Revisionist Historian?

[Cinorjer]

In a recent speach, our President called people who are questioning why we can't find the stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that Bush Jr. insisted is there "revisionist historians." He didn't elaborate, acting as if the label were self-explaining.

What the heck does revisionist historian mean? I feel like I've been insulted, but can't figure out why. History is always being revised, as new evidence of what actually happened comes to light. On top of that, the history of this latest war hasn't even been written yet. No one is claiming that Sadam didn't have WMD in the past, or used them in the past. So why, in his view, am I a revisionist historian?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
In a recent speach, our President called people who are questioning why we can't find the stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that Bush Jr. insisted is there "revisionist historians." He didn't elaborate, acting as if the label were self-explaining.

What the heck does revisionist historian mean? I feel like I've been insulted, but can't figure out why. History is always being revised, as new evidence of what actually happened comes to light. On top of that, the history of this latest war hasn't even been written yet. No one is claiming that Sadam didn't have WMD in the past, or used them in the past. So why, in his view, am I a revisionist historian?

President Bush was correct to use historical revisionism in the sense that the UN agreed in UN resolution 1441 to allow the use of force and later reneged on it in the leftist media. What compounded the problem was the WMD issue. Historically Saddam used WMD against his own people, are yet 'mystically' he was not to have them in his possession 20 years later just because the US hasn't dug them out of the 100 foot deep bunkers he buried them into?

Come on, that is pretty laughable. Bush should be celebrated for his heroic leadership and doing what should have been done in Iraq back in the 1991 war. Instead, the radical leftist commie aparatus has selected one non-issue in reality to attack the tremendous success of the operation. I have no doubt that WMD will be found in Iraq--but even if it isn't, there is a laundry-list of reasons why Saddam was taken out of power that the left intellectually ignores to its own dishonesty and marginalization.

What President Bush should have used was doublethink when describing the left. The left knows that Saddam killed 100,000 of his own people with poison gas, yet defends him 20 years later because they have to "see" the evidence of Iraqi WMD. That is Orwellian doublethink, knowing facts but choosing to ignore them and believing an alternate form of history. An unreality.

JK

[UnrepentantSinner]

Here's some examples of what the phrase means.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20819&highlight=historical+revisionism

It's an extreme manifestation of the tritism "history is written by the victorious." Though a more accurate way of stating it with regard to this issue is, "revisionist history is written by those with an agenda."

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
In a recent speach, our President called people who are questioning why we can't find the stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that Bush Jr. insisted is there "revisionist historians." He didn't elaborate, acting as if the label were self-explaining.

What the heck does revisionist historian mean? I feel like I've been insulted, but can't figure out why. History is always being revised, as new evidence of what actually happened comes to light. On top of that, the history of this latest war hasn't even been written yet. No one is claiming that Sadam didn't have WMD in the past, or used them in the past. So why, in his view, am I a revisionist historian?

Revisionist Historian is just societies way of labeling anyone who tries to go back and straighten out the truth from the propoaganda, typicall yafter an issue has had time to lose its origional political importance. For example people documenting how FDR proviked Pearl Harbor are called revisionist historians.

What Bush meant was anyone who does not simply accept the party line. All "history" is BS when it is first written. We typically don't find out the "real truth" until years, and years later, sometimes 100 years later.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Here's some examples of what the phrase means.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20819&highlight=historical+revisionism

It's an extreme manifestation of the tritism "history is written by the victorious." Though a more accurate way of stating it with regard to this issue is, "revisionist history is written by those with an agenda."

More like History is written by the victorious, and thus a true view of history has to be resived later by those WITHOUT an agenda. The origional writing is what is done WITH an agenda. Yet later those that revise to get a true view of history are always in contradiction with what has become accepted so the establishment always claims that they have an agenda, which they may, but that does not make the revisions incorrect, they are often more accurate.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Malachi151


More like History is written by the victorious...

I disagree. RE: Thucydides. :)

[Landis]

Bush's comments were crafted by his media controllers to counter all of the "bad press" about how WMD's haven't been found and he lied to the American people and Congress. By dismissing the whole argument as "historical revisionism", he avoids answering any further questions. His media people know that the right wing of America will now counter every argument with the same response and then attempt to end any further debate. You've got to hand it to his Media people, they know how to handle the American public.

[corplinx]

I think his angst is misplaced. There are people saying that WMD was the "sole reason" we went to war. These are just the same people who opposed to war for any reason to being with spinning.

The people he should really shame are the people declaring the war a sham because the stockpiles have not been found yet. If these stockpiles are unaccounted for after a reasonable time, then Mr. Bush and Blair will have to face a proper inquiry. However, the people who have already decided there are no WMD (despite years of wmd research, development, and bait/switch in Iraq and despite their previous accounting) are closed-minded. They aren't waiting for a real answer. There will be no reasoning with these people period (as seen on this very forum).

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What President Bush should have used was doublethink when describing the left. The left knows that Saddam killed 100,000 of his own people with poison gas, yet defends him 20 years later because they have to "see" the evidence of Iraqi WMD. That is Orwellian doublethink, knowing facts but choosing to ignore them and believing an alternate form of history. An unreality.

JK

No one doubts that many were killed by Saddam. That, however, was not the reason for the war. You cannot claim moral credit for a benefit when it was only incidental to your real objectives.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


No one doubts that many were killed by Saddam. That, however, was not the reason for the war. You cannot claim moral credit for a benefit when it was only incidental to your real objectives.

Sure it was the reason for the war. The gassing of the 100,000 Iraqis by Saddam provided a predictable roadmap of future behavior making it easier to justify invasion and liberation.

JK

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151


More like History is written by the victorious, and thus a true view of history has to be resived later by those WITHOUT an agenda. The origional writing is what is done WITH an agenda. Yet later those that revise to get a true view of history are always in contradiction with what has become accepted so the establishment always claims that they have an agenda, which they may, but that does not make the revisions incorrect, they are often more accurate.
Leftists certainly have an agenda.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Sure it was the reason for the war. The gassing of the 100,000 Iraqis by Saddam provided a predictable roadmap of future behavior making it easier to justify invasion and liberation.

JK

Who's next, Somalia, Angola, Chechnya, Mozambique, the list is quite long.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by JAR

Leftists certainly have an agenda.

Question:

Is it revisionist to correct the historical record to more accurately represent known data?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
In a recent speach, our President called people who are questioning why we can't find the stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that Bush Jr. insisted is there "revisionist historians." He didn't elaborate, acting as if the label were self-explaining.
It sounds as if Shrub is trying to imply that the WMDs never were the reason for the war and it is the "revisionist historians" are trying to make it sound like he did. Unfortunately for young Dubya, most of his speeches where he constantly expounded on what a threat these WMDs were, are captured on film. The advent of modern media has made it much harder to be a revisionist historian. If Bush tries to find out who spread these horrible stories about how WMDs were so bad, he's going to wind up looking straight into his own face on screen.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Question:

Is it revisionist to correct the historical record to more accurately represent known data?
I think revisionism is okay, assuming it doesn't refer to revising history to be less accurate.

[Cinorjer]

I believe I see now. Bush, Inc. is using a tried-and-true political ploy of intentionally misstating the issue. He would have people believe that we're "revising history", that is trying to say Sadam did not have WMD in the past, or use them in the past, or that Sadam and sons were not psychopaths with billions of dollars at their disposal and therefore did not pose an obvious threat to the world. Of course people will back him on that.

This obfuscates the real issue, and the one charge he knows he can't deny directly. Even for the best of reasons, our President cannot lie to the American people or the world in order to garner support. It destroys the trust that is necessary for someone to lead a democracy and proves an unwillingness to put his political future on the line for unpopular decisions.

Bush claimed he knew, for certain, "trust me", that Sadam was sitting on stockpiles of WMD. That was why we couldn't wait another day for inspections to continue. If our people haven't found them by now - and you can be sure we're looking under every bush and camel - then this massive stockpile doesn't exist. Either he lied, or our intelligence gathering is a joke. Either way, it needs to be addressed.

Now, how do we or the world trust Bush, Inc. when they claim Iran has a nuclear weapon program? Iran will say it's as imaginary as the WMD that Bush claimed existed in Iraq.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Revisionist Historian is just societies way of labeling anyone who tries to go back and straighten out the truth from the propoaganda, typicall yafter an issue has had time to lose its origional political importance. For example people documenting how FDR proviked Pearl Harbor are called revisionist historians.

What Bush meant was anyone who does not simply accept the party line. All "history" is BS when it is first written. We typically don't find out the "real truth" until years, and years later, sometimes 100 years later.

how any intelligent being can possible say that "all" history is BS upon first writing is beyond me. in my experience looking over new high school text books, historical revisionism is hardly a force for clarifying recorded history or providing truth.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Question:

Is it revisionist to correct the historical record to more accurately represent known data?

if you are going by standard english language defintions of those words, then yes it is.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


how any intelligent being can possible say that "all" history is BS upon first writing is beyond me. in my experience looking over new high school text books, historical revisionism is hardly a force for clarifying recorded history or providing truth.

Maybe "all" was too strong. How about most ;) Notice that there is a difference between historical documents and "history". History is the accepted version of events. I think the idea that the victors write the history in ways that promotes their own agenda or from their only their own perspective is quite well established. I find most first version history not to be objective, hence revisions are essential for getting closer to the truth.

As far as highschool text books go I agree, virtually all textbooks are propoganda of some kind. Textbooks are next to useless.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Maybe "all" was too strong. How about most ;) Notice that there is a difference between historical documents and "history". History is the accepted version of events. I think the idea that the victors write the history in ways that promotes their own agenda or from their only their own perspective is quite well established. I find most first version history not to be objective, hence revisions are essential for getting closer to the truth.

As far as highschool text books go I agree, virtually all textbooks are propoganda of some kind. Textbooks are next to useless.

thank you for the amendment. we are now in agreement. :)

[subgenius]

I find that when someone points a finger (there's three pointing back at you) they are often guilty of that which they are accusing someone else.
Who's a revisionist?
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21768

[rockoon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


Who's next, Somalia, Angola, Chechnya, Mozambique, the list is quite long.

Why not?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Cinorjer
In a recent speach, our President called people who are questioning why we can't find the stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq that Bush Jr. insisted is there "revisionist historians." He didn't elaborate, acting as if the label were self-explaining.

What the heck does revisionist historian mean? I feel like I've been insulted, but can't figure out why. History is always being revised, as new evidence of what actually happened comes to light. On top of that, the history of this latest war hasn't even been written yet. No one is claiming that Sadam didn't have WMD in the past, or used them in the past. So why, in his view, am I a revisionist historian?

I would say this exercise is showing how Bush, Blair, et al, are laying the groundwork for future denials. Currently, the US Congress and the UK Parliment are in the process of evaluating just what the intelligence the executives had and how it was evaluated in relation to Iraq WMDs.

Considering all of the admissions, conceits, and outright back-pedaling that has been coming out of the White House and Downing Street in the last few weeks, I expect that these investigations will clearly show that there was no good data on Iraq WMDs.

However, these guys are simply going to say "Well, so what? We have been telling you for weeks now that the real reason was that Saddam was a tyrant, that Saddam was greedy, that Saddam had a couple dozen palaces, that Saddam ... (etc.). We had some data on Iraqi WMDs and WMD. Also, we are in the process of re-building a free Iraq and we do not have to worry about Saddam anymore."