You see, the president and his associates keep referring to historical events that never happened, at least not as they did in the fields we know. And they keep referring to the same ahistorical events. Over and over, the secretary of state and the (now former) secretary of defense have referred to guerrilla warfare in Germany after the Nazi surrender. But there just wasnít any. You canít find it in the history books or in the memories of people who were there at the time. My uncle was in Bavaria in the summer of 1945: no trouble. Secretary Rumsfeld repeatedly talked about the similarities between todayís Iraq and America after the Revolutionary War, but again, Iím pretty sure that there arenít any. I donít believe we found tortured corpses in the streets of Philadelphia every morning back in 1784. And why does President Bush keep saying that Saddam refused to admit those UN arms inspectors back in 2002 and early 2003? Why did Condoleezza Rice, in 2000, say that Iran was probably backing the Taliban, when in fact the two had almost gone to war in 1998?
Now some might say that these statements were just talking pointsóthat is, liesóbut I sure wouldnít want to accuse anyone of lying. More to the point, there have been many ahistorical statements that are just strange and donít seem to advance any particular political agenda. For example, when President Bush said that the Japanese lost two carriers sunk and one damaged at the Battle of Midway (instead of losing all four, which is what actually happened), who gained? When POTUS said that Sweden has no army (it does), what political argument was advanced?
Read the full article for Greg's entertaining theory on why the neoconservatives and Bushies make so many ridiculous and obviously false claims. It is well worth your time.
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2007 May 04 06:34 PM Elites Neoconservative Menace|