gsx1138

Yeah Abacus but what do you really think?

Zar

You know what is remarkable?

That the people who were working their tails off to explain away, apologize for and otherwise excuse the Bush Administration's words, diplomacy and actions -- without pay, no less! -- have really quieted down in threads like this. Some of them are no doubt realizing that they have been bamboozled. They may be starting to understand that faithfully watching and repeating what is on Fox and CNN is not the same thing as being informed.

I wouldn't blame them for being quiet now. I only hope they speak to others about the fact that they were misled. This, I think, could easily redeem them as citizens. Although being wrong in this case has had some dire consequences, its still okay to be wrong. But you have to adjust to the new facts. If you don't, then I think that is a blameworthy act.

On the other hand...

Maybe they just don't give a shit and are simply satisfied at having shot our collective military wad, reasons be damned.

The Nose

It doesn't surprise me that the most rabid Bush apologists will say amen to this charge. It doesn't surprise me that the semi-rational Bush supporters are getting quieter. It doesn't surprise me much that the apathetic middle took little notice of Bush's doublespeak. It does suprise me that any of the Democratic presidential candidates would let Bush get away with such a statement. Dean came right out and said that Bush is the rewriter of history: link
It seems to me that even the pro-war candidates could support an investigation into whether the Intelligence reports were exaggerated and falsified for political purposes.

Ray K

This is likely the case for a lot of people. I can tolerate mistakes from the administration, but I cannot tolerate intentional deception.

I hope that a lot Democratic party defectors will try to make amends in 2004.

harrije

This is slightly OT, but I do have to roll my eyes a little when I hear the phrase "revisionist history."

Most competent historians will tell anyone who listens that all history is revisionist to some extent. Over time we gain access to new facts, we get more emotional distance from events, and we are able to see how many pieces of the puzzle all fit together into a new and perhaps hitherto unknown story.

The term "revisionist history" is most often used as a polite synonym for "apologetics," the art of telling one side of an argument in the best possible light. In any sufficiently emotionally charged debate, there will be apologetics on at least two sides of the issue (and here in America, most issues somehow only have two sides, no matter how complex they really are). One group will eventually call the other "revisionist."

The problem with using the term at this point to describe the Iraq situation is that the history of Iraq has not yet been written, and will likely not be beyond draft stage for at least another decade. People who write about now are journalists; historians write about then. Last month is still now in historical terms. There won't be a "revisionist" account of the Iraq situation until after the "official" historical accounts are written, and we won't see any of those for a while yet. We will see a great deal of apologetics from both sides, though.

One of the most compelling looks into the writing of history is William Faulkner's novel Absalom, Absalom!. A college student from Mississippi attempts to piece together an old mystery which he knows only through one extremely jaded first-hand account and a handful of second- and third-person accounts. It takes the insights of his Canadian roommate at Harvard -- someone completely removed from the emotional, political, and societal realities of the South -- to unlock the deepest mysteries of the central story.

slept2long

Temporarily off topic but... Is it your first book? If not could you list or PM some of your others?