deconstructing the moonbat line over iraq

for other news article pages, visit the news archive page (click on the button to the left)
deconstruction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

This is the eighth in a series of documents that analyse manipulative writing techniques used by reporters, and others, in order to promote their own political agendas.

islamic authoritarianism

statistics

deconstructing the moonbat line over iraq

LA Times editorial:

“[...] allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

“Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer [...]”
—
“It is beyond the realms of possibility for Saddam to be re-instated. Bush and Blair could not stomach the humiliation.”

But of course socialists and jihadis will never-the-less yearn for it, and seek to justify it. Here follows the further diatribe from a sample moonbat, stimulated by the above editorial:

“But Iraq will get a new strong man, [...]”

So, we have a string of foolish assertions as a fall-back position.

Anything but admit to the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the socialist and jihadi world views.

“[...] the only question is which one of those waiting in the wings it will be. I suspect the criminal Ilyad Allawi.”

And so the socialists and jihadis, yearning for a person with such negative attributes, light upon the nearest vague target they can conjure up and attribute those desired attributes to them.

Of course, no evidence will be proffered by the moonbat; as usual, just some empty assertion allied with some vague accusation such as ‘criminal’.

The important thing is to throw sand - to distract from the reality as the democratic government of Iraq increasingly gains control.

“According to Greenstock tonight, Iraq is in civil war - more and more people are now admitting that. Some still in denial.”

Then raise some obscure name with a similar political agenda, even make up a name if that is too difficult. Truth is quite irrelevant to socialists or jihadis. Only the agenda counts.

Use vague rhetoric without definition like “civil war”, vague undefined hordes, like “more people” “admitting”, the existence of that vague alleged state. It always helps to inject some psycho-babble word the socialist or jihadi does not really commprehend - say “denial”.

“The political game plan now is to cut/run but make it look like success.”

Then use some pseudo-management buzz words like “game plan” and talk of “cut/run” to describe the process of handing over political control to said democratic leadership. That is, call the original stated objectives of removing the mad socialist dictator and replacing his disastrous regime with a new democratic order, “cut/run”.

“Two huge questions remain unanswered a) will the US attempt to retain large military bases there against the wishes of the majority of Iraqi [...]”

Then pretend to speak for “the majority of Iraqi people” in order to cover yourself against the probability that the new democratic government will continue to ask for coalition forces and seek co-operation with the West for the future. Just as German and Japanese governments have sought American bases and the security and the protection they bring, and that when any country. Say Saudis ask for removal, the bases are immediately removed.

Always remember, dishonesty is a way of life for lefties.

“and b) will the US accept direct responsibility for repairing the huge damage it has caused - and pay the cost in dollars.”

And then make yet another distractive comment to avoid mentioning the billions already fed into improving the lot of Iraq, or Germany, or dozens of other countries, and suggest the real reason was to steal a couple of billion $s of oil, which is, of course, not ‘stolen’ but paid for.