An excellent article.

In my experience it isn't just religeous people either, basically, everyone at some point, gives up trying to make sense of all the conflicting information, opinions and complexity which the world presents and ultimately chooses to 'trust' some source. It's a natural consequence of living in a world which is so damned complicated.

Most of the people congratulating the writer on this article are of the left and are probably thinking this 'voluntary blind faith' applies particularly to Bush supporters (to which the author refers), but it's just as true on the left. Bying into all the anti-US conspiracy theories, which are as unsupported by real evidence as some of the wacky stuff in the Bush camp is just as bad.

The truth, for those prepared to admit it, is we (ie ordinary people wholely removed from the decision making process) don't know the truth. Maybe Bush went to war because he thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, maybe he went to war because he thought he could make a bunch of money, maybe because he thought securing the oil was in the US best interest, maybe he was just plain annoyed that Saddam had outlasted his dad at the top, probably there were multiple motivations. At best the evidence is inconclusive for any of the theories I've yet heard, and anyone who believes one theory over another is being as stupid as those who believe in bush because they 'want to.'

My tip, be suspicious of anyone who has solid answers as to why things are the way they are

Untutored Mind,

I note your quotation of HG, "Voice or no voice people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to tell them is they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the Country to greater danger.”

Certainly it could be that the whole 9/11 thing is a cunning plot to drag the people to a war so they can be manipulated as you suggest. Alternately, it could be that America was in fact attacked, in which case the US response, looks a whole lot more reasonable. Of course, I don't know the answer with certainty but I did see, on the TV, the internet, dozens of newspapers, from numerous countries, a large commercial airliner being flown into one of the World Trade Centre towers, followed by the video admission of Osama and the celebrations on the streets of Gaza/The West Bank. Though I concede it's possible the American government dummied up the whole thing, I was left with the general impression the Americans were actually under attack.

In that light, Americans wanting to go to war and condemning pacifists as lacking patriotism, even their general paranoia and aggression, seems understandable if not righteous.

Perhaps wars are convenient for leaders for the reasons outlined in the article, (and observed by Herman Goering all those years ago) but it doesn't logically follow that all wars are created by the leaders who benefit from them.

Yes, I have "sinned". The numbers re Iraq which I posted are for those who "agree that Iraq War is justified". The numbers for "agree that Hussein involved in 9/11" are 54%, 44%, 32% and 24%. My apologies, but the point remains: the decline is dramatic!

Jeff,
touche'!

Paul_of_Melb

Kalin there is one problem the Memorandum is dated July 2002 pre 9/11.
According to some authors 9/11 gave the final excuse.
The reasons for 9/11 range from own goal, “Blowback”, (Chalmers Johnson”s book ) to Saddam to Saudi Arabian Al Queda.
Eventually the truth may emerge.

A more interesting question is how the coterie of people lying their way to their desires be it refurbishment of past glories, American protection or Hubris allowing thoughts of the American Century to seem a reality, managed to gain such a hold over the democratic populace, even if a sizeable minority initially opposed the war?

This is the question Seymour Hersh asks in Chain of Command 9/11 to Abu Graib.
“How did they overcome the bureaucracy intimidate the press mislead congress and dominate the military“?

I think it goes something like the following. Knowledge can counter engendered fear at least to the extent it places the issues in perspective. The media for whatever reason failed to inform us correctly, pushing Governments spin- The Washington Post has admitted such.

How and why the media took the stand they did is a question further along the line. Note however the spin is still on, still trying to make people react to the immediate, as well perhaps as having news relating to matters concerning them directly and about which people might be able to do something.

On spin the Islamic (Islamo Fascist in the words of our treasurer) readings the weekend headlines and inner pages should convince one.

May I suggest first if you have not already done so give up trusting, do your own research. Start perhaps with the reasons given by Muslim academics for the ’crusade’ the West seems to be pursuing.
http://72.14.235.104/search? Perhaps.

Let me get this straight. Your article is sub-titled
"The similar psychology of supporters of Bush and Saddam"
and the strongest connection you can get is that some people who believe in God are more likely to have accepted Saddam was linked to 9-11.
No data on where they got this idea. No relationship between 25 years of Saddam's brutal repression and Bush's administration.

Perhaps your idea of critical thinking is not as critical as you think. That you are willing to try and cast everything in a bash Bush, bash religion light, fitting in with your pre-conceived bias, shows a marked lack of critical thinking.