Feith is right about one thing, the administration did a very poor job of explaining what the reasons for the war were, and what their expectations were. Its not that they concealed that, but the message didn’t come through that it was about more than WMD, so that when the WMD didn’t turn up, it appeared that the whole case had been a failure. That was the most unfortunate aspect of it all, and a more articulate president might have done a better job.
Worse, the administration’s totally inept communications gave people the impression that they were hiding something.
Not to totally disagree, but the President gets very few opportunies to DIRECTLY "explain" information to the American people. Everything else is delivered, almost always with a Liberal interpretation and analysis, by the MSM. AND, as future events take place, the "re-remembering" is selectively and often incorrectly done(on purpose of course) by the MSM, while other facts are conveniently forgotten. IMHO the only way to do a 'good job' of explaining is to have the MSM on your side, like the Clintons did. Note I said "did", as the MSM has turned against her. She can do a fantastic "job of explaining" anything but the MSM is against her now, so it doesn't matter.
Feith's statement that a lot of the recent books on Iraq are based on peoples' 'mis-remembrances' is spot on! They don't remember that the Democrats were pushing the idea of WMD in Iraq during x42's Administration, and completely gloss over the fact that x42 dropped the ball on terrorism, because he was too busy trying to keep from being impeached on charges of obstruction of justice. They concentrate on what the media and political pundits were saying, and ignoring what the Administration was saying, because they tended to disbelieve anything coming from the Bush Administration.
Jon Stewart's problem is that all of his 'knowledge' comes from those media sources, and he has believed everything he's been told or read, thus assumes that anything coming from the Bush Administration is a lie.