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. Perhaps some of the best of them might manage it. But the majority have invested their hearts, souls, and whatever residual of their mind that exists--in total denial.
Denial has been their country of residence since September 11, 2001. It has been a safe and happy place for them (well, not so happy--they did lose the 2004 election--but that was stolen from them, too)
Let us review the purpose of psychological denial.
Denial is an attempt to reject unacceptable feelings, needs, thoughts, wishes--or even a painful external reality that alters the perception of ourselves. This psychological defense mechanism protects us temporarily from:
-Knowledge (things we don’t want to know)
-Insight or awareness that threatens our self-esteem; or our mental or physical health; or our security (things we don't want to think about)
-Unacceptable feelings (things we don’t want to feel)
The unacceptable knowledge is that we are in the midst of a terrible global war that we neither wanted nor provoked; and that there are evil people who want to destroy our civilization and kill or enslave all of us.
The insight that threatens to overwhelm them is that all of their political correctness; all of their multicultural BS; in fact, all of the shibboleths and platitudes of the the left that have been the glue holding together the house of cards of their ideology since the end of the last century, are no longer capable of preventing the collapse and disintegration of that ideology. If they think about it long and hard enough, they might even begin to realize the horrible truth: that in order for their ideology to survive, they must bet--all or nothing--on a win by the Islamic fanatics who want to destroy us all (including them).
The unacceptable feelings are a combination of impotent rage and burning hatred that threaten a deluded self concept. For decades now, they have told themselves that they are peaceful, loving, compassionate and just; that they stand for freedom and the empowerment of the little guy-- and now they cannot avoid looking in the mirror to see what their delusions have wrought.
The only way to avoid being submerged by all this reality is to embrace the denial ever more tightly and descend deeper into delusion and paranoia.
It is either that, or courageously face the truth; re-evaluate their premises and come to grips with the unpleasant reality they have been desperately trying to avoid. They have been willing to compromise the values they give lip service to in order to keep their precious religion intact. They have been willing to betray their own country and their fellow citizens for a few extra moments of supercilious self-righteousness and the ability to feel smug at their superiority.
Wretchard, in speaking about a column by Mark Steyn that reminds everyone about the accusations of "genocide" that marked Saddam's containment in the decade before 9/11, notes:
It's a stark illustration that inaction has a price; that when you "give Peace a chance" you give up other chances. The containment strategy followed against Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorism before September 11 wasn't cost-free: it gave Saddam and Islamic fundamentalism time to plot, spy and act. It ceded the initiative to them. Mark Steyn's retrospective and information now emerging from Saddam Hussein's archives demonstrate that there was never any such as thing as a free lunch. A bill was always in the mail.
When it comes to psychological denial, the bill is always in the mail.
UPDATE: Other useful links at Rocket's Brain Trust; and here is some interesting new information from ABC News.
UPDATE II: 9/11 Commissioner now says there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda:
The new documents suggest that the 9/11 commission's final conclusion in 2004, that there were no "operational" ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, may need to be reexamined in light of the recently captured documents.
While the commission detailed some contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 1990s, in Sudan and Afghanistan, the newly declassified Iraqi documents provide more detail than the commission disclosed in its final conclusions. For example, the fact that Saddam broadcast the sermons of al-Ouda at bin Laden's request was previously unknown, as was a conversation about possible collaboration on attacks against Saudi Arabia.
"This is a very significant set of facts," former 9/11 commissioner, Mr. Kerry said yesterday. "I personally and strongly believe you don't have to prove that Iraq was collaborating against [ACM note – I suspect he misspoke and meant “collaborating with”] Osama bin Laden on the September 11 attacks to prove he was an enemy and that he would collaborate with people who would do our country harm. This presents facts should not be used to tie Saddam to attacks on September 11. It does tie him into a circle that meant to damage the United States."
Mr. Kerry also answered affirmatively when asked whether or not the release of more of the documents captured in Iraq could possibly shed further light on Iraq's relationship with al Qaeda. The former senator was one of the staunchest supporters of the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act, which made the policy of regime change U.S. law.
Here is the original NY Sun article that is now online.