On the Other Hand, Sometimes There Is No Other Hand 0
On of the dumber aspects of our current jounanimalism is the belief that for every “yes,” there is a “but”–that for every truth there is an equal and opposite truth.
I saw a particularly egregious example of this earlier this week in a column that otherwise appeared to be a quite sane; it discussed President Obama’s release of his birth certificate (which of course followed the release of his birth certificate in 2008). You can read the whole thing at the link; here’s the bit that set me thinking:
Of course, before you go off and believe in some conspiracy theory that nearly half of all Republicans are nuts, it’s important to note that more than half of all Democrats might be nuts, too.
About a third of Americans, again, suspect that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or failed to stop them so the U.S. could go to war in the Middle East.
And a majority of Democrats think President Bush may have known about the attacks in advance: 35 percent said he did know and another 26 percent weren’t sure but were, you know, keeping an open mind to the idea the president willingly let Americans die to benefit his Halliburton buddies.
He is unable to address the loonies on the right without positing equal and opposite loonies on the left.
But, despite his attempt to find a “but” for his “yes,” those loonies aren’t there, not as he has characterized them.
And here’s The Rest of The Story:
President Bush was informed in the Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001, that Al Qaeda wanted to mount an attack on U. S. soil. You can see a copy of the redacted briefing memo here. It went so far as to include, then dismiss as fanciful, intelligence rumors that an attack using airplanes was being contemplated.
This is certainly not the same as being told that
An attack is scheduled for the 11th next
Respondez, s’il vous plait
Nevertheless, it tells us that the President was warned of the possibility of an attack, though the warning does not warn of imminent attack. To respond to a poll by saying that President Bush was aware of a possible attack is not delusional lunacy, because President Bush had been told about a possible attack, for Pete’s sake.
It may be extreme, because, had President Bush taken the memorandum to indicate immediate danger, he no doubt would have done something (likely the wrong something, given his track record, but something)–it may be extreme, but not looney.
In contrast, the beliefs of the birthers, the 911 Truthers, the Sharia Law scaremongers, and the others of that ilk are looney, regardless of the painstakingly logical cockamamie arguments based on false postulates that they marshal to support them.
You will not find any prominent Democrats, certainly not any who might be seen as potential candidates for national office, espousing a 911 conspiracy involving President Bush. The worst they might allege is that President Bush was wrong to discount the August 6 memo in favor of continuing to plot the Glorious and Patriotic War for a Lie in Iraq.
Contrast this to how recognized Republican leaders, along with public figures who identify themselves with and bang the drums for the Republican Party–many of whom from platforms at major mainstream media outlets, such as the Washington Post–encourage and abet the birthers and their fellow loonies.
Truly, there are extremes on both the left and the right, but the quality, quantity, intensity, and depth of the screwiness on the right dwarfs that anywhere else on the spectrum.
On the one hand, the Republican Party, while maintaining its traditional role as the party of privilege, has also made itself into the party of bigoted nutzoid whackos.
On the other hand, sometimes there is no other hand.
