Sunday, November 05, 2006


So, the New York Times reports on its front page today that Saddam Hussein had the necessary information and expertise to build nuclear weapons as far back as pre-1991, and that the information is so damning even now that posting it on a public website fifteen years later could assist other regimes, including Iran, in building such weapons.

The Times has just confirmed two things: 1. President Bush was right when he said that Hussein was a threat to the world because, among other things, he would continue to pursue weapons of mass destruction; and 2. congressional Republicans were right in demanding a more aggressive and thorough effort by the Pentagon to interpret the enormous number of documents captured from the Iraqi regime.

The Times's emphasis on "Republicans" demanding the release of these documents and the administration's posting them on a public website was an obvious attempt by the newspaper to cause some kind of eleventh-hour Republican embarrassment. The Times had hoped the weekend before the election would be spent debating the handling of this information rather than its existence and substance. But it was wrong. This is a stunning find that confirms a primary basis for the president ordering the military to remove Hussein from power. This finding also strikes a blow to the Democrat mantra that the president lied to get us into the war with Iraq.

The Democrats and their partners in the liberal media demand to know what the president plans to do to stop Iran and North Korea from securing nuclear weapons. Yet, when he did, in fact, stop Iraq from getting those same weapons, he is loudly denounced for it.




Why did the NYT shoot themselves in the foot?

In our political world, there is a great deal of Narcissistic investment in ideas that have become identified as "liberal" or "left." ... The reason I refer to these ideas as "Narcissistically invested" is that they are primarily designed to show that the proponents of the ideas are smarter, kinder, more caring than their opponents. Self described "liberals" or "progressives" are bolstered by such ideas which is why a common theme on the "progressive" web sites is that John Kerry was just telling the truth when he made his now infamous remarks.

The New York Times has long been one of the leading voice of "liberalism" in our culture. Using their journalism schooled grasp of sophisticated language, they have done as much as anyone to promulgate the "Bush lied!" slogan, which has long since replaced logical argumentation by those who oppose the war in Iraq. The slogan has never had much validity. It never made any logical or psychological sense for Bush to lie us into Iraq, for oil or revenge or any other reason proposed to explain why any President would risk his political life for such illusory goals. In fact, the claim was not meant to be examined for any factual validity. It was meant to allow people to come out in opposition to the war while maintaining their political viability and, yes, their self esteem.

Here is how this works. In order for the "left" to maintain their self esteem, they must see themselves as being correct. To someone who has a Narcissistic investment in their ideas, to be seen as wrong is an intolerable humiliation. Almost anything is better than being publicly humiliated. Since George Bush and the dreaded Neocons were proposing ideas that were incompatible with the "left" someone must be wrong. How could the "left" be smarter than the moronic Bush if Bush was right about Saddam Hussein. The failure to find WMD was a gift of incalculable proportions to the "left." It allowed them to convince themselves that there were no WMD, that Saddam Hussein was never a danger to us, and that the entire invasion was a disastrous (moronic) mistake. All that was required was a face saving way to avoid responsibility for once having believed Iraq was a danger. After all, many of the leading lights of the "left" including John Kerry, Bill & Hillary Clinton, et al, had been on record in the 90s saying that Saddam was a danger. The Democrats overwhelmingly supported Iraq regime change when it was politically expedient but once the War proved to be more difficult than expected, a way out was needed. The important thing to remember is that for the "left" the content of their ideas never matters as much as the function of their ideas. Once an idea no longer serves to support their sense of their innate superiority, it can be easily abandoned. ...

Today's New York Times November surprise is another attack on the stupidity of the Bush administration. The article, U.S. Web Archive Is Said to Reveal a Nuclear Primer, discusses the archive set up by the government, much supported by the Neoconservative Blogosphere, to facilitate the translation of millions of documents taken from Saddam's Iraq:

Last March, the federal government set up a Web site to make public a vast archive of Iraqi documents captured during the war. The Bush administration did so under pressure from Congressional Republicans who had said they hoped to "leverage the Internet" to find new evidence of the prewar dangers posed by Saddam Hussein.

John Stephenson has a terrific round-up of responses and links. He points out the truly astounding revelation that the Times prints with no trace of irony:

Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq had abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein's scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away.

If you read this story from the point of view of seeking information you might be surprised that the Times reveals such explosive facts which one might expect to help the Republicans next week. Yet if you realize that the goal of printing the story is to frame the Bush administration as stupid and incompetent, so that their opponents, a group of which the Times is a charter member, can maintain the belief in their own intellectual superiority, the contradiction evaporates. To the "left" the story is their wisdom and the "right's" stupidity; they are so sophisticated they don't even see how they discredit themselves.

More here. See also Dr Sanity for some good comments on Leftist narcissism. I have been commenting on Leftist narcissism since 1990



"All the worth which the human being possesses, all spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." -- 19th century German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel is the most influential philosopher of the Left -- inspiring Karl Marx, the American "Progressives" of the early 20th century and university socialists to this day.

The Big Lie of the late 20th century was that Nazism was Rightist. It was in fact typical of the Leftism of its day. It was only to the Right of Stalin's Communism. The very word "Nazi" is a German abbreviation for "National Socialist" (Nationalsozialistisch)

Comments? Email me here (Hotmail address). If there are no recent posts here blame and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Pages are here or here or here.


No comments: