BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 09:16 PM

I'm only trying to establish that in fact the Bush regime did carry out a propaganda campaign between mid 2002 and March 2003, to convince the US public to support the Iraq invasion they had decided on.

As far as I know, there's only one poor benighted soul who denies this----to the rest of the world it's obvious.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Bobert in North Carlolina
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 05:41 PM

Well, not only is Bush trying to bully editors of both the Post and Times into reproting only the news that Bush wants publishded but now it would appear that PAC money has been paid to folks, who write op-ed columns that propagandize Bush's policies...

Think ol' Tom Jefferson, if he were to come back today and see what Bush is doing wouls probably challenge the whimp to a public duel...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 04:16 PM

"It is obvious you are not informed."

You proclaiming it does not make it so. What is singularly lacking in your pronouncements is stuff resembling fact, substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Crowbar
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 02:22 PM

Yes, American do take Bush seriously. It is the unamericans that constantly find fault with everything he does.

If he was so dangerous, no one would dare say anything negative.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,B
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 01:52 PM

"informed by whom, guest A, Fox News? Hopefully not. B

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:56 PM

.sp.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:53 PM

Pardon me for saying, but I think those with such a vitriolic attitude to bring Goebels into the duscussion would have a problem putting two and two together.
Pause and read about Geobles. It is obvious you are not informed.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 11:08 AM

Although cheating college is unethical, misleading the American public by bribing journalists is propaganda.

Yes, the Bush administration have studied the works of Joseph Goebels very carefully and have used bribery to oil their propaganda machine.

We can be happy that these 'reporters' have been exposed and fired.

Now what can we do about an administration that has no shame or American citizens that can't put two and two together.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:34 AM

Sounds like paying for a college term paper written by someone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 08:08 AM

Published on Monday, December 26, 2005 by the Washington Post
Bush Presses Editors on Security by Howard Kurtz

President Bush has been summoning newspaper editors lately in an effort to prevent publication of stories he considers damaging to national security. The efforts have failed, but the rare White House sessions with the executive editors of The Washington Post and New York Times are an indication of how seriously the president takes the recent reporting that has raised questions about the administration's anti-terror tactics. Leonard Downie Jr., The Post's executive editor, would not confirm the meeting with Bush before publishing reporter Dana Priest's Nov. 2 article disclosing the existence of secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe used to interrogate terror suspects. Bill Keller, executive editor of the Times, would not confirm that he, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and Washington bureau chief Philip Taubman had an Oval Office sit-down with the president on Dec. 5, 11 days before reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau revealed that Bush had authorized eavesdropping on Americans and others within the United States without court orders.

But the meetings were confirmed by sources who have been briefed on them but are not authorized to comment because both sides had agreed to keep the sessions off the record. The White House had no comment.
"When senior administration officials raised national security questions about details in Dana's story during her reporting, at their request we met with them on more than one occasion," Downie says. "The meetings were off the record for the purpose of discussing national security issues in her story." At least one of the meetings involved John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and CIA Director Porter Goss, the sources said.

"This was a matter of concern for intelligence officials, and they sought to address their concerns," an intelligence official said. Some liberals criticized The Post for withholding the location of the prisons at the administration's request. After Bush's meeting with the Times executives, first reported by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, the president assailed the paper's piece on domestic spying, calling the leak of classified information "shameful." Some liberals, meanwhile, attacked the paper for holding the story for more than a year after earlier meetings with administration officials.

The admission by two columnists that they accepted payments from indicted Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff may be the tip of a large and rather dirty iceberg. Copley News Service last week dropped Doug Bandow -- who also resigned as a Cato Institute scholar -- after he acknowledged taking as much as $2,000 a pop from Abramoff for up to two dozen columns favorable to the lobbyist's clients. "I am fully responsible and I won't play victim," Bandow said in a statement after Business Week broke the story. "Obviously, I regret stupidly calling to question my record of activism and writing that extends over 20 years. . . . For that I deeply apologize."

Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation has acknowledged taking payments years ago from a half-dozen lobbyists, including Abramoff. Two of his papers, the Washington Times and Manchester (N.H.) Union Leader, have now dropped him. But Ferrara is unapologetic, saying: "There is nothing unethical about taking money from someone and writing an article."

Readers might disagree on grounds that they have no way of knowing about such undisclosed payments, which seem to be an increasingly common tactic for companies trying to influence public debate through ostensibly neutral third parties. When he was a Washington lawyer several years ago, says law professor Glenn Reynolds, a telecommunications carrier offered him a fat paycheck -- up to $20,000, he believes -- to write an opinion piece favorable to its position. He declined.

Jonathan Adler, an associate law professor and National Review contributor, wrote that when he worked at a think tank, "I was offered cash payments to write op-eds on particular topics by PR firms, lobbyists or corporations several times. They offered $1,000 or more for an op-ed," offers that Adler rejected. Blogger Rand Simberg writes that "I've also declined offers of money to write specific pieces, even though I agreed with the sentiment."

Two years ago, former Michigan senator Don Riegle wrote an op-ed attacking Visa and MasterCard without disclosing that his PR firm was representing Wal-Mart -- which was suing the two credit card companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:39 AM

Never mind, Ron. Would someone please point out the "illlegal policies" being used or is that just someones' daydream.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,A
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 07:28 AM

Not claiming to be any "giant intellects on that side".

With the above statements, appears the claim cannot be made period.

Anyway, with my mediocre intellect, Ron, would you please rephrase the question?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: John O'L
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 02:23 AM

I think I agree with you Ron, that statement would seem to be creating a link between Saddam and Sept. 11th.

Whenever I see Bush on TV, regardless of what he's wearing, he always seems to me to be on the verge of bursting into a high-pitched giggle. He seems to be only just able to hold it in. I wait for him to lose it, but he never does. Not yet at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Peace
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:43 AM

If Americans have never taken a President seriously, IMO they'd better take this one seriously. He is a very dangerous man.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Mr. Smarty Pants
Date: 27 Dec 05 - 12:41 AM

Mr. Bush is much more effective when he is seen publicly in a suit. When he is attired in his 'business casual' he leaves an impression that he just can't be taken seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: GUEST,Subodai
Date: 26 Dec 05 - 11:27 PM

The real question is, can Bush be contained? Before September 11th there was some hope he could be. Afterward....a different story. Containment of this administration's aggressive and illegal policies has thus far proven impossible. Many lives have been lost or damaged as a result, and many more are yet to come.

Subject: BS: Bush Iraq Propaganda Campaign
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Dec 05 - 10:33 PM

Well, I'd say the other thread might possibly be long enough and this issue had nothing to do with it anyway.

However, Teribus and any other giant intellect on that side, let's try to keep this simple, so you might be capable of answering it directly--you still haven't done so.

Exactly why is the statement "Before September the 11th, many in the world believed Saddam Hussein could be contained." not propaganda linking Saddam and 11 September 2001"?