Were we lied to about Iraq?
Recently I wrote a political rant in the comments section of a post on my good online buddy fubabee’s blog. It was in answer to her question: “Were we lied to about Iraq?” It’s all over the map as it was written off the top of my head, and could do with some editing and additional research, but I’ll just post it here as-is anyway. Deal.
You want to know? OK. The answer is no, you weren’t lied to. U.S. and British reports alike have indicated that we had every reason to believe there were WMDs in Iraq. Regardless of that fact, what we are doing there is necessary and important, and will be looked on by historians as one of the greatest achievements of this presidency. Planting the seeds of democracy in the middle east would have been said to be impossible 10 years ago.
The quote that was posted on the CNN article, emphasising “an affront to me personally,” and “an affront to our leadership” is taken out of context, as well. In the video clip, directly above, for instance, Frist states that “it’s an affront to the leadership of this great nation,” so I don’t think he’s referring to the leadership of the investigative committee. It might also be noted that Reid had been made aware that the next phase of the investigation was to continue the very next week prior to his grandstanding, which lends credence to the theory that it was a stunt.
Really, I think Frist’s complaint comes down to the fact that there is a sense of decorum normally observed in governmental affairs, and democrats have shown less and less respect for this as they have lost power throughout the past two elections. As democrats fall farther and farther out of line with mainstream America, they will continue to see a decline in power. The most recent presidential election was the first in years in which both the popular and electoral votes were in favor of the same candidate.
Bush is not infallible, but people knew what they were voting for when they elected him, they’d seen him during the previous term. I fail to see how people on the left are able to look at someone who makes decisions on principles and doesn’t change his stand due to the polls (as their esteemed Clinton did) as weak, stupid, or any of the other adjectives they often attribute to him. The democratic party is not what it once was. If the republican party doesn’t know how to lead, then the democratic party has made clear it doesn’t know how to follow or get out of the way. Like an older child jealous of a younger sibling, they see fit to throw roadblock after roadblock at anything the republican establishment tries to accomplish. I had heard recently, though I can’t find the reference, now, that democrats are already saying that while some of the tax code reform ideas being floated are worth investigating, they will not allow them to pass into law under this president. What? So the idea of a national sales tax, for instance, is good, but we won’t get it because the dems are bitter?
Lastly, we’ve been in this war for a long time now, and while any loss of life is lamentable, Americans have lost their perspective on what war is about. You know better than I do the pain we felt as 3,000 lives were lost on 9/11. This war is about saying “this will not happen again.” How many lives is that worth? In the D-Day invasion (justone battle in the war!), over 10,000 Allies were killed, over 6,000 of which were Americans. (http://www.channel4.com/history/timeteam/2004_dday_deaths.html) The war is about a principle.
People who believe that the UN will solve all of the world’s problems will find ways to spin this war to make it seem that it’s not worth fighting. “Oh, look over here! It’s all about oil!” “There were no WMDs.” etc etc… The media knows that controversy sells copy — they don’t care how hypocritical they have to be to continue to find new ways to stir the pot. This is why they think NOTHING of revealing the existence of CIA interrogation operating in eastern europe and then continue to demonize “Scooter” Libby for “outing” an ex-CIA operative, who wasn’t in covert status any longer and was working a desk job.
OK, this is clearly a rant, and this isn’t my blog, so I’m gonna go now. *
* Now that this is being reposted, it is my blog. So there. :-p
I just felt like addin a little insight on propaganda , and truth…… Basically truth is what you want it too be…
Please Read …. Its long, and I did not completely write it on my own….
There is no principle which, objectively considered, is as false as that of parliamentarianism.
Here we may totally disregard the manner in which our fine representatives of wich the people have chosen, how they arrive at their office and their new dignity. That only the tiniest fraction of them rise in fulfillment of a general desire, let alone a need, will at once be apparent to anyone who realizes that the political understanding of the broad masses is far from being highly enough developed to arrive at definite general political views of their own accord to seek out the suitable personalities.
The things we designate by the word ‘public opinion’ rests only in the smallest part on experience or knowledge which the individual has acquired by himself, but rather on an idea which is inspired by so-called ‘education,’ often of a highly persistent and obtrusive type.
Just as a man’s denominational orientation is primarily the result of upbringing, and only the religious need as such slumbers in his soul, the political opinion of the masses represents nothing but the final result of an incredibly tenacious and thorough manipulation of their mind and soul. By far the greatest share in their political ‘education,’ which in this case is most aptly designated by the word ‘propaganda,’ falls to the account of the press. It is foremost in performing this ‘work of enlightenment’ and thus represents a sort of school for Adults. This instruction, however, is not in the hands of the state, but in the claws of forces which are in part very inferior. I can not help but be amazed at how short a time it took this great evil power within the state to create a certain opinion even when it meant totally falsifying profound desires and views which surely existed among the public. In a few days a ridiculous episode had become a significant state action, while, conversely, at the same time, vital problems fell a prey to public oblivion, or rather were simply filched from the memory and consciousness of the masses.
Thus, in the course of a few weeks it was possible to conjure up names out of the void, to associate them with incredible hopes on the part of the broad public, even to give them a popularity which the truly “great man” often does not obtain his whole life long; names which a month before no one had even seen or heard of, while at the same time old and proved figures of political or other public life, though in the best of health, simply died as far as their fellow men were concemed, or were heaped with such vile insults that their names soon threatened to become the symbol of some definite act of infamy or villainy. We must study this vile neo-conservative technique of emptying garbage pails full of the vilest slanders and defamations from hundreds and hundreds of sources at once, suddenly and as if by magic, on the clean garments of honorable men, if we are fully to appreciate the entire menace represented by these scoundrels of the press.