Hi! This is my first time posting so we'll see how this goes. I noticed something that immediately suggested 4th turning to me. (Besides the Dixie Chicks being boycotted) Remember how a while ago it turned out that the U.S. had provided forged documentation of the Iraqi nuclear program? Well, on Friday Congressman Rockefeller (D) called for an FBI investigation into the origins of this document, even if it was only to prove the government's innocence. This was up on Yahoo news for about two hours and has subsequently fallen off the map as a story. This seems to me to be something that should be checked out and I know that if this were a Fourth turning, this would be all over the news and a scandal MUCH bigger than than any Lewinsky scandal. Why has a story that could potentially bring down a government (if it is true) been abruptly and conspicuously dropped? Is it because we have entered a Fourth turning?

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Glass Joe

Senate bans partial birth abortions

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=...3-103841-1681r


Isn't it lovely how in this time of impending war with Iraq the government still has time to do what really matters? :-;

I vote 3T

Wrongo.

What is far more telling is that the Senate passed a ban on PBA the other day--- and no one cares! The left-wing feminists aren't howling foul, the RR isn't dancing in the street, and the ban didn't even warrant a front-page article in the Columbus Dispatch. You can bet the public reaction would have been far, far different had such a law been passed in 1999. People have far more pressing concerns, it seems, nowadays.

It doesn't get more 4T than that, Joe.

Isn't it characteristic of late-3T for people to worry about ONE pointless thing at a time before moving onto the next one, and for each one to seem scarier than the one before it?

Into the Gobbledygook
Otherwise known as a fourth turn...

Originally Posted by Mezzole

Hi! This is my first time posting so we'll see how this goes. Congressman Rockefeller (D) called for an FBI investigation into the origins of this document, even if it was only to prove the government's innocence. Why has a story that could potentially bring down a government (if it is true) been abruptly and conspicuously dropped? Is it because we have entered a Fourth turning?

On government lying and a fourth turning: The short of it...

Monday, 14 June 1971, 3:09 p.m. meeting:

H.R. Haldeman: ?But out of the gobbledygook, comes a very clear thing: [unclear] you can?t trust the government; you can?t believe what they say; and you can?t rely on their judgment; and the ? the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the President wants to do even though it?s wrong, and the President can be wrong.?

President Nixon: Roosevelt's involvement [unclear] World War II era came out; you know, how he knew what was happening and he did it deliberately Pearl Harbor thing was undoubtedly...

Conclusion: My dear "Mezzole," you will know we have entered the fourth when folks like you know the government is lying... but you like it anyway. :wink:

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

And now, for a nice song, which I dedicate to our chief liberal, Brian Rush.

http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm

Note that Osama's name, NOT Saddam's, is mentioned in that song

I have NO DOUBT that had the left-wingers been able to force us to back down in regards to Saddam Hussein, their NEXT goal would bave been to force us to back down in regards to Osama bin Laden - or go down trying.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

And now, for a nice song, which I dedicate to our chief liberal, Brian Rush.

http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm

Note that Osama's name, NOT Saddam's, is mentioned in that song

I have NO DOUBT that had the left-wingers been able to force us to back down in regards to Saddam Hussein, their NEXT goal would bave been to force us to back down in regards to Osama bin Laden - or go down trying.

Maybe a few of them would (and many others would criticize Bush's technique) but if you're considering the 'left-wingers' to be an enemy of the US and considering your own views to be the 'real US' then I doubt that I can agree with you - and if the US DOES form a right-wing dictatorship then I WILL seek asylum elsewhere

Hey, Im a left winger.
Find Osama. Kill him dead.
But you are really going to send Sergent Smith over fiery trenches into baghdad to kill guys in hand to hand over a WMD situation that has been blown to heaven out of proportion by the Bush team?

I'll put it this way.
Saddam bad.
War in Iraq badder.

Well said, Justino. Very well said.

Tha aggressive incompetence of the Bushes is really appalling, and tragic it appears.

The ultimatum that Bush and Blair gave to the Security Council was, Saddam must admit that he has WMD.

The solution any competent diplomatic warmonger would have offered is:
Provide a full accounting of the WMD we say is missing.

Iraq is in the process of doing that. But this is not enough because the Bush team wants a war, no matter what. They want to demonstrate and extend American power. And they are incapable of competent diplomacy.

If a majority of Americans go along with this nonsense, then they are indeed fools. The rest of the world is not fooled.

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

And now, for a nice song, which I dedicate to our chief liberal, Brian Rush.

http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm

Note that Osama's name, NOT Saddam's, is mentioned in that song

I have NO DOUBT that had the left-wingers been able to force us to back down in regards to Saddam Hussein, their NEXT goal would bave been to force us to back down in regards to Osama bin Laden - or go down trying.

Maybe a few of them would (and many others would criticize Bush's technique) but if you're considering the 'left-wingers' to be an enemy of the US and considering your own views to be the 'real US' then I doubt that I can agree with you - and if the US DOES form a right-wing dictatorship then I WILL seek asylum elsewhere

It probably is a relative few of them that would try to force a back-down on the hunt for bin Laden, but those few are the leaders. This is the basic, self-defeating error the peace movement made when they crystalized their protests and movement around outfits like International ANSWER and Moveon and the Workers World Party. Having Ramsey Clarke as a visible member of their coalition didn't help their cause any.

These groups are not angry at Bush for acting ineffectively (even I think he could have handled many aspects of this more effectively), they are angry that he's doing anything at all. They regard Bush as a greater problem than either Hussein OR bin Laden.

Originally Posted by eameece

Well said, Justino. Very well said.

Tha aggressive incompetence of the Bushes is really appalling, and tragic it appears.

The ultimatum that Bush and Blair gave to the Security Council was, Saddam must admit that he has WMD.

The solution any competent diplomatic warmonger would have offered is:
Provide a full accounting of the WMD we say is missing.

Iraq is in the process of doing that.

Eric, there isn't any 'in the process'. If they really decided to do it, they'd just do it. It would be fairly rapid, and clear for all the world to see. The very fact that any doubt or debate exists is proof that they aren't even trying. They've had years to do it.

One can regard the situation as being grave enough to motivate invasion, or not. But let's not pretend that Hussein's actions are in any sense cooperating, or that any gray area exists here. Iraq is not doing anything of real significance to cooperate, no matter what Blix says.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Originally Posted by mmailliw 8419

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

And now, for a nice song, which I dedicate to our chief liberal, Brian Rush.

http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm

Note that Osama's name, NOT Saddam's, is mentioned in that song

I have NO DOUBT that had the left-wingers been able to force us to back down in regards to Saddam Hussein, their NEXT goal would bave been to force us to back down in regards to Osama bin Laden - or go down trying.

Maybe a few of them would (and many others would criticize Bush's technique) but if you're considering the 'left-wingers' to be an enemy of the US and considering your own views to be the 'real US' then I doubt that I can agree with you - and if the US DOES form a right-wing dictatorship then I WILL seek asylum elsewhere

It probably is a relative few of them that would try to force a back-down on the hunt for bin Laden, but those few are the leaders. This is the basic, self-defeating error the peace movement made when they crystalized their protests and movement around outfits like International ANSWER and Moveon and the Workers World Party. Having Ramsey Clarke as a visible member of their coalition didn't help their cause any.

These groups are not angry at Bush for acting ineffectively (even I think he could have handled many aspects of this more effectively), they are angry that he's doing anything at all. They regard Bush as a greater problem than either Hussein OR bin Laden.

Hopeful Cynic, thanks for making my points exactly.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

It probably is a relative few of them that would try to force a back-down on the hunt for bin Laden, but those few are the leaders. This is the basic, self-defeating error the peace movement made when they crystalized their protests and movement around outfits like International ANSWER and Moveon and the Workers World Party. Having Ramsey Clarke as a visible member of their coalition didn't help their cause any.

These groups are not angry at Bush for acting ineffectively (even I think he could have handled many aspects of this more effectively), they are angry that he's doing anything at all. They regard Bush as a greater problem than either Hussein OR bin Laden.

I guess we need to distinguish what we mean by "leaders". You may be correct in characterizing the people who are organizing the peace marches as such. However, the prominent Democratic politicians who are opposing the pending war, such as Vermont Governor Howard Dean , I would not characterize as America-haters or Saddam/bin Laden friends. It's important to draw that distinction . My take is that they are patriotic Americans who honestly oppose the war on the grounds that it hurts American and world interests (as opposed to other patriotic Americans who feel that invading Iraq supports American and world interests).

It's important to draw these distinctions so that the discussion doesn't degenerate into name calling and slurs on people's patriotism, humanity, and whatever based on differing stands on the wisdom of this invasion.

Originally Posted by The Wonk

However, the prominent Democratic politicians who are opposing the pending war, such as Vermont Governor Howard Dean , I would not characterize as America-haters or Saddam/bin Laden friends. It's important to draw that distinction . My take is that they are patriotic Americans who honestly oppose the war on the grounds that it hurts American and world interests (as opposed to other patriotic Americans who feel that invading Iraq supports American and world interests).

Since this seems important to Ms. Genser, a check of where these folks stood during Clinton's opposition to, and bombing of, Iraq in late 1998, would clearly demonstrate whether or not these folks just "honestly oppose the war on the grounds that it hurts American and world interests."

My guess is that these people are just pandering to their base of Democrat supporters (of whom all supported Clinton's actions in 1998), who utterly despise and hate George Bush, and his Republican faithful.

Which is just fine with me. I can think of no faster path to electoral defeat they could possibly take than that. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by The Wonk

... the prominent Democratic politicians who are opposing the pending war, ... , I would not characterize as America-haters or Saddam/bin Laden friends. ... My take is that they are patriotic Americans who honestly oppose the war on the grounds that it hurts American and world interests ...

Since this seems important to Ms. Genser, a check of where these folks stood during Clinton's opposition to, and bombing of, Iraq in late 1998, would clearly demonstrate whether or not these folks just "honestly oppose the war on the grounds that it hurts American and world interests."

I'm sure you think that bombing is equivalent to invasion, but you would be alone in that assumption. Right or wrong, Clinton's bombing campaign has nothing to do with this.

Originally Posted by pontificating further, Marc

My guess is that these people are just pandering to their base of Democrat supporters (of whom all supported Clinton's actions in 1998), who utterly despise and hate George Bush, and his Republican faithful.

Which is just fine with me. I can think of no faster path to electoral defeat they could possibly take than that. :wink:

I guess we'll see how it plays, but I'll put m money on Bush getting creamed in '04, not that this is any reason to oppose this war. If you think that the obfuscating arguments maek invasion justifiable, you should support Bush - by all means. If, on the other hand, this is all rather disengenuous, you might be wary and withhold support.

If Clinton wagged the dog, what do you call this hyper-extended version?

Originally Posted by David '47

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Originally Posted by The Wonk

... the prominent Democratic politicians who are opposing the pending war, ... , I would not characterize as America-haters or Saddam/bin Laden friends.

Since this seems important to Ms. Genser, a check of where these folks stood during Clinton's opposition to, and bombing of, Iraq in late 1998, would clearly demonstrate whether or not these folks just "honestly oppose the war on the grounds that it hurts American and world interests."

I'm sure you think that bombing is equivalent to invasion, but you would be alone in that assumption. Right or wrong, Clinton's bombing campaign has nothing to do with this.

Why did Clinton bomb Iraq, if not to "wag the dog"? Was the stated purpose as follows:

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." --William Jefferson Clinton (1998)

Originally Posted by Mr. Horn

If Clinton wagged the dog, what do you call this hyper-extended version?

An attempt to to fix the problem Clinton clearly saw, but lacked the "moral authority" to do. That Bush attempted to provide a world-wide united front in hopes that Saddam would disarm himself, speaks well of Bush, not ill.

That the French, the Germans and the Democratic Party decided this front was not a good idea (for whatever reason) is quite unfortunate. But that does not change the fact that Saddam must nevertheless disarm.

Now even that option is closed, and now Saddam must leave Iraq or he will surely die.

That's called "moral authority," Mr. Horn. Bush has it. Clinton does not.

I would agree that Bush was being the valient soldier if I had even one small reason to credit him with that kind of thinking. Bush's reason for this war is not clear, but doing it for the good of the world sounds unlikely.

After all, this is the guy that says our part in fighting terrorism is to shop-'til-we-drop! He's also the one that's running the whole show behind closed doors. Even Republicans are getting weary.

He has another few months to fool "some of the people", then it's over.

Originally Posted by David '47

I would agree that Bush was being the valient soldier if I had even one small reason to credit him with that kind of thinking. Bush's reason for this war is not clear, but doing it for the good of the world sounds unlikely.

Ah, but, David, I think he believes that he is doing it for exactly that reason, based on the speech he gave last night.

We are making Iraq safe for democracy, and others WILL follow! Why? Because we are the Great and Powerful US, and we say so!!

In the meantime, let's give the rich another tax break, shall we? ;-)

Too bad Virgil Saari isn?t around to comment on the teat-seeking robots for milking his ?bovine art collection.?

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

An attempt to to fix the problem Clinton clearly saw, but lacked the "moral authority" to do. That Bush attempted to provide a world-wide united front in hopes that Saddam would disarm himself, speaks well of Bush, not ill.

That the French, the Germans and the Democratic Party decided this front was not a good idea (for whatever reason) is quite unfortunate. But that does not change the fact that Saddam must nevertheless disarm.

Now even that option is closed, and now Saddam must leave Iraq or he will surely die.

That's called "moral authority," Mr. Horn. Bush has it. Clinton does not.

Clinton saw the problem, attempted to get a coalition together, and failed. Lacking world wide support, he continued containment. Dubya also failed to get world wide support, but is going ahead anyway.

Who is correct? I fear we are about to find out. The partisans on this board have been fond of listing best and worst case scenarios. I anticipate a muddle. This is not the decisive conflict. This is a sneak preview, a small scale reherasal for a main event still years downstream. I anticipate a US victory in the conventional war, with weapons of mass destruction deployed by Saddam both in theater and on our home front. He has clung to those weapons. He has not used them in local conflicts since 1991, as this would have been suicidal. Thus, I anticipate he intends to use them according to the US / NATO doctrine, that first use of WMD is proper when one is confronting a conventional attack that can not be otherwise stopped.

Then there is the twin problems of reconstruction and paying for the reconstruction. While Dubya claims this isn't about the oil, they will try to use the oil to foot the bill of the invasion. This will demolish any pretense of moral high ground on Dubya's part. The Middle East will be very unstable. A new Iraqi democracy that is willing to work with Dubya might be wishful thinking.

The problems of crisis are messy. They cannot be made to go away with military force. The upcoming war will not resolve anything. It will only clarify that the underlying causes must in the long term be addressed. The Middle Eastern political / ethnic problems will become entangled with home front economic problems. The primary 2004 challengers to Dubya will have to create an alternative vision which could be a key to the regeneracy.

But, meanwhile, it is still early days, though not too soon to buy duct tape.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

The problems of crisis are messy. They cannot be made to go away with military force. The upcoming war will not resolve anything. It will only clarify that the underlying causes must in the long term be addressed. The Middle Eastern political / ethnic problems will become entangled with home front economic problems. The primary 2004 challengers to Dubya will have to create an alternative vision which could be a key to the regeneracy.

And none of the early contenders have done this so far, best I can tell. What will be interesting to see is how they reconfigure their messages now that we really are at war.

Originally Posted by eameece

The ultimatum that Bush and Blair gave to the Security Council was, Saddam must admit that he has WMD.

The solution any competent diplomatic warmonger would have offered is:
Provide a full accounting of the WMD we say is missing.

I suspect this condition was crafted as a failsafe. Saddam has called the bluff of the US at every step in this process. Instructed to provide documentation, he did (before the deadline). Instructed to let inspectors in, he did. Instructed to let inspectors have complete freedom of movement and total access -- he did. Instructed to allow U2 overflights -- he did. Instructed to destroy Al Samouds (though he disputes whether they actually pass the prohibited limit) -- he did. Frankly, Bush & co. couldn't afford another compliance on Hussein's part. So they made sure to include at least one flaming hoop they were certain he would never jump through. If people were more gullible, it might have even done the trick.

A thought exercise. Two pathological liars dispute something. One maintains the same position throughout; while the other shifts emphasis, requirements, and claims on a near-daily basis. Why should you believe either of them?

I don’t know why I mess with this discussion group. The vast majority of the posters here are completely incapable of analyzing anything with out letting their normative views color the analysis so much that rather than a reasonable discussion of facts all we are left with is spin.
Whether, one loves or hates Bush has nothing to do with whether evidence indicates we are entering a fourth turning. The issue is whether he and the rest of the nation are behaving in a manner that is consistent with the change in mood the authors predicted would occur. However, it seems all most of the posters here are capable of doing is spinning events in such a way that they can argue that the fourth turning will set the stage for the ushering in of a new era will enshrine their normative preferences.
I have news for most of you if you are a member of the traditional left or right you will not like what is coming. My personal preference would be for increasing both personal and economic freedom. However, for reasons I will recount later, I believe that the evidence indicates that just the opposite is what is going to come of this.
I am not completely convinced that the authors are correct but I have been captivated by their work since 1991. Not because I fully accept their idea of a cyclical notion of history, but rather because I thought they did a brilliant job of capturing the generations in being. Their descriptions of the lost, GI, silent, boomer, and 13th generations struck me as truly capturing the essence of my family, my colleagues, and my students. As a member of the very early wave of the 13th generation (1961) I felt that they had for the first time captured a split that I had noticed all my life between students my age and those just a couple of years ahead of us. I am not sure how well they have done with the newest generation they describe as millennials as they have yet to filter up to the courses I teach, but I am very interested to see if they got it right.
I can also accept that basic premise behind their theory which in its essence simply pragmatism, fairness, civic mindedness, and idealism are all part of a vital society. In a society the adult community can be divided into three groups based on age elders, those in midlife, and young adults. Each of these groups will because of their childhood tend to emphasize one of these virtues. So at any one point in time three of these virtues will be represented by the adult community and one will be lacking the children will instinctively notice what is missing and as a mass phenomena will tend to emphasize that virtue which they thought was missing in there childhood.
Elders will tend to occupy senior leadership positions, those in midlife midlevel positions, and young adults relatively low level positions. This means that as time passes different functions are performed by individuals emphasizing different virtues. So as varying generations hold different levels in the society then the society will respond to external stimuli differently and predictably at different times. Seems reasonable to me.
Assuming the authors are correct are we entering a fourth turning? It seems to me the evidence is fairly clear we have. I would also argue that the catalyst was not the election of 2000, but rather the attacks of 9-11. I remember getting up and dressing for work that morning and watching one of the morning shows and hearing the talking heads babble on about Gary Condit. I remember that I was quite bored with the story turned off the television and went to work. I taught my first class and as I was walking back to my office had one of my students from a previous semester ask me how crashing planes into the world trade center would effect the economy. I answered his question the best I could and wondered what in the world he was talking about. Went back to the office and I have not heard a word about Gary Condit since. It is undeniable that the tenor of the news has changed since that day, and to my mind the national mood has never really been the same. If you question this, before I go into listing of evidence that we are in at fourth turning I suggest you ask yourself one question. If something like the election of 2000 happened today do you think that the national mood would tolerate a month of legal wrangling before the issue was decided, or would the argument be advanced and seriously accepted that with the threats the nation faces due to the war on terror the parties must resolve the issue promptly for the good of the nation? I believe that at this point in time the latter argument would be accepted, and that is a fourth turning argument.
Consider this and just for a moment set aside your personal view of whether you agree with the policy just think about what the policy is. Bush is proposing that we invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. He is also stating fairly clearly that we are going to remake that country into something else much like was done with Japan and Germany. He is further suggesting that this is going to be the beginning of a process that will remake the Middle East into something other than what it is today. Now depending on what pole you believe the support for this among the public is somewhere between 54% and 71%. Do you believe that it is possible that in a pre 9-11 world it would have been possible to get support anywhere near 50% for this? What this administration wants to do is remake the Middle East into a democratic area with free markets, and they want to do it because they believe that unless and until this change is made the area will continue to be a threat to the United States. Again let me emphasize I have no interest in debating the policy I just ask you to think isn’t this a very fourth turning sort of idea, and doesn’t the fact that at least 50% of the public will sign on to this indicate that something has changed.
Most of us for most of our lives have seen the get the US out of the UN signs. However, I would be willing to bet that this position will have a few more supporters than it did in the past. How many do you think have drawn the conclusion that the in the future the UN should be avoided. Next time an American administration wants to do something like what is being done in Iraq don’t you think that immense pressure not to subject ourselves to the UN will be exerted. Isn’t this rather fourth turning?
Think about this new department of homeland security. Speaking just for myself the name conjures up unpleasant Stalinesque images, but is very fourth turning. Look at the ideas that have been floated under the name of homeland security, national id cards and some have even discussed travel papers. This is a very fourth turning organization and who knows what it will ultimately turn into. If we have another major terror attack just exactly what will the public demand this organization turn into?
I ask you to take a look at what we have already accepted in the name of homeland security. We have a prison camp at Guntanamo bay Cuba where prisoners are held without trial in very unpleasant conditions, public outcry has been very minimal. We are trying individuals by secret military tribunals, again public outcry had been minimal. We are engaging is assignations of terrorists, and this is generally seen as a triumph. I ask you to think about when the drone plane was used to Yemen to kill a terrorist leader. Again without regard as to whether you personally agree with these policies doesn’t the fact that they have been implemented without a public outcry indicate that a fourth turning has occurred. Just think back to a pre 9-11 world would it have been possible to undertake actions such as these without a major public outcry?
I also ask you to take a look at child rearing, don’t you believe that after 9-11 we certainly have moved towards a more protective manner of raising children?
I could go on with more examples but I believe that this adequately demonstrates that a fourth turning has arrived.
Now, based on the author’s timetable this seems a bit premature. However, I also remember a line from the book The Fourth Turning, in which that author spoke about suppose a boomer wins the presidency early in a three way shouting match the turning could arrive early. We certainly had a presidency that was based on a three way shouting match and one hell of an external stimulus that could have set the fire for the turning a few years too early. Will this really matter in the long run? Will it generate an abbreviated hero generation and an elongated artist generation? I would be interested to see what others think of this.

The New York Review of Books

March 27, 2003

Only in America

By Norman Mailer

This article is based on Norman Mailer's Commonwealth Club speech in San Francisco on February 20, 2003. Mr. Mailer received the Club's Centennial Medallion, in honor of the organization's hundredth anniversary.

1.

It is probably true that at the beginning of the present push of the administration to go to war, the connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were minimal. Each, on the face of it, had to distrust the other. From Saddam's point of view, bin Laden was the most troublesome kind of man, a religious zealot, that is to say a loose cannon, a warrior who could not be controlled. To bin Laden, Saddam was an irreligious brute, an unbalanced fool whose boldest ventures invariably crashed.

The two were in competition as well. Each would look to control the future of the Muslim worldbin Laden, conceivably, for the greater glory of Allah, and Saddam for the earthly delight of vastly augmenting his power. In the old days, in the nineteenth century, when the British had their empire, the Raj would have had the skill to set those two upon each other. It was the old rule of many a Victorian crazy house: Let the madmen duke it out, then jump the one or two who are left.

Today, however, these aims are different. Security is considered insecure unless the martial results are absolute. So the first American reaction to September 11 was to plan to destroy bin Laden and al-Qaeda. When the campaign in Afghanistan failed, however, to capture the leading protagonist, even proved unable, indeed, to conclude whether he was alive or dead, the game had to shift. Our White House decided the real pea was under another shell. Not al-Qaeda, but Iraq.

Political leaders and statesmen are serious men even when they appear to be fools, and it is rare to find them acting without some deeper reason they can offer to themselves. It is those covert motives in the Bush administration upon which I would like to speculate here. I will attempt to understand what the President and his inner cohort see as the logic of their present venture.

Let me begin with Colin Powell's presentation before the UN on February 5. Up to a point, it was well detailed and looked to prove that Saddam Hussein (to no one's dramatic surprise) was violating every rule of the inspectors that he could get away with. Saddam, after all, had a keen nose for the vagaries of history. He understood that the longer one could delay powerful statesmen, the more they might weary of the soul-deadening boredom of dealing with a consummate liar who was artfully free of all the bonds of obligation and cooperation. It is no small gift to be an absolute liar. If you never tell the truth, you are virtually as safe as an honest man who never utters an untruth. When informed that you just swore to the opposite today of what you avowed yesterday, you remark, "I never said that," or should the words be on record, you declare that you are grossly misinterpreted. Confusion is sown rich in permutations.

So, Saddam had managed to survive seven years of inspection from 1991 to 1998. He had made dealsmost of them under the counterwith the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Jordanians; the list is long. He also knew how to play on the sympathies of the third world. He convinced many a good heart all over the world. The continuing cruelty of America was starving the Iraqi children. The Iraqi children were, in large part, seriously malnourished by the embargo Saddam had brought upon himself, but, indeed, if they had been healthy, he would have kept a score of six-year-olds starving long enough to dispatch a proper photograph around the world. He was no good and he could prove it. He did so well at the games he played that he succeeded in declaring the inspections at an end by 1998.

There had been talk before, and there was certainly talk then in the White House that we had to send troops into Iraq as our reply to such flouting of the agreement. Unfortunately, Clinton's adventure with Monica Lewinsky had left him a paralyzed warrior. In the midst of his public scandal, he could not afford to shed one drop of American blood. The proof was in Kosovo where no American infantry went in with NATO and our bombers never dropped their product from any height within range of Serbian antiaircraft. We did it all from 15,000 feet up. So, Iraq was out of the question. Al Gore was a hawk at the time, ready, doubtless, to improve his future campaign image and rise thereby from wonk to studa necessary qualification for the presidencybut Clinton's vulnerability stifled all that.

So, in 1998, Saddam Hussein got away with it. There had been no inspections since. Colin Powell's speech was full of righteous indignation at the bare-faced and heinous bravado of Saddam the Evil, but Powell was, of course, too intelligent a man to be surprised by these discoveries of malfeasance. The speech was an attempt to heat up America's readiness to go to war. By the measure of our polls, half of the citizenry were unready. And this part of his speech certainly succeeded. The proof was that a good many Democratic senators who had been on the fence declared that they were in on the venture now; yes, they, too, were ready for war, God bless us.

The major weakness in Powell's presentation of the evidence was, however, the evidential link of Iraq to al-Qaeda. It was, given the powerful auspices of the occasion, more than a bit on the sparse side. With the exception of Great Britain, the states with veto power in the Security Council, the French, the Chinese, and the Russians, were obviously not eager to satisfy the Bush passion to go to war as soon as possible. They wanted time to intensify inspections. They looked to containment as a solution.

Not a week later, al-Jazeera offered a recorded broadcast by bin Laden that gave a few hints that he and Saddam were now ready, conceivably, to enter into direct contact, even though he called the "socialists" in Baghdad "infidels." But this last statement was in immediate contradiction to what he had just finished saying a moment earlier: "It does no hurt under these conditions [of attack by the West] that the interests of Muslims [will ultimately] contradict the interest of the socialists in the fight against the Crusaders."

Bin Laden may have chosen to be ambiguous and two-sided in his remarks, but the suggestion of a common interest, despite all, between al-Qaeda and Saddam was also there. Was it finally happening? Had the enemy of Saddam's enemy now become Saddam's friend? If so, that could prove a disaster. We might vanquish Iraq and still suffer from the catastrophe we claimed to be going to war to avert. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction could yet belong to bin Laden.

Without those weapons, al-Qaeda would have to scrape and scratch. But if Saddam were to make transfer of even a sizable fraction of his bio-warfare and chemical stores, bin Laden would be considerably more dangerous.

The inner diktat of George W. Bush to go to war with Iraq as rapidly as possible now had to face the possibility that Saddam had come up with an exceptional countermove. Was he saying, in effect, "Allow me to string along the inspections, and you are still relatively safe. You may be certain I will not rush to give my very best stuff to Osama bin Laden so long as we can keep playing this inspection game back and forth, back and forth. Go to war with me, however, and Osama will smile. I may go down in flames, but he and his people will be happy. Be certain, he wants you to go to war with me."

Since the sequence of these kinds of moves was present from the beginning, it could be asked, as indeed more than a few Americans were now asking: How did we allow such choices in the first placethese hellish Hobson choices?

Meanwhile, the world was reacting in horror to the Bush agenda for war. The European edition of Time magazine had been conducting a poll on its Web site: "Which country poses a greater danger to world peace in 2003?" With 318,000 votes cast so far, the responses were: North Korea, 7 percent; Iraq, 8 percent; the United States, 84 percent....

As John le Carri had put it to The Times of London: "America has entered one of its periods of historic madness, but this is the worst I can remember."

Harold Pinter no longer chose to be subtle in language:

...The American administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government, but seem to be helpless.

Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist American power, Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's declaration "We are not the doctors. We are the disease."

According to Reuters, on February 15 more than four million people "from Bangkok to Brussels, from Canberra to Calcutta...took to the streets to pillory Bush as a bloodthirsty warmonger."

2.

A quick review of the two years since George W. Bush took office may offer some light on why we are where we are. He came into office with the possibility of a recession, plus all the unhappy odor of his investiture through an election that could best be described as legitimate/illegitimate. America had learned all over again that Republicans had fine skills for dirty legal fighting. They were able to call, after all, on a powerful gene stream. The Republicans who led the campaign to seize Florida in the year 2000 are descended from 125 years of lawyers and bankers with the cold nerve and fired-up greed to foreclose on many a widow's home or farm. Nor did these lawyers and bankers walk about suffused with guilt. They had the moral equivalent of teflon on their soul. Church on Sunday, foreclose on Monday. Of course, their descendants won in Florida. The Democrats still believed there were cherished rules to the game. They did not understand that rules no longer apply when the stakes are large enough.

If Bush's legitimacy was in question then from the start, his performance as president was arousing scorn. When he spoke extempore, he sounded simple. When more articulate subordinates wrote his speeches, he had trouble fitting himself to the words.

Then September 11 altered everything. It was as if our TV sets had come alive. For years we had been watching maelstrom extravaganzas on the tube, and enjoying them. We were insulated. A hundredth part of ourselves could step into the box and live with the fear. Now, suddenly, the horror had shown itself to be real. Gods and demons were invading the US, coming right in off the TV screen. This may account in part for the odd guilt so many felt after September 11. It was as if untold divine forces were erupting in fury.

And, of course, we were not in shape to feel free of guilt about September 11. The manic money-grab excitement of the Nineties had never been altogether free of our pervasive American guilt. We were happy to be prosperous but we still felt guilty. We are a Christian nation. The Judeo in Judeo-Christian is a grace note. We are a Christian nation. The supposition of a great many good Christians in America is that you were not meant to be all that rich. God didn't necessarily want it. For certain, Jesus did not. You weren't supposed to pile up a mountain of moolah. You were obligated to spend your life in altruistic acts. That was still one half of the good Christian psyche. The other half, pure American, was, as always: beat everybody. One can offer a cruel, but conceivably accurate, remark: To be a mainstream American is to live as an oxymoron. You are a good Christian, but you strain to remain dynamically competitive. Of course, Jesus and Evel Knievel don't consort too well in one psyche. Human rage and guilt do take on their uniquely American forms.

Even before September 11, many matters grew worse. America's spiritual architecture had been buttressed since World War II by our near-mythical institutions of security, of which the FBI and the Catholic Church were most prominent, equal in special if intangible stature to the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Now, all that was taking its terrible whack. Old and new scandals of the FBI were brought into high focus by the Hanssen case which broke in February of 2001. An ultra-devout Catholic, Robert Hanssen had been a Soviet mole for fifteen years. No one in the FBI could believe it. He had seemed the purest of the pure anti-Communists. Then after September 11 came the pedophile lawsuits against the Catholic Church, and that opened an abyss of a wound in many a good Catholic home. It certainly injured the priesthood grievously. How could a young or middle-aged man wearing the collar walk down the street now without suffering from the averted eyes and false greetings of the parishioners he met along the way?

And then there was the stock market. It kept sinking. Slowly, steadily, unemployment rose. The CEO scandals of the corporations became more prominent.

America had been putting up with the ongoing expansion of the corporation into American life since the end of World War II. It had been the money cow to the United States. But it had also been a filthy cow that gave off foul gases of mendacity and manipulation by an extreme emphasis on advertising. Put less into the product but kowtow to its marketing. Marketing was a beast and a force that succeeded in taking America away from most of us. It succeeded in making the world an uglier place to live in since the Second World War. One has only to cite fifty-story high-rise architecture as inspired in form as a Kleenex box with balconies, shopping malls encircled by low-level condominiums, superhighways with their vistas into the void; and, beneath it all, the pall of plastic, ubiquitous plastic, there to numb an infant's tactile senses, plastic, front-runner in the competition to see which new substance could make the world more disagreeable. To the degree that we have distributed this crud all over the globe, we were already wielding a species of world hegemony. We were exporting the all-pervasive aesthetic emptiness of the most powerful American corporations. There were no new cathedrals being built for the poor only sixteen-story urban-renewal housing projects that sat on the soul like jail.

Then came a more complete exposure of the economic chicanery and pollution of the corporations. Economic gluttony was thriving at the top. Criminal behavior was being revealed on the front pages of every business section. Without September 11, George W. Bush would have been living in the nonstop malaise of uglier and uglier media. It could even be said that America was taking a series of hits that were not wholly out of proportion to what happened to the Germans after World War I, when inflation wiped out the fundamental German notion of self, which was that if you worked hard and saved your money, you ended up having a decent old age. It is likely that Hitler would never have come to power ten years later without that runaway inflation. By the same measure, September 11 had done something comparable to the American sense of security.

For that matter, conservatism was heading toward a divide. Old-line conservatives like Pat Buchanan believed that America should keep to itself and look to solve those of its problems that we were equipped to solve. Buchanan was the leader of what might be called old-value conservatives, who believe in family, country, faith, tradition, home, hard and honest labor, duty, allegiance, and a balanced budget. The ideas, notions, and predilections of George W. Bush had to be, for the most part, not compatible with Buchanan's conservatism.

Bush was different. The gap between his school of thought and that of old-value conservatives could yet produce a dichotomy on the right as clear-cut as the differences between Communists and socialists after World War I. "Flag conservatives" like Bush paid lip service to some conservative values, but at bottom they didn't give a damn. If they still used some of the terms, it was in order not to narrow their political base. They used the flag. They loved words like "evil." One of Bush's worst faults in rhetoric (to dip into that cornucopia) was to use the word as if it were a button he could push to increase his power. When people have an IV tube put in them to feed a narcotic painkiller on demand, a few keep pressing that button. Bush uses evil as a narcotic for that part of the American public which feels most distressed. Of course, as he sees it, he is doing it because he believes America is good. He certainly does, he believes this country is the only hope of the world. He also fears that the country is rapidly growing more dissolute, and the only solution may befell, mighty, and near-holy wordsthe only solution may be to strive for World Empire. Behind the whole push to go to war with Iraq is the desire to have a huge military presence in the Near East as a stepping stone to taking over the rest of the world.

That is a big statement, but I can offer this much immediately: At the root of flag conservatism is not madness, but an undisclosed logic. While I am hardly in accord, it is, nonetheless, logical if you accept its premises. From a militant Christian point of view, America is close to rotten. The entertainment media are loose. Bare belly-buttons pop onto every TV screen, as open in their statement as wild animals' eyes. The kids are getting to the point where they can't read, but they sure can screw. So one perk for the White House, should America become an international military machine huge enough to conquer all adversaries, is that American sexual freedom, all that gay, feminist, lesbian, transvestite hullabaloo, will be seen as too much of a luxury and will be put back into the closet again. Commitment, patriotism, and dedication will become all-pervasive national values once more (with all the hypocrisy attendant). Once we become a twenty-first-century embodiment of the old Roman Empire, moral reform can stride right back into the picture. The military is obviously more puritanical than the entertainment media. Soldiers are, of course, crazier than any average man when in and out of combat, but the overhead command is a major everyday pressure on soldiers and could become a species of most powerful censor over civilian life.

To flag conservatives, war now looks to be the best possible solution. Jesus and Evel Knievel might be able to bond together, after all. Fight evil, fight it to the death! Use the word fifteen times in every speech.

There is just this kind of mad-eyed mystique to Americans: the idea that we Americans can do anything. Yes, say flag conservatives, we will be able to handle what comes. We have our know-how, our can-do. We will dominate the obstacles. Flag conservatives truly believe America is not only fit to run the world but that it must. Without a commitment to Empire, the country will go down the drain. This, I would opine, is the prime subtext beneath the Iraqi project, and the flag conservatives may not even be wholly aware of the scope of it, not all of them. Not yet.

Besides, Bush could count on a few other reliable sentiments that are very much present in our daily affairs. To begin with, a good part of American pride sits today on the tripod of big money, sports, and the Stars and Stripes. Something like a third of our major athletic stadiums and arenas are named after corporationsGillette and FedEx are but two of twenty examples. The NFL Super Bowl could only commence this year after an American flag the size of a football field was removed from the turf. The US Air Force gave the groin-throb of a big vee overhead. Probably half of America has an unspoken desire to go to war. It satisfies our mythology. America, goes our logic, is the only force for good that can rectify the bad. George W. Bush is shrewd enough to work that equation out all by himself. He may even sense better than anyone how a war with Iraq will satisfy our addiction to living with adventure on TV. If this is facetiousso be itthe country is becoming more loutish every year. So, yes, war is also mighty TV entertainment.

3.

More directly (even if it is not at all direct) a war with Iraq will gratify our need to avenge September 11. It does not matter that Iraq is not the culprit. Bush needs only to ignore the evidence. Which he does with all the power of a man who has never been embarrassed by himself. Saddam, for all his crimes, did not have a hand in September 11, but President Bush is a philosopher. September 11 was evil, Saddam is evil, all evil is connected. Ergo, Iraq.

The President can also satisfy the more serious polemical needs of a great many neocons in his administration who believe Islam will yet be Hitler Redux to Israel. Protection of Israel is OK to Bush, electorally speaking, but it is also obligatory, especially when he cannot count on giving orders to Sharon that will always be obeyed. Sharon, after all, has one firm hold on Bush. With the Mossad, Sharon has the finest intelligence service in the Near East if not in the world. The CIA, renowned by now for its paucity of Arab spies in the Muslim world, cannot afford to do without Sharon's services.

These are all good reasons Bush can find to go to war. As for oil, allow Ralph Nader a few statistics:

The United States currently consumes 19.5 million barrels a day, or 26% of daily global oil consumption.... The US [has to import] 9.8 million barrels a day, or more than half the oil we consume....

The surest way for the US to sustain its overwhelming dependence upon oil is to control the sixty-seven percent of the world's proven oil reserves that lie below the sands of the Persian Gulf. Iraq alone has proven reserves of 112.5 billion barrels, or 11% of the world's remaining supply.... Only Saudi Arabia has more.

I would add that once America occupies Iraq, it will also gain a choke-hold on Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Near East. One can also propose that we wish to go into Iraq for the water. To quote a piece by Stephen C. Pelletiere in The New York Times of January 31:

There was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change.

So, yes, oil is a part of the motive, even if that can never be admitted. And water could prove a powerful tool to pacify a great many heated furies of the desert. The underlying motive, however, still remains George W. Bush's underlying dream: Empire!

"What word but 'empire' describes the awesome thing that America is becoming?" wrote Michael Ignatieff on January 5 in The New York Times Magazine:

It is the only nation that polices the world through five global military commands; maintains more than a million men and women at arms on four continents; deploys carrier battle groups on watch in every ocean; guarantees the survival of countries from Israel to South Korea; drives the wheels of global trade and commerce, and fills the hearts and minds of an entire planet with its dreams and desires.

From Timothy Garton Ash in The New York Review of Books, February 13:

The United States is not just the world's only superpower; it is a hyperpower, whose military expenditures will soon equal that of the next fifteen most powerful states combined. The EU has not translated its comparable economic strengthfast approaching the US $10 trillion economy into comparable military power or diplomatic influence.

Perhaps the most thorough explanation of this as yet unadmitted campaign toward Empire comes from the columnist Jay Bookman of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Back on September 29, five months ago, he wrote:

This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.

Back in 1992, a year after the final fall of the Soviet Union, there were many on the right in America, early flag conservatives, who felt that an extraordinary opportunity was now present. America could now take over the world. The Defense Department drafted a document which, to quote Jay Bookman once more,

envisioned the United States as "a colossus astride the world, imposing its will and keeping world peace through military and economic power. When leaked in its final draft form, however, the proposal drew so much criticism that it was hastily withdrawn and repudiated by the first President Bush....

The defense secretary in 1992 was Richard Cheney; the document was drafted by [Paul] Wolfowitz, who at the time was defense undersecretary for policy.

Now he is deputy defense secretary under Rumsfeld.

Afterward, from 1992 to 2000, this dream of world domination was not picked up by the Clinton administration, and that may help to account for the intense, even virulent hatred that so many on the right felt during those eight years. If it weren't for Clinton, America could be ruling the world.

Obviously that document, "Project for the New American Century," projected prematurely in 1992, had now, after September 11, become the policy of the Bush administration. The flag conservatives were triumphant. They could seek to take over the world. Iraq could be only the first step. Beyond, but very much on the historical horizon, are not only Iran, Syria, Pakistan, and North Korea, but China.

Of course, not every last country had to be subjugated. Some needed only to be dominated or brought into partnership. There could be firm and mutual understanding. To speak of China as existing in a symbiotic relationship with us is too exceptional a remark to make without some projection into possible reasons and causes. It is not inconceivable that some of the brighter neocons do see some fearful possibilities in our technological development. Iraq and the Near East can hardly be the end. Greater nonmilitary specters and perils loom for the future. A late January piece in The Boston Globe by Scott A. Bass sets it forth:

Research and development at American universities relies heavily on foreign students in the crucial fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (the STEM fields)....

If...trends continue, we will have too few domestic students earning advanced graduate degrees in the STEM fields to support our economic, strategic, and technological needs. The flow of young American scientists and engineers has been reduced to a trickle, with many other industrialized countries having a far greater proportion of students going into these fields.

While foreign students are attracted to STEM fields at US research universities, our own domestic students are not. Many have not been sufficiently encouraged, and others may have found the academic rigors of the STEM fields too challenging.

Between 1986 and 1996, foreign students earning STEM field PhDs increased at a rate nearly four times faster than domestic students. In 2000, 43 percent of physical science PhDs went to non-US citizens.

Flag conservatives may yet be hoping to send some message like this to China: "Hear ye! You Chinese are obviously bright. We can tell. We know! Your Asian students were born for technology. People who have led submerged lives love technology. They don't get much pleasure anyway, so they like the notion of cybernetic power right at their fingertips. Technology is ideal for them. We can go along with that. You fellows can have your technology, may it be great! But, China, you had better understand: We still have the military power. Your best bet, therefore, is to become Greek slaves to us Romans. We will treat you well. You will be most important to us, eminently important. But don't look to rise above your future station in life. The best you can ever hope for, China, is to be our Greeks."

In the 1930s, you could be respected if you earned a living. In the Nineties, you had to demonstrate that you were a promising figure in the ranks of greed. It may be that empire depends on an obscenely wealthy upper-upper class who, given the in-built, never-ending threat to their wealth, are bound to feel no great allegiance in the pit of their heart for democracy. If this insight is true, then it can also be said that the disproportionate wealth which collected through the Nineties may have created an all-but-irresistible pressure at the top to move from democracy to empire. That would safeguard those great and quickly acquired gains. Can it be that George W. Bush knows what he's doing for the future of empire by awarding these huge tax credits to the rich?

Of course, terrorism and instability are the reverse face of empire. If the Saudi rulers have been afraid of their mullahs for fear of their power to incite terrorists, what will the Muslim world be like once we, the Great Satan, are there to dominate the Near East in person?

Since the administration can hardly be unaware of the dangers, the answer comes down to the unhappy likelihood that Bush and Company are ready for a major terrorist attack. As well as any number of smaller ones. Either way, it will strengthen his hand. America will gather about him again. We can hear his words in advance: "Good Americans died today. Innocent victims of evil had to shed their blood. But we will prevail. We are one with God." Given such language, every loss is a win.

Yet, so long as terrorism continues, so will its subtext, and there is the horror to its nth power. What made deterrence possible in the cold war was not only that there was everything to lose for both sides, but also the inability of either side to be certain they could count on any human being to turn the apocalyptic switch. In that sense, no final plan could be counted on. How could either of the superpowers be certain that the wholly reliable human selected to push the button would actually prove reliable enough to destroy the other half of the world? A dark cloud might come over him at the last moment. He could fall to the ground before he could do the deed.

But this does not apply to a terrorist. If he is ready to kill himself, he can also be ready to destroy the world. The wars we have known until this era could, no matter how horrible, offer at least the knowledge that they would come to an end. Terrorism, however, is not interested in negotiation. Rather, it would insist on no termination short of victory. Since the terrorist cannot triumph, he cannot cease being a terrorist. They are a true enemy, far more basic, indeed, than third-world countries with nuclear capability who invariably appear on the scene prepared to live with deterrence and its in-built outcomeagreements after years or decades of passive confrontation and hard bargaining.

If much of what I have said so far is the novelistic projection of my notion of neocon mentalityand I can hardly argue with youthe opposite pole of the flag conservatives' campaign to invade Iraq is that it is does have liberal support. Part of the liberal media, The New Yorker, The Washington Post, and some on The New York Times are joined with Senators Hillary Clinton and Dianne Feinstein, Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator John Kerry in acceptance of the idea that perhaps we can bring democracy to Iraq by invasion. In a carefully measured appraisal of what the possibilities might be, Bill Keller speaks on The New York Times Op-Ed page on February 8 of a war that might go quickly and well:

Let's imagine that the regime of Saddam Hussein begins to crumble under the first torrent of Cruise missiles. The tank columns rumbling in from Kuwait are not beset by chemical warheads. There is no civilian carnage. [Even so] a victory in Iraq will not resolve the great questions of what we intend to be in the world. It will lay them open.

[Is] our aim to promote secular democracy, or stability? Some, probably including some in Mr. Bush's cabinet, will argue that it was all about disarmament. Once that is done, they will say, once Saddam's Republican Guard is purged, we can turn the country over to a contingent of Sunni generals and bring our troops home in 18 months.

Or perhaps, argues Keller, we will fashion a real democracy in Iraq after all, and the Near East will benefit. It is as if these liberal voices have decided that Bush cannot be stopped and so he must be joined. To commit to a stand against fighting the war would guarantee the relative absence of Democrats at the administration tables that will work on the future of Iraq. It is an argument that can be sustained up to a point, but the point depends on many eventualities, the first of which is that the war is quick and not horrendous.

The old Bill Clinton version of overseas presumption is present. The argument that we succeeded in building democracy in Japan and Germany and therefore can build it anywhere does not necessarily hold. Japan and Germany were countries with a homogeneous population and a long existence as nations. They each were steeped in guilt at the depredations of their soldiers in other lands. They were near to totally destroyed but had the people and the skills to rebuild their cities. The Americans who worked to create their democracy were veterans of Roosevelt's New Deal and, mark of the period, were effective idealists.

Iraq, in contrast, was never a true nation. Put together by the British, it was a postWorld War I patchwork of Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and Turkomans, who, at best, distrusted one another intensely. A situation analogous to Afghanistan's divisions among its warlords could be the more likely outcome. No one will certainly declare with authority that democracy can be built there, yet the arrogance persists. There does not seem much comprehension that except for special circumstances, democracy is never there in us to create in another country by the force of our will. Real democracy comes out of many subtle individual human battles that are fought over decades and finally over centuries, battles that succeed in building traditions. The only defenses of democracy, finally, are the traditions of democracy. When you start ignoring those values, you are playing with a noble and delicate structure. There's nothing more beautiful than democracy. But you can't play with it. You can't assume we're going to go over to show them what a great system we have. This is monstrous arrogance.

Because democracy is noble, it is always endangered. Nobility, indeed, is always in danger. Democracy is perishable. I think the natural government for most people, given the uglier depths of human nature, is fascism. Fascism is more of a natural state than democracy. To assume blithely that we can export democracy into any country we choose can serve paradoxically to encourage more fascism at home and abroad. Democracy is a state of grace that is attained only by those countries who have a host of individuals not only ready to enjoy freedom but to undergo the heavy labor of maintaining it.

The need for powerful theory can fall into many an abyss of error. I could, for example, be entirely wrong about the deeper motives of the administration. Perhaps they are not interested in Empire so much as in trying in true good faith to save the world. We can be certain Bush and his Bushites believe this. By the time they are in church each Sunday, they believe it so powerfully that tears come to their eyes. Of course, it is the actions of men and not their sentiments that make history. Our sentiments can be loaded with love within, but our actions can turn into the opposite. Perversity is always ready to consort with human nature.

David Frum, who was a speech- writer for Bush (he coined the phrase "Axis of Evil"), recounts in The Right Man: The Surprise Presidency of George W. Bush what happened at a meeting in the Oval Office last September. The President, when talking to a group of reverends from the major denominations, told them,

You know, I had a drinking problem. Right now, I should be in a bar in Texas, not the Oval Office. There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar: I found faith. I found God. I am here because of the power of prayer.

That is a dangerous remark. As Kierkegaard was the first to suggest, we can never know for certain where our prayers are likely to go, nor from whom the answers will come. Just when we think we are at our nearest to God, we could be assisting the Devil.

"Our war with terror," says Bush, "begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end...until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated." Plus, asks Eric Alterman in The Nation, what if America ends up alienating the whole world in the process? "At some point, we may be the only ones left," Bush told his closest advisers, according to an administration member who leaked the story to Bob Woodward. "That's OK with me. We are America."

It must by now be obvious that if the combined pressures of Security Council vetoes and the growing sense of world outrage, plus a partial collaboration of Saddam with the inspectors, result in long-term containment rather than war, if Bush has to turn away from an active invasion of Iraq, he will do so with great frustration. For he will have to live again with all the old insolubles! Deep down, he may fear that he will not have any answer then for restoring America's morale. Can it be that the prospect of bringing these troops home again will prove so unpalatable that he will have to go to war?

Speaking to the Senate, Robert Byrd said,

Many of the pronouncements made by this administration are outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this chamber is hauntingly silent. On what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and destruction on the population of the nation of Iraqa population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under age fifteenthis chamber is silent. On what is possibly only days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined horrors of chemical and biological warfarethis chamber is silent. On the eve of what could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our attack on Iraq, it is business as usual in the United States Senate.

We are truly "sleepwalking through history." In my heart of hearts I pray that this great na-tion and its good and trusting citizens are not in for a rudest of awakenings.

...I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 percent children is "in the highest moral traditions of our country." This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a good result in Iraq.... Our challenge is to now find a graceful way out of a box of our own making. Perhaps there is still a way if we allow more time.

If I were George W. Bush's karmic defense attorney, I would argue that his best chance to avoid conviction as a purveyor of false morality would be to pray for a hung jury in the afterworld.

For those of the rest of us who are not going to depend on the power of prayer, we will do well to find the rampart we can defend over what may be dire years to come. Democracy, I would repeat, is the noblest form of government we have yet evolved, and we may as well begin to ask ourselves whether we are ready to suffer, even perish for it, rather than readying ourselves to live in the lower existence of a monumental banana republic with a government always eager to cater to mega-corporations as they do their best to appropriate our thwarted dreams with their elephantiastical conceits.

Bubba,

That was darn refreshing. Yes, the infusion of partisan polemic in these threads gets tedious, to say the least. Oh Lordy, to say the least.

I would tend to agree with you that a fourth turning is under way. I invite you to read the topic thread I started here in the "Author's Column" called "The Phony Fourth". There I outline my reasons for why I think we have entered a fourth turning, BUT entered in such a way that the transition may be unusually long and slow compared to previous transitions.

I would love to engage in dialogue along the lines of what you have done above in this thread!!! Right now, I'm pooped (it's bedtime) so I'll have to continue later. Please let me know what you think of my Phony Fourth analysis and lets continue either in this thread or that one.

Originally Posted by bubba

I don?t know why I mess with this discussion group. The vast majority of the posters here are completely incapable of analyzing anything with out letting their normative views color the analysis...

Speaking just for myself the name [Homeland Security] conjures up unpleasant Stalinesque images...

Coloring the analysis and evidence to the contrary aside, I have concluded that this "unpleasant Stalinesque images" stuff, so prevalent in these threads, has it's roots deeply seated in the notion of "moral relativism": the view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them.

Thus, when Bubba held court, while dropping bombs and sending U.S. troops all over the world, all was well. But now that Dubya does it, even in the aftermath of 9.11, he suddenly invokes "unpleasant Stalinesque images."

Oh sure, you might claim that you are more concerned about civil liberties at home being trounced on. But the Clinton's blatant use of the FBI, in the travel office firings and Filegate, the senseless killing of women and children at Waco, and the ease by which a sitting president lied straightface to the American people, a federal grand jury, and a federal judge belies your supposed fears.

You accepted all of this stuff when Clinton held court, but now that a Republican holds the reigns of power, "unpleasant Stalinesque images" are just around the corner.

You liberals are just hypocrites, plain and simple. Your supposed "ethical truths" are known only to you, and your ever shrinking group. Amd have no basis whatsoever in fact or reality.

stuff a sock init lamb.