None of them seem to have read Bill Whittle's recent piece, Sanctuary, or even Part I of this series.

Here's the problem in a nutshell.

Us, the good guys, the people who actually live in reality:

We freed the people of Afghanistan and Iraq from tyranny and gave them self-determination.

There were no WMDs!

We did free fifty million people from two of the vilest regimes in the world. Fact. Irrefutable. Were the Taliban and the Ba'athists vile oppressors? Yes. Are they now gone? Yes.

Done. We (the sane ones) are provably correct in our assertion.

Now, as to the moonbats: They say there were no WMDs. This appears to be correct. Of course, due to U.N. obstructionism, Saddam Hussein had months to move any WMDs he may have had, to Syria or elsewhere. But we don't know if that happened, all we know is that we haven't found any WMDs.

But this is not to the point. We are still correct, we have still accomplished a great good, a highly admirable deed.

Underlying the moonbat claim are two other assumptions, one false, the other insane.

First, that we invaded Iraq only because of WMDs. This is simply false. Read any of the speeches made in the days leading up to the war, and you will find that this is only one of the reasons.

Second, that false intent inevitably poisons any good outcome. This belief is insane, because it prevents you from dealing with the world as it really is.

Fifty million people are free. Fact. Even if President Bush had invaded Iraq to steal their sandworms and make himself the immortal God Emperor of America, it wouldn't change the fact that fifty million people are now free.

Furthermore, claims of intent are basically unfalsifiable. You can claim that the President really did invade Iraq for that reason, and everything he has said, and everything that has been done, is just a coverup for his real intentions. In other words, statements attributing intent to other people are only valid insofar as they match their words and actions, because words and actions are what take place in the real world.

So claims that the military never intended to properly investigate Abu Ghraib or Bagram fall flat in the face of the fact that the military did properly investigate Abu Ghraib and Bagram. Statements that aspects of the investigations were unsatisfactory, for reasons of procedure or outcome, those can be assessed and addressed in terms of fact and logic and may well prove to be substantive.

Unfortunately, that sort of statement is largely avoided by the left. Which is no surprise, because being a leftist in the first place requires a strong aversion to reality. They are not interested in talking about what is said and what is done, only about underlying meanings and intent - statements that cannot be contradicted.

If they were interested in outcomes, in actions, in the real world, they wouldn't be leftists. Maybe it was different in 1917, but there's no excuse today.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at 10:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)
Post contains 563 words, total size 4 kb.