The liberal media is nothing compared to the government's propaganda machine.

[sclone]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002654715_articles30.html

U.S. military secretly pays Iraqi newspapers for running stories trumpeting U.S. mission

By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by U.S. troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents, and tout U.S.-led rebuilding efforts.

While the articles are basically truthful, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles — with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" — since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington, D.C., firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are vowing to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech to a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption. It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society."

Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.

[Coffee Diva]

And this is bad why?

[TimTA95]

Why? Do we really need to explain the negative effects of bribing people to force stories in newspapers? Even if there about good things written by our troops, its the wrong way of implementing them and would do more damage than good.

[Coffee Diva]

I would think anything that would get the war over sooner and get our troops home quicker would be a good thing.

Basically, this is an article that shows how the mainstream media manages to be clueless and arrogant at the same time. They automatically assume the Arab media operates the exact same way as the American media (it doesn't; hell, Iraq didn't even have an independent media until we invaded), and that there could actually be a legitimate "other side" to the argument that "rebuilding the country is good".

[tar_baby]

ummm....so?

on that note...where is the good news from the LA times?
talk about one sided...how about al jazeera?

[TimTA95]

So basically we should play by dictator rules and we are supposed to show them what freedom is? Kind of hypocritical IMO.

[Coffee Diva]

Buying space in newspapers = dictatorship? Oooh-kay.

[TrybalRage]

Someone should read up on what the federalist papers were.

Also look up the "Office of Strategic Influence". This is nothing new.

[jules]

i am not surprised by this,and im not crazy about it,but if you want to say this is 'as bad' as a lot of the liberal media bias that is obvious in this country,then i would say ok thats fair. but to say its "nothing compared to the governments propaganda machine",come on sclone, can you ever not look at anything with the super liberal slant? i agree that this may not be totally cool, but how is it worse than the lefty media? and in the article they say that the reports are "basically truthful", i mean for christsake they are trying to combat that fuckin al-jazeera that reports nothing but anti-usa lies always.for the most part i do not like to lie on any level,but sometimes i think you gotta play their fuckin game

[tar_baby]

if al jazeera would broadcast the opening of schools..businesses...hospitals..etc....THEN it would be fair..but they dont

[jules]

if al jazeera would broadcast the opening of schools..businesses...hospitals..etc....THEN it would be fair..but they dont
exactly sir:clap: :clap:

[NikDaSchwugie]

hearts and minds, people, hearts and minds.

In a country where anti-Americanism is all the rage, it doesn't surprise me that the US has to pay for positive media coverage.

[Dick Whiskey]

When I move to Iraq, I'll give a shit about what's in their newspapers.

[sclone]

i am not surprised by this,and im not crazy about it,but if you want to say this is 'as bad' as a lot of the liberal media bias that is obvious in this country,then i would say ok thats fair. but to say its "nothing compared to the governments propaganda machine",come on sclone, can you ever not look at anything with the super liberal slant? i agree that this may not be totally cool, but how is it worse than the lefty media? and in the article they say that the reports are "basically truthful", i mean for christsake they are trying to combat that fuckin al-jazeera that reports nothing but anti-usa lies always.for the most part i do not like to lie on any level,but sometimes i think you gotta play their fuckin game

This is about as rational response as I'd expect (I'm not being a wiseass). But to address the bold - opponents of the supposed liberal media say the same thing. The reporting is truthful, but story selection/slant is left-leaning. But I'm not sure how one group (namely the conservatives) can wallow in such blatant hypocrisy so often. What it basically boils down to is if it propels the conervative agenda, it's okay, but if it points to the flaws in the administration, it's anti-American and just promoting resentment for the war.

[Tommy Ceez]

Warzone - all bets off

[Multiple Miggs]

This is about as rational response as I'd expect (I'm not being a wiseass). But to address the bold - opponents of the supposed liberal media say the same thing. The reporting is truthful, but story selection/slant is left-leaning. But I'm not sure how one group (namely the conservatives) can wallow in such blatant hypocrisy so often. What it basically boils down to is if it propels the conervative agenda, it's okay, but if it points to the flaws in the administration, it's anti-American and just promoting resentment for the war.
But aren't you the same person who believes there's nothing wrong with the way the New York Times reports news, but denounces the Washington Times as conservative? Seems you're pointing out your own hypocrisy as well.

[patbattlefield]

in every war the rules have been bent. people raise hell about the patriot act, lincoln fucking suspended habeas corpus during the cival war. in ww2 we had rationing...i can hear the bitching now if that ever happened again.

[jules]

This is about as rational response as I'd expect (I'm not being a wiseass). But to address the bold - opponents of the supposed liberal media say the same thing. The reporting is truthful, but story selection/slant is left-leaning. But I'm not sure how one group (namely the conservatives) can wallow in such blatant hypocrisy so often. What it basically boils down to is if it propels the conervative agenda, it's okay, but if it points to the flaws in the administration, it's anti-American and just promoting resentment for the war.
but sclone,are you honestly going to tell me that it is the conservatives that wallow in the blatant hypocrisy so often? this is something they both do all the time,and i hate them both for it.i lean right on a lot of issues-LEAN being the key word.i cannot stand the view that every issue has to be a conservative slant straight down the line.but shit like this is what they both run entire campaigns on.scaring us on shit and feeding us half truths on most everything they say.i am not trying to personally attack you,so please dont think that,even though i am usually one of the first guys to counterpoint whatever you say about issues. i like the fact that you are a consistent liberal my friend,and dont mind the back and forth,no matter how ugly it may get

[Mommadeez4u]

if al jazeera would broadcast the opening of schools..businesses...hospitals..etc....THEN it would be fair..but they dont

Iraq already had all those things before America leveled them. In fact, Iraq had the highest literacy rate of any country in the region. That's why news of 'schools being built' is propoganda bullshit.

[sclone]

But aren't you the same person who believes there's nothing wrong with the way the New York Times reports news, but denounces the Washington Times as conservative? Seems you're pointing out your own hypocrisy as well.

I've never accused any organization of having a bias. Someone else made the comment about the Washington Times, not me.

[sclone]

i like the fact that you are a consistent liberal my friend,and dont mind the back and forth,no matter how ugly it may get

I'll admit that I do get heated on a lot of issues (mainly because I'm fighting a losing battle on this board, where more of the CE posters lean right on most issues), but I can appreciate this...

[Coffee Diva]

Iraq already had all those things before America leveled them. In fact, Iraq had the highest literacy rate of any country in the region. That's why news of 'schools being built' is propoganda bullshit.

Yeah, we shoulda just left Germany and Japan to rot after 1945. After all, they were destined to live in their own feces for the rest of eternity and hate America for it anyway. :icon_roll

[frankjg]

Iraq already had all those things before America leveled them. In fact, Iraq had the highest literacy rate of any country in the region. That's why news of 'schools being built' is propoganda bullshit.

You should check your facts before you post

Country / Percentage of adults who are literate
Bahrain 85
Cyprus 95
Gaza Strip --
Iraq 58
Israel 95
Jordan 86
Kuwait 79
Lebanon 83
Oman 64
Qatar 79
Saudi Arabia 71
Syria 70
Turkey 82
United Arab Emirates 79
West Bank --
Yemen 40

[tar_baby]

Iraq already had all those things before America leveled them. In fact, Iraq had the highest literacy rate of any country in the region. That's why news of 'schools being built' is propoganda bullshit.

well schools are being built...so how about the hospitals...how about people being able to start their own businesses?..is that bullshit too?

[BruceKellysJunk]

Sure only 58% of the adult males (20% females) can read. but only .1% of the population has AIDS. Thats gotta count for something right?

[frankjg]

Sure only 58% of the adult males (20% females) can read. but only .1% of the population has AIDS. Thats gotta count for something right?

It's hard to get AIDS from banging a camel

[RobeSoup&Tears]

Good points Coffee Diva...Good Points!!

[fothermucker]

well schools are being built...so how about the hospitals...how about people being able to start their own businesses?..is that bullshit too? Who gives a shit? You and those who make this argument don't give a rats ass about the Iraqi people. What did you think of them before the war, that they need hospitals and schools and entrepreneurship? Did they ever cross your mind once? I'm fucking sick and tired of this bullshit rationalization, clearly constructed to maintain the party line and continue the conservative trend of continuously fellating the President, regardless of the fact that he lied his ass off the American people about getting into this war and our military sits in Iraq with no plan but to continue patrolling cities for an unknown amount of years to come.

[frankjg]

Who gives a shit? You and those who make this argument don't give a rats ass about the Iraqi people. What did you think of them before the war, that they need hospitals and schools and entrepreneurship? Did they ever cross your mind once? I'm fucking sick and tired of this bullshit rationalization, clearly constructed to maintain the party line and continue the conservative trend of continuously fellating the President, regardless of the fact that he lied his ass off the American people about getting into this war and our military sits in Iraq with no plan but to continue patrolling cities for an unknown amount of years to come.

Prove that he lied, you cant!!!

[fothermucker]

Prove that he lied, you cant!!!
My memory may be failing, but I could have sworn that his whole administration got on tv over half a dozen times and expressed the imminent danger that Saddam posed with his WMD program. He even had mobile trucks for making biological weapons! Then we got in there and there weren't any WMD or biological weapons, not even a can with a fart in it.

Suddenly, overnight, the reasons for the Iraq war changed to us being the harbingers of liberty and freedom throughout the world and it was our duty to free the Iraqi civilians and destroy the terrorist networks in Iraq. It was a dupe that happened before our very eyes, with millions of people swallowing it whole and asking for seconds.

[sclone]

Prove that he lied, you cant!!!

Can you agree that the administration used intentionally misleading information? Information whose validity was questioned routinely by people at the highest levels of the US government? It would be very hard to deny this, seeing as the entire Vallerie Plame debacle started over this issue.

[sclone]

Bush concern at Iraq 'propaganda'

The White House has expressed concern over reports that the US military is planting favourable stories about Iraq in the Baghdad press.

"We are seeking more information from the Pentagon," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
The reports, originally carried by the Los Angeles Times, said the Pentagon was secretly paying Iraqi papers to run articles praising US and Iraqi troops.
Many stories are being presented as independent accounts, the paper said.
"We're very concerned about the reports," Mr McClellan said on Thursday.
"We need to know what the facts are," he told reporters.
The US, Mr McClellan said, was "a leader when it comes to promoting and advocating a free and independent media around the world, and we will continue to do so".
He added: "We've made our views very clear when it comes to freedom of press."
'One-sided'
Earlier, a US military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj Gen Rick Lynch, appeared implicitly to confirm the reports.
He said that Iraq's most- wanted militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was also using the media
"He is lying to the Iraqi people. We don't lie - we don't need to lie," Gen Lynch said.
"We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public but everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction."
The Los Angeles Times alleged that stories about Iraq were written by US soldiers, and translated into Arabic by a defence contractor which helps place them in Baghdad papers.
Although many are basically factual, they only present one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the US or Iraqi government, the newspaper said.
The BBC's Caroline Hawley in Baghdad says the allegations are an embarrassment to the American military at a time when it is trying to promote transparency in Iraq.

[frankjg]

Agreed, we went into the war based on terrorist ties (that have been proven - see Al Queda in Iraq, Al Zawhiri, etc..) and WMDs.

Two points on the WMDs

1. Who is to say that the WMDs were not moved out of the country - Syria comes to mind. We will never know until we plow through Syria.

2. Everyone in the free world had the same info the admin had and agreed that he was a WMD threat. Congress, the UK, Australia, Jordan, etc..

[TrybalRage]

Suddenly, overnight, the reasons for the Iraq war changed to us being the harbingers of liberty and freedom throughout the world and it was our duty to free the Iraqi civilians .


Suddenly, overnight?

Do you recall what the operation was called from day 1?

Frankjg:

You are correct, there is still alot to be done. I read a report the other day that the teams we have going through Iraqi documents still have MOUNTAINS of paperwork to go through, that they can't keep up with all the stuff they keep finding.

Also read a great interview with someone who was once part of the old inspection teams (pre-war) who still believes we will find something; and goes into all the dirty tactics the Iraqis pulled whenever the inspectors thought they were getting close to something.

Lets not forget about the aspirations of this man. He rebuilt palaces in Babylon, seeing himself as the future ruler of a new Empire stretching from Iran to northern africa.

[tar_baby]

exactly...so the whole world was lying?..i dont get it

[fothermucker]

Suddenly, overnight?

Do you recall what the operation was called from day 1?
So the smokescreen and the spin started earlier than I remember. Operation Iraqi Freedom sounds a lot more tolerable to Joe American than Operation WMD Hunt or something like that.


Also read a great interview with someone who was once part of the old inspection teams (pre-war) who still believes we will find something; and goes into all the dirty tactics the Iraqis pulled whenever the inspectors thought they were getting close to something. The American people will hold their breath and cross their fingers for this one, it's been over 2 years post-war and we haven't even found poo on a stick. The backlash, although late, has begun. Approval ratings of Bush and this war are dropping.

Lets not forget about the aspirations of this man. He rebuilt palaces in Babylon, seeing himself as the future ruler of a new Empire stretching from Iran to northern africa. Saddam could have sat in his throne and jerked off to a pop-up book of the Persian Empire all weekend, but it still doesn't mean he had the means to conquer and occupy territory rivaling that. I must have missed this facet of American foreign policy where we go to war against intangible hopes and dreams. I thought a threat had much more defined and concrete boundaries than that.

[jules]

Who gives a shit? You and those who make this argument don't give a rats ass about the Iraqi people. What did you think of them before the war, that they need hospitals and schools and entrepreneurship? Did they ever cross your mind once? I'm fucking sick and tired of this bullshit rationalization, clearly constructed to maintain the party line and continue the conservative trend of continuously fellating the President, regardless of the fact that he lied his ass off the American people about getting into this war and our military sits in Iraq with no plan but to continue patrolling cities for an unknown amount of years to come.
ok we get it you dont like the fact that we are there....but we are,so what do you propose we do now?

[Van]

If the US media were really liberal, most people in the US would have been told this war was going to be a disaster from day one, by the US media. Like the rest of the world's 'liberal' (read: not just trying to sell stories/=adverts) media.

But 99.9% of the US media sold the war. The 0.1% of THE ACTUAL LIBERAL US MEDIA were trying to tell you not to accept it.

Yep, it's too late. What to do now?

Step 1: Stop defending the fuck-ups that lied and put the soldiers there in the first place.

Step 2: Wait for the retarded 32% to catch up and get rid of the admin.

Step 3: Think about that after Step 2.

If those are less long-term plans than the current admin has for the future of America (the economy, the war etc.), let me know.

[fothermucker]

ok we get it you dont like the fact that we are there....but we are,so what do you propose we do now? It's not as easy as 1, 2, 3, which is why I dont support the Democratic senators who favor a complete pullout. Anyone with any sense of history knows this is not a good idea. However, the first thing I would do is stop fucking lying to the American people and admit that this situation is worse than we expected. Even the President saying, "OK Saddam didn't have weapons, but we have to focus on improving the situation", something simple that we all know to be true. Instead, Bush plows on with his goddamn hollow rhetoric and reads the same speech about "liberty, freedom, the insurgency, and, for extra effect, 9/11" over and over again. I look at Bush and see nothing, just a husk of a leader and a big joke about America that the rest of the world is snickering at.

Bush has failed to sit down and address our situation in Iraq to the nation directly. Trust in the decision making of our officials is gone. Reestablishing that is the first step. The second step would to be stop working unilaterally (don't mention to me the 30 troops from Uruguay or the old truck Poland sent us and call me a communist for not recognizing their sacrifice). We need help and support from first world nations, something this war lacked significantly from the beginning, not only financially but morally too. Salvaging our relations with other nations do to our poor foreign policy is extremely important.

As far as the troop situation, there is really not much else to do but wait. We're in a quagmire, it's undeniable, and the only way to logistically deal with it is to keep fighting and keep our strength up. I would say stop recruiting the white trash dumb fucks who make up a large majority of our armed forces on the ground, so we stop having clashes with the Islamic faith of the very people we're their to save, but our manpower would dip to nothing if we did that.

[tar_baby]

they "sold" the war because all intelligence pointed towards the fact that saddam had WMDs....ALL intelligence..not just ours

[jules]

It's not as easy as 1, 2, 3, which is why I dont support the Democratic senators who favor a complete pullout. Anyone with any sense of history knows this is not a good idea. However, the first thing I would do is stop fucking lying to the American people and admit that this situation is worse than we expected. Even the President saying, "OK Saddam didn't have weapons, but we have to focus on improving the situation", something simple that we all know to be true. Instead, Bush plows on with his goddamn hollow rhetoric and reads the same speech about "liberty, freedom, the insurgency, and, for extra effect, 9/11" over and over again. I look at Bush and see nothing, just a husk of a leader and a big joke about America that the rest of the world is snickering at.

Bush has failed to sit down and address our situation in Iraq to the nation directly. Trust in the decision making of our officials is gone. Reestablishing that is the first step. The second step would to be stop working unilaterally (don't mention to me the 30 troops from Uruguay or the old truck Poland sent us and call me a communist for not recognizing their sacrifice). We need help and support from first world nations, something this war lacked significantly from the beginning, not only financially but morally too. Salvaging our relations with other nations do to our poor foreign policy is extremely important.

As far as the troop situation, there is really not much else to do but wait. We're in a quagmire, it's undeniable, and the only way to logistically deal with it is to keep fighting and keep our strength up. I would say stop recruiting the white trash dumb fucks who make up a large majority of our armed forces on the ground, so we stop having clashes with the Islamic faith of the very people we're their to save, but our manpower would dip to nothing if we did that.
i dont really support bush or what he is,or lacking to do right now. i would send a lot more troops over there immediately,and do what has to be done,no matter who doesnt like it. and come on man,i was in the marine corps,and please,without getting into a big thing here do not say that white trash dumb fucks make up the majority of our military. to say that makes you sound like the same people who threw rotten food and a lot worse at our troops who came home from vietnam,and called them baby killers.that isnt right man. that is not what makes up a majority of our ground troops my friend.like anything else in this world,their are bad people out there,but they make up about 1% of our ground troops. i dont know if you ever served,but it aint what you think. i didnt see war,so i cant say anything from that point,but just to get through boot camp takes more guts and courage than you could ever imagine so i cant give enough respect to those guys over there now.and these islamic faithful types are no angels man,so go easy on that

[Van]

they "sold" the war because all intelligence pointed towards the fact that saddam had WMDs....ALL intelligence..not just ours

Why were so many countries prepared to wait for the UN's weapons inspectors to find something before murdering thousands of innocent people?

'All intelligence' didn't point to anything. ONE falsified memo gave the Bush admin an excuse to after an old grudge and make a fucking fortune for themselves while doing it.

That is intelligent. What's dumb is people defending them, even with the benefit of hindsight.

[Van]

The admins propaganda is working just enough.

[2ptconversion]

I definitely lean right, but I will readily admit that Bush is not one of my favorite presidents. Nevertheless, this BS about him "lying" has to stop.

Bush, as the top dog, is absolutely responsible for the situation we are in in Iraq, but I defy anyone to show me how he lied. No bullshit mincing words. If you claim he LIED, show us how he LIED. And understand exactly what that term means. There is a mens rea (guilty mind) element involved. When you claim someone lied, the clear implication is that the person is knowingly and willfully communicating an untruth or misleading. (if your wife tells you it's raining outside and you go outside and it's sunny, you can't say she "lied" if she was basing her statement on numerous television meteorologists and internet weather websites - she's wrong, but she didn't lie)

If your claim is that Bush knew that there were no WMD's and went to war anyway, then you are contemplating a conspiracy greater than I believe any of us are truly willing to believe - particularly in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

* We (and the UN) tried on NUMEROUS occasions to gain access to various parts of Iraq (that Hussein was obligated to give us access to under the terms of the Gulf War armistice without success. How in the fuck were we supposed to know whether he had WMD's or not???

* "We should make damned sure before going to war - better intelligence", you say. How about this: in David Kay's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, 2004, he stated unequivocally that Saddam's own generals believed that he had WMD's. How could we have better intelligence than that? If we had his own Republican Guard generals on the payroll, we couldn't have gotten better intelligence. Not to mention the Clintons and Gores and Kerrys of the world who also stated publicly that they believed Hussein had WMD's. If your claim is that they were sucked into Bush's lies, then that's a first!

So shut the fuck up with the lying bullshit. Take the fucking "Bush Lied: People Died" stickers off your car. Support the troops and the president or someone who is proactively doing something about the situation. And for God's sake, run a candidate who has a shot at winning - not some member of the liberal intellectual elite that you all sit around patting yourselves on the back for nominating only to have him (Kerry)/her (Hillary) trampled by someone, who, if guilty of what you claim, you should be able to walk all over. Stop bitching about the stupid people in the South who got Bush elected - take a look at all the red states - they weren't all south of the Mason/Dixon.

Run a candidate that has a shot. If you run Hillary, as Franken proposes, a fucking monkey could walk into the White House on the GOP ticket. No shit. Hell, you claim Bush is a fucking monkey, and he did exactly that. Maybe Kerry wasn't the obvious choice after all.

The most ridiculous part is liberals like Franken claiming that they grew up believing (and continued to believe until Bush) that presidents don't lie. Give me a fucking break - Clinton lied under oath.

I realize that many liberals would like to argue against points I haven't made here, so read again if you had trouble the first time:

Bush is president - he is ultimately responsible for the situation.

Bush did not "lie".

Clinton did "lie" - of course the consequences of his actions were much less, but if you want to argue over who lied and who didn't, here's where you begin.

You run Hillary and you will lose the presidency by at least double the margin you lost by this time (unless you can find more people to slash tires on vans acquired by the GOP to get the vote out - talk about disenfranchisement).

Bush was wrong in believing that Hussein had WMD's. But he did believe it and it was a well-founded belief. If your claim is that he fucked up, then stop throwing around the "L" word as if there were something criminal about what he did. Making an honest mistake based on seemingly good intelligence (that liberals believed too) is no crime for a president. Feel free to bitch about his mistake all day long. Just shut the fuck up with the "lying" line.

As for the other countries who were fine with waiting, I'll remind you that France, UK, and Italy were all cool with waiting around while the Nazis ran roughshod over Europe - hell, they even gave them the Sudetenland. The day we look to those pussies for guidance in foreign policy is the day we should hang it up as a country. If it weren't for the US, all of Europe would have been speaking German followed shortly thereafter by Russian.

That is all.

[frankjg]

Why were so many countries prepared to wait for the UN's weapons inspectors to find something before murdering thousands of innocent people?

'All intelligence' didn't point to anything. ONE falsified memo gave the Bush admin an excuse to after an old grudge and make a fucking fortune for themselves while doing it.

That is intelligent. What's dumb is people defending them, even with the benefit of hindsight.

How many more years were you going to let the inspectors dick around in Iraq? 10 more, 20 more, enough time for him to develop nukes?

Sadam was a fucking nut job with a country, oil, military, and ambition. We only did what was right.

Now it is time for us to clean up Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

[Begbie]

I definitely lean right, but I will readily admit that Bush is not one of my favorite presidents. Nevertheless, this BS about him "lying" has to stop.

Bush, as the top dog, is absolutely responsible for the situation we are in in Iraq, but I defy anyone to show me how he lied. No bullshit mincing words. If you claim he LIED, show us how he LIED. And understand exactly what that term means. There is a mens rea (guilty mind) element involved. When you claim someone lied, the clear implication is that the person is knowingly and willfully communicating an untruth or misleading. (if your wife tells you it's raining outside and you go outside and it's sunny, you can't say she "lied" if she was basing her statement on numerous television meteorologists and internet weather websites - she's wrong, but she didn't lie)

If your claim is that Bush knew that there were no WMD's and went to war anyway, then you are contemplating a conspiracy greater than I believe any of us are truly willing to believe - particularly in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

* We (and the UN) tried on NUMEROUS occasions to gain access to various parts of Iraq (that Hussein was obligated to give us access to under the terms of the Gulf War armistice without success. How in the fuck were we supposed to know whether he had WMD's or not???

* "We should make damned sure before going to war - better intelligence", you say. How about this: in David Kay's testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in January, 2004, he stated unequivocally that Saddam's own generals believed that he had WMD's. How could we have better intelligence than that? If we had his own Republican Guard generals on the payroll, we couldn't have gotten better intelligence. Not to mention the Clintons and Gores and Kerrys of the world who also stated publicly that they believed Hussein had WMD's. If you claim is that they were sucked into Bush's lies, then that's a first!

So shut the fuck up with the lying bullshit. Take the fucking "Bush Lied: People Died" stickers off your car. Support the troops and the president or someone who is proactively doing something about the situation. And for God's sake, run a candidate who has a shot at winning - not some member of the liberal intellectual elite that you all sit around patting yourselves on the back for nominating only to have him (Kerry)/her (Hillary) trampled by someone, who, if guilty of what you claim, you should be able to walk all over. Stop bitching about the stupid people in the South who got Bush elected - take a look at all the red states - they weren't all south of the Mason/Dixon.

Run a candidate that has a shot. If you run Hillary, as Franken proposes, a fucking monkey could walk into the White House on the GOP ticket. No shit. Hell, you claim Bush is a fucking monkey, and he did exactly that. Maybe Kerry wasn't the obvious choice after all.

The most ridiculous part is liberals like Franken claiming that they grew up believing (and continued to believe until Bush) that presidents don't lie. Give me a fucking break - Clinton lied under oath.

I realize that many liberals would like to argue against points I haven't made here, so read again if you had trouble the first time:

Bush is president - he is ultimately responsible for the situation.

Bush did not "lie".

Clinton did "lie" - of course the consequences of his actions were much less, but if you want to argue over who lied and who didn't, here's where you begin.

You run Hillary and you will lose the presidency by at least double the margin you lost by this time (unless you can find more people to slash tires on vans acquired by the GOP to get the vote out - talk about disenfranchisement).

Bush was wrong in believing that Hussein had WMD's. But he did believe it and it was a well-founded belief. If your claim is that he fucked up, then stop throwing around the "L" word as if there were something criminal about what he did. Making an honest mistake based on seemingly good intelligence (that liberals believed too) is no crime for a president.

That is all.

:clap:

There was a considerable threat from Iraq that the President didn't just make up with the intent of starting war. Various intelligence agencies around the world were convinced Saddam was hiding WMD's. He laid out the intelligence to the American people, and it turns out the intelligence he received wasn't correct. Liberals want to burn Bush so badly by making it seem that he lied with the intent of starting war that killed thousands of Americans. I've even heard rumblings of a Vietnam comparison. The democrats have more to worry about then making bad accusations and attacks. Like somehow putting together a respectable Democratic candidate in 08 and trying to prevent another repeat of the 04 election where we saw Bush win, republicans gaining seats in the house and senate, and the Democrats senate party leader being the first politician since 1952 to lose his top seat.

You want to talk about real liars? How about all those opportunistic pigs that saw the same intelligence Bush saw and supported the war, yet once the reasons for war went sour, they did an absolute 180 and blamed it all on the Bush administration for starting an unjust war? Politicians will do anything to save their asses, and some will go as far as misleading and lying to the American public <cough>Clinton<cough>. So far, I haven't heard Bush purposely lie to the American public to gain support for the war.

[Dick Whiskey]

Yep, it's too late. What to do now?

Step 1: Stop defending the fuck-ups that lied and put the soldiers there in the first place.

Step 2: Wait for the retarded 32% to catch up and get rid of the admin.

Step 3: Think about that after Step 2.

If those are less long-term plans than the current admin has for the future of America (the economy, the war etc.), let me know.
That is so sociopathic, I don't even know how to respond. - Jim Norton.

[fothermucker]

:clap:

There was a considerable threat from Iraq that the President didn't just make up with the intent of starting war. Various intelligence agencies around the world were convinced Saddam was hiding WMD's. He laid out the intelligence to the American people, and it turns out the intelligence he received wasn't correct. Liberals want to burn Bush so badly by making it seem that he lied with the intent of starting war that killed thousands of Americans. I've even heard rumblings of a Vietnam comparison. The democrats have more to worry about then making bad accusations and attacks. Like somehow putting together a respectable Democratic candidate in 08 and trying to prevent another repeat of the 04 election where we saw Bush win, republicans gaining seats in the house and senate, and the Democrats senate party leader being the first politician since 1952 to lose his top seat.

You want to talk about real liars? How about all those opportunistic pigs that saw the same intelligence Bush saw and supported the war, yet once the reasons for war went sour, they did an absolute 180 and blamed it all on the Bush administration for starting an unjust war? Politicians will do anything to save their asses, and some will go as far as misleading and lying to the American public <cough>Clinton<cough>. So far, I haven't heard Bush purposely lie to the American public to gain support for the war.
The fact remains that he went to war with bad intelligence, effectively misleading the nation into this. Argue semantics all day if you want, and throw a few Clinton bashes in there for good effect, but Bush is the Commander in Chief, so he is responsible for what happens in the end. All the "great intelligence" we got (Saddam's generals believed that he had WMDs? They're fucking generals, they shouldn't have to believe they should know) was taken as gospel and we approached this unilaterally, while the rest of the world didn't have its collective head up its asses and thought it better to wait.

The response that it was better to act now than later when he might have weapons is outright frightening to me. We don't have a free pass to eliminate threats that may occur later. That's thought police shit and it sends the message to other countries that they may be attacked at will by the United States. There are a lot of countries out there that can stand up more to the U.S. than Iraq, and with this approach we are doubtless going to see some ghastly bloodshed. Oh but hey, maybe we'll build a few schools and hospitals and make it all worthwhile.

Oh and in the end, I'd still rather have a senator who changes position on issues and realizes errors and comes to terms with them in order to fix the problem. A President who admits no wrong and sticks to policy headings and never changes course is far worse for this country.

[2ptconversion]

The fact remains that he went to war with bad intelligence, effectively misleading the nation into this. Argue semantics all day if you want, and throw a few Clinton bashes in there for good effect, but Bush is the Commander in Chief, so he is responsible for what happens in the end. All the "great intelligence" we got (Saddam's generals believed that he had WMDs? They're fucking generals, they shouldn't have to believe they should know) was taken as gospel and we approached this unilaterally, while the rest of the world didn't have its collective head up its asses and thought it better to wait.

The response that it was better to act now than later when he might have weapons is outright frightening to me. We don't have a free pass to eliminate threats that may occur later. That's thought police shit and it sends the message to other countries that they may be attacked at will by the United States. There are a lot of countries out there that can stand up more to the U.S. than Iraq, and with this approach we are doubtless going to see some ghastly bloodshed. Oh but hey, maybe we'll build a few schools and hospitals and make it all worthwhile.

Oh and in the end, I'd still rather have a senator who changes position on issues and realizes errors and comes to terms with them in order to fix the problem. A President who admits no wrong and sticks to policy headings and never changes course is far worse for this country.


"Bad intelligence" is only "bad" in retrospect, and unfortunately the Bush "government's propaganda machine" isn't as good at rewriting history as that of some of his liberal predecessors.

It is a FACT (often conveniently overlooked) that Hussein had WMD's before the (first) Gulf War and used them. Neither liberals nor conservatives dispute this.

It is a FACT that Hussein's generals claimed to KNOW that he had WMD's after the (first) Gulf War.

It is a FACT that on numerous occasions the UN attempted to lawfully enter Iraq to search for WMD's and were denied entrance.

Based on these facts alone, you would have to be an idiot NOT to go to war with Iraq over the issue of WMD's. Of course Bush could have stood by and waited until a mushroom cloud rose up over New York, but then he would have been lambasted by the left for ignoring overwhelming evidence and doing nothing to prevent an impending attack. Sound familiar? "How could you stand by and do nothing while you had credible evidence that terrorists planned to attack New York City?" Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Let me reiterate: Bush is the president. He is responsible for the situation we are in. I doubt anyone is claiming he isn't responsible. But he did not lie or mislead anyone. My ONLY reason for bringing up Clinton is to illustrate exactly what a president lying is.

If you want to respond, please only respond to exactly what I have asserted and not what you wish I were asserting: Bush did not lie or mislead anyone.

I challenge anyone - Al Franken, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, anyone - to precisely identify exactly how Bush lied or mislead the American people into going to war. It's an extremely serious charge constantly thrown around by liberals who, when challenged, can't back it up and can only respond with "well, he's responsible" or "well, he should have known better" or "well, he really screwed up" (none of which constitute a lie). If you claim that he lied or mislead and want to use those terms to describe the president, then prove it. Otherwise, to use one of your phrases, "MOVE ON".

[jules]

Why were so many countries prepared to wait for the UN's weapons inspectors to find something before murdering thousands of innocent people?

'All intelligence' didn't point to anything. ONE falsified memo gave the Bush admin an excuse to after an old grudge and make a fucking fortune for themselves while doing it.

That is intelligent. What's dumb is people defending them, even with the benefit of hindsight.
we murdered thousands of innocent people,huh? nothing you say has any credibility now.go back on your fuckin soap box and talk to your yourself stupid

[jules]

fothermucker there is enough blame to go around,including bush,clinton and bush sr.,and a lot of other high profile political figures.that is fact.to put all or even most of the blame for what happened leading up to 9-11 and what is going on now on just bush and this administration is ridiculous,and it is why nothing ever really gets solved in this country. its the old pass the buck and both sides fuckin are guilty of that

[sclone]

we murdered thousands of innocent people,huh? nothing you say has any credibility now.go back on your fuckin soap box and talk to your yourself stupid

Are you suggesting that we haven't murdered thousands of innocent Iraqis? In March, 24,865 Iraqi civilians had been killed. 37% of them were killed by coalition forces. That's 9,200 Iraqi civilians murdered by coalition forces.

[jules]

Are you suggesting that we haven't murdered thousands of innocent Iraqis? In March, 24,865 Iraqi civilians had been killed. 37% of them were killed by coalition forces. That's 9,200 Iraqi civilians murdered by coalition forces.
i dont argue your numbers(because i admit i did no research on the number) i have a real problem with saying we murdered them.some were probably purposely killed, because our guys dont always know whos good and bad. and i am sure MOST of them were unfortunate casualties of the war.(yes casualties-what am i supposed to call them?,just in case anyone has a problem with that word) but to say that we murdered them,that is outrageous and unfair to our troops.murder is intentionally and personally ending a persons life,just because you feel like it. you want to say they killed them,that is accurate.but give me a break with the murder word man. what is next,we call the troops murderers when they come back? im not saying that is what you would do,but there are a lot of people on your side who absolutely would,if given a little motivation. in my opinion this is what happened with the whole vietnam conflict,which is what a lot of people on the left have compared this situatuion with. again sclone, i am not saying you in particular, but when a lot of the protestors in the sixties and seventies got nowhere with the government protests,they turned on the troops themselves. that was one of the darkest times, i think,in our history as a country. a lot of people on the left would have no problem turning their anger towards the troops if they get nothing from the government.

[Mommadeez4u]

So, this is importing 'freedom & democracy' to Iraq? Planting paid propaganda in Iraq's media outlets, not to mention engaging in plagiarism and intentional distortion of people’s quotes at the same time?

Add this new feature of the U.S. government’s concept of “democracy” and “freedom” to warrantless searches and seizures, indefinite detentions, shooting of demonstrators, bombing or closing of critical media, gun control and confiscation, military rule, denial of jury trials, habeas corpus, and due process, and, of course, torture, sex abuse, ****, and murder of suspected terrorists.

[Dick Whiskey]

torture, sex abuse, ****, and murder of suspected terrorists.
So, you'd rather bring these terrorists over here, where some shitbag attorney will help them go free.
:clap: :icon_roll

[frankjg]

Are you suggesting that we haven't murdered thousands of innocent Iraqis? In March, 24,865 Iraqi civilians had been killed. 37% of them were killed by coalition forces. That's 9,200 Iraqi civilians murdered by coalition forces.

That is the biggest load of bullshit that I have ever heard. Back it up with real facts and not some crap from some activist group.

Why in the fuck would we kill innocents en-masse?

Just keep beliving the bullshit that is fed to you.

Edit: If you numbers are true (which they probably are not) compare that with the 25 Million Civilians that were killed in WW2 - no fucking comparison.

[jules]

So, this is importing 'freedom & democracy' to Iraq? Planting paid propaganda in Iraq's media outlets, not to mention engaging in plagiarism and intentional distortion of people’s quotes at the same time?

Add this new feature of the U.S. government’s concept of “democracy” and “freedom” to warrantless searches and seizures, indefinite detentions, shooting of demonstrators, bombing or closing of critical media, gun control and confiscation, military rule, denial of jury trials, habeas corpus, and due process, and, of course, torture, sex abuse, ****, and murder of suspected terrorists.
please spare us will ya:action-sm

[Mommadeez4u]

great comeback

[jules]

great comeback
your post wasnt worth putting any effort into fella

[tar_baby]

So, this is importing 'freedom & democracy' to Iraq? Planting paid propaganda in Iraq's media outlets, not to mention engaging in plagiarism and intentional distortion of people’s quotes at the same time?

Add this new feature of the U.S. government’s concept of “democracy” and “freedom” to warrantless searches and seizures, indefinite detentions, shooting of demonstrators, bombing or closing of critical media, gun control and confiscation, military rule, denial of jury trials, habeas corpus, and due process, and, of course, torture, sex abuse, ****, and murder of suspected terrorists.

sources...examples?

[Dead Man Walkin]

Paying to have stories put in the newspaper? Wrong? This is something that happens in our own country daily. There is nothing wrong with it. And despite what hippies like to force onto people, the US Military is doing a lot of good things in Iraq, despite the fact that we invaded that country without support of the UN (which dirtied the United States' image with many foreign countries) and on faulty intelligence. We may not find weapons of mass destruction , but we have to rebuild this country, implement a western-friendly democracy, train their armies, and hopefully, in a decade we will have an ally comparable to that of South Korea. But that’s easier said than done, and it will be a long, hard road. The United States must change the Iraqi opinion of them if this is to work, and I support it fully. And so should every American who cares one bit about the American lives lost in this illegitimate war.


And I’m not a republican, nor a democrat, so don’t bring me into that moronic argument. Both parties are full of fucking morons, who should have never been elected into office.

[Zitto Wexman]

Isn't this a good thing? at least (if this is true) they are using the power of the media to spread some optimism about the future. Should we just tell them all is hopeless? that would really help us out, and them.
This type of strategy obviously works, it only took 1 liberal whiny article to get you to think this is somehow bad?

[sclone]

Isn't this a good thing? at least (if this is true) they are using the power of the media to spread some optimism about the future. Should we just tell them all is hopeless? that would really help us out, and them.
This type of strategy obviously works, it only took 1 liberal whiny article to get you to think this is somehow bad?

One article? You don't read the papers much do you? This story was front page in almost every reputable news outlet...

[sclone]

Paying to have stories put in the newspaper? Wrong? This is something that happens in our own country daily.

Really? Like when? I'd like an example of how the government pays reputable news sources to place propaganda articles... And this doesn't include Entertainment Weekly reviewing an advertiser well...

[tar_baby]

the stories placed in those newspapers are true...so whats the big deal?

[sclone]

the stories placed in those newspapers are true...so whats the big deal?

This is blinding. You're honestly telling me that you don't see anything wrong with paying to have articles placed prominently in news sources that are supposed to be relaying the news accurately and without bias? So if the Washington Post started taking money from the Bush administration to put a lot of pro-military articles on the front page, this is okay in your mind? This will (hopefully) be the downfall of the right - the inability to take responsibility for any wrongdoing...

[Dead Man Walkin]

Really? Like when? I'd like an example of how the government pays reputable news sources to place propaganda articles... And this doesn't include Entertainment Weekly reviewing an advertiser well...

Every time the government puts out a statement on "how well" the economy is going, or "how well" the Iraq War is going, that is, in fact propaganda (if you know what the true definition of propaganda is) used to change public opinion toward the administration. They usually don't pay to put much into American newspapers, mainly because America isn't exactly an enemy of America.

Now, what I don't understand is, how paying to put an article in what is basically an enemy newspaper, is bad, in anyway. Especially seeing as, we could have just as easily blown the place (and every poor bastard in it) to shit and built our own.

[sclone]

Every time the government puts out a statement on "how well" the economy is going, or "how well" the Iraq War is going, that is, in fact propaganda (if you know what the true definition of propaganda is) used to change public opinion toward the administration. They usually don't pay to put much into American newspapers, mainly because America isn't exactly an enemy of America.

Now, what I don't understand is, how paying to put an article in what is basically an enemy newspaper, is bad, in anyway. Especially seeing as, we could have just as easily blown the place (and every poor bastard in it) to shit and built our own.

It's interesting that you refer to the country that we're trying to aid and rebuild as an enemy country.

I can't argue this point anymore. If you can't see why it's wrong to plant stories in a place where we're supposed to be spreading democracy and freedom (free press), then you're too fargone to reason with.

[Xyn]

It's interesting that you refer to the country that we're trying to aid and rebuild as an enemy country.

I can't argue this point anymore. If you can't see why it's wrong to plant stories in a place where we're supposed to be spreading democracy and freedom (free press), then you're too fargone to reason with.

We don't live in a democracy, hell, we hardly live in a republic, and our free press is far from free, considering the partisan influences and the capitalistic drive to sensationalize.

I laugh every time I hear that we are spreading democracy

Iraq isn't an enemy government. Hell, you need a government to be an enemy government. Iraq is however, a combat zone (thats why we have all those troops stationed over there). One tactic in combat is to blow shit up. Another is to try to get the people to join your side, not the enemies.

Of course its propoganda, but its hardly the worst form of it. I'm not jumping for joy that we are spreading propoganda, but its not like we are saying "the jew is the cuase of all our problems, hiel Bush!"

If Iraq gets a sound government in place, and takes control of its own security (hahaha, no, really, I'm being serious), and we are still doing the same, that would be disturbing.

I'd love to have the troops cut and run from Iraq, fuck the middle east... But thats not gonna happen, so I am in favor of a little frendly propoganda if it has any chance of saving a few lives or getting the troops home any sooner.

[sclone]

Every time the government puts out a statement on "how well" the economy is going, or "how well" the Iraq War is going, that is, in fact propaganda (if you know what the true definition of propaganda is) used to change public opinion toward the administration.

I forgot to address this. This is total bullshit. The news doesn't report these things blindly. They interpret what is given to them. Things like, "The government says that blah blah blah, but in fact earlier studies show blah blah blah." Just because the government attempts to spread their propaganda, the news doesn't report this as the truth.

[wmansir]

I forgot to address this. This is total bullshit. The news doesn't report these things blindly. They interpret what is given to them. Things like, "The government says that blah blah blah, but in fact earlier studies show blah blah blah." Just because the government attempts to spread their propaganda, the news doesn't report this as the truth.

If there is anything that listening to O&A as taught me it is that the media always check their sources.

[tar_baby]

this so called "propaganda" being written is the truth....this wouldn't be reported if the US didn't get it out there so whats the big deal?...would you rather the newspapers be filled with negative articles that are FALSE and endanger our troops?

[Mommadeez4u]

Isn't this a good thing? at least (if this is true) they are using the power of the media to spread some optimism about the future. Should we just tell them all is hopeless? that would really help us out, and them.
This type of strategy obviously works, it only took 1 liberal whiny article to get you to think this is somehow bad?

Yeah, just like Goebbels did.

[sclone]

If there is anything that listening to O&A as taught me it is that the media always check their sources.

This has nothing to do with what I said. I was addressing the fact that a press release from the President isn't just reported as news. It's interpreted by the news outlets and then reported. Therefore, a press release alone is not propaganda, and can't possibly be compared to PAYING news outlets to place stories.

[tar_baby]

once again...in a country filled with people who have no idea what it is like to be free...what is so bad about paying to get stories in the paper about all the positive things we are doing inthe country...if these stories weren't reported all the iraqi people would read about is how we are torturing the citizens and murdering innocent people and not helping the country in any way (all of which is false)

letting the citizens know what good things are going on helps aide them in becoming free and allowing them to have a positive attitude about the regime change that is going on...i see nothing wrong with this

[sclone]

This is the way I see it: If the paper that's publishing these pieces will accept money from the American government to print the stories, they can't be staunchly anti-American. Therefore, all these wonderful stories about the good America is doing would be reported regardless. Do you think that your average educated Iraqi, who sees war, bloodshed, bombings, etc. everday, is going to forget about all of that because of some stories that tell them the good news - a new school opened. (Incidentally, what are the odds that we already killed their kids?)

[tar_baby]

they would be reported?...then why weren't they being reported?

and dont forget the average iraqi saw his/her spouse *****...was in fear of being swiped off the streets and taken into tortue rooms for no reason...could be killed and dumped in a mass grave at any moment...could not even speak his/her mind without being afraid of getting killed or his/her family getting killed