On apologies

Posted by Mike @ 11:00 AM Sunday, 7 January 2007 • Category: The Loony Left

Allah explains (more here) why any apology to the Left — over Jamilgate specifically, which is still far from resolved, but you could apply it to plenty else — is futile, and worse than a waste of time:

I explicitly acknowledged that we were wrong about Hussein and apologized to our readers for having led them on a not-so-wild wild-goose chase. Does Media Matters link to that post? Of course not, because that wouldn’t fit their narrative. Instead they link to a post of mine from December answering Eric Boehlert’s columns about Jamilgate. They’re hoping their readers won’t actually follow the links but will instead simply deduce from the headlines they’ve provided that we responded to the new revelation about Hussein by picking on Eric Boehlert to change the subject. It’s a naked lie.

And just so we’re clear, I stand by every word of that December post. My point there was that the left doesn’t care if Hussein exists or not. They simply don’t care, and that’s been borne out by their reaction. Their interest in this story begins and ends with its usefulness as a gotcha against the right. One lefty blogger I read actually admitted that she didn’t know any of the details of the story — but felt moved to comment on it anyway. QED.

To borrow a favorite phrase from my favorite shameless, discredited sock puppeteer, Rick Ellison McEllensburg: this is who they are, and this is what they do.

And that’s why I said what I said yesterday: yes, some of us were wrong in asserting that the “Lonely Kerry” photo was evidence of his unpopularity with the military. That mistake was an honest one; all the same, it shouldn’t be minimized or glossed over. But the truth is, the Left was never going to engage in good faith on the real point anyway, and those of us who didn’t know that…should’ve.

I’ve said many times here that there’s no point in trying to discuss anything rationally with them anymore (there are exceptions, mind), and there’s certainly never been any point in responding to accusations of lying or misfeasance hurled by misfeasant liars. The Left’s aim in what they’re pleased to call “debate” is not to forthrightly endeavor to establish the truth of most any proposition you could name; their aim is to advance their statist, progressivist, anti-American, Tranzi agenda. And they never, ever lose sight of that aim.

They’re justly known for using any and every rhetorical trick they can to keep their opponents off balance, and we’ve seen example after example of it right here. Just try arguing some point or other with one of the slippery bastards — you’ll be dizzy from the way the ground keeps shifting under your feet, and if you start out discussing Social Security reform, you’ll end up arguing over whether Bush was AWOL from the TANG before you’re done. The strawmen are pushing those wheeled goalposts along, and the authorities-appealed-to are busily dulling Occam’s Razor, with a crowd of sock-puppets shouting out ad hominems to cheer ’em along and drown out all dissenting opinion. The capital-T Truth at issue — in this case, that the AP is sensationalistically reporting stories of disaster and atrocity in Iraq, without due diligence and adequate verification, in order to buttress their antiwar bias; and in the other, that Kerry is extremely unpopular with most military personnel — is left in the dust and noise of this blockhead circus of sophistry and cheap point-scoring.

Allahpundit and others were far too quick to offer their necks to a pack of baying hyenas whose only real interest is most assuredly not in the healing of the wound. The Repubs make the same mistake when they yield to meaningless talk of “bipartisanship” and “working together” from those who from the outset intend on neither, and every time they do they end up shocked — shocked! — to find the handle of a knife sticking out from between their shoulder blades. As someone else is fond of saying: it’s what they are, and it’s what they’ve been doing since at least the 60’s.

Not that we should disregard the truth ourselves, of course. We should strive to stick to the facts as we know them; when we make a mistake, it surely ought to be acknowledged. But apologies? Not unless there is simply no question that they’re deserved, as in the case of outright slander, which I haven’t seen much if any of from our side.

I understand the impulse to want to be able to work with these people — they’re our countrymen, at least nominally, and if they’d move even an inch in the direction of real compromise we could probably make some progress — but the trouble is, the Left doesn’t “work with” anybody; they either win, or they lose. I am far more interested in making sure they don’t win than I am in “getting along” with them. And I’m not in the least interested in earning the respect of liars, frauds, and arrogant little would-be Stalins. I repeat, for them: I got your apology. Swingin’.

Update! More proof, as if any were needed, that when they can’t assail (or dare not approach) the actual point, they’ll just make up another they can more easily deal with, and falsely attribute it to their opponent. More proof, as if any were needed, that attempts at “dialogue” are worse than a waste of time.

There just ain’t a cluebat big enough. Some concrete is just too thick.

Updated update! The logic fails.” Does it ever.

Am I saying that ugly or troubling stories should not be reported? Of course not. But they must be true.

Except for the guardians of all Freedom and Truth on the Left, for whom being “Correct” will more than suffice.

Share
  1.  
    SDN
    1/7/2007 | 8:30 PM
     

    the Left doesn’t “work with” anybody; they either win, or they lose.

    Which is why I am convinced that Civil War II is a necessity. Look at the history of what happens when the Left gets power, from the French Revolution on. Anyone they label an enemy is dead.

  2.  
    Jimmy Mack
    1/8/2007 | 12:30 AM
     
    Make no mistake: Jamilgate is one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in quite a while. What the AP did was simply shameful and it betrays their ultimate sympthies -- which lie with the insurgency, clearly. What do you expect, I guess, given that they are owned by the French company Ipsos? Even so, this is outrageous, worse than Rathergate.
  3.  
    buzz harsher
    1/8/2007 | 11:30 AM
     
    Twice now has the Right been played for chumps in the rhetorical game.

    Before the invasion of Iraq, the argument focussed on the question of WMDs. When the WMDs were not found, the Right lost the debate. This, despite being correct about every other justification for the invasion.

    In the Jamil Hussein affair, the argument focussed on the existence of said central character. When this fellow turned out to exist, the Right lost the debate. Again, despite being correct about the underlying story.

    This situation arises from two causes, I think. The first is the proficiency of the Left in this field of battle, and their control over the major conduits of information. The second is the failure of many blogs to think a couple of steps ahead, and to notice when a debate is tracking down the wrong path. When an argument becomes tied to a single hook, it's in trouble when that hook weakens or fails.

    The Right's approach to this should have been to remain focussed on the primary point, that of the incorrectness of the reportage, and the collection of _more_ supporting facts. The existence of Jamil Hussein should have remained peripheral: one of many supporting arguments.

  4.  
    1/11/2007 | 11:55 AM
     
    [...] Remember just last week, when the libs were hooting and gibbering like apes, huffing and puffing and indignantly demanding apologies from all and sundry over the Jamilgate matter? Remember how some of us said the whole business was in no way resolved, just because the AP and a smattering of liberals with a vested interest in propping up the liberal propaganda machine said it was? [...]

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.