Here are a bunch of clear thinkers, that kinow what they're saying

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it. Everyone (including those
outside the US) thought he had WMD. The Russians,
British, even Clinton thought that he had them.
Well, of course, he *did* have them, emphasis on the past
tense.
Don't try to twist words. The eve of the invasion is in
the past, hence the use of "had WMD." The world's
intelligence communities thought he had WMD on the
eve of the invasion.
Only because our intelligence community lied through their
teeth at the behest of their neocon masters in the Bush
administration and many of them subsequently resigned in
disgust.

You conveniently clipped the list of people NOT under
the control of the "neocon masters" who believed it.

And how many of them believed it because they were spoon-fed
misinformation by US intelligence ?

Ah ah, you're trying to redefine your statement again...
what's with you liberals and your definitions. ;-)

You said "[US Intelligence] with neocon masters in the
Bush administration". The British and Russians might be
influenced, but they're not dummies they would have noticed a
significant change in intelligence information between 2000 and
2001. I also assume that all the statements by Clinton era
officials were influenced by the following administration?
That's pretty talented.
- Ken

Ken wrote ...

You should know enough to recognize revisionist history
when you are spouting it.

Without getting into the particulars of the debate starring Mr. Cottrell, et
al, I'd like to know just what the hell is wrong with "revisionist history?"

I don't know what your connection to Oregon State is, but if you're around
the campus, go ask someone (ideally a tenured faculty member) in the history
department what "revisionist history" is.

You'll likely find that history gets "revised" because of a few things, but
first and foremost is the revelation of new information.

To be against revising history to reflect the totality of the fact base for
the subject in question is either ignorant, stupid, moronic, or some
combination of all three.

Some groups may be happy with the stories as told in the "first draft," but
that first telling rarely reflects the totality of the situation. History
itself is "argument without end" (1) and to halt that argument because
something new may not fit with a power group's established paradigm is
intellectually abhorrent.

Dan
(1) Pieter Geyl