Looking at the 'front page' of the Washington Post website, I was struck by the cognitive dissonance that was revealed by the happy juxtaposition of two tangentially related stories -- one placed directly above the other. I wonder whether John McCain would see the irony?
Go below "the fold" to see what I mean (please forgive the cut-and-paste job...I don't know how to do the whole image capture thing):
McCain Advisers Slam Obama
The Trail | Advisers blast Obama as "naive" and "delusional" in his approach to terrorism.
Anne E. Kornblut | 11:11 a.m. ET
Israel, Hamas Agree to Truce
After months of Egyptian mediation, Israel and Hamas agree to stop attacks in Gaza Strip.
Griff Witte | 11:38 a.m. ET
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What lessons are we to draw from this quick glance at the headlines?
If Obama is ""naive" and "delusional" in his approach to terrorism", what labels must we throw around to describe the Israeli leadership? Are we going to call Ehud Olmert "naive" and "delusional", or even worse?
Does John McCain even feel the cognitive dissonance created by his attacks on Obama for suggesting there is room for diplomacy, coming at a time when Israel is negotiating, through intermediaries, with Hamas AND Hezbollah? Not to mention holding direct discussions with Syrian diplomats? Israel is taking the bold step to see if its security can be increased by reaching agreements with its enemies, rather than resorting to military strikes that have not ended terrorist strikes. Should the U.S. not even consider similarly thoughtful, less reactive approaches to dealing with our enemies? If Israel can reach an agreement with Hamas, is it so far-fetched that we might talk to Iran and change the dynamics of our dispute?
In truth, I expect that John McCain doesn't really believe his own attack lines. He must surely prefer negotiation to war. He has said war can only be a last resort. If that's so, then he must believe that we have to exhaust all avenues of diplomacy first. So, we must conclude that his attacks on Obama are simply cynical politics. That's what makes the coincidental placement and timing of these two stories so deliciously ironic, as they create such delightful cognitive dissonance for McCain to contend with.
The cognitive dissonance exists because McCain is determined to spread the "Big Lie". If you accept the principle of the "Big Lie", then truth matters less than self-interest. The truth of his argument is irrelevant, because the Big Lie is believed if told often enough and loud enough. Because the GOP believes they can create an election issue to use against Obama, we can expect to hear this plaint over and over again -- no matter how false it proves to be. But, if we can show that this attack really is false -- that it's just a wrong-headed view of the world, this issue will lose its fangs. Let us hope that Israel continues to provide us with ever more evidence that this attack is just another Big Lie.