Underlying the Lies

[ewagner]

I am as anxious as anyone here to see the lies of the Bush Administration hauled out of the closet and dragged down mainstreet. But recently, I have been pondering a question that was asked in satire on this board not long ago. The question went something like this:

IF ATTACKING IRAQ WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA, THEN WHY DID BUSH HAVE TO LIE TO SELL IT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?

Damned good question.

Having just survived the trauma of raising a teenage boy, I learned some really good lessons. Like when he looked at me and lied through his teeth, he did so because there was something he really, really really didn't want me to know. So what is it that Bush didn't want us to know? Why was it so damned important to attack Iraq?

The question has been asked before, of course, with the easy answer being OIL! But that, I think is only a piece of the puzzle.

The underlying reason, I think is PNAC. This administration has bought into the PNAC agenda, heart and soul. (I acknowledge that oil is a part of it) The interesting thing is that the Administration knows full and well that the American public, and especially Joe Lunchbox, won't buy this agenda. Therefore, any attempt to implement the agenda had to be packaged in pretty patriotic ribbons, and smeared with fear of another 9/11.

What if Bush had to publicly defend that agenda? He already slipped the "pre-emptive strike" doctrine past the public with little or no fanfare.

What if the public knew that unilateral invasions and unprevoked wars were the full agenda of the administration and the PNAC?

What if PNAC was THE ISSUE in the 2004 campaign?

Could we make them come clean on their agenda? Could we force Joe Lunchbox to coonfront the realities of this administration?

Your thoughts are welcome.

[Bandit]

1. Just where will you inform Joe Lunchback from. Fox, MSNBC, CNN ??

You have to accept the realization that they control the Media and therefore the message. I think the average person just doesn't want to think about such matters. They want their elected representatives to "do the right thing" and just tell them how great everything is.

[ewagner]

2. I was thinking something different

I was thinking that if the dme candidates start talking about it they MUST cover what the candidates say.

You are absolutely right about the major networks carrying the story "stand alone". Its definitely not sexy enough to stand on its own. But if the public was asked: Is this what our foreign policy should be? Yes or No? Well, that's a differnet matter altogether

[StClone]

3. It should be obvious

"IF ATTACKING IRAQ WAS SUCH A GOOD IDEA, THEN WHY DID BUSH HAVE TO LIE TO SELL IT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC?"

The statement is equal to ones I have asked about many other Republican/Conservative activities and targets.

Like:

If Conservatism is so appealing why does it take five or six full- time radio nationally syndicated propagandists: Limbaugh, Hannity, Neal Bortz et al to sell their crappy product?

Why, if the media is Liberal, there is not one national show on NBC, CBS, FOX, ABC or CNN that is purely Liberal? Why do we have to turn a Public station for NOW with Bill Moyers that gets much of it's funding from individual private sources (many little people and a few wealthy individuals and fair-minded Corporate donors)?

That to find liberal media that a most highly awarded newspapers the NY Times is considered a source when in fact it is pretty even-handed and factual. Or, to find Liberal media the half hour Nightly News of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings are pointed two because they select the news and the angle of Liberals. One half hour a day with a hint of open-minded reporting liberal news will turn them crazy?

It is near endless, sigh.