|Contact: Paul@propagandamatrix.com Copyright © PropagandaMatrix.com 2001-2003. All rights reserved.|
|FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.|
Cheney's Eyes and Bush's Back: What Do They Tell You?
Dan Rather and I will soon have one thing in common: we both will be guilty of reporting unverified information, because both stories begged to be told.
You've already heard how Rather crossed the line of journalistic prudence. Now it's my turn---with this caveat--- I'm convinced that the source for my story may indeed be more reliable than Rather's.
We shall see.
The document I have become privy to is called, "A
Psychiatrist's Analysis of Bush and Cheney in Debates." According to
who posted the report, (Benjamin Franklin), the psychiatrist he writes about
has many years of clinical experience and works for a local government.
The author's use of Franklin's name, and the "no name" psychiatrist convince me that both men, for whatever reason, prefer to remain unknown. But this doesn't bother me because I'm used to it. Many factual news reports end with the reference: "according to anonymous sources" Even one of today's best sellers, "Imperial Hubris-Why the west is losing the war on terror", was written anonymously. For the same reason, probably.
Be that as it may, the psychological analyses of Bush and Cheney are so revealing and self-evident that you may find these excerpts from each of them as startling and frightening as I did.
"This man is a sociopath. He is devoid of both conscience and access to his emotions, other than pure rage. This is the most dangerous type of disorder since such people are not human in the way that a normal person can understand. They might look human but are incapable of relating to people as human beings.
"This is clear from his eyes and facial expressions,
the glare lets us seek through the mask to the intense rage beneath it.
Senator Edwards was freaked out by this---it is unlikely that he has ever
sat down so close to this
type of sociopath.
"That is how such people try to control others by using that monster-like characteristic of their personalities. Cheney's behavior is cold-blooded rational, uninfluenced by truth, or even the response of the other person (s).
"I feel sorry for Edwards---someone who sat across a small table from a killer, who sits there glaring at him. One can provoke such an individual by standing up to him as one stands up to a bully; by countering his assertions and lies, but you have to be prepared for the horrible rage that will explode outward. I guess he wasn't prepared for that. Regardless, more people will come away terrified of Dick Cheney."
If you watched Cheney's eyes during the debate you got the meaning of what this psychiatrist said.
"The President clearly suffers from a severe paranoia that causes him to greatly fear situations in which he is exposed to people hostile to his delusional viewpoints. Bush entered the debate in his own world, his own psychological shell. To make it through the debate he essentially blotted out all reality, REACTING FROM SOME KIND OF PROGRAMMED RESPONSE TO PROMPTS. WHEN THE EXPECTED PROMPTS DID NOT OCCUR HE COULD NOT FORMULATE RESPONSES AND WAS REDUCED TO MUMBLING REPETITIONS OF MEMORIZED FORMULATIONS.
"The lack of formatted audience response locked him deeper into his shell. He became completely unaware that his infantile reactions were witnessed by millions, nor did he have any control over them. It would not have mattered if the lights went off while he was speaking, his paranoid fear would have left him unaware of the world outside his shell.
"Individuals such as Bush need to be reassured, and absent that reassurance, tend to fall apart. This type of psychopathological behavior is characteristic of a person who is easily manipulated by those who offer reassurances, who reinforce their delusions.
"Bush is a clinically pathetic case who, in stressful situations, must act and make decisions from within a paranoid shell, making him an easy prey of strong-willed people on whom he must depend."
Now, about Bush's back. One TV picture of the presidential debate was shot from behind the two speakers. Both men's backs were in full view. Inside Bush's suit coat, in the center between his shoulders, was a fair-sized bulge. We don't know what the bulge was. But the outline, having square corners, suggests some object, rather than creases in the material.
Knowing the capabilities of today's modern electronics, together with Bush's need for "reassurance prompting"----read again the capitalized copy in the first Bush paragraph---initial reports speculated that the bulge might have been an electronic device connected to a hidden "receiver" which relayed answers, key phrases, and "encouragement" to the President.
Absurd? Ridiculous? Impossible? Living in the era of space-age technology, this kind of "wired" communication is NOT absurd, ridiculous, or impossible. In fact, it not only CAN be done, but IS being done in some way every day.
I wish I were making all this up. It would make a great novel. Instead, what we have here is a clear picture of two psychologically impaired men who presently hold the fate of the United States of America in their hands.
If that doesn't frighten you, what does?
E mail your comment on this article to firstname.lastname@example.org and have it posted here.