Video: Ingraham asks Colmes, “Why are you carrying water for the mullahs?”

Colmes’ line of argument is typical for the modern-day left/liberal: start with an ideologically and emotionally-based preconclusion, then work backwards through rationalizations to try to force it into some semblance of logic.

In this particular instance, Colmes begins with the underlying preconclusion that the Iranians’ behavior doesn’t arise from their own agenda, but is either spontaneous (i.e., the Iranian government can’t control rogue elements among the Revolutionary Guards), or reflexive (i.e., if only we’d talk with them more, they wouldn’t engage in unprovoked acts of war).

Then he proceeds to work backwards to rationalize his conlcusion, dismissing Laura’s agruments as “speculation” while building equally speculative excuses for the Iranians’ behavior.

You can tell that Laura really hit a nerve when she nailed him for “carrying the Iranians’ water for them,” because Colmes himself knew that was exactly what he was in effect doing: not because he’s “pro-Iranian,” so much as his ideology forbids him from admitting that critics of the Iranians’ behavior (who are largely aligned with political conservatism) could have a valid point.

To sum up Colmesian Reasoning:

“1. Bush bad;
2. Blair allied with Bush, so Blair bad, too;
3. Bush can do no right, so neither can anyone allied with him;
4. Iranians not good, but opposed to Bush/Blair, so they’re preferable to Bush/Blair in any confrontation between the two;
5. Iranians take Brisith hostages; but I can’t admit that Iranians bad for doing so, because it might make Bush/Blair look even a little bit right/good;
6. Ergo, must support Iranians’ side of the story;
7. And if anyone points out that I’m standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Iranian hostage-takers, I’ll deflect the criticism by pointing out that it’s OK because I’m not embracing them while I’m standing next to them.”

Dean Barnett today, in his posting, “An American War?” observes the same liberal ideological backwardness on Hugh Hewitt’s blog (http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/). It’s worth reading in entirety, but the upshot is:

If you’ve gotten the sense that parts of the left and the Democratic Party are rooting against the war effort, now you know why. In their eyes, it’s not an American war; it’s a Republican one. And since it’s solely a Republican struggle, why not root against it? After all, if it goes poorly, the Democratic Party will surely prosper as a result.

Spurius Ligustinus on March 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM