Skip to main content

View Diary: Watching Maddow's "Hubris: Selling the Iraq War" (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I was a little disappointed too (18+ / 0-)

    No new information, and I think the documentary tiptoed a little too carefully around the fact that the entire rationale for the war was a manufactured set of lies -- deliberate lies, not mistakes or misinterpretations.  The charge was there, but was not the central theme of the piece it should have been.

    It skipped over a lot of important details that would have lent heft to the charges.  Doug Feith was there, but the Office of Special Plans he led in the Pentagon that manufactured the lies was not mentioned.  No mention of the Downing Street Memos or the complicity of Tony Blair.  And I agree, the horrible cheerleading of the media didn't get enough play.

    But then, I guess I'd be asking for a two-hour documentary, and the ratings would be tiny by comparison.  I'm hoping Maddow and MSNBC are hoping to start a conversation in which more facts can come out, as her comments fluffing the documentary last week seemed to indicate.

    Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 08:39:37 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Can't agree about tiptoeing (17+ / 0-)

      Seemed to me the whole point of the program was to show, in detail, exactly where and how the lies that led to the AUMF were fed to the public.  I agree that the program was too short to show all the background, but I have to wonder if a longer program would have found an audience.  On balance, I thought the program was aimed at people who were too young to remember, or weren't paying attention at the time, not those of us who were fully aware of the history.

      •  I see your point (10+ / 0-)

        The demonstration that the case for the war was a lie was made.  But for an audience that didn't already know these facts, I think a clearer editorial stance that the case was a lie should have been made.  There were too many qualifying statements like "at best, the statements were inaccurate".  The clear pattern of administration conduct was to present a propaganda case to take the country to war, and qualifying statements should have been shown for the false apologias they are.

        Citizens United defeated by citizens, united.

        by Dallasdoc on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:08:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  To be fair to the people being interviewed... (6+ / 0-)

          ... they were all part of the political machinery of the day.  They also got to where they were by making a living of splitting hairs and mastering political kama-sutra.  An unequivocal statement from any of them could lead to very serious charges being brought directly against them - they understand the ramifications.  You have to imagine that there were lawyers sitting behind the cameras for every interview.

          I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

          by Hey338Too on Tue Feb 19, 2013 at 09:19:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site