Under the title: “Let's Debate the Iraq War. Let's Not
Rewrite History,” David Harsanyi wrote an article that ends with this plea:
“Let's debate the war. Let's not change history.” It was published on July 8,
2016 in National Review Online.
But guess what he does throughout the article. He changes
history to justify having supported the war at the time – a stance he now says
he regrets taking, having seen the aftermath of the war. And the way he manages
to be on both sides of the issue is by doing this: “Believe it or not, you can
simultaneously believe a number of things about the Iraq war and its aftermath,” which
is how he begins his presentation. He goes on from there to exhibit his
mutilated morality, and show its use in the mutilation of history.
But the one thing Harsanyi does not do – because he doesn't
even realize there is something significant that needs to be done – is to
address the mindset which makes the invasion of Iraq
and all such adventures a crime against humanity that will hang around America 's
neck like an albatross for a long time to come. Here is the passage which tells
that the man has no idea what's there that is significant and needs to be
addressed:
“It's an incredible mess. It's irrational, though, to claim
you know what the Middle East would look like
had Saddam remained in power. Yet nearly every contemporary counter-history of
the Iraq War tells us hundreds of millions of people would be living quietly
under stable tyrannies that counteract each other and suppress terrorism”.
And out of that mentality has sprung an often repeated
ominous offshoot. It went something like this: “We must get in there and change
the regime because we don't know [this thing or that one.]” In fact, it did not
matter what it was that we didn't know. All that someone had to say was that we
don't know what will happen because we don't know the future. And this was
enough to give America
license to go into a place and create whatever criminal mayhem it deemed necessary
to complete the job. All the while, no regard was given to how badly the
exercise might affect the local community or humanity at large.
The first that this mentality played itself out in public
was the time when the Jews tore their entrails out of the belly, howling that
Yasser Arafat should not share the Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzhak Rabin and
Shimon Perez because “we don't know what will happen to him.” Well, we know now
what happened to him; he died a natural death, but the same cannot be said
about Rabin.
The tantrum prone Jews would have denied Arafat what he
earned because they said they didn't know what the future held for him. They
didn't know what the future held for Rabin either but that was okay with them
because Rabin was a Jew who did not have to submit an account of what might
happen to him. This stands in contrast to Arafat the non-Jew who had to submit
such an account to be treated the same as a Jew. Now you know why these people
stand ready at all time to be final solutioned. They beg for it.
And then it happened that the diseased mentality of the Jews
moved to America where it
was detected during the debate about the Iraq civil war that followed the
invasion. It happened that the folks at the Fox News network started to
propagate the notion that when we don't know something, we must get in there
and do what's necessary. The idea being that the horror we see in the Levant
today is more necessary to the advancement of humanity than the calm we see in
the places that America
did not invade.
These would be places like Mauritania ,
Morocco , Algeria , Tunisia ,
Egypt , Sudan , Lebanon ,
Saudi Arabia , Jordan , Kuwait ,
Bahrain , UAE, Oman , Qatar ,
Djibouti and Comoros Island
as well as Iran and Pakistan . They
are the nations where the Pax Americana loonies would have wanted to station
American troops for as long as an eternity – the way that things seem to be
shaping in Afghanistan
at this time.
Because this is the kind of mutilated morality that
mutilates history, Harsanyi has mutilated history in his article, believing he
was stating facts. Look what he says: “Even if weapons of mass destruction were
found on day one, and even if Iraq
were a stable democracy today, they [the Left] would still have opposed the
war.” He speculated and he drew a meaningless conclusion … typical Jewish
haggling mistaken for democracy.