home

Cognitive Dissonance: Can The Emboldened Be Emboldened?

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

The scramble on the Right in the wake of the NIE Report that the Iraq Debacle has worsened the terrorism situation has led to some very strange contortions.

Michelle Malkin says:

If our intelligence agencies are laboring under the moonbat illusion that Muslim hatred of the infidel West didn't really start bubbling until the year 2003, we are really in deep, deep doo-doo.

So no "emboldening" by the Iraq Debacle says The Wild One. But James Joyner says:

[I]t's quite likely that an American withdrawal from Iraq without accomplishing the barest part of our mission-a reasonably stable, democratic society-would embolden the jihadists.

I see. So the Iraq Debacle could not possibly have embolden the terrorists (Malkin) but withdrawing from Iraq will embolden the terrorists (Joyner). This makes a much sense as the "safer but not safe" nonsense from Bush.

Here is the simple truth, the hardened terrorists required no emboldening. To discuss it a a serious question is absurd. What the NIE is saying is that the terrorists have garnered great sympathy in the Arab and Muslim world because of the Iraq Debacle, bringing them more followers and support.

Is it that the Right does not understand this simple point or that they choose not to? Let's try it one more time -- the Iraq Debacle has not emboldened existing terrorists, but rather it has created more terrorists. Staying in Iraq creates more terrorists. Will leaving Iraq create more terrorists? That's Joyner's view but no one knows. In the meantime, Afghanistan is becoming a failed state because we undertook the Iraq Debacle. Is that emboldening the terrorists?

Let's face it, the Right has never been willing to discuss these isues seriously. It has been nothing but partisan politics to them. So they certainly are not going to start 6 weeks before an election.

One final point - both Joyner and Malkin and the rest of the Right Choir show great disdain for the abilities of the intelligence communities, how they got everything wrong etc. Let's accept that premise. The question is how well did the Bush Administration do? How well did the Right do? Bush, Cheny, Rummy, Wolfowitz, etc., how well did they do? Please. The chutzpah of the Right on this is stunning. Me, I mostly listened to this guy:

I think that there is a substantial risk in the aftermath of the [Iraq] operation that we could end up with a problem which is more intractable than we have today.
One thing we're pretty clear on is that Saddam has a very effective police state apparatus. He doesn't allow challenges to his authority inside that state. When we go in there with a transitional government and a military occupation of some indefinite duration, it's also very likely that if there is an effective al Qaeda left -- and there certainly will be an effective organization of extremists -- they will pour into that country because they must compete for the Iraqi people; the Wahabes with the Sunnis, the Shi'as from Iran working with the Shi'a population. So it's not beyond consideration that we would have a radicalized state, even under a U.S. occupation in the aftermath.

Hmmm. That guy seemed to get it right. That guy was General Wesley K. Clark, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 23, 2002. You think the Right will listen to him? Me neither.

< Habeas Threat Level Elevated | This is Your Ass on Drugs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    You should see the fallout starting over this NIE estimate. AP, via HuffPo, has a recent story telling us that "Old Death Squad" Negroponte is now backpedeling rapidly and saying we are NOT at increased risk of attack. I can only imagine Rove's exasperation at this current NIE buzz.

    This is off-point BUT, TL, did you check out Keith Olbermann last night? WOW! Maybe the MSM has had enough!? He did everything but ask for King George's head on a pike!

    If the Malkins and the Joyners of the world weren't so poisonous they be funny. It is hilarious though to watch them scurry around like panicked rats watching the waves come over the railings, with not a safe piece of dry land anywhere in sight. I guess I'd be pissed too, Michelle. But you've gotta feel for them when they're reduced to selling Karl Rove's Lucky Mojo Toilet Water. Well... you don't have to, for very long, anyway. After all, would they, for you? ;-) ---edger

    Re: Cognitive Dissonance: Can The Emboldened Be Em (none / 0) (#4)
    by Madison Guy on Tue Sep 26, 2006 at 09:16:08 AM EST
    Everybody knows Bush is just cleaning up after the mess left by Clinton and the godless Democrats, right? Isn't that what the Chris Wallace interview proved? "I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, it will look like just a comma ..." Serenely, Bush sails on, across a sea of commas. Forget about an "October Surprise," prepare for a "November Surprise" instead -- after the election. That looks to be Bush's best chance to try to clean up Iraq once and for all by going after Iran and bringing real democracy to the Middle East at last, before any meddling new Congress can stop him. Bush knows everything will be fine. He's working his way through the commas and approaching the end of the sentence. He's the democracy-bringer, and he's doing God's will.

    "Muslim hatred of the infidel west?" Malkins, in typical wingnut fashion, implies that Muslim hatred of the U.S. is (irrationally) religion-based as opposed to (rationally) policy-based. As if our propping up of authoritarian regimes like the Saudis and Mukhbarat, or our continued enabling of Israeli intransigence with regards to Palestine had nothing with it.

    Hey Karl, hurry up with the talking points. They are thinking for themselves and it ain't pretty.