that's what i am by the bushricecheneyisms still resurrected daily by rationalizing, projecting, in-denial, phobic gops who can't let go of whatever neocon scenario hooked them into backing the bush family vendetta-become-slaughter-of-the-innocent, aka iraq, and just have to call washington journal to dispute something or other.
yesterday two guys rewrote history to justify bush's boondoggle. (the voices sounded similar, but i'm sure a viewer would never violate c-span's request to wait a month between calls.)
one used ann coulter logic to explain why it was ok to invade a country that hadn't attacked us: because we'd done it before against germany, who had nothing to do with pearl harbor.
never mind that germany declared war on us and iraq did not. (of course, coulter would say iraq did declare war. her mind is made up. don't confuse her with facts.)
the next fellow responded to the news that the length of the iraq war had just tied US involvement in ww2. he said the iraq war lasted 23 days: occupation is not war. and, he said, we occupied japan till 1952, so you've got to count that if you count the last 3½ years.
never mind that japan surrendered. unconditionally. iraq did not. (it did in 1991, but not since.) in case you don't know, germany, under admiral dönitz, also surrendered unconditionally. sporadic acts of resistance by german and japanese diehards did occur but were few and far between, unlike iraq.
today a woman reacted to an earlier caller who claimed we attacked iraq for oil. she said 9/11 wasn't about oil. she just took for granted that iraq was about 9/11.
unfortunately, c-span's hosts never argue with callers unless they unfairly criticize c-span itself.
or maybe it's not unfortunate. nearly everyone agrees on c-span's neutrality. that wouldn't last if they consistently contradicted false statements, because the misinformation comes preponderantly from one end of the political spectrum. recall what happened to the bbc when it started questioning the rationale for war.
then again, when truth came out, bbc ex-execs got vindicated.
9 hours ago
Hmmm. Interesting post, but I can't seem to get to the heart of it. I don't think that the BBCs exec have, in fact, been vindicated. They were right in one respect - deploring the war, but I think they failed the larger test of true objectivity. For them, Israel is always the enemy and their efforts to connect America's interest in preserving and supporting Israel hasn't been borne out at all. I agree with your larger point, but there is blame and untruth to go around in all circles, amigo :)
ReplyDeletei was referring to the hutton report incident. maybe "vindicate" was poor word choice. after all, they issued mea culpas as they resigned. you don't get vindicated unless you stand your ground. i only meant they were right to criticize blair govt on iraq.
ReplyDelete