Sure you say… We all know how much Republicans love to rewrite history. The Bush administration has been little but a series of lies and coverups since 2000, but I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Erich’s assessment over at pigeffer.com.
The long and short of Erich’s article is that Bush and Dick Cheney are angry about their approval ratings going down the toilet. They are so fed up by all the recent congressional critisisim over their pet war in Iraq that they are lashing out against Democrats and accusing them of “rewriting history”.
Erich, of course, asks the obvious question: What about the volumes of history the Bush administration has rewritten? The few members of his administration who can write, that is. This administration has been not only incredibly secretive, they have changed their reasoning for taking America to war three times, and attempted to bring the time-honored tradition of torture back to international affairs…
Hey, torture! Great family values people!
Here are some of the highlights from Erich’s article:
The latest Newsweek poll is showing that Bushâ€™s approval ratings are below 36%, so in an effort to appear to be presidential, Bush is swinging back at his critics by accusing them of â€œrewriting historyâ€. This is perhaps the most laughable and ironic accusation the president could have offered, considering that he has altered his reasons for going to war with Iraq three times.
At the time, he justified this action by claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and was trying to acquire more. Unsurprisingly, Bush came this conclusion only a month after the attacks in New York City on 9/11. Desperately wanting to pin the attacks on Hussein to use a driver for invasion, he was unsuccessful as all evidence pointed clearly at bin Laden.
Keeping in mind that WMDâ€™s were not found in Iraq, and the people of the United States felt they were lied to, Bush changed his message. Instead of focusing on the weapons of mass destruction, Bush was able to successfully redirect the peoplesâ€™ attention to the fact that â€œSaddam is a bad guyâ€.
Not long after the Iraqi congress was formed, our reasons for the war changed once again. Now, we were â€œpromoting democracyâ€, and apparently we still are.
Erich wraps it all up by suggesting what we should be doing with our military presence in Iraq:
The best thing we can do for our troops is to pull them out of all cities, towns, and villages in Iraq and move them to the borders. From there, we can completely secure Iraq and protect the Iraqi people from foreign terrorists, such as the hundreds that are streaming in from Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
I can’t say that I completely agree with this approach, but I do agree that the long-term hopes for a settled Middle East are bleak at best.
Of course, the second we leave, no matter how far into the future, Iraq is going to revert back to what itâ€™s always been: a nation of tribes warring with each other over religious differences. Maybe we shouldnâ€™t delay the inevitableâ€¦
Well said Erich. I hope you’re wrong, but you certainly do have history on your side.