Why are we hearing the truth about Iraq two years later?

[MikeG]

And in a book, not in the newspaper or on TV?

[displacedtexan]

1. Because it takes the bottom half of the bell curve that long

to figure it out for themselves that the pResident might not have been telling the truth about WMDs.

Duh.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. Are you referring to Woodward's book as "the truth"?....

Please tell me that you haven't been taken in by this guy.

[MikeG]

5. I'm talking about the following:

Misappropriating funds for preparation.
Making the decision in November, 2001.
Telling Powell last.
Bush knowing there was little evidence of WMD in December, 2002.

Where was the Washington press corps? When did Woodward know?
Didn't he have a duty to release this stuff earlier when it could have done some good? Saved some frigging lives?
The Washington press corps must be the laziest people who have ever existed.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

9. The plans for a war in Iraq had been drawn up well before the NeoCons...

...took control of the country in December 2000. There was no decision made in November, 2001...it had already been made. Rumsfeld was telling his direct reports to get ready to move against Iraq the day after 911.

The NeoCons also knew that the UN inspectors had certified that Iraq was WMD-free in 1995. With all of the overhead surveillance of Iraq, where could they have hidden any WMD program?

[damnyankee]

13. Yeah, if you want to go to when the war plans were hatched, ...

that was in 1998. And the info has been freely-available on the web, on the PNAC site.

The big question is whey we hadn't been hearing the truth in the media a little over one year ago, when the Invasion had yet to happen. The evidence was there (except of course what we hadn't directly discovered, nor caused, by occupation). But a highly-corporatized media didn't report it. And some of the media still is not -- e.g., Faux News. And even the media that are reporting it don't always get the stories straight, point out that this is what critics had said from the start, and so on. Even with the media acting a big more feisty, we should not believe that we can trust it to report what needs reporting.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

11. One additional point...

...the mainstream media is owned by major conservative corporations. If a reporter steps out of line, they find another line of work.

[Virginian]

12. Explain please.

What is Woodward not being truthful about?

[stellanoir]

3. maybe because. . .

the media has been entirely co-oped by the corporations who are in collusion with the military-industrial complex in whose best interest it is to obfuscate the truth.

Scantily, we simply have no democracy left to export.

Yet IMHOP, we've been an oligarchy since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Still as an optimist, I never thought that things would digress to this degree.

Ever heard of the phrase "taxation without representation?'"

Maybe we could consider doing something about that. . .

Can't quite place it though. . .

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. I think the Repubs are getting ready to dump

bush too...

Look over the past year, actually more, I have had the feeling that he does not make it to the election... and we may just be seeing a lets get ready for this, RESIGNATION Speech... the repubs don't have the stomach for impeachment and that way they can avoid the elephant in the room, aka Clinton was impaeched for sex crimes but Bush was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and thirty years from now they can spread lies about St. Bush.

I also think Woodward may have played into Bush's sense of superiority and quietly gathered notes that would be very unpleasant and politically sensitive, but coudl not go into the first book. I'd advise woodward to avoid small planes for the rest of his life.

[displacedtexan]

8. Good point about Woodward.

Woodward was a republican when he got the tip(s) of his career and brought down Nixon.

Was Bush* stupid enough to think Woodward wouldn't do it again?
Don't answer that.

[opihimoimoi]

10. Woodward made his name by flushing out Nixon, can he do it once more

with W?

To Flush or Not to Flush, that is the question.

History will judge America by its Leaders.

Look at all the past flawed leaders who misled their People into anguish and waste and we see startling similarities. We need a better system to filter out Flawed Candidates from reaching the pinnacle.

[damnyankee]

14. It's a bit late for them to dump Dubya ...

unless they are willing to 'lose' the WH. I think the GOP will just hope for the best. Now, as to what corporate leaders will do, that is different. They may decide that they can abide Kerry, if need be.

[ConcernedCanuk]

6. Think back, we KNEW the truth years ago, but decided to go with rumors

.
.
.

and vague statements by the pResident and his minions

gobbled up by the media and disseminated to the paranoid public.

It was the American people that WANTED to believe all the innuendos and non-corroborated statements.

Canada was not the only nation that knew there was not enough evidence for the war - MANY other nations wanted "proof", and not getting it either did not participate, or needed excessive pressure/threats/bribery from the WH to get involved.

Sorry, but my personal opinion is the American people, in enough numbers to matter, WANTED this war.

And got it.

[bluedog]

7. we knew the truth

we the DUers knew.other countries were printing it..it was the media that did not hear us and they are the ones that did not report the truth.......now all hells busting loose and some have decided to become journalists.

[damnyankee]

15. Good point:

it wasn't the media who didn't report the truth, it was the US MEDIA that so failed.

[Hornito]

16. Because neocons control most of the U.S. mass media.....

In cahoots with the neocons behind the Bush junta, and with Sharon's Israeli Likud, they have done a wonderful job of suppressing, shaping, and deleting the news. Our nation has received almost 100% propaganda for the last three+ years, thanks to this bunch. They (the neocon controlled news corps) are traitors, with dual loyalties, and are as guilty as anyone in the Bush junta for the war, the deaths, and the harm that has come to our nation.

[pretzel4gore]

17. in a word, criminal treason...

for some reason rightwingers can accept that their bosses hate the country (rightly so they think) then can proclaim themselves patriotic men, even though they and their children live in the same nation that the neocon right hate(?)