Hey! I'm a historian!
Jun. 16th, 2003 04:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoA revisionist historian, no less. Or so says Mr. Bush. Here's the full report, from the Reuters feed:
"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.
Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."
The problem with this, of course, is that it implies that somehow some of us are singing a different tune than we were when the war started, or during the long buildup. It implies that no one called Mr. Bush on his lack of credibility.
Well... Here's what I posted back in October, newly found because of the site indexing I'm using from FreeFind:
A few impertinent questions from this self-identified conservative:
* Yer right, Mr. Mouthpiece-of-the-Cabinet Man -- Saddam Hussein has ruthlessly killed lots of people. So, umm... what may we infer from the fact that he hasn't used weapons of mass destruction since the Gulf "War"? If he had them, wouldn't he be using them?
* Remember the Israeli bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor, back in 1981? The nuclear reactor that to this day doesn't work because of that bombing... which is why if Saddam does get nukes, it'll because he purchased fissile material, and not made it on his own? Right. So... what may we infer from the fact that the Israelis haven't made one move toward bombing Iraq for over two decades? Why is Israel's biggest worry about Iraq the possibility of being hit as a proxy -- as a substitute for direct retaliation against the US -- should we attack Iraq?
* Why is it the US Cabinet seems more afraid of letting inspectors into Iraq and finding nothing, than the Iraqis appear to be afraid that said inspectors will find anything? In other words, why is the US more resistent to the idea of inspectors than Iraq is?
* When Bush is directed by the Cabinet to say, "We will disarm" Hussein... shouldn't at least some evidence be presented that Hussein has the relevant arms? And wouldn't that evidence best be gathered by, um... inspectors? Wouldn't it be embarrassing to send the Army to Iraq, and find nothing? Or is the Army going to be directed to borrow a few prosecutorial techniques from the Rampart Division of the LAPD?
Yes. Wouldn't it be embarrassing, indeed?
October. I was saying this in October 2002.
"Revisionist", my ass.
"Now there are some who would like to rewrite history; revisionist historians is what I like to call them," Bush said in a speech to New Jersey business leaders.
Referring to the ousted Iraqi president, Bush said, "Saddam Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003. He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted."
The problem with this, of course, is that it implies that somehow some of us are singing a different tune than we were when the war started, or during the long buildup. It implies that no one called Mr. Bush on his lack of credibility.
Well... Here's what I posted back in October, newly found because of the site indexing I'm using from FreeFind:
A few impertinent questions from this self-identified conservative:
* Yer right, Mr. Mouthpiece-of-the-Cabinet Man -- Saddam Hussein has ruthlessly killed lots of people. So, umm... what may we infer from the fact that he hasn't used weapons of mass destruction since the Gulf "War"? If he had them, wouldn't he be using them?
* Remember the Israeli bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor, back in 1981? The nuclear reactor that to this day doesn't work because of that bombing... which is why if Saddam does get nukes, it'll because he purchased fissile material, and not made it on his own? Right. So... what may we infer from the fact that the Israelis haven't made one move toward bombing Iraq for over two decades? Why is Israel's biggest worry about Iraq the possibility of being hit as a proxy -- as a substitute for direct retaliation against the US -- should we attack Iraq?
* Why is it the US Cabinet seems more afraid of letting inspectors into Iraq and finding nothing, than the Iraqis appear to be afraid that said inspectors will find anything? In other words, why is the US more resistent to the idea of inspectors than Iraq is?
* When Bush is directed by the Cabinet to say, "We will disarm" Hussein... shouldn't at least some evidence be presented that Hussein has the relevant arms? And wouldn't that evidence best be gathered by, um... inspectors? Wouldn't it be embarrassing to send the Army to Iraq, and find nothing? Or is the Army going to be directed to borrow a few prosecutorial techniques from the Rampart Division of the LAPD?
Yes. Wouldn't it be embarrassing, indeed?
October. I was saying this in October 2002.
"Revisionist", my ass.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-06-17 02:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-17 04:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-06-17 07:01 pm (UTC)Clunky, but it is one of my own.
Trouble is, all the data we've received since October on this matter has been, um... Not enough to change the original assessment.
{shrug}
Other points
Date: 2003-06-17 09:54 am (UTC)I'm more worried now than I was before the invasion. Thank you Mr. Bush.
Re: Other points
Date: 2003-06-17 07:08 pm (UTC)I agree that a random dispersal of WMDs is a bad thing.
But, if we take the optimistic point-of-view that the Administration is pursuing its policies deliberately (and not just winging it), then the very lack of any urgency on this is yet more evidence the Adninistration doesn't take the threat seriously, regardless of what they say in public.
Put more bluntly -- odds are, the Administration didn't worry about the reactor being ransacked because they already knew there was nothing of concern there. Just as in the same way they didn't mind dangling the troops in front of any alleged WMDs during the march up the Tigris-Euphrates valley, because, again, they knew there was no threat.
{shrug}