Bush's Addiction Rages On

According to psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank, writing in his book, "Bush on the Couch: Inside the mind of the President," Dubya not only suffers from a "sadistic streak," and "megalomania" and "grandiosity," but while "his alcoholism [may have] been arrested," it nevertheless remains "untreated." You have to wonder, don't you, if old Dubya hasn't merely swapped one addiction for another - one opiate for the enthralling enamor of God?

Professionals working in the field of recovery have often observed the addicted personality turn towards God as their savior. Typically, though, they, like Dubya, are merely substituting one addiction for another. It's hard to argue that God isn't really better for them than their drug - be it alcohol, or cocaine, or whatever - but individuals usually get hooked on drugs for a reason and by finding God addicts frequently postpone, or oftentimes permanently pass over, the opportunity for truly coming to grips with and resolving their own personality problems. That person then becomes what is known as a "dry drunk:" one who is sober, or straight, but isn't really in recovery. Their problems frequently come back to haunt them in inexplicable ways.

As for Dubya; we know he was a drunk, he's admitted as much on several occasions; we know at least once he was picked up, arrested, and booked for driving under the influence; and although the complete details haven't really been forthcoming, we also know he most likely dabbled in the use of other substances, such as marijuana and cocaine. Let's face it, Dubya was a party animal and while his businesses kept collapsing around him, he was out there having himself a pretty good time. He was also in fairly deep denial, evidently, until his wife laid down the law. Either Dubya had to stop drinking, or she was going to leave him. Much to his credit he managed to get off the booze, but then immediately screwed up again by not taking the path to true recovery, which would have required that he face himself and his numerous shortcomings. Much to the rest of our chagrin, he has now become Leader Maximus, and doubly (or is that Dubyaly) insists upon avoiding self-examination and self-criticism. Neither, apparently, will he allow others to do it for him.

All of that, of course, explains his complete and total lack of sympathy for other human beings. He knows he was a screw-up, but as he has never come to grips with that part of himself, a very substantial part of himself, he proceeds now to, in effect, deny that part ever existed. He hates who and what he was, and the moment he catches a glimpse of such an individual his own defense mechanisms harden, and he instinctively turns away from them, as if in disgust of his own reflection. Hang em, get them out of my sight, show them no mercy, he says as appeal after appeal comes before him for judgement; and rather than judge such instances based upon the merits, he judges based upon his own loathing of the pitiful creature he once was. Otherwise, he might show some sympathy and understanding for those who, like himself, are facing some fairly rough times.

Dubya's escape from his past was to immerse himself in the never-never-land of Christian conversion. He overcompensates and sees himself as some great avatar of God. The conquering hero (which he surely never was) come to save humanity from itself. The only saving that needs done is to save the rest of the planet, including our now hapless selves, from his over-proselytizing zeal. The man has gone gaga over some conception of Jesus or Yahweh that never was. There is no fool like a newly converted fool, however, and Dubya provides the archetypical example! Holier than thou, fire and brimstone, this nut-case now stalks the planet seeking out ways to complete the conversion of the heathen - to bring them liberty, and freedom (which, truth be told, are the last things he wants them to have).

In his evangelical lust, and Draconian self-hatred, he has given license to all sorts of nut cases who now roam America beseeching the faithful to stone the sinners, and purify the weak. Kick out, or - may the gods forbid - murder the liberal judges, and cleanse the temples of all whose faith varies from that of the self-proclaimed righteous. Cast out all images that reflect the wounded and insecure and immature Dubya of his youth (which lasted until he was 40), and, showing no quarter, institute that which is harsh and severe and ruthless lest any remnant remain to remind him of who and what he once represented.

As it now stands, the world is left to behold this paragon of over-simplicity, this puppet of the Sanhedrin, this anti-Christ come lately who now has up to 100,000 murders to his discredit. The legions of Empire rage on, and George Dubya, the ne'er do well alcoholic from Texas, leads from the rear, and from the flight deck of a carrier sequestered somewhere a few miles off the coast of sunny California.

May the gods save us from this bringer of democracy and peace who now strips the land of its treasure, fortifies the well-to-do, and obtusely refuses to take responsibility for his own seething self-hatreds and shortcomings.

No, its not verbatim, which really makes your use of quotes odd and misplaced, as well as just plain incorrect. No idea where that came from, sorry.

My statement still stands: I didn't get the impression that Dr. Frist offered a serious medical diagnosis, and whatever his comments were it is certainly not comparable to writing a detailed book on the subject, as the psychiatrist who never treated President Bush composed.

Most people have no problem distinguishing between the two, and in any event Frist was arguing for a Federal Court review on due process grounds, not for Congress to come to a position on the issue that would supercede the court decision.

That's not selective memory, either for the first time, or 'again' as you suggested - I don't know of another one of my posts where 'we' [as you wrote] were using selective memory, though I can't speak for your posts since I can't remember any of them.

As for Dubya and his sobriety, that's a non sequitur here, as I haven't offered any opinion or belief about that on this thread or elsewhere on FR, making that comment additionally odd and disjointed. I will say that your comments speak volumes for your clarity of thought, though.

Be seeing you.

As far as clarity of thought is concerned, I feel as if you have misrepresented me. Dr. Frist did make a diagnosis and used that in his justification of the support of the "Palm Sunday Compromise" bill. The actual quote was: "I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office... she certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

Anyway, I felt that I needed to post this because the general consensus of this thread was that the writer of the book had no place making a diagnosis without meeting the "patient."

The remark about George Bush's alleged sobriety were actually in response to post #44 which contained this little gem: "...I'm sober for over 20 years without any help from this asshole, and so is the President."

Clarity of thought is evidently is a problem: the actual quote you offered isn't any kind of diagnosis at all: he is explicitly questioning a conclusion based on review of some video. That's not a diagnosis of Schiavo being in a PVS or not being in a PVS.

It's just questioning a medical conclusion (which is entirely legitimate). If you look at the quote you supplied again (which is very different from your quoted paraphrase, as odd as that was) you can see that Frist males no diagnosis either way.

He questions the diagnosis based on video footage. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli. He isn't making any type of sophisticated diagnosis, nor purports to, sorry.

Writing a book that clearly purports to make a diagnosis based on no direct interaction with a patient is not a way to gain credibility. The author of the book has no credibility. If Frist did something comparable in firmness and scope (and here he did neither), he would lose comparable credibility.

And your observation regarding 'we' having selective memory 'again' are still not very meaningful - we have had nothing of the kind, neither for the first time nor again. No idea where you got that from, sorry.

And I have no idea why you felt compelled to respond to post #44 in a post to me, since I had nothing to do with that post and those observations made you appear more confused and disjointed - though now that you clarified, while I still think it's odd and misplaced, I realize I am probably wrong and that you are not as confused and disjointed as I originally thought.

In any case, thanks for pointing out what clear minded folks knew: the writer of the book couldn't make a meaningful diagnosis without actually thoroughly examining his subject (your use of the word 'patient' notwithstanding). Frist couldn't make one either. The distinction, of course, is that the author of this book purports to do just that, in fairly definite terms, while the quote you supplied from Frist isn't very comparable at all.

Re: misrepresenting you.

I'm sorry if you felt I misrepresented you. If anything, you misrepresented Frist's comments. The first quote you offered (which wasn't a quote, but a paraphrase you oddly placed within quotes, which suggests you don't know how to use quotes, but that's neither here nor there) was a misrepresentation - Frist didn't say anything remotely like that.

The actual quote you supplied doesn't say what you think it said. There is no firm diagnosis of Schiavo not being in a PVS. It is an explicit questioning of the conclusion that she is in a PVS. The last part, that she 'certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli,' is a statement of fact and opinion - it may be wrong but it's not a firm diagnosis either way.

I am sorry if you feel that pointing this out somehow misrepresents you, and I apologize.

Phew! What a screed! Where do these bitter, angry people see this stuff? Am I blind?

I know an alcoholic or 50, I know drunk ones, sober ones, and I've been closely aquainted with 5 who have died of it. I've seen dry drunks and let me tell you Dubya isn't on one. He's not that good an actor. I think he's like my husband, who didn't get treatment or go to AA. Dry drunks are just like active alcoholics, they don't grow and mature, they're like...like Clinton.

Thank you for your speedy reply and the courtesy in your words. I do realize that I misused quotation marks in my initial post. I have been up to my ears in APA-style papers for the past month and was shocked to see that I had made an such an error. For my benefit only I will repeat what I have learned tonight: You only use quotes when the authors words are being reproduced verbatim. I must also say that it is refreshing and inspiring to find someone that also believes that good grammar and spelling should not exclusively exist offline.

Dr. Frist's comments on March 20 were interpreted by myself and others as a diagnosis. The small quote that I provided for you was all that I could find on short notice that was not a paraphrase. His comments also appeared to be dismissal of previous diagnoses by doctors more closely related to the personal care of Terri Schaivo. It is widely recognized that the majority of doctors in that specialty that actually met Ms. Schaivo concurred with the initial assessment and concluded that she was in fact PVS.

No worries, friend. I'm not an obsessive stickler for spelling and grammar, though I do notice deviations from the rules of grammar here and there. Your use of quotes was incongruous and just plain wrong: it really suggested you didn't know their proper use.

As for your interpretation of Dr. Frist's comments, reasonable people can disagree on that, of course, and as you say you are merely stating your opinion on the impression Frist's comments gave you.

My interpretation rests mostly on his explicit use of a variation of the word 'question.' I take that literally - based on what he saw (and what he said he saw, admittedly limited information - and Frist wouldn't disagree) he questions the conclusion of some of the doctors (but not all of the doctors, as there were doctors who examined Terri who disagreed with the consensus diagnosis).

So all Frist did was question (and literally question, as he offered no explicit diagnosis) the conclusions of some of the doctors.

Now if he explicitly said she was in his medical opinion not in a PVS (or was in a PVS), that would be a diagnosis. He didn't do that, and in fact came nowhere close, regardless of your impressions on the quote you provided.

In any case, I hope you can see how your paraphrase really didn't convey what Frist said at all. Nowhere in the quote does he say she was conclusively not in a PVS, and that he was offering his medical opinion.

Many on FR had a strange fixation on the Schiavo case as it developed (and evidently, some still do). In any case, that isn't license to

In any event, the situations are not comparable. One medical professional wrote a thick book that explicitly gives a medical diagnosis at length about a subject they never examined. Another medical professional questioned the diagnosis of some doctors (but not all) based on admittedly limited information he saw.

Questioning a medical conclusion isn't the same as a diagnosis - for example, it might just simply be a call for more medical examination. That much is certainly possible, your opinion notwithstanding.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.