Quote
"The Bush statement that "You are either with us or with the terrorists," leaves no middle ground, no gray areas of self-doubt." would you explain this, winston?
Hi, J: Be glad to let you into my thoughts on this - feel free to disagree.
My personal impression of this statement - now in hindsight - is that the "us" Bush spoke of was the executive branch - that one either agrees completely with whatever is declared by Bush to be true, and if one disagrees or simply asks for proof of the claims then that makes one in favor of the terrorists. The statement is black and white - but the real world is made up in shades of gray. Questioning decisions, asking for proof, doubting the truth of what we are told is not the same as being "with the terrorists". But that is what it seems Bush is saying.
(This concept seems to me have been validated by Bush's recent tirade against the Democrats as somehow being support for terrorists when they expressed concerns over Bush's Iraq war policies.)
Quote
can you give me an example of what you mean by "middle ground" or "self-doubt?" iow, i'd be interested in knowing in what way(s) one would be "with" the terrorists
This has nothing to do with being "for terroists" - what it has to do with in my mind is the "demand for loyalty" from Bush - it strikes me as being in the same manner of a father talking to a child - Why. Because I say so, that's why.
To me, when the evidence did not support the claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it would be only normal to have some self doubt about the rightness of my cause. Suppose my child tells me that a neighbor has stolen his bicycle, and I angrily confront the neighbor only to find the bicycle never had been stolen but lost - and my child had deceived me. At that point, I would not then still angrily confront the neighbor because his grass was too long or the paint on his house was old - no, I would doubt my own reasons for first accosting him.
Isn't it odd that when WMD were proclaimed in Iraq, the U.S. (led by Bush) wasted no time in going to war. Yet when North Korea tested a nuclear weapon, there was no invasion to disarm this member of the Axis of Evil - so it seems the Bush administration found its own middle ground and stopped short of war.
Of course, I wouldn't dream to think it had anything to do with the vast oil reserves in Iraq verses the fact that China befriends North Korea and the U.S. is dependent on Chinese dollar return to sustain the economy - would you?
Quote
that may or may not be true (you haven't proved either, merely made your assertions), but it seems to me that it's circular reasoning... one of your premises makes up, wholly or in part, your conclusion.
You are certainly correct here in that I am not attempting to prove but simply stating my own opinion on the reasoning process. It gets back to the original premise of which is more credible, the scientific model or the political model?
Because it is opinion, it may indeed apply circular reasoning. My opinion is that the anectotal evidence paints a picture of a president who relies on snap decisions, moral certainty, and instincts to make world-altering decisions based on the political model of forming a judgement first and then ignoring any facts or opposition to that opinion.
I believe this to be dangerous when the person in that position has increased presidential power to include the ability to confine the citizenry without charges (The Military Commission Act) and to override posse comitatus and declare martial law on his order alone. (The John Warner Defense Authorization Act).
The anecdotal evidence suggests a president for whom loyalty is interpreted as "blind faith." Even when the evidence says otherwise, are we still to accept the rightness of the original decision because the president "said so"? Are we no longer free to ask for proof?
"You are either with us or with the terrorists."
Notice how in this statement there is no room for self-doubt - that is, a middle ground between war and capitulation.
The middle ground might ask, what if we supported a Palestinian state, would that ease tensions? What if we had not armed Suddam Hussein and then declared him our enemy? What if we hadn't ushered in the Shah of Iran but allowed Iran their own choices? A middle ground includes one's own shortcomings.
Middle ground asks the quetions: what is my part in this? What have I done wrong to escalate the events? Could I do something differently now?
"You are either with us or with the terrorists."
If the world were only so simple - but it is not. It is not black and white but a world in shades of gray. Claiming otherwise is ignoring truth. But it does make for a good T.V. news film clip.
If Shakespeare were still alive, he would have to re-write this passage:
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound(bites) and fury,
Signifying nothing."