BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:00 AM

Teribus--

Perhaps, like Mr. McCain, you don't understand the difference between Sunni and Shiite.

From the WSJ today: "Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against a proposal to keep US troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires."

These protesters appear to be followers of al-Sadr. So tell me, how many are al-Qaeda?

Face it--if "kudos" are to be shared for driving the US "prematurely" from Iraq, al-Qaeda, which is nominally Sunni, will have to share them with this group--which is Shiite.

And as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc.

Sounds like you still need to make that trip to your local library. After researching how propaganda works, you can study up on Islam. Then perhaps you'll start to make sense.

The situation in Iraq is not just a rivalry between Sunni and Shiite--perhaps you're unaware. In fact al-Qaeda has been relegated to the status of a bit player. Why? Because of the way they treat their fellow Moslems, trying to enforce their brand of Islamic Puritanism, as I said earlier. Do you need graphic examples?

As a result, they are hated throughout the Islamic world--and there is no chance they can take over in Iraq. Your scenario therefore fails to even start to meet the plausibility test.

Therefore there is no reason for US combat troops to remain--as potential targets--in "rump Iraq".

And you have given no good reason why they should.

Nice try.   

But you still need an actually plausible scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 10:33 AM

Ron, Oh, Ron, you are an absolute star

"The difference between Sunni and Shiite." - Well Ron you sure as hell don't know the difference, Ever worked out there Ron??? I have on a number of occasions

"Tens of thousands of Iraqis rallied against a proposal to keep US troops in Iraq after the UN mandate expires." - This signifies what exactly Ron - Don't struggle, I'll tell you - The Square Root of fuck-all.

"These protesters appear to be followers of al-Sadr. So tell me, how many are al-Qaeda?" - Wow!!! imagine that, staggers back in amazement - Eh Ron as followers of al-Sadr the Iraqi Government is not for one second going to pay the slightest attention to them - irrelevant.

"Face it--if "kudos" are to be shared for driving the US "prematurely" from Iraq, al-Qaeda, which is nominally Sunni, will have to share them with this group--which is Shiite." - Doesn't matter if it is shared Ron, or are you too dim to see that. I'll go over the basics again 1 to 1.8 billion muslims in the world, 85% are Sunni, 15% are Shiia, your premature withdrawal of US troops indicates that the "muslim lads" in Iraq have kicked US Ass big time, my take on that Ron old son is that out of 100 muslims round the wolrd 85 are going to give credit for that to Al-Qaeda and 15 are going to give it to al-Sadr and Iran. If in the ensuing civil war those numbers prove correct in terms of support then the Shiites lose - law of diminishing returns.

"And as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc." - The Saudi's said that they would support the Sunni's didn't they? They won't give a damn whose fighting alongside them Iran is their enemy.

"Sounds like you still need to make that trip to your local library. After researching how propaganda works, you can study up on Islam." - Well Ron you sure as hell need to take your own advice, but instead of reading MSM try with a bit of original source material, take someone along that explain it to you andtake it from there.

"The situation in Iraq is not just a rivalry between Sunni and Shiite--perhaps you're unaware. In fact al-Qaeda has been relegated to the status of a bit player. Why? Because of the way they treat their fellow Moslems, trying to enforce their brand of Islamic Puritanism, as I said earlier. Do you need graphic examples?" - Well no Ron, go back to some of my earlier posts where I stated exactly what the Sunni Arabs in Iraq had to do to get onboard the political process - They have done just that. But if the US forces leave prematurely, it will revert to a Sunni Arab v Shiia Arab civil war, Al-Qaeda will come in on the Sunni side and the Iranians may or may not side with the Shiia, they'll have a hard time standing clear, but there is grave internal danger for them getting too involved.

"they (Al-Qaeda) are hated throughout the Islamic world" - hey Ron if they get you guys to scramble back to the god ol' USofA, they will be able to dine out on that until eternity.

"Therefore there is no reason for US combat troops to remain--as potential targets--in "rump Iraq"." - So I see that you have, quite sensibly abondoned your "Kurdistan" Garrison then General Davies, I am pleased about, it's the only shred of commonsense that you have shown in the whole discussion.

I'd still like to hear what your take is on the effects of "Get 'em out NOW" policy back home in the good ol' USofA. My take on the effects are that they would be profound and earth-shattering in terms of everything that you have come to depend upon.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 11:54 AM

Still having problems with comprehension, eh Teribus?

To pick just one of your innumerable--I'm sorry to say--reasoning flaws:

"The Saudis will support the Sunnis". Uh, I never said they would not. But they will support the non-Al-Qaeda Sunnis--which is the overwhelming majority of Sunnis in Iraq. There are fewer al-Qaeda fans every day-- not because of any supposed success of the "surge" but because of how al-Qaeda treats its fellow Moslems. What do you think the so-called "Awakening" is?

Al-Qaeda will not be the beneficiary of any pro-Sunni feeling on the part of the Saudi regime.

Or perhaps you can come up with evidence that the Saudi government backs al-Qaeda. I can be patient. But good luck--you might possibly have a problem, since such evidence does not exist.

There is a difference--a huge difference between normal Iraqi Sunni citizens and al-Qaeda. That's what you don't seem to understand--though I've been trying to explain it to you for years.

Therefore there is no danger of Iraq being taken over by al-Qaeda. And US combat troops can--and should--leave "rump Iraq".

It's back to the library for you--and don't forget to research how propaganda works.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:14 PM

"Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan." - teribus

Speculation on your part, teribus.

From my point of view, if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan instead of expanding to Iraq, the war on terrorism would probably be over by now. Withdrawl from Iraq could free U.S. troops to fight the terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border where we know they are trained. Don't you think this is more logical than fighting a phantom, al Qaeda, threat in Iraq?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 31 May 08 - 07:29 PM

Hey Ron my simplistic little international expert:

"as for your theory that because the majority of Islam is Sunni, they will make common cause with al-Qaeda: how popular is al-Qaeda with the Saudi regime? With the Egyptian regime? Etc." - The Saudi's said that they would support the Sunni's didn't they? They won't give a damn whose fighting alongside them Iran is their enemy.

Ever heard of that old dictum - The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Now to put that into perspective Ron. Saudi Arabia doesn't give a flyin' fuck about what happens in Iraq as long as Iran does not come out the winner. That you complete and utter pillock is why they are currently aligned with the US as far as general policy goes in the region - HAVEN'T YOU BLOODY GOT THAT - Or are you just too thick to realise it. The Sunni rulers of Saudi Arabia will not let the Sunnis in Iraq fail and will support whoever is fighting for them because unlike you Ron they are realists.

The basis of this realism stems from this fact - If the US withdraw from Iraq prematurely rather a large number of states within the region are in deep SHIT, now they realise that Ron - YOU on the other hand have not given it a minutes thought, you have been too busy abandoning US troops as a throw away gesture in "Kurdistan".

Hey Ron wake up smell the coffee - believe it or not pal - you - the United States of America - are in a fight for your lives in both Iraq and Afghanistan - It is a fight that you must win - acknowledge that reality and get to grips with it, or alternatively stand back and watch your own self destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 06:44 AM

"Premature withdrawal from Iraq would presage a similar withdrawal from Afghanistan." - teribus

"Speculation on your part," - Dianavan

It most certainly is Dianavan, now examine the grounds for stating it as a possibility shall we:

- US cuts and runs from Iraq in order to satisfy the "Get them out NOW" brigade. How do you think that would effect Jihadist recruitment Dianavan?

- As the sectarian civil war erupts in Iraq, everybody and their dog will be claiming credit for having routed the mighty US. I have already pointed out to Ron that out of any 100 representative group of muslims asked 85 will say that Al-Qaeda did it, 15 will say that the Medhi Army did it with the backing of Iran.

- US runs the current military effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq from where Dianavan? CENTCOM at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida, although a forward headquarters has been established at Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar to serve American strategic interests of the Iraq region.

- I would say that with the US Forces out of Iraq, in such a way that it can be presented as a defeat to the people in the region, pressure will be on those small Emirates currently providing the US with base facilities in the area to withdraw their consent for those bases and request that the US remove themselves from their sovereign territory.

- Main air support facility for strikes into Afghanistan is where Dianavan?

- The US is going to keep Carrier Strike Groups and Amphibious Assault Groups in the Persian Gulf, Dianavan? If so for what reason?

- US now out of the Persian Gulf Region, their nearest base, or at least until 2016, would be Diego Garcia.

- Having been perceived to have been defeated in Iraq by Al-Qaeda, Dianavan. How would the people of Pakistan view that? What sort of stance would they want their Government to take?

- All operations in Afghanistan are totally reliant upon over-flight right of access, that can be withdrawn at any time.

- "From my point of view, if the U.S. had stayed in Afghanistan instead of expanding to Iraq, the war on terrorism would probably be over by now." - From your point of view Dianavan you were solidly against any action being taken in Afghanistan at all.

- "Withdrawl from Iraq could free U.S. troops to fight the terrorists on the Afghan/Pakistan border where we know they are trained." - So an army that has just been defeated in Iraq is going to be welcomed into another country in the region to do what Dianavan - lose again? Remembering of course that the US now has full-time "professional" armed forces, have you got any idea what the premature withdrawal from Iraq would do for morale throughout the armed services of the United States of America - Hint a similar retreat from Afghanistan in 1988 finished the Red Army - but they were conscripts. Can you explain to me why the US armed forces sent to Afghanistan would trust their "Commander-in-Chief" and Congress back home in the good ol' USofA not to leave them hanging out to dry the moment things began to look tough?

- "Don't you think this is more logical than fighting a phantom, al Qaeda, threat in Iraq?" - No I do not think it more logical, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq has been marginalised and are increasingly finding themselves being shut out in the cold. That has come about through the Sunni population turning against them, exactly as I told Ron Davies years ago. Al-Qaeda has found themselves in this position because they were sucked in to fighting battles on ground that was not of their choosing, they lost the initiative. Premature withdrawal of US forces from Iraq hands the initiative back to them and the undoubted civil war that would ensue would give them every opportunity to repair their tarnished image in the eyes of the "Islamic" World.

Yes I think that if the US withdrew from Iraq they would also have to draw stumps in Afghanistan, the big question of course, the more important consideration, would be the extent to which nuclear armed Pakistan would be destabilised in the process - Another thing that General Davies has not considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

"I have already pointed out to Ron that out of any 100 representative group of muslims asked 85 will say that Al-Qaeda did it, 15 will say that the Medhi Army did it with the backing of Iran." - teribus

Where in the world did you come up with this little tidbit?

and teribus...

If the U.S. backs the Saudis and the Saudis back al Qaeda, what does that say about the relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.?

If the Saudis back the Sunnis in Iraq, where were they when the U.S. ousted the Sunnis from control in Iraq? Your argument seems to support the idea that this is really a war between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. being fought in Iraq or has it become the U.S. and Saudi Arabia against Iran? Make up your mind. Either way, it makes no sense for the U.S. to be there. Let the Saudis fight their own wars. They make strange bedfellows. By your own account, its hard to know if they are friend or foe.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 05:52 PM

The make up of all the muslims in the world Dianavan is that 85% of them are Sunni and 15% are Shiia - If you then took a "representative" group of 100 muslims Dianavan how many would be Sunni and how many would be Shiia - Do the maths yourself.


"If the U.S. backs the Saudis" - Does the US back the Saudis Dianavan?

The Saudi's do not back Al-Qaeda, they have publically stated that they would back the Sunni minority in Iraq, matter of public record no secret there.

"The relationship between al Qaeda and the U.S.?" - That of quarry and hunter - so far the hunter has done quite well.

"If the Saudis back the Sunnis in Iraq, where were they when the U.S. ousted the Sunnis from control in Iraq?" - The US did not oust the Sunni's from control in Iraq Dianavan. The US ousted the Ba'athists from control in Iraq - Bit of a difference.

US foreign policy and national interests align themselves with those of Saudi Arabia in that neither country wishes to see any one country in control of the Persian Gulf region.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:02 PM

"US foreign policy and national interests align themselves with those of Saudi Arabia in that neither country wishes to see any one country in control of the Persian Gulf region."

What 'country' do you think wants control of the Persian Gulf Region?

"The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern about regional security, oil exports and imports, and sustainable development. Close consultations between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have developed on international, economic, and development issues such as the Middle East peace process and shared interests in the Gulf. The continued availability of reliable sources of oil, particularly from Saudi Arabia, remains important to the prosperity of the United States as well as to Europe and Japan. Saudi Arabia is one of the leading sources of imported oil for the United States, providing more than one million barrels/day of oil to the U.S. The U.S. is Saudi Arabia's largest trading partner, and Saudi Arabia is the largest U.S. export market in the Middle East.

In addition to economic ties, a longstanding security relationship continues to be important in U.S.-Saudi relations. A U.S. military training mission established at Dhahran in 1953 provides training and support in the use of weapons and other security-related services to the Saudi armed forces. The United States has sold Saudi Arabia military aircraft (F-15s, AWACS, and UH-60 Blackhawks), air defense weaponry (Patriot and Hawk missiles), armored vehicles (M1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles), and other equipment. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had a long-term role in military and civilian construction activities in the Kingdom. The U.S., as part of the Gulf Security Dialogue with individual Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members, has announced plans to sell advanced, primarily defensive, military equipment to GCC members, including Saudi Arabia, to support the efforts of these countries to increase their capacity for self-defense." - from Wiki

I would consider this 'backing', wouldn't you?

...and teribus, who do you think backs al Qaeda?

Its certainly not the Shiites.

In fact, teribus, al Qaeda has most of its training grounds along the Afghan/Pakistani border. Why not base your theories in reality instead of chasing phantom threats? It seems you are more interested in reputation than you are in reality.

When are you going to realize that playing alpha dog will not bring peace to the Middle East?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:06 PM

Question 1 - "What 'country' do you think wants control of the Persian Gulf Region?"

Well quite a few down through the ages. Russia has longed for a warm blue water port since the time of Peter the Great, and post WWII they would have dearly loved to have enticed Iran or Iraq into being their puppets. The US spoilt their plans for Iran in 1953, and Saddam would have suited them had it not been for his rather reckless foreign adventures. More recently Iraq tried in 1980 when they attempted to knock out Iran, and currently Iran seeks to control the region.

Question 2 - "I would consider this 'backing', wouldn't you?"

Well no Dianavan I would call what your Wikipedia cut'n'pastes describes as mutual self-interest.

Question 3 - "who do you think backs al Qaeda?

Not a clue Dianavan but if you know please pass the info on otherwise you might find yourself in trouble. But my guess would be Sunni sympathisers around the World, Drugs, Guns, smuggling and extortion

Question 4 - "al Qaeda has most of its training grounds along the Afghan/Pakistani border."

Where they are losing over 7000 of them killed in Afghanistan since 2006. Where else are Al-Qaeda operating Dianavan - in Iraq where they have been driven out of every urban safe-haven that they had except Mosul and currently there is an operation in progress to deny them that city. Out in the countryside in Iraq Dianavan they will be like fish out of water, figures for Iraq Dianavan were over 4000 dead in 2007 alone. Al-Qaeda has been marginalised in Iraq they are firmly on the back foot and the same situation is coming to pass rapidly in Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:48 PM

What Obama has said over and over is that in taking our eye off the real threat in Afganistan and invading Iraq we have left our country more vulnerable, not less...

On a recent book by journalist Ahmed Rashid entitiled "Descent into Chaos" he says that if the US had stayed focused and used a fraction of the resources that it is spending in Iraq that "Afganistan could have been turned around in 5 years. Instead, the Taliban has resurged."

Iraq has been a complete and utter failure from every perspective...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:03 PM

"What Obama has said over and over is that in taking our eye off the real threat in Afganistan and invading Iraq we have left our country more vulnerable, not less..." - Bobert

Is that what he has said Bobert?? If so I am now more convinced than ever that this "Presidential hopeful" is definitely as stupid as "Peanut" Carter and a damn sight more dangerous.

"The real threat in Afghanistan"??? - What threat in Afghanistan Bobert? The reality of the situation is that you have in Afghanistan and along the Afghan/Pakistan Border a bunch of geriatrics hiding in holes in the ground. Osama Bin Laden is now an irrelevance, he has been for years, his confirmed death or capture has long since been relegated to the "nice-to-know" category.

In the aftermath of 911 all of the intelligence agencies and the entire security apparatus in the US were tasked with evaluating and identifying the greatest threat that existed in the world to the United States of America. Did they come up with Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan - No they did not. What did they come up with? - An asymetric attack on mainland US involving WMD provided to an international terrorist organisation by a rogue regime or government hostile to the USA. Please note Bobert I have not mention a specific weapon in the identification of that threat, I have not mentioned a specific international terrorist group in the identification of that threat and I have not mentioned a specific rogue regime of government in the identification of that threat.

If, journalist Ahmed Rashid stated, "If the US had stayed focused and used a fraction of the resources that it is spending in Iraq that Afganistan could have been turned around in 5 years". Then I would venture to suggest that Ahmed Rashid is talking out of his arse, and that he wants to sell his book to a bunch of impressionable prats who want to crow about how their President got it wrong - Unfortunately for Mr Rashid and the impressionable prats, your President hasn't made such a bad job of things according to latest figures and reports.

"Instead, the Taliban has resurged." - Really Bobert?? Does Ahmed Rashid provide any evidence of this resurgence? Chased out of the very last town they controlled in Afghanistan earlier this year, since the beginning of 2007 they have lost over 7000 men, in fact their losses are so damaging that they have given up direct attacks on ISAF and US Forces:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/01/military.afghanistan1

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/frontline/2062440/Afghanistan's-Taliban-insurgents-'on-brink-of-defeat'.html

"Iraq has been a complete and utter failure from every perspective..." - Eh apart from the fact that things seem to be getting better and better every day Bobert - Oh Bummer!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:06 PM

Well said, bobert.

teribus, just looking at the map tells me that Iran has very good, defensive reasons to want to control the Persian Gulf (at least those waters on their border). They have the most to lose by allowing anyone else to control it. They have a long history with Arab invaders and aren't about to give up anymore control of their land and their resources. They are constantly threatened by the Arabs and more recently, Israel and the U.S. There is a very good reason they prefer to be called Persians.

Try, if at all possible, to see both sides of the story.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:45 PM

Teribus--

Temper, temper, little man.

And I'm so sorry to tell you you're still wrong about the Saudis and al-Qaeda. You must be even less aware than I had thought not to realize that the current Saudi regime feels as much--or more-- under pressure from al-Qaeda as the US does.

When you look for simplistic interpretations of international affairs, you need look no further than your mirror.

Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between al-Qaeda and the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis--and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm.

I know you like to look at international relations in simple black and white terms. Shiites in Iraq good; Sunnis in Iraq: bad.

But if you ever hope to start to understand what's going on over there--and I'll have to say, your progress is painfully slow--you'll have to realize that most Sunnis want what most Shiites and Kurds want--peace and the improving economy that comes with it. The Sunnis in Iraq are not, contrary to your strongly held misconception, like the Nazis in Germany in 1945.

I repeat--and your sputtering in opposition, while mildly amusing, is somehow bereft of any facts: al-Qaeda will not be the beneficiary of any pro-Sunni moves by the Saudis.

And since no national state wants to support al-Qaeda, and neither Shiites, Kurds nor Sunnis in Iraq want to support it either--thanks to its thuggish "Puritanism"--there is no danger of al-Qaeda taking over in Iraq.

Therefore, the US can--and should--bring its combat troops home from Iraq--now-aside from in "Kurdistan" where they are wanted and serve the purpose of deterring any rash Turkish moves in trying to combat the PKK.

Your amorphous threats that this move will mean US self-destruction are somehow not convincing. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that your attitude is totally lacking in any factual basis or logic.

Or perhaps it's something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:12 AM

"Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between al-Qaeda and the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis--and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm." - Ron Davies

You mean something like could have been stated by an observer in May 1941 -

Eventually you'll have to learn that there is a huge difference between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom of great Britain --and the conduct of the former is making the gap a chasm.

But what happened Ron - Operation Barberossa - Germany attacked Russia and all of a sudden The UK & the USSR were allies.

Troops out now = Civil War in Iraq

Civil War in Iraq would be a confrontation primarily between Sunni Arab and Shiia Arab, with the Kurds possibly remaining on the sidelines. It was under those circumstances that Saudi Arabia stated that they would aid the Sunni Arabs in Iraq and outnumbered, as they would undoubtedly be in this civil war, like the UK in 1941, I do not believe that they would give a toss about who jumped in to help them.

By the bye Ron, you never did give me a time reference for "Al-Qaeda taking over Iraq" - Immediately? Short Term (5 - 10 years)? Long Term (10 - 20 years)?

"Iran has very good, defensive reasons to want to control the Persian Gulf" - Dianavan.

She most certainly has Dianavan, but if you believe that oil is expensive now, just wait until Iran controls the Persian Gulf.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:06 AM

"An asymetric attack on mainland US involving WMD provided to an international terrorist organisation by a rogue regime or government hostile to the USA. Please note Bobert I have not mention a specific weapon in the identification of that threat, I have not mentioned a specific international terrorist group in the identification of that threat and I have not mentioned a specific rogue regime of government in the identification of that threat."

Okay, but; in order to "eliminate" that "threat", we sure as hell attacked a specific regime because we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group. So *your* lack of specification means "fuck-all". (BTW, despite our clear political differences, I do like that phrase of yours).

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:15 AM

"we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group"

Not true, this is what is CLAIMED by anti-Bushites, and NOT what was actually stated by the Bush administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:46 AM

Oh Baloney BB.

Here's just a small sampling from a single two week period...and there is plenty more where these come from, and no, I am not going to go find more for you. It is clear to anybody who has been paying any attention at all that our leaders did make specific claims, specifically about Iraq supplying weapons to a specific terrorist group - Al Quaeda. Not my claim. Carved in history. Enjoy.


"… We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years… There is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq."

Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002


"… It's just more of a picture that is emerging that there may well have been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime."

Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002


RICE: Well, there are clearly links between Iraq and terrorism, and there are al Qaeda personnel that have been spotted in Baghdad. There are some evidence that there have been various meetings concerning Iraqi personnel and al Qaeda personnel…
We are working very hard to put together the full picture… He clearly has links to terrorism.
SNOW: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain.
RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes.

FOX News, Sept. 15, 2002



"It is the nexus between an Al-Qaeda type network and other terrorist network and a terrorist state like Saddam Hussein who has those weapons of mass destruction. As we sit here, there are senior Al-Qaeda in Iraq. They are there."

Donald Rumsfeld, Sept. 18, 2002


MARGARET WARNER: Secretary Rumsfeld, in Europe today, when asked if there was evidence tying Iraq to Al Qaeda, said, "Yes." He did not elaborate. Are you prepared to elaborate?
RICE: Several of the detainees, in particular, some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development. So yes, there are contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. We know that Saddam Hussein has a long history with terrorism, in general. And there are some Al Qaeda personnel who found refuge in Baghdad.

PBS, Sept. 25, 2002

REPORTER: Mr. President, do you believe that Saddam Hussein is a bigger threat to the United States than al-Qaeda?
PRESIDENT BUSH: They're both risks, they're both dangerous…The danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al-Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred, and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world. Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.

Press Conference, Sept. 25, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:48 AM

and one for good luck...

""We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq… We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

GWB, Oct. 7, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:10 AM

"in order to "eliminate" that "threat", we sure as hell attacked a specific regime because we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group. So *your* lack of specification means "fuck-all". (BTW, despite our clear political differences, I do like that phrase of yours)." - Guest TIA

"we were told by our lying pond scum leaders that they were about to supply a specific WMD to a sepcific terrorist group"

Not true, this is what is CLAIMED by anti-Bushites, and NOT what was actually stated by the Bush administration. - Beardedbruce

Beardedbruce, of course is perfectly correct, read the link, then check the date and remember that the same men gave the same advice four years later:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:38 AM

So, are you saying that I made up the quotes above?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:46 AM

TIA has provided several concrete instances of statements intended to couple Al Qeda and Hussein in the minds of the public.

They were false, but widely disseminated.

Their clear intent was to demonize Iraq or Hussein witht he same antipathy felt toward Al Qeeda.

What part of this is not not plain?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:01 PM

Quote 1:
""… We spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years… There is a pattern of relationships going back many years. And in terms of exchanges and in terms of people, we've had recently since the operations in Afghanistan – we've seen al-Qaeda members operating physically in Iraq and off the territory of Iraq." -(Dick Cheney, Sept. 8, 2002) - Courtesy of Guest TIA

That was not quite the whole story was it Guest TIA? As you seem to be a bit coy about actually quoting those remarks in context here it is:

From the September 8, 2002 Meet the Press:

Russert: "One year ago when you were on Meet the Press just five days after September 11, I asked you a specific question about Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Let's watch:"
   
Russert on the September 16, 2001 Meet the Press: "Do we have any evidence linking Saddam Hussein or Iraqis to this operation?"

Cheney: "No." - (Hey Guest TIA considering the question what part of "No" do you not understand - go back and read the question and take your time before answering)
   
Russert then asked on the 2002 show: "Has anything changed, in your mind?"
   
Cheney: "Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11. I can't say that. (How clear is that Guest TIA) On the other hand, since we did that interview, new information has come to light. And we spent time looking at that relationship between Iraq, on the one hand, and the al-Qaeda organization on the other. And there has been reporting that suggests that there have been a number of contacts over the years. We've seen in connection with the hijackers, of course, MOHAMED ATTA, WHO WAS THE LEAD HIJACKER, DID APPARENTLY TRAVEL TO PRAGUE ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIONS. AND ON AT LEAST ONE OCCASION, WE HAVE REPORTING THAT PLACES HIM IN PRAGUE WITH A SENIOR IRAQI INTELLIGENCE OFFICIAL A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business."
   
Russert: "What does the CIA say about that? Is it credible?"
   
Cheney: "It's credible. But, you know, I think a way to put it would be it's unconfirmed at this point."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:40 PM

Hooboy, deja vu all over again...

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Teribus is a complete dunderhead who is oblivious as to how propaganda works. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:41 PM

BTW, you have a silly quibble with one quote - there are plenty of others up there, and loads more that I don't care to go collect for you. But they are in the public record.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:40 PM

Teribus, don't reair that old mackerel. The atta==>Al Qeda connection was disproven years ago, so I am afraid, with all due respect,t hat I have to support the "dunderhead" rumor. At least there is some reportage that indicates it is the correct choice. Let's just call it unconfirmed at this time...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:01 PM

And I want to be very careful about how I say this Guest TIA - That was one of your selected quotes but quoted in full and quoted in context - Don't worry I will get round to the others.

Talking about dunderheads Guest TIA count how many times in that passage it is clearly stated that Iraq/Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911 - Don't tax yourself - there are two

By the way Guest TIA do you know what occaisioned this interview, I hope you do because it takes up the bulk of the text. It related to the possible relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in the light of reports that a senior Iraqi Intelligence Officer and Mohammed Atta met in Prague. Now at any time at all does Cheney say that they did meet?

"We have reporting that places him (Atta) in Prague with a senior Iraqi Intelligence Official a few months before the attack on the World trade Center. The debates about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there, again, it's the intelligence business"

Might come as a bit of a stretch for you non-dunderheads - but what he is saying is that they may have been in Prague at the same time, we do not know if they met. When asked if it is credible that they met he replies very carefully that yes it is credible but it has not been confirmed.

As promised - Quote 2:
"… It's just more of a picture that is emerging that there may well have been contacts between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime." (Condoleeza Rice, Sept. 8, 2002) - Courtesy Of Guest TIA.

- "a picture that is emerging" My, my that does sound convincing.
- "that there may well have been contacts" Obviously = there definitely were contacts does it?

Bit of a stretch as I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:07 PM

DIckhead was more wilely than some folks in insinuating the correlation, Teribus, but it was without question a major vector in the propoganda campaign. Innendo can be just as or more electrifying, I think you know, than facts, to the illiterate or those hypnotically glued to their electronic viewers.

I am sure the media helped considerably aty the time.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:12 PM

Well, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific prediction that it will really piss Teribus off if I just keep responding with variations of this quote. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 04:20 PM

"Innendo can be just as or more electrifying, I think you know, than facts, to the illiterate or those hypnotically glued to their electronic viewers."

Seems like the Dems are using much the same language- are you claiming that they are so much less electrifying than Bush?



Clinton: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said.


More text- so the context becomes clear- which YOU deny to the Bush administrations statements

"Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said."

Clinton further displayed tough talk in an interview airing on "Good Morning America" Tuesday. ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them




Obama: "Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."


more text - so you might see context.

Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth.

But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done.

Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric.

Iranian Nuclear Weapons

The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region—that's not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran's backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:33 PM

Well, TIA 'n Amos, one thing is fir sure and that is the revisionists here are certainly buzy now that they realize that if they loose the argument again about the wisdom of invading Iraq that they and their boys will be on the street...

They see this very clearly and it's bad enough being them (and wrong) but will be even worse if they can't pull a rabbit out of the hat and rewrite the story with a better ending... Problem is that the Bush apologists here aren't the only friggin' people on the planet who have been watching and paying attention...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 05:39 PM

What's your vector Victor?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:41 PM

Teribus--

Still waiting for--any--evidence, based on the specific current situation in the MidEast-- -as opposed to cherry-picked history--- that al-Qaeda has any chance to take over Iraq---ever.

If I felt you were worth my time, I could easily pick a counterexample to Operation Barbarossa---and point out the fallacy of your parallel. Sorry, I have better things to do.
(And I recognize the rather pathetic attempt to dodge my question).

Now where is your logic that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq? Which, as I've noted more than once, is what GWB--and now McCain-- constantly threatens us with.

I note with interest you're no longer denying that the Saudi regime, far from sympathizing with al-Qaeda, feels under threat by it. Maybe you're capable of learning after all.

And you may possibly have learned that "complete pillock" is not usually considered a logical response to a question--except possibly in your circles. Pity you don't get out more.

Awaiting your next calm, well-reasoned response.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:06 AM

"evidence, that al-Qaeda has any chance to take over Iraq---ever."

You will wait a long time, like anything else that may, or may not, occur at some point in the future there can be be no "evidence" presented prior to that event occuring.

By all means, "pick a counterexample to Operation Barbarossa", although I do not know for what purpose. Considering Churchill's well publicised views on communism the immediate alliance between the UK and the USSR that followed Hitler's invasion is a classic example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". In exactly the same vein the outnumbered Sunni Arabs in Iraq, in the event of there being a civil war, if they are fighting against the Shiia Arabs backed by Iran, will not give a tuppenny-ha'penny damn about who comes to their aid and fights alongside them.

You asked me how they could take over in Iraq in the event of US Forces leaving. I stated that it could be possible in exactly the same way that the Ba'athists took over Iraq. It is possible, after all almost everything is possible. Ask me if it is probable and I would say no, it is not probable because Al-Qaeda is not really in the business of running countries. Having said that, if with Al-Qaeda help and Saudi money, the Sunni Arabs in Iraq managed to defeat the Shiia Arabs of Iraq in their civil war. Would the resultant Iraqi Government be better disposed towards Al-Qaeda? In those circumstances I would certainly suppose so.

When did I ever say that the Saudi Regime sympathised with Al-Qaeda. The initial reason for Osama bin Laden's hatred of the US was down to the fact that when originally threatened by Saddam in 1990, the rulers of Saudi Arabia turned down ObL's offer to use his Mujihadeen to defend Saudi and opted for the UN coalition led by the US instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:13 PM

"She most certainly has Dianavan, but if you believe that oil is expensive now, just wait until Iran controls the Persian Gulf." teribus

So...all of the propaganda and the ensuing invasion of Iraq is about oil after all.

I'm sure the people who have been killed and maimed in Iraq gladly made the sacrifice so you could guzzle gas, wear your polyester and buy plastic. Admit it, teribus, your way of life is threatened and you would go to any length to protect it rather than make any changes at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:35 PM

There's still quite a handful of quotes above waiting to be quibbled, and scores more (I promise) to be handled when those are dealt with.

So, I want to be very careful about how I say this. I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that those who claim the Bush administration never tried to link Iraq and Al-Quaeda are aspirating fecal matter in their own lower colons. I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:37 AM

"So...all of the propaganda and the ensuing invasion of Iraq is about oil after all."

Eh? No Dianavan, one country gaining control of the Persian Gulf is what will really bost the price of oil and gas from that region. The US for the last 65 years has been extremely active in making sure that that does not happen. Oh, yes, you're one of the crowd that believe that the US has stolen Iraq's oil - any idea where it is?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:42 PM

Teribus--

So you finally admit there is absolutely no evidence that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq--ever.

That's progress.

Yet, as I've noted, this is what we have been threatened with by GWB and now McCain.

In fact, not only is there no evidence supporting a takeover of Iraq by al-Qaeda, but it is getting progressively less likely--and for the reason I cited--the revulsion by Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis at the thuggish " Islamic Puritanism" of al-Qaeda. (Not any "battlefield prowess" of the US military.)

Therefore, as I have said more than once, US combat troops have no role to play in Iraq--aside from in "Kurdistan". And so should come home.

And you have exactly zero evidence--or even logic-- to deny this.

But at least you're learning to carry on a somewhat civil debate.

That's also progress. I wonder if you can maintain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 03:46 PM

"The US for the last 65 years has been extremely active in making sure that that does not happen."

Control of the Persian Gulf/control of oil distribution - whats the difference?

The U.S. thinks they have the right to control this at the expense of human life so you can feed your SUV and wear polyester? Why shouldn't the people of the Persian Gulf control the flow of oil? It does not belong to the U.S.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:22 PM

Six provided - two poorly quibbled - four completely un-addressed - lots and lots more in the wings.....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 08:14 AM

So, Teribus is MIA.

Pity--but somehow, not surprising.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 06:36 AM

Washington Post:

'Bush Lied'? If Only It Were That Simple.

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A17

Search the Internet for "Bush Lied" products, and you will find sites that offer more than a thousand designs. The basic "Bush Lied, People Died" bumper sticker is only the beginning.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, set out to provide the official foundation for what has become not only a thriving business but, more important, an article of faith among millions of Americans. And in releasing a committee report Thursday, he claimed to have accomplished his mission, though he did not use the L-word.

"In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent," he said.

There's no question that the administration, and particularly Vice President Cheney, spoke with too much certainty at times and failed to anticipate or prepare the American people for the enormous undertaking in Iraq.

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:30 AM

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."


Joseph Goebbels

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:34 AM

"But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: "

It seems to me that the "Big Lie" here is that Bush supposedly lied, when he did not. So why do so many here keep repeating that? Perhaps they have read Goebbells, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:36 AM

You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.

George W. Bush

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 07:49 AM

You can fool most of the people most the time, and those are the ones taht will keep giving contributions to elect "anyone else" than the incumbant.

The entire Democratic party

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:13 AM

1. "So you finally admit there is absolutely no evidence that al-Qaeda can take over Iraq--ever." - Ron Davies

Eh, No Ron, go back and read what I said - basically boils down to - anything is possible in politics given the right timescale and circumstances - After all a minority political party took control of Iraq before in 1956 and succeeded in ruling it for 47 years - why not again. Probability is against Al-Qaeda "ruling" Iraq, but that does not discount Iraq being governed by a political party extremely sympathetic to Al-Qaeda and extremely anti-US.

By the bye, Ron, where is your "evidence" that they won't - I find it rather like talking to a five year old when they insist that they want evidence that something will happen - Bit of advice Ron, invest in a "crystal ball". Fact is Ron, that neither you or I have got any idea of what will happen, neither of us can provide any "evidence" regarding what may happen at some time in the future, we can only hypothesise, which comes down to personal opinion. You state that US Forces could withdraw now without there being any serious consequences, I strongly disagree with that to the point of view and believe that such a withdrawal would be catastrophic in terms of consequences that would affect the country, the region and the world.

2. "the revulsion by Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis at the thuggish " Islamic Puritanism" of al-Qaeda." - Ron Davies

I believe that quite some time back I identified this as a possible outcome of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's attempts at fomenting the "civil war" that you and your fellow-travellers here were always chattering about. Other lynch-pins were realisation that it would be essential to become part of the political process, that they had to work with their elected government if they wanted things to improve. All of that by and large has happened and things are improving every day.

3. "Therefore, as I have said more than once, US combat troops have no role to play in Iraq--aside from in "Kurdistan". And so should come home." - Ron Davies

What role do US Forces have to play in "Kurdistan"? How do they propose and argue the case to disengage and withdraw troops from the Arab Sunni centre and Arab Shiia South, yet keep troops in the most peaceful governates of the country? Might they not be accused of attempting to "steal" the Kurds oil?

I will make a prediction Ron should Obama win the Presidential Election and put his withdrawal plan into effect - It goes something like this:

1. Obama announces his "staged withdrawal of US Forces.

2. As the first withdrawal is underway attacks by remaining Sunni Insurgents, Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq and the Medhi Army and associated militias will increase.

3. Obama is trapped he cannot break his election promises so his only alternative is to alter his withdrawal plans to get the boys home quicker - i.e. the same rout that leaving Vietnam resulted in.

4. Massed broadcasts from some hole in the ground way up there in the Hindukush, by Al-Qaeda, proclaiming to the world and its aunt that they have done exactly what they said they were going to do and driven the forces of the "Great Satan" from sacred Islamic soil - Now both you and I, Ron, know that that is a load of old Tosh, but yer average "ready to be radicalised muslim youth" in "the muslin street", well he's going to lap it up big time. Is the US out of hot water - No, not in the slightest, you were firmly in their sights in the early 1990's and you will continue to be in their sights after all your troops are safely back home - The only thing now is, is that they have the initiative, and possibly an extrmely secure base from which to plan and operate.

Guest Dianavan - Petal - I know that you will really hate to learn of this but, "big bad multi-national oil companies" actually control very little of the oil and gas on this planet. I believe that it amounts to less than 7% of the total available. The rest, the vast bulk of oil and gas resources of this planet are "nationally" owned and controlled - What a bummer Eh, especially considering some of your more dearly held myths.

"Control of the Persian Gulf/control of oil distribution - whats the difference?" - Dianavan.

The US neither controls the Persian Gulf, nor does it control oil distribution. If it did can you explain why on earth the US would want to see oil at the price per barrel that it is? Oh Yes!! to generate profits for Russia, Venezuela, etc, etc. I forgot that "out of the box" thinking behind the "US Master Plan for World Domination", seems to be a winner, make money for everybody bar ourselves, talk about the strategy of "indirect approach".

"Why shouldn't the people of the Persian Gulf control the flow of oil?" - Dianavan

Psssst! Dianavan - they already do, or hadn't you heard of OPEC?

Good post BB, very informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 09:19 PM

So, Teribus, we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

What a cogent foreign policy analysis.

Don't give up your day job.






Sorry, there are more pressing needs for the US budget than keeping combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible".

And now McCain says that when the troops come back is actually not that important. It's remotely possible the families of those troops might disagree. A few more brilliant statements like that from Mr. McCain and his "experience" approach will crash and burn.

After all UK, troops are coming back from Iraq--and numbers going down. You have given precisely no logical reason why US combat troops should not also come back---now.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 01:50 AM

I think Ron that as far as the presence of British troops in Iraq goes, GB will listen very carefully to what goes on between now and November with regard to the stances of McCain and Obama.

Personally if Obama wins in November, which is by no means the certainty some here imagine, then UK troops will be out of Iraq as soon as possible after that election result is announced.

If McCain wins, then they will remain until their presence is no longer required by the Iraqi Government and/or the UN Mandate expires.

On matters of policy Barak Obama appears to be as much of an ill-informed, idealistic fool as Jimmy Carter, but Barak Obama will be operating in much more dangerous times. Carter's major screw-ups could be recovered, not so now.

By the bye Ron where exactly did I say that, "we should keep US combat troops in Iraq because "anything is possible"?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jun 08 - 09:57 PM

Teribus--

1) You conveniently ignore the fact that the UK contingent in the "Coalition" in Iraq is already down from its peak. For some reason the UK doesn't believe that it's worth putting yet more troops in Iraq to support the "surge". Now I wonder why that is. It couldn't possibly be since the UK leadership doesn't believe it's worth it for the result--or worth the grief they would get from their own electorate if they tried it--now could it?

2) You tell us that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran. Yet one of the reasons for Maliki's current temporary popularity is that he is seen as standing up to Iran--WSJ 13 June 2008. Gee, that doesn't fit with your analysis. I wonder why.

3) You also tell us how popular the US is in Iraq. Yet one of the other main reasons for Maliki's current popularity is that he is seen as standing up to the US against US pressure for permanent bases in Iraq. That doesn't fit your description of the situation either.

Gee, that's 2 strikes against you. Sure sounds like your crystal ball is getting cloudier with every posting.

And with your ego-bound insistence, against all sense and evidence, that there was no propaganda campaign to get the US public to back Bush's planned Iraq war--as per the past 500-plus postings---I'd say that's 3 strikes-- you're definitely out---way out.

But you still continue to be entertaining--if close to a perfect negative indicator. So if you denigrate Obama's foreign policy ideas, that's high praise for him--please keep it up.