Memory and the Left

You hit the nail on the head with this article. Thanks

J.R. Dunn, thank you so much for your troubling yet hopeful article. My favorite paragraph:

"Fortunately, things have changed since the left's heyday. Haditha is not a forgotten name. That twelve-story pile of yellowcake is proving difficult to ignore. At one point, the left controlled virtually the entire national media sphere. This is no longer the case. If the new media is about anything, it is about discovering, highlighting, and promulgating the things that we're not supposed to know, the stories we're not supposed to think about, the events that are supposed to be forgotten. The Holodomor, the Great Purge, the Hue massacre -- all were buried because they could be. They cannot be buried anymore."

If the Left tries to put a stranglehold on Americans expressing themselves on talk radio and through the Internet, then it will be very difficult for those on the Left, who claim to be the champions of free speech, to continue to be blind to the fact that they are the very ones who want to bury "inconvenient truths" forever.

I am sometimes amazed by how incapable conservatives are in dealing with their enemy. The Left works tirelessly to destroy conservatives and the legacy of the American Revolution. But they have a glass jaw, always have had, always will have. You just have to know where to hit a Leftist to knock his arguments head over heel.

As Dunn points out, conservatives tend to be polite and are often shocked by the vehemence issuing out of their opponents' mouths. How does one deal with such a person in a debate?

Parents have been dealing with this phenomenon since Cain and Abel.

One must regard his leftist opponent as a parent regards his recalcitrant child. Don't give an inch in a debate with a leftist, and you'll soon frustrate him to the point that he falls back to his default position. He'll gainsay your every point. He'll even resort to calling you names and accusing you of having suspect parentage.

How to deal with such an opponent? Smile a lot. Shake your head as a parent shakes his head at the illogic of his child.

And never, ever lose your temper.

People watching the debate will quickly differentiate between the adult and the adolescent.

Speak often about those things that matter most to people. Freedom, responsibility, the truth. Your opponent despises each of these.

Even someone as erudite as Christopher Hitchens, Oxford educated and in command of a vocabulary that would frighten most people, can be brought to acquiesce on a variety of points.

In fact, although Hitchens remains an a-theist, he's come round on subjects not too many years ago he railed against. This is because even some Leftists, including David Horowitz, are honest enough to recognize the vacuitiy of leftwing ideology.

The less educated, however, tend to hold onto their illogic as tightly as a mother holds onto her baby in a crowded store. Goddess forbid should their sacred beliefs be wrested from them in the cold, harsh light of day.

Still, conservatives need to refrain from trying to convert a leftist. That rarely happens, and in my case it only occurred because of divine intervention.

The purpose of debating a leftist is to convince those within earshot, not the leftist himself.

I find humor works best. Make your audience laugh and watch your opponent move dangerously close to apoplexy.

Don't forget to mention your opponent favors an outdated, failed and largely discarded Nineteenth Century philosophy that will never work no matter who tries it because it denies human nature.

And yes, if you kill enough people, you might for a time produce a true Workers Paradise, but only until those left alive have children and human nature rears its head again.

The natural state of human beings is freedom. Left to their own devices, people will do what people have done for millennia, fend for themselves, regulate their own behavior, and prosper. Government is instituted to guarantee certain unalienable rights, so that if your neighbor decides to take the easy path and relieve you of the goods you toiled to gain, there is a remedy called the courts and jail.

The Leftist will argue each of these points, but history is on our side, not theirs. They had their failed revolutions (French and Bolshevik). Ours has been a resounding success. Point this out calmly and firmly as often as necessary.

And always remember that you're dealing with the mentally ill. I do not write that to be mean, but merely honest.

I concur with Dr. Michael Savage. Liberalism is a mental defect. That does not mean to say that all Leftists are mentally ill, however. Many are fashionable leftists. They spout socialist bromides because for much of their lives it brought accolades. These liberals tend to be the scions of the upper-classes. Trust-funders with the time and financial wherewithal to join rent-a-mobs who travel around the country protesting various "injustices". For such, the excitement of slapping rich daddy and mummy is too much to resist. Whether they even understand the garbage they spew is highly questionable.

For real leftists, I believe, at the heart of their rebellion is a horrendous period of extreme child abuse at the hands of those who should have loved them.

Such Leftists are broken people with a skewed sense of what's fair. Such children are easy marks for an ideology that promises to make everything fair and just and right in life.

And so they adopt a murderous philosophy that will straighten crooked paths and teach mummy and daddy valuable lessons. The impulse for revenge is always strong in a Leftist, and easily exploited in a debate.

If conservatives treat their leftist opponents as a psychologist treats his patients, with kindness, understanding, and an occasional knowing nod of the head, it's fairly easy to turn your opponent into a human version of a rabid dog.

Then the coup d' grace. Point out, as I've often done, that a compassionate society, while they may put down a frothing-at-the-mouth mongrel, we tolerate the Leftist only because we believe God has created human life and holds that life to be sacred.

Although a Leftist will murder anyone who disagrees, if he could get away with it, we conservatives would not respond in kind because we are pro-life.

Remember also that Leftists are the unhappiest, most humorless people on the planet. You cannot save them, change their minds, or find common ground.

When faced with a Leftist in a debate, especially with an audience, you have only one goal. Defeat them without mercy.

Are democrats the domestic enemies that the constitution speaks of?

You are right about the Left. They'll say whatever works for the day and ignore the past. When controversial issues arise, I wish we could get reporters to ask them on camera "Will that still be your position a year from now?" It would be great to dig up some of that old footage in the future. It might even help tame some of their comments.

Great article. Well documented. I find myself in disagreement with only one thing. It is true that information can no longer be easily buried, but to find out anything different than what we are being spoonfed you have to look for it. I am afraid most of our fellow citizens are either already drinking the Koolaid or they are much too busy leading thier lives to find out on thier own. As long as the MSM is in the pocket of the left things will not change in any substantial way. The ones who check out websites such as this are really in the minority. We are in fact preaching to the choir when we really need to preach to the congregation.

A way must be found to reach mass audiences. Fox News was a good start and even though they dominate the cablenews side it is still a tiny audience measured in the millions but way under 10 million. It is not even close to 10 million it is less than 5 million. Fox has been so demonized that the average person thinks that they just carry the GOP's water.

I was gladdened to read the Marines have brought suit against Murtha. I hadn't heard that. GOOD. In today's techno world, their good name is smeared on the web forever for anyone to read. Murtha deserves to be punished.

The Left remind me of a group of many Nero's, fiddling while the building burns down around them. I agree with Mr. McClain. They are people to be pitied, because they are broken and emotionally unhealthy. But it doesn't mean those of us who are Thinkers have the word "Welcome" tatoo'd across our foreheads either. They may be broken, but they are still bullies you have to stand against.

J.R. It's not about lost memory as much as it is about them really wanting us to fail. They refuse to be in the position of having to tell themselves, "They told you so"

For years I've called the democratic party the party of "Amnesia". They foregt what they said yesterday. Its not just with the war its with everything. Along with amnesia, a they are also pathological liars. Both go hand in hand. From the Clintons to Obama to Pelosi and the rest of the crew. Its like democrats are clones of one another.

This piece is a tour de force. Bravo, Mr. Dunn.

To Robert McClain:
Your post was great and fit in quite well with this article.
I have found myself in political debates with my liberal associates quite often in recent months and it usually boils down to what you and this article said...they try to bury the facts by shouting, name calling, or picking at petty details. I have found that when it comes down to it, the fall back position for most liberals is not to debate the positions, but to point out where conservatives have failed to live up to their principles. They then trot out these "facts" as "conservative hypocrisy" and therefore conclude that conservative principles are without merit. I find myself forced to laugh a little bit in order to keep from getting angry and resorting to the same tactics.
The truest and most lasting tactic of any dyed-in-the-wool conservative is a deep knowledge of facts, history, and political theory as well as deep faith in the principles he or she espouses. When we use this as not just a fall-back position but a base from which to issue forth and enter into debate with liberals, the left, and Democrats (and those Republicans not living up to their words) we are never defeated.
In a personal anecdote, recently I entered into a political debate/discussion with these liberal associates which lasted SIX straight hours. In the beginning it was myself standing against an onslaught of almost three liberals constantly asking questions, picking at small details, and even insults at times. However, I maintained my cool and remembered to debate the positions, not the people. At the end, my friends stopped trying to get over on me and instead began asking questions in order to better understand where I was coming from. By the end of the night I was getting more and more agreement and less vitriol and raised voices. Whether or not this discussion has any lasting impression remains to be seen, but I count it as a victory.

Excellent article but the problem remains as to how the truth is to be distributed to "the masses". In particular, our youth, who are educated by many of the very leftists noted above. If we can not reach this population the accurate information (history)noted will be of no use. It seems to me this is where the next ideological battle will be fought. Cheers.

This is a great article. What will be interesting to see is if the Liberals take the White House in the upcoming vote, which I certainly hope doesn't happen, is what they say about Iraq in the future years. I can see it now....Obama and his VP standing on the White House lawn bragging about how the LIBERAL party took over Iraq, ousted Saddam, and restored democracy to the Muslim nation of Iraq.

It has all been played before, but the Democrats always seem to forget who actually did the work, but do no hestitate to take credit for it. For example, Clinton and his regime took down the Berlin Wall, created the Internet, and a host of other things, I mean LIES....

Doug Johnson, yes they are.

God help them if the US Military ever rembers that their oath is to defend the US Constitution and NOT the lame ass politicians.

It is said that the USSR and its empire fell because the internet broke Moscow's information monopoly.
The American Left knows this and wants to destroy Talk Radio (and then the Internet, I am sure) not only to destroy opposition voices but to re-assert its monopoly on information.

I had added a note, but after re-reading this article, thought it good to point out this fact, which eludes to the statement made in the article about stupid people and arguing with them.

"Never argue with anyone stupid. First, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." --Unknown

It would be nice if the 8 Marines (I am a retired Marine) were able to sue Murtha such that he becomes penniless. He deserves nothing less.

If Iraq or any other elements of Bushism are to survive the Dems or more centrist elements thereof MUST share in the success. Of course they were the chief impediment; obstructing, lying, legislating by poison pill, defaming, cringing, malingering... yes, they have done all this and more and will at the next crisis as well but the baby must have his bottle. To remain a united polity credit for the democratic transformation of the ME MUST BE SHARED, even with those who were against it all along. Bush knows this. We must know it, too. Don't forget what you know, just welcome all comers to the bandwagon for now. We will deal with the repurcussions later.

Excellent article!

Yes, the left can no longer easily contain facts. However, they have generally taken control of shaping the minds of future American thinkers via classrooms, especially in most higher educational institutions. I believe union influence has significantly contributed to this problem.

To refute the opinion of a liberal professor is often taken as heretical and and is certainly a GPA risk.

Long live Hillsdale College and similar institutions which tolerate and foster conservative ideology as well as an indefatigable pursuit of the truth. These are the hope for intellectual pursuit and maintenance of our future freedoms.

A well educated populace can recognize the information censorship dangers of a future Fairness Doctrine or its' ilk.

The D-Day in NOLA glosses over the Ribbentrop pact. Their display on WWII never mentions the Soviet -Nazi pact which led to WWII.

When I wrote the BOD at the Museum, I never got a reply.

I don't think I've ever read a more disturbing article. You make so many unsubstantiated assertions that a simple post in response won't do justice. Boy, the Left is really out to get those good Americans.

I think the answer as to why they bury the past, distort the present and refuse to debate arises out of a couple of wires being loose resulting in narcissism with a touch of borderline personality thrown in. Any psychiatrist will tell you that a borderline will rewrite history in his own mind as a response to a delusion arising from fear of abandonment. Clinically, the fear is a person leaving; but an ideal or belief threatening to leave can, I think, also trigger the same effect, as these ideals are more meaningful to them then actual people - which slides into...

...the classic narcissist. Superior. Haughty. Entitled. Special. Admiration seeker. Self-important. No empathy. Manipulative. The requisite traits of despots past present and future. Any contradictions to their self-importance is met with aggression. Much better to preemptively stifle anything that can bring that about those 'hurtful' things. Such as freedom of thought and communication. Hence the censor's airbrush and pen.

I think their view of 9/11 is that it was our fault for abandoning our "ideals" as a nation (borderline) and is a just punishment, but if others view it as an attack in need of an answer, then that must be swept away. To maintain the delusion. So we 'misplace' videos of the attack and never speak it's name (call it an 'event' instead) and, poof, the past disappears.

I think what terrifies them to the core is that their beliefs can only be sustained by their controlling information but that control is tenuous and they know it. And they know we know but they cannot do anything about it. As long as we're free...

J.R. Dunn says:

"It's difficult to avoid exasperation over the left's absolute refusal to acknowledge the new realities of the Iraq war."

The problem you have here Mr. Dunn is that you are expecting people with a vested ideological interest requiring failure in Iraq, an interest that if proven wrong horribly damages their core beliefs, and forces them to admit that what they believe is not just wrong, but idiotic, to come around and admit their error. Especially when then President Bush would for the umpteenth time prove he was smarter than all these idiots that constantly tell the world how dumb he is while again exposing them as the ones with the cognitive issues. The agenda has been from the start to make Bush look worse than Clinton so that they could get back to telling us their side has fewer morons.

I do not try to convert liberals from their erroneous beliefs about Iraq. It is both futile and ludicrous. The goal posts will constantly move, the criteria established for success will suddenly become of no consequence, especially when met, and the argument will indubitably come back to "Bush lied, people died", a lie in itself. Some of the honest ones will admit that they are biased and will never agree going to Iraq was good or necessary, no matter what the outcome. A few, when cornered, will even admit that they believe their side should do everything in its power to cause failure, because that is the only acceptable outcome. War is always wrong: the US fighting any war where it has vested interests is even more wrong. All wars must end in Vietnam-like disasters because that is what the liberal ideology preaches. What I do is hammer them with the facts while always staying civil and cheery. To do that however you need to really know what you are discussing. Nothing pisses liberals more than informed people that can take their lies apart. Eventually they will break down, froth at the mouth and show their true colors. Very enlightening stuff.

At this point I have become convinced that as soon as a person with a (D) gets into the WH the economy will pick up and be great - as is always the case when the occupant of the WH has that (D) next to their name - and that suddenly Iraq will become a good war because democrats can then claim they are responsible for any successes. Keep in mind that neither the economy or Iraq necessarily need to be doing good for that to be the case. The propaganda branch of the MSM will just do that because that is how it works. But the fact is that even the dumbest democrat politician has realized that leaving Iraq is going to have real bad consequences. If the democrats think they can use these issues to further their collectivist power grab agenda, they will not hesitate to sell out both the Iraqis and our troops. If they think it will hurt them however, and I am starting to think many of them are waking up to this reality, I think they will change their tune and leave their nut job base hanging. Understand that you are dealing with opportunists, and you can always see their next move.

One of the best articles I've ever read. An education packed in just a few paragraphs.

It helps to recognize that the Left is a Secular Religion. As such it is faith-based not fact-based. Logic, facts and rational argument merely infuriates the Leftist because he has nothing to support his position. The result is evasion, anger, name-calling and doing whatever it takes to shut you up. More on this at http://MaxEntropy.squarespace.com

Good point on the yellowcake. Except that the yellowcake in question was known to UN inpectors, who sealed and documented it. The yellowcake 'affair' derived from faked documents attempting to show that Saddam was attempting to obtain MORE yellowcake, secretly, from Niger.

From orwelltoday.com Section 16, The Ministry of Truth:

"If, for example, the Ministry of Plenty forecast a surplus, and in reality the result was grossly less, Winston's job was to change previous versions so the old version would agree with the new one. This process of continuous alteration was applied not only to newspapers, but to books, periodicals, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, films, sound-tracks, cartoons, photographs - to every kind of literature or documentation which might conceivably hold any political or ideological significance."

http://www.orwelltoday.com/truth.shtml

BTW, I'm also posting this exact comment on the blog piece about Obama scrubbing his website.

Dunn's exceptional article leaves out the ominous potential for the Left to fabricate, manipulate and delete electronic record. At the very least, mass confusion can be caused when nebulous entities engage in such tomfoolery. Examples can easily be found on Wikipedia, where global warmists monitor science entries to be sure they remain free of denier rebuffs.

whether you are on the left or right, you all are for maintaining a big government..it doesn't matter if it's a conservative government or a liberal government, there has been an exponential growth of a government...the neo-cons want to expand government programs to allow for an ever/always growing military/industrial/congressional/corrupt/complex. the liberals, on the other hand want to expand the ever growing enviromental/industrial/congressional/corrupt/complex. both idealogies demand welfare/warfare programs which are placing a crushing burden on the citizens in the form of higher taxes,inflation, regulations,mandates, costly compliances. the neo-cons say the growth of the STATE is necesarry for our security.they can't grasp the concept that government does not give us protection, only our beloved Constitution can do that... stalin, Hitler,Mao were all in favor of a strong centralized STATE power.we are seeing the same desire from both the Left and the Right.whether it's nationalism(uber alles[Reich] from the right or enviromentalism and socialism on the left..the citizens will be abused by an increasingly authoratarian STATE.The Military Commissions Act of 2006 is one example. the EPA is another. The Patriot Act,Home land Security apparatus, the "revised FISA Act. we are gonna lose prsonal liberty little by little...

I was wondering if maybe part of the problem here is, in fact, a memory issue, or possibly even plain ignorance. The propagandist here does seem to be forgetting a few very interesting points.

First, the goal of the left is an end to all violence, not the defeat of America, this may be a memory problem, or may be an agenda issue.

Next our resident propagandist seems to have also forgotten Moqtada al-Sadr's speech at the beginning of the surge that called for all of his followers to stop fighting, disable all existing road side bombs, disarm themselves, clean up the streets, and thank a soldier. Again, this could be a memory problem, or may be an agenda issue that does not find reason to point out that the surge had help from the enemy.

Our propagandist also seems to think it important to remember the Hue massacre, but not any of the massacres perpetrated by the south in an anti-communist purge, observed without intervention by US military commanders on all levels, and feverishly supported by the right. Selective memory, or an agenda?

We can examine more selective memory here in the Yellow Cake that has our propagandist in such an anti-left frenzy. Has it simply slipped his mind that this pile of uranium has been know about since 1991? Does he also forget that the claim Bush made was that Iraq was seeking to BUY Yellow cake from Africa, rather than that he already had it? Why the hype about buying it? Maybe because the yellow cake was old news and didn't indicate a new weapons program. Is it simply a case of selective memory, or is there a not so hidden agenda in this fanatical anti-left outburst?

There is clearly no doubt that our wonderful propagandist here has an agenda and it is not "always giving their opponents the benefit of the doubt". It seems as though selective memory runs in both parties. Each with their own agenda. This has not been a stroll down memory lane as JR would like you to believe, this is a obvious political attack, with an extremely selective memory.

Hypocrisy, or blind party loyalty?

They are all rhetorical questions, of course there is an agenda, that is why these memories are so carefully selected, by both parties.

john, I'm reading into your post that you disagree. I will assert that you are one of the targets of this article and that you are offended by its content.

Somehow it's okay for a website that is anti-Bush, anti-conservative, anti-capatalist, etc. to make wild assertions without fact or merit other than to say "it's because of Bush" (Bush, Cheney, Halliburton), but not okay for a conservative to have a similar to Pelosi, Reid, or Schumer?

The unsubstantiated assertions don't really require references, but if you are truly as open minded as you probably think you are then try watching CBS, NBC, ABC, or reading the NY Times and solving the problem "why would a person be mad about this news."

My guess is you won't because you can't, which is the whole point of the article.

One is reminded of the airbrushed photos from the Soviet Union. Widely published photos showed Soviet leaders, and successive photos appeared with one or more subjects removed. One series of photos shows the same image of Stalin with three others, then with two others, then with one other, and then with only Stalin. Some of the disappeared subjects in the Soviet-era photos were known to have been sent to Siberia, or taken out and shot.

Jeremiah Wright will probably not be taken out and shot, but Comrade Obama's long-time pastor and spiritual advisor, who officiated at his wedding and baptized his children, has been airbrushed out of Obama's history.

Obama's prediction that the surge in Iraq would fail and would even make things worse is also removed from his websites.

The real weakness of Socialists is that they are doctrinaire liars; Marxist philosophy rejected "bourgeois morality", including notions such as truth, honor, and personal integrity. The Socialists claim a "higher morality" that incorporates dishonesty and corruption; just read the NYT or watch the MSM, and you will immediately recognize "Socialist morality" at work. Dan Rather and the faked memos are an obvious example.

Socialist morality also presumes that everyone but the Socialist elite are all ignorant, fools, and knaves. But the non-elections of McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry were highly disconcerting to the Socialists, without causing them to question the nature of their view of the electorate. Still, Carter and Clinton are the only non-ideologue Leftists elected by the Dimocrats in the last forty years.

So, if you want to know who the ignorant, the fools, and the knaves are, just look for a supporter of Comrade Obama, who will join McGovern as a seriously failed presidential candidate. The Dimocratic dumb masses are in a self-destructive mode, confounded by their quaint and invalid Marxist philosophy and their identity politics.

This is a great article - detailing some of the many "amnesia" examples out there that I've found myself ranting about for a while.

It does help explain, though not dissipate, that horrible, sinking disappointment any non-Leftist feels when realizing that someone you'd thought was intelligent and well-informed, despite differing from you politically, endlessly regurgitates the Kool-Aid nourished slogans, false reporting, and ignorant history.

Unfortunately - and horrifyingly - this is especially common with most people I know who back Obama. You just want to throw up your hands when nothing - no matter how cut & dry - seems to dent the mantras about "change" and "listening and engaging in dialogue" and "trying something new" etc. People have bought into the image and personality so much that they absolutely DO NOT CARE what goes along with it...even if previously they disagreed with the things Obama now supports.

Did I mention ranting above?...Great article.

It never ceases to amaze me that people actually get duped into buying this kind of garbage. Talk about rubes! Wow! P. T. Barnum would have loooooooved this crowd.

I will go as far as to say that the article's central accusation leveled at the left is broadly true. Ignorance and apparent short-term memory failure are all too common. I can accept that fact easily, because observation shows me that it's true. But guess what? Observation also shows me that the charge is equally applicable to the right. We live in a dumbed-down nation, which is just the way the powerful like it. You know why? Because the people have no power if they are not well-informed. NEWSFLASH: The majority of the leaders on both ends of the political spectrum are liars and crooks! So naturally they'd rather have us divided than united. If you're buying into the red vs. blue sockpuppet theater, you're just a pawn in their game.

For someone to read this article and somehow fail to see the utter transparency of the ploy is just stunning. Do such people ever stop for an instant of honest self-reflection? Why can they not see that it is nothing but "ingroup/outgroup" bunkum designed to make them feel good about themselves for ridiculing others? Didn't we all live through this in grade school? You do know we're supposed to grow out of that, don't you? Those of you who bought into it really ought to make an effort to learn how to recognize propaganda. I mean, it wasn't even good propaganda.

The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. Particularly when you let him define your enemy for you.

Use your heads.

Matthew 7:3, you fools.

Robert McClain, what an excellent, excellent post!!!

The condition of Socrates touches upon a problem, familiar to all of us who have had experience with rightist or leftist intellectuals. Discussion is indeed impossible with a man who is intellectually dishonest, who misuses the rules of the game, who by irrelevant profuseness seeks to avoid being nailed down on a point, and who gains the semblance of victory by exhausting the time which sets an inevitable limit to a discussion. The only defense possible against such practices is the refusal to continue the discussion: and this refusal is socially difficult because it seems to violate the rules of comity and the freedom of speech.
--Eric Voegelin, Plato and Aristotle, p. 26.

An interesting point Megapotamus brings up on the more centrist elements in the Democratic party sharing in the successes of the Bush administration. I could picture a White House press conference later this year before the election in which President Bush publicly lists all the successes achieved in Iraq, announces the withdrawal of more troops from Iraq, thanks the armed forces for a job well done, and also thanks all those in Congress who showed the courage to vote for and voted for the authorization to take action against the brutal, now ex-tyrant Saddam Hussein, enabling his removal, and allowing a relatively free country to rise up and displace a brutal tyranny, and what's more, serve as a model that other nations in the region can copy for themselves. And maybe even name everyone who voted for the authorization.

Excellent article!! Concise and well woven.

It is all about being herded into an areana of control.

The selective amnesia extends to the very reason that the original Gulf War started, back in 1991. Anyone remember Nurse Nayirah, the fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti refugee girl who testified in front of the United States Congress that she saw Iraqi soldiers dumping Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators and leaving them to die? Six Senators said the testimony was enough to convince them to support military action against Iraq, and the Senate then supported military action in a 52-47 vote.

What everyone's forgotten was that Nayirah turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States, and had been coached by a public relations firm hired by the Kuwaiti government to gain support for its cause. Her story turned out to be entirely unsubstantiated.

Despite the lie, America went on with the war.

Wonderful article, but as others mentioned before me, the Left it at it again full steam ahead by trying to shut down talk radio.

One historical event is just countered with another historical event, related or not. The person on the right gets dragged into a different direction. I hear this all the time on the radio; even great minds like Dennis Prager get sucked in. Dennis is always right, but I never hear him convince his opponent to change their point. Every moment has an infinite number of historical events. Clarity is lost in the fog and time is too short.

One small problem, PaulT, is that your assertions do not fit the facts. Somehow, you must have avoided them.

The British documents that President Bush alluded to, in his 2002 State of the Union Address, were about the Congo, not Niger. British Intelligence claims to this day that the document are true, therefore Bush did not lie. So, the left confuses the issue by talking about the wrong country in Africa.

When Joe Wilson was sent to Niger, he reported back orally to his bosses in the CIA that he did hear of Saddam's agents seeking Yellowcake. But, eight months later, he lies in his article to the New York Times, that he found no such evidence. The Senate Select Intelligence Committee called Joe Wilson a liar.

What the Left are engaged in is FUD; the fear, uncertainty and doubt that a propagandist places in their readers mind. The propagandist knows the facts but wants to cover them up and substitute false evidence which supports their political positions. The problem is that our educational establishment has trained people to be gullible.

But, as Abraham Lincoln said, "You cannot fool all the people all the time." The cure for being a fool is to be constantly and embarrassingly proven wrong. That is why the Mainstream Press tries so hard to cover up the truth. That way they never have to admit their past failures. Their problem is that the Left is running out of fools. Young people no longer believe in what they read.

But, this is a slow process--one fool wises up at a time.