Bush still keeps touting how we are doing great things in Iraq and Kerry still says nonsense like "we are opening firehouses in Baghdad and shutting them down in [fill in swing state]". Both claims are based on premises well-known to be false but they can keep on doing it. For one thing, journalists will not challenge them. There will be separate articles telling the truth about the reconstruction but unless you are a detailed and careful reader of many newspapers, you may well miss them. Thus, unsurprisingly, most Americans probably do think we have spent a ton of money and what problems that exist with the reconstruction are due to the more recent security problems.
It's the same thing with the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction. By now, it's been well-reported that Iraq did not possess any at the time of the invasion. But only with the latest report are we seeing reporters include that fact along with Bush's claims and implications to the contrary. But it's all a bit moot now. After many years of unchallenged assertions by Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards and most everyone else, the whole exercise seems a bit academic. It's well established in most people's heads that Saddam Hussein was some real, grave threat to the American people. It looked like the debate was over how to quantify and best handle this major threat.
So it goes. Parts of the anti-war movement had long ago pointed out most everything that has been "revealed" with great fanfare over the past year or two -- everything from the bogus Niger documents to the limitations of the aluminum tubes cited by Powell before his U.N. speech. However, we don't seem to be able to make inroads into the general popular conciousness just because we were right then, and just because every passing day proves how right we really were.
...This is a serious and entrenched problem we face, one we must find a way to overcome if we are to free the monopoly the warmongers have on general public conciousness.
Zeynep postIt's the same thing with the infamous Weapons of Mass Destruction. By now, it's been well-reported that Iraq did not possess any at the time of the invasion. But only with the latest report are we seeing reporters include that fact along with Bush's claims and implications to the contrary. But it's all a bit moot now. After many years of unchallenged assertions by Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards and most everyone else, the whole exercise seems a bit academic. It's well established in most people's heads that Saddam Hussein was some real, grave threat to the American people. It looked like the debate was over how to quantify and best handle this major threat.
So it goes. Parts of the anti-war movement had long ago pointed out most everything that has been "revealed" with great fanfare over the past year or two -- everything from the bogus Niger documents to the limitations of the aluminum tubes cited by Powell before his U.N. speech. However, we don't seem to be able to make inroads into the general popular conciousness just because we were right then, and just because every passing day proves how right we really were.
...This is a serious and entrenched problem we face, one we must find a way to overcome if we are to free the monopoly the warmongers have on general public conciousness.
I don't see that happening. But I'm open to suggestions.
I think it's a matter of the public psyche. The warmongers are simply reflections of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment