Revisionism
George W. Bush gave the commencement address at West Point yesterday. Talking about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, he said:
Has he never stopped to wonder just how a regime that had no WMD was supposed to disarm themselves? Has he completely erased his memory of UN inspectors that were on the ground in Iraq until he told them to git? Of Saddam destroying missles that the UN had deemed exceeded its limitations? Of Iraq delivering a huge pile of documents about the moribund WMD programs?
And has he forgotten who made the leap from "serious consequences", presumably to be determined by the Security Council after extensive negotiation and deliberation, to "shock and awe" on his own initiative? He can try to wrap himself in the cloak of UN authority, but the claim that our invasion had UN authorization has always been a stretch. Does he think we haven't noticed by now that the uniformed forces occupying Iraq are not wearing blue helmets? And that the bill, in blood and treasure, is on the US tab?
This is the way they do it. They lie, and they continue to lie. When the lies are exposed, they may be shelve them for a while, and then, after the news of exposure fades, they bring the lies back out again, counting on the people's poor memory to do the rest. 'Oh, yeah, I've heard that before, it must be true."
They understand enough about the habits of the media to know that, more often than not, they won't be challenged. Just keep repeating the lies with just enough 'truthiness' and eventually they will become lodged in collective memory, and replace the truth.
The news stories about the West Point address don't say "President Bush continued to misrepresent the invasion of Iraq during an address to graduating cadets at West Point this weekend." The New York Times mentions that he offered no new policy and repeated the themes of his addresses from the last five years. As if we've learned nothing in the last few years that would make such repetition deplorable.
(Perhaps they were too stunned to comment, after Bush grandly compared himself to Harry Truman. Apparently he missed the most obvious parallel, excessive claims of war powers.)
The AP doesn't mention the revisionism at all. Instead, they chose to report Bush's main theme that fighting terrorism was like fighting communism, and that he was following in the footsteps of Truman, just as the President said it. Just as if it made sense. Just as if he were an established authority on history and foreign policy, instead of the reverse. Just as if he were a patriot, and not actively subverting centuries of American tradition and jurisprudence every day.
Did they think Bush's confabulation wasn't news, or did they just not realize that Bush's story just isn't the way it happened?
When the United Nations Security Council gave him one final chance to disclose and disarm, or face serious consequences, he refused to take that final opportunity. So coalition forces went into Iraq and removed his cruel regime.He said this yesterday. Do you suppose he really believes this?
Has he never stopped to wonder just how a regime that had no WMD was supposed to disarm themselves? Has he completely erased his memory of UN inspectors that were on the ground in Iraq until he told them to git? Of Saddam destroying missles that the UN had deemed exceeded its limitations? Of Iraq delivering a huge pile of documents about the moribund WMD programs?
And has he forgotten who made the leap from "serious consequences", presumably to be determined by the Security Council after extensive negotiation and deliberation, to "shock and awe" on his own initiative? He can try to wrap himself in the cloak of UN authority, but the claim that our invasion had UN authorization has always been a stretch. Does he think we haven't noticed by now that the uniformed forces occupying Iraq are not wearing blue helmets? And that the bill, in blood and treasure, is on the US tab?
This is the way they do it. They lie, and they continue to lie. When the lies are exposed, they may be shelve them for a while, and then, after the news of exposure fades, they bring the lies back out again, counting on the people's poor memory to do the rest. 'Oh, yeah, I've heard that before, it must be true."
They understand enough about the habits of the media to know that, more often than not, they won't be challenged. Just keep repeating the lies with just enough 'truthiness' and eventually they will become lodged in collective memory, and replace the truth.
The news stories about the West Point address don't say "President Bush continued to misrepresent the invasion of Iraq during an address to graduating cadets at West Point this weekend." The New York Times mentions that he offered no new policy and repeated the themes of his addresses from the last five years. As if we've learned nothing in the last few years that would make such repetition deplorable.
(Perhaps they were too stunned to comment, after Bush grandly compared himself to Harry Truman. Apparently he missed the most obvious parallel, excessive claims of war powers.)
The AP doesn't mention the revisionism at all. Instead, they chose to report Bush's main theme that fighting terrorism was like fighting communism, and that he was following in the footsteps of Truman, just as the President said it. Just as if it made sense. Just as if he were an established authority on history and foreign policy, instead of the reverse. Just as if he were a patriot, and not actively subverting centuries of American tradition and jurisprudence every day.
Did they think Bush's confabulation wasn't news, or did they just not realize that Bush's story just isn't the way it happened?
posted by Paul at 10:02 AM |
|
email this
