Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
You're not accounting for how closely the information was controlled leading up to the war. People who supported the war because "Iraq was behind 9/11"...they were wrong from the beginning, because it was very clear that that wasn't the case. The question of WMD's, though, was less clear, at least in the US media. Because of the way the issue was framed, both sides sounded reasonable and people had to decide which they believed more. I'd agree with you if the media had done its job better and made it more clear that the evidence was weak, but they didn't. Not everyone has the time or inclination to assume that they must go to non-US media sources to get a more accurate picture. Now... that has changed due to experience, but in 2003 that wasn't the case.
|
I'm not sure it was necessarily the media's fault per se, but rather, more of a misleading information campaign by the administration.
For me, at first I supported action, that is until Hans Blix came back empty handed and I thought, "Whew, that's great, now we don't need to invade." Then, the whole thing just went to crap.
In the end, people will believe what they want to believe.