There has been the usual talk about "the end of innocence" here in America. On the contrary, I think there's a danger of retreating even further into notions of personal purity, now that we have seen horror on our own shores.
As for why we should admit to the harmful effects of our foreign policy...well, we should do it in any circumstance. However, this moment would be opportune for personal examination. If we don't understand what our historical role has been in the Middle East, then we send in our armies from a standpoint of ignorance.
> What's the relation
>between the act of "insanity" and "our own errors"?
I don't think there's a relation. I think of the hijackers' madness as something separate than the rage of the average Palestinian. In fact, we have all made a point of differentiating the two groups.
Besides, the
>"errors" of the U.S. government are not necessarily those of citizens
>& resident in the USA, so I object to the possessive "our" that
>qualifies "errors."
Well, the usage of "our" is clumsy. However, I use it to emphasize that the US government's action *should* be a reflection of the citizens. Other countries might also separate the public and the government in ideological terms, but they might not understand why such a division exists in a democracy.
> Moreover, what do you mean by "errors"?
In this context, "error" is an euphemism. Mr. Fisk has mentioned several events on which the US should have expressed outrage. What word best describes the lack of outrage?
-- David