I love it! You didn't mention the comment made by Mit "The Morman" Romney. When asked why his sons were not in the military he responded they were "serving their country" by helping him win the presidency. I wonder how the family of armed serviceman feel about that?
"a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."
Posts: 1944 | Location: Beautiful New Paltz, NY | Registered: 04 July 2006
You heard that the British have withdrawn from Basra in Iraq and now only control the near by air base at the airport near the outskirts of the city? Well it seems to me a bit strange that Bush shows up in Iraq soon after and talks about not needing as many troops in Iraq in the future.
I think that he is going to sell the British withdraw from Basra as a military success (rather than the failure it is) and that they left because they were no longer needed there to keep the peace.
Controlling the airport means that one controls the way out. It also means that you are not taking as many casualty risks.
quote:
British troops begin withdrawal from Iraq city
British soldiers in southern Iraq are pulling out of their last base in the city of Basra, fuelling concerns about the security of the country's second-largest city and its surrounding region.
U.S. and Iraqi authorities have expressed concern that a broader British troop withdrawal could jeopardize the region's rich oil resources and the land supply line from Kuwait to Baghdad and beyond. Some analysts also fear that a British withdrawal could exacerbate a violent power struggle between rival Shia groups in the sect's southern heartland.
round 550 soldiers were Sunday leaving the downtown Basra Palace, one of Saddam Hussein's former compounds, to join 5,000 other personnel at an air base 11 kilometres away on the fringes of the city. CBC
quote:
British troop pull-out planned for months: Brown
BAGHDAD -- Iraqi soldiers hoisted the nation's flag over the Basra palace compound Monday after British troops withdrew from their last garrison in the city, leaving the country's second biggest city largely in the hands in the hands of Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
At al-Asad Air Base west of Baghdad, meanwhile, President Bush made a surprise visit to Iraq, hoping to bolster his case that the buildup of U.S. troops is helping stabilizing the country.
You heard that the British have withdrawn from Basra in Iraq and now only control the near by air base at the airport near the outskirts of the city? Well it seems to me a bit strange that Bush shows up in Iraq soon after and talks about not needing as many troops in Iraq in the future.
British leadership shaping their foreign policy around the mood of the population...
President Bush doesn't suffer that here so why would you think he would need to waste his time making an excuse for the Brits? The man doesn't give a shite and that's why I respect him. He is doing what he believes is best for the country (concerning Iraq I happen to agree) and that's that.
The Administration's report will include good news among sobering realities not because he cares about stringing anybody along, but because (wait for it...) there actually is good news to report.
Posts: 2167 | Location: CA | Registered: 14 November 2003
You heard that the British have withdrawn from Basra in Iraq and now only control the near by air base at the airport near the outskirts of the city? Well it seems to me a bit strange that Bush shows up in Iraq soon after and talks about not needing as many troops in Iraq in the future.
British leadership shaping their foreign policy around the mood of the population...
President Bush doesn't suffer that here so why would you think he would need to waste his time making an excuse for the Brits? The man doesn't give a shite and that's why I respect him. He is doing what he believes is best for the country (concerning Iraq I happen to agree) and that's that.
The Administration's report will include good news among sobering realities not because he cares about stringing anybody along, but because (wait for it...) there actually is good news to report.
Thanks Joe, I always appreciate your honesty. I appreciate your saying on your website you are a Neocon gone Marine. Neoconservatives are our modern day idealists, like President Wilson was, people who see the US role in the world as liberating those being held in the darkness. It's good that such leaders as George Bush will put such ideals above the realism of the majority who maybe can't see how important such values are for their future. That's why we need strong leaders, right? We are all just silly sheep, easily distracted by the mood of the moment.
In Bush's famous "Vietnam" speech given to the VFW August 22, one of the most analyzed speeches of his presidency now, finally embracing the ghost of Vietnam, the president said:
quote:
"I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known -- the men and women of the United States Armed Forces."
Now past presidents might have said the United States' greatest force for human liberation is something like "the American way of life," or "the American dream." But, nope, not for this president, a guy who spent his time avoiding it back then and evading it until now in Iraq. For him, it's you guys, the military.
Originally posted by JoeSzynal:there actually is good news to report.
What? All the pro-war folks are going to stop robbing me to pay for it, and pay me back for any stolen funds already spent.
I feel your pain (Bite lip like Clinton). But honestly it will probably happen the second my socialist authoritarian regime (I mean California) gives me back all my taxes and all money I have given to the Fed that went to any programs I did not like also.
I also would like all indirect taxes that environmentalist have caused me to pay.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
President Bush doesn't suffer that here so why would you think he would need to waste his time making an excuse for the Brits?
Because it could look like America and it's allies are losing the war in Iraq. However, if Bush can make it look like the Brits backed out because they have won and, thus, their presences is no longer necessary ....
quote:
Bush: "I'm confident that we will prevail. I'm confident we'll prevail because we have the greatest force for human liberation the world has ever known -- the men and women of the United States Armed Forces."
/rén , Bush is playing on the belief, instilled in Americans from Kindergarten Cop onwards, that they are number one. To attack Bush's statement would be to admit that America is second best - or, at the very least, full of number two.
Remember Kerry and him during the Presidential debate - he made it sound as if obeying the UN and the rule of law made the US the UN's subservient lapdog. America, according to Bush, was too macho to subordinate themselves to a foreign power.
quote:
JoeSzynal: The Administration's report will include good news among sobering realities
Ren: It's good that such leaders as George Bush will put such ideals above the realism of the majority who maybe can't see how important such values are for their future. That's why we need strong leaders, right? We are all just silly sheep, easily distracted by the mood of the moment.
I don't think that Bush wants the sheep to sober up. Wasn't it Malcolm X (or someone else) who said that they are more afraid of us sober than drunk?
If Bush was interested in sober Reality, he would not mind you seeing the coffins come home. He would not mind if pictures of dead children leaked out or we knew exactly how well things were going. I think he just wants us to pass the beer and pretzels - or maybe even a few jelly beans.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
Now past presidents might have said the United States' greatest force for human liberation is something like "the American way of life," or "the American dream."
Thanks ren for the response.
The president was speaking at the VFW. I think the message was appropriate. As for dodging/evading, didn't sound like that crowd judged him like that.
It's neither here nor there but whenever we would have a press embed on our patrols and they'd ask what we were doing, "Living the dream" was most always the response. It made me chuckle because the reporter was usually confused by the line.
Posts: 2167 | Location: CA | Registered: 14 November 2003
Kind of hard to tell about the judging, after all they are the Veterans of Foreign Wars, well trained patriots and all. We all learned to respect the president no matter who he was when we served. Some of us never managed to kick the habit so we could learn -- or return -- to question, I guess.
Vaudree,
I was kind of looking at it like this:
If the majority of Americans really don't want what's going on to be going on (and who can really say, right? all this media gibberish we get could be a mirage; obviously Congress doesn't take us civilians too seriously), then how is anything Bush is doing in his world liberation policies going to stop us from waking up, since most of us are already awake, saying in the last election and all the polls, enough already!...? I mean, I've got logger rednecks around here with Ron Paul posters in on stakes in their front yard, where Bush/Cheney used to be staked. And then we have, not the people, and the American way of life, but the military is our force for liberation.
Was I too subtle?
Hmmm, and now the National Guard is to be under the direction of the president, when it used to be only under their respective state governors? And then we have certain trends like, well, Homeland Security with certain erosion of rights, and... I was thinking the military may be liberating American civilians soon. Of what I'm not really sure.
then how is anything Bush is doing in his world liberation policies going to stop us from waking up, since most of us are already awake, saying in the last election and all the polls, enough already!
Think of it as an attempt to inoculate his base against people like us. How often have you, when attempting to explain an event, been accused of twisting the facts!
A person may have a vague memory of British soldiers pulling out between listening to Britney and Anna Nicole Smith. The next thing they hear is Bush speaking of how successful the mission has been, moreso than expected months earlier, and that the Americans will be pulling out sooner than expected. No one hears why the British pulled out, but it gets mixed with Bush's positive message. What people wanted to hear was that Americans are getting out of Iraq and that's exactly what Bush seems to be telling them.
Whether people fall for it or not is, like you say, a different story:
"Every day you're successful here in Iraq draws nearer to the day when America can begin calling you and you're service men and women home," he said.
"But I want to tell you this about my decision about troop levels. Those decisions will be based on a calm assessment by our military commanders on the ground, not a nervous reaction by Washington politicians to polls in the media."
So how many days was it that they have been - what is the word again - er - "successful"? So all Bush has to do is make it seem as if they are being more and more successful and have the time for them to come home nearer and nearer - but conveniently just after then next presidential election.
Reader commentry:
quote:
Sally Dee: So Bush made a surprise stop in Iraq? Will he surprise and delight us all by just staying there?
Andre S: You, armchair critics, have no credibility in terms of geopolitics and strategy. It remains that the war is slowly turning around and will, eventually, be successful. Could it have been ran better? Sure. Were mistakes made? Sure. But, at the end, it will be successful and Al-Queda and Co. will be defeated, thanks to Bush's tenacity and vision. Next stop? Iran...
Craig D: Tim, just because you post something twice, it doesn't make it more believable. You criticize those who watch Fox news, then promote one of the most ridiculous conspiracy theories out there.
It's true that Iraq had nothing do with the events of 9/11. The majority of people understand that. Also, it is also understood that the war in Iraq was meant to rid the world of another malicous dictator and his followers. It's a simple as that.
Once Saddam's followers are stopped and peace and freedom is brought to the Iraqi people, the US will pull out.
Either a few Conservative insiders are posting on there pretending to be ordinary people or there are actually a few Canadians/Minnesotans who believe what you figure Americans are all too smart to believe.
quote:
I was thinking the military may be liberating American civilians soon.
Maybe with all this liberating people of their privacy Homeland Security can prove my son's pet theory. There was a recent study were 65% of the kids asked said that they talk to their friends on their cell phones after bedtime when they are supposed to be sleeping. My son says that 35% of kids are lying. Money well spent.
One problem with taping conversations which take place in Arabic is that they need to be translated. There are only a limited number of people employed to translate these phone calls. It may be three months down the road before the person gets around to translating the call and, by that time, it may be too late.
However, the bugging of Democrat offices, like what occurred under Nixon, would not require the employment of translators - unless Democrats start conversing in Kingon - which may be a good precaution.
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
Think of it as an attempt to inoculate his base against people like us.
I'm living in the heart of his base, Vaudree, they aren't buying it here anymore. That's my point. I do understand how propaganda works, though, thank you. I've written enough of it myself for businesses. And I've been watching it long enough in politics.
I actually think there's a bit more going on than all that, underneath where his speeches are written and these different plans are put in place. There's a philosophical power struggle going on, and it's one that somewhat transcends political partisanship. Policy making has never really been in the people's hands, that's more a matter of keeping them confused and sedated with disinformation, and distracted with baubles and gadgets, and work.
Their primary goal going into Iraq was to get permanent bases and an embassy in Iraq, the heart of the Strategic Ellipse. They were being kicked out of Saudi Arabia, at least partly by some of the forces that were behind 911. That was Plan A. Now it's Plan B, and that's what Gate's is working on behind the scenes while this so-called "surge" buys them some time. Most of the Democrats will go for that. Most are realists. This is a negotiation. Behind the scenes the realist are negotiating with the neocons for which strategy is going to play out. The Neoconservatives (led by Cheney now, primarily) undoubtedly want to leave the stage with something to their credit, so we get this talk about success. Black is white has never been a problem for Neoconservatives.
Permanent bases and a presence in Iraq fits with the global economic needs. Most of the rest is just a smoke screen to keep people immobilized by confusion with so many mixed messages they can't see what's what.
And, indeed:
quote:
How often have you, when attempting to explain an event, been accused of twisting the facts!
That's the game; one must be patient and keep the picture clear in one's own mind, of course. That can take a bit of work. Most people will give up explaining if they are told that black is white over and over. But they still may see white, it's just they may become quiet about it in public. That's why if you are conservative with a basic plan to control the messages, you want to get a core of conservatives on a message board who consistently tell people the world they see is not what they think they see it as. Always contradict, always disagree no matter how outlandish, and then go to the emotion-baiting to further the distraction. Just keep doing that, over and over. Those are the ones I keep an eye on. I know how they do it, therefore, because I watch and see the patterns.
Joe was one of the very first people to greet me when I came to this board. He and a libertarian named Haberdine Celine, or something like that. Joe was one of the first to assure me that Kerry was not the hero in Vietnam that the Democrats thought he was, and that he would not be slimed as I predicted he would be. Just the facts, I think he said. I recall those words. That was one of my first political statements on this board, that if Kerry got the nomination, the right would slime him. I was informed by Joe it wouldn't be slime, just the facts. That was about February 5, 2004. The Swift boating came later. They first went public in May 2004 with a press conference. Joe seemed to know that would happen in February.
That's why if you are conservative with a basic plan to control the messages, you want to get a core of conservatives on a message board who consistently tell people the world they see is not what they think they see it as.
I had no Idea I was part of the conspiracy. I believe it is a POV of realist vs. dreamers. Clearly you are dreaming in this conspiracy. Damn It seems I did it again. I try to stop pointing how wrong your POV is. Sorry. I had no Idea it was feeding your deep seeded conspiracy paranoia
**** Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my owner. It is solely my own personal opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.***
"I stand or fall on my own words."
Posts: 7253 | Location: PORTLAND | Registered: 07 November 2005
Sorry I just can't get into the stupidity of the rational of war, so I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of your statement. I thought Santa Barbara was in California, or do you live in the one in Mississippi?
"Yeehaw" is not a foreign policy!
Posts: 875 | Location: The Emerald City | Registered: 02 January 2007
Originally posted by meljomur: Sorry I just can't get into the stupidity of the rational of war, so I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of your statement. I thought Santa Barbara was in California, or do you live in the one in Mississippi?
mel, you mind if I call you mel? Or maybe Hank. That seems like a good name also... Sure enough in California. Where do you see any hypocrisy in my statements?
I can easily say that "I'm living in the heart of the Liberal Base" but it might be strange to say that I am living in the heart of Bush country.
Posts: 7939 | Location: Santa Barbara | Registered: 19 July 2005
I'm living in the heart of his base, Vaudree, they aren't buying it here anymore.
That is good news! Though want to hear it from more people. Heard on the news that one of your generals is due to give a speech Monday (September 10) concerning American successes and failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their primary goal going into Iraq was to get permanent bases and an embassy in Iraq, the heart of the Strategic Ellipse. ...
Permanent bases and a presence in Iraq fits with the global economic needs.
Some people would call that an Occupation, though I think that the phrase that the US prefers is "ungovern spaces" - disputed areas under the control of no one yet where they can set up military bases. Seems that Africa has oil as well: http://www.cbc.ca/onthemap/fullpage.php?id=119
quote:
Always contradict, always disagree no matter how outlandish, and then go to the emotion-baiting to further the distraction. Just keep doing that, over and over.
That goes on in Question Period all the time. The only difference is that they keep track of everything a person says and throws it back in their face if they later contradict it. Emotional-baiting is a last ditch attempt when one has lost the argument - I think everyone realises that!
quote:
Joe was one of the first to assure me that Kerry was not the hero in Vietnam that the Democrats thought he was, and that he would not be slimed as I predicted he would be. Just the facts, I think he said. I recall those words.
A Purple Heart is something that you get when you are injured - I don't think it matters if you are in the trenches shooting people or hit by a sniper while using an outhouse. Whether Kerry is as stellar as his handlers presented him or not - who care! - Kerry could have avoided service but went.
And speaking out against the war - I can't say what the Vietnam captors did or did not do with Kerry's words. Was what Kerry said while he was speaking out against the war the truth or lies? What was Kerry's purpose for speaking out?
Looked up a few of those guys featured on the online portion of the swift boat story and many of them belonged to this same group, and a few in the group belonged to big pharma. It used to be on this board around the time of the last election. Got suspicious because they gave the names of these guys but did not say what they were doing now in civilian life - that was a very obvious omission. Not sure if the information is still on line now - but to say that Kerry was all for getting drugs from Canada at the time.
Kerry was done in because Bush knew his audience better than Kerry did. At the time, it seemed very silly that Bush was harping on that UN permission thing during the debate - but that is because I am Canadian and the idea that one doesn't ask permission from anybody is a bit - er - foreign. Then again, so is all this emphasis Americans place on military service.
quote:
I had no Idea I was part of the conspiracy. I believe it is a POV of realist vs. dreamers.
Are you talking about the American Dream here Loganthor?
Posts: 771 | Location: Winnipeg | Registered: 06 September 2001
That is good news! Though want to hear it from more people.
I'm not sure where you will have to go or be in order to hear it. If you are paying attention to the US's mainstream media, and hoping they are telling you what the people are thinking, I doubt if you will hear it there.
I'm not sure how many of these people around here where I live even have computers, let alone go on message boards on the internet so they can talk to you. These people don't really speak out, they don't go to rallies. They work, go to church, and talk to each other in the few gathering places we have -- mainly churches and bars and the isles of the grocery store.
And what mechanisms have actually been set up so the government apparatus that makes the laws and administers them can actually directly relate to the citizens voices in the process?
As far as Kerry and the 2004 election, well, old news really, but still pertinent related lessons in public opinion management might worth reviewing I suppose, since that's really the only issue I was pointing to -- opinion management and this message board, and those who come here to post.
Doubt is a big player in the propaganda game. People have their own views which they form in whatever ways, then they have the media, and perhaps even books, as a source of "inform"ation, and they may have whatever little chance to share their views with others and get live feed back. That's about the structure of that scenario for the vast majority, I'd say. The internet is one of the few ways to get out and actually interact and get beyond the provinciality of one's locale. And I live in one of the more extremely provincial environments, where public opinion is closely monitored and kept to a minimum and narrow range. That doesn't mean everyone thinks the same, it just means public expression expression of opinion is very narrow and minimal.
In 2004, Iraq was not yet the very clear debacle to the population it is now. The intentional controls going in had managed public opinion well enough to that point that the latent public opinion against military aggression had been kept under wraps enough, would be my assessment of it. As poor a candidate as Kerry was -- and he was the epitome of the worst possible choices to me at the time -- I suspect the public opinion difference would have been much greater in 2006, had the presidency been a part of the election process, and the slim to even still questioned difference that put GW back in the White House would not have been as likely, no matter how much they had control of the voting machines and whatever else that we will never know for sure went on in 2004. The Swiftboat slime factor was enough to raise a little doubt with maybe a few people in the middle. That's how I saw it. I knew they'd do it, is all. Joe's position is it was facts, not slime. I think you made the appropriate response that I would think the majority would have made:
Read-Only Topic
