Where Left Is Right / The Old Site

The Weasel, reports USA Today, has "stepp[ed] up his defense of his Iraq policy in the face of declining public support for the war and a crucial test in Iraq with the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum." You might think that such a defense might consist of actual relevant facts. But because this is, after all, Upside-Down World, you would be wrong. Let's start with this:

Countering claims that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is fueling radicalism, Bush noted that American troops were not there on Sept. 11, 2001.

Well, duh. And what's happened since September 11, 2001 -- or, even better, since March 2003? Incidents of terrorism have gone up. If there's no cause-effect relationship going on here then perhaps Bush & Co. have some inside information which they're not sharing at this time (for national security reasons, no doubt).

Then:

He said Russia did not support the military action in Iraq, yet a terrorist attack in Beslan, Russia, left more than 300 schoolchildren dead in 2004.

A real head-scratcher. The terrorist attack to which The Weasel is directing his oily attention (and to which he is attempting to direct ours) had nothing to do with Islamic radicalism -- being the handiwork, instead, of Chechen rebels.

More disturbing, and more Weasel-like, the speech before the National Endowment for Democracy is littered with examples of a propaganda technique known as "mere assertion." As the term implies, a propagandist often makes his points (and persuades the unwary, while reinforcing -- without justification -- the views of his supporters) simply by saying something is so. As a practical matter, of course, it's not possible for a given public speaker to provide the equivalent of footnoted references for every statement of would-be fact. Nevertheless, when the same would-be facts (no matter how alarming they might be) are repeated over and over again, without evidence or reasoned argument, we drift into the dark neighborhood of propaganda.

Here are some examples from today's speech (and here I'm using the version of the text from the horse's mouth; the boldfaced commentary, needless to say, did not appear in the original):

...these extremists want to end American and Western influence in the broader Middle East, because we stand for democracy and peace, and stand in the way of their ambitions. It may very well be -- it probably is the case -- that a goal of Al Qaeda and similar groups is the end of American and Western influence in the Middle East. The clause beginning with the "because" is where mere assertion and the problem lay. Where could The Weasel possibly be getting this information? Is it an "objective" "fact"? No. It's a simple declarative, unsupported by anything other than the propagandist's need to persuade his listeners.

We're facing a radical ideology with inalterable objectives: to enslave whole nations and intimidate the world. No act of ours invited the rage of the killers -- and no concession, bribe, or act of appeasement would change or limit their plans for murder. Again, this entire passage is completely arguable on grounds of objective reality. If these statements were couched in terms like "We believe that...," their arguability would be greatly diminished; they might even be said to be true. But to do so would, of course, weaken The Weasel's case: truth is simply not an important tool when a propagandist is trying to make a point.

Like the ideology of communism, our new enemy pursues totalitarian aims. Its leaders pretend to be an aggrieved party, representing the powerless against imperial enemies. In truth they have endless ambitions of imperial domination, and they wish to make everyone powerless except themselves. Under their rule, they have banned books, and desecrated historical monuments, and brutalized women. They seek to end dissent in every form, and to control every aspect of life, and to rule the soul, itself. While promising a future of justice and holiness, the terrorists are preparing for a future of oppression and misery. As before, there's nothing in this passage which qualifies the assertions in any way to make them inarguable. (Personally, I rather doubt that Bin Laden & Co. "have endless ambitions of imperial domination" and want to "make everyone powerless except themselves." Both of these goals could just as easily be applied to the current US administration -- and they are so applied by Bin Laden & Co. Which is proof, if nothing else, that propaganda -- like politics -- makes strange bedfellows.)

Some observers also claim that America would be better off by cutting our losses and leaving Iraq now. This is a dangerous illusion, refuted with a simple question: Would the United States and other free nations be more safe, or less safe, with Zarqawi and bin Laden in control of Iraq, its people, and its resources? Actually, the "dangerous illusion" is itself buttressed by a different simple question: Are the US and other free nations currently safer as a result of the misAdministration's foreign policy? Once again, we've got here an assertion which is supported (if at all) only by implicit assumptions of what is real and true -- not by what is in fact real and true.

If the peoples of that region are permitted to choose their own destiny, and advance by their own energy and by their participation as free men and women, then the extremists will be marginalized, and the flow of violent radicalism to the rest of the world will slow, and eventually end. This is a more subtle perversion of fact by way of assumption: phrases like "to choose their own destiny," "advance by their own energy," even just the word "free" here can similarly be considered just one (arguable) take on what's happening in Iraq. Wishful thinking -- and its concrete expression, in the words of The Weasel -- do not make something so.

Now might be time to remember the words of that other famous George, the 3rd, who once said, "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor and a scoundrel." But of course, that George was a madman.