Heh Indeedy’s Historical Revisionism
Y’know what’s weird? The first thing that caught my eye when reading this much-maligned post at Instapundit was his word choice :
The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way — and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.
. . .
Patriotic people could — and did — oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels.
Oh Glenn, you’re sooo old school. Who knew instant punditry provided enough time to consult the thesaurus? Since I find the rest of the post particularly grating, let me just say that this bit in particular proves that Glenn Reynolds is a churlish rogue :
Reader Kathleen Boerger emails: “Could you do me a favor and define ‘patriotism’ please?”I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war, simply because your donor base wants to hear them.
Patriotic people could — and did — oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism –which today’s revisionist history suggests.
Notice what Reynolds does here. He doesn’t name any names, he just writes a description of opposition to the war just vague enough to wiggle out of if he’s in a bind. No, he’s not talking about any specific people or mentioning any political party by name, because that might jeopardize his undeserved reputation for being independent and give his opponents the details necessary to call him on his bullshit.
Since Glenn actively opposed the election of John Kerry, I’m going to assume that Kerry was who he was thinking of when constructing his little strawman. After all, John Kerry is a flip-flopper. So, is Sen. Kerry one of those who seeks to “recast [his] prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history”? Well, here’s what he had to say on the Senate floor in the fall of 2002 during the debate over whether to authorize the President to use force to disarm Iraq :
“As the President made clear earlier this week, “Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.” It means “America speaks with one voice.”Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days–to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent–and I emphasize “imminent”–threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.”
The way the President and his defenders would have you believe it, everyone was on the same page in regards to invading Iraq. Just as the Administration disregarded the caveats in their intelligence briefings, scoundrels like Glenn Reynolds overlook the fact that the support of many for this war was conditional on objectives the President failed to meet. I opposed the war and I’m not saying this to justify what I believe was a shameful vote by Senator Kerry and others, but I think hacks like Instapundit need to do their homework before decrying “historical revisionists”.
20 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Patriotic people could — and did — oppose the war. But so did a lot of scoundrels. And some who supported the war were not patriotic, if they did it out of opportunism or political calculation rather than honest belief. Those who are now trying to recast their prior positions through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they supported the war, if they did so then out of opportunism –which today’s revisionist history suggests.
Who would have expected Glenn Reynolds, of all people, to pen such a ringing condemnation Bush’s speech today? Opportunism or political calculation? Check: Bush told his biographer in 1999 that what really gave a President “political capital” was a war. Dishonest rewriting of history? Check: Bush claims today that the vote on the resolution was a vote to go to war, what he claimed at the time was that it was a vote to disarm Saddam.
Who would have expected such … dare I call it honesty? … from Glenn Reynolds?
Comment by dm — November 11, 2005 @ 1:42 pm
THIS is re-writing history:
THE PRESIDENT: And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in.
7/20/03
Comment by steve j. — November 11, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
“Patriotic people could — and did — (whatever.) But so did a lot of scoundrels.”
WTF?
Comment by BroD — November 11, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
The rightwing intrepretation of “independent” is much too funny. All they really mean by it is that they’re conservative and like to attack Dems, but don’t want to have to defend anything the Repubs do; nor will they allow themselves to be labeled as “partisan”, and pretend to be unbiased. But it’s all a pile of crap.
A true independent really does attack both sides, or neither. Or even moreso, they lump both sides together and say that they’re identical. Like the Naderites, who really do want a separate party. But that’s not what these guys do. They’re independent in name only.
And the main thing is this: If your ideology is supported far more heavily by one party than the other, and you find yourself siding with one party more than the other; you’re not an independent. It’s just cheap posturing.
Comment by Doctor Biobrain — November 11, 2005 @ 2:13 pm
Define patriotism?
Okay. “Love of one’s country”
Next.
Oh, wait, should that have been “blind adoration”?
Damn it. Wait. What about the sacrifice thing? Who are we now? Are we Iraqis? Don’t remember pledging that one.
Blast. Damn. I know I’ll just elect some idiot to define it for me. Yes. That’ll teach ‘em.
Comment by Patrick — November 11, 2005 @ 2:21 pm
And the main thing is this: If your ideology is supported far more heavily by one party than the other, and you find yourself siding with one party more than the other; you’re not an independent. It’s just cheap posturing.
I don’t think that’s a good definition of independent. An independent will stick to a particular viewpoint or ethic regardless of which party is endorsing it. An independent will critically and consistently evaluate the statements and actions of any politician regardless of party. It goes without saying that Reynolds is not an independent by any definition.
Comment by Dave — November 11, 2005 @ 2:28 pm
I don’t think Kerry is the scoundrel he is talking about. You are creating a strawman. The scoundrels he is referring to are more along the lines of the Medea Benjamin types.
Comment by Alf Rangen — November 11, 2005 @ 2:37 pm
If I’m misinterpreting Glenn’s post, it’s because he’s being intentionally vague. He should either name names or shut the hell up.
Comment by greg — November 11, 2005 @ 2:47 pm
Glenn Reynolds:
“I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war.”
You mean like the lie that you would rid the White House of traitors that divulge the names of CIA operatives during wartime?
What hypocrisy.
Comment by epistemology — November 11, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
Must respectively disagree, Doctor Biobrain -
I am an independant, but I rarely (especially these days) find myself boostering a Republican. This doesn’t mean I’m posturing for their evil twins, the Democrats - it just means that the Republicans have been hijacked by these dangerous radical neocons who are bound and determined, however inadvertantly, to accelerate the end times.
If the shoe were on the other foot, and Democrats found themselves in power, but beholden to some uber-lefty social radicals, then my “l’accuse!” would be for them…
Cheers.
Comment by Petro — November 11, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
“I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that damage the country in time of war.”
I think it starts with not uttering falsehoods that lead the country into war.
Comment by jim c — November 11, 2005 @ 3:19 pm
“Medea Benjamin types?” I doubt Glenn Reynolds even knows who Medea Benjamin is.
I think he’s refering to those elected Democrats - the vast majority - who supported the war because they either have no moral compass or, more likely, wished to appear “tough” to avoid being attacked by cocksmokers like Glenn Reynolds. I agree these people are bad patriots. Supporting the war out of cowardice would constitute treason in my eyes. But so would doing so from a secret belief in American infallability and divine right - an effront to our most basic beliefs as a Republic - and those, like Glenn, who supported the war but should have known better are guilty of this crime.
Comment by Joe — November 11, 2005 @ 6:33 pm
Great job remembering that Kerry quote. It should be noted that his position reflected that of the majority of Americans polled at that time, who were also getting the same bullshit information. Poll info is here . Scroll down to G.
Comment by eRobin — November 11, 2005 @ 7:07 pm
Oh, wait, should that have been “blind adoration”?
Yes, “Blind adoration of one’s government (if you voted for it)”.
Comment by Sarcastro — November 11, 2005 @ 7:18 pm
now if you could find and date the quote of Bush saying He’s a ‘War President’ then correcting himself and adding ‘Well, I will be’ or something to that effect.
Comment by Leader Of The Noble Cause — November 11, 2005 @ 11:07 pm
I quit debating formally in college because too many people seemed to prize ‘winning’ debates rather than improving our understanding of the many valid viewpoints in public policy.
The result of this twisted commitment to victory at any cost was a plethora of what we called ’squirrel’ cases: arguments that circled the main topic without ever really coming to grips with the conflict of values inherent in any really useful debate subject.
The esssence of this strategy is sheer rhetorical sophistry, consisting of many tricks and tactics that counterfeit logic and substitute fallacy for reasoning.
The Bush administration is committed to the same kind of ‘victory’. Rather than admit the least measure of error, Bush and his shop of gnomish rhetoricians persist in shoveling mounds of bullshit and evasion out the front door of the White House, as if they will salvage something from this trainwreck of a regime if they just avoid saying ‘we were dishonest and we apologize to America.’
They are a despicable bunch of miserable, tiny, hollow people. I cannot call them ‘men’ in any sense of the word. History will not be kind to Bush or his enablers.
Comment by jonkopp@glasscity.net — November 12, 2005 @ 1:42 am
The war didn’t start with the resolution to disarm, it started when W pulled the inspectors. We had bad intelligence? Well W and W alone made the decision to stop gathering intelligence and attack. Allowing Republicans to frame the debate around the resolution is playing into their hands. The final decision to go to war was made by Bush, there are no Democratic quotes supporting pulling the inspectors. The administration would have us believe invasion was the only way they could have found out they were wrong on WMD’s, that is a historical revisionism of horrible implications.
PULLING THE INSPECTORS STARTED THE WAR.
Comment by feckless — November 12, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
I had no idea I was a “scoundrel” for opposing this war of choice started by these crazy fundamentalists and criminals we call the Bush administration.
Comment by Scott — November 12, 2005 @ 11:34 pm
Hello,
It is interesting to watch Bush use the term revisionism AGAIN to attack war critics. There’s something about the word “revisionism” that suggests problematics to many people. I would guess this is because Holocaust denier historians use the term to describe themselves (inaccurately, by the way). Historical revisionism is a skeptical approach to accepted historical views. Historical revisionism may not necessarily be a theory in itself (as is Marxist historical theory, or Whig historical theory). Historical revisionism is just another look at a thing. Usually revisionists poke and prod to show how certain accepted ideas don’t hold up well when examined closely.
Pardon the following.
I just have to…
Rarely is the question asked, is our [president] learning?
Comment by Seamus — November 13, 2005 @ 4:20 am
from an ABC interview Busg did with Diane Sawyer. I think we know whos trying to rewrite history.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yeah. Look, what, what we based our evidence on was a very sound national intelligence estimate.
DIANE SAWYER: (Off Camera) Nothing should have been more precise?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I, I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.
Talk about hyperbole. The US in danger from Saddam. I wonder if he was dring that day.
Comment by Lois Lane — November 13, 2005 @ 4:36 am