Bush unhinged?

[Boris Godunov]

Now, rumors have been circulating in the blogosphere for a while now (pretty much since Bush's approval ratings plunged to the nether regions) about Bush having gone a bit batty, becoming more petulant and temperamental, sulky and even perhaps hitting the bottle again. But you have to dismiss that kind of stuff as more wishful thinking on the part of some.

This, however, is disturbing:

http://www.insightmag.com/

President Bush feels betrayed by several of his most senior aides and advisors and has severely restricted access to the Oval Office, administration sources say. The president's reclusiveness in the face of relentless public scrutiny of the U.S.-led war in Iraq and White House leaks regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame has become so extreme that Mr. Bush has also reduced contact with his father, former President George H.W. Bush, administration sources said on the condition of anonymity.

You have to be registered to read the whole thing, but AMERICAblog has provided some excerpts:

The sources said Mr. Bush maintains daily contact with only four people: first lady Laura Bush, his mother, Barbara Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes. The sources also say that Mr. Bush has stopped talking with his father, except on family occasions.

For the president, what triggered the break with his father was the interview given to the New Yorker magazine in October by Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security advisor in the first Bush presidency. In the interview, Mr. Scowcroft criticized the administration's handling of Iraq. The sources said the president is convinced that Mr. Scowcroft consulted with Mr. Bush's father prior to delivering the devastating critique of the president's Iraq policy. [...]

Relations between Mr. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, had also become tense in the build-up to the indictment of Mr. Libby. This is due to the fact the president believed his chief aide when Mr. Rove said that he had nothing to do with the leak of Mrs. Plame's identity. The prospect that Mr. Libby will turn state evidence in the Plame case is even more alarming for the White House.

Now, Insight Magazine happens to be the web-based partner of The Washington Times newspaper, which is an unabashedly conservative paper. For them to publish this lends it a rather larger level of credibility.

If this is true, it's a bit frightening.

[Kuciwalker]

Now, Insight Magazine happens to be the web-based partner of The Washington Times newspaper, which is an unabashedly conservative paper. For them to publish this lends it a rather larger level of credibility.

No it doesn't. The Times is owned by Reverend Moon.

[JohnT]

The Time's credibility, or lack thereof, lies solely within what point you're trying to make with it. You want to use it to criticize Bush? It's credible. You want to use it to praise Bush? It's a rag.

You can do this with about anything! The Wall Street Journal?

Criticizes Enron: Credible Cite
Runs IRS Statistics showing that the vast majority of the lower 50% of earners pay no federal income tax: it's a lying conservative rag.

See? You can do it to!

[Boris Godunov]

Yeah, and they would rather eat molten lead than publish nasty things about conservatives unless there was a verified scoop to be had.

EDIT: I didn't say the story was as credible as something printed in, say, the NYT or WSJ. What I said was that the source gave it more credibility than a bunch of leftist web blogs, particularly because the source is rightist and hence isn't publishing it out of some partisan agenda.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
The Time's credibility, or lack thereof, lies solely within what point you're trying to make with it. You want to use it to criticize Bush? It's credible. You want to use it to praise Bush? It's a rag.

Excuse me, but this is the kind of mantra I see much more from the right wing than I do the left.

Want to justify the Iraqi war? Oh, the NYT is newspaper of record.

Want to use it to criticize Bush's domestic policies? It's a leftist mouthpiece.

I never have, AFAIK, dismissed the WSJ just because of the slant of its editorial board.

But I certainly would take criticisms it gives of the Bush administration on its op-ed page much more seriously than their rants against liberals, precisely because I know their bias. Just like I know the Washington Times' bias.

[JohnT]

Uh... not really, if your cite is any indication.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yeah, and they would rather eat molten lead than publish nasty things about conservatives unless there was a verified scoop to be had.

Corrected.

EDIT: I didn't say the story was as credible as something printed in, say, the NYT or WSJ. What I said was that the source gave it more credibility than a bunch of leftist web blogs, particularly because the source is rightist and hence isn't publishing it out of some partisan agenda.

No it doesn't. The WT is posting it out of a commercial agenda.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

So W, seeking to avenge Bush I, postures as Reagan, surrounds himself with a bunch of Ford apointees, and turns into Nixon? No wonder I can't stand him: he's my entire lifetime's worth of GOP presidents, all at once!

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

The Time's credibility, or lack thereof, lies solely within what point you're trying to make with it. You want to use it to criticize Bush? It's credible. You want to use it to praise Bush? It's a rag.

Excuse me, but this is the kind of mantra I see much more from the right wing than I do the left.

Let me quote your previous post:

What I said was that the source gave it more credibility than a bunch of leftist web blogs, particularly because the source is rightist and hence isn't publishing it out of some partisan agenda.

Again: your using the papers bias as a citation of credibility (for the story) in and of itself. It's just as dumb as the NYT example... except, of course, this time it helps your point.

[KrazyHorse]

Who cares if he's nuts? It's clear he's incompetent.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Who cares if he's nuts? It's clear he's incompetent.

QFT

[AnnC]

If this story is true, that Bush has restricted contact with just about everybody except his inner-inner circle, then the most likely explanation is that he has gone back to drinking and doesn't want rank-and-file staff members to see him drunk.

Bush was never treated for substance abuse (that we know of) and he never went through a 12-step program, so he's an untreated alcoholic. Given present circumstances, it's easy to believe that an untreated alcoholic might re-lapse.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Uh... not really, if your cite is any indication.

Are you saying the WT doesn't have a rightwing bias?

Come on, even righties acknowledge this.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No it doesn't. The WT is posting it out of a commercial agenda.

Oh yeah, what commercial gain is there to be had in this? They aren't printing it in the paper, it's only on their webzine.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by JohnT
Again: your using the papers bias as a citation of credibility (for the story) in and of itself. It's just as dumb as the NYT example... except, of course, this time it helps your point.

I'll explain it one more time, because you're being dense:

There are two things that lend this article more credibility than weblogs, and both are valid reasons:

1. It's from a news source that has [a little] more credibility in general than weblogs, and

2. It's from a news source that ordinarily has a right-wing agenda.

Why the second is so hard for you to grasp is baffling to me, but I'll try to dumb it down for you: When a known biased source spouts the party line you've come to expect, it doesn't raise any eyebrows. But when that source runs a story very opposite of the kind you'd expect, it certainly gives one pause to consider it more. That's it.

And I'll reiterate for the stupid: I didn't say the story was true, only that this new source of such rumors gives them an extra layer of credibility beyond weblogs. I hope that wasn't too complicated.