Why let facts get in way of a perfectly good war?

Commentary by Arianna Huffington

June 24, 2003

 

By all accounts, the battle within the Bush administration over just what information should be used to make the case that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the world was a knockdown, drag-out fight between the facts and a highly politicized "who needs proof?" mindset. And at the end of the day, the truth was left writhing on the floor.

This pathological pattern of disregarding inconvenient reality is not just troubling — it's deadly. And it's threatening to drag us into a Sisyphean struggle against evildoers in Syria, Iran, North Korea, or whatever locale Karl Rove thinks would best advance "Operation Avoid Bush Sr.’s Fate."

Since I'm not a psychiatrist, I consulted the work of various experts in the field in order to get a better understanding of the fanatical mindset that is driving the Bush administration.

Dr. Norman Doidge, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, has identified among the telltale symptoms of fanatics: an intolerance of dissent, the belief that one's cause has been blessed or even commanded by God, and the use of reinforcement techniques such as repetition to spread one's message.

Sound like anyone you know? George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, come on down!

According to Doidge, one of the essential features of fanatics is their certainty that not only is their cause good "but that it is the only good, an absolute good." Or as President Bush famously declared: "There is no in between as far as I'm concerned. Either you're with us, or you're against us."

This absolute intolerance of dissent, says Doidge, often extends beyond the fanatics' enemies — frequently leading to a "campaign of terror" against those within their own ranks.

If you're wondering what this has to do with the Bush administration, you might want to give a call to Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich. After having the temerity to question the wisdom of the president's massive tax-cut plan, the senatorial pair became the targets of withering TV attack ads, sponsored by allies of the White House, that portrayed them as "so-called Republicans" and compared their opposition to the latest round of tax cuts to France's opposition to the war in Iraq.

Another crucial element of a fanatic's faith, according to Professor Dixon Sutherland, who teaches religion at Stetson University, is that he "sees himself as acting for God.” Tom DeLay, for example, saw the 2000 election as a choice between a "biblical worldview" and the worldview of "humanism, materialism, sexism, naturalism, post-modernism or any of the other -isms." And the Republican Party, of course, represented the biblical worldview, God and all things good.

Gustav le Bon, a social scientist known for his crowd psychology theories, has stressed the importance of repetition as a weapon in the fanatic's arsenal. "Ideas, sentiments, emotions and beliefs," writes le Bon, "possess in crowds a contagious power as intense as that of microbes."

As James Moore, co-author of Bush's Brain, says, "If the president says it over and over enough, people will believe it, just as Karl Rove got him to say over and over that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11." The technique was so successful that a poll taken by the Pew Center in 2002 showed that 66 percent of Americans believed that Saddam and bin Laden were both behind the attacks.

Wonder why the WMD are MIA? The answer may lie in the DSM — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I know it can sound a bit cheap to call people you disagree with nuts, which is why I refer to the psychiatric literature. And keep an open mind, something the Bushies stopped doing a long time ago.

Arianna Huffington is a syndicated columnist.

Karl Rove has not told me what to think yet.

"Don't expect the United States to apologize, whatever the facts are".

Bush the elder, on the USS Vincennes incident in which 290 people perished after an Iranian airliner was mistakenly shot down by the US Navy.

The skipper was also decorated for "the way he handled a difficult situation".

Check this out:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data062403.htm

The demented Lefties here will be quite agitated, that a new Washington Post/ABC poll finds Americans blasé about the lack thus far of weapons finds in Iraq. Sixty-seven percent of those polled approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while a mere 30% disapprove. That's a shift of only eight percentage points toward disapproval at a time when Bush's opponents have been working themselves into a lather about the president's purported "lies." Asked if the liberation of Iraq would be justified even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found, 63% said yes and only 23% said no.

The poll also asks the following question:

Thinking about another country in the region: Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?

Fifty-six percent support military action against Iran, while only 38% oppose it.

The inescapable fact is that most Americans flatly disapprove of left wing views.

...take a cut and paste post and find somewhere to put it regardless of irrelevance to the topic of the thread.

A poll taken in Germany after the successful invasion of Poland might have revealed similar results. So what?

...have also shown that about:

50% of respondents thought that the 911 hijackers were Iraqis. (15 were Saudi's, 1 from Lebanon, and the rest from Yemen if I recall.)

>50% Thought WMD had been recovered Post-Invasion from Iraq.

>50% Thought Saddam Hussein had been connected to 911.

None of the above are true.

So much for the validating properties of "Opionion" Polls.

It does not mean they are true nor that the people rendering an opinion are doing so based on any knowledge of actual events.

It is a savage indictment of the Blood Soaked Monopoly Media.

"It does not mean they are true nor that the people rendering an opinion are doing so based on any knowledge of actual events."

INDYMEDIA

Where truth or knowledge of actual events isn't required!

"It does not mean they are true nor that the people rendering an opinion are doing so based on any knowledge of actual events."

INDYMEDIA

Where truth or knowledge of actual events isn't required!

"Where truth or knowledge of actual events isn't required!"

And is, as a matter of fact, discouraged.

As proved by the various people who have made fools of themselves here arguing that weapons of mass destruction would soon be found, that Iraq was as dangerous as Nazi Germany, that keeping pows in cages in Cuba was ethical and in accord with the rules of law, that Ashcroft's and Bush's attacks on the Bill of Rights posed no danger to the US population, that there was nothing illegal about Bush using the lie that Iraq menaced us with nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction to drag this country into war, that the most important functions of the US Government should be spending even more money on the military and building more roads to encourage the use of gas-eating autos, or that US agents should have the right to bring in opponents of the Iraq war for questioning.

...just proved Dagny's point.

I'm not surprised, but I expect the demented wing of the Democratic Party will be quite agitated, that a new Washington Post/ABC poll finds Americans blasé about the lack thus far of weapons finds in Iraq. Sixty-seven percent of those polled approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, while a mere 30% disapprove. That's a shift of only eight percentage points toward disapproval at a time when Bush's opponents have been working themselves into a lather about the president's purported "lies." Asked if the liberation of Iraq would be justified even if no weapons of mass destruction are ever found, 63% said yes and only 23% said no.

The poll also asks the following question:

Thinking about another country in the region: Would you support or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons?

Fifty-six percent support military action against IRAN, while only 38% oppose it. And you thought the conservatives on this board were hawkish.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23974-2003Jun23.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data062403.htm

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20030605.shtml

"For the sake of their tiresome argument, let's stipulate that we will find no weapons of mass destruction – or, to be accurate, no more weapons of mass destruction. Perhaps Hussein was using the three trucks capable of assembling poison gases to sell ice cream under some heretofore undisclosed U.N. "Oil For Popsicles" program.

Should we apologize and return the country to Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons? Should we have him on "Designer's Challenge" to put his palaces back in all their '80s Vegas splendor? Or maybe Uday and Qusay could spruce up each other's rape rooms on a very special episode of "Trading Spaces"? What is liberals' point?

No one cares. "

Should we take seriously anything from someone who actually managed to get fired from the ultra-right National Review for being too reactionary and bigoted?

Or who goes out of her way to look like an anorexic Barbie Doll? Ann's not playing a very good role in the fight agains sexism, or maybe she is - she's on the other side.

is not a rebuttal.

No, it is not. On the other hand, a journalist's history of being fired from a right-wing magazine for bigotry should be used as one factor in judging that journalist's credibility. The Barbie Doll stuff was meant as a (perhaps weak) attempt at humor. Lighten up.

Has already had one best selling book and is about to release another. Are you going to tell us that the thousands of people buying her books are all wrong?

You can list your own published books as reference for your obvious superior intellect if you'd like (please exclude the crap you post here on IMC). We'll all wait here for that extensive list.

You're full of shit, BTW.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment100301.shtml

"As many of you may have heard, we've dropped Ann Coulter's column from NRO. This has sparked varying amounts of protest, support, and, most of all, curiosity from our readers. We owe you an explanation.

Of course, we would explain our decision to Ann, but the reality is that she's called the shots from the get-go. It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

Such scathing criticism...has the tide turned for ShrubCo?

I meant Huffington, of course.

Re: Airic, who said:

'Ann Coulter...Has already had one best selling book and is about to release another. Are you going to tell us that the thousands of people buying her books are all wrong?'

Logical Fallacy Alert!!! Book sales in no way relate to credibility and integrity vis-a-vis journalistic endeavors. Ms. Coulters' extreme viewpoints and beliefs, however, would be relative to making a case that she is biased.

Score now: Eric 0 Meyer 1

Let the debate continue!

Eric, what did you think that NR was going to tell their largely Birchite and Goldwaterite readership - "Sure, we canned her because she went too far this time and we didn't want to take the heat for what she wrote, especially since she could have conveyed the same message more subtly." She resigned the same way that Woody Hays resigned as football coach at Ohio State after slugging an opposing player for scoring a touchdown. Or that the Shah of Iran took a "vacation" from his country in 1978.

Eric: Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton and Sidney Blumenthal have all had books that sold many, many copies. I guess that makes you a big fan, eh? Nikita Krushchev's memoirs really sold well back in the 1970's; I bet you gobbled them up while they were still hot off the presses.

"Eric, what did you think that NR was going to tell their largely Birchite and Goldwaterite readership ..."?

The truth, of course. Are you calling them liars? What evidence do you have?

And the truth IS in fact what they DID tell them. Unlike YOU, who erroneously believe Ms. Coulter was fired and have told our readership here on IMC as much. Nothing could be further from the truth. YOU are a liar. And now I'm calling you one.

Ms. Coulter, in fact, fired the NR. And they even admit as much. Only YOU believe otherwise.

And as far as the psuedo-authors you've mentioned, I personnally would never purchase ANY of their drivel. The only one that even remotely interests me would be Hilliary Clinton, and that is only our of interest in how she felt finding out she had been getting sloppy seconds from Bill on all those oral favors she had been pleasuring wim with.

Other than that, theirs not a writer or an analyst in the lot of you mentionings.

Ms. Coulter has yet to go far enough, in my opinion. I won't be satisfied until she advocates the expatriation of all of you fifth column leftist traitors.

P.S. We're still waiting for that list of you personally authored best sellers. You do have some, don't you?

Eric: 'I have here in my hand a list...a list of known [insert name of group you wish to defame] who's only goal is to infiltrate the good 'ol US of A and tear it apart from the inside...'

A la Joe McCarty

...that the shills will scream loudly that someone who makes a telling point they do not like is not credible if they have written a book. You know the old line about just trying to sell books - I have seen davemoron use that one as I believe has his alter ego Bush Asskisser.

Another Bush Junta Supporter double standard?

Suuuuuuuure you betcha'.

Perhaps. Call me paranoid, but I don't believe in coincidence.

Either you leftists are too stupid to realize that your platforms hurt America, or you're too cunning to reveal this to be EXACTLY your intentions.

Either way, you are a threat that this country must eliminate.

And that is EXACTLY what is happening to you. You are all being successively eliminated.

Politically speaking, of course.

...that knocking over Third World Piggy Banks and parceling out their resources to the Cronies of those in power is a more enlightened form of government?

If a patient has a cancer and the surgeon must operate to remove, it might hurt. Without the scalpel of truth the patient would die a painful lingering needless death.

Eric's solution is to administer more morphine and tell the

person, everything will be okay.

That if you turn you back on a serpent, it will bite you in the ass more times than not.

I say keep those third worlds under our collective thumbs as long as we have the ability to do so. As soon as we choose become isolationists, we'll have another Pearl Harbor or 9-11.

If there's a bully on the playground, he only knows about might and force. He doesn't understand reasoning and cooperation. I'm the kinda guy that will walk up to a bully and pick a fight. If he backs down, then so be it, he won't wake up in the hospital. But otherwise, one of us is gonna get stitches. I'd just rather fight than live in fear. That's how I'm made.

Leftist wanna believe otherwise. They wanna act like America is just the big bully tyrant that enslaves the world. Bullshit. Those third world countries would be enslaved with or without America on the map. That's the way things have been since before the Romans.

We've got it good here. And froeign nationals resent it. Always have and always will. Nothing we can do to change their attitudes.

...Pearl Harbor was an FDR production. It was a set-up from the get-go to force the Japanese into striking to protect themselves. There are now 3 books out all asserting this and all rely on Government Records to make their case.

911- What Really Happened?

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

People make a great living spreading contrite lies and conspiracy stories. And people like you keep them in business.

I'd never read, not to mention purchase, a book based on such nonesense as you propose.

Why? Because experience has told me that for ever action, there is an opposite and equal reaction, and an explanation for everything that ever happens and ever will happen.

Ond more times than not Occam's Razor cuts sharply.

...if you make it a point to never conflicts with your prejudices you are never in danger of learning anything original.

The Research done on FDR's maneuvers to corner the Japanese into attacking so that he could break his anti-war campaign pledge are well documented.

U.S. Intelligence had broken the major Japanaese Codes as early as 39'. This is documented.

A Japanese Refueling Ship broadcast it's position to the approaching Japanese Fleet a couple of days before the attack.

FDR is believed to have had a decoded intercept of the Diplomatic Traffic to the Japanese Consulate in hand well before the attack.

Kimmel and Short were hung out to dry as public scapegoats.

In 1999 Congress voted to clear their records and restore their Rank. Clinton would not sign it but it was passed.

The Record is clear. FDR KNEW.

Just as BUSH KNEW.

911 - What Really Happened?

And that is why you Bush Sycophants cannot accept the FDR KNEW fact as a fact because it then opens the door to questions about Bush's Prior Knowledge of the 911 Operation.

911 - What Really Happened?

Do a search on "McCollum Memo".

What exactly are you saying that Bush knew?

And as far as FDR goes, I can completely accept that it is possible that your scenario could have occured except that key elements of it don't make sense.

The two that are the hardest to explain are 1) why would a leader sacrifice such a large percentage of their naval forces in an effort to enter into a war? and 2) if an attack was needed in order to sell the idea of war to the public, then certainly, if FDR really knew, then squashing such an attack or even attempting to defend Pearl Harbor against it once it was in motion would have easily had the same PR value. The American public would have backed any effort to go to War if it was shown that those bombers were even headed in our direction.

To allow the attack to occur and sacrifice so much of our naval forces was utterly unnessecary to achieve the desired PR effect.

I don't buy it. Not because I have any great faith in the nobility of our presidents but because it makes no sense and offers such a LOW return on such a high investment.

"...if you make it a point to never conflicts with your prejudices you are never in danger of learning anything original. "

This is leftist dementia talking. Leftists pride themselves on being "enlightened intellectuals", "free thinkers", and productionists of "original thought".

The problem is that one does NOT "learn" something "original". One "creates" it.

I'm not out to "learn" contorted truths or fictitious lies. I'm out to learn truths. Whole truths. And nothing BUT the truth.

And history is a good place for dark shadowy figures to contort and contrive. History fades in and fades out. It's easy to take historic events out of context, skew and bias them (try doing this with math or physics and you'll get your ass handed to you). Such is why I'm not an avid student of history. I always hated my history professors. It always seemed like they were sychophants-tyrants that ruled their own little kingdoms with iron fists, but wanted you to like them while they were bleeding their opinions all over your answers to their "essay" style questions.

'I always hated my history professors' - Eric

This speaks volumes about you. You just stick your fingers in your ears and hum when someone elaborates upon an opposing viewpoint. Your hatred must make you miserable. They have treatments for people like you...but just keep that bottled-up, frustration inside you.

Don't you wish you were REALLY free like us? Free to speak your own mind, instead of the Company policy? When was the last time you didn't have to swallow your pride in order to please your boss?

Don't think for one minute that I don't listen. I don't have a problem listening, nor comprehending. I listened to my pedagogues and I listen to you. I understood them, and I understood you.

They were (mostly) wrong, and so are you.

I just don't have to take shit off of you to get my grade.

"Don't you wish you were REALLY free like us?"

I couldn't stop laughing for nearly 3 minutes when I read that.

I'm free to speak my own mind, most of the time. The times I'm not are because it's too my benifit to keep my mouth shut. I'm sure your existence is much the same as mine. You've got a boss to answer to, and you say "yes sir yes three bags full!" when it's prudent.

Doesn't mean we're controlled. Means we're smart.

Look imbecile,

Dio does it intentionally just to piss you off, not to pat him/her self on the back. But a loser like brigg can't tell the difference. That takes insight and reading comprehension which narrow minds just don't have!

You know nothing of us. You cannot predict or define us, for we change with every reaction you make against us. We will adapt, while dinosaurs like you will ALL be faded!

If my opinions are so worthless, why do you point it out? Wouldn't that be self-evident to the informed reader? Why waste you time here, Briggman, when you could be using your superpowers on worthwhile opponents? Why? Because if you DON'T discredit what I type, someone might believe me. And you wouldn't want that, would you? Your side already knows how strong a single voice can be: MLK, Jr., Malcolm X, Paul Wellstone for example.

And if you 'want nothing we possess', why the F*CK are you here on our site? Go home, occupier!

I notice you have assembled quite a collection of 'The Gospel According to Brian'. While I am flattered at the attention you pay to my writings, I am confused as to if you admire me or loathe me. You're not fixiated on me, are you, Briggy-boy?

One final thought: when you say that you have never met a 'free @narchist', how do reach that conclusion? Are they wearing shackles of the mind or are you psychic?

I've been here longer than you.

Brigg has been here longer than you.

This site is OURS. And we're nice enough to share it with you.

Thanks are in order.

By 'Us' I mean those who value human rights, freedom, and justice. This site is not a Neo-Con bastion.

The flip side of 'Us' is 'Them': those who would take away basic liberties in the name of security. Those who would stereotype entire cultures/groups in order to exploit fear and hatred. Those who would have the majority of the world starve in the name of profit.

So let me ask you: which side are you on?

I'm all about enslaving the masses, stripping liberties and starving the poor in the name of profit.

Ah back to spew forth your carefully constucted obfuscations, petty hatreds, and bile.

Ah nothing quite like the smell of rotting Corpses eh Brigg?

Put downs and pontification are not a reasoned argument.

One who is in thrall to a belief system that requires the use of force to demand obedience of others is no more free than the slave - merely more comfortable - physically. Certainly they are doomed to live under a spiritual pall of gloom and misery.

Mere material weath and comfort do nothing to exalt the spirit nor do they bring happiness.

That your arguments consist mostly of deriding others for their beliefs rather providing reasoned support for your own reveals much about your character.

Freedom is not found in the Fascist Right nor at the Stalinist Left. Really you do have more in common with Stalin than Jefferson.

As for your insistence upon deriding the kids who hang around here looking to explore and expand - who are not yet so jaundiced that they have, as some, ceased looking for the truth I thought Anatole France said it rather well:

"Anyone who is not a Rebel at 20 has no heart. Anyone who is not bourgeoise by 40 has no brains." (Often falsely attributed to Bismarck who probably lifted it from France who coined it first.)

As for poor Airic. Your disdain for the lessons of history betray an uninformed viewpoint. Or as Voltaire commented ignorance of history dooms you to repeat it.

>Dio does it intentionally just to piss you off,

Let him know it's not working. I laughing and living it up.

Leftists/Anarchists are naturally stupid individuals. You don't have to be psychic to know that.

>You cannot predict or define us, for we change with every reaction you make against us.

No one's ever accused you or yours of being stable individuals.

>And if you 'want nothing we possess', why the F*CK are you here on our site?

To laugh and make fun of you. How many times have I mentioned this now?

>Because if you DON'T discredit what I type, someone might believe me.

I don't need to discredit what you type. You do it when you type it. I just point out how ridiculous and funny it is. Don't be so touchy.

>Ah nothing quite like the smell of rotting Corpses eh Brigg?

No rotting corpses here. We buried you guys long ago, but like the walking dead, you haven't realized it yet.

>Put downs and pontification are not a reasoned argument.

You haven't said anything that deserves a reasoned response. Should you ever present to us a reasoned argument, we'll be the first to let you know. In the meanwhile, we're here for the laughs you provide.

Now get to it gang! We demand EV (Entertainment Value) and by-God we're going to get it from you, our own personal little slaves.

Brigg,

You add nothing to the discussion. You piss and moan, yet NO FACTS spew forth from your small, withered mind (or is that some other part of your body? Maybe both?). To tell the truth, you really are boring. At least we in then left have a sense of humour and are interesting.

Perhaps you should invest your time more wisely, say clearing landmines in Afghanistan or bringing water and electricity to the people of Iraq. I am sure they would greatly appreciate you un-doing what the Imperial forces have done! Better cover that point, though, booooeeeeeyyyyy!

Whatever.

Perhaps you should mind your own business about how I spend my time. I don't tell you which wild-eyed conspiracy theories to believe.

I'm here till I don't wanna be here anymore.

You on the left ARE the humor. Provide EV. That's your job. Get to work.

'From the Highest of Kings to the lowly street sweeper, sooner or later we all Dance with the Reaper!' - Death

briggy-honey,

you seem to think you control life and death. boy will you be surprised when the bell tolls for thee!

"At least we in then left have a sense of humour and are interesting. "

That is categorically false.

The far left is a humorless and whining lot.

They wet their pants laughing over a good "Bush and swastika" Photoshop.

Classify the truth out of reach of normal probing.

Obstruct all investigations.

Lie.

Lie some more.

Keep lying.

BUSH LIED, AND CHILDREN DIED. It really is that simple.

Lie.

Repeat the lie.

Offer conspiracy theories and distortions as proof.

Repeat the lie again.

Invent clever catch phrase.

Repeat clever catch phrase ad nauseum.

Hope beyond all hope someone believes you, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Someday come to the realization that just because someone with megalomania of Napoleon-like proportions says things on a website of only minor importance and no political significance, it doesn't make it true. Such realization will come far too late in life to do megalomaniac much good, and will only serve to further embitter him, and force him to, perhaps, for once, lay the blame for his failures on his own shoulders.

It really is that simple.

You forgot a key rule that Dingo swears by:

If they disagree with the lie, tell them they are stupid, devoid of original thought, and accuse them of being a paid shill.

A key rule that Eric swears by:

Anything that is said or written by Ann Coulter is the gospel truth.

...complement that davemoron feels it necessary to engage in character assasination.

Of course that is it's main tool.

It has no facts.

It is readily apparent that his Fuhrer has lied repeatedly.

He has no grounds for a rational argument.

So, when you have no facts, and no valid arguments, engage in character assassination.

It's not very noble, or valid, but it's all he has.

Pathetic.

BUSH LIED, AND PEOPLE DIED. It really is that simple.

"It is readily apparent that (Bush) has lied repeatedly."

Polls tell different story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data062403.htm

I base my political philosophy on poll results. I'm a conservative.

I deny the accuracy of polls that don't agree with my predetermined conclusions. Obviously, I live in denial. It beats thinking.

That was me. Well, enough about that. Does anybody know what the latest poll results are?

They say GWB will be reelected by a landslide and the democraps ain't even on the map. Where do you suppose that puts the anarchists/socialists?

What do they say the next lottery numbers will be? Idiot.

Forget I asked that. I don't have a clue how to use something as simple as documented information found in polls, much less how to play the lottery.

That was me. I hate that motherfucker for handing me my ass. I was under the impression that all poll respondents were psychics. I'm such an inbred fool.

The only one I hand my ass to is you. I love that 2" prick of your pounding on my willing anal hole.

That was me again. I just love talking about penises.