Utter worthless psychobabble ad hominems come at the president from every side. They are supposedly analysis of the president's personality, but are really just vultures looking to make up something convincing to discredit the president. They don't reflect any useful analysis or insight into the president's character nor even an honest attempt at understanding, but merely a cheap smear. Liberal commie dirtbags have been losing policy debates, elections, pretty much everything. So now all they've got is made up psychobabble nonsense.

The most classic form of cheap psychoanalysis for Dubya comes in the form of the absolutely most lowbrow Freudian Oedipal complex. Bush is cleaning up Dad's mess in Iraq, he's trying to prove that he can do what Dad didn't, a hundred variations. Whatever Dubya does, it will just prove that he's sick in the head.

Maureen Dowd may be the worst of this. Among her many cheap shots, her New York Times column from 10-20-2002, "The Souffle Doctrine" works with stuff like this, "The Boy Emperor picked up the morning paper and, stunned, dropped his Juicy Juice box with the little straw attached."

The new catch phrase for Bush's supposed mental illness is to accuse him of being a "dry drunk", as per this column by sociologist Katherine Van Wormer. That is, he's a raging alcoholic with an out of control personality who just isn't actually drinking. Goddam, that's a great tactic. He can be accused and convicted of being an out of control drunk without even claiming that he's drinking.

Take also for example this ignorant nonsense outlined here at Blogcritics. It amounts to saying that Bush being willing to use force to deal with thugs proves that he's just an alcoholic acting out. If he weren't emotionally disturbed or mentally ill or suffering with issues or whatever term the opposition arbitrarily wants to make up, then he'd be a good liberal appeaser.

What, the president is showing righteous indignation at the people who are planning terrorist attacks against our civillian population? Why, alcoholics show righteous indignation. See. Actually, I wouldn't trust a president who wasn't a little pissy on the topic. We need a commander in chief, not a lip-biting understander in chief.

What, the president rewards people who do what he wants? He witholds favor from those who work against him? Why, there must be something wrong with him. What, he should reward his enemies and punish his friends to prove that he's magnanimous? Are you people retarded?

None of these people would admit as a possibility that President Bush may have laid aside petty personal issues, and made an honest decision that he thinks it important to our national security to take out Saddam and generally show a willingness to use force in the world.

Whether these are wise policies is a completely different issue. Just consider the possibility that the president might be a decent, honest, mentally healthy person who has honest and reasonable disagreements with you on public policy issues.

I don't know what all goes on inside the president's brain. I just know I'm sure glad that it's a halfway sensible, stable guy with his eye on the ball who is leader of the free world rather than some therapeutic culture idiot.