crazies in our own country.

On July 9, a Kerry-Edwards fund-raising concert was held at Radio City Music Hall. During that concert Hollywood comedienne Whoopi Goldberg engaged in unprintable, despicable, sexual references to the president and the vice president. She combined the presidentís family name with allusions to the female anatomy, and she made a sexual reference to Vice President Dick Cheneyís first name by referring to the male anatomy.

Even worse was Kerryís thank-you from the stage to all of the performers saying that they conveyed "the heart and soul of our country." Shameful.

Now a comment about the war in Iraq. Most Americans understand that few, if any, wars go smoothly. Just cast your mind back to the American Revolutionary War, during which New York City was occupied by enemy forces for seven years, or the American Civil War, in which Confederate armies won victory after victory on the battlefield, or even World War II, in which the Nazi menace was defeated at an enormous cost in human lives. Should we have gone to war with Iraq? I believe the answer is yes.

During a daily briefing after 9/11, then CIA Director George Tenet told the president that Iraq had the ability to wage chemical and biological war on the U.S. He referred to Iraqís possession of weapons of mass destruction as a "slam dunk." Had the president not engaged in the pre-emptive war against Saddam, and if this madman had subsequently released in the U.S. biological agents or poison gas, which he had already used against the Kurds and Iran, does anyone doubt that the president would have been impeached?

The security agencies of nearly every democratic nation provided to their president or prime minister the same description of Iraqís weapons-of-mass-destruction capability. The U.S. Congress had the same information and concurred with the presidentís decision. The U.N. Security Council unanimously concurred, passing Resolution 1441.

But it was President Bush who had the courage to take up arms in defense of the U.S. and our allies. That is what leadership is all about.

A poll released by the Washington Post on July 14, 2004, showed that "55 percent of Americans approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism" and "51 percent also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat."

We also should not forget that President Bush, in my opinion, has been the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House. At the U.N. Security Council and in the U.N. General Assembly, allies of the U.S. and others who are indifferent or hostile to our country have conveyed the view that if we end our alliance with Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, they would welcome back the U.S. into their circle. President Bush has refused to abandon our ally Israel.

In my opinion, the U.S. presidents who have been Israelís greatest friends are, in order, the current President Bush, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. This November, we Americans in the Jewish community should remember our friends. We should thank President Bush for his courage in the war against terrorism and for his strong and consistent support for Israel and democracy.

Edward I. Koch is the former mayor of New York City. His commentary for Bloomberg radio is republished here. You can hear his weekly radio show by going to www.bloomberg.com/radio.

104

[Capricam]

Well, one thing's for sure. Kerry is NOT the anti-Christ. He just doesn't have the 'charisma'.

[Delphinium]

I found some threads.

This is great!

Now if we can get Adam Sandler to campaign for Bush.

[chilepepper]

actually, this scares me the way i suspect adolph hitler scared thoughtful germans in 1930-1932.

how this clown can get as far politically as he has, and makes a mockery of his service to his country, while being promoted and moved along by powerful forces?

parallels the rise of the adolph hitler.

these parallels are much more numerous than those which try to portray GWB as Hitler, as DU, Moveon.org and the left implies:

o Kerry and Hitler were both "War Heros" with medals.
o Kerry and Hitler were heros in wars that their nation "lost".
o Kerry and Hitler were both "Wounded" in that war.
o Kerry and Hitler are both opportunists.
o Kerry and Hitler are dedicated to overthrow the existing order.
o Kerry and Hitler were both leaders of radical organizations willing to use violence to win.
o Kerry and Hitler used national dissatisfaction with the war they fought in to gain political prominence.
o Kerry and Hitler gathered up many recruits to his cause from the new-age paganist movement and the ecology movement.
o Kerry and Hitler use sympathetic newsmedia to mold what people are allowed to know and believe.
o Kerry and Hitler use their ties to the entertainment business to stage grandious events meant to impress the weak minded.
o Kerry and Hitler supress or ban books dangerous to them.
o Kerry and Hitler are both adopted by the super-rich as a vehicle to take political control.
o Kerry and Hitler are both socialists.
o Kerry and Hitler are both power hungry narcissists with "psychological issues".

[lonestar]

You keep me so busy. Thank you.

[MeekOneGOP]

Good post!

[Mia T]

I've emailed the koch articles and the psychologists' piece above to all, requesting that they send it on.

[Delphinium]

I do that too.

Even if a fraction sends it on, it will help.

[Quix]

THANKS.

Sent to my email list with annotations and emphases!

Of course.