This "if we knew then what we know now" argument about why the Democrats voted for the war doesn't wash with me. The same thing happened in Britain, where Tony Blair was facing defeat in his own Labour party and the only way he managed to win the vote on going to war was by getting support from the Conservative opposition (which adds weight to my suspicions that Blair turned his party into a facsimile of the Conservatives in order to come to power in the first place!). This, I think, is the policitian's way of 'getting round' the democratic process, by making deals with other parties in order to do the things that they wouldn't be able to do because they don't get enough support on their own!

So not only does this "we were stupid to believe them then" argument not wash it seems to cover up for dirty behind the scenes deals. If even someone like me knew that the war was stupid and illegal at the time and the policitians didn't then that makes the policitians either incredibly stupid or desperately trying to extricate themselves from the mess which they voted for at the time - with both their vote at the time and their plea of ignorance now being based purely on self-interest.

In that way the Republicans (and Labour in Britain) were 'smart' in that they tarred everyone in the politics with their deceits. Now they have the perfect alibi as they somehow managed to 'dupe' all the most 'important' people in power to go with them, so now all the vested interests of these outside parties might prevent Bush and his cabal getting the jail terms they so richly deserve, just in case their part in the sequence of events is also exposed and they end up going down with them! The Republicans have certainly proved themselves to be brilliantly devious because even losing the war can be twisted into being the fault of whoever pulls the troops out - because the Americans would have 'won' if they had just stuck to Bush's plan! I think that was the plan all the time - to tar the opposition with the 'loss' of an unwinnable war while Bush got his wish of killing Saddam.

Fascinating discussion. Thanks for posting it!

Wait a second - Reagan's dead? :-D

But the Republicans have had a hard on for Reagan for years - wasn't Bush Jnr's big project before getting sidetracked by 9/11 and the War on Terror going to be implementing Reagan's Star Wars missile defence system?

The Mansons - surely the Republicans would be proud of this tight knit community, 'family' if you will, and their values? After all they were always there for one another, like the Waltons but with more psychopathic killing.

Sadly we're now in the age of people who've grown u weaned on this type of terrible, emotive rather than informative so called news. Printing lies because it sells papers and they know they will get away with it and without thought to the suffering it causes.

This programme was made just over ten years ago when the last protests were being made against this style being unfair and inappropriate. Now it seems people accept what they see because there is no other channels of information to receive their information from. It also socialises people into various groups so "Mirror readers" have their view of the world and look down on people who don't read the particular paper.

Even worse all the other papers and television news seem to have jumped on the bandwagon, picking up spurious Murdoch press stories and similar styles (similar to the way other US news channels have picked up on Fox News techniques despite not agreeing with it - it still sells news - and apparently won the 2000 election for Bush when Fox announced the results early and all the other channels picked up on it)

What a sad indictment especially in the moments the Mirror is compared to the paper it was in the past.

Excellent video. Well, it looks like Murdoch is 'going to get his return' on the investment of buying up satellite television soon. The digital switchover of television in Britain is starting in the next year or so. This was masterminded by Labour apparently in order to sell off the analogue airwaves to mobile phone companies (a horrible proposal anyway), but likely to give Murdoch more control. For example there is not full digital coverage in many areas of the country and no holding back the switchoff until there is full coverage. The response to this hasn't changed - if you can't get 'freeview' (the BBC channels for free because you are covered) then you have to go for cable (which is very limited in coverage as well) or satellite (which means subscribing to Murdoch's Sky)

There was an interesting Newsnight clip on Friday night (the BBC puts their programmes up on their website, but I'm not sure whether it is still up) where it was suggested that Segolene Royal will probably not win because many French women are jealous of her for her looks (the segment suggested that French women don't 'stand together' but instead pick each other apart - as in every other country then. Baaa-zing! ;-) )

The thing that worries me about the French elections is that both parties have committed to fundamental change, but it looks like both sides will only end up damaging the country further. Nicolas Sarkozy is the right winger that called rioters 'scum' a few years ago and there are apparently fears of heavy rioting breaking out if he wins (which initial polls are suggesting he will). Segolene Royal is the left winger who has said how much she admires what Tony Blair has done in Britain and she would like to do the same thing in France - yikes! Blair destroyed the left wing in Britain to make his party electable and then since has basically copied Margaret Thatcher's policies..and Royal wants to emulate him?

She also said her relationship with Blair will be a help if she wins the election as she will have connections. Well only as long as Blair stays in power, and there is the question of how much people listen to Blair anyway especially after that incident last year where the microphones were left on during the Blair/Bush chat "Yo, Blair!"!

If that's the case perhaps we should hope for a Bush jail sentence? ;-D

Excellent post! After watching that Outfoxed film and clips like these I have to admit to be worryingly fascinated by Fox News! Did anyone else see the couple of black 'influential' people quickly flicked past as they were introducing the guests? What was son wrong with them that they weren't given the same amount of time as those other people?

Lets hope Bush doesn't see this - I could imagine him screaming "I'll show you who's influential!" and starting another war!

But I do agree with one of the comments about some of the influential people being extremely shallow. I guess this poll was just based on the amount of coverage these people are getting right now, for better or worse. Perhaps Paris Hilton will make it into the next one now she's had her profile 'upped' by going to jail?

Interesting. I remember reading some reports that women were being given the choice of Caesarians or were having them forced on them when really that procedure should be carried out in extreme circumstances when the baby or mother is in danger.

I wonder if this film goes into the issue of male circumcision, as it seems that is a procedure carried out mostly because it is a relatively quick and easy operation for the money the doctor makes by performing it.

Well it is often said that everything the Americans do we end up doing later (and often in an even more half-assed way!)

Beyond the horrible things they are taking pleasure in doing the thing that goes through my mind whenever I see a video like this or the Abu Ghraib photos is that some complete moron thought it would be a good idea to take a picture or a video. Why - as some sort of memento?(!) If you are that stupid you deserve to get caught (whether you get punished is of course a completely different matter - cynical? Me? lol). The other thing that these videos or pictures makes me think about is how much is goes on that didn't get filmed because the perpetrators had more sense? Thinking of it that way we should perhaps let them all take their video cameras and mobile phones with them!

lol. I loved Not The Nine O'Clock News!

Also check out F For Fake - http://www.criterion.com/asp/release.asp?id=288 - the film Orson Welles made. It deals with art forger Elmyr De Hory, who Clifford Irving wrote the biography of before he got the idea to do his Hughes book. It deals with the Irving Hughes scandal and various other notions of fakery.

The extra features on the DVD are good too, including a 60 minutes interview with Irving and the telephone interview Hughes was forced to do to defend himself against the claims made in the book.

I hope so Tracon - I just worry that they aren't beyond taking the whole house of cards down with them!

Fascinating episode. It is almost like he is speaking to 20+ years hence viewers with that final speech about facts becoming fluid and removed from personal experience - did he know what was coming with Bush and Blair's 'dodgy dossier' of made up evidence about Iraq's ability to launch weapons within 45 mins :-D

It also reminds us of just how much of a revolution the Internet has been. The invention of movable type was a major revolution, but presses were still in the hands of those with the resources to produce. Now any monkey with a keyboard can add to the information on the Internet (as I'm proving right now!). Also see the Wikipedia for facts becoming fluid!

I suppose it all comes down to how much damage a selfish 'zerosum' society, government or individiual (e.g. Rupert Murdoch) can cause. Can they turn back the tide of civilisation if they have enough influence or, more worryingly if their 'greed is good' ideologies catch on with others?