More and more information is now becoming available (see here, here, here, here) about two of the most sacred beliefs of the left and cornerstone of their faith in the evil of George Bush, I am speaking, of course, about their belief that Saddam did not have WMD's and that there was no connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda.
Yet, I predict that much of this new information will be discounted, dismissed, disclaimed and denied by both the MSM and the lefty blogs.
To acknowledge even the slightest possibility that either of the two fundamental butresses of their religious faith are severely damaged would be enormously threatening and totally out of character for the left, who like to think of themselves as the "reality-based" community.
Except, apparently, when reality doesn't agree with their preconceived notions.
For three years we have heard their carping; withstood their contempt; and borne the brunt of their incoherent rage. We have listened to the endless repetition of their mantras and slogans; the unrivaled self-righteousness of their superior intellects; and the intensity of their hatred.
Now we will see if they possess a shred of honesty. We will see if they can summon up an iota of insight; or a moment of self-reflection. We will see how they handle one of the most serious psychological challenges that a human being can face.
And admit that they were wrong.
Personally, I don't believe they are capable of doing it.
Well it didn't take long to prove me correct. The first signs were in the comments to the post:
I completely agree, given that this "new information" is unsubstantiated, and from sources which are not credible. Right-wing Kool-Aid drinkers and Iraqis who want to sell books? Come on.
Or, this carefully reasoned one:
So what you're really saying is that you feel so inadequate and both intellectually and morally inferior to some fantasy-construct version of "liberals" that you're complelled to lash out by sticking your head up your ass and sobbing incontrollably as you write your fucktard blog posts.
Please feel free at anytime to apologize for acting out in this manner. I will have to warn you, however, that failure to do so in the next 24 hours will result in my coming over to your house and kicking your ass.
Now we have the MSM coming out swinging to discredit any information that might come from the documents as reported by Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard:
THE NEW YORK TIMES today joined the debate about Iraqi documents with a front-page news article and an op-ed by Peter Bergen. It's been nearly two weeks since the first documents were released, but a belated acknowledgement of the news is better than nothing. One might have expected such a longtime champion of open government as the Times to have aggressively led the effort to have these once-secret documents released. Not this time.
The front-page story seeks to dismiss the importance of the documents while the op-ed by Bergen seems to find them only significant enough to warrant an attempted deconstruction. Both of these efforts fail badly. Reading the two pieces together, one gets the unmistakable impression that the Times doesn't want to know more about the documents, their contents and what they tell us about prewar Iraq. The Times, it seems, has chosen ignorance.
The news piece deserves little in the way of a response. Reporter Scott Shane casts the story as a battle between diehard supporters of the Bush administration and the truth, noting most helpfully that in other Internet projects "volunteers have tested software, scanned chemical compounds for useful drugs and even searched radiotelescope data for signals from extraterrestrial life."
Shane ignores the mostly-thoughtful commentary and analysis of the documents and chooses to quote an exuberant conservative blogger proclaiming that one document shows that Iraq had WMD and connections to terrorism, only to knock that claim down later. "The anthrax document . . . does not seem
to prove much," Shane writes. And he liberally sprinkles his piece with quotes from anonymous intelligence officials who downplay the significance of the document release. (In one case, Shane names the intelligence official, Michael Scheuer, but neglects to include any mention of Scheuer's self-contradictory analysis of Iraq and terrorism or any reminder that Scheuer might not be a disinterested party.)
Lost on Shane, it seems, is that these documents were released in large part so that we would no longer have to rely on the opinions of anonymous intelligence officials who, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee's bipartisan report, knew very little about Iraq before the war. It should hardly be surprising that the U.S. intelligence community would seek to downplay the significance of these documents after paying them little attention for three years. In any case, the release of the documents allows the debate to move from speculation to fact. It is a development one would expect the Times to welcome.
One would expect it, but one would be wrong. People in denial don't want to know the truth. That is why no amount of information and no amount of rational argument will have any effect on them. As Hayes correctly surmises, they choose ignorance, rather than to challenge or even question the deeply held religious convictions upon which they have built their faith.
I suggest we simply declare the left an official "church" and let them have the same religious freedom to worship whatever nonsense they desire; carefully controlled by the high priests and priestesses (or is it Imams? I forget) The NY Times can be named the official church newsletter (though it might have to compete for that honor) that goes out to the congregation. That way, we can stop pretending that they are a "news" organization and let them be the organ for transmitting official leftist dogma to the converted.
Compare the completely closed minds that greet these very real, detailed and voluminous documents from within Saddam's regime--documents that threaten their belief system; with the gullibility and credence given to a blatantly forged document; leaked by a blatantly anti-Bush individual to blatantly partisan journalists from a blatantly partisan media outlet.
Then ask yourself who has dibs on the kool-aid.