Skip to comments.No Evidence?
Posted on 03/20/2006 11:45:19 AM PST by Richard Axtell
Over the weekend I had a "conversation" with a liberal Democrat friend of mine. He is a friend, and is an intelligent and really nice guy. That conversation evolved into a debate about Bush, and of course "the fact that there were no WMDs". I pointed out that what the Democrat and leftist pundits and political leaders have really said, and said in monolithic lockstep, is that there "is no evidence that Saddam had WMD's or that Saddam had any connection to Al Qaida." It can be worded or phrased in varying ways, but that is essentially it, "no evidence". He accepted this interpretation, as I showed him example after example of leftist pundits making this particular point. NO EVIDENCE. Period.
I then pointed out that all anyone had to do is find evidence, any kind of evidence, and the Democrat-leftist argument collapses, and they are forced to argue the merits of the evidence. That is something they are not prepared to do, and have avoided even thinking about, with the exception of attacking the messenger. In effect, they have painted themselves into the proverbial corner, by playing the polemical card of the moment, which was "WMDs? I don't see any WMDs! Bush lied! He misled us into this war!" Now, they must prove a negative, which simply cannot be done. Prove Saddam never secretly talked, cooperated, or conspired with Al Qaida. How can that be proved? Answer: it can't.
The Anti-war Democrats and leftists must now deny, obfuscate, ignore, or in desperation "censor" any and all information that brings into question their "NO EVIDENCE" stance. This untenable situation was blindly adopted by the far left of the Democrat party, when Senators Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, John Kerry, Jay Rockefeller, and others jumped over the line and made this their weapon, their "hill to die on" to try and get a knockout in the 2004 election. It failed, and now the chickens are going to come home to roost, 48,000 of them (the documents), and they will cackle and squawk for 3000 hours (the tapes) or more. The only remaining stance left to the left will be that of the ostrich, denying what everyone else can see. I don't envy that stance, at least philosophically.
So, when I mentioned the treasure trove of primary evidence that now has come to light in the form of the Saddam tapes and the 48,000 released documents, he was speechless, totally shut down. At least until he regained his composure, and said "Well, I haven't heard any of this is the press." I even mentioned that ABC was reporting it currently. He simply could not accept it. This is the Achilles heal, the key card in the Left's house of cards, and when this falls, as it must, so will any "consensus that Bush lied" must collapse. We can expect the hardcore Marxists to remain boneheaded, but they will also return to the tiny minority fringe where they belong. So, when arguing this point, remember my distinction, they have staked everything on "No evidence."
Agreed, the 'net and alternative news sites need to trumpet this news, but the only way the Left will be forced to pay attention is if the White House comes out with these examples, the findings etc, Day after Day after Day.... For now, they say nothing about it, so the alphabet news finds no reason to report it. And they discount it if it's on NewsMax or Drudge etc,.
The White House is doing a very lousy job of it.
Now, if it were reported in a "poll"....then the Left might believe it (?)/sarc
I agree. The White House must say and do much more.
You can bet that after a couple months of these documents coming out, Pres Bush will have a primetime news conference to discuss.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..........
The left didn't want to take Saddam out even when the entire world was saying he had WMDs.
I don't claim to speak for the White House, but we've only seen the release of the initial trickle of documents.
In the long term, it might be better to wait until more docs have been translated and released just so the totality of the situation can be completely grasped.
The White House will have one chance to make this case. The media will cling to and amplify any scrap of a conversation in a transcript that remotely contradicts the White House - even if its outweighed by hundreds of examples in the other direction. Best to wait until all the evidence is available, and then craft a bulletproof response.
I just hope they don't wait too long.
Of course everyone other than some FReepers moved the "goal posts" and began saying it was not a stockpile or they were old WMDs.
Of course there was all that uranium that was found in Iraq. But the "goal posts" were moved again on that issue by saying the IAEA had already IDed it and had put its little tags on it. I thought the point was we now have control of it and not Saddam (which is a good thing) but I guess people want to think that the IAEA had it and not Saddam ... even though it was his own country and he was a nasty dictator who kicked the inspectors out a couple of times.
The press seems to be moving the goal posts on all of the documents by putting editors notes on the stuff or by cautioning the source.
It needs to be wrapped up and disseminated before the elections. They need to get a moveon.now
Excellent analysis, Richard. I'm filing that up close to the front in my brain for the next useless discussion with a liberal.
If you had a group of Iraqi scientists go on 60 Minutes and detail exactly what programs were up and running, they would claim that the scientists were tortured by the CIA into offering up stories to lessen the beatings.
Even if, by some chance, the "Freedom Fighters" got a hold of some hidden weapons and actually USED them, the Left would claim that these were actually US weapons that were captured and that we have been using them the whole time.
I put a web site together mostly with information that was posted on Free Republic. It hasn't been updated for a few months, however, and does not have anything regarding the recent documents.
He may be a friend and really nice, but.....
"...were tortured by the CIA into offering up stories to lessen the beatings."
No self-respecting liberal (oxymoron?) can make this claim because we all know 'torture doesn't work'.
One should always try to avoid having to prove a negative.
Perhaps, this could be the 'October Surprise'?
Note- that top link, while a collection of links I've gathered on the subject, takes you to reply #43. An old report from the Federation of American Scientists ( no friend of America, or Americans- I locked horns with them in Nuclear Freeze days ) which blows away the "no WMD" argument.
All I have on the docs is in the second.
Like all of my stuff, go to the "last" and work back for the latest first.
I agree. Intelligent and liberal = oxymoron
Excellent site - thanks!
Or, if not an oxymoron, perhaps just a "moron"..... LOL!!
I was driving to a meeting this past Saturday and had to go through New Haven. (I'll get to my point..just bear with me). So, I'm passing the Green and suddenly I'm in bumper-to-bumper traffic...no escape and I'm thinking my 40-minute cushin I built into the trip is now going to evaporate. Police had the road blocked like a foreign dignitary was about to roll through. Turns out it was a few hundred protesters marching to the green. Judging from the small print on the lower portion of most of the signs, the majority were members of the International Socialist Union. Some examples of the signage:
No Blood For Oil
Stop STEALING Oil
Lesbians for Peace
Being Muslim is not a crime
Remember Rachael Corrie
Republicans a bloodthirsty
Why are the poor dying for Bush's Sins?
...and a lot of Abu Garib imagery and more anti-US/anti Israel/Anti-CIA/Anti-Bush slogans than I could count.
I think you would agree that those "self-respecting" Liberals aren't exactly too bound by reality. They have their own set of facts.
Middle America is going to wake up to the crafty BS and slant of the MSM...and the sweetest irony of the turnabout is that the moonbats are doing the actual physical labor of ranting and raving to prove the point. A lot better to help people discover something for themselves than to yell and scream at them...loaves and fishes...
Moron has become one of my most frequently used words. Whether I preface it with "oxy" or "ignorant" it works well in the times in which we live. ;*)
We could use this thread as one place to compile evidence.
Deos anyone remember Salman Pak? It was a terrorist camp about 15 miles SE of Baghdad that we took, along with our Kurdish allies. It was an Al Qaeda camp, and among the things found there were airplane hulls.
Sure, no connection.
That would be true if the Administration itself weren't trying to prevent the release of these documents.
Won't matter. There was evidence prior to this as well. No change. Nothing to see, move along.
Now, how could that be true if there were no WMDs in the first place? But even after the inconsistency is pointed out to the liberals, they still refuse to see it.
WMD or NO WMD... If we had known 100% that Saddam already had WMD I would have hesitated with my support of sending in ground forces. We did NOT go into Iraq solely because of WMD. The issue of WMD was made an issue that we should go into Iraq sooner rather than wait until Saddam had developed them. In speeches prior to the war Bush had said that if Saddam Hussein had the opportunity of having WMD it would change the political situation in the Middle East. The main reasons we went into Iraq was because Saddam failed to abide by the cease-fire agreement and also his ties to terrorists. It's a shame the WH has allowed the lies of the left to go unanswered to a point where even Rush Limbaugh has failed to realise this. And 99.9999% of the time...Rush is on top of this stuff.
No self-respecting liberal (oxymoron?) can make this claim because we all know 'torture doesn't work'.
Unless it serves their purposes to say it does.
For liberals, truth is whatever serves the party and if you repeat a lie often enough, it is true.
I agree. I don't think they are getting in front of this one for a good reason, as opposed to the usual lack of response for no reason.
They do only have one shot to counter the WMD pile-on, and should do it when every conceivable media-driven opposition can be countered.
As far as waiting too long to respond, it's long past the point where additional "Bush Lied" stories will get more public support. As long as they begin the campaign with the documents before Nov.
Imagine what will happen when middle America wakes up just in time for the mid term elections.
Delicious, isn't it??
Not as much as compassinate and liberal.
"You can bet that after a couple months of these documents coming out, Pres Bush will have a primetime news conference to discuss."
I wholeheartedly agree with the release of this material, and the efforts of the blogosphere to make sense of it. We're already getting some good results. There's one problem with Pres. Bush trying to make political mileage out of it, though...and that's summed up in a few questions I'd dearly love to ask him: "Mr President, why didn't YOU tell us about this information yourself a year or two ago, instead of letting the lefties in the MSM slowly grind away the Nation's support for a good cause? Why have you allowed 'the intelligence professionals' to drag their feet for so long in getting it processed, and why did you allow them to stonewall every effort to pry this information away from their cold, bureaucratic tentacles for so long? If the SOBs at Langley have been undermining and sabotaging your efforts, why haven't you FIRED somebody at CIA? We believe in what you're doing, but why do you keep tying your own hands behind your back?"
That's what I ask...
The administration isn't trying to prevent the document disclosure, they are just being careful about what is released.
Trust me when I tell you that the White House WANTS this information made public. But, they'd also like to control the timing, and avoid any sensitive intelligence leaks.......
In general, conservatives believe that liberals are stupid and liberals believe that conservatives are evil.
Yeah. The White House is totally asleep. The only thing I can figure is that Rove is waiting until early fall to get this thing out.
The MSM will, of course, do everything in their power not to cover it. Just like the successful elections that were never covered because the NYTs sprang the NSA stuff.
Still, can't help wondering who's in charge at the White House?
FR thread: Saddam's atrocities exposed on video
To answer your questions, there has been changes made at the CIA. The Director, just for starters. Also, the information in these documents needed to be translated. And it is a painstakingly slow process, for obvious reasons..........
Translated disclosures from these documents just in time for the mid term elections will be just fine with me.
That's not what people like Miniter and Hayes are saying.
President Bush has ordered that critical evidence confiscated by U.S. forces after they liberated Iraq be made public - including 3,000 hours of audiotapes of Saddam Hussein chairing his Revolutionary Command Council before the war and 48,000 boxes of records documenting his regime's military activities.
"This stuff ought to be out," Bush told National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley last month, according to the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes. "Put this stuff out," the president reiterated.
The president made similar statements during three separate meetings with congressional Republicans and several senior national security officials, the Standard said.
Bush's initial order came on Feb. 16, the day after ABC News broadcast snippets from 12 hours of Saddam audiotapes obtained by FBI translator and former U.N. weapons inspector Bill Tierney.
The Bush directive met with the enthusiastic approval of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Peter Hoekstra.
Hoestra said that while National Intelligence Director John Negroponte had resisted the document release, his opposition softened in recent weeks.
I believe liberalism is a mental disorder, and I don't care what the liberals think of me anyway, since they are intellectually challenged. :-)
Please see post # 48 and start getting your information correct before posting.