Still a Beltway controversy-CSM

[trof]

So far, much of the controversy has been confined to the Beltway: When a Newsweek survey recently asked voters for their reaction to Bush's discredited assertion that Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Africa, 72 percent said they knew nothing about it.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0714/p01s04-uspo.html

Until that number changes significantly I'm not optimistic about bringing * down.
:-(

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. You missed this part

Still a Beltway controversy

So far, much of the controversy has been confined to the Beltway: When a Newsweek survey recently asked voters for their reaction to Bush's discredited assertion that Iraq tried to acquire uranium from Africa, 72 percent said they knew nothing about it.

Still, there are signs the public is now having second thoughts about the Bush administration's representation of the Iraqi weapons threat. According to a CBS poll, while only 11 percent of Americans believe the White House actually lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, 45 percent think the administration was hiding important elements of what it knew. Likewise, Americans are now evenly divided on whether the end results of the war have been worth the costs.

Equally troubling for the White House, Bush's approval rating on handling foreign policy has dropped to 50 percent, 10 points below his overall approval rating.

"What props up is the war on terrorism, winning the war in Iraq - and the fact that Americans like him," says independent pollster John Zogby. Now, many things are chipping away at that support, from the flat economy, to the instability in Iraq, to the mounting number of US casualties. "If you add to that the final Vietnam War equation - which is government misrepresentation or lying - that can be very troublesome," he says.


-----------------------

I watched today Nixon: The Final Days, actually yesterday... Watergate took longer to get traction.. this one is getting traction.

Take into account the People found about this last week on Thursday... don't give up yet... this is getting traction and as soldiers die (and unfortunately they will) more doubts will happen... and people will ask the unavoidable, question... George, why did we go to war George?

I am actually more hopeful than you are... we have seen on the AOL boards the turn begining... and this is ... drip, drip, drip... also once Blair is out of his job... that will make people on this side of the pond ask... WHY.

Also... I might add, if you think the CIA is giving up... nope... just like MI6 they are going to fight it.

[MaineDem]

2. Kobe Bryant was the lead story this morning on CNN

This really sucks! And it surely makes me certain that anyone watching tv news - or having access to most major media - is manipulated. Pisses me off.

I've always enjoyed the Monitor. This is a good passage from the article:

"But even if the public largely accepts that the president simply made an honest mistake, the incident may feed an already growing belief that the administration, whether intentionally or not, overestimated the Iraqi weapons threat in the run up to war. Particularly as the instability in Iraq continues, with more and more US troops losing their lives and no weapons of mass destruction yet found, more Americans may begin to question whether the war was worth it - and whether the president led the nation on an appropriate course."


We cannot let this go awway.

[codeword]

5. Most people only care about what is going on in their own personal lives.

They don't take much interest in public affairs. This makes it hard to have a democratic society.

[codeword]

3. The Time cover story might help.

LINK

[tlb]

4. Dems spent the whole second Clinton term saying Saddam WMD's were a threat

so why WOULD the public at large take them seriously now as they condemn Bush for making the same point. I've tried to make this point before and while it may be unpopular here, I don't see how anything has changed. The dem party as an organization is totally compromised on this issue. Of the credible candidates, only Dean can raise this issue at all without coming off as an opportunistic hypocrite.

With the uranium claim being made several months after congress approved the authorization of military action, I think the whole thing will blow over the same way as Enron did.

[msanger]

7. and what are you doing to make sure it doesn't?

tlb wrote "...I think the whole thing will blow over the same way as Enron did."

I think each of on this board needs to take personal action OUTSIDE THIS BOARD to keep the story spreading. I just sent an email to 15 of my friends with the TIME link on it, and urged them to pass it on.

If not us, then who?

[mac56]

8. Welcome, tlb -

Yes, the Clinton administration was correctly worried about Saddam's potential weapons. But I think you're missing a big difference. Clinton was using deterrance (successfully, I might add) and working with the international community, not against it. All evidence now shows that approach was working. There was never a justification for this conquest, and Dubya knew it.

Yes, many Democrats are compromised on the issue. Many voted last fall to allow Dubya to take action against Iraq. Note, though, that many of these votes were based upon what we now know to be false information. It's not an excuse, but an explanation.

[Nlighten1]

6. Not for long

When Time magazine hits this week and Newsweek and the rest pick up on this it will spill out...drip...drip...drip