No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

The Lie that Led us to War

Robert Sheer asks the question:What could be more cynical and impeachable than fabricating a threat of rogue nations or terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and using that to sell a war?

Yet he goes on: "The world is outraged at this pattern of lies used to justify the Iraq invasion, but the U.S. public still seems numb to the dangers of government by deceit. "


I don't think anyone really doubts the first. So why is the public "...numb to the dangers of government by deceit."? Is it that the media doesn't want the lead in asking the question? Has the public been so bludgeoned by the admininstration's propaganda that they don't realize what happened, or that they don't believe that can do anything about it?

Let me throw out some possibilities.

(1) Most of us thought that the Persian Gulf War I was ended too soon, and Saddam should not have been left in power. The war was declared over too soon. So now the public accepts Persian Gulf War II on any basis as simply cleaning up the mess left after Persian Gulf War I.

I really suspect that this is the reason why the admininstration went to war in the first place, and all the justifications presented in the press simply were excuses to do what hadn't been finished before.

(2) The public never bought the impeachment of Bill Clinton, as indicated by the continued high rating he got in the polls even in the middle of it, and the general acceptance (and relief) at his acquittal.

This has two possible results that I can see.

(2a) The public is exhausted at the idea of impeaching a President and doesn't want to go through it again.

(2b) The media feels used during the impeachment process (as they should) and isn't ready to dive in again, no matter what the justification.

I guess there is also a (3) All of the above.

I buy #3. The US public really doesn't like the continued existence of Saddam, and really didn't need much excuse to take him out. So the idea that it was done based on a lie - it was a good move even if done badly.

Then the public and the media are each waiting for a clear indication that the other is going to go ballistic over the lie we were fed to justify the war. The media isn't going to lead off, because they were ~so~ wrong and badly used in the Clinton impeachment. They were burned badly, and don't want to go there again. The public is unwilling to accept that the outcome was wrong ~even if they were lied to to make it happen~ partly because the media hasn't treated this like Watergate or whitewater, partly because they wanted the result anyway, and partly because there is a strong bunch of right wing supporters who are working hard to convince everyone that this war was justified.

America needs to decide if they want a government of ideologues who know what they believe and select the information that justifies their belief, or if we have a government run by people who solve real problems based on the facts of the problem and the most reasonable solution available. Right now we have the first, but I want the second.

posted by Richard at 3:29 AM