Further along the road toward a syllogism of self-blinding

In my post of October 30 post ("The Lost Candy"), I gave a two-statement version of a deductive schema to try to represent the faulty logic by which people "blind themselves" into believing things that aren't so. Thanks to Steve G for so far being the only taker on my challenge to convert my schema into a legitimate syllogism (which, by definition, consists of three statements; the classic example is:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.)

Steve G's suggestion was:

Americans are being sent to die for a made-up war.
A real president wouldn’t do this.
George W. Bush is a lost cause.

As I commented back to Steve G (it's the third comment on the October 30 post), "Very nice, Steve G! A clever and apt syllogism. And I particularly like how you include my long contention that Bush isn't legit. My two-statement version overlooks that point in order to concentrate on the blinding mechanism...Since, by definition, a syllogism represents a valid deduction, the challenge of the syllogism is to convey the logical contradiction that constitutes the act of self-blinding. In my two-statement version, this is handled by the phrase, 'It is inconceivable that...'."

I still haven't solved my own challenge as posed, but here is a syllogism of sorts that makes explicit the dilemma that statements beginning "it's inconceivable that" impose on a person:

It's inconceivable that the president of a country like the U.S. could send Americans to die for a made-up or lost cause.
George W. Bush is the "president" and he seems to have done so.
Either a U.S. President can send Americans to die for a made-up or lost cause, or the impression that George W. Bush has done so is a false one.

The third statement expresses the dilemma. It forces the thinker to choose between two alternatives (or others that might be mentioned, but I choose to keep this simple).

For certain people, the power of the first statement (the "it's inconceivable" one) is so huge that they reject it so quickly and so completely that they aren't even aware of doing so. And what does that leave them with?

It leaves them with: "The impression that George W. Bush has [sent Americans to die for a made-up or lost cause] is a false one," or "George W. Bush has not done so."

What "unblinding" yourself calls on you to do is to give up some cherished beliefs, such as the one that no president of the United States of America could do certain things (it's just inconceivable).

Or ones like "God just wouldn't encourage his people to stone women to death for being raped." (A large portion of the Muslim world believes that God does. Killing women who have committed adultery or been raped is considered "honor killing." Sam Harris writes about this in his chapter, "A Science of Good and Evil.")

I'll continue to think about this. Fascinating subject. Remember, Harris's thesis is that the world has become too dangerous to allow unfounded beliefs to continue to go unchallenged.