Politics: Revisionist History

Atrios pointed out this item, and something struck me strangely about it. Of course, all the ass-kissing is nothing new, so I'm going to refrain from commenting on that directly. However, one paragraph did stick in my mind:

It's widely assumed that one reason Bush wants to rid the world of Saddam Hussein is to complete the mission his father, former president George Bush, began in 1991. The senior Bush led a coalition to eject Iraqi troops that had invaded Kuwait, but knowing that the U.N.-backed alliance was formed solely to liberate the country, he decided against going on to Baghdad to remove Saddam from power.

So that's the reason we didn't go get Saddam Hussein in the first place. Because the U.N.-backed alliance would have held us back. I see. No, I don't. Because that is total crap. That is Judy Keen at USA Today or one of her editors re-writing history in preparation for the eventual f*cking coronation of the Bush Dynasty. Brushing clean every item of concern, every misstep and every blemish. 'The senior Bush, seeking the counsel of his partners in operation Desert Storm sagely decided to hold back blah blah blah.' Bullsh*t. Go write a letter to the editor. I am.