Is The Tide Finally Turning Against Bush & Co?

The one thing this blog has managed to do over the past few years is to follow the story of Bush's lies through the daily media treadmill. And it's interesting, because some days you can almost taste a feeling of subjugated outrage in the US public. Today is one of those days.

Bush and Blair today denied the evidence of the Downing Street Memo, but their hollow words are ringing increasingly false. Here's how Bush tried to brush the memo off:

Well, I -- you know, I read kind of the characterizations of the memo, particularly when they dropped it out in the middle of [Blair's] race. I'm not sure who "they dropped it out" is, but -- I'm not suggesting that you all dropped it out there. (Laughter.) And somebody said, well, you know, we had made up our mind to use military force to deal with Saddam. There's nothing farther from the truth.

Somebody, George? That was the head of British intelligence, not just somebody! And he was returning from Washington after being breifed by your own head of intelligence, who presumably knew more than you about what was really going on!

If the poll figures below are not enough to convince you that the times are a-changing, a few stories are now emerging in the (ahem!) "liberal" media that hint at a change is on the way...

For example, Sean Gonsalves at WorkingForChange says Americans actually can handle the truth:

...which is why, instead of focusing on Watergate we should be looking at Iraqgate.

Gonsalves reminds us that the Watergate story was at first viewed as a minor burglary. The Downing Street Memo has been in the same "page 99" category of news for the past month, but that already seems to be changing.

Elsewhere, Ernest Partidge at The Crisis Papers reminds us of Herbert Stein’s law, “That which can not go on forever, won’t.”

It's a good point: Bush's economic policies don't make sense, and his military adventures are bogged down with no sign of "victory" in sight...

It is inevitable: sooner or later the Bush Regime will fall...

His regime is supported through fear, falsehood, arrogance and a compliant public. But how long can the Busheviks withhold from the public the compelling fact that this public has been had? ...

The credibility of the Bush regime is dissolving, and with it the regime’s scaffolding of lies.

When Bush's long-time critics start talking like this, it is a sign that the tide of US public opinion may well be on the point of turning. And as Partridge reminds us, that pendulum can swing very suddenly and aggressively: look at Ferdinand Marcos in the Phillipines, the Shah of Iran, or the East European Communist regimes of 1989-90.

But can it happen in today's USA?

One big obstacle is the pro-Bush US mainstream media (which paradoxically runs frequent stories accusing itself of being too "liberal"!). Yet when you look at the economic and technological pressures now forcing changes on traditional media like newspapers and TV news, you can't help wondering why they don't run the story of Bush's lies as sensational page one news. I mean, there has gotta be enough "surprises" to break circulation records for a few months!

My suspicion is that when big media people like Rupert Murdoch smell the scent of blood in the water, they will turn very suddenly and very aggressively on the Bush gang, with a visciousness calculated to make the public forget their own involvement in Bush's disastrous misadventures. If push ever comes to shove, the entire management of Fox News can always be sacked and replaced with new stooges, with a new set of talking points. The share price is the bottom line, after all, and there's a lot of money to be made by telling this story in all its gory detail!

People are now talking about withdrawal from Iraq. The US House of Representatives has even debated the issue. People including Jimmy Carter are talking about closing down Guantanamo Bay. Truth is, despite all his swaggering Texan bravado, Bush had no "political capital" to spend on November 3rd, 2004, and he is now all but bankrupt.

Consider the following stories:

The USA has dropped its opposition to IAEA chief Mohamed El Baradei because of a lack of support from other countries:

The Bush administration's vigorous but solitary campaign -- including a complete halt of intelligence sharing, recruitment of potential replacements and eavesdropping on El Baradei in search of ammunition against him -- won not a single ally on the IAEA board.

Democrats vow to block Bolton's UN nomination:

"This is now beyond Bolton," Mr. Dodd added. "It is a question of whether or not the Senate should have a right to information pertaining to a nominee."

Bush's defence of his murderous lies is sounding increasingly pathetic:

"The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power," Bush said.

Sure, George. Nobody is even arguing that. But the world will also be better off without you in power.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post has a good run-down of what's happening with the Downing Street Memo, which remains on of the top 10 most-viewed articles at the Times one month after its release.

Far from being a dud, the Downing Street Memo may generate more stories to come.

Amen to that!