# Mass Psychosis in Bush Administration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2003, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558 "2003-04-23T11:25:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/1 "2003-04-23T11:25:05Z")
Cruising the news and I found out in the last two minutes: a. The US has plans available to bomb North Korea’s nuclear facility b. Sec Powell says France will “pay the consequences” for their foreign policy vis a vis Iraq :pause and take deep breathe: What is going on? I am speechless/or wordless as this case may be… I hate to see what Donald Rumsfeld is up to today. My question: do you think that there is an epidemic of psychosis that runs thru the decision makers over at the White House? OTOH, this might be an awful hacker joke that I haven’t heard about… ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/2 "2003-04-23T11:28:44Z")
Ooops, that squirrly green face wasn’t supposed to be there…sorry. ---
**Author:** ![London\_Calling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@London\_Calling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/London_Calling)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/3 "2003-04-23T11:59:23Z")
Hey, whoever said capitalism had a moral conscious ? Fwiw, I think what you have is an uncomplicated president appointing a whole bunch of people who do have their own free market agendas – those agendas are not unlike the philosophy that made, say, Enron so irresistible, ‘cept now it’s on a ‘global village’ scale rather than a national scale. You just lie, throw that weight around and folks have to listen. It’s a Cheney-led philosophy thing; the (single) dominant market player gets to make the rules and folks get scared of objecting cos of all the power (France now). Then even the rule makers (UN) turn a blind eye because the single player is so powerful and… it goes on and on until one day … you own the world. Or it all blows up in your face. It has to conclude in one of those two extremes, IMHO, unless the very unusual linkage in the US between business and politics (particularly foreign policy) can be broken. It’s the nature of the capitalist beast so, necessarily, its the nature of US foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/4 "2003-04-23T12:05:12Z")
I don’t see the problem with either of those statements – at least, not a psychosis-level problem. Why shouldn’t the US have available plans to bomb a potentially hostile nation? For that matter, I expect the US to have plans available to bomb Tehran and to handle a land attack from British Columbia. There is, after all, a huge gulf between “has plans available” and “plans to…” If you have evidence that the bombing of North Korea is imminent, by all means share; I might well agree with your diagnosis of psychosis. But merely having plans available is a Good Thing. As to the “pay the consequences” - I’m not so sure it’s a bright idea for the Secretary of State to blatantly announce this – but I also don’t agree that France’s behavior shoule be without consequence. Why should we not register our displeasure with their diplomatic break with us? They adopted a manifestly unreasonable position, in contrast with, say Germany, who signalled willingness to consider an automatic war resolution under certain circumstances. Germany felt - defensibly - that the evidence wasn’t there. France’s position was that no matter what the evidence, an automatic war resolution would be vetoed. I’m not at all unhappy that there may be consequences for that intransigence. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/5 "2003-04-23T12:16:20Z")
Check out the news story re North Korea at [yahoo.com](http://yahoo.com) check out the France/Powell story at [bbc.co.uk](http://bbc.co.uk) world news ---
**Author:** ![newcrasher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b3f665/32.png) [@newcrasher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcrasher)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/6 "2003-04-23T12:18:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kiffa \* > \*\*Cruising the news and I found out in the last two minutes: > > a. The US has plans available to bomb North Korea’s nuclear facility > > b. Sec Powell says France will “pay the consequences” for their foreign policy vis a vis Iraq > > :pause and take deep breathe: > > What is going on? I am speechless/or wordless as this case may be… I hate to see what Donald Rumsfeld is up to today. > > My question: do you think that there is an epidemic of psychosis that runs thru the decision makers over at the White House? > > OTOH, this might be an awful hacker joke that I haven’t heard about… \*\* Where is the mass psychosis? Their actions seem perfectly in line with their expressed positions. Maybe you worded your title poorly…:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/7 "2003-04-23T12:20:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\* > As to the “pay the consequences” - I’m not so sure it’s a bright idea for the Secretary of State to blatantly announce this – but I also don’t agree that France’s behavior shoule be without consequence. Why should we not register our displeasure with their diplomatic break with us? They adopted a manifestly unreasonable position, in contrast with, say Germany, who signalled willingness to consider an automatic war resolution under certain circumstances. Germany felt - defensibly - that the evidence wasn’t there. France’s position was that no matter what the evidence, an automatic war resolution would be vetoed. > \*\* That is not at all unreasonable. Methinks you are confused on both the German and the French position. France said that a)the evidence is not there at this point and b)any future evidence has to be assessed by the SC as to whether it is sufficient to authorize war. That is not only not at all unreasonable, it is in line with both the letter and the spirit of the UN charter. With an automatism in place, one could just as well give a blank authorization rightaway, since whether or not a given evidence short of a nuke being found is sufficient is up to anyone’s interpretation -and the US administration has already shown it is willing to interpret UN resolutions in direct defiance of its authors. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/8 "2003-04-23T12:41:02Z")
“Unreasonable” is hardly the right choice to describe France’s actions. “Inconvenient” and “resistant” seem like better choices. And there were times when France was also “arrogant”–as the US was, IMO, during the whole of its supposedly diplomatic efforts with the UNSC. Unlike Germany, France _never_ ruled out supporting the possible use of force in the wake of an unsuccessful (but complete) inspections process. And France had an eleventh-hour compromise on the table, specifying force within 30-60 days under certain conditions, that the US refused even to consider. (Some might call _that_ “unreasonable.”) You have to remember **Bricker** , that outside of the United States and UK this was, is, and remains, a very unpopular war. Why should France be obliged to cave in to force that both its government and its populace perceived as being a premature? What standard of reason dictates that? As to the OP, “mass psychosis” seems a bit inflammatory, **kiffa**. ---
**Author:** ![Mullinator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c2a13f/32.png) [@Mullinator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mullinator)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/9 "2003-04-23T12:53:46Z")
I imagine the US military has plans on how best to bring down a passenger jet that poses a danger to national security. I bet they have plans on how best to cordone off and quarantine a city in case of disease. Heck, there is probably a plan in place to attack Canada should they pose a threat. The difference between planning for all contingencies and going forth with those plans is what separates rational humans from people with little or no conscience. Getting your knickers in a twist over plans exsiting that you are uncomfortable with is pretty much a waste of time and emotional anxiety. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/10 "2003-04-23T12:57:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*They adopted a manifestly unreasonable position, in contrast with, say Germany, who signalled willingness to consider an automatic war resolution under certain circumstances. Germany felt - defensibly - that the evidence wasn’t there. France’s position was that no matter what the evidence, an automatic war resolution would be vetoed. > \*\* I lean anti-war, and think most of the France-bashing has been stupid, but I have to agree with you on this point. When France said they’d veto under _any_ circumstance, that’s not defensible. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/11 "2003-04-23T13:02:44Z")
> [@](#): > > When France said they’d veto under _any_ circumstance, that’s not defensible. **if** they had. which they did not. american propaganda lie / distorsion. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/12 "2003-04-23T13:05:32Z")
**Revtim** , review your facts. They said they’d veto an automatic war resolution in the timeframe that was then on offer for the second resolution (remember “days not weeks.”) at a time when the inspectors were making clear that days would not be sufficient. They also wanted the inspectors to determine when inspections were over. I find both of these stipulations defensible; and whether one wishes to defend them or not, they are not in themselves unreasonable. If Saddam Hussein had suddenly threatened to launch missiles against, say, Israel–if in other words the logic behind using force had ever shifted from _preventive_ to _defensive_, then we’d have a different ball of wax and one would indeed to be compelled to make a different assessment of a veto threat. Personally, I wish France had introduced its compromise earlier, but then the US showed no interest in the Canadian compromise or the Chilean compromise. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/13 "2003-04-23T14:03:49Z")
Maybe the OP remembers [this](http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/gen.war.on.terror/index.html) from our fearless misleader, just 11 months ago to this day: > [@](#): > > Bush: ‘No war plans on my desk’ for Iraq ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/14 "2003-04-23T14:53:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\ ***if** they had. which they did not. american propaganda lie / distorsion. \*\* **Randy,** Is the [Hindustan Times](http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_210204,0005.htm) part of the American propoganda machine? The [Daily Telegraph?](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/11/wirq11.xml) The [Herald?](http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/11-3-19103-0-55-7.html) The [Australian Broadcasting Company?](http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s803420.htm) Fer chrissakes, **Randy,** Chirac said it in a nationally (in France) televised speech. Do you honestly think that the US made it up? It is true that Chirac did not say “under any circumstances.” He said, “whatever the circumstances.” Pray tell, what is the difference between those two phrases? Sua ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/15 "2003-04-23T15:04:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\ ***Randy,** > > Is the [Hindustan Times](http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_210204,0005.htm) part of the American propoganda machine? > The [Daily Telegraph?](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/11/wirq11.xml) > The [Herald?](http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/11-3-19103-0-55-7.html) > > The [Australian Broadcasting Company?](http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/s803420.htm) > > Fer chrissakes, **Randy,** Chirac said it in a nationally (in France) televised speech. Do you honestly think that the US made it up? > > It is true that Chirac did not say “under any circumstances.” He said, “whatever the circumstances.” Pray tell, what is the difference between those two phrases? > > Sua \*\* Tearing half-sentences out of context does not contribute to one’s credibility, you know. Not to mention that your references don’t support your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/16 "2003-04-23T15:09:13Z")
> [@](#): > > President Jacques Chirac said France would vote no, “whatever the circumstances, because we do not think war is necessary to achieve the goal we’ve established”. How is that out of context? ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/17 "2003-04-23T15:10:43Z")
I do believe, **sua** , that the correct interpretation of the statements in the links you supplied is that France and Russia would veto the British resolution draft that they refer to which authorized the use of military force 1-2 weeks after ratification. In contrast to any interpretation taken to mean that France would under all circumstances in the future veto any resolution authorizing military force to enforce earlier UN resolutions on WoMD. Which **is** a propaganda lie / distorsion. Of american origin. Now, reading **Revtims** post i find that he really didn’t spell out which resolution(s) he meant the french were planning to veto. So he’ll have to elaborate on that. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/18 "2003-04-23T15:15:55Z")
**Bricker:** How about you post some more “context” (2-3 paragraphs sufficient) and I’ll tell you how it is “out of context”. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/19 "2003-04-23T15:27:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\* > > It is true that Chirac did not say “under any circumstances.” He said, “whatever the circumstances.” Pray tell, what is the difference between those two phrases? > > Sua \*\* For the umpteenth time : Chirac publically stated that whatever the circumstances (refering to the position and votes of the other members of the security council) France would veto the resolution the US wanted to propose at this time. Because this resolution meant “in so many days, we’ll wage war” (so many days was a week or so). The “circumstances” refered to the vote (will there be a majority for or against the US resolution, will Russia veto the resolution or not, etc…). It had nothing to do with the results of the inspections or the vidences found or not in Irak. France was utterly opposed to this last resolution because : -It gave too short a delay to Irak to be able to prove anything that was requested from it, let alone to peursue the inspections -It would have given to any country (in this case the US, of course) the right to state “Irak isn’t complying, so we’re allowed to go to war”, as opposed to a vote by the UNSC noting that Irak isn’t complying and allowing the war. Given that the US had already obviously decided that there will be a war, allowing this country to decide by themselve whether Irak was complying or not would have meant that in any case, it would habe decide that Irak wasn’t complying. And France _never_ stated it was opposed to war in all cases. It was even ready to participate in such war _if_ and only _if_ : 1. The inspections could have been carried on during at least a reasonnable period of time (one month or two has been mentionned) 2. The inspections showed that there was WMD and Irak wa refusing to destroy them OR Irak wouldn’t allow the inspection team to do its job 3. The war would be allowed by the UNSC on the basis of 2) Chirac _never_ ruled out a french military involvment in Irak, and even warned the french population about it during a TV speech. All these things have been staten dozens of times, by dozens of posters on this board, but still, France’s position is still completely misrepresented again and over again, on the basis of out of context bits of quote. I know that not living in France you didn’t read about the government positions in all the newspapers/ heard it on all TVs and radios, but for pity’s sake, from time to time, check the facts… And by the way, the German governement _did_ state it would never be involved in the war. So you got everything wrong. (But germany is a particular case when it comes to military actions in a foreign territory…) ---
**Author:** ![Beagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Beagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beagle)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/20 "2003-04-23T15:30:35Z")
The nations that the US was trying to lobby on the SC thought France was going to veto. That too, of course, came from the US propaganda machine.:rolleyes: Anyway, [this](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/iraq_03-10-03.html) is the context. > [@](#): > > In his first televised interview on the Iraq crisis, Chirac said of the new U.S, British and Spanish backed resolution: “Whatever happens, France will vote ‘no’.” > > “There could, effectively, be a majority of nine votes or more for a new resolution, one which would authorize war,” Chirac told French television. “If that was the case, then France would vote ‘no’. France will vote ‘no’ because she considers tonight that there is no reason to wage a war to reach the goal we set ourselves, that is the disarmament of Iraq.” > > Chirac warned that a war with Iraq would “break up the international coalition against terrorism” and added that the first victors in such a conflict “will be those who want a clash of civilizations, cultures and religions.” Sounds to me like Chiraq (I keep doing that) is saying any use of force resolution will be vetoed. Or, what **Sua** and **Bricker** said. Let’s parse it: “a” new resolution, not “the.” One which “would” not “does” authorize war. “No reason” to wage a war. Not to mention the famous, supposedly out of context, quotation. I don’t know how you get anything else out of it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558.md?page=2)