So, those who remember the Bush Administration as asserting that Iraq had to be conquered in order to fend off the imminent use of weapons of mass destruction have now become “revisionist historians” if they wonder where those weapons might be? Exactly who is rewriting history here? Were the news reporters rewriting history even as they transcribed speeches? If so, why did it take so long for the Bush Court to correct these distortions? They might have said in February, “No, no, this whole WMD thing isn’t the issue at all. . . .”
I have a fantasy that one day Bush and his flacks will stand before the press, and the very words they try to speak will resign and tell what it’s really like to be so abused. . . .
Posted by AKMA at June 17, 2003 09:24 PM | TrackBackDon't be so cynical! I'm sure Colin Powell will go in front of the UN again soon, and explain what all those aerial photos were REALLY of. I'm confident my pinko suspicions to be fully addressed.
I'd say more but it's time for my Soma.
Posted by: steve at June 18, 2003 06:42 AMHmm, my fantasy is that Bush will stand before the press and be the one who resigns.
Posted by: Kurt at June 18, 2003 12:17 PMStrictly speaking, most historians don't consider analyses of anything newer than a decade ago "history." So who the heck is he referring to, and where do they get off calling themselves "historians"?
Posted by: Rana at June 20, 2003 12:24 PM