Wednesday, April 27, 2005

Historical (hysterical) Revisionism in the NY Times

Instapundit and the Mudville Gazette have some great coverage on this NY Times editorial, which among other things attempts this little bit of historical revisionism:

The only plausible reason for keeping American troops in Iraq is to protect the democratic transformation that President Bush seized upon as a rationale for the invasion after his claims about weapons of mass destruction turned out to be fictitious. If that transformation is now allowed to run off the rails, the new rationale could prove to be as hollow as the original one.

Just to add my own comments, I found the intro particularly ironic:

The millions of brave Iraqis who risked their lives to vote in January didn't expect that nearly three months later, their squabbling politicians would still be struggling to form a government.

The Mudville Gazette correctly points out that, in fact, the government is being formed. But what if we ignore that for a minute and say, compare this "nearly three months later" with another case of a government being formed, also from today's NY Times...

PARIS (AP) -- The leaders of France and Germany joined forces Tuesday to try to save Europe's embattled constitution, warning French voters they could set back European ambitions if they reject the charter in a referendum.

French polls have shown a steady opposition to the charter. A poll published Friday, indicated 62 percent of voters will reject the constitution in France's May 29 referendum -- the highest figure so far.

All 25 European Union members must approve the text for it to take effect. A French rejection could spur ''no'' votes elsewhere.

Sixty years after WWII and 15 years after the Berlin Wall fell, the Europeans are still struggling to form a government. This can only mean one thing, quagmire!

UPDATE: Kudos to Reliapundit, for being both ahead of me, and the NY Times. No arguing over which is easier...


reliapundit said...

I blogged on this TWO days ago (and it was linked to by CHRENKOFF two days ago, too ):

IRAQ AND EUROPE: who will get a constitution first?

I betchya that IRAQ - rife with neojihadist and neobaathist terror and nagged by lingering ethnic divisions (between Sunni Arabs, Sunni Kurdish, Shia and the Turkmen), and trying democracy for the first time ! - gets a new constitution before EUROPE does!


And I think the failure of the EU constitution would be a VERY GOOD THING. I think that the nations of Old Europe need a Thatcherite/Reagan revolution more than they need another corrupt layer of bureaucratic socialism.


UPDATE: I compared the two (the tottering sociailst nations of Old Europe and New Iraq) for a few OBVIOUS reasons: (1) they are both going through the constitutional process now; (2) OLD Europe was opposed to the Iraq war; (3) and democratization was KEY reason that Bush went to war - and he said so BEFORE THE WAR, IN SEPTEMBER 12, 2002 in his address to the UN General Assembly:

"If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq. And it could open the prospect of the United Nations helping to build a government that represents all Iraqis -- a government based on respect for human rights, economic liberty, and internationally supervised elections [emph added]. [...] If we meet our responsibilities, if we overcome this danger, we can arrive at a very different future. The people of Iraq can shake off their captivity. They can one day join a democratic Afghanistan and a democratic Palestine, inspiring reforms throughout the Muslim world."

It is therefore SWEETLY AND SUPREMELY IRONIC that those who were so virulently anti-interventionist (and essentially pro-staus quo in 2002 vis a vis Iraq (IOW: pro-Saddam STAYING in power) are having a tougher time of forging a federal constitution than the LIBERATED Iraqis - whom the Old Europe's elites claimed could NEVER do it!

# posted by reliapundit : 7:07 PM

Will Franklin said...

More on the subject.

We really need to "nip this in the bud" before it becomes common wisdom.

John Driscoll said...

At least Europe is not on the brink of a civil war, with Iran, Turkey, and a swarm of Sunni Islamists poised to jump in.

reliapundit said...

To John Driscol -

As evidenced by Atocha and the chilling Van Gogh murder and the constant threats to Dutch MP Wilders: The invaders are within already within the gates.

And while there is no civil war within Europe, there is serious division - especially between Old Europe, led by Chirac and Schroeder (who have brought their nations to near ruin) and New Europe (the nations recently liberated from the USSR).

Also: The EU has yet to face up to its Turkish problem, or the NATO EU Defense Force redundancy. And add to thagt the more chilling fact that except for the UK (and Denmark and Poland and the Ukraine to soem extent) no nation in Europe can project any military force woirth anything to anybody anywhere.

On top of that the demographics there point toward collapse of their welfare states and their ability to transmit their culture to succeeding generations (because there is one! This is not unlike the problem that was posed to Thailand and other nations by AIDS, and which would have destroyed them had the WHO and CDC not intervened).

I think PB16 is Europe's last and best hope for survival.

Chase Dickinson said...

I think that we need to stay in iraq and make sure that they are doing what needs to be done. If we pull out any time soon i think that it will jsut go back to what it has been all along.

John Driscoll said...

PB16? You mean Papa Ratzi?

Walter Guest said...

I think we should keep our troops in Europe until they do what has to be done.

Anonymous said...

Well John, you can always hope.