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'?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.