Do anti-Bush folks have low IQ or are they simply intellectually dishonest?

It seems that Democrats really really want to believe they are smarter, but it turns out they’ve been hoaxed.

Now we are getting all this evidence of Saddam’s WMD, connections w/ Al Queada both before and after 9/11 and they don’t want to hear it. Laurie Mylorie notes:

Opinion polls show that most Americans still believe Iraq had substantial ties to al Qaeda and even that it was involved in 9/11. Yet among the “elite,” there is tremendous opposition to this notion. A simple explanation exists for this dichotomy. The public is not personally vested in this issue, but the elite certainly are.

America’s leading lights, including those in government responsible for dealing with terrorism and with Iraq, made a mammoth blunder. They failed to recognize that starting with the first assault on New York’s World Trade Center, Iraq was working with Islamic militants to attack the United States. This failure left the country vulnerable on September 11, 2001. Many of those who made this professional error cannot bring themselves to acknowledge it; perhaps, they cannot even recognize it. They mock whomever presents information tying Iraq to the 9/11 attacks; discredit that information; and assert there is “no evidence.” What they do not do is discuss in a rational way the significance of the information that is presented.

Her testimony to the 9/11 commission is also fascinating. Of course, people like my friend J don’t want to read any actual evidence or discussion of it.


6 Responses to Do anti-Bush folks have low IQ or are they simply intellectually dishonest?

  1. your friend j will have the discussion with you here, in a public forum.

    laurie mylorie’s theories concerning the connection of the first world trade center bombing with iraq were discredited years ago, alex. years. you are still talking crazy, and in a roundabout way calling me stupid and a liar. would you like me to cite non-lefty sources discrediting her theories? sheesh. do NOT just reply via email. reply here, in public, or no dice.

    you wonder why none of your other friends make comments on your blog any more? it’s hard to breathe.

  2. and while we’re at it, why the fuck didn’t your boys kill al-zarqwi when they had a chance?

  3. and don’t think that i didn’t notice you basically offering a public challenge to me which says the following: josh are you stupid or just a liar?

    to which i offer the same challenge: is our president stupid or just a liar?

  4. satirius ooghe says:

    In a fit of pique, ‘j’ had urged that I have a look at your blog so that I might inveigh on your latest notions about the iraq war, WMD, Bush, etc. While I admit to a morbid curiosity as to what further contortions of logic might yet be applied such that the action in Iraq still be construed as a well-executed
    policy, I’m also interested in your thoughts on huntington, culture, the enlightenment, memecide, and various other concerns. In deference to ‘j’, though, I guess I’ll respond mainly to the ‘who’s more stupid, republicans or
    democrats’ issue.

    It has been some time since we corresponded, and much has changed since then- Howard Dean is now the John Anderson of the 2004 election, we have discovered that indeed, Michael Jackson is probably a pedophile, Janet Jackson wears
    nipple-shields, we’ve discovered new heavy atoms that might be added to the periodic table of elements, we’ve discovered evidence of ancient seas from eons ago on the surface of mars, but we have yet to discover these eagerly awaited
    weapons of mass destruction with which Saddam Hussein was plotting our annhilation. Perish the thought that Saddam Hussein may have been full of crap in implying (if even) that he had them and that no WMD ever actually existed,
    goodness no, now they’re in *Syria*, you see- where perhaps we can deploy another ten full divisions of US troops and armor that don’t yet exist. I would be more worried about this, except that my more immediate concern is an
    invisible man who I’ve been informed is lurking in my apartment, and who I’ve been running amok with a machine gun trying to gun down- except that the absence of blood indicates that I have not yet put forth sufficient effort. And if you believe that, I have some yellowcake I’d like to sell you.

    On a more serious note, I’ll say this- if, as you suggest, there actually were WMD under the control of the Iraqi government and that the US invasion caused them to wind up in Syria and/or the hands of terrorist affiliates and be ”
    almost used” in Lebanon, then something about the Bush Doctrine needs re-examining. In the case of Iraq and the War on Terror, though- a Clausewitzian term I would refer you to is the “center of gravity” in a theater of
    operations. Since September 11, I have felt, and continue to feel that the likeliest scenario for the use of a nuclear weapon by terrorists against the United States would be from Al Qaeda-with or without the knowledge of Iraqi diplomats- and that this weapon would have come to them from either one of the former Soviet republics, which stastically presents the greatest threat by posessing 40,000 warheads among them, or through the truly scary degree of cooperation between Pakistan’s ISI and various jihadist groups in Kashmir.

    Related to that is of course North Korea, the most promiscuous of arms sellers- and then I think it would be easier to get fissile material out of a French built reactor in Ghana or any other of various African countries- and that
    Iraqi instigation would be maybe the tweflth likeliest scenario for a threat to the US. Of course, the question of Iraq’s WMD program, the Al-Ani/Atta connection, etc will enter the pantheon of Great Internet Debates, alongside

    Who Killed Kennedy and Did FDR Know About Pearl Harbor. I choose to believe Wolfowitz in his interview in Vanity Fair, when he very candidly says that WMD was more an issue that everyone could agree upon, than the actual causus belli.

    You and I both know that the dream of the neoconservatives involved in the war planning was the transformation of the political tenor of the entire Middle East (not in and of itself a bad goal), but a goal so inordinately huge and out of step with what could easily be sold to the American people that it’s political palatability would have to rely on a steady diet of Karl Rovian media management. Given the enormity of the task, I cannot fathom the degree to which Rumsfeld failed to plan for any of what is now happening in Iraq- except that I think he didn’t really think that part was his job. The only way in which I can envision this administration as not idiotic but as simply grossly naive is to suppose that they really, really believed Ahmed Chalabi’s promises
    of his instant political acceptance, the continued functioning of the “decaptitated” regime, the reconstruction of the Mosul-Haifa pipeline, the first warm peace between Israel and an Arab nation, and the subsequent weaning of Hamas and Hezbollah from Iranian Shi’ite allegiance to Iraqi Shi’ite moderation. Then maybe I can imagine how they thought some political changes might start happening, although in what time span I know not (one year? twenty years?) Of course, Richard Clarke was entirely correct that this has nothing
    to do with the immediate threat of Al Qaeda and it’s hydra of successors, and anyone can see that rampant anti-Americanism, the increased risk of oil shock, Saudi Arabia’s tilt away from western reform, the continued ability of Al-Qaeda to function in Afghanistan (presumably the strategic goal of the Afghan War having been to prevent this), the US-European rift, and the lessened belief in the legitimacy of US action in general having been direct consequences of an
    Iraq fiasco that will likely cost the president his job.

    In any event, I am grateful that you acknowledge neoconservatism’s intellectual debt to the Left, and take pains to distinguish it from conservatism- as discussed by George Will. The irony in criticizing *conservatism* for lacking a program for cultural *change* is skillfully employed.

  5. come on, neocon boy. engage in a public discussion. you’ve got an ooghe reply. reply in this forum and i guarantee a measured reply from me.

    where are all of your like-minded thinkers?

    a warning: no discussion about the pros and cons of the bush administration will be without a discussion of domestic issues as well as international ones. the crucial difference between the way you think now and the way i think now has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty or low iq, (fucker) but that i care deeply about the actual domestic state of this country, which is something that you have told me many times you don’t care about.

    i am both maddened and made smugly self-satisfied by your silence in this forum. i might assume that the reason you have not yet publicly answered me has to do with shame re rumsfeldian interrogation techniques. and you know what? i can assume this or anything else i want, because this is a public forum and you have not yet answered me.

    if you are frustrated with having a conversation in the comments section of a blog, just post each response as a new entry. but do not do it via email.

  6. alex: another republican i admire (and you are in good company, despite your name calling) is greg costikyan, for whom abu ghraib is a turning point.

    here is a major point of his multiple arguments for international law:

    “The situation at Abu Ghraib should bring immediately home the danger of assuming that we are always a power for good. The US consists of people; people are sinners; power corrupts; and without enforcement of good practice, people will stray. That’s why we have courts and a police–and a military. That’s why we have laws and rules. Experiments have shown that, in a prison setting, people tend to become abusive, unless purposefully trained and restrained from doing so. In other words, the Geneva Convention is itself a good thing–part of “being a power for good,” in fact–and it serves a useful purpose. Abu Ghraib could have, and should have, been predicted; it was inevitable, given human nature, unless the authorities took it upon themselves to =prevent= just such a situation. Instead, they seem to have encouraged it. The world is quite right to be outraged.

    Oh, sure, I agree with the conservatives; I assume that most of the prisoners are evil, sadistic, terrorist scum who would happily fly jetliners into office towers with the consequent loss of live of thousands. I =assume= that they deserve to die. But we are civilized people, and they have neither been charged with, nor convicted of any crimes, and the US constitution does assume innocence until conviction. Precisely because they are, in all likelihood, moral monsters, we must treat them with the utmost correctness until their crimes are brought out in the light of a properly constituted court. This is, in fact, virtually what it means to be civilized.

    Abu Ghraib makes a mockery of point a). If we are a power for good, let us act like one. That means adhering to our own normal principles of behavior at the very minimum–and possibly to international law as well.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: