Cognitive Dissonance & the Right

[Mephisto]

Here are three definitions for this term from three separate dictionaries.


cognitive dissonance?

Psychology

anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like, as when one likes a person but disapproves strongly of one of his or her habits.
[Origin: 1960–65]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
___________

cognitive dissonance

n. Psychology.
A condition of conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistency between one's beliefs and one's actions, such as opposing the slaughter of animals and eating meat.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
__________

Main Entry: cognitive dissonance
Function: noun
: psychological conflict resulting from simultaneously held incongruous beliefs and attitudes (as a fondness for smoking and a belief that it is harmful)

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
____________

Now, onto my post. I was derided by one of the more aggressive neo-cons here at JREF as having cognitive dissonance because of the "illogic" of my posts. Not surprisingly another aggressive neo-con picked up on the tag and ran with it, suggesting that the first abrasive poster was correct in his unprofessional diagnosis. They've both accused me indirectly of taking drugs.

What I'm wondering is how accurate are their assertions on those grounds. Am I actually exhibiting signs of cognitive dissonance, or are they just being typically nasty because they have nothing else to say. I would like to go on record as having said that these two individuals probably know more than anyone about cognitive dissonance, and here's MY evidence:

Cognitive Dissonance, the Bush Administration, Cindy Sheehan, and the War in Iraq

I’ve continued to think about Suzy Shedd’s comments about Cindy Sheehan, and wanted to explain a little more fully why I think she hit the nail on the head, and why her comments resonated so strongly with me.

I’ve long thought that cognitive dissonance was a major reason why the American public was so slow to turn against the War in Iraq (and I’m using the past tense there, since an overwhelming majority of Americans have finally come to their senses). While it’s true that suppression and distortion of information slowed the long march towards truth, it’s also clear that the American people continued to support the war in the face of increasing evidence that the Bush Administration lied the country into war.

http://www.tatteredcoat.com/archive...nistration-cindy-sheehan-and-the-war-in-iraq/
____________

Cognitive Dissonance on the Right

By S.M. Dixon

09/06/05
The New Yorker's editor savages Bush by simply telling the truth -- something Bush and his junta have consistently failed to do for five years.

...In an era of tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush consistently slashed the Army Corps of Engineers’ funding requests to improve the levees holding back Lake Pontchartrain. This year, he asked for $3.9 million, $23 million less than the Corps requested. In the end, Bush reluctantly agreed to $5.7 million, delaying seven contracts, including one to enlarge the New Orleans levees. Former Republican congressman Michael Parker was forced out as the head of the Corps by Bush in 2002 when he dared to protest the lack of proper funding.

Similarly, the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which is supposed to improve drainage and pumping systems in the New Orleans area, recently asked for $62.5 million; the White House proposed $10.5 million.

...In the ABC interview, he said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees.” Even the most cursory review shows that there have been comprehensive and chilling warnings of a potential calamity on the Gulf Coast for years. The most telling, but hardly the only, example was a five-part series in 2002 by John McQuaid and Mark Schleifstein in the New Orleans Times-Picayune...

Don't expect the Radical Right to accept these facts.
The same wingnuts who have said incessantly that the federal government can't do anything right and that, therefore, more power should be given to state and city governments are now fiercely defending the feds and shifting the blame for Katrina-related problems onto the state and city governments of Louisiana.

Once again, the extreme right-wing has decided that down is up and black is the new white, and subsequently shown cognitive dissonance to be alive and well on its side of the political aisle.

http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/001690.php
___________

Cognitive dissonance: Bush in Cleveland

Just so you know, in a speech the other day in Cleveland, Bush denied that he'd ever linked the events of 9/11/2001 with Saddam Hussein.

No, really—he actually said it:

“First, just if I may correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said—at least I know I didn't say—that there was a direct connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein.”

Which is simply breathtaking. (Though not so breathtaking that USA Today couldn't uncritically report Bush's denial. Let the organ harvesting begin.)

As written up in the San Francisco Chronicle, Bush made this statement in response to a question from:

…an elderly gentleman who cited what he said were the three main reasons for going to war in Iraq—WMD, Iraq's ties to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists, and the alleged purchase of nuclear material from Niger—and then noted dryly that all three of these rationales turned out to be false.

“How do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?” he asked the president.

Please don't tell me that Bush was ambushed, or that his words were taken out of context. It was a clear, straightforward statement that happened to be obviously and risibly false. The question itself was the very definition of “foreseeable,” and it came out of a heavily screened, hand-picked audience. It had to; Bush won't talk to any other sort.

Bush also explained his complete failure to turn up Iraq's supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction, thus:

“The truth of the matter is that the whole world thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.”

No, they didn't. The whole world doubted there was any such thing, and only let us get away with starting the war because Bush & Co. swore the WMDs existed.

As of 2001, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were dead certain that Iraq had no WMDs. And have a gander at the story that ran in the Globe and Mail in July 2003:

http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007355.html
____________

As usual, not having creativity of their own, I've found that neo-cons usually use terms that have been leveled against them by others, so naturally I did a little research. It seems that Cognitive Dissonance and the Republican party have a lot in common. Predictably, it's just another case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Beerina]

I’ve long thought that cognitive dissonance was a major reason why the American public was so slow to turn against the War in Iraq (and I’m using the past tense there, since an overwhelming majority of Americans have finally come to their senses). While it’s true that suppression and distortion of information slowed the long march towards truth, it’s also clear that the American people continued to support the war in the face of increasing evidence that the Bush Administration lied the country into war.

Problem: You are presuming that the truth was obvious way back when, when, in fact, it was not.

Recall that, in the first few weeks after Saddam fell, many on the left were feeling mighty depressed, and were writing articles like "Now that Iraq is free, what if it turns the tide towards democracy in the Middle East, and George Bush becomes a big hero and one of the best presidents ever?"

My wife, a hater of GW, said basically that, as it was all over the news then. My mother-in-law, a real Republican hater, was literally in despair at how popular the Republicans were, and would become because of this. It was odd to see someone like that, which is why it sticks out in my mind.

So the presumption that the "truth" was known to a few wizened liberals back then is nothing short of sophistry, and that the bulk of the deceived populace "finally" got around to believing the "truth", slowly overcoming "cognative dissonance" is therefore null and void.

Bush may not actually have said "Iraq was involved", but the population believed it anyway, being a confused lot, and the president did nothing to dissuade this since it aided him building his political case for war (i.e. momentum in popular opinion.)

 

[Mephisto]

Problem: You are presuming that the truth was obvious way back when, when, in fact, it was not.

And yet, how many people protested the upcoming war in Iraq because they felt it was all too expedient that Saddam had WMD capable of attacking Americans after 12 years of sanctions? How many people scoffed at the assertions that Saddam had unmanned drones capable of reaching the U.S? How many people protested the impending invasion as an expensive and useless tangent in the war on terrorism? How many people thought it was more important to capture Bin Laden than to "liberate" the Iraqi people?

I'd be willing to bet that every single one of those people has been derided by the Right as being unpatriotic, not supporting the troops, or "making excuses for terrorists." Apparently presuming the likelihood that a military invasion is wrong is unwarranted, even if the presumptions turn out to be correct.

Bush may not actually have said "Iraq was involved", but the population believed it anyway, being a confused lot, and the president did nothing to dissuade this since it aided him building his political case for war (i.e. momentum in popular opinion.)

What the majority of people believe isn't my fault - I was railing against Bush's tactics long before he implemented them. As for Bush "not actually saying," that Iraq was involved:


Presidential Letter
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html
____________

The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq

American attitudes about a connection have changed, firming up the case for war.

By Linda Feldmann | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
____________

Here's a good example of cognitive dissonance - we're in the middle of an ineffective war in Iraq, yet we're not willing to admit any mistakes regarding this war and our only plan is to "stay the course," no matter how disasterous and expensive that could is.

Also, we've gotten past NOT finding WMD in Iraq, and we can relax a bit, but just notice how easily the sheep become agitated when this administration mentions NUKE-U-LAR weapons in the same sentence with IRAN.

 

[marksman]

Mephisto,

I don't think of myself as a neocon and often I find that I agree with you on many of our threads together, once I figure out what your point is. I will admit that I often have trouble discerning what your point is because you always try to express it in very roundabout ways, by use of rhetorical questions that turn out to be not-so-rhetorical, or analogies that only serve to confuse things, or seeming non sequiturs that can only be tied back to the original conversation in convoluted ways.

It is very likely that the accusation of "cognitive dissonance" levied at you was a misguided attempt to understand why you use such an obtuse rhetorical style. I have to admit, you're the only person with whom I substantively agreed, that I have ever considered thought of putting on ignore due to difficulty in understanding your writing. (Obviously, I chose against it.)

Edit one: This thread is a perfect example. You asked whether you portraysigns of cognitive dissonance and then you start accusing the Bush administration of cognitive dissonance. I can't tell if you were being facetious in your initial request (to which I responded) and just using the accusation as a rhetoical springboard from which to launch attacks at the Bush administration, or if you were being serious in your initial request, but couldn't help but turn every thread into Bush-bashing. Now I feel like an idiot for having taken your first question seriously.

Edit two: And now that I've seen where Beeps or Mycroft accused you of "cognitive dissonance" I totally understand the accusation. He was asking you when you believed imposing democracy was worth the cost and you started talking about how history judged General Custer! I know the point made sense to you. It might even make sense to me, if the dots were connected, but they weren't. I don't even agree with your accuser in that thread and I can't make heads or tails of your post.

 

[Mycroft]

I was derided by one of the more aggressive neo-cons here at JREF as having cognitive dissonance because of the "illogic" of my posts. Not surprisingly another aggressive neo-con picked up on the tag and ran with it

I'm currious, what definition are you using for "neo-con"?

 

[Mycroft]

Problem: You are presuming that the truth was obvious way back when, when, in fact, it was not.

Recall that, in the first few weeks after Saddam fell, many on the left were feeling mighty depressed, and were writing articles like "Now that Iraq is free, what if it turns the tide towards democracy in the Middle East, and George Bush becomes a big hero and one of the best presidents ever?"

My wife, a hater of GW, said basically that, as it was all over the news then. My mother-in-law, a real Republican hater, was literally in despair at how popular the Republicans were, and would become because of this. It was odd to see someone like that, which is why it sticks out in my mind.

So the presumption that the "truth" was known to a few wizened liberals back then is nothing short of sophistry, and that the bulk of the deceived populace "finally" got around to believing the "truth", slowly overcoming "cognative dissonance" is therefore null and void.

Bush may not actually have said "Iraq was involved", but the population believed it anyway, being a confused lot, and the president did nothing to dissuade this since it aided him building his political case for war (i.e. momentum in popular opinion.)

I recall back then the "evidence" presented was very shakey. Colin Powell showing a bottle of powder that could be anthrax, shoing a satalite photo of a building that was supposed to be something, but looked (to me) like any other warehouse.

I was against starting the war in Iraq, but now that it has been started, we do have to finish it. Frankly I don't understand the mindset of those on the left that can only focus on our reasons for starting the war while seemingly ignoring the fact that it's already happened.

What do you want, Mephisto. A time machine?

 

[Mephisto]

I don't think of myself as a neocon and often I find that I agree with you on many of our threads together, once I figure out what your point is. I will admit that I often have trouble discerning what your point is because you always try to express it in very roundabout ways, by use of rhetorical questions that turn out to be not-so-rhetorical, or analogies that only serve to confuse things, or seeming non sequiturs that can only be tied back to the original conversation in convoluted ways.

I don't think of you as a neo-con either, marksman. You've actually given me a lot of food for thought and I appreciate your straightforward manner. As I've often said, you're usually right on target.

I write much like I teach martial arts, I believe that the best way to teach is to allow a student the joys of discovery. If I TELL you something you might not believe my assertions, but if I help you discover what I'm asserting it's more gratifying to the student/reader. It's not as direct, but I believe it serves the purpose.

It is very likely that the accusation of "cognitive dissonance" levied at you was a misguided attempt to understand why you use such an obtuse rhetorical style.

It's nice of you to believe that of your fellow JREFers, but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's just pure anger and resentment that allows abrasive people to level this type of accusation at people. Everyone here is relatively intelligent and the only ones to complain are the two beforementioned neo-cons who constantly resort to insults instead of persuasive argument.

I have to admit, you're the only person with whom I substantively agreed, that I have ever considered thought of putting on ignore due to difficulty in understanding your writing. (Obviously, I chose against it.)

Thanks for that. You'll find I'm not at all as difficult to understand, I just take the roundabout route. It's not that I can't be as subtle as an atom bomb, it's just that I feel there is enough explosive action here as it is.

Edit one: This thread is a perfect example. You asked whether you portraysigns of cognitive dissonance and then you start accusing the Bush administration of cognitive dissonance.

It'll fall into place once you know the whole story.

Now I feel like an idiot for having taken your first question seriously.

Please don't feel that way - the only people who should feel like idiots are those whose powers of reason disappear as they throw up infantile accusations in support of their assertions. My first question WAS serious and I am actually interested to know if anyone could be impartial enough to discern whether I am actually cognitive dissonant.

Edit two: And now that I've seen where Beeps accused you of "cognitive dissonance" I totally understand the accusation. He was asking you when you believed imposing democracy was worth the cost and you started talking about how history judged General Custer! I know the point made sense to you. It might even make sense to me, if the dots were connected, but they weren't. I don't even agree with Beeps in that thread and I can't make heads or tails of your post.

Well, BPSCG was suggesting that history will tell whether our war in Iraq was worthwhile and I agreed with him, stating that history is often inaccurate as it is written by an often biased group. My examples showed how history twists the words and actions of people commonly held as heros.

For the record, it wasn't initially BPSCG who made the inflammatory comments:

I don't know which makes me more nauseous, this grotesque facade of moral equivalency, or the fact that it's designed to hide your otherwise glaring anti-Israel bias.

You have clearly decided which student is responsible, because you choose to ignore the previous actions of the other. Portraying it as parity by bickering is a disgustingly small fig leaf that cannot hope to hid your naked agenda.

Apologist.

Further evidence of cognitive dissonance: random non-sequiturs about morality as defined by TV shows.

On a roll nothing, looks more like a cocaine bender to me. Seriously, he's all over the map over the last day or two. I wonder if he's even caught a wink of sleep in that time. Paranoia creeps in, the tone gets a little more shrill... yeah, I haven't seen the like since college. Sad, really.

I suppose in my roundabout way, I was reacting to these posts and intended to prove to them that cognitive dissonance isn't exclusive to me, and in fact, the Party has exhibited it almost without end. Still I don't think that my comments warrant personal insults and accusations of drug use.

 

[marksman]

You've actually given me a lot of food for thought and I appreciate your straightforward manner. As I've often said, you're usually right on target.

I think you'll find that "straightforward" trumps "roundabout" every time, if you manage to refrain from personal comments. (I'm not acusing you of making such comments, by the way.)

if I help you discover what I'm asserting it's more gratifying to the student/reader. It's not as direct, but I believe it serves the purpose.

What works in martial arts is not so effective in debate. The use of koans and zen-like riddles is fine between student and teacher, who are working together for a common goal. It is singularly frustrating when dealing with people with whom you disagree.

It's also condescending. Jocko, Beeps and Mycroft are not your inferiors. They are not your students and they are not your teacher. They are your peers and should be treated as equals, even if you think they don't act that way.

Sometimes it's just pure anger and resentment that allows abrasive people to level this type of accusation at people.

Even so, roundabout responses are nto likely to help the situation, stop the situatoin or address the situation.

I'm not at all as difficult to understand, I just take the roundabout route. It's not that I can't be as subtle as an atom bomb, it's just that I feel there is enough explosive action here as it is.

Roundabout arguing does not diffuse explosiveness. In my opinion, it builds frustration that will only cause bigger bombs later.

My first question WAS serious and I am actually interested to know if anyone could be impartial enough to discern whether I am actually cognitive dissonant.

Nobody could answer that. But Jocko hypothesizing drug use, while insulting, is, frankly, something that occurred to me too, although I refrained from voicing my thoughts out of respect.

Well, BPSCG was suggesting that history will tell whether our war in Iraq was worthwhile and I agreed with him, stating that history is often inaccurate as it is written by an often biased group.

But it didn't seem like you were agreeing with him. It seemed like you chose Custer in order to provoke him by making a not-so-veiled argument that Bush would be seen through the lens of history the way Custer is seen through the lens of history.

My examples showed how history twists the words and actions of people commonly held as heros.

Right, so you weren't agreeing with Beeps. You were trying to turn the argument around against him. But the way you did it was confused and muddled. I, frankly, didn't get that until you actually explained it to me. I don't see why anybody else would get it either.

 

[Mephisto]

I was against starting the war in Iraq, but now that it has been started, we do have to finish it.

Doesn't this sound just slightly cognitive dissonant to you? You were against the war, but believe we have to finish it?

 

[Mephisto]

I think you'll find that "straightforward" trumps "roundabout" every time, if you manage to refrain from personal comments. (I'm not acusing you of making such comments, by the way.)

You may be right, no one questions the intent of at least two posters here. Of course, they often revert to personal comments to make their intentions clear.

What works in martial arts is not so effective in debate. The use of koans and zen-like riddles is fine between student and teacher, who are working together for a common goal. It is singularly frustrating when dealing with people with whom you disagree.

I was referring more to my writing style than martial arts. I try especially not to be too didactic.

It's also condescending. Jocko, Beeps and Mycroft are not your inferiors. They are not your students and they are not your teacher. They are your peers and should be treated as equals, even if you think they don't act that way.

If you say so, I'm sure I would have heard from either of the three had they sensed I was being condescending. I've never treated anyone here as an inferior, nor have I ever based my treatment on anyone here on anything other than their words - I don't sling personal comments without provocation as is their wont.

Nobody could answer that. But Jocko hypothesizing drug use, while insulting, is, frankly, something that occurred to me too, although I refrained from voicing my thoughts out of respect.

I take no offense at anyone thinking I'm on drugs, I take offense at someone voicing that opinion though. Respect for others is what separates you from Jocko.

But it didn't seem like you were agreeing with him. It seemed like you chose Custer in order to provoke him by making a not-so-veiled argument that Bush would be seen through the lens of history the way Custer is seen through the lens of history.

But for the longest time, Custer WAS seen as a hero, and I thought the people I was addressing were intelligent enough to know that. Am I condescending if I lower my expectations of the audience and make more direct assertions, or can I reasonably expect people to connect the dots?

 

[marksman]

You may be right, no one questions the intent of at least two posters here. Of course, they often revert to personal comments to make their intentions clear.

Generally, nobody questions my intentions either. I like to think it's because directness helps keep things clear.

If you say so, I'm sure I would have heard from either of the three had they sensed I was being condescending.

You did. They accused you of cognitive dissonance and drug use. That's a pretty clear indictment that your tone is pissing them off. I know you like to think it pisses them off on substance, but the fact that few people understand what you're talking about makes it unlikely.

I've never treated anyone here as an inferior, nor have I ever based my treatment on anyone here on anything other than their words - I don't sling personal comments without provocation as is their wont.

Personal attacks is not the only way to be condescending. Being coy and/or confusing in order to demonstrate your zen/socratic mastery is another way.

Am I condescending if I lower my expectations of the audience and make more direct assertions, or can I reasonably expect people to connect the dots?

It is not "lowering expectations" to speak plainly and directly. It is respectful. I do not speak plainly because I think less of people. I speak plainly because I want to communicate with them effectively and without resort to rhetorical manipulation.

Look, you clearly think that your style is effective. I haven't seen any results that would support that theory, but I clerly am not going to change your mind. But I would point out that I don't recall anybody else starting a separate thread that seeks to discuss their own posting style. I think that indicates that a part of you is also concerned that your posts are causing waves for the wrong reasons.

 

[Mycroft]

Doesn't this sound just slightly cognitive dissonant to you? You were against the war, but believe we have to finish it?

Not at all. Starting a war brings a dramatic change to the situation. Once it's began, the debate on if you should do it is over.

Ask yourself what happens if we pull out now. Will the violence get better or worse? Do we have a right to subject 25 million Iraqi people to a potentially brutal civil war just because you don’t like a decision made several years ago?

Pulling out now would be the ultimate in American ego-centrism. It would literally be saying that tens –maybe hundreds- of thousands of Iraqi lives are not worth a handful of American lives it would take to get the job done.

 

[BPSCG]

As one of the rightwing nutjobs the "more aggressive neo-cons" who's been taking delight at poking a stick at Mephisto through the bars in his cage just to see him snarl who's been having difficulty figuring out what point Mephisto's often trying to make, let me say, marksman, that your critique is accurate, civilized, gentlemanly, and up to the highest standards here at JREF.

Now please go away - I'm trying to goad Mephisto into saying something that will get him suspended, and you're screwing it up for me.

 

[Mycroft]

Doesn't this sound just slightly cognitive dissonant to you? You were against the war, but believe we have to finish it?

Let me add one more thing before I head off to some meetings this morning:

If you can't comprehend any political point of view that's not a simplistic "support the war" or "oppose the war", maybe the problem isn't "cognitive dissonance" that you imagine the people who disagree with you must have. Maybe the problem is that your own point of view is more simplistic than it should be.

 

[Random]

Not at all. Starting a war brings a dramatic change to the situation. Once it's began, the debate on if you should do it is over.

Ask yourself what happens if we pull out now. Will the violence get better or worse? Do we have a right to subject 25 million Iraqi people to a potentially brutal civil war just because you don’t like a decision made several years ago?

Pulling out now would be the ultimate in American ego-centrism. It would literally be saying that tens –maybe hundreds- of thousands of Iraqi lives are not worth a handful of American lives it would take to get the job done.

What will happen if we stay? Will the violence get better or worse? The violence in Iraq has shown no sign of abating over the past three years, and the bulk of the killing going on right now is between various Iraqi factions that we are trying to “protect”.

People say that we should stay until the job is done, but it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out what the job actually is. Are we supposed to support a democratically elected Shiite government that covertly engages in ethnic cleansing? Are we supposed to protect Iraqi Sunnis from ethnic cleansing while they shoot at Americans? What? You seem to think that there will be civil war if we leave, while I say that civil war is already going on regardless of what the Bush administration wants to call it.

So far, all we have done is replace a secular totalitarian thug with dozens of warring militant ethnic and religious terrorist groups. It’s like getting rid of the brothel down the street and having it replaced with a crack den. It’s more of a lateral move than anything else.

I hate to say it, but if the choices are between a three way civil war in Iraq and a three way civil war in Iraq with American troops in the middle of it, I think we should leave.

 

[Mycroft]

What will happen if we stay? Will the violence get better or worse?

That’s certainly an important question. I think I know the answer, what do you think it is?

The violence in Iraq has shown no sign of abating over the past three years, and the bulk of the killing going on right now is between various Iraqi factions that we are trying to “protect”.

I think it’s amazing that when the US is dropping bombs then suddenly all those innocent civilians that might get in the way are all anyone can talk about, but if we’re talking about “various factions” that might be killing each other, then suddenly all those innocent civilians that may want nothing to do with factional violence all become invisible.

They’re brown, so if they want to kill each other it’s not our problem. Even if we are the ones that destabilized their country.

People say that we should stay until the job is done, but it becomes increasingly difficult to figure out what the job actually is. Are we supposed to support a democratically elected Shiite government that covertly engages in ethnic cleansing? Are we supposed to protect Iraqi Sunnis from ethnic cleansing while they shoot at Americans? What? You seem to think that there will be civil war if we leave, while I say that civil war is already going on regardless of what the Bush administration wants to call it.

At the very minimum, we stay until the Iraqi military can keep order.

I hate to say it, but if the choices are between a three way civil war in Iraq and a three way civil war in Iraq with American troops in the middle of it, I think we should leave.

I think that would be like pulling the police from the bad part of town because you can’t end crime.

 

[Random]

That’s certainly an important question. I think I know the answer, what do you think it is?

If the trends over the past three years are any indication, it’s going to get worse.

I think it’s amazing that when the US is dropping bombs then suddenly all those innocent civilians that might get in the way are all anyone can talk about, but if we’re talking about “various factions” that might be killing each other, then suddenly all those innocent civilians that may want nothing to do with factional violence all become invisible.

But our presence there is not stopping the killing. I don’t want innocent Iraqis killed, but if the militants are bound and determined to kill each other, I don’t see how we can stop them. Innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire, but I just don’t see how we can stop every determined nut with a bomb.

At the very minimum, we stay until the Iraqi military can keep order.

And when will that be? They should have taken over years ago, but the date for that wonderful occurrence keeps getting pushed forward into the future. Last I heard it was “18 months from now” for whatever that’s worth.

I think that would be like pulling the police from the bad part of town because you can’t end crime.

So what is the alternative? We know through practical experimentation that putting 135k troops in Iraq does not stop the violence. I don’t see how invading other countries is supposed to help since a lot of the violence the Iraqis killing Iraqis. We don’t have the manpower to boost our troop population to an effective level, and even if we did, the insurgents could just wait until the funding issues got too large for us to remain.

 

[Pardalis]

Mephistopheles, do you have any expertise in psychology in order to make such a diagnosis?

Wouldn't the leftists be as proned to cognitive dissonance as anybody else?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Seeing as how I can give numerous examples of Mehpisto outright lying, the issue of "Cognitive Dissonance" seems quite trivial. A look at the articles he thinks are worth quoting is quite telling:

The same wingnuts who have said incessantly that the federal government can't do anything right and that, therefore, more power should be given to state and city governments are now fiercely defending the feds and shifting the blame for Katrina-related problems onto the state and city governments of Louisiana.

This quote displays not only a complete ignorance of Conservative Ideology, but also a complete refusal to try to understand it rather than simply criticize it. Within the Conservative framework, there is absolutely no cognitive dissonance in defending the feds and saying more power should be given to local governments. In fact, the belief that local governments should be responsible for this sort of thing is precisely why they blame local governments rather than the federal government.

It was a clear, straightforward statement that happened to be obviously and risibly false.

No, it wasn't. If they have an example of Bush saying it, why don't they quote him?

 

[Cain]

Beerina:

Recall that, in the first few weeks after Saddam fell, many on the left were feeling mighty depressed, and were writing articles like "Now that Iraq is free, what if it turns the tide towards democracy in the Middle East, and George Bush becomes a big hero and one of the best presidents ever?"

Such as... ?

Well, obviously the people who bought into the administration's lies and propaganda are in the best position to determine what we ought to now do in Iraq.

You see, pulling out of Iraq is not a serious position. It's for lightweights; the pony-tailed peace protestors who haven't showered for days. Invading and occupying Iraq, over the protests of people across the globe is supremely serious foreign policy.

Threat inflation leading to bomb dropping and promises of being "greeted as liberators" is something we cannot dismiss. But if someone even suggests -- oh, I dunno, leaving Iraq -- then they're just mad.

The Right-Wing B.S. machine has done an excellent of job of framing the debate before and after the invasion. First of all, American conservatives supporting GW and this stupid war have done so mostly for national security interests, not to "liberate the noble Iraqis." Fact. Therefore, Bush had to sell Iraq as an "urgent," "immediate," and "gathering" threat. And you can consult their rhetoric to see that this is exactly what they did.

Myself, and many others on the left (but also on the right and in the center) never viewed Iraq as much of a threat. This position was not unclear to us or anyone else at the time. Importantly, Colin Powell managed to convinced people with doubts with his presentation to the U.N. (and look to see how well that's held up).

It's not a matter of only what Saddam possessed (WMDs, allegedly), but whether or not he had the will and the ability to deliver WMDs. People seem to overlook these second and third criteria because the Bush administration couldn't have been more wrong on the first.