I think you're projecting a bit if you interpret my response as attempting to exonerate Democrats and everybody else who parroted the false statements. I think that Democrats were spineless and the media was profoundly derelict in its duty, both of them for not being nearly skeptical enough. Was there some calculated willingness to swallow the false statements whole and unexamined? Sure. There was also an element of fear involved. Don't forget the climate of the times, with Wingers accusing anyone who questioned the rush to war of "treason!" and of "hating America" and "siding with the terrorists". That was a dark period in American history, the kind of darkness that impairs national judgment and produces debacles like Iraq.
I hope we learn something from the experience...but we're doomed to repeat it if the Right succeeds in sweeping it under the rug and revising history. I'm beginning to have second thoughts about my recent opinion that there's a "tacit truce" about raking Bush over the coals yet again about Iraq. It's becoming abundantly clear that the Right intends only to exploit the tentative gesture of goodwill, and not respond in kind.
You're convincing me that Kucinich is right to once again file Articles of Impeachment over this. Forgive-and-forget isn't working, so we need the kind of definite closure a Senate trial would bring. Wouldn't you anticipate final vindication if Bush gets his day in court? What's to fear if he didn't really lie?
Current Events » in reply to It's more like frustration.
Your frustration is showing too
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Study: Bush, other officials issued hundreds of false statements before Iraq invasion
- Why am I not surprised?
- Heh.
- Same analysis, different source
- Consider the source
- He got you guys again
- Clinton made us do it......
- Democratic "support" for Bush-Cheney based upon misguided trust.
- For those who are interested.
