What if Bush and Cheney ARE delusional?

[Ivan Seeking]

Durbin calls Cheney 'delusional'
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney is "delusional" about what's happening in Iraq, the Democrats' top Senate vote-counter said Thursday...

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16544658.htm

I used to think that they were just puppets for big oil and old money, but what if these guys are clinically incapable of rational decisions? I'm starting to think they are truly, clinically delusional. If Bush tries to continue the expansion of WWIII, is there any way to stop him? How much damage could be done before Congress could intervene? How quickly can we stop a President who has gone mad?

I guess that if nothing else, they could cut off funding for the WH power bill...

 

[SticksandStones]

How about we cut off funding for his paycheck instead?

 

[edward]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16544658.htm

I used to think that they were just puppets for big oil and old money, but what if these guys are clinically incapable of rational decisions? I'm starting to think they are truly, clinically delusional. If Bush tries to continue the expansion of WWIII, is there any way to stop him? How much damage could be done before Congress could intervene? How quickly can we stop a President who has gone mad?

Mad delusional of whatever they are, it was apparent that the Republican congress did not want to intervene. Even when the whole Iraq WMD fiasco was unraveled, congress continued to sit on their hands.

I think that there is an element of the old adage "Absolute power corrupts absolutely", in all of this. By hiding behind a veil of secrecy, the more they got away with, the more irrational schemes they tried.

It is almost as if while brainwashing the American people about Iraq, they brainwashed themselves. And now after not having success in Iraq they are looking at Iran.

 

[Astronuc]

"What IF . . . ?"! Since when has it been a matter of IF?

On the other hand, they simply could be just diabolical and evil. :yuck:

 

[Cyrus]

This thread reads as if Rach wrote it, sensationalism...

And what if pigs fly?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread reads as if Rach wrote it, sensationalism...

And what if pigs fly?

Well, that's your opinion, but then the mess in Iraq is a surprise to you as well.

Frankly, answers like yours are the kind of rhetoric that got us where we are today.

 

[Cyrus]

No, not really. I think you are being a little bit too sensationalist with this thread

Come on; honestly, world war III, clinically incapable of rational decisions, How quickly can we stop a President who has gone mad?

.....righttttttttttt...

 

[edward]

The USS Enterprise was sent to the Persian Gulf area in September.
The Eisenhower left shortly after that. I have heard that a third carrier task force is about to leave San Diego.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/1530

This isn't just about Iraq anymore. Anyone who would put a single carrier task force in the limited space of the Persian Gulf is wanting much more than just a show of force.

The whole thing is nutz, one of our nuclear subs already collided with a tanker in the St of Hormuz earlier this month.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=19103

 

[edward]

No, not really. I think you are being a little bit too sensationalist with this thread

Come on; honestly, world war III, clinically incapable of rational decisions, How quickly can we stop a President who has gone mad?

Hmm the Germans couldn't stop a mad leader. Bush isn't mad, he is just not in touch with reality. Wait minute that means he is nutz.

 

[Cyrus]

Thats really a poor analogy Edward. Especially considering that Bush is in bed with the Saudis, it makes no sense ...

 

[turbo]

We are in for a wider war because of Bush/Cheney. Here is what I sent to my congressional delegation today. They will do nothing, and many more people will be killed:

Israeli PM Olmert and Bush have both recently made speeches condemning Iran's nuclear program. While they both used the word "diplomacy", their idea of diplomacy is to issue ultimatums, and when the target country does not comply with their orders, they claim that "diplomatic efforts" have failed, "regrettably" leaving them with only military options. Bush used such transparent tactics to sell his war against the Iraqi people, and he is now aiming at Iran. Our country is being lied to again and we will soon be in a wider war against the Middle East if you do not act.

The Stennis carrier group will soon be on its way to the Persian Gulf, giving Bush two full carrier groups with at least a two-month overlap in deployment in which to attack Iran. There is no other reason to have two carrier groups in the Gulf. Al Qaeda has no air force or navy, nor do the Sunni insurgents. If the aim were to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities, those limited missions could be launched from any number of land bases. Bush is planning an extensive air war against Iran, with massive bombing campaigns - a war that is ready-made for close-positioned carriers that can launch many, many sorties per day.

I do not know how the war will start, but as soon as the Stennis group is deployed, you should expect that either Israel will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and leave the US to deal with the aftermath or that confederates in the area will "attack" our forces in a Gulf of Tonkin-type incident, which will be blamed on Iran. If that happens, hawks all over the US will demand action, giving Bush cover to start murdering Iranians and destroying their infrastructure. The first targets will be command and control facilities, missile batteries, coastal defense installations, military ships, and Iran's aging complement of American-built fighter jets. Iran's oil facilities will also be targeted, and since no insurer is going to allow supertankers into the gulf during an all-out air war, the price of crude will skyrocket.

As our elected representatives, you have an obligation to provide long-absent oversight on the actions of the administration. Please do so immediately, and put the president on notice that you will not permit him to start another war. Bush and Cheney are corrupt, morally bankrupt people who are responsible for the deaths of many tens of thousands of people, perhaps hundreds of thousands if the Lancet report is close. They deserve to be impeached for their lies, their attacks on our Constitution, and their illegal spying on Americans. I have little hope that you will gather the resolve to do the right thing and remove them from office, but at least stop them from starting another war. Please! Iranians are people, too, and their lives are just as valuable and meaningful as our own.

I hope you take this situation seriously. It would be nice if the Maine Delegation would stand together on this issue and confront the administration about their plan for a war against the Iranian people. I think I know what Margaret Chase Smith would do.

 

[edward]

Thats really a poor analogy Edward. Especially considering that Bush is in bed with the Saudis, it makes no sense ...

Are you kidding, his choice of bedfellows make him look even weirder.

 

[edward]

The Stennis makes the third carrier group. The Enterprise is there, the Eisenhower is well on the way and the Stennis group just left.

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20070122-102543-8377r

It is my understanding that one of the groups will deploy in the Eastern Mediterranean. That is one hell of a lot of firepower. And a lot of ships to be put in such a small area.

Edit: The Enterprise has been in the Mediterranean since last summer.

 

[russ_watters]

If Bush tries to continue the expansion of WWIII...

We're in a world war? Could you define the term for me and explain how it applies to the current situation? Or do you just mean it will become WWIII? If so, who will the combatants be?

And how 'bout being specific? Do you think they are delusional? If so, could you cite some specific delusions? Or is the purpose of this thread just to make insinuations without acutally stating and backing up a claim?

Perhaps for the second time in as many years, I find myself agreeing with cyrus - this thread is just pointless rhetoric-slinging.

 

[Astronuc]

We're in a world war? Could you define the term for me and explain how it applies to the current situation? Or do you just mean it will become WWIII? If so, who will the combatants be?

Well - technically, the 'War on Terror' is a world war, since the terrorists are distributed throughout the world. Of course, it doesn't involve combat in a lot of nations like WWI or WWII, nor is the military activity on the scale of those wars. It's more like the Cold War (spy vs spy), although its more like SF/mercenaries vs terrorists.

The US has invaded Iraq (with the UK, Australia, and troops from several European countries), has troops (special forces) in Afghanistan, has secretly placed (renditioned) people in prisons in several countries, has attacked suspected al Qaida operatives in Somalia, . . . . What am I leaving out?

Now interestingly, al Qaida was not really active in Iraq, until the US invasion. Al-Zarqawi came in from Jordan, ostensibly through Syria. Al Qaida is apparently reviving in the tribal areas of Pakistan, along with the Taliban, although the Pakistani government denies this. However, the US intelligence agencies know of Pakistani ISI involvement with Taliban and al-Qaida. Now allegedly, al-Qaida gets funding from sources in Saudi Arabia, UAE and some other Gulf countries.

Now Bush is threatening Iran. An invasion and occupation of Iran would immediately concern Russia and China - but without immediate action, although eventually, if the US attempts to control the oil supply of Iraq and Iran, then other nations might feel threatened.

Then again, it doesn't give one a sense of confidence or assurance with policitical leaders of one's country trading accusations and insults.

 

[Gokul43201]

And how 'bout being specific? Do you think they are delusional? If so, could you cite some specific delusions? Or is the purpose of this thread just to make insinuations without acutally stating and backing up a claim?

I third this.

While I do believe it plausible that Bush may be suffering from early stages of some cognitive (or related) disorder, I don't see any reasons provided in this thread to support the claim of clinical delusions in Bush and Cheney. If this is just layman usage of the word 'delusional' then, that's a different matter (and one I agree with), but if you're going to make a psychiatric speculation, why does it stop at Bush and Cheney? Doesn't the argument in the OP make the case that everyone (Condi, Snow, Gonzales, a dozen senators, several dozens of cogresspeople and millions of Americans) still supporting the President's stance is medically delusional?

 

[Astronuc]

Delusional in the clinical sense might be a bit strong, but let's look at recent history.

After 3.5 years of steadily claiming that the US was winning and making progress in Iraq

President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists.

As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning."

One could argue that 'long-term global struggle' implies a world war (undeclared of course).

Then comparing or contrasting the statement, "Absolutely, we're winning" in November with the statement, "We're not winning, we're not losing" in December, one could begin to wonder if Bush has a grip on reality, or he simply does not understand the conventional definitions of the English language.

Cheney is a bit of a mystery.

 

[Anttech]

Cheney is a bit of a mystery.

a bit?......

For me Cheney track record speaks for its-self, and says a lot about what and who he is... But Still its a mystery for me why he actually thinks like he does...

 

[denverdoc]

I think I like this place. Been hanging with rednecks too long because my love of extreme rocketry and physics happens to coincide with those who just like fire and smoke a lot. Lucky for me my step daughter (enrolled at the colo school of mines, enviro engr) showed up today asking for the help I offered a few weeks back--oh yea physics was cake. Well about 4 problems deep into her homework, I was in trouble so a google search led me here. I don't feel totally stupid, after all its been 15 or 20 years since I did physics homework, and the problem, as simple as it might be, still sits unsolved, awaiting for fresh admins in the AM.

Two notions: first Bush is delusional, whether its rhetoric to get close to the religous extremists and thus a mere ploy, or more frightening as he has been quoted on many occasions as having some knowedge of God's will.

I'm a psychiatrist (biologically oriented BTW) and as sensitive as I can be in terms of respect for cultural and religious preferences, the guy may as well be speaking in tongues.

(Which he does of course, unfortunately none in good english.)

My theory is that when booze and drugs were on the verge of ruining his future, he was guided into some holy-roller cure, and took it to heart. He then misinterpreted every failure in his biz career--hey has this guy ever had a job for more than two years--as a "sign" that he was destined for something greater. Folks nearby realized that with his ties, he would be a useful puppet, and encouraged in the if you can't do then teach vein, if you can't do then preach to the american public. Factor in some oneupmanship with his dad, and he gets this zealous Crusade II mission. The veep is another story.

But as to wwiii, i believe these cretins are capable of a serious start. I mean they have renewed research into low yield bunker busters, and more. We have the Israeli's pounding Lebanon without much of an outcry, in a proxy fight, and have seriously polarized the world on the issue of Iran, and while we overlook the Israeli arsenal, despair over the brownman having it--couse that deal to the Pakis was an exception...

Its a mess. But it may be George's last gasp, after all during his first year when things were crapping out, along comes 9/11. War on terror the issue. Well we are gettting burn't out, so we need a new installment. Puke.
JS

 

[Astronuc]

when booze and drugs were on the verge of ruining his future

Laura, his wife, put her foot down and demanded he get control. She is a member of the Methodist Church, which in Texas is more conservative, and I suspect involvement in that institution has a lot to do with Bush.

Business-wise and politically, Bush (and the family) is well-connected in a broad Texas network.

 

[denverdoc]

I didn't know about Laura's involvement with that--but I'm not surprised. i hear the Bush dynasty book is a frightening read, guess I don't care enough about the Bush clan to investigate further. Now if Jeb crawls out of a hole, expatriation here I come.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just for the record, the question in the OP asks how quickly we could stop a President who has gone mad. I didn't say that Bush has gone mad.

My worst fears about Bush are what motivates the question. And the constant denial of what clearly are the facts, such as the constant downward spiral in Iraq which the President refused to or was incapable of seeing [or he is a chronic liar], which is why I wonder if he is delusional, and which the Cheney apparently still can't see, which is why another Senator, not me, first accused him of being delusional.

I think others have already made the case that we are poised for a wider war. How can anyone who is paying attention not be aware of the sabar rattling. We are losing two wars right now and may be ready to start a third. Listen to any Senator from either party, and they all fear a regional war that could spread. That could be the scenario for WWIII - when the oil supplies are interrupted.

Here is a seat-of-the-pants prediction: The 20,000 troops for Baghdad will be used on the Iranian front.

One more thing: Bush supporters need to realize that a good percentage of the US is truly afraid of Bush. When people like me [people who absolutely despise and fear Bush] say things that sound sensationalistic to you, it is a reflection of your own motives, not ours. The constant denial of our most profound fears is what has gotten us where we are today: In a giant mess that was completely avoidable. Nonetheless, I still encounter the same denials and rhetoric. Almost anyone I have ever met who is anti-Bush feel much the same way. They don't just dislike him, they fear and despise him profoundly. He has proven himself to be dangerous and reckless. What more proof do you need?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not to mention what's going on south of the US border... and on the US border.

 

[denverdoc]

Well I still maintain the man is delusional in a clinical sense based on his avowed knowledge of God's will. Combine that with his belief that the apocolypse is at hand, and it scares the hell out of me. Pelosi for president via a dbl impeachment I say.
John S

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well I still maintain the man is delusional in a clinical sense based on his avowed knowledge of God's will. Combine that with his belief that the apocolypse is at hand, and it scares the hell out of me.

I certaintly don't mean to dispute that point but I hold out hope that it isn't that bad. But, based on my gut reaction to Bush and now much of what has happened, I could easily believe that he's as nutty as fruit cake. For all that I know, and I do worry about this, he may well intend to start Amargeddon before leaving office.

edit: I keep forgetting about his hotline to God. :yuck: And there are those who would read my statements here and say "see, they fear him because he is doing God's will!"

... Sixty-seven percent of those polled believe Bush's decisions about policy in Iraq and other major areas are influenced more by his personal beliefs regardless of the facts, while just 22 percent say his decisions are influenced more by the facts. [continued]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070127/pl_usnw/newsweek_poll__bush_job_approval_at_all_time_low30_percent

I wonder what percentage of that 22% listen to Rush.

 

[denverdoc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070127/pl_usnw/newsweek_poll__bush_job_approval_at_all_time_low30_percent

I wonder what percentage of that 22% listen to Rush.

All of them do, in between Fox News segments. The presidential poll results were interesting...Like most, I wish the election were tomorrow.
John

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Does this speak to another potential delusion?

Again, this all begs the question: How quickly can a President be contained?

 

[Astronuc]

Again, this all begs the question: How quickly can a President be contained?

As quickly as two-thirds of both houses of congress can agree that they need to control the president, or rather 'check' his power. That would require real bipartisanship.

The House of Representatives must first pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

Conviction of the accused requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present (2/3's of a quorum?).

Conviction automatically removes the defendant from office. Following conviction, the Senate may vote to further punish the individual by barring them from holding future federal office (either elected or appointed). Despite a conviction by the Senate, the defendant remains liable to criminal prosecution.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

So if 2/3's of the Senate were inclined to vote against the president then that would be sufficient to 'check' the president.

Look back to 1973-1974 and Watergate.

 

[denverdoc]

"I would suggest respectfully to the president that he is not the sole decider," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Does this speak to another potential delusion?

Again, this all begs the question: How quickly can a President be contained?

Not exactly. Grandiosity can envelop a lot of territory. Delusions by definition are tough to fix, and the more people gang up, they tend to become further entrenched. We may be seeing some of that here as he nears the end of his credibility...
John

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As quickly as two-thirds of both houses of congress can agree that they need to control the president, or rather 'check' his power. That would require real bipartisanship.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

Conviction of the accused requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present (2/3's of a quorum?). from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment#United_States

So if 2/3's of the Senate were inclined to vote against the president then that would be sufficient to 'check' the president.

Look back to 1973-1974 and Watergate.

Keeping in mind the Nixon resigned and avoided a trial, a trial would take time. But I guess that it might be possible within a matter of days given a enough motive? Dunno.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What if Bush and Cheney aren't delusional is a better question I reckon.

 

[denverdoc]

The horns of a devilish dilemma as to whether so or not. Methinks Cheney is your average sociopath.

 

[Astronuc]

Ex-Aide Says He’s Lost Faith in Bush
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html

AUSTIN, Tex., March 29 — In 1999, Matthew Dowd became a symbol of George W. Bush’s early success at positioning himself as a Republican with Democratic appeal.

A top strategist for the Texas Democrats who was disappointed by the Bill Clinton years, Mr. Dowd was impressed by the pledge of Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, to bring a spirit of cooperation to Washington. He switched parties, joined Mr. Bush’s political brain trust and dedicated the next six years to getting him to the Oval Office and keeping him there. In 2004, he was appointed the president’s chief campaign strategist.

I can appreciate someone being disappointed with Bill Clinton - a lot of people were, including myself.

Looking back, Mr. Dowd now says his faith in Mr. Bush was misplaced.

In a wide-ranging interview here, Mr. Dowd called for a withdrawal from Iraq and expressed his disappointment in Mr. Bush’s leadership.

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a “my way or the highway” mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides.

“I really like him, which is probably why I’m so disappointed in things,” he said. He added, “I think he’s become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in.” . . . . continued

I think a lot of people who supported Bush have become disillusioned.

Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said Mr. Dowd’s criticism is reflective of the national debate over the war.

“It’s an issue that divides people,” Mr. Bartlett said. . . . .

He said he disagreed with Mr. Dowd’s description of the president as isolated and with his position on withdrawal.

Well - no surprise there. The White House counselor is not exactly objective, and certainly would not concede that Bush is isolated.

The problem is that Bush cannot face the fact that he was wrong and that he lost Iraq the moment US forces became an occupation force, with no feasible plan to quickly restore the nation.

Of course, Bush claimed he wasn't going to be involved in nation building. What he didn't mention in 2000 that he was planning to destroy a nation and maybe others.

 

[denverdoc]

I was thinking about this thread this w/e, wondering, given, Bush's increasinly isolated stance and over my dead body kind of talk, that he is again under divine influence, and still sees Iraq as a new Crusade. (The fact that the invasion was originally named such may have been an accident, if one believes in such).

Smart thing would in act of political concilaition, sign the bills while muttering, I think this isn't in theirs or our best interest. They then disown the problem and like a hot potato throw it to the dems.

Then when things go to hell in a handbasket hurry following withdrawal next september, the rebublicans can assert the mess is the dems fault. Had we stayed the course...Even if things stabilize, and the withdrawal goes smoothly, the reps can take credit for it. Win/win.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm having difficulty fathoming how a "political strategist" (whatever that means) could be so spectacularly naive. The word "cooperation", to a politician, any politician, means you cooperate with me. Better yet, with a Republican controlled legislature, cooperation was us cooperating with me.