CDZ Trump and Narcissism...How is it we've not heard much about this in the news???

[320 Years of History]

All those posts are still showing up on my screen.

They have not been deleted.

I see now that I had put the member on ignore and that is why I didn't see them in the sequence of posts. Displaying the ignored content does make them reappear on my screen. My mistake.

That said, it doesn't alter the libelous nature of calling Mr. Clinton a rapist as is done in at least one of them.

 

[320 Years of History]

The deletions probably have more to do with the Zone rules for this forum and nothing more. USMB is not liable for any content posted here as it is a forum with public access. Furthermore, ex-presidents and public figures are not subject to the same protective laws regarding libel and slander. I worked in the journalism field for a while and I know this is a fact. The threshold for Bill Clinton to sue someone for slander or libel is so high that he would never be able to meet it... especially on something like this.

So looking at the other member's litany of remarks, you don't see them as malicious in intent? It certainly looks malicious to me.

 

[Boss]

That said, it doesn't alter the libelous nature of calling Mr. Clinton a rapist as is done in at least one of them.

Again. Bill Clinton is a public figure and the protective laws on slander and libel are not the same, there is a much higher threshold because they are public figures and we have free political speech. I'll prove my point...

BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST!
BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST!
BILL CLINTON IS A RAPIST!

I predict that Bill Clinton cannot and will not sue me. Nor will USMB remove my post out of fear of such a lawsuit.

 

[Boss]

The deletions probably have more to do with the Zone rules for this forum and nothing more. USMB is not liable for any content posted here as it is a forum with public access. Furthermore, ex-presidents and public figures are not subject to the same protective laws regarding libel and slander. I worked in the journalism field for a while and I know this is a fact. The threshold for Bill Clinton to sue someone for slander or libel is so high that he would never be able to meet it... especially on something like this.

So looking at the other member's litany of remarks, you don't see them as malicious in intent? It certainly looks malicious to me.

From YOUR link:

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.

 

[320 Years of History]

The deletions probably have more to do with the Zone rules for this forum and nothing more. USMB is not liable for any content posted here as it is a forum with public access. Furthermore, ex-presidents and public figures are not subject to the same protective laws regarding libel and slander. I worked in the journalism field for a while and I know this is a fact. The threshold for Bill Clinton to sue someone for slander or libel is so high that he would never be able to meet it... especially on something like this.

So looking at the other member's litany of remarks, you don't see them as malicious in intent? It certainly looks malicious to me.

From YOUR link:

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.

Yes, that is what it says. Did you miss the part about malicious intent? It was farther along in that section. So, I again ask you, did the other member's remarks not strike you as maliciously intended?

 

[Boss]

The deletions probably have more to do with the Zone rules for this forum and nothing more. USMB is not liable for any content posted here as it is a forum with public access. Furthermore, ex-presidents and public figures are not subject to the same protective laws regarding libel and slander. I worked in the journalism field for a while and I know this is a fact. The threshold for Bill Clinton to sue someone for slander or libel is so high that he would never be able to meet it... especially on something like this.

So looking at the other member's litany of remarks, you don't see them as malicious in intent? It certainly looks malicious to me.

From YOUR link:

Our government places a high priority on the public being allowed to speak their mind about elected officials as well as other public figures. People in the public eye get less protection from defamatory statements and face a higher burden when attempting to win a defamation lawsuit.

Yes, that is what it says. Did you miss the part about malicious intent? It was farther along in that section. So, I again ask you, did the other member's remarks not strike you as maliciously intended?

Are we going to have to look up "malice" and educate you on what it entails from a legal standpoint? Look... you can believe anything you want to believe... I don't argue with the ignorant. I know for a fact that ex-presidents are public figures and there is a much higher standard required to show malice of intent for defamation and slander. I pointed out in your own resource where it tells you this and makes a clear distinction between a public figure and the average citizen. Yet, you still want to argue but I don't need to argue. My point is made.

 

[Boss]

..did the other member's remarks not strike you as maliciously intended?

Not in the least from a legal standpoint. Malice is not when you say something that could be true but hasn't been proven. It's when you say something that you know is not true for the evil intention to do harm. Let's use Clinton as an example...

Let's say I made a movie that portrayed Clinton as a womanizer who sexually assaulted Kathleen Wiley and others and in the movie he is practically shown raping them... that's not malice because it conforms to depositions that were given in court. He was never convicted but the allegations were made and are public record. He cannot establish malice.

Now... If I portray Bill Clinton as a sex trafficker who has sex with 12-year old girls then snuffs them.... THAT would be malice. There is no evidence that could have ever happened, no depositions, no allegations, no suspicious accounts, nothing... it's simply an evil attempt to do harm. Clinton could establish malice and likely prevail in a lawsuit.

And just for clarity sake... Say I make the movie about YOU... just an average citizen... you don't have to establish malice at all. If you weren't charged or convicted of a crime and I depict you committing a crime, that is defamation of your character and you could sue.

 

[320 Years of History]

Not in the least from a legal standpoint. Malice is not when you say something that could be true but hasn't been proven. It's when you say something that you know is not true for the evil intention to do harm. Let's use Clinton as an example...

Let's say I made a movie that portrayed Clinton as a womanizer who sexually assaulted Kathleen Wiley and others and in the movie he is practically shown raping them... that's not malice because it conforms to depositions that were given in court. He was never convicted but the allegations were made and are public record. He cannot establish malice.

Now... If I portray Bill Clinton as a sex trafficker who has sex with 12-year old girls then snuffs them.... THAT would be malice. There is no evidence that could have ever happened, no depositions, no allegations, no suspicious accounts, nothing... it's simply an evil attempt to do harm. Clinton could establish malice and likely prevail in a lawsuit.

And just for clarity sake... Say I make the movie about YOU... just an average citizen... you don't have to establish malice at all. If you weren't charged or convicted of a crime and I depict you committing a crime, that is defamation of your character and you could sue.

Yes, I agree. That's what malicious intent is.

Red:
Let's use the other member's comments. They strike me as being intended to diminish Mr. Clinton's reputation in the eyes of his/her audience here on USMB. That strikes me as intending to do harm.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Several leading psychologists have asserted that Donald Trump is a narcissist.

• Basic explanation of what narcissism is.
• Discussion of what to expect from a narcissist.

It comes as no surprise to me to read that Mr. Trump is a narcissist; just listen to him. It's also not difficult to understand the broad appeal of narcissists. I have no problem with them as entertainers. The question in my mind is this. Would I willfully vote for one to be President of the United States? In a word, NO! Why wold anyone?

Edit:
I should have included above that I recognize that narcissism exists in many Presidents and candidates. It's not as much about whether they are or not as it is about whether it is a healthy narcissism. What does that seemingly oxymoronic term mean? Well for the answer to that click here.

Oh, yeah...like Barry Soetoro is not a narcissist?

 

[Boss]

Not in the least from a legal standpoint. Malice is not when you say something that could be true but hasn't been proven. It's when you say something that you know is not true for the evil intention to do harm. Let's use Clinton as an example...

Let's say I made a movie that portrayed Clinton as a womanizer who sexually assaulted Kathleen Wiley and others and in the movie he is practically shown raping them... that's not malice because it conforms to depositions that were given in court. He was never convicted but the allegations were made and are public record. He cannot establish malice.

Now... If I portray Bill Clinton as a sex trafficker who has sex with 12-year old girls then snuffs them.... THAT would be malice. There is no evidence that could have ever happened, no depositions, no allegations, no suspicious accounts, nothing... it's simply an evil attempt to do harm. Clinton could establish malice and likely prevail in a lawsuit.

And just for clarity sake... Say I make the movie about YOU... just an average citizen... you don't have to establish malice at all. If you weren't charged or convicted of a crime and I depict you committing a crime, that is defamation of your character and you could sue.

Yes, I agree. That's what malicious intent is.

Red:
Let's use the other member's comments. They strike me as being intended to diminish Mr. Clinton's reputation in the eyes of his/her audience here on USMB. That strikes me as intending to do harm.

But it doesn't meet the legal criteria for malice. We have freedom of political speech in this country and it's protected. You can say virtually anything you want to about Clinton and he cannot sue you for slander, libel or defamation... UNLESS he can PROVE that you acted with malice of forethought, as defined by law. That is a VERY high bar and is virtually non achievable for any public figure.

Let's take the same standards and apply them to George W. Bush... How many have stated that Bush lied to the people or that Bush is guilty of war crimes? These are unsubstantiated allegations. His prosecution of the Iraq War have been vetted thoroughly and they found no evidence he lied or committed any war crimes... but people are free to make that charge because he is a public figure. This is not malice under the law and he cannot sue for defamation or slander. You can write about it, publish books or make movies about it... nothing he can do legally. It's protected political speech under the First Amendment.

And the same standards do not apply to you and I because we are NOT public figures. If someone prints a story or does a movie depicting you in any way contrary to the truth, you can sue their ass off for defamation and you'll likely win. You do not have to prove malice of forethought.

 

[320 Years of History]

But it doesn't meet the legal criteria for malice. We have freedom of political speech in this country and it's protected. You can say virtually anything you want to about Clinton and he cannot sue you for slander, libel or defamation... UNLESS he can PROVE that you acted with malice of forethought, as defined by law. That is a VERY high bar and is virtually non achievable for any public figure.

Let's take the same standards and apply them to George W. Bush... How many have stated that Bush lied to the people or that Bush is guilty of war crimes? These are unsubstantiated allegations. His prosecution of the Iraq War have been vetted thoroughly and they found no evidence he lied or committed any war crimes... but people are free to make that charge because he is a public figure. This is not malice under the law and he cannot sue for defamation or slander. You can write about it, publish books or make movies about it... nothing he can do legally. It's protected political speech under the First Amendment.

And the same standards do not apply to you and I because we are NOT public figures. If someone prints a story or does a movie depicting you in any way contrary to the truth, you can sue their ass off for defamation and you'll likely win. You do not have to prove malice of forethought.

Red:
High, but not impossible at all:

• Cameron Diaz
• Robin Williams
• Kiera Knightley
• Sharon Stone
• David Beckham
• Jesse Ventura
• Barry Goldwater (FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

Blue:
Well, that wouldn't be libelous in any regard, and certainly not today, because it's been shown to be true:

• The Lies We Believed (And Still Believe) About Iraq | BillMoyers.com
• George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie
• George W. Bush:
  • "In the run up to the war, my administration made claims that turned out not to be factual. Personally, I truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But when we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it."
  • "The entire war was the biggest mistake of my life. I have asked my God for his forgiveness, and now I ask the American people. I hope history records that I was a good person, just trying to do the right thing."

 

[Boss]

But it doesn't meet the legal criteria for malice. We have freedom of political speech in this country and it's protected. You can say virtually anything you want to about Clinton and he cannot sue you for slander, libel or defamation... UNLESS he can PROVE that you acted with malice of forethought, as defined by law. That is a VERY high bar and is virtually non achievable for any public figure.

Let's take the same standards and apply them to George W. Bush... How many have stated that Bush lied to the people or that Bush is guilty of war crimes? These are unsubstantiated allegations. His prosecution of the Iraq War have been vetted thoroughly and they found no evidence he lied or committed any war crimes... but people are free to make that charge because he is a public figure. This is not malice under the law and he cannot sue for defamation or slander. You can write about it, publish books or make movies about it... nothing he can do legally. It's protected political speech under the First Amendment.

And the same standards do not apply to you and I because we are NOT public figures. If someone prints a story or does a movie depicting you in any way contrary to the truth, you can sue their ass off for defamation and you'll likely win. You do not have to prove malice of forethought.

Red:
High, but not impossible at all:

• Cameron Diaz
• Robin Williams
• Kiera Knightley
• Sharon Stone
• David Beckham
• Jesse Ventura
• Barry Goldwater (FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

Blue:
Well, that wouldn't be libelous in any regard, and certainly not today, because it's been shown to be true:

• The Lies We Believed (And Still Believe) About Iraq | BillMoyers.com
• George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie
• George W. Bush:
  • "In the run up to the war, my administration made claims that turned out not to be factual. Personally, I truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But when we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it."
  • "The entire war was the biggest mistake of my life. I have asked my God for his forgiveness, and now I ask the American people. I hope history records that I was a good person, just trying to do the right thing."

I did not say it was impossible and it depends on what kind of public figure and the particulars of the case. In the Goldwater v. Ginzburg case, for example, there was clearly malice of forethought and that is basis for a legitimate case, AS I SAID! Again... for public figures, particularly political figures, it is a very high bar. I presented an example using Clinton earlier where he would have a legitimate case... did you not read that? Are you just not paying attention to parts of what I say?

As for Bush... No, he did not LIE. You can SAY he did all you like. Three independent commissions investigated every aspect and found there was no intentional lie on part of anyone in the Bush administration. Presenting intelligence information that was thought to be true at the time, is NOT LYING. And the quote you are posting is a false characterization of his comments taken out of context to appear he is admitting he lied. BUT... none of this is libel or slander because he IS a public figure and there is no malice of forethought.

 

[320 Years of History]

But it doesn't meet the legal criteria for malice. We have freedom of political speech in this country and it's protected. You can say virtually anything you want to about Clinton and he cannot sue you for slander, libel or defamation... UNLESS he can PROVE that you acted with malice of forethought, as defined by law. That is a VERY high bar and is virtually non achievable for any public figure.

Let's take the same standards and apply them to George W. Bush... How many have stated that Bush lied to the people or that Bush is guilty of war crimes? These are unsubstantiated allegations. His prosecution of the Iraq War have been vetted thoroughly and they found no evidence he lied or committed any war crimes... but people are free to make that charge because he is a public figure. This is not malice under the law and he cannot sue for defamation or slander. You can write about it, publish books or make movies about it... nothing he can do legally. It's protected political speech under the First Amendment.

And the same standards do not apply to you and I because we are NOT public figures. If someone prints a story or does a movie depicting you in any way contrary to the truth, you can sue their ass off for defamation and you'll likely win. You do not have to prove malice of forethought.

Red:
High, but not impossible at all:

• Cameron Diaz
• Robin Williams
• Kiera Knightley
• Sharon Stone
• David Beckham
• Jesse Ventura
• Barry Goldwater (FindLaw | Cases and Codes)

Blue:
Well, that wouldn't be libelous in any regard, and certainly not today, because it's been shown to be true:

• The Lies We Believed (And Still Believe) About Iraq | BillMoyers.com
• George W. Bush’s CIA briefer admits Iraq WMD “intelligence” was a lie
• George W. Bush:
  • "In the run up to the war, my administration made claims that turned out not to be factual. Personally, I truly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But when we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it."
  • "The entire war was the biggest mistake of my life. I have asked my God for his forgiveness, and now I ask the American people. I hope history records that I was a good person, just trying to do the right thing."

...

As for Bush... No, he did not LIE. You can SAY he did all you like. Three independent commissions investigated every aspect and found there was no intentional lie on part of anyone in the Bush administration. Presenting intelligence information that was thought to be true at the time, is NOT LYING. And the quote you are posting is a false characterization of his comments taken out of context to appear he is admitting he lied. BUT... none of this is libel or slander because he IS a public figure and there is no malice of forethought.

I don't have to say he and his administration lied. He said it himself. What part of "when we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it." in the George W. Bush quote above implies something other than lying? Nobody held him at gunpoint and forced him to say those words.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Trump is a megalomaniac?!!

Damn, what are they going to come up with next -- that Keith Richard uses drugs or that Miley Cyrus isn't a virgin?

 

[Boss]

I don't have to say he and his administration lied. He said it himself. What part of "when we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it." in the George W. Bush quote above implies something other than lying? Nobody held him at gunpoint and forced him to say those words.

Well I don't have any idea of what he is talking about and his vice president, Dick Cheney, firmly disagrees with his statement and called him a coward for making it. As I said, the entire prosecution of the war was thoroughly investigated and if there had been ANY evidence of this, it would have been revealed.

As it stands, all we have is this vague statement... we don't know who "we" is... we don't know what evidence couldn't be found or what evidence had to be fabricated. All it really amounts to is more "red meat" for those who opposed Bush on Iraq. Did they make assumptions based on the intelligence they were given at the time? Maybe they did! That's not lying.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't have to say he and his administration lied. He said it himself. What part of "when we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it." in the George W. Bush quote above implies something other than lying? Nobody held him at gunpoint and forced him to say those words.

Well I don't have any idea of what he is talking about and his vice president, Dick Cheney, firmly disagrees with his statement and called him a coward for making it. As I said, the entire prosecution of the war was thoroughly investigated and if there had been ANY evidence of this, it would have been revealed.

As it stands, all we have is this vague statement... we don't know who "we" is... we don't know what evidence couldn't be found or what evidence had to be fabricated. All it really amounts to is more "red meat" for those who opposed Bush on Iraq. Did they make assumptions based on the intelligence they were given at the time? Maybe they did! That's not lying.

"When we couldn't find the evidence, we fabricated it."

Vague my ass! One doesn't even need to know the context of that statement to understand that somebody lied about something. Click on the link I gave for it a few posts back and you'll know exactly what the context for that statement was.

I don't care what Dick Cheney says, frankly. His boss said they lied and that Mr. Bush was his boss trumps what Mr. Cheney has to say unless he's going to say that he and other top advisors deliberately misled the President, either before, during or after the war.

At some point, one has to realize that a former President of the U.S. had nothing at all to gain by making that statement. It validates what all his opponents at the time were saying. That isn't good for his legacy; it's not good for his current reputation. There's just nothing for him to gain to utter those words and have them be untrue.

Red:
Yes, you wrote, "the entire prosecution of the war was thoroughly investigated." You realize, of course, that the issue at hand, and Mr. Bush's remark, hasn't a thing to do with prosecuting the war? It's about the means used to justify it before it began to be prosecuted.

 

[Boss]

Vague my ass!

YES... VAGUE! WHO IS "WE"? ...WHAT EVIDENCE?

Yes, you wrote, "the entire prosecution of the war was thoroughly investigated." You realize, of course, that the issue at hand, and Mr. Bush's remark, hasn't a thing to do with prosecuting the war? It's about the means used to justify it before it began to be prosecuted.

The lead-up and justification is part of the prosecution. The commissions looked at every single detail of the intelligence information submitted to the UN, all the public records and accounts of what was said by members of the administrations of Bush and Blair, and found NO LIE was told. PERIOD!

At some point, one has to realize that a former President of the U.S. had nothing at all to gain by making that statement.

Well of course he does. He is attempting to try and repair the damage done to his legacy. He says in the same interview that he wants to be remembered as a decent man who tried to do the right thing. Bush has never been very good with his words and in this case, "fabricated" was somewhat less appropriate than his made-up "misoverexaggerated."

I don't know why you think Dick Cheney's words are less important. He was the central figure in the prosecution of the war along with Powell, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Just because Bush was his "boss" doesn't mean Bush is telling the truth and Cheney is lying.

 

[320 Years of History]

Vague my ass!

YES... VAGUE! WHO IS "WE"? ...WHAT EVIDENCE?

Yes, you wrote, "the entire prosecution of the war was thoroughly investigated." You realize, of course, that the issue at hand, and Mr. Bush's remark, hasn't a thing to do with prosecuting the war? It's about the means used to justify it before it began to be prosecuted.

The lead-up and justification is part of the prosecution. The commissions looked at every single detail of the intelligence information submitted to the UN, all the public records and accounts of what was said by members of the administrations of Bush and Blair, and found NO LIE was told. PERIOD!

At some point, one has to realize that a former President of the U.S. had nothing at all to gain by making that statement.

Well of course he does. He is attempting to try and repair the damage done to his legacy. He says in the same interview that he wants to be remembered as a decent man who tried to do the right thing. Bush has never been very good with his words and in this case, "fabricated" was somewhat less appropriate than his made-up "misoverexaggerated."

I don't know why you think Dick Cheney's words are less important. He was the central figure in the prosecution of the war along with Powell, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Just because Bush was his "boss" doesn't mean Bush is telling the truth and Cheney is lying.

You know good and well that nobody is going to "this year" say they "last year" lied when for the entirety of the intervening "year" there were resounding screams of "you lied last year" from all corners except one's own. People don't and can't "come clean" about the truth; if they've already told the truth, there's nothing to "come clean" about. People "come clean" because they know they lied, not the other way round.

Red:
You are just being gratuitously ridiculous and obstinate now. You obviously read the article; you know damn well who "we" is.

Even if you weren't to have clicked on the link, "we" is a first person, nominative case, plural pronoun; regardless of whom "we" includes in its entirety, at the very least it includes the person who says it. The speaker of the statement I shared was George W. Bush.

Blue:
Did even Mr. Bush's most strident opponents (re: whether to go to war with Iraq) actually believe in their heart of hearts that he didn't at a bare minimum construe his Presidential actions, and those he instructed and/or allowed his Administration to carry out, as being "the right thing" to do at the time? I seriously doubt anyone who ever met the man thought him an indecent man. His amicable personality is among his strengths. I don't know a single person who think him not a "decent man;" I have seen and heard plenty characterize him as "not the brightest light in the chandelier." Even at that, however, the man isn't so dim he doesn't know when he's lied and when he has told the truth.

Green:
I'll tell you why. Because Mr. Cheney was Vice President and Mr. Bush was President. That means that, at the end of the day, the responsibility for the Bush Administration did, even what Mr. Cheney did, ultimately must be borne by Mr. Bush. The "buck stopped" with George not Dick.

Purple:
From a logical argument standpoint, you are correct. As a practical reality, it does. When your boss says, "we fabricated evidence," s/he himself and/or the organization s/he heads did, unless one can show that enough of the information given to your boss was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts on yours or other advisors' part, thereby making the misrepresentation not the direct doing of the person in charge. Even so, the person in charge must still accept a degree of the burden, even if not to a causal extent.

Thinking about motivating factors for either man to have the position they do, consider Mr. Cheney's. Look at what people who know and/or have carefully studied him say:

• "Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at all times -- never apologize, never explain."
  
• John P. Hannah, Cheney's second-term national security adviser, said the former vice president is driven, now as before, by the nightmare of a hostile state acquiring nuclear weapons and passing them to terrorists....He really feels he has an obligation "to save the country from danger"
  
• Barton Gellman
  • "On just about every debate on a hard question on national security inside the Bush I administration, Cheney was the outlier, and he usually lost because [former Secretary of State James] Baker and Scowcroft both had closer relationships with the president, and because the president himself was inclined to highly pragmatic positions. So when Dick Cheney wanted to sink some Iraqi tankers long before the U.N. authorized that, they said, "No, hang on a second. You're going to blow any chance of getting a resolution."
• Bruce Fein, Asst. Deputy Atty General, '81-'83
  • With regard to Dick Cheney -- and he hired me to be a counsel on the Iran-Contra committee -- at that time he was unflappable, seemed very measured and restrained. Now, maybe it was because when you sit in the minority, you don't have a whole lot of authority. … But certainly with regard to his analysis and his lack of efforts to discredit the idea of separation of powers -- even though the Boland Amendment at that time, which was the big issue, curtailed the president's discretion in many respects in Nicaragua supporting the resistance there, he said you could criticize it as unwise, but it wasn't unconstitutional. It wasn't as though Dick Cheney said, "Well, Reagan should just ignore the law, pretend it isn't there," which is what President Bush does with regard to many of the limits on his authority.
• Colin Powell:
  • "The allegations in Cheney's book were better suited to "supermarket tabloids" than the memoir of a former vice president of the United States." (speaking re: Mr. Cheney's remark about "causing heads to explode."
  • "Mr. Cheney may forget that I'm the one who said to President Bush, 'If you break it you own it,'" Powell said, referencing the administration's actions in Iraq. "I gave the president my best advice."

Political psychologist Aubrey Immelman et al studied Mr. Cheney and arrived at the following:

Cheney’s primary personality pattern was found to be Conscientious/dutiful. His secondary pattern was Dominant/controlling. Cheney also had an elevated score on the Distrusting (suspicious) pattern; however, it did not reach a diagnostically relevant (i.e., paranoid) scale elevation. Leaders with an amalgam of Conscientious (obsessive) and Dominant (aggressive) patterns such as those evident in Cheney’s profile are best characterized as obsessive enforcers who:

• Display a moralistic conscience, permeated by a strong power motive.
• Are sticklers for rules and propriety, they are unrestrained in discharging their hostile impulses against those whom they find contemptible — ostensibly in the public interest.
• Not only act as though they have a monopoly on divining right and wrong, but also believe they have a right and the obligation to control and punish transgressors, and that they are uniquely qualified to determine how punishment should be meted out.
• Although they operate under the guise of legitimate socially sanctioned roles to serve the public interest, the deeper motives that spur the aggressive enforcing actions of leaders with this personality style are of questionable legitimacy, given the extraordinary force with which they are willing to mete out condemnation and punishment.

In the context of public service, the trademark characteristic of obsessive enforcers is first to search out rule-breakers and perpetrators of infractions that fall within the purview of their socially sanctioned role, and then to exercise what they view as their legitimate powers to the max.

The modus operandi of the obsessive enforcer invariably provokes opposition and resistance, which in turn incites and perpetuates ever-stronger countermeasures against real and perceived enemies. Their resulting "bunker mentality" may mimic a paranoid orientation, but more likely is simply a manifestation of hardball politics in the service of an obdurate, relentless, uncompromising, no-holds-barred striving to preserve and consolidate personal power and control.

In public life the fatal flaw of the "obsessive enforcer" leadership style is that, in carrying out their duties, these leaders may find it difficult to restrain the emotions that drive their controlling behaviors. Ultimately, dominating everything and everyone may become their single-minded goal, at the expense of exercising their responsibilities in a prudent, measured, self-restrained manner.

The major political implication of the study is that it sheds light on the extraordinary degree of power and influence that Vice President Cheney wielded in the Bush administration, and the former vice president's apparent reluctance to follow the lead of former President George W. Bush in departing from the political arena upon completing his term of office.
​

If collectively that doesn't point to Mr. Cheney's lack of willingness to report an objective truth about whether the Bush Administration lied about the facts it used to justify the Iraq war, I don't know what will. If you just want to believe Mr. Cheney's view of things because it's what

 

[Boss]

You are just being gratuitously ridiculous and obstinate now. You obviously read the article; you know damn well who "we" is.

Well, no... he didn't specify who "WE" is. That's my point. I don't know who "WE" is and you haven't said either.

Even if you weren't to have clicked on the link, "we" is a first person, nominative case, plural pronoun; regardless of whom "we" includes in its entirety, at the very least it includes the person who says it.

Nonsense. It doesn't have to include anyone if it's unspecified. You and he have still not specified. It remains VAGUE... as I pointed out.

I'll tell you why. Because Mr. Cheney was Vice President and Mr. Bush was President. That means that, at the end of the day, the responsibility for the Bush Administration did, even what Mr. Cheney did, ultimately must be borne by Mr. Bush. The "buck stopped" with George not Dick.

It simply does not matter with regard to who is telling the truth and who is not at this point. You're making another assumption based on what you think... but you're not very bright.

When your boss says, "we fabricated evidence," s/he himself and/or the organization s/he heads did, unless one can show that enough of the information given to your boss was a deliberate misrepresentation of facts on yours or other advisors' part, thereby making the misrepresentation not the direct doing of the person in charge.

Well, no... again, you are wrong. Bush did not say "we fabricated evidence" ...read his statement again. He said "when evidence didn't exist, we fabricated it." However, he mentions no such example of anything that was fabricated or who did the fabricating. Cheney contends it was a false allegation and Bush was a coward for making it. Now... unless you or Bush can show me what evidence was fabricated and tell me who did the fabricating, I simply don't believe it and I don't have to believe it. I think Cheney is telling the truth. You asked, why would Bush lie? Well... why would Cheney lie?

And hey... look... I am really sorry that you spent so much time and effort digging up all the links to Bush and Iraq and who did what.... I know you had a real boner to get into another long-ass debate over the war... but honestly, I am really bored with this conversation. The thread topic is about Trump's narcissism and not Bush and the Iraq War... and being that it's a CDZ forum thread, I think we should respect the integrity. We got off on this topic because someone raised the issue of libel and defamation and I made my point regarding that. It's time to move on now.

 

[320 Years of History]

You are just being gratuitously ridiculous and obstinate now. You obviously read the article; you know damn well who "we" is.

Well, no... he didn't specify who "WE" is. That's my point. I don't know who "WE" is and you haven't said either....

I most certainly did....

we. (pronoun)

1. used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people considered together:

Seeing as Mr. Bush was the President and speaker of the statement, it really doesn't matter who -- by name -- else was included in "we." The President gets to speak for himself and everything his Administration does, and when a President refers to actions of his administration, "we" means him and anyone who worked for him, certainly as a direct report, but also indirect reports to the President, from Deputy Secretaries, Agency Directors, Under Secretaries, etc. on down to the least empowered worker in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. We don't have a king, but the saying is no less applicable: heavy is the head that wears the crown.