For each and every statement of fact, a transformative statement of value can be produced from the rightwing ideological library. For example, Wilson's statement of fact wasn't a fact at all. It was a betrayal of trust, and as such, it had to be punished by another betrayal.
It takes a certain amount of practice to apply this art, but once it is mastered, it automatically generates an ocean of rationales, justifications, explanations, and interpretations of `facts'. The over arching understanding in this world system is that there are no facts. Every fact is merely a question of differing interpretations, differing orders of value. It is a given in advance that there is no objective world or fact based reality `out there'.
==========
Yes.
Thank you for this. It shines new light on the way my debates with pro Bush folks have unfolded.
Briefly, the order of things usually moves along like so:
Me: Iraq was not a threat to the US. The invasion, not an act of preemptive self defense, was illegal and unjustified.
Bushevik: If it were up to you, Saddam would still be in power, gassing and torturing his people.
The statement of fact is answered, deflected actually, with a value statement.
Needless to say, debate is almost surely impossible when simple facts are irrelevant to your adversary.
...
Of course, the universe doesn't suffer fools gladly. The ability to realistically evaluate information is a critical survival skill. The cultivation of the politically potent skill of hiding behind an endlessly expanding complex of concentric circles, each providing some new justification for criminality and illogic, is on-the-job training for extinction.
Eventually (as in the cases of Iraq and Katrina) some genuine challenge arises that requires actually existing knowledge, not talking points.
.d.