WadeGabriel
15-05-2005, 14:10
Some interesting articles that I've found.
----------------------------------------
Is George W. Bush insane? TODAY"S UNKNOWN NEWS
Is George W. Bush insane?
Tour recent "episodes" and decide for yourself:
Aug. 7, 2002 Dec. 11, 2002 Feb. 7, 2003 March
4, 2003 March 5, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 17, 2003 March 20, 2003
March 29, 2003 May 31, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 2, 2003 July 2, 2003
Sept. 2, 2003 Oct. 9, 2003 Oct. 28, 2003 Dec. 11, 2003 Jan. 11, 2004
March 11, 2004 June 4, 2004 June 14, 2004 June 26, 2004 July 16,
2004 July 20, 2004 Oct. 17, 2004
Psychoanalyst describes Bush as "paranoid megalomaniac,"
"untreated alcoholic"
Capitol Hill Blue
June 14, 2004
A new book by a prominent Washington psychoanalyst says
President George W. Bush is a "paranoid meglomaniac" as well as a sadist and
"untreated alcoholic." The doctor's analysis appears to confirm earlier
reports the President may be emotionally unstable.
Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind
of the President, also says the President has a "lifelong streak of sadism,
ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to
insulting journalists, gloating over state executions ... [and] pumping his
fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad."
Even worse, Dr. Frank concludes, the President's years of heavy
drinking "may have affected his brain function -- and his decision to quit
drinking without the help of a 12-step program [puts] him at far higher risk
of relapse."
Dr. Frank's revelations comes on the heels of last week's
Capitol Hill Blue exclusive that revealed increasing concern by White House
aides over Bush's emotional stability.
Aides, who spoke only on condition that their names be withheld,
told stories of wide mood swings by the President who would go from quoting
the Bible one minute to obscenity-filled outbursts the next.
Bush shows an inability to grieve -- dating back to age 7, when
his sister died. "The family's reaction -- no funeral and no mourning -- set
in motion his life-long pattern of turning away from pain [and hiding]
behind antic behavior," says Frank, who says Bush may suffer from Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Other findings by Dr. Frank:
. His mother, Barbara Bush -- tabbed by some family friends
as "the one who instills fear" -- had trouble connecting emotionally with
her son, Frank argues.
. George H.W. Bush's "emotional and physical absence
during his son's youth triggered feelings of both adoration and revenge in
George W."
. The President suffers from "character pathology,"
including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and
God as interchangeable.
Dr. Frank has been a psychiatrist for 35 years and is director
of psychiatry at George Washington University. A Democrat, he once headed
the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
In an interview with The Washington Post's Richard Leiby, Dr.
Frank said he began to be concerned about Bush's behavior in 2002.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching
everything he did and reading what he wrote, and watching him on videotape.
I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank told Leiby. Bush, he said, "fits the
profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not
treated."
Dr. Frank's expert recommendation? "Our sole treatment option --
for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office ...
before it is too late."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to comment on the
specifics of Dr. Frank's book or the earlier story by Capitol Hill Blue.
"I don't do book reviews," McClellan said, even though he last
week recommended the latest book by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward to
reporters at the daily press briefing.
Published by
Capitol Hill Blue
Excerpt from Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of
the President
by Justin A. Frank, M.D.
Introduction:
"Curious about George"
If one of my patients frequently said one thing and
did another, I would want to know why. If I found that he often used words
that hid their true meaning and affected a persona that obscured the nature
of his actions, I would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible
worldview characterized by an oversimplified distinction between right and
wrong, good and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to
grasp reality. And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged -- even
sadistic -- indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of
compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he
touched.
For the past three years, I have observed with
increasing alarm the inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But
he is not one of my patients. He is our president.
George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction. All
of us have witnessed the affable good humor with which he charms both
supporters and detractors; even those of us who disagree with his policies
may find him personally likeable. As time goes on, however, the gulf between
his personality and those policies -- and the style with which they are
executed -- grows ever wider, raising serious questions about his behavior:
. How can someone so friendly and playful be
the same person who cuts funds from government programs aiding the poor and
hungry?
. How is it that our deeply religious
president feels free to bomb Iraq -- and then celebrate the results with
open expressions of joy?
. How can a president send American soldiers
into combat under false pretenses and then proceed to joke about the
deception, finding humor in the absence of weapons of mass destruction under
his Oval Office desk?
. How can someone promise to protect the
environment on the one hand and allow increased arsenic in the public water
supply on the other? And why does he feel he can call his plan to lift
logging restrictions in national forests the "Healthy" Forest Initiative?
. If the president's interpersonal skills are
strong enough to earn him the reputation of being a "people person," why is
he so unwilling and even unable to talk to world leaders, such as Jacques
Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder, who disagree with him?
. How can the president sound so confused and
yet act so decisively? And given the regularity with which he confuses fact
with fantasy, how can he justify decisions based largely on his own personal
suspicions with such unwavering certainty?
As a citizen, I worry about what these
contradictions and inconsistencies say about the president's ability to
govern; as a psychoanalyst, I'm troubled by their implications for the
president's current and long-term mental health, particularly in light of
certain information we know about his past. Naturally, the occasional
misstatement or discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as
politics as usual. But when the most powerful man on the planet consistently
exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated symptoms -- any one of
which I've seen patients need years to work through -- it's certainly cause
for further investigation, if not for outright alarm.
President Bush is not my patient, of course, but the
discipline of applied psychoanalysis gives us a way to make as much sense of
his psyche as he is likely ever to allow. At its simplest level, applied
psychoanalysis means the application of psychoanalytic principles to anybody
outside one's own consulting room. The tradition of psychoanalyzing public
figures dates back almost as far as psychoanalysis itself; Freud based some
of his most important theories on his observations of individuals he could
never get onto his couch, Moses and Leonardo da Vinci most notable among
them.
Indeed, if Freud were alive in the second half of
the twentieth century, he might well have been recruited to offer his genius
in the service of the U.S. intelligence effort. Somewhere in the bowels of
the George H. W. Bush Center for Central Intelligence in Langley, Virginia,
psychoanalysts are currently reviewing audio recordings, videotapes, and
biographical information on dozens of contemporary world leaders, using the
principles of applied psychoanalysis to develop detailed profiles for use by
the CIA and the U.S. government and military. According to political
psychiatrist Jerrold M. Post, M.D., who has chronicled the history of
"at-a-distance leader personality assessment in support of policy," the
marriage of psychoanalysis and U.S. intelligence dates back to the early
1940s, when the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of
Adolf Hitler. The effort was regarded as enough of a success that it was
institutionalized in the 1960s, Post writes, first under the aegis of the
Psychiatric Staff of the CIA's Office of Medical Services, which "led to the
establishment of the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political
Behavior" (CAPPB), which Post founded within the Directorate of
Intelligence.
As Post reveals, CIA psychological profiles of Anwar
Sadat and Menachem Begin played an important role in Jimmy Carter's handling
of the 1978 Camp David negotiations. And applied psychoanaly-sis continues
to enjoy a privileged place in the intelligence universe.
"At the time of his confirmation hearings, Secretary
of the Defense Donald Rumsfeld identified as his nightmare [the possibility
of] not understanding the intentions of dangerous adversaries," Post writes.
"Accentuated by some of the recent intelligence 'surprises,' the need to
have a robust applied political psychology capability has been highlighted
and increased resources are currently being applied to human intelligence
and to the study of the personality and political behavior of foreign
leaders, both national leaders and terrorists."
A vote of confidence from today's CIA, of course,
might be described as a mixed blessing. Nevertheless, applied psychoanalysis
remains a vital tool for understanding political leaders. And since one can
scarcely imagine Bush Center resources being committed to a Bush son's
psychological profile, this must be an independent inquiry, albeit one that
is informed by the CAPPB goal as articulated by its founder, Jerrold M.
Post: "to understand shaping events that influenced core attitudes,
political personality, leadership and political behavior."
Published by
HarperCollins
New information shows
Bush indecisive,
paranoid, delusional
by Teresa Hampton,
June 17, 2004
The carefully-crafted image of George W. Bush as a
bold, decisive leader is cracking under the weight of new revelations that
the erratic President is indecisive, moody, paranoid and delusional.
"More and more this brings back memories of the
Nixon White House," says retired political science professor George
Harleigh, who worked for President Nixon during the second presidential term
that ended in resignation under fire. "I haven't heard any reports of
President Bush wondering the halls talking to portraits of dead Presidents
but what I have been told is disturbing."
Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a
growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President's
mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts
with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion
on his sleeve.
Although supporters of President Bush dismissed the
reports as "fantasies from anonymous sources," a new book by Dr. Justin
Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many
similar questions about the President's mental stability.
"George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction,"
Dr. Frank writes in Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.
"Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac
tendencies."
In addition, a new film by documentary filmmaker,
and frequent Bush critic, Michael Moore shows the President indecisive and
clearly befuddled when he learned about the terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
While conservative critics who have not yet seen
Fahrenheit 9/11 dismiss the work as an anti-Bush screed, Roger Friedman of
the normally pro-Bush Fox News Network has seen the film and calls it "a
tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time
a indictment of stupidity and avarice."
Friedman also says the films "most indelible moment"
comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first
informed of the 9/11 attacks.
"Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat
in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11
minutes," Friedman says. "Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the
school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access
to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you
that no one who sees this film forgets this episode."
Dr. Frank says the episode is typical of how Bush
deals with death and tragedy. He notes that Bush avoids funerals.
"President Bush has not attended a single funeral -
other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore some possible
reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am less interested
in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in thinking about its
meaning both to him and to the rest of us," Dr. Frank says. "He has spent a
lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he
was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been
confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading
responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not
wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought."
In his book, Dr. Frank also suggests Bush resents
those in the military.
"Bush's behavior strongly suggests an unconscious
resentment toward our own servicemen, whose bravery puts his own
(nonexistent) wartime service record to shame," he wrote.
Supporters of President Bush dismiss Frank's book as
the work of a Democrat who once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians
for Social Responsibility, but his work has been praised by other prominent
psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical
Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University
Medical School.
Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who
specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees
with most of Dr. Frank's conclusions.
"I find the bulk of his analysis credible," she said
in an interview. "President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but
demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left
indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all
cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a
classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain
actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior."
Ryan Reynolds, a childhood friend of Bush, concurs.
"George wanted to please his father but never felt
he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb," Reynolds said.
Dr. Williams wonders if the Iraq war was not Bush's
way of "proving he could finish something his father could not by deposing
Saddam Hussein."
But Bush's desire to please his father may have
backfired. Former President George H.W. Bush has remained silent publicly
about the war, saying he will only discuss it with his son "in private."
Close aides say that is because he disapproves of his son's actions against
Iraq.
"Former President Bush does not support the war
against Iraq," says former aide John Ruskin. "It is as simple at that."
While current White House aides and officials would
not allow their names to be used when commenting about Bush's erratic
behavior, others like former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confirm
concerns about Bush's mood swings.
O'Neill says Bush was moody in cabinet meetings and
would wander off on tangents, mostly about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush, O'
Neill says, seemed more focused on Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and
would lash out at anyone who disagreed with him.
Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House
staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President's
behavior.
"We saw the same thing in the Nixon years," he says.
"What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even
one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the
President's mental condition. That says more than anything else."
Dr. Frank, the Democrat, says the only diagnosis he
can offer for the President's condition is removal from office.
Dr. Williams, the Republican, says she must
"reluctantly agree."
"We have too many unanswered questions about the
President's behavior," she says. "You cannot have those kinds of unanswered
questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world."
Published by
Capitol Hill Blue
New information shows Bush indecisive, paranoid, delusional
What is going on in the White House?
by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post
Excerpt from Bush on the Couch
by Justin A. Frank, M.D.
From the archives,
June 27, 2003:
"God told me to strike at
al Qaida and I struck them"
From the archives,
Sept. 2, 2003:
Noted psychologist
observes Bush's behavior
Says there's plenty to be worried about
Dr. Frank's expert recommendation?
"Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit
and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office ... before it is too
late."
What is going on
in the White House?
by Dan Froomkin, on-line, The Washington Post
June 16, 2004
What's going on inside the White House? Ask Dan
Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing column for washingtonpost.com.
He'll answer your questions, take your comments and links, and point you to
coverage around the Web.
Today Dan was joined by Justin Frank,
Georgetown psychoanalyst and author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of
the President, an unauthorized "applied psychoanalysis" of the president.
Here is an excerpt from Chapter One.
Dan Froomkin: Justin, Thanks for much for joining us
today. Your book is clearly generating some buzz. Before we get to the
reader questions, give me a quick sense of what sort of reaction you've
gotten thus far.
Justin Frank: Thank you for having me online. So far
the reaction I've received has been positive from colleagues as well as
media people. I had an interview last evening on Air America on the
Garofolo/Seder show which was lively and informed. Reviews of the book are
just starting to come in.
Email from Arlington, Va.: Do you think your initial
bias against the President has caused you to grasp for facts that fit a
preconceived conclusion? I think I see this happening in at least excerpt
from the linked summary of your book:
"His comfort living outside the law, defying
international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes
and military reporting requirements."
I don't think Bush has lived outside international
law any more than other world leaders (Clinton fighting in Kosovo without UN
approval, Chiraq sending troops to Africa without UN aproval, Truman going
to Korea without UN approval). I also don't think, as sad as it is, that he
is all that uncommon for getting a DUI. The "military reporting
requirements" bit is just absurd in my mind because there is substantial
evidence that he did fulfill these requirements.
Do you really have a scientific methodology for
coming to your conclusions, or are you just on a fishing expedition to make
the President look bad?
Justin Frank: You raise some very important
questions. I was concerned about policies promulgated by President Bush
before I started my study of him. However, there have been other presidents
whose policies I have also disagreed with. What was different about Bush was
his patterns of behavior -- to use your question, a pattern of living
outside the law. Other people have been arrested for DUI, as you note. Not
many go on drinking for ten years after that, nor do they run for president.
But I agree, he is not unique as a person. He is unique as a president,
however.
Email from Boone, N.C.: To Justin Frank: Has your
assessment of Bush's behavior received endorsements from your colleagues
and/or other psychologists or psychoanalysts?
Justin Frank: I have received endorsements from
other psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, most notably from Dr. James
Grotstein, MD who is Professor at UCLA Medical Center. He gave high praise
for the book and for its scholarship. I also received endorsement from Dr.
Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
He wrote that the book is "compelling and persuasive and downright
frightening."
Email from Coral Gables, Fla.: What's your response
to this Blog Post by "Respectful of Otters"?
Quote:
"....Frank told us yesterday that his opinions are
based on publicly available materials, adding, "I've never met the president
or any members of his family."
This kind of garbage is forbidden by the ethics code
of my own profession. It took about ten minutes with Google to determine
that it also violates the ethical code of psychiatrists.
" On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an
opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who
has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In
such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her
expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for
a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has
conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such
a statement."
You don't diagnose a patient you haven't examined.
You don't discuss your diagnoses without the patient's permission. And if
your only defense against the latter rule is that the person you've publicly
diagnosed isn't really your patient, that alone ought to let you know that
you've strayed far from the requirements of professional ethics. A
psychiatric diagnosis is a clinical tool, not a rhetorical device; to treat
it otherwise substantially undermines the reputation of psychiatry and
psychology. Frank is a former leader of the Physicians for Social
Responsibility, but there is simply nothing socially responsible about using
psychiatric terminology as a stick with which to beat your political
enemies. There's nothing socially responsible about misusing the mantle of
the professional expert. I am appalled.
Justin Frank: This is an important question
concerning the fact that I never met with George W Bush personally. I am
using the technique of applied psychoanalysis which was first introduced by
Freud in his analyses of Leonardo, Moses, and Little Hans. That technique,
applying psychoanalytic principles to available material, is now used by CIA
psychiatrists hired by the US Government who work at the George H.W. Bush
Center in Langly VA. I think these techniques should be available to the
American public as well. Therefore the APA guidelines you cite do not
pertain to my work -- Bush on the Couch is not about being "asked for an
opinion about an individual" but rather it is an in depth study of writings,
videotapes, biographies, news reports, of an individual.
Dan Froomkin: After his speech at MacDill Air Force
Base near Tampa, Fla., today, Bush was to have met with 11 families of
troops who died in Iraq or Afghanistan. He's done this about a dozen times,
all told. But he's not attended a single funeral. He banned photographs of
the coffins returning from Iraq. And he has really, by and large, avoided
talking about the dead. Some people think that's not very presidential.
You write in your book that "Bush's behavior
strongly suggests an unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen, whose
bravery puts his own (nonexistent) wartime service record to shame." But
that's a pretty brutal thing to say about the Commander in Chief, isn't it?
Justin Frank: President Bush has not attended a
single funeral -- other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore
some possible reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am
less interested in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in
thinking about its meaning both to him and to the rest of us. He has spent a
lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he
was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been
confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading
responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not
wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought.
It would take too long for me to answer your
question about his unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen --
probably the rest of this online session. Too many playwrights describe old
men sending the young to die, making Bush not at all unique. But there is
something about envy of the young, envy of their strength, envy of their
courage. He also envied his father who was a military hero himself. It is a
complex issue but one worth exploring.
Email from Tinseltown: Forget that cue card reading
figurehead George W. Bush: let me ask about someone American really care
about. How would you analyze Tony Soprano?
Justin Frank: There is already a book written
analyzing Tony Soprano, written by Glen Gabbard, MD.
Email from Harrisburg, Pa.: Freud made psychological
observations of famous people without personally observing them. How
accurate is this field of psychological observation from a distance, what
are its limitations, and what are its advantages?
Justin Frank: Thank you for this question. The
limitations of not making direct clinical observations of patients are
great: we are not able to avail ourselves of the powerful tools of
transference and countertransference -- the patient's feelings about us and
ours in relation to them. We do not get to see what is replayed from their
childhood conflicts that get expressed in the consulting room.
On the other hand, I never get to observe my
patients outside the consulting room. With Bush I get to see all his
speeches, press conferences, photo ops, read his speeches, read biographical
material as well. I find that much of applied psychoanalysis is "accurate"
in that it helps us see patterns of behavior and gives us tools to think
about those patterns. It is not conclusive -- and therefore functions in the
realm of interpretation. Interestingly enough, Bush seems to continue to
write my book after it has been printed -- just two weeks ago he denied
knowing the now-discredited Chalabi despite having invited him to sit with
Laura at the State of the Union address this year. I called this denial
mechanism the KWD, or the "Kenny Who Defense" which he used so widely when
asked if he knew Ken Lay of Enron. That was the same Ken Lay who was a chief
contributor to Bush's 2000 election bid.
Email from Arlington, VA: You replied to me that
George Bush is "unique as a president" because of his "pattern of living
outside the law." The problem is, you are starting out with a set of
assumptions that are colored by your political views. Many people would not
agree that Bush is displaying this pattern of behavior. Some might argue
that Bill Clinton had even greater troubles with the law, leading him to
commit the felony of perjury. I don't recall your book on his psychological
background.
Justin Frank: I am answering this because you are
concerned about my bias.
I did not analyze Clinton, and he certainly had/has
his share of character flaws. He did not take money earmarked for
Afghanistan and use it to prepare for a war in Iraq. This is not just
outside the law but outside the Constitution. There are numerous examples of
similar behavior seen in Bush. But I am not here to compare but to look in
depth into What we see in this president.
Email from Washington, D.C.: Let me see if I've got
this straight: one can't quit drinking, except with the help of 12-steppers
or a professionals such as yourself? Sounds like more blather from the
Recovery Industry.
Justin Frank: I don't think anybody makes money from
12-step recovery. It is not much of an industry. But what is important is
that the "ism" part of alcoholism was not treated ever and he has no
capacity to take responsibility for his behavior which he dismisses as
"youthful indescretions". Until forty?
One needs a president who can look inside himself
and think about matters of grave importance to the nation and to the world.
Black and white thinking results most often from untreated alcoholism.
Email from Santa Clara, Calif.: Dr. Frank, A few
weeks ago we learned that Pres. Bush has Saddam's handgun in a case in a
room off the oval office. Apparently he proudly shows it off to visitors.
Given all the negative events that have transpired since Hussein's capture
what do you make of this disconnect?
Justin Frank: I think that the Bush who proudly
shows off Saddam's handgun to visitors is the same Bush who proudly pranced
aboard the aircraft carrier last year declaring that the war in Iraq was
over. His behavior is similar to that of an eight-year-old boy playing
superman and believing that he won a war all by himself, that he captured
Saddam by himself. The behavior is "disconnected" not only from current
events, but from a fundamental understanding of self.
Email from Washington, D.C.: What do you hope to
accomplish with this book? Is it your conclusion that the President's
psychiatric limitations should disqualify him from holding the office -- or
at the very least, that voters should conclude from your analysis that
alternative candidates should be selected?
Justin Frank: I hope to enrich the discussion about
our choices for president in 2004. Until this book there has been a sense
that employers at MacDonalds know more about the psychological profiles of
their employees than we do about the people we select to hold the most
important job in our nation.
I hope that the book will help us think about
patterns of behavior that we see, that it will help us watch our leaders
more closely. And that it will help us think.
Email from Columbus, Ohio: Is Chapter I about Bush
or Reagan? After a week of nauseating tributes to the president who claimed
ketchup is a vegetable for poor children in the school lunch program, and
who unilaterally kicked people off disability until they could prove
eligibility (during which time some people died), I am intrugued -- and
terrified -- by the parallels.
Justin Frank: I appreciate your comment comparing
Bush's behavior toward children with Reagan's. Both were relatively absent
fathers, detached from their own children. What Reagan started in the 1980s
(really in the 1970s in California) Bush is continuing, though the chapter
was explicitly about George W. Bush.
Email from Philadelphia, PA: This is more of a
comment than a question, but I read a review of your book yesterday that
mentioned the death of Bush's sister and the possible effects of the
suppression of his feelings about that. Frankly, it's one of the few times
I've felt some real compassion for him. I also lost a sister, when I was 8
and she was 7, more than 40 years ago, and it was also true in my family
that no one seemed to notice that I might feel responsible for death. With
some help I managed to figure it out too many years later. (Fortunately, I
wasn't holding an important public office during the time I was struggling
with it unconsciously.) I have since learned that the most important thing a
parent can do is to help a child be responsible for his or her feelings. I
don't forsee any help like that for Bush, since he's already been "saved,"
but hopefully your book will raise others' awareness of how much damage one
repressed person can accomplish.
Justin Frank: Your comment is so moving that I want
to include it in my response: "I have since learned that the most important
thing a parent can do is to help a child be responsible for his or her
feelings. I don't forsee any help like that for Bush, since he's already
been "saved," but hopefully your book will raise others' awareness of how
much damage one repressed person can accomplish."
I, too, was moved when reading about what Bush must
have gone through. He did have nightmares for several months afterward, but
from what I can tell there was no discussion of his feelings -- no place to
talk about guilt, normal aggression and relief, and terrible loss itself.
Parents must pay attention to their children, and I have the feeling that
Bush received little, if any, such attention. I also think that helps me
understand why it is easy for him to pay little attention to the real and
palpable losses of the American people -- from 911 to Afghanistan to Iraq.
He thinks only of revenge for 911 or else of continuing to live life as one
normally might do.
Email from Houston, Texas: I'm not a Bush fan, but
your approach does seem like shooting fish in a barrel. By applying various
psychological symptoms and neuroses from such an external standpoint,
couldn't you make virtually anyone look a little crazy?
Justin Frank: Yes I could make anyone look crazy.
And I'm a target for that as well. We all are.
I hope that if you read the book you will see that I
am not just pulling out all the psychiatric stops to "get" Bush.
His behavior calls for examination.
Email from Pomona, Calif.: I would be interested in
seeing your methods of analysis applied to John Kerry's pattern of changing
his position on issues based on the political expediency of the moment.
Surely there must be some deep wound from his childhood that prevents him
from developing a principled position and sticking with it in the face of
criticism. And what are the implications for how he would govern, given this
pattern of indecision?
Justin Frank: I would love to apply my method of
analysis to John Kerry. I think this kind of exploration is warranted with
all people who hold such immense responsibility.
Again, I am not looking for causes as much as for
patterns and meaning of those patterns.
Email from Chicago, Ill.: I've read articles about
Bush that describe him as a "dry drunk." Do you think he's still an
alcoholic, or that the stress of not drinking contributes to his problems?
Do you think there's a point when the straw will
finally break the camel's back and Bush will start decompensating?
Dan Froomkin: Lots of readers are asking about this
"dry drunk" hypothesis.
Justin Frank: I was concerned in the April 13 Press
Conference that Bush had begun to decompensate. He was unable to anwswer the
question about whether or not he thought he'd made mistakes in the
prosecution of the Iraq war. In some ways he gave his most honest answer --
a halting and defensive one, but genuine. He couldn't think and needed
written questions in advance.
I have no idea whether or not Bush is drinking -- I
would doubt it as he must be under scrutiny by so many people. But the issue
again is about the "ism" part of alcoholism -- the need he has to order his
internal chaos. This need at times borders on the desperate -- rigid
schedules, repeated prayer meetings, excessive time away from Washington,
and even fears of testifying alone in front of the 911 Commission.
Email from Long Beach: Greetings from California,
May I suggest to those who question your ability or
right to observe the president that they remember the fate of Vladimir
Bekhterev, who diagonosed Stalin as a paranoid, and was quickly poisoned by
his "fearless leader"? BTW, Bekhterev would be a good dedication in your
book.
Justin Frank: Thank you for your warning. Several of
my firends said that they would consult during the writing but did not want
to be acknowledged by name in print.
I hope that is an acceptable response to your
comment.
I do get anxious more about followers than about
Bush himself. Stalin he is not.
Email from Monticello, New York: Dr. Frank,
I understand you learned that Bush exploded
firecrackers inside of frogs as a youngster. How did you learn that, what
does it indicate to you about the pathology of the youngster, and how do you
think that pathology has manifested itself in the behavior of the adult?
Thank you.
Justin Frank: There were several articles about
Bush's childhood in which his friends were interviewed describing his having
blown up frogs. This was after rainy periods in the otherwise dry Midland
world. He also used beebee guns to shoot them, one friend reported. A group
of them did.
As a fraternity man at Yale he branded pledges on
the buttocks with a hot coat-hanger. This was written up in the NYTimes in
1967 and he was interviewed then about it.
His smirk as an adult, his mimicry of patients on
death row while he was Governor are all part of a similar pattern.
Everyone has sadistic bits in his personality. The
job of a mature person is to recognize those elements and control them or
channel them in some way other than inflicting harm on others.
Email from Undisclosed Location, Suburban Maryland:
My more psychodynamically-informed co-workers and I have from time to time
engaged in debate as to exactly where our president fits into the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual for mental disorders (DSM-IV). So I herald the
arrival of your book (and this chat) with great interest.
My personal take on Mr. Bush has been one of
Antisocial Personality Disorder (DSM code 301.7) as he meets the threshold
of three criteria for that diagnosis: deceitfulness (item 2), impulsivity or
failure to plan ahead (3), and consistent irresponsibility (6) -- although
evidence for lack of remorse (7) is certainly in abundance as well.
However, I will concede that his association with
the neocons who hijacked our foreign policy (flushing 40 years of
multilateralism down the drain in favor of a "high country sheriff" game)
suggests Shared Psychotic Disorder (297.3).
Then there is a nagging sense, too, of something on
the Autistic Disorder spectrum (299.90). He appears to meet five criteria:
(1b) failure to develop peer relationships (see diplomatic failures); (2a)
delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language; (2c)
stereotyped and repetitive use of language (responds "9/11 changed
everything" to any questioning of his policies); (3a) encompassing
preoccupation with one or more interest that is abnormal in intensity or
focus (see Iraq obsession); and (3b) apparently inflexible adherence to
specific, nonfunctional routines (see same).
And finally, there is the unclassifiable, but
intense, sense of arrested development. The insistence on seeing the world
in black and white is characteristic of a child who simply hasn't yet begun
to perceive the complexities of the adult world.
You've obviously done a lot of thinking on this as
well. So we'd be grateful if you could help us sort all this out (and maybe
settle some bets?). Thanks!;
Justin Frank: In my book I did not make a DSM
diagnosis of President Bush.
My book is about character and behavior patterns to
take note of, not about diagnosis. It is aimed at helping people to think
about his competence to govern and his method of governing rather than to
put him in a category.
As much has I have been willing to examine his
character in depth, I do not feel that trying out a diagnosis will serve any
useful purpose.
Email from Hunsterville, NC: Justin, any word from
the White House on your book? Official or otherwise?
Justin Frank: No official word form the White House,
other than twice being told they "don't do book reviews."
I have no idea. I am talking about Bush in a
different way, but I think the White House is more concerned with people who
have specific goods on them -- people like O'Neill and Clarke.
Dan Froomkin: Justin, thanks for joining us today.
You sparked a great conversation here, and I suspect in many other places as
well. Readers, thanks for all your terrific questions -- sorry we couldn't
get to all of them. Justin Frank: Thank you for having me. I enjoyed this
format -- something completely new to me. I hope it hasn't been too
argumentative but is rather in the service of deepening discussion and
thought.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators
retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most
relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to
answer questions.
Published by
Washington Post
As a citizen, I worry about what these
contradictions and inconsistencies say about the president's ability to
govern; as a psychoanalyst, I'm troubled by their implications for the
president's current and long-term mental health, particularly in light of
certain information we know about his past.
Naturally, the occasional misstatement or
discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as politics as usual.
But when the most powerful man on the planet
consistently exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated
symptoms -- any one of which I've seen patients need years to work
through -- it's certainly cause for further investigation, if not for
outright alarm.
What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This material is copyrighted by its original publishers.
It is reprinted by Unknown News without permission, solely for
purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the
Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under § 107 of U.S.C. Title 17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's much more than this at Unknown News .
Is George W. Bush insane?
Tour recent 'episodes'
and decide for yourself
in·sane adj.
1 : mentally disordered : exhibiting insanity
2 : used by, typical of, or intended for insane persons (an insane
asylum)
3 : ABSURD (an insane scheme for making money)
-Merriam-Webster
in·san·i·ty n.
1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific
disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental
retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders
b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one
from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular
relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or
civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness
b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
-Merriam-Webster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that our deeply religious president feels
free to bomb Iraq -- and then celebrate the results with open expressions of
joy?
How can a president send American soldiers into
combat under false pretenses and then proceed to joke about the deception,
finding humor in the absence of weapons of mass destruction under his Oval
Office desk?
How can someone promise to protect the environment
on the one hand and allow increased arsenic in the public water supply on
the other?
And why does he feel he can call his plan to lift
logging restrictions in national forests the "Healthy" Forest Initiative?
If the president's interpersonal skills are strong
enough to earn him the reputation of being a "people person," why is he so
unwilling and even unable to talk to world leaders, such as Jacques Chirac
or Gerhard Schroeder, who disagree with him?
How can the president sound so confused and yet act
so decisively?
And given the regularity with which he confuses fact
with fantasy, how can he justify decisions based largely on his own personal
suspicions with such unwavering certainty?
----------------------------------------
Is George W. Bush insane? TODAY"S UNKNOWN NEWS
Is George W. Bush insane?
Tour recent "episodes" and decide for yourself:
Aug. 7, 2002 Dec. 11, 2002 Feb. 7, 2003 March
4, 2003 March 5, 2003 March 6, 2003 March 17, 2003 March 20, 2003
March 29, 2003 May 31, 2003 June 27, 2003 July 2, 2003 July 2, 2003
Sept. 2, 2003 Oct. 9, 2003 Oct. 28, 2003 Dec. 11, 2003 Jan. 11, 2004
March 11, 2004 June 4, 2004 June 14, 2004 June 26, 2004 July 16,
2004 July 20, 2004 Oct. 17, 2004
Psychoanalyst describes Bush as "paranoid megalomaniac,"
"untreated alcoholic"
Capitol Hill Blue
June 14, 2004
A new book by a prominent Washington psychoanalyst says
President George W. Bush is a "paranoid meglomaniac" as well as a sadist and
"untreated alcoholic." The doctor's analysis appears to confirm earlier
reports the President may be emotionally unstable.
Dr. Justin Frank, writing in Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind
of the President, also says the President has a "lifelong streak of sadism,
ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to
insulting journalists, gloating over state executions ... [and] pumping his
fist gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad."
Even worse, Dr. Frank concludes, the President's years of heavy
drinking "may have affected his brain function -- and his decision to quit
drinking without the help of a 12-step program [puts] him at far higher risk
of relapse."
Dr. Frank's revelations comes on the heels of last week's
Capitol Hill Blue exclusive that revealed increasing concern by White House
aides over Bush's emotional stability.
Aides, who spoke only on condition that their names be withheld,
told stories of wide mood swings by the President who would go from quoting
the Bible one minute to obscenity-filled outbursts the next.
Bush shows an inability to grieve -- dating back to age 7, when
his sister died. "The family's reaction -- no funeral and no mourning -- set
in motion his life-long pattern of turning away from pain [and hiding]
behind antic behavior," says Frank, who says Bush may suffer from Attention
Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
Other findings by Dr. Frank:
. His mother, Barbara Bush -- tabbed by some family friends
as "the one who instills fear" -- had trouble connecting emotionally with
her son, Frank argues.
. George H.W. Bush's "emotional and physical absence
during his son's youth triggered feelings of both adoration and revenge in
George W."
. The President suffers from "character pathology,"
including "grandiosity" and "megalomania" -- viewing himself, America and
God as interchangeable.
Dr. Frank has been a psychiatrist for 35 years and is director
of psychiatry at George Washington University. A Democrat, he once headed
the Washington Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility.
In an interview with The Washington Post's Richard Leiby, Dr.
Frank said he began to be concerned about Bush's behavior in 2002.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching
everything he did and reading what he wrote, and watching him on videotape.
I felt he was disturbed," Dr. Frank told Leiby. Bush, he said, "fits the
profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not
treated."
Dr. Frank's expert recommendation? "Our sole treatment option --
for his benefit and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office ...
before it is too late."
White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to comment on the
specifics of Dr. Frank's book or the earlier story by Capitol Hill Blue.
"I don't do book reviews," McClellan said, even though he last
week recommended the latest book by the Washington Post's Bob Woodward to
reporters at the daily press briefing.
Published by
Capitol Hill Blue
Excerpt from Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of
the President
by Justin A. Frank, M.D.
Introduction:
"Curious about George"
If one of my patients frequently said one thing and
did another, I would want to know why. If I found that he often used words
that hid their true meaning and affected a persona that obscured the nature
of his actions, I would grow more concerned. If he presented an inflexible
worldview characterized by an oversimplified distinction between right and
wrong, good and evil, allies and enemies, I would question his ability to
grasp reality. And if his actions revealed an unacknowledged -- even
sadistic -- indifference to human suffering, wrapped in pious claims of
compassion, I would worry about the safety of the people whose lives he
touched.
For the past three years, I have observed with
increasing alarm the inconsistencies and denials of such an individual. But
he is not one of my patients. He is our president.
George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction. All
of us have witnessed the affable good humor with which he charms both
supporters and detractors; even those of us who disagree with his policies
may find him personally likeable. As time goes on, however, the gulf between
his personality and those policies -- and the style with which they are
executed -- grows ever wider, raising serious questions about his behavior:
. How can someone so friendly and playful be
the same person who cuts funds from government programs aiding the poor and
hungry?
. How is it that our deeply religious
president feels free to bomb Iraq -- and then celebrate the results with
open expressions of joy?
. How can a president send American soldiers
into combat under false pretenses and then proceed to joke about the
deception, finding humor in the absence of weapons of mass destruction under
his Oval Office desk?
. How can someone promise to protect the
environment on the one hand and allow increased arsenic in the public water
supply on the other? And why does he feel he can call his plan to lift
logging restrictions in national forests the "Healthy" Forest Initiative?
. If the president's interpersonal skills are
strong enough to earn him the reputation of being a "people person," why is
he so unwilling and even unable to talk to world leaders, such as Jacques
Chirac or Gerhard Schroeder, who disagree with him?
. How can the president sound so confused and
yet act so decisively? And given the regularity with which he confuses fact
with fantasy, how can he justify decisions based largely on his own personal
suspicions with such unwavering certainty?
As a citizen, I worry about what these
contradictions and inconsistencies say about the president's ability to
govern; as a psychoanalyst, I'm troubled by their implications for the
president's current and long-term mental health, particularly in light of
certain information we know about his past. Naturally, the occasional
misstatement or discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as
politics as usual. But when the most powerful man on the planet consistently
exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated symptoms -- any one of
which I've seen patients need years to work through -- it's certainly cause
for further investigation, if not for outright alarm.
President Bush is not my patient, of course, but the
discipline of applied psychoanalysis gives us a way to make as much sense of
his psyche as he is likely ever to allow. At its simplest level, applied
psychoanalysis means the application of psychoanalytic principles to anybody
outside one's own consulting room. The tradition of psychoanalyzing public
figures dates back almost as far as psychoanalysis itself; Freud based some
of his most important theories on his observations of individuals he could
never get onto his couch, Moses and Leonardo da Vinci most notable among
them.
Indeed, if Freud were alive in the second half of
the twentieth century, he might well have been recruited to offer his genius
in the service of the U.S. intelligence effort. Somewhere in the bowels of
the George H. W. Bush Center for Central Intelligence in Langley, Virginia,
psychoanalysts are currently reviewing audio recordings, videotapes, and
biographical information on dozens of contemporary world leaders, using the
principles of applied psychoanalysis to develop detailed profiles for use by
the CIA and the U.S. government and military. According to political
psychiatrist Jerrold M. Post, M.D., who has chronicled the history of
"at-a-distance leader personality assessment in support of policy," the
marriage of psychoanalysis and U.S. intelligence dates back to the early
1940s, when the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of
Adolf Hitler. The effort was regarded as enough of a success that it was
institutionalized in the 1960s, Post writes, first under the aegis of the
Psychiatric Staff of the CIA's Office of Medical Services, which "led to the
establishment of the Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political
Behavior" (CAPPB), which Post founded within the Directorate of
Intelligence.
As Post reveals, CIA psychological profiles of Anwar
Sadat and Menachem Begin played an important role in Jimmy Carter's handling
of the 1978 Camp David negotiations. And applied psychoanaly-sis continues
to enjoy a privileged place in the intelligence universe.
"At the time of his confirmation hearings, Secretary
of the Defense Donald Rumsfeld identified as his nightmare [the possibility
of] not understanding the intentions of dangerous adversaries," Post writes.
"Accentuated by some of the recent intelligence 'surprises,' the need to
have a robust applied political psychology capability has been highlighted
and increased resources are currently being applied to human intelligence
and to the study of the personality and political behavior of foreign
leaders, both national leaders and terrorists."
A vote of confidence from today's CIA, of course,
might be described as a mixed blessing. Nevertheless, applied psychoanalysis
remains a vital tool for understanding political leaders. And since one can
scarcely imagine Bush Center resources being committed to a Bush son's
psychological profile, this must be an independent inquiry, albeit one that
is informed by the CAPPB goal as articulated by its founder, Jerrold M.
Post: "to understand shaping events that influenced core attitudes,
political personality, leadership and political behavior."
Published by
HarperCollins
New information shows
Bush indecisive,
paranoid, delusional
by Teresa Hampton,
June 17, 2004
The carefully-crafted image of George W. Bush as a
bold, decisive leader is cracking under the weight of new revelations that
the erratic President is indecisive, moody, paranoid and delusional.
"More and more this brings back memories of the
Nixon White House," says retired political science professor George
Harleigh, who worked for President Nixon during the second presidential term
that ended in resignation under fire. "I haven't heard any reports of
President Bush wondering the halls talking to portraits of dead Presidents
but what I have been told is disturbing."
Two weeks ago, Capitol Hill Blue revealed that a
growing number of White House aides are concerned about the President's
mental stability. They told harrowing tales of violent mood swings, bouts
with paranoia and obscene outbursts from a President who wears his religion
on his sleeve.
Although supporters of President Bush dismissed the
reports as "fantasies from anonymous sources," a new book by Dr. Justin
Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, raises many
similar questions about the President's mental stability.
"George W. Bush is a case study in contradiction,"
Dr. Frank writes in Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President.
"Bush is an untreated ex-alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac
tendencies."
In addition, a new film by documentary filmmaker,
and frequent Bush critic, Michael Moore shows the President indecisive and
clearly befuddled when he learned about the terrorist attacks on the World
Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
While conservative critics who have not yet seen
Fahrenheit 9/11 dismiss the work as an anti-Bush screed, Roger Friedman of
the normally pro-Bush Fox News Network has seen the film and calls it "a
tribute to patriotism, to the American sense of duty - and at the same time
a indictment of stupidity and avarice."
Friedman also says the films "most indelible moment"
comes when Bush, speaking to a group of school kids in Florida, is first
informed of the 9/11 attacks.
"Instead of jumping up and leaving, he instead sat
in front of the class, with an unfortunate look of confusion, for nearly 11
minutes," Friedman says. "Moore obtained the footage from a teacher at the
school who videotaped the morning program. There Bush sits, with no access
to his advisers, while New York is being viciously attacked. I guarantee you
that no one who sees this film forgets this episode."
Dr. Frank says the episode is typical of how Bush
deals with death and tragedy. He notes that Bush avoids funerals.
"President Bush has not attended a single funeral -
other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore some possible
reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am less interested
in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in thinking about its
meaning both to him and to the rest of us," Dr. Frank says. "He has spent a
lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he
was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been
confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading
responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not
wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought."
In his book, Dr. Frank also suggests Bush resents
those in the military.
"Bush's behavior strongly suggests an unconscious
resentment toward our own servicemen, whose bravery puts his own
(nonexistent) wartime service record to shame," he wrote.
Supporters of President Bush dismiss Frank's book as
the work of a Democrat who once headed the Washington Chapter of Physicians
for Social Responsibility, but his work has been praised by other prominent
psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical
Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University
Medical School.
Dr. Carolyn Williams, a psychoanalyst who
specializes in paranoid personalities, is a registered Republican and agrees
with most of Dr. Frank's conclusions.
"I find the bulk of his analysis credible," she said
in an interview. "President Bush grew up dealing with an absent but
demanding father, a tough mother and an overachieving brother. All left
indelible impressions on him along with a desire to prove himself at all
cost because he feels surrounded by disapproval. He behavior suggests a
classic paranoid personality. Additionally, his stated belief that certain
actions are 'God's Will' are symptomatic of delusional behavior."
Ryan Reynolds, a childhood friend of Bush, concurs.
"George wanted to please his father but never felt
he measured up, especially when compared to Jeb," Reynolds said.
Dr. Williams wonders if the Iraq war was not Bush's
way of "proving he could finish something his father could not by deposing
Saddam Hussein."
But Bush's desire to please his father may have
backfired. Former President George H.W. Bush has remained silent publicly
about the war, saying he will only discuss it with his son "in private."
Close aides say that is because he disapproves of his son's actions against
Iraq.
"Former President Bush does not support the war
against Iraq," says former aide John Ruskin. "It is as simple at that."
While current White House aides and officials would
not allow their names to be used when commenting about Bush's erratic
behavior, others like former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill confirm
concerns about Bush's mood swings.
O'Neill says Bush was moody in cabinet meetings and
would wander off on tangents, mostly about Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Bush, O'
Neill says, seemed more focused on Iraq than on finding Osama bin Laden and
would lash out at anyone who disagreed with him.
Harleigh says it is not unusual for White House
staffers to refuse to go public with their concerns about the President's
behavior.
"We saw the same thing in the Nixon years," he says.
"What is unusual is that the White House has not been able to trot out even
one staffer who is willing to go public and say positive things about the
President's mental condition. That says more than anything else."
Dr. Frank, the Democrat, says the only diagnosis he
can offer for the President's condition is removal from office.
Dr. Williams, the Republican, says she must
"reluctantly agree."
"We have too many unanswered questions about the
President's behavior," she says. "You cannot have those kinds of unanswered
questions when you are talking about the leader of the free world."
Published by
Capitol Hill Blue
New information shows Bush indecisive, paranoid, delusional
What is going on in the White House?
by Dan Froomkin, Washington Post
Excerpt from Bush on the Couch
by Justin A. Frank, M.D.
From the archives,
June 27, 2003:
"God told me to strike at
al Qaida and I struck them"
From the archives,
Sept. 2, 2003:
Noted psychologist
observes Bush's behavior
Says there's plenty to be worried about
Dr. Frank's expert recommendation?
"Our sole treatment option -- for his benefit
and for ours -- is to remove President Bush from office ... before it is too
late."
What is going on
in the White House?
by Dan Froomkin, on-line, The Washington Post
June 16, 2004
What's going on inside the White House? Ask Dan
Froomkin, who writes the White House Briefing column for washingtonpost.com.
He'll answer your questions, take your comments and links, and point you to
coverage around the Web.
Today Dan was joined by Justin Frank,
Georgetown psychoanalyst and author of Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of
the President, an unauthorized "applied psychoanalysis" of the president.
Here is an excerpt from Chapter One.
Dan Froomkin: Justin, Thanks for much for joining us
today. Your book is clearly generating some buzz. Before we get to the
reader questions, give me a quick sense of what sort of reaction you've
gotten thus far.
Justin Frank: Thank you for having me online. So far
the reaction I've received has been positive from colleagues as well as
media people. I had an interview last evening on Air America on the
Garofolo/Seder show which was lively and informed. Reviews of the book are
just starting to come in.
Email from Arlington, Va.: Do you think your initial
bias against the President has caused you to grasp for facts that fit a
preconceived conclusion? I think I see this happening in at least excerpt
from the linked summary of your book:
"His comfort living outside the law, defying
international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes
and military reporting requirements."
I don't think Bush has lived outside international
law any more than other world leaders (Clinton fighting in Kosovo without UN
approval, Chiraq sending troops to Africa without UN aproval, Truman going
to Korea without UN approval). I also don't think, as sad as it is, that he
is all that uncommon for getting a DUI. The "military reporting
requirements" bit is just absurd in my mind because there is substantial
evidence that he did fulfill these requirements.
Do you really have a scientific methodology for
coming to your conclusions, or are you just on a fishing expedition to make
the President look bad?
Justin Frank: You raise some very important
questions. I was concerned about policies promulgated by President Bush
before I started my study of him. However, there have been other presidents
whose policies I have also disagreed with. What was different about Bush was
his patterns of behavior -- to use your question, a pattern of living
outside the law. Other people have been arrested for DUI, as you note. Not
many go on drinking for ten years after that, nor do they run for president.
But I agree, he is not unique as a person. He is unique as a president,
however.
Email from Boone, N.C.: To Justin Frank: Has your
assessment of Bush's behavior received endorsements from your colleagues
and/or other psychologists or psychoanalysts?
Justin Frank: I have received endorsements from
other psychoanalysts and psychiatrists, most notably from Dr. James
Grotstein, MD who is Professor at UCLA Medical Center. He gave high praise
for the book and for its scholarship. I also received endorsement from Dr.
Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
He wrote that the book is "compelling and persuasive and downright
frightening."
Email from Coral Gables, Fla.: What's your response
to this Blog Post by "Respectful of Otters"?
Quote:
"....Frank told us yesterday that his opinions are
based on publicly available materials, adding, "I've never met the president
or any members of his family."
This kind of garbage is forbidden by the ethics code
of my own profession. It took about ten minutes with Google to determine
that it also violates the ethical code of psychiatrists.
" On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an
opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who
has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In
such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her
expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for
a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has
conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such
a statement."
You don't diagnose a patient you haven't examined.
You don't discuss your diagnoses without the patient's permission. And if
your only defense against the latter rule is that the person you've publicly
diagnosed isn't really your patient, that alone ought to let you know that
you've strayed far from the requirements of professional ethics. A
psychiatric diagnosis is a clinical tool, not a rhetorical device; to treat
it otherwise substantially undermines the reputation of psychiatry and
psychology. Frank is a former leader of the Physicians for Social
Responsibility, but there is simply nothing socially responsible about using
psychiatric terminology as a stick with which to beat your political
enemies. There's nothing socially responsible about misusing the mantle of
the professional expert. I am appalled.
Justin Frank: This is an important question
concerning the fact that I never met with George W Bush personally. I am
using the technique of applied psychoanalysis which was first introduced by
Freud in his analyses of Leonardo, Moses, and Little Hans. That technique,
applying psychoanalytic principles to available material, is now used by CIA
psychiatrists hired by the US Government who work at the George H.W. Bush
Center in Langly VA. I think these techniques should be available to the
American public as well. Therefore the APA guidelines you cite do not
pertain to my work -- Bush on the Couch is not about being "asked for an
opinion about an individual" but rather it is an in depth study of writings,
videotapes, biographies, news reports, of an individual.
Dan Froomkin: After his speech at MacDill Air Force
Base near Tampa, Fla., today, Bush was to have met with 11 families of
troops who died in Iraq or Afghanistan. He's done this about a dozen times,
all told. But he's not attended a single funeral. He banned photographs of
the coffins returning from Iraq. And he has really, by and large, avoided
talking about the dead. Some people think that's not very presidential.
You write in your book that "Bush's behavior
strongly suggests an unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen, whose
bravery puts his own (nonexistent) wartime service record to shame." But
that's a pretty brutal thing to say about the Commander in Chief, isn't it?
Justin Frank: President Bush has not attended a
single funeral -- other than that of President Reagan. In my book I explore
some possible reasons for that, whether or not it is "presidential". I am
less interested in judging his behavior on political grounds than I am in
thinking about its meaning both to him and to the rest of us. He has spent a
lifetime of avoiding grief, starting with the death of his sister when he
was 7 years old. His parents didn't help him with what must have been
confusing and frightening feelings. He also has a history of evading
responsibility and perhaps his not attending funerals has to do with not
wanting to see the damage his policies have wrought.
It would take too long for me to answer your
question about his unconscious resentment toward our own servicemen --
probably the rest of this online session. Too many playwrights describe old
men sending the young to die, making Bush not at all unique. But there is
something about envy of the young, envy of their strength, envy of their
courage. He also envied his father who was a military hero himself. It is a
complex issue but one worth exploring.
Email from Tinseltown: Forget that cue card reading
figurehead George W. Bush: let me ask about someone American really care
about. How would you analyze Tony Soprano?
Justin Frank: There is already a book written
analyzing Tony Soprano, written by Glen Gabbard, MD.
Email from Harrisburg, Pa.: Freud made psychological
observations of famous people without personally observing them. How
accurate is this field of psychological observation from a distance, what
are its limitations, and what are its advantages?
Justin Frank: Thank you for this question. The
limitations of not making direct clinical observations of patients are
great: we are not able to avail ourselves of the powerful tools of
transference and countertransference -- the patient's feelings about us and
ours in relation to them. We do not get to see what is replayed from their
childhood conflicts that get expressed in the consulting room.
On the other hand, I never get to observe my
patients outside the consulting room. With Bush I get to see all his
speeches, press conferences, photo ops, read his speeches, read biographical
material as well. I find that much of applied psychoanalysis is "accurate"
in that it helps us see patterns of behavior and gives us tools to think
about those patterns. It is not conclusive -- and therefore functions in the
realm of interpretation. Interestingly enough, Bush seems to continue to
write my book after it has been printed -- just two weeks ago he denied
knowing the now-discredited Chalabi despite having invited him to sit with
Laura at the State of the Union address this year. I called this denial
mechanism the KWD, or the "Kenny Who Defense" which he used so widely when
asked if he knew Ken Lay of Enron. That was the same Ken Lay who was a chief
contributor to Bush's 2000 election bid.
Email from Arlington, VA: You replied to me that
George Bush is "unique as a president" because of his "pattern of living
outside the law." The problem is, you are starting out with a set of
assumptions that are colored by your political views. Many people would not
agree that Bush is displaying this pattern of behavior. Some might argue
that Bill Clinton had even greater troubles with the law, leading him to
commit the felony of perjury. I don't recall your book on his psychological
background.
Justin Frank: I am answering this because you are
concerned about my bias.
I did not analyze Clinton, and he certainly had/has
his share of character flaws. He did not take money earmarked for
Afghanistan and use it to prepare for a war in Iraq. This is not just
outside the law but outside the Constitution. There are numerous examples of
similar behavior seen in Bush. But I am not here to compare but to look in
depth into What we see in this president.
Email from Washington, D.C.: Let me see if I've got
this straight: one can't quit drinking, except with the help of 12-steppers
or a professionals such as yourself? Sounds like more blather from the
Recovery Industry.
Justin Frank: I don't think anybody makes money from
12-step recovery. It is not much of an industry. But what is important is
that the "ism" part of alcoholism was not treated ever and he has no
capacity to take responsibility for his behavior which he dismisses as
"youthful indescretions". Until forty?
One needs a president who can look inside himself
and think about matters of grave importance to the nation and to the world.
Black and white thinking results most often from untreated alcoholism.
Email from Santa Clara, Calif.: Dr. Frank, A few
weeks ago we learned that Pres. Bush has Saddam's handgun in a case in a
room off the oval office. Apparently he proudly shows it off to visitors.
Given all the negative events that have transpired since Hussein's capture
what do you make of this disconnect?
Justin Frank: I think that the Bush who proudly
shows off Saddam's handgun to visitors is the same Bush who proudly pranced
aboard the aircraft carrier last year declaring that the war in Iraq was
over. His behavior is similar to that of an eight-year-old boy playing
superman and believing that he won a war all by himself, that he captured
Saddam by himself. The behavior is "disconnected" not only from current
events, but from a fundamental understanding of self.
Email from Washington, D.C.: What do you hope to
accomplish with this book? Is it your conclusion that the President's
psychiatric limitations should disqualify him from holding the office -- or
at the very least, that voters should conclude from your analysis that
alternative candidates should be selected?
Justin Frank: I hope to enrich the discussion about
our choices for president in 2004. Until this book there has been a sense
that employers at MacDonalds know more about the psychological profiles of
their employees than we do about the people we select to hold the most
important job in our nation.
I hope that the book will help us think about
patterns of behavior that we see, that it will help us watch our leaders
more closely. And that it will help us think.
Email from Columbus, Ohio: Is Chapter I about Bush
or Reagan? After a week of nauseating tributes to the president who claimed
ketchup is a vegetable for poor children in the school lunch program, and
who unilaterally kicked people off disability until they could prove
eligibility (during which time some people died), I am intrugued -- and
terrified -- by the parallels.
Justin Frank: I appreciate your comment comparing
Bush's behavior toward children with Reagan's. Both were relatively absent
fathers, detached from their own children. What Reagan started in the 1980s
(really in the 1970s in California) Bush is continuing, though the chapter
was explicitly about George W. Bush.
Email from Philadelphia, PA: This is more of a
comment than a question, but I read a review of your book yesterday that
mentioned the death of Bush's sister and the possible effects of the
suppression of his feelings about that. Frankly, it's one of the few times
I've felt some real compassion for him. I also lost a sister, when I was 8
and she was 7, more than 40 years ago, and it was also true in my family
that no one seemed to notice that I might feel responsible for death. With
some help I managed to figure it out too many years later. (Fortunately, I
wasn't holding an important public office during the time I was struggling
with it unconsciously.) I have since learned that the most important thing a
parent can do is to help a child be responsible for his or her feelings. I
don't forsee any help like that for Bush, since he's already been "saved,"
but hopefully your book will raise others' awareness of how much damage one
repressed person can accomplish.
Justin Frank: Your comment is so moving that I want
to include it in my response: "I have since learned that the most important
thing a parent can do is to help a child be responsible for his or her
feelings. I don't forsee any help like that for Bush, since he's already
been "saved," but hopefully your book will raise others' awareness of how
much damage one repressed person can accomplish."
I, too, was moved when reading about what Bush must
have gone through. He did have nightmares for several months afterward, but
from what I can tell there was no discussion of his feelings -- no place to
talk about guilt, normal aggression and relief, and terrible loss itself.
Parents must pay attention to their children, and I have the feeling that
Bush received little, if any, such attention. I also think that helps me
understand why it is easy for him to pay little attention to the real and
palpable losses of the American people -- from 911 to Afghanistan to Iraq.
He thinks only of revenge for 911 or else of continuing to live life as one
normally might do.
Email from Houston, Texas: I'm not a Bush fan, but
your approach does seem like shooting fish in a barrel. By applying various
psychological symptoms and neuroses from such an external standpoint,
couldn't you make virtually anyone look a little crazy?
Justin Frank: Yes I could make anyone look crazy.
And I'm a target for that as well. We all are.
I hope that if you read the book you will see that I
am not just pulling out all the psychiatric stops to "get" Bush.
His behavior calls for examination.
Email from Pomona, Calif.: I would be interested in
seeing your methods of analysis applied to John Kerry's pattern of changing
his position on issues based on the political expediency of the moment.
Surely there must be some deep wound from his childhood that prevents him
from developing a principled position and sticking with it in the face of
criticism. And what are the implications for how he would govern, given this
pattern of indecision?
Justin Frank: I would love to apply my method of
analysis to John Kerry. I think this kind of exploration is warranted with
all people who hold such immense responsibility.
Again, I am not looking for causes as much as for
patterns and meaning of those patterns.
Email from Chicago, Ill.: I've read articles about
Bush that describe him as a "dry drunk." Do you think he's still an
alcoholic, or that the stress of not drinking contributes to his problems?
Do you think there's a point when the straw will
finally break the camel's back and Bush will start decompensating?
Dan Froomkin: Lots of readers are asking about this
"dry drunk" hypothesis.
Justin Frank: I was concerned in the April 13 Press
Conference that Bush had begun to decompensate. He was unable to anwswer the
question about whether or not he thought he'd made mistakes in the
prosecution of the Iraq war. In some ways he gave his most honest answer --
a halting and defensive one, but genuine. He couldn't think and needed
written questions in advance.
I have no idea whether or not Bush is drinking -- I
would doubt it as he must be under scrutiny by so many people. But the issue
again is about the "ism" part of alcoholism -- the need he has to order his
internal chaos. This need at times borders on the desperate -- rigid
schedules, repeated prayer meetings, excessive time away from Washington,
and even fears of testifying alone in front of the 911 Commission.
Email from Long Beach: Greetings from California,
May I suggest to those who question your ability or
right to observe the president that they remember the fate of Vladimir
Bekhterev, who diagonosed Stalin as a paranoid, and was quickly poisoned by
his "fearless leader"? BTW, Bekhterev would be a good dedication in your
book.
Justin Frank: Thank you for your warning. Several of
my firends said that they would consult during the writing but did not want
to be acknowledged by name in print.
I hope that is an acceptable response to your
comment.
I do get anxious more about followers than about
Bush himself. Stalin he is not.
Email from Monticello, New York: Dr. Frank,
I understand you learned that Bush exploded
firecrackers inside of frogs as a youngster. How did you learn that, what
does it indicate to you about the pathology of the youngster, and how do you
think that pathology has manifested itself in the behavior of the adult?
Thank you.
Justin Frank: There were several articles about
Bush's childhood in which his friends were interviewed describing his having
blown up frogs. This was after rainy periods in the otherwise dry Midland
world. He also used beebee guns to shoot them, one friend reported. A group
of them did.
As a fraternity man at Yale he branded pledges on
the buttocks with a hot coat-hanger. This was written up in the NYTimes in
1967 and he was interviewed then about it.
His smirk as an adult, his mimicry of patients on
death row while he was Governor are all part of a similar pattern.
Everyone has sadistic bits in his personality. The
job of a mature person is to recognize those elements and control them or
channel them in some way other than inflicting harm on others.
Email from Undisclosed Location, Suburban Maryland:
My more psychodynamically-informed co-workers and I have from time to time
engaged in debate as to exactly where our president fits into the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual for mental disorders (DSM-IV). So I herald the
arrival of your book (and this chat) with great interest.
My personal take on Mr. Bush has been one of
Antisocial Personality Disorder (DSM code 301.7) as he meets the threshold
of three criteria for that diagnosis: deceitfulness (item 2), impulsivity or
failure to plan ahead (3), and consistent irresponsibility (6) -- although
evidence for lack of remorse (7) is certainly in abundance as well.
However, I will concede that his association with
the neocons who hijacked our foreign policy (flushing 40 years of
multilateralism down the drain in favor of a "high country sheriff" game)
suggests Shared Psychotic Disorder (297.3).
Then there is a nagging sense, too, of something on
the Autistic Disorder spectrum (299.90). He appears to meet five criteria:
(1b) failure to develop peer relationships (see diplomatic failures); (2a)
delay in, or total lack of, the development of spoken language; (2c)
stereotyped and repetitive use of language (responds "9/11 changed
everything" to any questioning of his policies); (3a) encompassing
preoccupation with one or more interest that is abnormal in intensity or
focus (see Iraq obsession); and (3b) apparently inflexible adherence to
specific, nonfunctional routines (see same).
And finally, there is the unclassifiable, but
intense, sense of arrested development. The insistence on seeing the world
in black and white is characteristic of a child who simply hasn't yet begun
to perceive the complexities of the adult world.
You've obviously done a lot of thinking on this as
well. So we'd be grateful if you could help us sort all this out (and maybe
settle some bets?). Thanks!;
Justin Frank: In my book I did not make a DSM
diagnosis of President Bush.
My book is about character and behavior patterns to
take note of, not about diagnosis. It is aimed at helping people to think
about his competence to govern and his method of governing rather than to
put him in a category.
As much has I have been willing to examine his
character in depth, I do not feel that trying out a diagnosis will serve any
useful purpose.
Email from Hunsterville, NC: Justin, any word from
the White House on your book? Official or otherwise?
Justin Frank: No official word form the White House,
other than twice being told they "don't do book reviews."
I have no idea. I am talking about Bush in a
different way, but I think the White House is more concerned with people who
have specific goods on them -- people like O'Neill and Clarke.
Dan Froomkin: Justin, thanks for joining us today.
You sparked a great conversation here, and I suspect in many other places as
well. Readers, thanks for all your terrific questions -- sorry we couldn't
get to all of them. Justin Frank: Thank you for having me. I enjoyed this
format -- something completely new to me. I hope it hasn't been too
argumentative but is rather in the service of deepening discussion and
thought.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators
retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most
relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to
answer questions.
Published by
Washington Post
As a citizen, I worry about what these
contradictions and inconsistencies say about the president's ability to
govern; as a psychoanalyst, I'm troubled by their implications for the
president's current and long-term mental health, particularly in light of
certain information we know about his past.
Naturally, the occasional misstatement or
discrepancy between word and deed may be dismissed as politics as usual.
But when the most powerful man on the planet
consistently exhibits an array of multiple, serious, and untreated
symptoms -- any one of which I've seen patients need years to work
through -- it's certainly cause for further investigation, if not for
outright alarm.
What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This material is copyrighted by its original publishers.
It is reprinted by Unknown News without permission, solely for
purposes of criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the
Fair Use Guidelines of copyright material under § 107 of U.S.C. Title 17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's much more than this at Unknown News .
Is George W. Bush insane?
Tour recent 'episodes'
and decide for yourself
in·sane adj.
1 : mentally disordered : exhibiting insanity
2 : used by, typical of, or intended for insane persons (an insane
asylum)
3 : ABSURD (an insane scheme for making money)
-Merriam-Webster
in·san·i·ty n.
1 a : a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific
disorder (as schizophrenia) and usually excluding such states as mental
retardation, psychoneurosis, and various character disorders
b : a mental disorder
2 : such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one
from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular
relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or
civil responsibility
3 a : extreme folly or unreasonableness
b : something utterly foolish or unreasonable
-Merriam-Webster
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it that our deeply religious president feels
free to bomb Iraq -- and then celebrate the results with open expressions of
joy?
How can a president send American soldiers into
combat under false pretenses and then proceed to joke about the deception,
finding humor in the absence of weapons of mass destruction under his Oval
Office desk?
How can someone promise to protect the environment
on the one hand and allow increased arsenic in the public water supply on
the other?
And why does he feel he can call his plan to lift
logging restrictions in national forests the "Healthy" Forest Initiative?
If the president's interpersonal skills are strong
enough to earn him the reputation of being a "people person," why is he so
unwilling and even unable to talk to world leaders, such as Jacques Chirac
or Gerhard Schroeder, who disagree with him?
How can the president sound so confused and yet act
so decisively?
And given the regularity with which he confuses fact
with fantasy, how can he justify decisions based largely on his own personal
suspicions with such unwavering certainty?