Revisionist History

[HankMorgan]

Peter Wehner writing in OpinionJournal (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008415).

"In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded. It is not as if the WMD stockpile question was one that wasn't going to be answered for a century to come."

[HankMorgan]

"These, then, are the urban legends we must counter, else falsehoods become conventional wisdom. And what a strange world it is: For many antiwar critics, the president is faulted for the war, and he, not the former dictator of Iraq, inspires rage. The liberator rather than the oppressor provokes hatred. It is as if we have stepped through the political looking glass, into a world turned upside down and inside out."

That was a little more from Mr. Wehner.


I was just reading a piece from the AP about how the world's reaction to US efforts in Iraq are limiting the US's ability to deal with Iran's march to nuclear weapons. If that's the way it is then to hell with it. Let the mad men have the nuclear weapons. Let the genocide continue in Darfur. It's time for Atlas to shrug.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Yawn, more apologism, give me a damn good reason why I shouldn't trash this waste of pixels.

[redstar2000]

This is garbage, Hank. We;ve seen the films in recent weeks of what American "liberators" have done in Iraq. You might just as well speak of Hitler as the "liberator of Poland".

That some asshat on the Wall Street Journal defends U.S. imperialism is hardly any surprise.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[LSD]

In addition, no serious person would justify a war based on information he knows to be false and which would be shown to be false within months after the war concluded.

Why the hell not?

Once the troops are on the ground, and the occupation's begun, it's so much easier to defend "staying the course". After all, we wouldn't want to "cut and run"... :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter how flimsy the initial excuse was, once the war's begun, it perpatuates itself; and the US government is certainly experienced in "controlling the story".

No WMD's to be found? No problem, it never really mattered anyway, it was all ...um.... about liberation! And it was all the CIAs fault anyway! We're not going to actually blame anyone specifically, but just accept that it was an intelligence "mistake" and move on...

After all, Saddaam was a "bad guy" so if you don't support American imperialism in Iraq, you must be a "bad guy" too! Maybe you even support genocide! :o Maybe you even KILL BABIES!!! :o :lol:

Honestly, the idea that anyone can still support this "war" is so fucking pathetic. After all the revelations and all the exposition, that there are still people desperate enough and naive enough to "trust" in their "leaders" is yet another tragic example of the corrosiveness of nationalism.

And seriously, Hank, what the fuck was the point of this thread? Did you really think that this nonsensical propaganda piece (and from the Wall Street Journal no less!) was going to convince anyone? :lol:

[Severian]

It's always funny when somebody tries to use "revisionist history" as a dirty word, anyway.

Historians' understanding of a period is often "revised"; sometimes repeatedly. As new information is uncovered, and old information reconsidered, it's inevitable. The "revisionist" understanding is often more accurate than the old one.

Maybe this use of "revisionist" as a dirty word comes from the way Holocaust deniers sometimes describe themselves as "Holocaust revisionists"; but that's an inaccurate and euphemistic description.