Revisionist history - antiwar myths about iraq, debunked.

[qrayjack]

Revisionist History - Antiwar myths about Iraq, debunked.

BY PETER WEHNER
Opinion Journal, WSJ

Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:

The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question [the Bush administration] misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.
MORE (http://www.opinionjournal.c om/editorial/feature.html?id=1100 08415)

*Not to the left-wing loonies. This piece is all factual information that shouldn't have to be repeated, but as long as the left continues to mouth their tired old lies, we'll just have to smack them in the face with the truth.

[DOGKEES]

No matter how many times you smack a liberal with the truth—he/she will deny it; as you watch them revert to their robotic repetition of Democratic propaganda.

I am very well acquainted with a liberal with whom I have contact all the time. There is something very, very different about them. What is amazing to me is that no matter how much evidence I or others may provide in arguing a point—she will come back repeating the Democrats’ talking points—verbatim! It is very, very strange—but seriously it’s as if these liberals want to be told “what to think” rather than to analyze the facts and draw their own independent conclusions.

I’m not a psychologist but there does seem to be something unique about liberals—a sort of pack mentality—or what Star Trek viewers understand as a ‘Borg Mentality.’ I suppose in psycho babble terms these are people with an overwhelming need to have a sense that they belong; and once they identify with a group—they latch on for dear life. To admit that the group’s logic is flawed would mean they are flawed and their egos will not permit this. After all, if their egos were not already fragile they would not be looking to a group to tell them what to think in the first place; they would have enough confidence in themselves to draw their own conclusions. Which leaves us with one conclusion: Liberals are Borgs, part of the Collective and they are out to assimilate as many people as possible which they do via the media or public education; two institutions which have been severely infected with their ‘nanoprobes.’ Be afraid, be very afraid.

Let’s just hope Republicans have not bought into the lie, “Resistance is futile.” The truth most be repeated often; it’s the only hope we have.

[qrayjack]

"I’m not a psychologist but there does seem to be something unique about liberals—a sort of pack mentality—or what Star Trek viewers understand as a ‘Borg Mentality.’"

Good analysis. I think primarily liberals are mediocrities who attack those who think differently in order to convince themselves of their own immaculate righteousness. When confronted with reality their defensive posture is one of viciousness. Burning hatred is their reaction to anyone with the temerity to point out the truth to a liberal. The truth reminds them that what passes for a liberal belief system is utterly void of substance. Bogus stories like this one, as long as they seem to portray ememies of the left in a bad light, are embraced.

[Bigdog]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">No matter how many times you smack a liberal with the truth—he/she will deny it; as you watch them revert to their robotic repetition of Democratic propaganda. [/QUOTE]

That is true for the dyed in the wool left-wing ideologues. A lot of voters, though, are uninformed, follow the leader types. If we keep repeating the message, a few of them will get it. It doesn't take a large number to make a difference. Further, repetition of the facts can bolster those who would like to be on our side but are afraid of appearing to be non PC.

[RW]

If you make the truth crystal clear, then a Liberal goes on a personal attack of individual Republicans, especially Bush. Or they say bizarre things like, &quot;I can't believe Bush really believes what he's saying, it's ridiculous.&quot; Of COURSE he believes what he's saying, that's the point. WHAT?! http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

The revisionist historians that the Dems tend to be, especially when it comes to people like Jimmy Carter, is truly scary.