# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/41 "2003-04-23T18:15:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by kiffa \* > My question: do you think that there is an epidemic of psychosis that runs thru the decision makers over at the White House? Dunno if I’d use the term “psychosis,” but “dangerously arrogant” would be an apt term. The Dubya Administration’s foreign policy (when it isn’t ignoring anything outside of the U.S.) is the diplomatic equivalent of flipping off the rest of the world – “We’re the biggest dog on the block, so what we say goes, and f\*ck you if you don’t like it.” While the neocons might like such a view because it puts the U.S. firmly at the top of the food chain, those of us who’ve advanced past the fifth grade know it’s a dangerous game to play; you run the risk that enough people get pissed off and unite to kick your ass. Bad enough on the schoolgrounds, where you risk getting a bloody nose or some teeth broken, and IMO intolerably dangerous on a global scale. Not that I believe George W. Bush thinks about things like that – the neocons underneath him (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz, to name the top three) probably feel this is all in the realm of “acceptable risk,” since (a) American military superiority gives us the edge to fight off the challengers, and (b) the rest of the world still believe in niceties such as diplomacy and the United Nations. George simply takes stage directions from those guys, and gladly accepts it because it fits so well into his simplistic, black-and-white us-versus-them worldview he has. ---
**Author:** ![Spite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/76d3ee/32.png) [@Spite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spite)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/42 "2003-04-23T19:07:49Z")
IIRC, the French and co proposed resolution stipulated a timeline, _but when asked_\* (italics for **Elvis** ), they refused a deadline. I think it is highly disengenuous for those that claim that Franch wanted to dissarm Iraq with the use of force under any circumstances. Because those circumstances where never allowed by the French. They wanted a continuation of the last 12 years period. Also, IIRC the “tonight” reference was Chiracs vow to veto any resolution proposed by the British when they where working on changing it for a better chance to not get veto’s. France promptly nipped any resolution proposed by the Brits before they where even on the fucking table. And poor France is so misunderstood? They made their bed, sleep in it. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/43 "2003-04-23T19:25:02Z")
No, **Spite** , they refused the one-week timeline Bush insisted upon. They did not refuse any deadline whatsoever, or military action whatsoever, or say they’d veto anything whatsoever, as you’re claiming here for some reason. The appropriate cites are already in place in this thread. Please read them. ---
**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, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/44 "2003-04-23T19:40:18Z")
**Spite:** > [@](#): > > And poor France is so misunderstood? They made their bed, sleep in it. France was not misunderstood; France was slandered. By people who knew better, like the US administration, and by people who didnt know better, like you. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/45 "2003-04-23T20:02:28Z")
Just what exactly are you saying, **RandySpears**? Is it that France would have NOT vetoed if the resolution was proposed and that his interview was all a bluff? Or is it that since there was no proposal presented, France is absolved of any responsibility (vis-a-vis the new resolutions’ derailment) for forcing the US to initiate military action without UN approval? ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/46 "2003-04-23T20:19:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > **Bricker** , any reasonable person who read the entire text of Chirac’s comments would have easily been able to “parse” his meaning. That certain words may have been taken out of context in some articles isn’t Chirac’s fault but the fault of the journalists in question, no? True. But hearing that his remarks were being taken so grievously wrongly, I am surprised that the Chirac administration didn’t make an effort to correct the record. One possible inference to draw from that failure is that the record was not in need of correction. However, having read the above, I am inclined to say the issue is far less cut-and-dried than I originally thought. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/47 "2003-04-23T20:38:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by X~Slayer(ALE) \* > \*\*France…forcing the US to initiate military action without UN approval \*\* That’s right! If the evil French hadn’t FORCED us, by way of their overwhelming superiority in weapons of mass taunting, to attack Iraq, we would never have invaded. So this was really a FRENCH invasion of Iraq, because they forced us to do it. Darn those French, forcing a warlike course of action on the peace-loving Bush Administration! Darn them to heck, I say!! ---
**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, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/48 "2003-04-23T20:48:58Z")
**Slayer:** > [@](#): > > Just what exactly are you saying, RandySpears? > > Is it that France would have NOT vetoed if the resolution was proposed and that his interview was all a bluff? No. Since you just joined. Please take your time and read through previous posts. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/49 "2003-04-23T21:40:44Z")
May as well continue the hijack, since the OP is long gone (and it was just a thinly veiled opportunity to insult the Bush administration, anyway). > [@](#): > > IIRC, the French and co proposed resolution stipulated a timeline, _but when asked_\* (italics for Elvis), they refused a deadline. I think it is highly disengenuous for those that claim that Franch wanted to dissarm Iraq with the use of force under any circumstances. Because those circumstances where never allowed by the French. They wanted a continuation of the last 12 years period. That France wanted a continuation of the last 12 years is only partially true. Prior to the Bush admin’s hard-line stance against Iraq, France wanted the sanctions against Iraq withdrawn altogether (presumably so that French companies could start dealing with Iraq over, rather than under, the table). Nothing has changed in Iraq over the course of the past several years. Yet for some reason, we’re to accept that France’s position went from “we don’t think Iraq is a threat, and sanctions should be lifted” to “we believe Iraq is a large enough threat to warrant an invasion”? While this change of heart isn’t impossible, wouldn’t there have to be some evidence that a change of heart had, in fact, taken place? That France called for a few more months isn’t compelling - that’s the same tactic a five year old uses when they want to stay up later. “Just a few more minutes, Mom” is kiddie-code for “you’ll have to drag me upstairs kicking and screaming if you want me to go to bed, because I sure as hell ain’t gonna do it on my own.” If France puts an invasion off long enough, maybe there’ll be an election in the US, and maybe the inconvenient (to France) Bush administration will be replaced by somebody who doesn’t give a fig about Iraq, at which point this whole untidy matter can be pushed aside, and we can go back to more important things. So, any evidence that France ever had any intention of okaying a war, under any circumstances? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/50 "2003-04-23T21:48:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*True. But hearing that his remarks were being taken so grievously wrongly, I am surprised that the Chirac administration didn’t make an effort to correct the record. As if the people misconstruing it weren’t doing so either deliberately or lazily? Would it have made a difference what you thought of Chirac no matter what he said? Obviously not. Place the responsibility where it belongs. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/51 "2003-04-23T21:50:30Z")
Jeff, is there any evidence that Bush ever had any intention of _not_ starting a war, under any circumstances? As I just told Rick, place the responsibility where it belongs. ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/52 "2003-04-23T22:45:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Jeff, is there any evidence that Bush ever had any intention of not starting a war, under any circumstances? > > As I just told Rick, place the responsibility where it belongs. I fail to see how that has any relevance to the question of whether or not Chirac ever had any intention of supporting a war. Is this one of those diversion things, where you hope to draw attention from a legitimate question by posing a non sequitor? Jeff ---
**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, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/53 "2003-04-23T23:11:09Z")
> [@](#): > > So, any evidence that France ever had any intention of okaying a war, under any circumstances? Speculation of future events that will never take place. Would there exist circumstances where France would ok a war? My 2 cents says: hell yeah! But that’s all speculation now. Had the United States followed the appropriate, legit process then your questions would have been answered in the real world. And if it then really became clear that France would not authorize war under any circumstances then the war could have been waged with substancially more legitimacy than it has been. ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/54 "2003-04-23T23:23:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*That’s right! If the evil French hadn’t FORCED us, by way of their overwhelming superiority in weapons of mass taunting, to attack Iraq, we would never have invaded. > > So this was really a FRENCH invasion of Iraq, because they forced us to do it. > > Darn those French, forcing a warlike course of action on the peace-loving Bush Administration! Darn them to heck, I say!! \*\* Hahahah very funny …not I stress without UN approval. Military action was warranted and justified by Saddam’s actions not France. ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/55 "2003-04-24T00:27:41Z")
> [@](#): > > Had the United States followed the appropriate, legit process then your questions would have been answered in the real world. So, the appropriate, legit process to prevent a brutal dictatorial regime from carrying out activities already banned under numerous UN resolutions is to sit on your ass, passing more resolutions, accomplishing nothing, while the brutal dictatorial regime PROSPERS because your supposed allies are actively working to help this brutal regime? What? :wtf: ---
**Author:** ![ElJeffe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/958977/32.png) [@ElJeffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElJeffe)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/56 "2003-04-24T00:31:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Had the United States followed the appropriate, legit process then your questions would have been answered in the real world. And if it then really became clear that France would not authorize war under any circumstances then the war could have been waged with substancially more legitimacy than it has been. But see, there’s a problem here, in that this argument could be used whenever the US chose to go to war without France’s approval. We could’ve spent 5 years unsuccessfully trying to woo France, and had we gone to war, it would still be possible, at least in theory, to say “Well, if the US had just gone through the appropriate channels, and jumped through the proper hoops, _of course_ France would’ve been on board!” At some point, if you accept the assertion that war is necessary, we would need to say, “Enough is enough, anyone we haven’t convinced can’t be convinced, and we need to get this show moving.” So at what point do we know that diplomacy has failed? I saw no indication that France would ever concede to invasion, under any circumstances. Would you suggest that, even if we didn’t think that the coalition was going to get any broader, and even if we believed war was necessary, that we should’ve continued to play the diplomacy game just for the sake of putting on a good show? And can you give me a sufficient criterion for assuming that France is not going to go along, ever, under any circumdstances? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/57 "2003-04-24T00:34:29Z")
**monster:** The appropriate, legit process is to respect the UN charter which your country has signed. And to get off your high horses, should you currently be giving military and economic support to other brutal, repressive and corrupt regimes in the same region. Wtf indeed! ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/58 "2003-04-24T00:42:45Z")
**Jeffe:** Maybe in an abstract, fictional what-if world. In the real world other factors come in to play. Hans Blix set a rough time frame of a couple of months for his work. After that he would have to declare the inspections a success or a failure. Furthermore, if France would have blocked in absurdum as you seem to believe, world opinion would in all likelihood have shifted in US favour. But thats all academic. France would not have blocked in absurdum. That’s just a hawk demonisation, manufactured for the american domestic market with poor interest and insight of foreign countries and affairs. ---
**Author:** ![FranticMad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c68b51/32.png) [@FranticMad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FranticMad)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/59 "2003-04-24T00:56:37Z")
Regarding the OP, I think psychosis is an inaccurate term. Perhaps the OP is referring to “groupthink”. The classic texts of this phenomenon are Irving Janis’ 1972 book ''Victims of groupthink", and the 1982 book “Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes.” (available from Amazon). ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558/60 "2003-04-24T01:23:12Z")
> [@](#): > > The appropriate, legit process is to respect the UN charter which your country has signed. We gave the UN its chance. It failed. Why should you respect failure? > [@](#): > > And to get off your high horses, should you currently be giving military and economic support to other brutal, repressive and corrupt regimes in the same region. > > Wtf indeed! Great red herring. Which brutal, repressive regimes are we supporting that are in violation of numerous UNSC resolutions again? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mass-psychosis-in-bush-administration/170558.md?page=4)