Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (24001)	1/12/2004 12:52:13 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

These postwar arguments not only suggest a disregard for the public. They also give the pro-war lobby more credit than it deserves. I think he's right about the second part. The reason there was such a drumbeat wasn't propaganda, IMO. If not for the last-gasp try to persuade France and Germany, the invasion would have been a done deal and there wouldn't have been occasion for the drumbeat. As for the first part, well, my only problem with the "Stupid" column posted the other day was that the author applied it to only one side. <g>

To: LindyBill who wrote (24001)	1/12/2004 2:28:55 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793670

That's kind of an odd piece. If you object to being lied to, you're showing contempt for those who bought the lies! Kind of a Catch 22. Confession: I believed them when they said Iraq had WMD. I know lots of people who did, or at least half-did. I was less sure about their repetitive claims that we were in imminent danger of a "mushroom cloud" from them, but couldn't be sure, of course. And despite the fact that the president says What's the difference? about whether they actually had WMD, and they were perilous to us, or not, I myself think it does make a difference. This is certainly true: Of course propaganda can be persuasive, sometimes even decisive, for individuals making up their minds over whether to support a war, a political party, or whatever. But the influence of propaganda is determined by the broader political climate and by the general level of public debate. In a healthy, critical climate, it is likely that Bush and Blair would have received even more ridicule for their Iraqi propaganda. But at a time when serious political debate is hard to find, our leaders can offer dodgy dossiers and half-cocked claims as if they were good coin. In short, it is often the weakness of the opposition that allows leaders to take their chances with paltry propaganda.