"Truth is one; the sages just speak of it in different ways."
Julian Sanchez makes some good points about the nonsense the warmongers will believe. But what struck me was that both sides of the debate are using "revisionist history" as an insult. Meanwhile, someone like Murray Rothbard would use it as a compliment. But viewed dispassionately it's inherently neither: whether a piece of revisionist history is good or bad depends on whether the evidence calls for the revision or not!