Short term memory loss is a symptom of several disorders like Alzheimer's disease, involving damage to the brain. However, it is very strange that a significant percentage of the American population who are in perfect health seem to be suffering from this malady. Some Americans don't seem to remember that the initial justification for bombing and invading Afghanistan was to destroy al-Oaida and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. George W. Bush said that Osama bin Laden was wanted dead or alive in the terminology of an old west poster. Then, suddenly in the middle of the war in Afghanistan, the justification for the war changed to defeating the Taliban and liberating Afghani women from their burkas. Osama bin Laden was forgotten and his name was rarely mentioned in the corporate media. Americans suffering from this short term memory lapse accepted this switch in justification for inflicting the horrors of war on another people with no obvious discomfort or outrage.

A similar occurrence happened during the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. The original justification for war was that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, making Iraq a threat to its neighbors and the world. The United States even concocted a phony story (proved a forgery by the International Atomic Energy Agency) about Iraq attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. Then, again after the invasion began, the justification for war switched to liberating the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. No weapons of mass destruction have since been found and none have been planted yet. Once again, those Americans with short term memory disorder sensed nothing amiss, exhibited no outrage at being lied to by the government and corporate media and castigated those who were offended as being unpatriotic.

Another manifestation of this memory malady is that those afflicted seem to exhibit no suspicions as to why the most powerful nation on Earth with the most sophisticated intelligence agency and satellite surveillance can't capture one Arab man named Osama bin Laden, who has such bad kidneys that he needs periodic hospitalization and dialysis. The CIA certainly had no trouble capturing people they really wanted like the leftist Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan or the Pakistani man named Kansi, who killed several CIA employees in Virginia. Why were Saddam Hussein, his sons and much of Iraq's leadership not captured during the fall of Baghdad? Why was resistance so fierce and prolonged in the southern cities of Iraq, but collapsed suddenly and unexpectedly in Baghdad itself? Was a deal cut to prevent large American casualties potentially occurring in street to street fighting in Baghdad? British journalist Robert Fisk and Columbia professor Edward Said have speculated that this may be the case. Why would the United States deliberately allow Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden to remain at large? Bogeymen are very useful to frighten the American people into supporting future wars for natural resources or voting the right way at election time. If the head demons were killed or captured, Americans might get the impression that the "war on terrorism" was over. None of these ideas seem to occur to those aforementioned memory deficient people.

What is the explanation for these short term memory lapses in some Americans? I believe it is the subtle, pernicious effects of television. Reality is what the television news tells Americans on a certain day. If that conflicts with the past, these people conveniently forget the past. On growing up in a small northern Indiana town, I remember an old man who everyone thought was quite crazy. One day he became disgusted by something he saw on television and blasted the TV set with a shotgun. If it had been today and he had been watching the Fox News Channel, I would say it was completely understandable. At the time, this was considered further evidence of his insanity. Now, I'm beginning to believe he was more sane than people gave him credit for, although I just use the remote control, mute switch or don't turn television on at all. Television is obviously one of the most effective instruments for the transmission of propaganda ever invented.

In reference to an article dated back in June of 2003 regarding American's and their short term memory loss. In your opinion, Americans should not forget the stated reasons by the Bush administration for going to war in Afganistan and Iraq. Perhaps the author should practice what he preaches and recall 9/11. If that is too close to present day for a person with short term memory loss then look back to the 1940's to another 'terrorist' by the name of Hitler. What ever reason the Bush administration issues for eliminating the world of terrorists and bullies should be good enough. They are a menace to society and need to be stopped. Bush's biggest mistake was using the WMD as a platform to go into Iraq - he should have stuck with the main issue - Saddam is a modern day Hitler.

Bush was right. The only way to deal with this scumbag was take him out.

...only 15% of Canadians polled would vote for George W. Bush in the upcoming election…Canadians have always felt somewhat more uncomfortable with Republican presidents than with Democrats, for the obvious reason that Republicans tend to skew a little more to the right on social matters, but the distrust and dislike of Dubya is a much more extreme reaction. And in this Canadians are not alone. Dubya has polarized moderates around the globe…

go to salon article http://blogs.salon.com/0003158/2004/02/07.html#a105

One thing Canadians and much of the world forget is that they are NOT in the center of the bullseye in which the US finds themselves in. We are not targets for terrorism and most likely will never be. Why? Because we, in the great white north, ride the wave of freedom secured by our neighbours in the south without having to risk our necks. I'm a proud Canadian and would never want to live anywhere else - however many of us disagree with our stand on the Iraq war. Had we been attacked as the Americans were - Bush would no doubt secure his position as Prime Minister. No country in the world is at more risk than the US when it comes to terrorism - therefore no country should think their solutions should work for the US. Thank you George Bush for ridding the world's playground of it's bullies.

And out of curiosity 'builder123' - how in the world did you pull out that statistic in Canada? Usually a poll like that is conducted to be slanted for a pre-determined result. There is no way such a question would be posed on our statistics Canada survey.

The Taliban did not plan the 9/11 attacks. It was on the news.

If the Bush Administration's real goal was to attack countries that have harbored Al Quaeda members, they could have attacked a number of other nations in the Middle East. Just a minute, breathe out all of the perfectly justifiable hate for Saddam, and consider that he is not the only evil dictator, and that we have handsomely rewarded others who were just as despicable. This was not America's only recourse; it was loaded from the start.

What if, for instance, the US had put the full brunt of our resources into simultaneously striking at Al Quaeda cells throughout the world, as a coordinated effort? A different political body might have explored this alternate model of interventionism, which would have addressed the terrorist threat itself. We would have had more international support for this, because much of the world was sympathetic about the World Trade Center attacks and offering assistance. Instead, we extended the word "terror" so that we could pursue a SEPARATE agenda of regime change. Because the news media ate it up, many US citizens now have less of a grasp on what "terrorists" are than before 9-11.

Here is what actually happened: we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, tapping our domestic economy to the point of recession. Then we promised to give those countries a makeover that would leave them better off than before, putting our projected debt lower than it has been in this country's entire history.

By rushing the Iraq inspections, we sent a message to the UN that we now invade where we please. This has raised some hackles, and we may find that some European nations have gone from being allies to fair-weather friends as a result.

Along with the WMD issue, Bush threw around totally unqualified statements about Iraq/Al Quaeda connections. Now evidence is emerging that Cheney, et. al, had planned to invade Iraq long before the 9/11 tragedy. Is this good for our national image, much less American citizens' faith in our leaders? Americans have no reason to trust their leaders the next time they give an excuse for invading a country, but would anyone be surprised if our next target was one of the top 10 oil producers in the world?

We did not eliminate Al Quaeda by invading Afghanistan or Iraq. Hell, we may have swelled their ranks by convincing infidel-fearing Muslims all through the Middle East that "the Western Devils have gone too far this time." Do we still have that military complex in Saudi Arabia that we planned to withdraw years ago? I suppose that pulling it out after the Saudis said "hey, we had a deal" would have been a sign of weakness. Giving a little (especially something that we had already promised) might have instilled a bit of trust in people over there, but as it is, we confirmed their suspicions that we are out to destroy their whole way of life.

Words like "peace" and "reconcile" are not on the current administration's list of buzzwords, while they mention God and Terror in connection with just about everything. They are uncouth, undiplomatic (Powell notwithstanding), and bent on dominion along a linear path. We need leaders who can work together with other nations to avert future terror, and respond flexibly to whatever happens. Instead, we got Halliburton & Co.