impeach bush for peace peach
(Go to our Main

Add to Google

Daily Impeachment News:

October 27, 2008

Bush “exhibit number one for the danger of having a nut job in the oval office”

Filed under: Impeachment News — Mikael @ 8:31 am

By Sherwood Ross

The judgment of history may well be that the United States has been “taken into, and kept in, the Iraq War by a guy who is not quite right in his head,” a distinguished legal scholar says.

“It may take 25 or 50 years, but it is almost certain that one day this character will be exhibit number one for the danger of having a nut job in the oval office,” says Lawrence Velvel, dean of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover.

Writing in his latest book, “An Enemy of the People,”(Doukathsan Press) Velvel said, “In everyday life, someone who refuses to recognize the actual facts of the world around him, and who instead lives in a dream world in his head, is regarded as not being sane, as being, to use the blunt words, insane or crazy. Why is it different when it is a national leader who refuses to recognize facts in the world and instead lives in a dream world in his head?”

Velvel goes on to say, “Most interesting is the idea that Bush suffers from a condition called “˜dry drunk’. Essentially, this means that even if one eventually stops drinking, as Bush did, years of alcoholism cause irreversible damage to brain chemistry. Results of this damage include such Bushian traits as rigid judgmentalism, irritability, impatience, grandiosity, obsessive thought patterns, incoherent speech and other unlovely characteristics.”

“Bush also seems to have chacteristics,” Velvel continues, “that, whether or not they are characteristic of “˜dry drunks’ are symptomatic of people who don’t fully have a grip. These include immense anger, exploitativeness, arrogance, lack of empathy, and difficulties arising from relationships with one’s father.”

“With regard to the specific analyses of Bush, there seems to be wide agreement that Bush is a sociopath, defined, one gathers, as someone who feels no empathy with others, who cannot feel for others, who does not feel or care for their pain (to use Clintonian jargon,”) Velvel writes.

“That Bush is utterly devoid of empathy seems plainly true to me. Unlike Lincoln or even Lying Lyndon Johnson, who sent people to their deaths but agonized over it, Bush is thought by the shrinks, and appears to the lay eye, to give not one damn about how many Americans he kills, let alone Iraqis.”

Explaining why Bush can’t feel guilt, Velvel writes: “Given his defense mechanisms, one gathers, and his psychology of having to overcome obstacles, overcome his father, etc., one gathers that Bush is a sociopath (or another word for it, a psychopath). Using charm as a vehicle for aggrandizement, he can’t allow himself to feel guilt and so feels no empathy for all those he smashes up in his pursuit of is grandiosity and delusions.”

Velvel professes amazement that a man of Bush’s character could rise to the White House: “One wondered how he could have been picked as the nominee and then elected. After all, it was clearly early-on that he not only had been a long-time drunk, but had failed at every business venture, so that time and again he had to be rescued by Daddy’s friends and wanna be friends.”

He goes on to say, “Bush’s life refutes fundamental values we grew up with: hard work, competence, intelligence, modesty. His life, with its drunkenness, serial failures, lack of competence, repeated salvation via Daddy and Daddy’s friends, all followed by the presidency no less, and by disastrous ill-considered policies, makes a joke of the values we absorbed as youths and still try to live by.”

Living in his Father’s shadow, Velvel writes, “his own lack of diligence and intelligence caused him to be mediocre or a failure everywhere for about 25 years; he was mediocre at Andover; he was mediocre at Yale; he was a drunk to the point where he could cure himself only by stopping cold turkey”¦ conceivably he escaped a securities prosecution only because Daddy was president.”

Velvel writes, “One view is that Bush has a narcissistic personality. Due to insecurities, he has constructed a grandiose vision of himself and is thus immune to the criticisms or views of those who do not go along with his views. Because he is no intellect (to put it mildly), he dismisses intellect entirely, and utilized his strength, personal affability, to win over others. Narcissistically, he apparently will do anything to protect his psyche from the destruction of being shown wrong—including causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis in pursuit of a mere long shot opportunity to proceed.”

The author believes it is necessary for psychiatrists to investigate political personalities to find out what makes them different from the rest of us once in power. “It seems to me that people in today’s America who seek and reach office are different from you and me and other decent people in this society,” Velvel writes.

“They are willing to say and do things that would make a lot of the decent people gag, maybe make all of the decent people gag. Psychiatry should investigate, should analyze, what kind of people these are who will say and do these things, and why they are like they are. Why investigate and analyze this? For the obvious reasons, so that we can know what we are faced with, and can start looking for and electing a better kind of person.”

Dean Velvel is cofounder of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, a law school purposefully dedicated to providing minorities, immigrants, and working-class students a quality, affordable legal education. The dean has been honored for his contributions to the reform of legal education by The National Law Journal and has been described as a leader in the law school reform movement by The National Jurist.

(Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based writer who formerly worked for major dailies and wire services. Currently he is Media Consultant to Massachusetts School of Law at Andover. Contact him at )

(Submitted directly to IFP by the author)


  1. OK, we pretty much know all this, but it is nice to see it in print. However, what about Darth Cheney? Is he psychopathic or just pure evil incarnate? After all, he is the mastermind behind Bush’s actions. Without Cheney, Bush would just be bumbling along like a buzzard bringing home a baby bumblebee in that Looney Tunes cartoon.

    Comment by Doug — October 27, 2008 @ 11:43 am

  2. Dennis Kucinich was the only person that questioned his mental status. He publically said this. If Pelosi tried to Impeach Bush, it could create world war 3. Impeaching a madman in office is a lot more diificult then impeaching a person that is sane. Bush can still create world war 3 but an impeachment would speed up the process greatly. retroactive impeachment is an option. Angering a madman can have horriblle consequences.

    Comment by MARK — October 27, 2008 @ 11:48 am

  3. Impeaching a man that openly wants to be a dictator is very difficult. Dealing with a person that is delusional is also very difficult.

    Comment by MARK — October 27, 2008 @ 11:54 am

  4. A madman with Nukes is dangerous. Bush says this about the President of Iran but I think he is refering to himself. He was smirking and giggling when talking about world war 3.

    Comment by MARK — October 27, 2008 @ 11:56 am

  5. Bush’s “reelection” tells alot about the perspicacity of the american people.More importantly, it tells alot about the quality of the educational system in this country.

    Is there a correlative betweeen being the most religiously oriented western nation on the globe, and the likes of a Bush to be able to be “reelected” as president? Only the dinasours climbing up the gang plank to Noah’s ark as depicted in a mural in the Kentucky museum of creation can answer that question.

    Comment by Frank — October 27, 2008 @ 12:03 pm

  6. This is great MIKAEL,now impeachment hearings to go along with
    article and also in my belief I feel Bush is not mentally fit for
    the job.

    Comment by Dennis M Mccullough — October 27, 2008 @ 12:28 pm

  7. When the author said, “Bush” … “nut job in the Oval Office”, I though for sure there were going to be pictures of the low iodine one, El Dubilito, playing milk the stallion with Jimmy/Jeff Gannon/Geckert!


    Comment by Cadavre — October 27, 2008 @ 1:06 pm

  8. I think the concensus will be down range that Mr. Bush – who won two federal elections is indeed a great leader – whose wisdom is difficult to access at this time. We should huddle together in prayer and hope that his brave war on terror can be even half as successful as the war on drugs. We can only trust that the working, God fearing people will bring us Mr. McCain and his minion Sarah to the Presidency!!

    Comment by Lokis — October 27, 2008 @ 1:33 pm

  9. What about the mental health of Dick Cheney? or the rest of the administration? Condi Lies, Powell lied, Gonzales lied. Karl Rove-

    Comment by MARK — October 27, 2008 @ 2:33 pm

  10. The fact is that way over 80% of ALL amerikans were in favor of slaughtering the poor innocent Iraqis & Afghans. It’s only that you are losing that you are looking for a scapegoat. Murderers…all.

    Comment by Sababah — October 27, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

    This homepage project must be to much abuse on
    Bush/Cheney brain.
    The vaults of EROWID
    MKULTRA:Psychedelic mind control and it’s legacy
    Somewhere cia mind-body “PROJECT MKULTRA”
    Was part of the cause of 9/11 in my beleive.
    impeach with 5 seconds Mikael or arrest warrant for

    Comment by DENNIS M MCCULLOUGH — October 28, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

  12. You know, everybody is pointing fingers at the people for voting for this man who obviously IS going through dry drunks, but what I believe to be the problem for the average American person, is the information the (paid) media keeps pumping out through the papers and television.We just dont get the kind of information to make good judgement calls and the average person doesnt know how to do substantial homework. If we dont start talking to everybody and help opening up the eyes of our fellow man we are gunna be rounded up and put into these FEMA camps they have all through the country and then its too late. Thats what they did to the jews, and its happening the same way today. Our country needs to start praying again.

    Comment by robert sutton — October 28, 2008 @ 11:33 pm

  13. Dr. Justin Frank examined the mental illness in other members of the Bush family as well. He specifically noted his mother’s severe mental illness.

    Comment by MARK — October 29, 2008 @ 9:31 am


    “Project Mkultra”Esp,telepathy and all the other humanbrain to humanbrain/computor communications
    systems really nothin more than brain washing.In my view the jet was a mind control ride(9/11).
    Bush must be on”Project MKultra”


    Comment by DENNIS M Mccullough — October 30, 2008 @ 8:39 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

"I just want you to know that,
when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
-Bush, June 18, 2002

"War is Peace"
-Big Brother in George Orwell's 1984

Blog Categories
Our Whole Site

As heard on
the radio...
Bush hears the voices logo
KFAI radio interview
"I Hear The Voices"
Oct 5th Ad
• Oct 5th Interview
Mike Malloy
Peter Werbe
Get Impeach For Peace Stuff!
(pins, bumper stickers, hats, etc.)
Impeach Bush for Peace Stuff logo
protest picture

Why Should Bush Have Been Impeached?Charges against Bush

Charges & Evidence


Bush's Defense
Arguments Against Bush Impeachment...

• If we impeach Bush, we’ll get President Cheney!
The first impeachment resolution introduced by McKinney included Bush, Cheney, and Rice. Although, even if we only initially pursue Bush, initiating the impeachment process will lead to an investigation that will implicate lots of people in the Bush administration who are guilty of committing crimes, including Cheney.

No matter who we get to replace Bush, we’ll be showing those in power that anyone who breaks the law will be held accountable.

• Promoting impeachment will seem too “extreme.”
Demanding that crimes be investigated is NOT extreme. Some previous impeachment attempts were considered extreme because they were pursued for actions that didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional crisis, which is what the impeachment tool is meant to be used for. Nixon's impeachment, however, was bipartisan.

  • We should wait to impeach...
Wait to impeach? We've waited 3 or more years too long already. We had enough evidence to impeach years ago. Remember, an impeachment only means you have enough evidence to warrant a trial, just like an indictment. Our congress people didn't take an oath to bipartisanship. They took an oath to the Constitution. Besides which, our troops, Iraqi civilians, and our own civil liberties are all waiting for this.
• Before we impeach, we should get some legislation passed...
And with unconstitutional Presidential Signing Statements, veto power, and the power of "Commander in Chief" at his disposal, how do you think Congress is going to get anything accomplished without first impeaching Bush?

If your tire blows while you're driving, do you stop to fix it? Or do you continue driving on your rim because to stop would take too much time?

• It hurts the democracy to go through a presidential impeachment. And Bush is a lame duck anyway.
Holding government officials accountable for their actions strengthens our democracy. Letting lawlessness stand weakens it.

Sometimes reprimanding a child (president) doesn't make the family (Washington) a happy place. But you still have to do it so the child and his siblings (future presidents) learn about accountability. Impeachment is horribly UNDERUSED, which is part of why there's so much corruption at the top. Politicians must learn to fear it. People think things are better because we improved the make-up of our law-making body, Congress. But Bush is BREAKING LAWS. So, it doesn't matter how many laws Congress passes if they don't serve their OVERSIGHT duties as well by impeaching. They swore to defend the Constitution. What are laws without enforcement?

Besides, considering Bush's track-record of breaking laws, he can still do a lot of damage. Our troops, Iran, and our Supreme Court are all endangered so long as he remains in office. Waiting until Bush is out of office will leave us complicit in any further crimes he commits. The Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that the death toll from a "tactical" nuclear weapon of the kind Bush is contemplating using in Iran would be at minimum 3 million men, women, and children. The path of death would stretch across country boundaries into India.

Perhaps worst of all, we set a terrible precedent by allowing Bush to stay in office after he's broken so many laws. Impeachment will stop future presidents from using Bush's actions as justification for even more lawbreaking and erosion of civil liberties.

• I'm a Democrat/
Republican. If we support impeachment it will lower the chances of my party winning in 2008.

So, your party would rather win elections than do what's right for the country? I hope you're wrong. I also hope the public is willing to throw additional support to any party that holds our elected officials accountable for their actions. This has been historically true with every single impeachment effort launched. And this impeachment effort would begin with majority support (unlike most past impeachments including Nixon).

• Impeachment will never happen. Congress members will block it.
Well, all we need is a majority of support in the House. And 2/3rds vote in the Senate to remove Bush from office will happen once the evidence gets aired on the floor of the House, and subsequently the national media outlets. The political pressure will become too great.

Today's impossibility is tomorrow's reality. Congress members will realize that tying their political future to Bush reduces their chances of getting elected. Remember, one way or another, Bush is gone by 2009— but members of Congress may retain their offices beyond that date. Bush's poll numbers are extremely low, and most Americans support impeachment. This is a bipartisan movement. This means that if we make the pressure unbearable for Members of Congress, they'll turn on him to keep their own seats (like they did with Nixon). It's already starting to happen. While many Members of Congress have behaved unethically in the last few years, it's important to understand that this is related to their warped view of what's in their self-interest. Let's wake them up to their true self-interest (impeaching the president), by showing them our support for impeachment.

And even if we only impeach, and the Senate fails to do their duty and remove him from office, it will only implicate the Senators who fail to do their sworn Constitutional duty.

• But Speaker of the House Pelosi said that Impeachment was "off the table."

Pelosi most likely said this to remove any appearance of conflict-of-interest that would arise if she were thrust into the presidency as a result of the coming impeachment. What we need to do is to pressure Pelosi not to interfere with impeachment maneuverings within her party. Sending her Do-It-Yourself impeachments legitimizes her when she joins the impeachment movement in the future.

(Read More)