[babble-on]

That’s hardly a public communications strategy. We’re talking about two different things here, obviously. Substance versus perception. On the substance you and I agree, I think.

What I am getting at is why such an overwhelming % of the American population thinks 1. WMD was the only rationale for the war. 2. We thought we would be greeted as liberators. 3. We felt it was “mission accomplished” after a few short weeks.

That gets back to communication with the public, which is a lot more than texts of joint resolutions which will be read by 0.001% of the public, if that.

[kabar]

My point is that the people responsible for approving the President's actions, i.e., Congress, had the facts and supported the rationale for going into Iraq. There were other reasons besides WMD. That was expressed repeatedly by Bush and other government officials.

There has been plenty of revisionist history on this issue, which is one of the reasons Feith wrote the book. The American public's perception of what happened has been shaped by the Leftist MSM and the Dems. When the Big Lie is repeated over and over again, it becomes a fact. Understandably, the Administration has had a very difficult time getting out its message. Harry Reid says the war is lost. It reminds me of the war I was part of, Vietnam, and the MSM and Dems convinced the public that the Tet Offensive was a huge military defeat for us when in fact, just the opposite was the case.

How would you have handled communications with the public on the lead up to the Iraq war and the events that followed?