Liberal Wacko, Montana Division

Republicans revise history, people not buying it.
August 18, 2006, 2:38 am
Filed under: Denial, Montana Blogs

I watched a parody of FOX news on Saturday Night Live a couple of weeks ago. It was a takeoff on “The O’Reilly Factor” and even featured the news scroll along the bottom of the screen. One of the headlines rolling by said: “President Kennedy declares himself a Republican posthumously”.

Revisionist history. Republicans rely on it to justify their poor judgement on everything from 9/11 to Iraq. (note: Iraq had no role in 9/11). Locally, we hear revisionist history applied to power deregulation (it was the Democrats fault! -or- the feds tricked us into doing it! etc.).

A string of posts over at WRiM demonstrate this beautifully.
Original justification for Iraq war: WMDs.

New Justification (thanks Neo):

Here’s the logical case that Iraq is a part of the war on terror. I invite the Dems to poke holes in it.

1) The “War on Terror” is defined as a war (an armed struggle) against terrorists (individuals who seek to affect political change by committing violence against large groups of randomly selected civilians).

2) Palestinian suicide bombers are terrorists under that definition. So were these, Neo. I bet you won’t be defending that war, will you?

3) Saddam Hussein directly supported those suicide bombers. He paid $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber who killed himself in the act of killing Israelis. Hussein discussed this himself, it’s not a point that was ever in dispute. No doubt Saddam was a menace and mass murderer. But as to your point, why didn’t we invade Palestine?

4) Ending the Hussein regime directly attacked (one of the) the sources of funding to suicide bombers.

5) The war in Iraq ended the Hussein regime. And gave rise to Al Qaeda in Iraq. A terrorist organization that didn’t exist there before the war.

So, the war in Iraq was an armed struggle that directly attacked the funding of individuals who seek to affect political change by committing random acts of violence against civilians.

In other words, it turns out the war in Iraq was an effort to stop the funding of Palestinian suicide bombers.

And you thought it was to stop the production of WMDs.

More on WRiM’s revisionist history tomorrow, as we explore how Reagan gutted the intelligence gathering capability of the CIA in favor of satellites that could take close up pictures of license plates from space.

Consider it poked, Neo.


6 Comments so far
Leave a comment

[…] Wacko Lib sees one of the gang at WRiM giving a different justification for the Iraq war than we heard pre-war. […]

Pingback by Sleight of hand at Speedkill

when you can’t stay awake it must be hard to remember what’s actually happened

Comment by troutburst

I’m in a blogging mood tonight, so I thought I’d come over here and see whether you’re interested in real debate, or just scoring points against straw men (ask Shane).

As it happens, I never said the war in Iraq was originally intended to interdict Palestinian terrorism. I simply made the point that such interdiction was one consequence of the war.

Let’s go through the rest of your points:

First claim: A link intended to illustrate that the Iraq war has caused harm to large groups of civilians — possibly an attempt to prove that the war itself is terrorism, but this point is never directly made.

Response: Surely I don’t need to tell you that the overwhelming majority of deaths in Iraq have been caused by the insurgents — terrorists. However, there have undoubtedly been civilian casualties caused by American and coalition forces as well, so let’s deal with that. The difference between just war and terrorism is that in a just war, civilian casualties are a tragic but unavoidable consequence. To a terrorist, they are the desired outcome. I doubt you’re claiming that civilian casualties were the desired outcome of the American and coalition forces. If you are, we’ll come back to that.

More to the point, how does this somehow disprove my point that the war in Iraq is an armed struggle against individuals who seek to affect political change by afflicting violence on civilians?

Second claim: A link to the wiki article about ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, and an assertion that I would not have supported the effort against them.

Response: Any good lawyer will tell you not to ask a question to which you do not know the answer. As it happens I did support America and NATO’s military efforts to end the Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia. For the record, in case it ever comes up, I also supported Clinton’s intervention in Haiti, and I urged action in Rwanda as well. Unlike some, my foreign policy beliefs remain the same whether a Republican or a Democrat is in office.

And again, aside from being an uninformed personal attack on me, I fail to see how this bears on the original point I made.

Third claim: Why didn’t we invade Palestine? Once again: another situation that would merit US action, and I agree with you that we should do something there as well. But how does saying “We should do C!” somehow contradict my claim that “A achieved B.”?

Fourth claim: Hussein was only one of the sources of funding for suicide bombers.

True. Iran is another, and America should do something there.

Fifth claim: The Iraq War spawned more terrorism than it ended, in the form of “Al Quaeda in Iraq.”.

I don’t have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove this claim, but I accept it as true for the sake of argument. However, you neglect the fact that the war is far from over. And even if it were over, this point would only prove “The Iraq war was an armed struggle against terrorists but it failed,” it would not disprove the original claim: “the Iraq war is an armed struggle against terrorists.”

None of this is revisionist history — except the part about you making up whatever you want about my beliefs. I did not alter a single historical fact. If you think I have, state it specifically.

I originally made that post to refute a claim by Jon Tester, who said that the war in Iraq was not part of the war on terror. My point is that, whether one likes the war or hates it, whether one hopes we win or lose, there can be little debate — at least not based in fact and logic — that the Iraq war is a war on terror.

Foolishly, I persist in my belief that there is an interest in genuine debate between principles, facts, and logic. Perhaps someday someone’s going to come around and offer it.

Comment by NeoMadison

“Surely I don’t need to tell you that the overwhelming majority of deaths in Iraq have been caused by the insurgents” How did the insurgent violence begin? Oh, that right, we INVADED IRAQ because of their non-existent WMDs.

Bosnia was referred to as a distraction by many in your party. While you may have supported the action, many of your readers did not.

“But how does saying “We should do C!” somehow contradict my claim that “A achieved B.”?”
“B” was not our goal. What was our goal again? And what were the reasons for the war? This is nothing more than covering for a misguided effort to affect change in a foriegn government through violence. The middle east had issues long before Saddam.

You deserve a better arguement from me, Neo. The truth is, I am just too tired to respond tonight. I will get back to you on this. And try not to take my post as a personal attack. It is not intended as such. You invited poking, I poked.

Comment by wackolib


Comment by name

Good day!,

Comment by name

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: