Point 2: rewriting history
March 27, 2008
I’m tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
A forum for exchanging ideas + …
I’m tired of the hypocrisy of politicians who want to rewrite history when the going gets tough.
March 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Well sure.. Just look at Hillary Clinton for example. Here’s a woman who spent 8 years with Bill in the White House and knew full well the threat that Iraq had posed. Her vote was based on intelligence in 2002, but *also* based on her experience in the 90’s. Do you think Hillary asked Bill’s advice before voting in 2002? I think it’s reasonable to assume that she did.
March 28, 2008 at 9:55 am
Sean, sure I think Hillary is a ‘truth revisionist’; I don’t trust her judgement or her integrity and I do not support the idea of her becoming President. As a matter of fact, her attempts to re-rationalize her original support for the war in Iraq is one of main reasons I don’t trust her.
I was pretty well informed of the news, events and politics during the era in the run up to the war… aluminum tubes, mobile weapons labs, links to 9/11, chemical weapons estimates, intelligence community issues and so on…. I knew that any politician who supported attacking Iraq must have known at least as much as I did yet, still voted in favor of it.
“I’m Tired” of politicians rewriting history, like Hillary or McCain or Bush…, but why should any of that motivate me to support the war in Iraq? Remember the whole point of Joe’s list is to justify his support for the war in Iraq; support the war is his reason for being.
Virtually all of the justifications for the war have proven to be fraudulent. In fact, wasn’t it guys like Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Condi and other supporters of the war who frequently and consistently engaged in revising history and moving of the goalposts?
Is Joe really tired of politicians who rewrite history or just those who rewrite history while disagreeing with his world view? Why should anyone be receptive to Joe’s point when most of people who engage in rewriting history are supporters of the war?
The fact is that Joe’s point is not objectively applied to supporters and non-supporters of the war. Joe does not seem like the kind of guy who is willing to consider situations from different objective perspectives in order to gain a more informed world view. In my observations I have concluded that is not too wise to trust the judgment of people who do not engage in some rational objectivity when analyzing a situation.
I understand that some people have deep seeded and passionate beliefs to defend, like Joe. I find it wise to understand the nature of, and rationale behind, their beliefs before considering adopting or supporting any of those beliefs. Joe believes the war in Iraq is a just cause however, I don’t think Joe has taken the time to understand the true reasons why he believes what he does.
May 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Don’t you also have “deep seeded [sic] beliefs” to defend? Like Joe, you seem unwilling to accept certain facts. For instance, it wasn’t simply the Bush administration who believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was a threat. Those weapons were the subject of numerous UN resolutions and various other countries (some of which did not support military action against Iraq) did accept that Iraq had ongoing WMD programs in violation of those sanctions. That it was later learned that these programs had been put in “mothballs” and that he appeared to be bluffing is only relevant to those who argue in hindsight. This is also a “revising of history” and moving of goalposts. One must operate on the best intelligence one has at the time.
What I have found is that neither side of the argument has all the facts and did not have more facts than the opposing side at any time during the leadup to the Iraq invasion. This is not all that unusual. Much can be said of every war’s leadup period.
Joe’s argument is not simple. It is also not to be dismissed because you deem he has deep seated reasons to support the war. Those reasons may be quite valid in his eyes and also may be supported by facts. Just as your reasons for opposing the war are valid in your eyes and supported by facts. To be truly open-minded, one must be willing to accept opposing arguments may have equal validity.