I heard something on the radio on the way to work today; a commentary on KGNU how Bush is keeping the American people in fear and in the dark about the Iraqi's motivations and furthering the concept of a "generic war." I thought the speaker knew what the motivations of the "generic insurgents" were but was holding out on telling us. It seemed also that the point was that his audience also knew, but other people (Bush supporters) didn't. There was also a vague implication that if the American people that didn't know knew, they'd.. what? decide that a war was justified or not? Maybe the commentator wanted to have better branding of war so that he could have the choice of the war and the un-war or new war or cherry war? It wasn't a sound drubbing of the concept of "war," just that war without understanding is bad. Bad, but with no consequence or judgement of the effect of it.