Devil Bush?

[elsol]

Why can't I think both sides are unhinged?

 

[Pure]

hi cant,

i think that's an excellent response. it's certainly arguable that one's evaluation of killing an innocent rests on a 'moral sense'--- that there's no way to reason oneself to that conclusion. so to say, by reason, lift oneself by one's bootstraps into the moral universe.

another point here, made by Hume is that morality rests upon feeling of sympathy, i.e., something we 'feel' when (at least some) others suffer, outside of one's own family.

i think it's true that 'moral sense' evolves, and the elimination of girl newborns is an example that does NOT seem to have offended Aristotle or Plato-- and then again neither did slavery.

there are Biblical examples too, some of which parallel your iraq example. there are commands by God to wipe out, besides the men, the women and children of 'enemy' or 'godless' nations.

more particularly, in the story of David and Bathsheba, you may remember that D saw to it the B's husband, Uriah. was killed. The penalty God exacted, apparently, was NOT that David got punished directly.

Instead D and B's baby died. The baby was innocent, and in a way, Bathsheba too, since, she could probably not resist the King's decision to 'take her' first as mistress, then as wife; D had impregnated her even before Uriah's death.

I think there are NT examples as well.

I might mention too, in the law--English, US-- beating a child to death for disobedience was not frowned upon, just as is now the case in some Far Eastern countries. Now that child isn't 'innocent', but s/he certainly innocent of anything meriting the death penalty-- to OUR way of thinking. Indeed, death penalties, in earlier times, for a range of offenses by adults--e.g. for blasphemy, theft, adultery--show the same, arguable disrespect for life (as we would say).

I have some sympathy too, for the view that the 'correct' decision cannot be mapped out by reason, in complicated cases. It's a bit like the law; there are always cases where a good judge goes with equity or mercy, rather than the letter of the law.

Similarly, even if rationally we were to map out exceptions regarding, say, killing innocents, we wouldn't solve all dilemmas. For instance, many of the above cases could be handled by a 'rational' amendment: 1) 'do not kill innocents' applies to adults, not newborns; 2) 'do not kill innocents does not apply to innocents who are, perhaps through no fault of their own,' connected to guilty parties. this being the 'collateral damage' principle that's beloved of America's military (and others' military, too, of course.).

As you may know, several moralists thought they could map out a rational morality, e.g. St Thomas, and on the Protestant side, Kant. (And our Ms. Rand) Yet each of them generated results that offend our intuition: Kant said, that it's wrong to lie, even to a madman who comes to your door asking if you have an ax (presumably to borrow it).

As you say, there are 'absolutists' who seem to enjoy a morally rigorous system with inviolable principles. These are like judges who enforce the letter of the law. So if you 'borrow' someone's car to get a sick child to the hospital you're as guilty as bankrobber stealing a car for a getaway.

NOTE: I do not mean to suggest that Ayn Rand believed there were simple answers to moral problems. IIRC she was sensitive to the issues of details and context-- that no principle can be applied simplistically (e.g. 'do not lie' even to a madman). OTOH she believed it was through *reasoning* that one could get through the complex cases; just as some legal experts would claim that a judge, by rigorous *reasoning* about precedents, can alway get a satisfactory answer. Oddly enough, she hated Kant, while erecting a very Kantian 'rational' moral system.



---

cant said,
Well, pure, no. It could be done; that is, a moral absolute could be erected on the idea. But there it would sit, generating logical consequences, aiming straight for a dilemma requiring another rule to resolve that, or striking a platypus.

As I currently see the human mind, it can hardly avoid relying on a moral sense.

It seems to me, from experience and interview, that all the faculties of mankind develop as the creature ages, and the moral sense undergoes as much change as anything else. Colly was brilliant, but she was willing to accept innocent deaths in Iraq in order to safeguard American troops, for example. It doesn't mean she wasn't compassionate, but it does mean that she had a decidedly us/them morality. A three-year-old will almost always have an entirely me/them morality. The ones on the front of the slash, me or us, are in a different category. Had the US been the country invaded, Colly wouldn't have been able to accept the deaths of innocent children here in order to safeguard invading or occupying troops, and there would have been nothing at all inconsistent there. In either case, she would have felt, I think, although here I have to say I never asked her, that exposing a girlchild for the good of the family was wrong.

 

[Pure]

to el.

El Why can't I think both sides are unhinged?

Well, they are and they aren't.

A) They are, if you mean extreme partisans. There are Clinton haters and Bush haters. These are, partly, 'unhinged.'

Roxanne's "who knows" approach is, on its face, directed at partisans of Clinton and Bush, Democrats and Republicans. BUT Roxanne has unduly personalized issues; construed debate in personal, partisan terms. The thread starter, 3113, though no rightist, unfortunately cast the original question in very personal terms.

I believe Roxanne's 'don't have time to check the evidence' *regarding partisan claims* obscures the real issues. Increasingly, the planning and conduct of the Iraq war, for example, is a NON partisan issue; criticism of planning or execution are NOT simply the rantings of Bush haters.

B) On particular issues, both sides are NOT unhinged, el; I mean one side is, in general, pretty 'hinged' and the other is, in general, 'unhinged,' meaning irrational, biased, if not willfully ignorant or dishonest:

1) something is happening to the arctic ice, and most scientists think that human activity plays an appreciable part. 2) the Iraq invasion was poorly planned with regard to 'what happens next'; many military figures have talked about the LACK of planning of occupation. 3) most recently, even the US state department (CIA) is saying the Iraq war may be fuelling terrorism outside of Iraq. There is evidence about this for some time, and commonsense concurs. 4) there has been, in the US, a weakening of environment law and/or its enforcement, in the last four years.

You don't have to be 'unhinged' to make these claims, even to passionately argue them. It's on these kinds of claims that Roxanne's 'I'm above partisan claims' seems to be an evasion. Her own conclusions or positions on issues such as the about suggest--but do not prove-- that she lacks independence of the White House on a great many, but not all, issues. One might say that the rate of concurrence is too high to be explained by 'chance.'

To put it bluntly, I've SEEN non partisan persons--e.g. many scientists-- talk about issues, and 'roast' BOTH political parties--or one--where necessary. Roxanne, for all her brains and civility, is not one.

 

[cantdog]

i think that's an excellent response. it's certainly arguable that one's evaluation of killing an innocent rests on a 'moral sense'--- that there's no way to reason oneself to that conclusion. so to say, by reason, lift oneself by one's bootstraps into the moral universe.

another point here, made by Hume is that morality rests upon feeling of sympathy, i.e., something we 'feel' when (at least some) others suffer, outside of one's own family.

i think it's true that 'moral sense' evolves, and the elimination of girl newborns is an example that does NOT seem to have offended Aristotle or Plato-- and then again neither did slavery.

there are Biblical examples too, some of which parallel your iraq example. there are commands by God to wipe out, besides the men, the women and children of 'enemy' or 'godless' nations.

more particularly, in the story of David and Bathsheba, you may remember that D saw to it the B's husband, Uriah. was killed. The penalty God exacted, apparently, was NOT that David got punished directly.

Instead D and B's baby died. The baby was innocent, and in a way, Bathsheba too, since, she could probably not resist the King's decision to 'take her' first as mistress, then as wife; D had impregnated her even before Uriah's death.

I think there are NT examples as well.

I might mention too, in the law--English, US-- beating a child to death for disobedience was not frowned upon, just as is now the case in some Far Eastern countries. Now that child isn't 'innocent', but s/he certainly innocent of anything meriting the death penalty-- to OUR way of thinking. Indeed, death penalties, in earlier times, for a range of offenses by adults--e.g. for blasphemy, theft, adultery--show the same, arguable disrespect for life (as we would say).

I have some sympathy too, for the view that the 'correct' decision cannot be mapped out by reason, in complicated cases. It's a bit like the law; there are always cases where a good judge goes with equity or mercy, rather than the letter of the law.

Similarly, even if rationally we were to map out exceptions regarding, say, killing innocents, we wouldn't solve all dilemmas. For instance, many of the above cases could be handled by a 'rational' amendment: 1) 'do not kill innocents' applies to adults, not newborns; 2) 'do not kill innocents does not apply to innocents who are, perhaps through no fault of their own,' connected to guilty parties. this being the 'collateral damage' principle that's beloved of America's military (and others' military, too, of course.).

As you may know, several moralists thought they could map out a rational morality, e.g. St Thomas, and on the Protestant side, Kant. (And our Ms. Rand) Yet each of them generated results that offend our intuition: Kant said, that it's wrong to lie, even to a madman who comes to your door asking if you have an ax (presumably to borrow it).

As you say, there are 'absolutists' who seem to enjoy a morally rigorous system with inviolable principles. These are like judges who enforce the letter of the law. So if you 'borrow' someone's car to get a sick child to the hospital you're as guilty as bankrobber stealing a car for a getaway.

NOTE: I do not mean to suggest that Ayn Rand believed there were simple answers to moral problems. IIRC she was sensitive to the issues of details and context-- that no principle can be applied simplistically (e.g. 'do not lie' even to a madman). OTOH she believed it was through *reasoning* that one could get through the complex cases; just as some legal experts would claim that a judge, by rigorous *reasoning* about precedents, can alway get a satisfactory answer. Oddly enough, she hated Kant, while erecting a very Kantian 'rational' moral system.



---

cant said,
Well, pure, no. It could be done; that is, a moral absolute could be erected on the idea. But there it would sit, generating logical consequences, aiming straight for a dilemma requiring another rule to resolve that, or striking a platypus.

As I currently see the human mind, it can hardly avoid relying on a moral sense.

It seems to me, from experience and interview, that all the faculties of mankind develop as the creature ages, and the moral sense undergoes as much change as anything else. Colly was brilliant, but she was willing to accept innocent deaths in Iraq in order to safeguard American troops, for example. It doesn't mean she wasn't compassionate, but it does mean that she had a decidedly us/them morality. A three-year-old will almost always have an entirely me/them morality. The ones on the front of the slash, me or us, are in a different category. Had the US been the country invaded, Colly wouldn't have been able to accept the deaths of innocent children here in order to safeguard invading or occupying troops, and there would have been nothing at all inconsistent there. In either case, she would have felt, I think, although here I have to say I never asked her, that exposing a girlchild for the good of the family was wrong.

Standing back and looking at the dizzying array of moments when grown people have decided that an exception exists in the issue, that is, that it's okay for this reason or that to kill innocents, I think we have to place the origin of the moral sense in heredity, and notice that a lot of its content is cultural. Aristotle felt slavery to be moral, and in his culture it was handled that way.

After all, one could have simply killed all the enemy, "leave alive nothing that breatheth," as God seems to have told the Israelites. Instead, people in Aristotle's culture made captives of them, and they joined the conquering society as slaves. It was more like indenture, in a way, since a slave could earn her own money and buy her freedom. Some rich slaves didn't do that, even when they had the money, because slaves were not liable in ways that free persons were, and she would be protected, politically, by her master's clout and eminence as his slave, but vulnerable as her own free person. (Being called as a witness, though, it would be better to be free, since slave testimony was taken under torture.)

The system was radically different in our own plantation South, so that we can't know Aristotle on that type of slavery. Churches in the US found slavery moral, for the most part. Northern churches didn't ordinarily begin to drop their support of it until war was declared. Abolition was a freethinker's movement, at base.

Meanwhile, branches of the same churches, in England and Scotland, for instance, uniformly found our form of it repugnant. Politically, Britain would have loved to recognize the Confederacy, but they knew the people of Britain couldn't have stood still for it unless the Confederacy took the step of emancipating the slaves. The Confederacy, even in the desperate days after Vicksburg and Atlanta, still could not take that step. Therefore they went down, when support from Britain would have saved them.

Culture informs morality.

 

[Pure]

slavery is a very good example, since you don't find anyone saying 'boo' about it for thousands of years.

yes, i realize the southerners added more viciousness to the practice by having the children of slaves be slaves, and no slave ever buying himself out. more racism, as well, since POW slaves could be of any religion. in the OT a jew might have a jew as a slave, iirc.

another thing that didn't bother people in older times was having one person's, say a dad's, debt discharged by his daughter, say, her becoming indentured for 7 years.

some quakers and some methodists figured out things, but iirc, Penn, a quaker, owned slaves in the earliest Pennsylvania colony.

---
it might be noted that several forms or variants of slavery exist in the US. e.g. migrants working for years to pay off debts. also anyone working the lowest and most dangerous jobs out of economic necessity is, de facto, a slave, though it's entirely legal.

regulations involving 'nanny's' have only come in recent decades; there was no legal impediment to working a Columbian 'girl' for 70 hrs a week with only a day a month off. the idea that an 'illegal' has any right to decent pay, as opposed to [arbitrary] 'slave wages' made possible by group living arrangement is not firmly entrenched.

in closing I'd like to mention another issue that very contemporary: women's rights. there is no way, from reason alone, to get to women's rights, given some basic assumptions.

the defeat of the ERA showed the depth of resistance: what's obvious to a NY democrat is NOT obvious to a Mississippi mother.
what only amicus says in this forum is a position 20-30% of the population have; they are not budging.

i fear women's rights may have peaked in the US, whereas if there really were a progress of reason, this wouldn't happen (so the argument goes).

in sum, the world is NOT marching in the small "l" liberal direction: issues like liberty, freedom of religion, church state separation are being re raised. today on the radio i heard a German director explain why she closed an opera of Mozart that might have offended Muslims. maybe 'artistic freedom' has peaked also.

the point is that these positions, 'a right to bail' or 'a right NOT to be cruelly punished' 'a right to criticize the ruler' are not rational consequences, but outcomes of political struggles; they reflect a climate of feeling, not a chain of reasoning in the rulers or in the 'best minds' of the day. they may be turned back when people feel differently.

 

[cantdog]

Hi pure

Honestly pure, why on earth shouldn't Roxanne have a position? You demonstrate relatively well that she isn't non-partisan, I suppose, but what does it serve for her to be non-partisan? I have some pretty definite views, and I don't think it cripples me for discussion (even if Roxanne does tell me so, sometimes-- ).

Yeah, there have been many periods in US history when the Bill of Rights wouldn't have gotten off the ground, nor the constitution ratified. This is one of them. We have been, in political discourse, presented with one Huge Fear after another, ever since Truman.

I think it's about the only thing Truman learned. He watched the depression inexorably returning in 1940, fueled in part by the chaos in investments overseas as war overtook country after country. And despite the New Deal, as well. Then he saw the wartime production lift everything up and head off almost certain depression. He talked with Keynesians-- hell, he talked with Keynes. So when we began to dismantle the war machine in '45, he started to work painting, with Churchill, the soviet threat as the Huge Fear, the Giant Threat Requiring All Our Vigilance, basically to retain a wartime economy.

No one has cut that out since. Fear! Fear! Well, it was fear that enabled all the fascist states to be formed-- fear, corporations, and the will to empire. People huddling and shaking in their boots will let any powerhungry ass lead them, let him strip their liberties and immolate their children in wars overseas, so long as a promise of safety is made.

So the consensus for a free society is not here, any longer. To be a free individual requires guts and confidence. To be a sheep requires nothing much more than a shepherd and a willingness to be fleeced. People largely do not dare to stand up and insist on liberty. They buy the fear talk. It was silliest under Reagan. Remember? He said Nicaragua was likely to invade us any minute. Would have been very comical except that people actually bought it. They bought Saddam as a threat, too. Bombed-out country, no long-range missiles whatsoever. Ooh! The mushroom cloud! And they bought that one too. No wonder people don't believe in being free anymore. They're completely cowed.

 

[jeninflorida]

Chavez is a nut! what leader would speak that way, one with a very small mind. its childish. what i find funny, Chavez has Cubian body guards and Cuba takes care of security. Chavez doesn't trust anyone from his country with his life any more. second, Chavez is making a ton of money from oil...that he sells to the devil per say. Second, I'm all for the U.N. moving to Venezuela!

Long past time for another poll. And for this one we can thank Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez. Hugo really, really, really doesn't like Bush. In fact, he thinks Bush is the devil:


What do you think? Does Hugo have a point, or is he just being an insulting comic strip character? Cast your vote in the poll!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Regarding mendaciousness in presenting the rationale for Iraq, and incompetence in the planning and execution:

On the latter: Monday morning quarterbacking is a human trait. There is not a single military action in the past five millennia, including successful ones, that didn't see some partisan hotly opposed to the current king criticizing the planning for incompetence, negligence, and lack of foresight. I pay little attention to such claims. "Anyone could have seen that troops would be unable to break through those draws on Omaha beach - Impeach! Impeach!"

On the rationale, I've stated my view before, but I'll repeat it here:

I don't think "Bush lied" in the sense the Left asserts, of knowing there were no WMDs, knowing that Iraq was not a threat, and ordering the intelligence apparatus to produce evidence to back the preordained conclusion. If he had I believe there would have been some resignations at the time, lots of leaks, and the whole thing would have blown up very quicky.

That said, I think the last president who never "lied" was George Washington. But again, I don't think many do so in the that black-and-white, Manichean sense that their political opponents always charge. Gray areas, half truths, misdirection, rosy scenarios and many other techniques are the norm. It's not always bad - if FDR inferred that the invasion would be at the Pas de Calais when he knew darned well Normandy was the target, no one would complain. Of course that one's a no-brainer, but it illustrates the principle. Most of the time it is pretty seamy, and I think they would be surprised at how effective straight talk would be if they ever tried it.

I think Bush was determined after 9/11 to "change the rules," because the ones in place appeared to him to tilt the playing field against the safety of the U.S., and assuring that is his primary responsibility, after all. Afghanistan was the first move in this game, and at the time it was universally approved. Even now it there is not much criticism.

Iraq was the second move. He took a big gamble there, betting on the "neocon" vision that creating a "beachhead" of democracy in a benighted region would bear fruit by causing some dominos to fall in a direction we like. Libya appears to be an example of this, and perhaps Lebanon.

Will the gamble pay off? I don't think anyone knows. I think those who say "absolutely not" don't know that, and those who say (or said) "of course" don't know that. I think the shrill criticism is not good, and diminishes the chances the gamble will pay off. I think too many of those on both sides are motivated by blind partisanship, and so I tune 99 percent of it out. That's why I don't get involved in these threads. But I just wanted to state what I think at least one time.

 

[Pure]

RAIraq was the second move. He took a big gamble there, betting on the "neocon" vision that creating a "beachhead" of democracy in a benighted region would bear fruit by causing some dominos to fall in a direction we like. Libya appears to be an example of this, and perhaps Lebanon.

P:"beachhead for democracy" was a minor idea at the time: the war drums beat over 9-11 and WMD. It's been elevated, since it some plausibility, if you don't look too deep.

it doesn't seem to be working, in any case, witness the shi ite death squads.

is there any objective evidence it's working? that it's at least, the 'end of the beginning.'

there is also the slight problem of 'democracy' Roxanne; didn't Ayatollah Khomeini come in through a democratic movement: For that matter so did Castro and Ho Chi Minh.

In Algeria, the army had to overturn an election that had too much democracy.

Do you doubt that a democratic Pakistan would be MORE hostile to the US than the present military dictatorship?

I'd say with the exception of Japan and Germany, which were massively occupied and could be remade to US specs and with guarantee of friendship, that 1) here's no evidence that 'bringing democracy' is a major US goal in the last 50 years. And 2) *overturning* it is a not-at-all-rare US goal.

Incidentally the neo con goal is pretty clear on this: the idea is to assert the pre-potent and unstoppable power of the US, throughout the world. It will of course be labeled 'for your own good' to whomever is on the receiving end.

 

[elsol]

I think I prefer "Bush lied."

The other two options on the table... from my perspective are...

a) He was willfully ignorant.
b) He chose to go with his gut rather than what people whose job it was to 'know'/'guess'/'have some clue'... it's like me going to an accountant for a year and then doing my own taxes at the final minute.

All this drama... and I still can't go to the foot of the WTC and view Osama's head on a pike.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"I think they would be surprised at how effective straight talk would be if they ever tried it."

Imagine if Bush had announced, "I mean to invade Iraq because my purpose is to show that the old rules don't apply. When America is attacked she reacts in ways that are unpredictable, dangerous, and maybe a little crazy, even, not in ways that are predictable and toothless. So don't attack America."

(Subtext: Attack the French instead - it's safer.)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Honestly pure, why on earth shouldn't Roxanne have a position? You demonstrate relatively well that she isn't non-partisan, I suppose, but what does it serve for her to be non-partisan? I have some pretty definite views, and I don't think it cripples me for discussion (even if Roxanne does tell me so, sometimes-- ).

Yeah, there have been many periods in US history when the Bill of Rights wouldn't have gotten off the ground, nor the constitution ratified. This is one of them. We have been, in political discourse, presented with one Huge Fear after another, ever since Truman.

I think it's about the only thing Truman learned. He watched the depression inexorably returning in 1940, fueled in part by the chaos in investments overseas as war overtook country after country. And despite the New Deal, as well. Then he saw the wartime production lift everything up and head off almost certain depression. He talked with Keynesians-- hell, he talked with Keynes. So when we began to dismantle the war machine in '45, he started to work painting, with Churchill, the soviet threat as the Huge Fear, the Giant Threat Requiring All Our Vigilance, basically to retain a wartime economy.

No one has cut that out since. Fear! Fear! Well, it was fear that enabled all the fascist states to be formed-- fear, corporations, and the will to empire. People huddling and shaking in their boots will let any powerhungry ass lead them, let him strip their liberties and immolate their children in wars overseas, so long as a promise of safety is made.

So the consensus for a free society is not here, any longer. To be a free individual requires guts and confidence. To be a sheep requires nothing much more than a shepherd and a willingness to be fleeced. People largely do not dare to stand up and insist on liberty. They buy the fear talk. It was silliest under Reagan. Remember? He said Nicaragua was likely to invade us any minute. Would have been very comical except that people actually bought it. They bought Saddam as a threat, too. Bombed-out country, no long-range missiles whatsoever. Ooh! The mushroom cloud! And they bought that one too. No wonder people don't believe in being free anymore. They're completely cowed.

Nicaragua itself was absurd, but not the USSR. It had control of an entire bloc of puppet states, it maintained a powerful war machine for decades, and it had a clear goal of conquering the world for Communism. That it didn't was partly due to the fact that we stood up to it under Truman and his successors. Vietnam was stupid. But containment wasn't. NATO wasn't a bad idea.

 

[elsol]

"I think they would be surprised at how effective straight talk would be if they ever tried it."

Imagine if Bush had announced, "I mean to invade Iraq because my purpose is to show that the old rules don't apply. When America is attacked she reacts in ways that are unpredictable, dangerous, and maybe a little crazy, even, not in ways that are predictable and toothless. So don't attack America."

(Subtext: Attack the French instead - it's safer.)

I like it... but then again I was on the boat for the no 'safe harbor' doctrine.

I'm all about Us/Them... and fuck them if they attack us or get between us and anyone who attacks us.

But then again, I'm okay on pulling the plug on the human race; I'm sure nature will start over... maybe it's time to give cockroaches a chance at ruling the world.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think I prefer "Bush lied."

He chose to go with his gut rather than what people whose job it was to 'know'/'guess'/'have some clue'... it's like me going to an accountant for a year and then doing my own taxes at the final minute.

Given that information is never complete and the future is never completely predictable, all such calls come down to "going with your gut." You can minimize it but never eliminate it. And among the people "whose job it was to 'know'/'guess'/'have some clue'" you can always find opinions on both sides of an issue.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think I prefer "Bush lied."

He chose to go with his gut rather than what people whose job it was to 'know'/'guess'/'have some clue'... it's like me going to an accountant for a year and then doing my own taxes at the final minute.

Given that information is never complete and the future is never completely predictable, all such calls come down to "going with your gut." You can minimize it but never eliminate it. And among the people "whose job it was to 'know'/'guess'/'have some clue'" you can always find opinions on both sides of an issue, all offering credible evidence and logic to show that they are correct.

 

[elsol]

Given that information is never complete and the future is never completely predictable, all such calls come down to "going with your gut." You can minimize it but never eliminate it. And among the people "whose job it was to 'know'/'guess'/'have some clue'" you can always find opinions on both sides of an issue, all offering credible evidence and logic to show that they are correct.

True... I just wish I didn't have the gut feeling that he knew what he wanted to do and went looking for the voices that would tell him what he wanted to hear.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

True... I just wish I didn't have the gut feeling that he knew what he wanted to do and went looking for the voices that would tell him what he wanted to hear.

Rare is the leader to whom this does not apply to some extent. Exceedingly rare.

 

[cantdog]

Rare is the leader to whom this does not apply to some extent. Exceedingly rare.

And it's so easy, when nobody can even point to Nicaragua or Cuba on a map, to tell 'em, "Nicaragua will get you! With Cuban advisers! Hide under your beds and fund my war!" After the folks in charge have seen that the populace is more than content to be ignorant and utterly willing to be shorn-- I don't watch the news that much, they say. I was never much interested in government. Politicians are just too icky to pay much heed to.-- a certain cynicism has to set in. If they wanna bleat, we'll treat 'em like sheep; if they aren't interested in citizenship, they shall deserve no better than serfdom to oligarchy.

 

[Pure]

RA giving a hypothetical, allegedly true reason Bush might have offered. "I mean to invade Iraq because my purpose is to show that the old rules don't apply. When America is attacked she reacts in ways that are unpredictable, dangerous, and maybe a little crazy, even, not in ways that are predictable and toothless. So don't attack America."

This is a clever little ploy, if it's now offered. So if anyone says "Attacking Iraq was crazy." We say, "so what. the bad guys will see how dangerous we can be."

Arguably, instead, the bad guys will gloat: "The idiot is likely going to attack an Arab country with no real connection. That will likely blacken his name there and elsewhere. And not harm us. Let the craziness continue."

It might be pointed out, Roxanne, that your (hypothetical) proposal is an offspring of the famous Nixon "madman" strategy. But it lacks even the surface plausibility of the latter.