The object is a larger one: expanding executive power, for its own sake.

This from the Washington Post article quoted above by SJ.

There is much evidence that the US Justice Department has long been assiduous in a programmatic and multi-pronged assault on the checks and balances between the different branches of the US governmental system. The career of John Yoo and his contributions to the expansion of executive power form the most coherent database on these assaults on the legislative and judicial branches.

Some interesting questions arise:

If the US adventure in Iraq had proven to be a swift and stunning success, along the lines that excited Bush’s flight-deck proclamation of “mission accomplished”, would arguments for executive tyranny have held more weight or less weight in the minds of American voters?

Discussion: If things are going along smoothly, then there appears to be less reason to insist on changes and emergency measures than when difficulties and crises arise. Thus, if the ultimate purpose of the Bush administration is to expand executive power “for its own sake”, then difficulties and setbacks may be perceived to be helpful for the purpose.

However, once such a possibility is entertained, the question arises about how to categorise the various setbacks experienced by the Bush administration. Which setbacks are to be seen as the consequence of unforeseen circumstance, which arising from incompetence, and which in pursuit of the underlying larger conspiracy?

Thus, for example, it might be argued that Rumsfeld’s commitment of inadequate troops to Iraq was simply an arrogant mistake. On the other hand, it might be argued that Rumsfeld was part of the plot to create crises that justified executive tyranny. If there were such a conspiracy, then there is no one more likely to be on the “inside” than Rumsfeld.

Yet it is difficult to draw a line connecting the quite open manouevring of John Yoo and the Justice Department in favour of executive tyranny and any actions or series of actions of Executive Branch insiders like Donald Rumsfeld.

This is a roundabout way of saying that in the absence of any evidence of a pervasive conspiracy, Bush’s Iraq fiasco must continue to be categorised as an accidental, incompetent stuff-up.

Oh yes of course, such thinking bears no relation whatsever to observations about how only the US has the strength left to impose your definition of good upon a flawed world.

Well since you misunderstand our position (we think the USA is getting weaker, not stronger, and is running out the strength it needs to impose anything on anyone), I don’t see how your observation stands up.

Do you think the USA will attack Iran? If so, why and when?

I think they will not, because they do not have the strength and power to enforce their will there.

Oh yes of course, such thinking bears no relation whatsever to observations about how only the US has the strength left to impose your definition of good upon a flawed world.

I am not a Christian but a hearty farty agnostic but I still am willing to tip my lid to my muscular christian (see, I don’t think it’s an insult) ancestors who helped stamp out the slave trade but were still worldly and decent enough to realise the means should serve the ends and not that the ends should justify the means – a subtle but vital point I fear that Dubya, Stalin and the last superpower mob haven’t quite grasped.

I don’t understand how a belief by Christians that they should manifest their god in their lives, and make themselves a vessel for that god’s power by the pursuit of physical strength, has anything to do with the policies I am discussing.

It’s just dawned on me that what Dave J et al are arguing for is a contemporary version of the muscular christianism that permenated the Brit Empire during the big Africa Scramble in the late 19th century.

Muscular Christianity. That would explain why Mark wrote an article attacking us for believing that Islamists who win elections should take power.

There are a couple of potential items for discussion in my 1.06 am comment, in case making fun of people you disagree with gets boring.

But if mocking is all you are here for, you might like to know you are at least 14 months behind on your knowledge of abusive terms for the pro-war left.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2372

What the president made very clear is these are activities that are going on in Iraq that are unacceptable. They put our people at risk. He said very clearly that we will take action against those. We will interdict their operations, we will disrupt their supply lines, we will disrupt these attacks,� Hadley said.

Not the same as saying “an armed attack on Syria is being planned and will be carried out”.

What makes you think that an attack on Syria that would require fighters and AWACS aircraft is being planned, as opposed to any sort of operation to reduce Syria’s influence in Iraq that would not be classed as an ‘attack’?

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites…

So, if you believe an attack on Iran is likely, when do you think it will happen? I don’t think one is going to happen, and if the New Yorker wants to fall for Bush’s sabre-rattling, that is their problem.