First, no one knows what this war is like yet, because no one has seen it.

I am a baby boomer, and every generation is blindered by its own experiences -- without exception. My group thought the WWII generation was devoted, but uncreative. And a little pragmatic/immoral.

We (BBers) are suspicious of leaders because we were lied to royally about Vietnam, and see a similar pattern so far inb this war.

I'm trying to get a handle on what the younger cross-section thinks is wrong with this BBer view, and where it derives its wisdom from.

WWIIers saw firsthand the hell of Hitler. BBers saw the brutal evil of Vietnam. What experience, apart from 9/11 leads the young (under 40 gen) to their obvious conclusion that Bush has a better, deeper, richer, truer worldview than, say, Gore or Clinton?

I find that very hard to see. I want to catch the people who did the Cole, Pentagon, twin Towers, and Bali dancefloor. They are enemies of America -- they attacked us.

Koprea seems scary as hell -- they are manufacturing nuclear weapons, and seem ready to auction them on the public market. What keeps them from selling a-bombs to bin Laden?

Iraq seems like Paraguay by comparison, unsavory but toothless.

I am trying not to be blindered, but I know that a degree of blindness is inevitable. We are blinded by our dismissal for the WWIIers like JFK and 41 and Bob Dole, who made their nests in the establishment (and whose Cold War machinations against the USSR created both UBL and Iraq).

What am I missing, Eric, that you see so clearly?

I'd be so grateful for an honest explanation.

Mike, I appreciate your sincerity and open-mindedness. I am 44 so I am also a boomer, although I was pretty solipsistic and apolitical (although I was a poli sci major!) until the '90s.

The only thing I am gung ho-Bush about is the war. I agree with him that Iraq and al Qaeda are the same fight. You get the al Qaeda problem so we have no disagreement there, the disconnect would appear to be in the "connect" as it were. Whether or not there is a literal connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, they share a backwards-looking hatred for the West, democracy, pluralism, open-mindedness, and America and Israel in particular.

This hatred is not based upon anything we have done - as Chomsky and others much closer to Blogcritics home claim - but upon who we are and what we stand for.

This hatred cannot be appeased but must be crushed utterly. Any attempt to appease this worldview (Islamic-based, totalitarian, fascist, hearkening back to a mythical golden age when they were on top and all was right with the world) is seen as weakness to be exploited and was in fact the explicit rationale bin Laden had to 9/11.

The Islamic world is in deep turmoil and pain and needs to be helped into the 21st century and out of its collective delusion that somehow Israel is going to go away, that the Great Satan America will implode from decadence and lassitude because it is the will of Allah.

The claim that Saddam is the opposite of al Qaeda because he is secular is a red herring because his vision is still based on an Islamic-derived view of the world and his delusions of recreating the glories of Saladin in the here and now. Plus his absolutist, brutal, anti-human methods are the same.

So, it's the same war, a war that must be won decisively, and the sooner the better so that the region - and the religion - can begin to reform itself, with our support and aid. But first we must win unconditionally.

That's how I see it and why I support Bush, although I have all kinds of problems with many of his other policies, they just aren't as important right now.

See, I really don?t know you. I thought you were conservative, and I figured you were in your early 30s. The pictures we paint !

I don?t know nothin? ? got that? I have no ?intelligence,? I have no evidence. I only have what wit God and life?s experiences have armed me with. So I?m starting at ground zero here.

Please do characterize me as a Vietnam dupe, too. I remember the Gulf of Tonkin ?incident,? and I remember Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers, and all that. We then thought we were cooler than our elders, because our bullshit detectors were FLASHING RED on such matters as body counts, light at the end of the tunnel, the whole deal.

And you are 100% spot on ? it is FLASHING RED again today.

It is flashing because of:

· The board membership of top administrators on 8 of the top 9 U.S. energy firms

· Cheney?s refusal to turn over documents about meetings with these energy companies

· Sen. Thad Stevens promise to de-fund the GAO if it persisted in its suit against Cheney

· The peculiar interweaving of energy company Enron executives into several key international defense offices

· The electoral financial support provided Bush by the energy companies (over $30 million)

· Rumsfield?s diplomatic dealings with Saddam Hussein in the 1980s

· The Reagan administration?s supplying Iraq with chemical and biological agents in the 1980s

· Cheney and Halliburton?s commercial dealings with Saddam in the 1990s

· The transfer of $25 million from the Bush administration to the Taliban in spring 2001, purportedly to discourage poppy farmers

· A handwritten note by Rumsfield on 9/11 asking whether this allowed them to take on Iraq

· The pipeline deal negotiated in the summer of 2001 to create an oil and natural gas conduit laid end to end from Russia across Afghanistan to the Caspian Sea

· The sole perivate jet allowed to fly in the U.S on 9/12 was a cab to get members of the bin Laden family, which had done extensive business dealings with both 41 and 43, out of the country (Washington Post)

· Tony Blair?s backup speech that excised intelligence? from a grad student?s two year old paper

· The ?unmistakable? photos of weapon carrying truck fleets and ?Al-Qaeda? camps inside Iraq, that could just as easily have been bombed as photographed (we are conducting daily bombing raids, and the entire country is under satellite surveillance)

· The strange and sudden conversion of Colin Powell from cautious diplomat to warhawk

· The multiple rationalizations for the war: WMD, partnership with UBL, liberate the freedom-loving people of Iraq (just like we liberated the Afghans). The explanations move around like peas in a shell game.

· The politicization of foreign policy in time of election, the first time in my lifetime this has happened so nakedly and so unapologetically.

· And all along, the endless demonization of loyal Americans as un-American unless the comply 100% with the policies of this administration.

I keep throwing these dice, and they keep coming up energy policy, Reagan-era policy decisions, and an old score to settle.

If it's such a good case, why don't people believe it? Itps because the light is FLASHING RED. Don't think it is because Saddam has a great PR firm. He has no friends.

Eric, there may be one or two of these things that I have read about that I misunderstood or have misquoted. I don?t want to pass myself off as scholar of this stuff.

But I have to be right about SOME of this stuff. Or I?m an idiotarian, like those people say. But I must be candid ? I don?t FEEL like an idiotarian. I feel ? BABY BOOMER metaphor rising ? like I don?t want to be fooled again like I was the last four times.

For what it?s worth, I voted for Bob Dole in 1996, and Jesse Ventura in 1998. I am not a knee jerk anything. Bu this suff gives me the CREEPS.

I?ve been through these periods of political collusion before ? Vietnam, El Salvador, Watergate, Iran/Contra, the Impeachment proceedings. Each time, total bullshit. (I am blaming Clinton there, in case youpre curious ? other times, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush)

There are people in this country who want to manipulate our foreign policy to achieve their own private ends ? for the amassment of political power, for the demonstration of ideology, for economic advantage, even personal revenge.

Compare this list of givens to the lost of WMDs that Blix?s crew have dug up.

Compare the Iraq venture against the very real problems of terrorism in Korea, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia, in Indonesia, in the Phillipines.

And tell me that 97% of this administration?s energy should be devoted to Saddam Hussein ? and that no red light is flashing in your mind.

What would it take to make you suspicious of a gang of right wing extremsist who have taken over our country, and for ideological reasons, seek to redefine it away from all the norms of civilized international behavior.

It is not right to kill innocent persons.

It is far worse to do it for venal reasons than to ?protect the nation.?

I respect some of what you say, ertic. Other times, you lapse into a kind of dog-speak:

?Whether or not there is a literal connection between al Qaeda and Iraq, they share a backwards-looking hatred for the West, democracy, pluralism, open-mindedness, and America and Israel in particular.? TRUE OF LOTS OF NATIONS, NO?

?THIS HATRED CANNOT BE APPEASED BUT MUST BE CRUSHED UTTERLY.?

(Where did this tone come from?)

THE CLAIM THAT SADDAM IS THE OPPOSITE OF AL QAEDA BECAUSE HE IS SECULAR IS A RED HERRING BECAUSE HIS VISION IS STILL BASED ON AN ISLAMIC-DERIVED VIEW OF THE WORLD AND HIS DELUSIONS OF RECREATING THE GLORIES OF SALADIN IN THE HERE AND NOW. PLUS HIS ABSOLUTIST, BRUTAL, ANTI-HUMAN METHODS ARE THE SAME.

?So, it's THE SAME WAR, A WAR THAT MUST BE WON DECISIVELY, AND THE SOONER THE BETTER SO THAT THE REGION - AND THE RELIGION - CAN BEGIN TO REFORM ITSELF, WITH OUR SUPPORT AND AID. BUT FIRST WE MUST WIN UNCONDITIONALLY.? (This sounds like you are repeating something someone else said.)

?That's how I see it and why I support Bush, although I have all kinds of problems with many of his other policies, they just aren't as important right now.?

OK ? but I think you?re wrong, Eric, and you haven?t explained to me why you?re on the right track here and why I?m hopelessly goofy ? which I must be for you to be right. Right?

Help!

Sorry about the ???s -- my WP substituted high-ASCII characters for " and () and that's what I wound up with.

The ???s do not reflect uncertainty!

I have to go to my son's band concert, but if my words sound canned it's because I have been thinking and writing about this so long and that's what my brain boils it down to, but it's sincere and mine. That's really what I think.

I am sure much of what you say is individually true, but I don't link all those things together like you do. I am very troubled by the whole energy-industrial-complex-in-the-administration thing, and assume there is some real stink there, but I also know they let Enron fry and there are corporate indictments seemingly every day.

You can build this chain of events, but EVERYTHING changed on 9/11 - back to square one, and that's what I give Bush credit for. None of the journalists who have followed him closely since then - including liberal Democrats - question his motives or sincerity, not a whiff of it.

The whole oil thing is immaterial. War is bad for business - the oil companies like strong rigid dictators because they keep the oil flowing predictably. So how could the war favor oil, or be about oil, or have anything to do with oil other than the tangential fact that Iraq happens to have oil?

To get from where you are to where I am, you would have to untangle and separate the facts, events and conjectures that you have conjoined, ie., disconnect the dots. Not all dots belong together.

I don't think we are being fooled about the war - maybe about other things, but not about the war. It is vital to our continued existence, and Bush knows this, to his credit. And sorry if I sound like Andrew Sullivan, who is a prick.

We haven't been reading the same journalists, I guess. Molly Ivins, Paul Krugman, Aaron Brown, Dana Milbank, Frank Rich, and many in the daily press have been pointing to the inconsistencies between his professed goals and his actions. many are talking now about an LBJ-type credibility gap. He promised to get UBL dead or alive, then didn;t mention the man's name for a year. he pledged $15 billion to rebuild New York, andthen reneged on that. The reason Turkey is extorting cash from us now is because they don't believe the promises he made to Afghanistan or pakistan, neither of which he kept. Even Bob Woodward, who follows Bush very closely, because Bush allows him to, because he is a sycophant and a buttkisser, reported in his "Bush at War" book on the jokes made by staffers about treating the war as a marketing plan, one you roll out on schedule, as one would a new brand of toothpaste.

I can think of things to stand by Bush on -- he was very good at the 1 year anniversary of 9/11, and he spoke very well to the rights of American Muslims, and he seemed to bond with the country about a week after 9/11, in his great speech to Congress. But he has a very patchy record on keeping promises, and he seems to be the least personally persuasive president in my lifetime, worse even than Ford at getting people to believe things. Why do you suppose it is that 58% of the American people in a Gallup poll two weks ago sais they would not put it past Bush to lie about Iraq in order to get his way? That is a phenomenal statistic that speaks the exact opposite of what you are claiming -- that George Bush is perceived to be an honest leader. It is perhaps tragic, because never in my lifetime has America's fate been more in the balance -- and our only defense is a president whom we don't trust.

By the way, Ken Lay is as yet unindicted, despite being the best Music Man business has ever produced. Bush, the man who tells the truth (says you) used to call him "Kenny Boy." After the balloon burst, Bush claimed he never met the man. His administration tried to blame Lay on the Clinton administration -- till trecords showed he stayed at the WHy with Bush's father, not Clinton.

So many, many lies -- the "liar" campaign against Gore, the White House post-innaugural trashing that never happened, the claim that McCain was soft on breast cancer, was insane, didn't care about veterans. The lost of Bush lies is many ages long, and enough people have caught on now that he is in permanent Pinocchio mode for the rest of his term.

This is a tragedy and disgrace, because when we need an FDR or a Lincoln, we have a man whose word means practically nothing.

I agree that Andrew Sullivan is a jerk. More than that, he is a genuinely bad man, who deliberately distorts. He has been caught in hundreds of lies -- nearly all on behalf of Mr. Honesty. He is a trickster figure in our midst, and like Matt Drudge, Rush Limbaugh and that whole sad ilk of angry men, an enemy of public understanding.

I yearn for a politics in which people in the middle can get together and sort things out with a minimum of Richard Scaife-like money, a minimum of Arkansas Project like conspiracies, a minimum of fool-the-public charades like the Estrada nomination, the "Healthy Forests" initiative, the bogus $15 billion African Aids offer -- that money also will never arrive, another Bush lie, I'm afraid.

And atop it all is the unelected president, who professes freedom while doing so much to suppress ours, and everyone ele's, around the world.

What can you say about a President who forces both a Canadian and German cabinet minister to resign their posts -- because they criticized him?

Unbelievable. He will be dissected by hisyorians for decades, as America, in the lucky event we survive him, and Korea, and UBL, and Saddam Hussein, to understand how one man could fool so many people and get his way about everything.

Time to press on, but the writers you mention certainly aren't centrist: they're left ideologues, all governments lie about some things, you see the Bush glass as more than half-empty, I distinguish between the rightness of the war on terror and pretty much everythign else he does.