Revising the Revisionist History

Sometimes, once the genie is out of the bottle it is too late to fix the problem. Or maybe it's Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill once too many times. Have too many people accept as fact the nonsensical ravings of those who think that Bush lied about WMD, the 16 Words and all that other stuff? Have we reached that tipping point or is there time to snatch the truth and facts out of the jaws of the revisionists on the Left? When one has the opportunity to try to correct the record and do so forcefully and with the conviction that the facts and truth can bring, you must do it. So, President Bush's speech today is sure to rankle those on the Left and stiffen the resolve of those on the Right. Especially since he specifically called out those Democrats who are trying to revise the history for purely political purposes.

Point Five nails the phenomenon perfectly. Revisionists within the Democratic party will attack the President's speech today as trying to rewrite history - a history that the Democrats have already rewritten according to their political needs - not the facts and reality on the ground. It is kind of difficult to overcome the Congressional Record that has many of the blowhards railing against Saddam Hussein and the danger that he posed - not only with respect to WMD, but the human rights horrors that he has inflicted upon his nation and his neighbors. Heck, go back to 1998 when the Iraq Liberation Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton. That law states that the official goal of the US is to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It's right there in the law. Some of these Democrats don't like the fact that President Bush enforced the law. Some don't like how he went about doing it - not getting the French or Russians to play along, this despite the fact that the French and Russians were bought off by Saddam via UNSCAM (the oil for food scandal).

And these same Democrats want people to forget about all those UN Security Council Resolutions enacted under Article VII of the UN Charter to enforce compliance of the cease-fire agreement of 1991. Iraq's repeated failures to comply with those agreements were a direct violation of the cease fire and permitted a resumption of the 1991 conflict. There is no further need for reasons. The violations - the lack of compliance, the stonewalling, and the failure to permit inspectors to do their job unfettered was enough.

Tom Maguire is trying to parse through the arguments laid out before him in opposition to what Bush said today. Good luck with that. Arguing with a ball peen hammer sounds more enjoyable.

Polipundit makes an interesting point:

There has been no outrage about anything the President has been accused of over the past two years. Be sure though that anything Bush says about the Democrats will be painted as a vicious, partisan attack and that will be the storyline, rather than the substance of whatever he says. But, you know, I am almost to the point that I figure, if you are going to be accused of questioning the patriotism of those on the left whether you do so or not, you might as well do it.

Interesting rhetoric, but I'm not sure we as a nation would like where it leads. Those who are undermining the war effort need to be called out for their actions and hoisted on their own petards. There's a concept known as the loyal opposition - it means knowing who our enemies are, that political battles end at our borders, and that we must present a unified front against our enemies. Thus far, there are more than a few prominent Democratic leaders who are engaging in actions that undermine the war effort and this nation's ability to fight into the future.

There are many others blogging this subject right now. Bush's speech was that important (and should have been given long ago and repeated as necessary). Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Powerline, Stop the ACLU, and Cold Fury.