I am hard pressed to say anything good about as incapable a man as Bush, but he is, by all accounts, a good poker player. I genuinely admire that trait. It's a useful skill in life, but a dangerous skill when it's
the only thing in the world you're good at.
I'm aware of the many theories of Bush neuropathy; Bush may well have 'dry drunk syndrome' or any of a dozen other neurological disorders. Like JFKs Addison's disease and Reagan's Alzheimer's, we may someday down the road find out what's wrong with W's brain.
But leaving neurology aside, there are things we know about W that paint an alarming picture. 1) He has a highly addictive personality. (All alcoholics do; it's an a=a deal) 2) He likes adrenaline. (All fighter pilots, even draft-dodging fighter pilots, like adrenaline.) 3) He's a good poker player. Run those three traits by any mental health professional and their first question will be, "Is this person an addictive gambler?" The question has weighed heavily on my mind ever since it became apparent that, as George Soros has correctly stated, the Bush Presidency is a bubble caused by a few insane long-shot gambles paying off and creating an illusion of competence. Fortunately for the world, though tragically for a number of American families, Bush's lucky steak seems to have ended, and as any gambler can attest, when your lucky streak goes bad it goes REALLY bad. (If only he was just playing with his own chips... why are we bankrolling this idiot?)
Now, via Timothy Noah (SLATE's best contributor, IMO) we have this promise of eventual synthesis of competing views of Bush the Degenerate Gambler vs. Bush the Brain Damaged Simp; questioning whether the addictive gambler's characteristic lack of any perspective on the stakes and the real world consequences of losing is itself linked to neurological dysfunction:
The healthy subjects quickly shifted to a cautious strategy, while those with injuries stuck to their original strategy, even as their losses piled up.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101597/