Holocaust Deniers and The Decider

As I was reading Granny Doc's GBCW diary today, I see that one of her points was how anyone who takes a position that is critical of Israel runs the risk of being called a "holocaust denier".  

I am frustrated by those who would hurl "holocaust denier" at anyone who does not immediately embrase their take on any issue.  

I think we all are aware of the tensions that surround discussions on Israel.   They should be stamped "Highly Flammable".   And I think any reasonable person would agree that denying the holocaust is an evil thing to do.  However, I've been seeing that phrase a lot lately and its made me think of a related issue.

Before I start the rest of this diary I will state that I'm not a big fan of AIPAC.  However, I do not see AIPAC as being the voice of Israel so I don't think that people should assume I'm not a big fan of the Israeli people, because that would not be true.  As a rule, I'm not fond of most governments so it is fair to say I'm not a fan of certain policies of the governments of Israel, America, Iran and Iraq (there are many other countries I could add to the list).   Now to Hillary Clinton's comments at the AIPAC meeting last week.  

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

I agree 100% with her statement.  But I have a very big problem with what she doesn't say and what no leaders on either side of the aisle are saying in this country.   We all agree that revising history to make it seem like millions of people were not the target of genocide is incredibly dangerous and should be denounced.  The worst kind of evil. But how about revising history to make it seem like hundreds of thousands of people were not killed?   Would Hillary Clinton consider anyone who did that a "despicable bigot"?  Would you?   I surely would.   And I do.
From CNN:

Study: War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths

War has wiped out about 655,000 Iraqis or more than 500 people a day since the U.S.-led invasion, a new study reports.

Violence including gunfire and bombs caused the majority of deaths but thousands of people died from worsening health and environmental conditions directly related to the conflict that began in 2003, U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers said.

And some historical revision from the Decider

President Bush slammed the report Wednesday during a news conference in the White House Rose Garden. "I don't consider it a credible report. Neither does Gen. (George) Casey," he said, referring to the top ranking U.S. military official in Iraq, "and neither do Iraqi officials."

"The methodology is pretty well discredited," he added

Not a credible report.  And history was revised.   About the discredited methodology.

Roberts [author of the study] has been puzzled and disturbed by this response to his work, which stands in sharp contrast to the way the same governments responded to a similar study he led in the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2000. In that case, he reported that about 1.7 million people had died during 22 months of war and, as he says, "Tony Blair and Colin Powell quoted those results time and time again without any question as to the precision or validity." In fact the UN Security Council promptly called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from the Congo and the U.S. State Department cited his study in announcing a grant of $10 million for humanitarian aid.

So, the methodology is not discredited.  But all those deaths have been conveniently revised away.  And remember when Bush was previously asked about Iraqi civilian deaths

One woman asked how many Iraqis had been killed in the war.

"I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis," Bush said. "We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said Bush was basing his statement on media reports, "not an official government estimate."

Easy to revise history when you aren't using an "official government estimate".  The president, who brags that he doesn't read the papers, based his estimate on "media reports".

And that is very dangerous, in my opinion.  Why?  Well, beyond it showing a stunning lack of compassion for human life, it then allows Hillary Clinton to talk to AIPAC about Iran being a threat and no one has to think about what war with Iran would mean?  Another 600,000 dead?   It also makes it seem like dead Iraqis aren't something we need to worry ourselves about.   Which means dead Iranians aren't either.  And what do you think someone in Iran thinks when they hear the president deny large numbers of casualties in Iraq?   Might he not sound much like Ahmadinejad denying the Holocaust?

I believe that our leaders are guilty of being despicable bigots and revising history so as not to trouble their "beautiful minds".  Bush has been allowed to revise another horrible chapter in history.  And thus you will hear Hillary and Bush both say that when it comes to Iran, "all options are on the table" because what is another 30,000 Iranians, more or less, anyway?