REVISIONISM REDUX: PART DEUX

December has become National Revisionist Month for the bloodsuckers.   It started on the Second of December when Charlie Gibson interviewed the War-Criminal-In-Chief, whereupon your enraged Ninja 8pus posted this:

After the WMD argument proved bogus, the Bush administration advanced yet another false premise to justify themselves:  The “pied piper” argument.  The one that states:  “We are fighting terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.”  When intelligence fails, “staying the course” is the cowardly way to avoid owning the mistake.

Within a week, The New York Times published this editorial, calling Bush The Deluder in Chief:

The truth is that Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had been chafing to attack Iraq before Sept. 11, 2001.  They justified that unnecessary war using intelligence reports that they knew or should have known to be faulty ...

Despite it all, Mr. Bush said he will “leave the presidency with my head held high.”   And, presumably, with his eyes closed to all the disasters he is dumping on the American people and his successor.

Hours later, the arrogant Stephen Hadley, responding on behalf of the petulant POTUS, released this statement condemning the NYT editorial:

The New York Times continues to have difficulty acknowledging the undeniable success of the President's decision to surge an additional 30,000 troops into Iraq.  Because of the surge, Iraq is a more stable and secure country.  It is the success of the surge that is allowing American troops to withdraw from Iraq and return home with a record of heroic service and still unheralded success.

Even former administration officials are feeling the basses of their being throb with sacraments of praise for their simpering Byzantine:

We are better off for having woken up to the fact that we were in a war, and, mark my words, no president in the foreseeable future is going to step back from the tenets of the Bush philosophy, which are: better to fight them over there than to fight them here, and we will not wait until dangers fully materialize before we strike," Rove said.

Presidents come and go with a rhythm of lapping waves.  They arrive in tumult and, after their days are done, should leave gracefully, spent of their devotions.  Not this president.   Bush intends to finish as he began ... with attacks against any critic, smears against any opponent, denials of any fact, and falsifications of any record.  He intends to spin his own legacy to the bitter end.

Why should we care?  Because old lies and new infamy condemn us to repeating our mistakes, and our only recourse left, our only justice, is the truthful reckoning of history.  Consider this perspective, The GOP's McCarthy Gene:

In this tale, the real father of modern Republicanism is Sen. Joe McCarthy, and the line doesn't run from Goldwater to Reagan to George W. Bush; it runs from McCarthy to Nixon to Bush and possibly now to Sarah Palin … You demonize the opposition and polarize the electorate to win.

Republicans continue to push the idea that this is a center-right country and that Americans have swooned for GOP anti-government posturing all these years, but the real electoral bait has been anger, recrimination and scapegoating … The party belongs to McCarthy and his heirs - Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Palin.

Not this time.  To prevent a repeat of the Nixon and Bush disasters, we should say “never again” and force the “undead” of McCarthyism to look in the mirror and despair of their works.