Propaganda in Iraq

This weekend there was an interesting discussion here about the difference between news, opinion, bias and propaganda.

But paying newspapers to run favourable stories, presented as independent accounts? Now that's propaganda.

Comments

[tilti on 01.12.05 at 19:14]

That is bias. Clear and straight. But it is an amazing testament to the extent of free speech in America that an American News Source - The Los Angeles Times - can objectively cover a story that is extremely detramental to the future and credibility of the worlds largest military power in a multi billion dollar expedition. If they have solid facts to back their claim there is absolutely nothing that the worlds most powerful government can do. Now that is impressive.
Alex Scott hinted earlier this year at curtialing free speech because after he was accused of being a racist (with considerable evidence to boot). There is a lesson here on the value of free speech and objectivity of the press. This isn't bias against Bush, it's holding politicians at the highest levels accountabile. I hope the RG continues to do this with our local politicians on both sides of the floor.

[SmokingGun on 01.12.05 at 19:31]

Well actually it's an ingenious move by the US. They tried getting the US media to write about some of the positive things happening in Iraq but they only wanted to show the daily suicide bombings and military deaths. So the US decided to plant stories based on fact in the Iraq papers and they did this by actually paying money to the papers to run them instead of holding press conferences etc.

So now the US Media has a "story" that they want to expose. The cool thing is that as they dig deeper and deeper they will have to start writing about what kinds of stories the US were promoting. And this will get the good things such as new schools, hospitals, rebuilding etc. into the US papers. Freaking brilliant!!

[Njegos on 01.12.05 at 22:32]

Well actually it's an ingenious move by the US. They tried getting the US media to write about some of the positive things happening in Iraq but they only wanted to show the daily suicide bombings and military deaths.

You obviously haven't heard of Fox "News" who are virtually a branch of the executive. In fact, a poll taken shows that nearly 2/3 of Fox News viewers think that WMD were found in Iraq. Depressing.

And this will get the good things such as new schools, hospitals, rebuilding etc. into the US papers. Freaking brilliant!!

As I say, this may make its way into Fox News but so what? Nearly everyone has figured out that this war is lost. The market for "feel-good" stories has dried up. Besides, what matters is whether you can persuade Iraqis that things are changing for the better. Let me show you why that could be a little trickier than you think.

These fluff pieces are not merely propaganda but exercises in futility. Iraqis know exactly what is going in their own country.

[SmokingGun on 02.12.05 at 11:30]

Hey Limey....I really shouldn't have to ask, but how do you do that sarcasm thing again? Or is ' ' -) the sign for "tongue in cheek?"

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 12:46]

Phew.

[H Reardon on 02.12.05 at 15:18]

The war at this point is about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, not about gaining territory. If, in the estimation of the people on the ground in Iraq, this helps achieve that goal, then I am all for it--despite what a liberal newpaper on the left coast or a Bush basher in Bermuda (Njegos) may think.

[Uncle Elvis on 02.12.05 at 15:55]

"The war at this point..."

So what was it about UP to this point?

[Bill Cook on 02.12.05 at 15:59]

Njegos,

We call Fox News FAUX NEWS now.

It is influenced by Irving Crystal William Crystal's father who lean heavily in favour of Israel as do all the most prominent supporters of the War on Iraq or more correctly pre emptive strike ie its prime architecht Paul Wolfowitz now head of the World Bank and now very quiet due to the disaster this has become.

If there exists a better proponent of SPIN than the Israeli government media manipulation I have yet to learn of it.

The Iraquis know exactly what is going on except the actual death count as bodies are buried quickly as Islam dictates but Lancet know that the number exceeds 100,000 mostly innocent men women and children and those are figures that are concealed.

They also know that raw sewage pouring into the Tigris is causing disease due to the structural damage with no electricity etc.

We know that the head of BBC lost his job for exposing the WMD lies and distortions and Dan Rather lost his not because the contents of his information on Bush's National Guard service record was inacurate but because the document was not the original one.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.12.05 at 16:11]

Reardon,

Just out of curiosity, has Bush ever given a valid reason for the war in Iraq.

The first reason was that Saddam was financing terrorism and Iraq was harbouring Al Queada. Evidence has proven this was incorrect.

The second reason was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. To date no such weapons have been found.

Then it was freedom for the Iraqis.

Now, as you say, it is about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

What is the real reason for this war?

Could it be because Saddam had tried to assassinate senior Bush? Could it be because of the vast amounts of oil?

By the way, whatever happened to the war on terrorism? It seems odd that the person who masterminded and funded the 9/11 attacks is still at large and there seems to be no focus on trying to find him.

Here's what I believe, The Bush Administration knows that this war was a huge mistake and it is embarrassed but will never admit to the mistake, instead it finds one reason after another to justify it.

This is nothing more than another Vietnam. No matter what state-of-the-art weapons the U.S. forces use they simply cannot defeat the insurgents. At what point does the Bush Administration say enough is enough? Is if 5,000 lives, 10,000 lives, what is the number? Or in an effort to save face, do the number of U.S. casualties no longer matter.

I recently sat down with a U.S. Marine who had not long before returned from Iraq. What he said was that the President can gloss over the war all he wants, the fact is many of the U.S. troops believe the war is wrong. But I guess like many troops who felt the same way while serving in Vietnam, many will not speak out against it as they will be called traitors within their own country.

[thisgrassman on 02.12.05 at 16:37]

I will never forget the grinning idiot Bush, all decked out in his "Top Gun" fashions, with a banner behind him the size of Texas declaring "Mission Accomplished" .......A perfect iconic image of crass, American Triumphalism.........can I join the Bermuda Bush Basher club?

[thisgrassman on 02.12.05 at 16:38]

forgot to note the context - he had just landed on a US aircraft carrier at sea.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.12.05 at 16:43]

Reardon,

Here is further proof that the "Big, Bad U.S." is not so big and bad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051202/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

Bush needs to realise that the U.S. cannot and should not try to solve the world's problems. Besides, it has enough of its own, which you rarely hear about in the U.S. news. The news stations portrary the rest of the world as being filled with problems.

[H Reardon on 02.12.05 at 16:46]

Guilden,

Quite a bit off topic, but I didn't mean to imply the reason for the war was about winning the hearts and minds, but rather at this point that is the goal. The sooner that happens, the sooner that we can get our boys home.

To say the reason for the war is because Saddam put a hit on George Sr. is insulting to all Americans and should be to any ally.

Of course oil plays a major role--but it should. Oil means food, clothing and shelter for the world. To imply that there should never be a war over oil is niave and dead wrong. Imagine Bermuda without oil--don't think sails would fit on the container ships.

But back on topic, propaganda has been used in every war in recorded history. This is propaganda as well, and if the guys on the ground in Iraq believe these fluff pieces help, then I support it.

[thisgrassman on 02.12.05 at 16:53]

mmmmmmmmmmmm………I am not sure about propaganda use in the Anglo-Zanzibar war of 1896. They didn’t even have time to fire up the steam presses – the conflict only lasted 45 minutes.

[silencedogood on 02.12.05 at 16:55]

And I thought this blog was about Bermuda...

I'm trying to restrain my typing hand from embroiling myself in this debate, but...you've got me. I can't resist.

HReardon,

You are off base. Bush is the devil. The only reason there is a war is because he and his friends wanted to make a profit. Oh, and there is something vague to do with his dad. It has nothing to do with the post-9/11 geopolitical changes or 12 years of sanctions and security council resolutions related to WMD non-compliance or the danger of WMD in the hands of terrorists. They didn’t have any did they? It doesn’t matter, of course, that no one didn’t know that beforehand.

It wasn’t even sanctioned by the UN, this war. The oil for food vouchers given to French, Russian and UN officials were only like leaving pennies in the convenience store penny jar. Can Saddam help it if he’s wealthier than most and has more pocket change to leave? It has no effect on their criticisms of the war. Just look at the critic from the UK who got the same vouchers. The UK is in Iraq right?

Of course, that’s only because of Bush’s evil henchman Tony Blair. I’m sure Alex Scott would agree that people with TB as initials are evil, evil I tells ya. How could a couple of million change someone’s stance to anti-war over money? That wouldn’t be of benefit to Saddam.

No, Bush is worse than Hitler. It’s all about oil too. Never mind that we couldn’t function without it. No war is ever necessary to protect our way of life or a resource which is critical to national security.

Iraq was great before the US arrived and screwed it all up. Didn’t you see Michael Moore’s movie??? That boy on the bike riding around was so carefree and happy. He’s smart that Michael Moore and his personal hygiene is beyond reproach.

This article is just reinforces my points above. Some might say the US’s actions may have crossed the lines of ethics and is bad for PR but has little effect on the overall issue, others might say all is fair in love and war pointing to the use of propaganda in WWII or they might even say all news on political topics is propaganda to some degree. I say any positive news coming out of the region must be a lie. I imagine they paid the Iraqis to vote too.

Now that this has proved me right I, and many others around the world especially my friends in the middle east, have a right to ignore every single thing that comes out of the US government’s mouth or anything positive taking place in Iraq is also a lie.

I will now watch Al Jazeera with a clear conscience. Or maybe I’ll watch Judy Woodruff on Inside politics. CNN is not biased. They just want to make sure I'm informed of each and every death Bush causes and how his poll numbers are "plummetting". That's the only reason why they mention it 8 times a day. It's important news.

Of course it's not important that casualty rates, while tragic, are quite low for a war or that Bush's poll numbers were higher than Clinton's and a numbef of other presidents for the same period of their presidencies.

None of the US media (other than the evil Fox News)are supported by biased editors, reporters etc, or have viewpoints they push in terms of what they report, what they leave out, or the tone of their reporting.

Hell, forget the news I’m going to break out my Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD and make a pizza. He’s easier to watch because he just comes out to tell me what to think. I’ll call Alec Baldwin and Warren Beatty to see if they can make up their special potato salad and those funny smelling cigarrettes. Byee. ¡

[silencedogood on 02.12.05 at 16:59]

Oh and I totally forgot to mention Cindy Sheehan. I guess since only 12 people were at her last protest one might, but considering the coverage she gets on most news stations I feel like a real dunce.¡

[SmokingGun on 02.12.05 at 17:08]

"No, Bush is worse than Hitler." - your silence would do us all good. That's just about as ridiculous a comment as I've ever heard.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 02.12.05 at 17:09]

Reardon,

"To say the reason for the war is because Saddam put a hit on George Sr. is insulting to all Americans and should be to any ally."

It should only be insulting if it isn't true.

As I asked in my orignal posts, "What was the reason for going into Iraq?"

I do not necessarily disagree that oil can cause wars but there was never any indication that Saddam was going to cause any damage to the oil fields.

Therefore, it can't be about the oil.

If its about giving the Iraqis a democratic state, why just focus on Iraq, what about going to war with undemocratic China?

If its about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction, why hasn't the U.S. gone into North Korea?

WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE WAR?

Why won't Bush answer that simple question?

[SmokingGun on 02.12.05 at 17:13]

Silencedogood - I hate that kind of comment. Even if it's being stated in sarcasm I guess. I didn't see the point at the end. I'll try to read the whole thing next time.

[H Reardon on 02.12.05 at 17:29]

Well done Silence. Bravo.

Guilden,

It isn't worth wasting my time responding as you clearly have your mind made up. If you want to see my stance, see my previous responses to similar questions in other posts on this topic.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 17:34]

Reardon:

Wake up, sonny boy! Paying newspapers to run your stories is a sign of desperation. It means that you have lost the battle for hearts and minds.

The insurgency is growing stronger. 10 marines were blown up today. The question you should ask yourself (but you won't) is how you are going to extract yourselves from this god awful mess before another 1000 marines die in vain "so that others won't have died in vain".

Bill:

Faux News. LOL! Let's step back and look at this war again. Cui bono? Altogether now: Israel, Israel, Israel.

Guilden:

Spot on! US troop morale has sunk to rock bottom. Bush and the Pentagon better start thinking how to win the hearts and minds of US soldiers. Recruitment is falling way short of targets.

BTW, here is was the military historian Martin van Creveld had to say recently:

"For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C. sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins."

I declare van Creveld an honorary Bush Basher.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 17:45]

There is another point that needs to be made. Not only are the Americans planting stories in the newspapers but they bomb and kill journalists who write stories that deviate from the party line (eg. Al-Jazeera). Only a week ago we learned that the Cretinous One contemplated bombing Al-Jazeera in Qatar during the seige in Fallujah.

All part of the plan to spread global freedom of speech, of course.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 17:53]

Reardon:

Slightly off topic but I burn with curiosity:

I presume you are young and able-bodied. So why aren't you fighting in Iraq?

For if, as you clearly believe, this a war to defend Western civilization then surely you have a MORAL duty to REPORT for duty.

No?

[Bill Cook on 02.12.05 at 18:07]

Question time,

Who were the Presidents advisors who promoted the attack on Iraq ?

Name them one and all.

If you cannot do that then you must educate yourself ASAP.

Who was most in danger from an attack by Saddam ?

Were the US or GB ever in any danger of attack ?

Does any sane person really think that either country believed Saddam had a Nuclear capability, they may be dumb but not quite that dumb.

If ever there was a conspiracy by using the media to bamboozle the public this was its finest hour.

The master plan called for Iraq first follwed by Iran next then Syria, Libya etc.by this Cabal of lunatics.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 18:18]

Absolutely Bill. And they relied very heavily on their patsies in the press like the egregious Judy Miller of the NYT ("All the news that's fit to ignore.")

I have always maintained that the Israel-first lobby has this administration by the balls. Once you accept this, and the evidence is abundant, then everything else falls into place.

[loki on 02.12.05 at 18:21]

Did we go to war in Iraq over oil: of course!!

Is Iran next: this is a no-brainer. Everything points towards an attack on Iran next. A number of acquaintances of mine involved in oil trading have discussed this with me and, whilst I wouldn't presume to convince any of you good people, I believe that the US is planning a strike on Iran in or around February or March of 2006. If you're interested in the reasons why this may be the case, check out the following article:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA410A.html

[Bill Cook on 02.12.05 at 18:44]

Njegos.

Of course the NYT is biased, thats a given, just like the former mayor Ed Koch who I have an ongoing debate with, at least he responds.

The enigma is Blair who ignored one million of his voters who opposed this war by marching in London, he should be hung by his balls from Big Ben.

Its still not too late !

[H Reardon on 02.12.05 at 18:51]

Njegos,

Wow, you come here citing articles from Znet? That place makes Ralph Nader look like Rush Limbaugh. The place supports something called Participatory Economics--basically nobody is allowed to own anything that can produce something else. Everything other than your clothes are owned by the state. That hammer--give it back sir, the state owns it.

Please keep sending links to these places. You've definately made my day.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 18:56]

Bill:

Blair hung by the balls. Exquisite thought.

We have been stuck with these dangerous losers/liars/criminals for so long that one wonders whether British and American democracy are in terminal decline.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 19:05]

Reardon:

Just as I thought. You saw "Znet" and you had a seizure. Aren't you even curious what an unembedded reporter has to say? Oh no. You learn far more from watching Bill O'Reilly telling his unfortunate guests to shut-up, don't you?

You never answer a single question anyone puts to you. Again, why aren't you in Iraq, Reardon? Come on, tough guy. Out with it.

[Njegos on 02.12.05 at 19:10]

What if I had linked directly to Dahr Jamail's website? What would your excuse have been then? What about the articles that appear on Antiwar.com, a libertarian website very different from Znet? I know! They occassionally post articles from journalists whose writings appear on Znet, right?

[Bald Eagle on 02.12.05 at 19:12]

Why not hang both of these idiots by the cohones......you'll need two sets of tweezers to do it!

[Bald Eagle on 02.12.05 at 19:14]

Apologies everyone..my Spanish is not too good...cojones is the word!

[Raptor on 02.12.05 at 19:14]

Dubya doing the “Right Stuff” thing on the aircraft carrier--“mission accomplished” was really really stupid. I have to give HIM full credit for idiocy, not all the American people.

Reardon, many people believe there is definitely an “I’ll show you” thing going on between Bush Jr. and his Dad. Really immature stuff, eh? That’s about what Jr. is capable of. It’s a mistake to dismiss some of the things that can influence a “leader,” especially a faux leader like Dubya. He’s a jerk.

silencebegood: your very unsettling “Bush is worse than Hitler” should not even come up in an irony piece. There is no contest; millions can attest to that.

[SmokingGun on 02.12.05 at 19:19]

Hey guys it's one thing to bash Bush and Blair, but try to keep it in perspective. Saddam Hussien was a monster. Half the, no 90% of the people getting killed today are so called "innocent bystanders". No they're not, they are being targeted for religious or tribal reasons under the guise of kicking the allies out of Iraq.

And who's financing them? Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, Egyptians, Iraqi's and on and on. The only thing that kept this from happening before was Hussein's brutal dictatorship so we had a no win situation in the first place. Sit back and let him continue his killings and persecution or try and get a democratic state of self rule. The biggest crew up was not in going in just not being prepared for the big can of worms that was going to opened. But something had to be done either way.

If the US can get people to see there is hope at the end of the tunnel then I guess they should use whatever method is available. They need to get people talking together for the benefit of the future. Maybe they should set up a blog.... a Yankee in Baghdad?

[loki on 02.12.05 at 19:34]

"Hey guys it's one thing to bash Bush and Blair, but try to keep it in perspective. Saddam Hussien was a monster."

No argument on this from me. The big issue, as I see it, is that Iraq has become both a magnet and a haven for terrorists since the US invasion. It was not so under Saddam. Any fool could have seen this coming, though: I predicted it, as did numerous others with a basic understanding of islamic terrorism. The main reason that Bin Laden and others of his ilk are so intent on killing Americans is because of US presence in what the terrorists view as islamic Holy Land (pretty much, the entire Middle East). So, before the US invasion, the terrorists were pissed off because of US presence in Saudi Arabia and other 'friendly' Middle East countries. What do we do? We provoke them by invading and occupying another Middle East country! Way to go, George! Now, notwithstanding the above, I was actually in favour of the war until I realized that we'd all been sold a pack of lies on the WMD front. To my mind, the possibility of Iraq becoming a haven for terrorists was outweighed by the need to get rid of Saddam. Given that we now know that Saddam didn't really pose any threat to us, what is now going on in Iraq just isn't worth it.

[SmokingGun on 02.12.05 at 19:51]

Loki - I agree with you on the fact that these guys knew of the possible consequences and should have been much better prepared. I remember reading an extensive article in Time, I think, back in the 80's about how Muslim Terrorism and Bin Laden were going to be a big issue. It mentioned the problem the extremists had with the "infidels" being on holy soil etc.

I'm still not convinced Hussein didn't have a program to continue developing gas weapons, and never will be convinced so please no-one bother trying. He used them to kill his own people and scare Iran and maybe to bluff his neighbors. The risk was there but just how big a risk to anyone beyond the Middle East I don't know. Maybe Israel was a potential target. And reality is everyone in the neighborhood is out to get them so I think the US and GB in some way will always keep an eye out for them.

[loki on 02.12.05 at 20:06]

"I'm still not convinced Hussein didn't have a program to continue developing gas weapons, and never will be convinced so please no-one bother trying."

I'm not convinced, either. I would imagine that he had a long term plan to utilize chemical and biological weapons, but I don't believe that he was actually in the process of developing them at the time. Certainly, we've found zero evidence of any chemical or biological weapons programs post-invasion.

[jake on 02.12.05 at 20:09]

Njegos,

If H. Reardon should be fighting for Bush in Iraq, should you not go and fight...against him?

Same logic, no?

[Uncle Elvis on 02.12.05 at 21:27]

"Saddam Hussien was a monster"

Then why did GHWB put him in power in Iraq?

[Bill Cook on 02.12.05 at 21:45]

Smoke,

There were and are greater monsters in Africa but no one gave a rats ass about them and the millions who lost their lives, no oil there either coincidentally.

In 1947 Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, all voted against the partition of Palestine but the United Kingdom ABSTAINED,
The Palestinians and Arabs never ever agreed to the partition but it was forced by the US and oddly the Russians, and the Arab delegates walked out in anger.

Look carefully at the composition of those who opposed the partition in light of future developments for a clue to the mess we now have.

The illegal state of Israel gets more in aid and has done for 50 yrs than all of sub sahara Africa Latin America and the carribean a tiny place the size of New Jersey.

One wonders why ?

When we look at Sept 11 and the world trade centre and ask those who carried out this attack first Ramzi Yousef who failed and later Osama Bin Laden who succeeded they both said

Because of the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis and the support by the US.

I mean they should know they carried out the attacks, and the world terrorism as increased ever since.

If you are going to launch an attack to overcome a dictator at least be honest about your reasons for doing so.

And why arm Israel with the 3rd largest nuclear weaponary in the world if their role is to control the mid east not just imprison all the Palestinians ?

[H Reardon on 02.12.05 at 21:57]

"And why arm Israel with the 3rd largest nuclear weaponary in the world if their role is to control the mid east not just imprison all the Palestinians ? "

Posted by Bill Cook on 02.12.05 at 21:45

To defend themselves from these animals you champion as some sort of martyred heroes. Do you seriously believe there would be an Israel today without the strong deterent?

Njegos,

I'm not in Iraq because I am an aging insurance exec with 3 kids. I'm more valuable paying taxes than holding a rifle. You should like people like me, your communist buddies at Znet need people like me to produce for their great planned society where noone can own anything but their clothes.

[Bill Cook on 02.12.05 at 22:17]

If you knew anything about animals you would recognise the IDF who can kill anyone without explanation, bulldoze 100,s of homes of innocent people, occupy 80% of land (stolen )bomb compact areas like Jabalya an area the size of St Davids with over 200m people jammed in it.

People there live like animals in a cage on $3 per day.

Thirty thousand young Palestinians locked up in prison with no charges.

If you treat people like dogs should you be surprised if they bark ?

Get the Hell out of their land and compensate them for the destruction caused and start from there.

The original intent was to have a neutral peace keeping force but the Israelis did not want it there and they dont allow outsiders in to see the conditions the Palestinians live in.

In Iraq its all about oil and control and in Israel/Palestine its ALL about L A N D !

[Big Bad Wolf ^..^ on 02.12.05 at 22:28]

There should of never been an Israel....blame the British again,they really know how to mess the world up almost better than the Americans.Then you ask yourself well who created Iraq....Oh Hell....It was the British...see what i mean!

[no name on 03.12.05 at 01:38]

All,
I am a former US government employee, and the multitude of what you do NOT know is amazing. Safe to say, anyone against this war would have been very sorry to find out about the plans for the US and its allies by 2010. Consider yourselves lucky that we are there, and lets keep it at that!

[Sal Monilla on 03.12.05 at 03:12]

It was actually The GOP of 1963 that brought that thug in ;) GHWB just disarmed him from the REAGAN years - when they ARMED him LOL
What a story!

[Njegos on 03.12.05 at 04:40]

Reardon:

I'm not in Iraq because I am an aging insurance exec with 3 kids. I'm more valuable paying taxes than holding a rifle.

But of course. Everyone knows that insurance executives are exempt from the struggle against the enemies of Western civilisation. Who is going to make mega-profits and enjoy the comfy life in Bermuda while others die for oil and Israel?

You should like people like me, your communist buddies at Znet need people like me to produce for their great planned society where noone can own anything but their clothes.

Let me see....I own an IB. I am the son of a refugee from communism. Fact is, Reardon, I know far better than you what real communism is and it is crap. That's why it failed.

Cold war dinosaurs like yourself use the term "communism" as a smear. Anyone who reads Znet is a "communist". Anyone whose articles appear on Znet is a "communist". And because Znet linked to Dahr Jamail's article, his conclusions are invalid because he too is a "communist". So again I ask:

WHAT IF I HAD LINKED TO DAHR JAMAIL'S WEBSITE DIRECTLY? WHAT WOULD YOUR PATHETIC EXCUSE BE?

Jake:

If H. Reardon should be fighting for Bush in Iraq, should you not go and fight...against him?

Same logic, no?

Listen real good sweetheart. Unlike Reardon and yourself, I DID NOT WANT THIS WAR. I PROTESTED AGAINST THIS WAR. I HATE THIS F***ING WAR.

Can you hear me now Jake?

No Name:

Please clarify your cryptic comments.

[Longtime Lurker on 03.12.05 at 10:59]

If H. Reardon should be fighting for Bush in Iraq, should you not go and fight...against him?

Same logic, no?

The fight against Bush was in the protesting before the war. At this point, there's nothing left to fight. The war had good and bad effects: for the good, the madman Saddam has been removed from power; for the bad, over 2000 soldiers and countless Iraqi civilians have died in a country that is a haven for terrorists and threatens to fall into civil war and Islamic theocracy. The bad can't just be undone by leaving, and nobody wants to see Saddam back in power. This is why I was against the war, but (and this is where I disagree with Njegos) I feel that we need to ride it out, and try to give the Iraqis some hope for a stable and democratic future.

[Uncle Elvis on 03.12.05 at 11:22]

"It was actually The GOP of 1963 that brought that thug in ;) GHWB just disarmed him from the REAGAN years - when they ARMED him"

GHWB was CIA. Saddam was a CIA asset. CIA put him in power. When GHWB was Prez, he disarmed him, but was diretcly responsible for putting him in in the first place.

[Njegos on 03.12.05 at 13:38]

LL:

I feel that we need to ride it out, and try to give the Iraqis some hope for a stable and democratic future.

This is precisely what Bush says. Our presence, however, is giving hope to very few people. It is fuelling the insurgency. Ilad Alawi, the American supported candidate in the last elections, recently said that the situation in Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam Hussein. What an accomplishment after 2 1/2 years of US occupation! Saddam's torture chambers have been replaced by Abu Ghraib, Ministry of the Interior dungeons and death squads operating under the auspices of the spanking new Iraqi security forces. Plus ca change.......

If we hang around indefinitely in the vague hope that some day Iraqis will live up to our standards of "democracy" and stability, then we will bankrupt ourselves. But put the economics to one side - do you see any sort of lasting political consensus that would make such a commitment possible? And who is going to want to fight this war without end? Certainly not the fearless Reardons and Jakes of this world.

Bush is gone in 3 years. He may lose control of Congress even sooner. Then what? I know he's a fool but even he must see that he cannot run a totally discredited foreign policy from the deep political grave that is so clearly marked out for him. This lame duck is a peddler of FALSE hope. A snake oil salesman par excellence.

Let's stop lying to ourselves and to the poor suffering Iraqi people.