Boy are you opening a can of worms Devin! That's why I can't stay away from your page!

Is it that hard to believe that our government could ever do anything wrong? Seems like there's a new scandal or misdeed coming out of Capitol Hill every week and yet there are so many that refuse to believe the U.S. is anything but the White Knight of the world.

Like anything else, Guantanamo is probably not cut an dry. I would think that making a decision based on the facts would be better than attending a teach-in on how to respond to the things going on in the world.

Obviously "Free Saddam" is the other end of the spectrum. Now that we have the guy, there's no way he should be released to do his dirty work once again. Might be the only good thing that comes out of invading Iraq (not the original stated purpose of course--ooops there's another scandal!)

It's important that We the People keep an eye on our government, and keep those in power reigned-in--it's what the "Founding Fathers" intended.

I don't think the question here is if we can believe the government can do no wrong. I think it can and has done so.

The question is, should we assume the government is always doing something wrong without corroborating proof? Many folks I know seem to assume that it is, and I'm not buying that, either.

Michael put it well. My criticism is that cynicism and suspicion of authority seems to be the rule in our culture and more credit is given to terrorists and alleged terrorists by many vocal people than is reaasonably warranted. I certainly do believe that innocent people can be wrongly convicted - and we do need to be vigilant against this at all levels of society - but I am not convinced that the detainees at Guantanamo are there without significant reason. Frankly, I think that I have more reason to be suspicious of self-proclaimed watchdogs like Newsweek and the ACLU, given their histories and biases.

I guess I could sum up by saying that I tend to give the benefit of the doubt to American authorities because I generally assume that they know more about the situation than I do, that they are privy to facts and training and experience that I am not. I don't believe that any of us want to be attacked again, but it's their job to keep that from happening, so they have a vested interest above and beyond that of the general public.

(I also still view the U.S. as a White Knight because, while we may be tarnished, we're still a hell of a lot nobler than most everywhere else. I'll take the U.S.'s conflict history over that of the U.N. any day.)

My suspicion, at this point, is pointed more toward the average American citizen - at least, most of the ones I meet and interact with - because I don't think that people take this war seriously enough. I worry that Bin Laden may be right in saying that we don't have the heart to win this war. But I don't think that's because of the agencies and military forces who are on the front lines of this conflict.

I understand that this means I am perhaps less willing to believe in conspiracies and corruption in our elected officials and agencies and military forces than I possibly should be, but given the threat we face, I think it's the lesser evil at this point.

I do get frustrated, though. Tonight I watched a "Frontline" episode called "The Enemy Within," which investigated how the FBI handles perceived terrorists threats and pursues investigations of them. The report mentioned a few cases, but it mainly focused on the Lodi "al Qaida cell" case. That turned out to be a wash - their informant was a bit too pushy, their suspect turned out to be a lazy kid who was all talk about wanting to go to jihad, and so on. My anger was primarily toward the FBI interrogators: they had the kid and his father in custody, suspected of attending jihadi training camps, but they apparently gave them very leading answers, and after hours of interrogation, got them to start making up details about these camps. But they suspects said afterward that they made it all up. While I find that difficult to swallow - never having been interrogated for hours myself, I admit - and unbelievably stupid, what the interrogators were doing poisoned the entire case. So yes, I do believe that corruption can happen, and it angers me when it happens, because it detracts from winning this war.

But in this report they also showed the security camera footage of the Madrid subway bombings. That chilled me to the bone, and it was a reminder that we do face an enemy that can infiltrate our country, that does want to kill us all, and is willing to sink to whatever atrocity it takes to achieve that goal.

I wonder if part of the split between those who support the war and those who don't is a matter of how each person understands evil and where he or she expects to find it.

Obviously, that's a much bigger subject than this specific question of the Iraq war, but it seems like a fair proxy for any number of other issues.

Take Kahm's comment about the lack of WMDs in Iraq. (at least, I presume that's what he was pointing to with his 'original stated purpose' comment.)

Given the historical fact that Hussein used chemical weapons on the Kurds would seem to be pretty strong evidence that Iraq did in fact posses those weapons...maybe I'm stretching. Given the fact that every intelligence agency in the world (including Iraq's!) spent the 90's asserting that Iraq both had existing weapons and was developing more, that would seem like a good example of global consensus.

To be more succinct, Hussein said he had chemical and biological weapons, and he proved that by gassing the Kurds and yet somewhere in many people's minds, that adds up to Bush telling a lie. It's like saying 1 + 1 = 3 and for the life of me, I don't understand how people get there.

I think I started to glimpse the way this worked when a family member and I started debating a related topic. After a lot of twists and turns it seemed that it really came down to the fact that she simply did not trust power. In her mind, America was the most likely villian in any case because we were the biggest. In her mind "power corrupts" was axiomatic and by definition, that made the US evil. Republicans, as a generalization, were more evil because they tended to back increases in that power, and explicit use of that power. In her mind, there really was no such thing as a morally appropriate use of US power. Our very existance implied 'hegemony.' Our presence, even humanitarian aid, was neo-imperialism. In short, we were evil because we were powerful.

But the heightend tensions of the day pressed her from a healthy skepticism of unchecked power to a place where she was unable to see evil in anybody else. For example, while she was willing to say that Bush lied (because he's evil that's no surprise) it made Saddam Hussein only somewhat ornery in her mind. She wasn't interested to know that Hussein claimed to have WMDs...and the world basically beleived him. The very public gassing of the Kurds was "ancient history" and presumably irrelevant. Bush wasn't just wrong - he lied deliberatly. Hussein, it would seem, didn't lie, he was simply mistaken...about his own weapons.

Hussein lost --> he's not powerful --> he can't be evil (at least not like the US) --> he's the real victim.

It's a kind of thinking that also seems conincident with a notion of evil that sees very little real wickedness in individuals, but instead in ideas and organizations. The guy who robs a 7-11 and shoots the clerk isn't evil, instead he's a product of a system that's evil.

I agree with Mike - it would be ridiculous to say that our government can do no wrong - of course it does! It's made up of fallen men and women who are as prone to be wicked as any other individuals. But in any given situation, do I prejudge any party? And if so, where do I expect to find dire men doing nefarious deeds?

When an alQueda agent says explicity that his highest goal is to kill as many American civilians as possible - do I recognize that as evil and take the threat seriously? Or do I count his threat as hyperbole and look instead inward for what flaw in myslef caused this man so much anger and hatred?

One of the most cherished sayings of Jesus was to remove the planks from our own eyes before we endeavor to remove the spec from another's eye. But when we come a point where we can only see our own flaws and find ourselves paralyzed for fear of doiong something inappropriate - the sacking of our homes is a short distance away.

Let me run with this metaphor of the America as the White Knight:

In terms of Guantanamo, which involved the gathering up a large group of suspected evil-doers and holding them without a timely fair trial, the White Knight would not support such a justice system, even if it was easier and likely to turn up a fair number of baddies. The potential for harming the innocent, even one, would preclude such an action.

The Iraq War was a preemptive strike against a perceived foe. President Bush himself has said that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 (amazingly there are still a large number of people who don’t get this). The White Knight would not attack someone based on a suspicion that he wished him harm—chivalry and honor requires that he wait for the foe to attack, at which point the ill intent is certain, and he can draw his sword with the confidence that there is no other option.

Are these ideals of the White Knight more difficult and potentially dangerous? Of course! But they require bravery, and are what sets him/us apart from others. I would rather live with the complication of true justice, and the risk associated with being certain no blood is spilled unnecessarily--and be sure that I’m the good guy.

I could go on with the metaphor—a degree of humility is a trait intrinsic to the White Knight—yet I see little of that in the current American leadership.

Am I being naïve in looking to live in a country that upholds the classic values of mythological do-gooders? Did I read too many fantasy books, or play Bard’s Tale too many times? Did I miss out by not playing a 20th level evil mage in my Dungeons & Dragons days? Perhaps, but I think the ideals of the White Knight are positive human qualities, they show up in religions, myths, and teachings throughout history. They are not instinctual, and require extra effort to uphold. But the bottom line is, it’s not easy to be the good guy.

Huzzah for the 20th level evil mages! I unfortunately have to successfully play an evil character evily.

When the decision was first being made to go into Iraq I didn't consider WMDs. I didn't consider 9/11. I considered Saddam Hussein and only Saddam Hussein. Now maybe that's not what I'm supposed to say as a citizen of the U.S. but it's the truth. While I wanted to make sure he didn't have any means to create and/or procure WMDs and I assumed it was only a matter of time before he and Osama hooked up like the homies they are, I thought there was enough other evidence to damn him without those issues. I mean, if the only reasons to invade had been 9/11 and WMDs then I probably wouldn't have been very supportive and part of me wonders if those are the only issues discussed because that's all the press wrote about. The following is the analogy I used for my support of the war. (Forgive me if I'm repeating myself from previous comments.)

If you live next door to a guy who beats his wife (you know he beats his wife, they both admit he beats her) what do you do? Nothing? Something? Do you intervene? What shape should any intervention take? Do you politely ask him to stop? Do you refuse to invite them over for tea until he stops? Do you keep calling the ambulance for her every time he beats her? Do you offer to help her runaway? Do you call the authorities and report him? But what if you are the authorities? Or, do you take your shot gun next door and bust his ass? Is there never a time for such action?

Saddam was a bad guy doing atrocious things to innocent people for a very long time. He was given many opportunities to change, to correct his ways, to make good on his promises. In short, we asked him over for tea and he said "no thanks I'm too busy with genocide to stop and chat." How long should we have allowed him to abuse innocent victims before we stepped in and busted him? How do you stop a mad dictator when "please stop" just doesn't seem to work?

Am I wrong?

Now, does that mean I agree with everything that comes out of the Whitehouse or goes on in Washington? Of course not. I think the Whitehouse in some ways sold short the U.S. and the rest of the world in the beginning and in some ways have shot themselves in the foot. However, they have had A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT to deal with in the past six years and right about now I bet they wish the only thing they had to worry about is the number of cigars in the oval office. And I guess since the Democratic Party can't seem to get it up anymore the rest of us have decided we don't even need them in the room. I haven't seen a decent Democrate since Johnson, not that I saw Johnson being a bit too young for that.

To summarize, I think what we did was a good thing. I just don't think how we've carried it out and through has been as good as it could have been. Which is my general opinion about most things political at the moment. I think we need to remember though we are a country at war, it's just seems like we refuse to acknowledge that. Maybe it's the lack of propaganda.

Marilyn,

Speaking of propaganda, boy have you sold out to the cliches of right-wing radio and Fox News. The "getting-it up" comment was particularly telling. But you are obviously one of those entrenched deeply in partisan politics and willing to follow "your side"

As for your wife beater analogy, I don't buy it. There are countless countries where corrupt leaders are oppressing and murdering innocents, such as Sudan. We sure haven't done much there---reason being there's no money or power to be gained in doing so. Better to invade an oil-rich country, and have a base of operations for further control of the Middle East.

As for the White House having a lot to deal with. WAHHH! That's what they're supposed to do! That's why it's supposed to be our brightest and best running the show! Besides, much of what the current administration has to deal with is of their own making (sorry, you can't blame everything in the world on Bill Clinton, but I'm sure guys like Sean Hannity will keep trying).

Kham, actually I've never once watched Fox News and I prefer NPR. However, the only talk radio I've listened to in the last four years has been when Devin picks me up from work and he's usually listening to Todd Friel, on a local Christian staion, who does street preaching. And that's only for the 10 minutes it takes to drive home once a week during the summer. So, I would have to disagree with being "sold out." My observations of the Dems are based solely on what I've observed of them in the news I watch on NBC and the local paper (one that could be called liberal). In fact I occassionally like to check out the New York Times online.

I realize I didn't finish making my point about the how much Washington has to deal with lately, that being I don't know any better than the people running the country and I assume since they've invested their lives to it that perhaps they have a better idea of what's going on and how to deal with it. I'm not there making the decicsions.

As to the wife beater, I think there is a lot more we and other countries like us could be doing to intervene in other countries as well. I mean if China had busted Kim a little sooner perhaps N. Korea wouldn't testing nuclear weapons right now.

And you can bet if we were "intervening" in the affairs of "countless other countries where corrupt leaders are oppressing and murdering innocents" someone would bitch about it. WAHHH! Why do we try to impose our morality on the rest of the world? WAHHH! America tries to police everyone. WAHHH! Please.

Nice addition to the conversation Bow Flex. Someone might bitch about it, but the Republicans have control of the Presidency and Congress and could make it happen if they wanted to. That answer doesn't fly. Here's the real answer: the Neo-Cons aren't looking for a foothold in Africa, the Middle East is where the oil is.

Anyway, I drop by this board looking for insight into how intelligent people can still support the Bush administration. Apparently there is no upper limit to what a regime can get away with as long as it's sold right and backed with a constant dose of hatred and fear (might be a good time for everyone to re-read "1984").

I'll check back after the Iran War.

Kham, buddy, there are openings to discuss some of the points you raise, and you might be surprised at some of the points in your posts I agree with--there are even points upon which we could all agree, I should think. Some of the posters here, I believe, are probably tired of defending a position they feel they've adequately defended ad nauseum in other places and let some of that frustration set in with their rhetoric and strong language--though you initiatied the mockery with your comments on the White House, so I'm not sure why you object to it being used against your position.

Frankly, though, I'm not about to debate this again because past experience and the comments here suggest you aren't about to listen to the reasoned responses that are offered. After Devin and Chris laid out several relevant points, you ignored them all and dropped back into the White Knight metaphor. You accuse folk of unthinkingly supporting the administration and then make wild accusations without any backing, suggesting that you just as strongly support an anti-government stance with little to no evidence. You seem just as committed to your established ideology as others here. It's no wonder these sides keep talking past one another.

Just a thought. I'll leave now.

So my White House WAAAH was a little over the top--I get tired of hearing excuses like "it's hard work". However, I believe Marilyn initiated mockery into the conversation with her getting it up comment, for the record. And if people are tired of defending their position, as you say, then perhaps they shouldn't post.

Contrary to what you believe, I do listen to those who provide a well-thought out, reasoned answer, such as Devin.

Sorry if I'm misreading your comments, Kham. I can only respond to what appears before me. Since you deal so little with Devin's points, it did not appear from the outside as though you were taking them seriously. Mea culpa.