When political leaders make drastic mistakes, accountability is delivered in the form of elections. That occurred in November when voters removed the party principally responsible for the war in Iraq. But the invasion would not have occurred had Americans not been persuaded of its wisdom and necessity, and leading that charge was a stable of pundits and media analysts who glorified President Bush’s policies and disseminated all sorts of false information and baseless assurances.
Yet there seems to be no accountability for these pro-war pundits. On the contrary, they continue to pose as wise, responsible experts and have suffered no lost credibility, prominence, or influence. They have accomplished this feat largely by evading responsibility for their prior opinions, pretending that they were right all along or, in the most extreme cases, denying that they ever supported the war.
[Article continues at link. Unaddressed here, and perhaps of greater importance, is what it means that Americans were 'persuaded' and 'lead.' Why were they persuaded by these people and not other people? Why were they persuaded at all? Why aren't they now howling for the blood of their persuaders? Why were some persuaded and not others?]
Post a Comment