Teribus--

Well, it looks like it's down to thee and me--and soon it'll be just thee.

Look on the bright side--at least you'll finally have somebody- who believes all the unmitigated drivel with which you've been honoring us---yourself.

Enjoy your soliloquy.





Never thought I'd have to explain to you, of all people---who fancies himself an expert on military strategy and geopolitics------so much for that------- how propaganda works.

Had to explain it over and over again---and still you don't understand.

Before you go criticizing Bobert, Arne or me--PLEASE visit your library.

And I took you for an educated person. I won't make that mistake again.



For the n plus 1th time, propaganda does not need a direct statement to be effective.

One among many examples from the Bush propaganda campaign:

From the 2003 State of the Union address:

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained".


If you don't think that's propaganda--and very effective propaganda, directed as it was at a US population already on edge after 9-11 --(remember the US had not been living with the direct threat of terrorism for decades, as had the UK)---you need to make that library trip in the worst way.

First try your encyclopedia--you do know what that is, don't you? --look under under P for propaganda.

And that bridge I have for you has your name right on it--in 14 carat lead, just for you.


"Well, I want to be careful about..." (recognize that?)


Fine--as I believe I've also mentioned before--if Cheney had not changed his mind between 16 Sept 2001 and 8 Sept 2002 about the link between Saddam and 11 Sept 2001, the proper answer to Russert's question as whether he had changed his mind on that issue was "No, sir".

That should have been the end of the topic.

You've still refused to answer why Cheney said ANYTHING else on the topic on 8 Sept 2002.

Far from dropping the topic, Cheney instead went on with "On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light" and then detailed that "evidence", while maintaining deniability.

Ever heard the term "deniability"? You can go to your dictionary for that one.

Don't worry, we'll educate you yet.

Deniability is very useful for propagandists.

Cheney is an expert propagandist.


Hope I'm not going too fast for you to follow.


But somehow, I think you just might understand. I suspect you're a good propagandist yourself--though your recent efforts have been unbelievably clumsy.


It's only your ego that prevents you from acknowledging the propaganda campaign carried out by the Bush regime to link Saddam and 11 Sept 2001--a campaign which was-----all together now-----from mid-2002 to March 2003.

So, yet again your citation of the statement "within days" of 9-11 is, like everything else you have contributed to the discussion, totally worthless.

You are truly pathetic.

And possibly a fool--that's my chosen 4-letter word----in contrast to yours, say on 3 Dec 2005, to pick a purely theoretical occasion.


But congratulations on no vulgar outbursts since 3 Dec.

Well done. Good job.


My "political prejudice" (registered Republican that I am) in seeing a propaganda campaign by the Bush "team" between mid 2002 and March 2003. is called thinking.

Too bad it's a foreign concept for you.






However, you may have heard the term Truce of God, which was sometimes invoked between combatants long ago. One of the times was around Christmas. I think it's time to invoke that wonderful custom now. I have better things to do these days than to to try to make the horse drink. After all, you've been staring at the lake for about a month now, and still haven't realized that it's water.

So---this is my last post on this topic---til after Christmas.


But, after that, I'll be back rubbing your face in what you've done (another metaphor)--til you realize it.



Merry Christmas to all!!!!--yes ,even you, Teribus.