I think that Brett and I have a similiar understanding of Bush’s purposes in Iraq: World War IV, national greatness, an American empire to put the British empire to shame.
When I say so, however, I am called a tinfoil-hat paranoid, since I oppose this grand plan. At this point in history, the way to support Bush’s project is to deny that it exists.
Much of Bush’s support is from people who believe in him personally without really knowing or caring about any of the details of what he’s doing. Conservatives normally oppsoe this kind of cult of personality, except apparently when the object of worship makes a token claim to be a conservative. In that case, they engage in submissive-wetting behavior (as do many Democrats, of course).
In a democracy there is a tremendous cost when a leader’s most important initiative is fraudulently justified and sold as a pig in a poke. Democracy-promotion is now our fourth or fifth justification for the war, after WMD, al-Qaeda ties, humanitarian intervention, and the flypaper theory. I have no idea what the next justification will be.
Brett will now to explain to you how Kennedy, Roosevelt, wilson, Lincoln, and Martin Van Buren were Just As Bad As Bush. It’s funny how the worst behavior of Democrats has become the Republican goal.
It’s also funny how Lincoln always shows up on lists of this kind, as if he were a Democrat. In point of fact, a considerable proportion of (Southern) Republicans absolutely hate Lincoln. It took a tremendous battle to get a Lincoln statue erected on public land in Richmond, Virginia — I don’t think that that hast even been tried yet in Alabama. (Maybe the Alabama democrats should take a shot at it).