US Plants Propaganda As "news"

[TJones]

I don't know of anyone on the left, center or right who believes Bush wants to make Iraq part of the US. What is unclear is what Bush wants. His reasons for invasion were many and ever changing. He has done an awful job of selling the war and his people have done an awful job running the war, that is after the fall of Sadaam's regime. Bush (and staff)'s total incompetence pretty much has killed any support that there was for this war and ruined our chances for success. The blame for this lies solely on Bush and Co. and not the leftist (so called) media or anyone in this country who dares point out what an in-effective leader Bush is.

Why didn't you quote the rest, where it says Bush wants to give the country back to the people. How do you come up with, no one knows what Bush wants ?

Here's what I want to know, what has he done soooo poorly, that he hasn't accomplished anything he said that we were going to do there. Please help me, I need an outline of what the Dems see as failure in Iraq. What has changed in your life, that you can point the finger at Bush being an ineffective leader?

[west20th]

That's what I want to know, what has he done soooo poorly, that he hasn't accomplished anything he said that we were going to do there. Please help me, I need an outline of what the Dems see as failure in Iraq. What has changed in your life, that you can point the finger at Bush being an ineffective leader?

He has failed in Irag. Well he's human and humans fail. But failing and not learning from it and not correcting your mistakes doesn't make sense. First off he needs to give some serious thought to whether staying in Iraq will do us more good than harm. If he feels we should stay he needs to clean house and let some competent people run this thing. As it stands now "staying the course" is the same as accepting defeat. If he is going to do that we may as well leave.

And what has he done "sooooo poorly" in Iraq. Well he basically has accomplished everything he has set out to do and we still have a huge mess on our hands. Sadaam is gone. They have their own government. All these victories and we are no closer to "success" than we were two years ago. Since we had no clear reason to start this ill thought out war in the first place I'm not sure what can be done other than get rid of the idiots that got us in to this mess.

[TJones]

He has failed in Irag. Well he's human and humans fail. But failing and not learning from it and not correcting your mistakes doesn't make sense. First off he needs to give some serious thought to whether staying in Iraq will do us more good than harm. If he feels we should stay he needs to clean house and let some competent people run this thing. As it stands now "staying the course" is the same as accepting defeat. There is no chance of an acceptable outcome in Iraq if some major changes in policy are not made.

Bush, has ousted a dictator, has had a new constitution drawn up for the people, has trained thousands upon thousands of police and army to handle things once we leave, elections for Iraq are just around the corner. Democracy is being put in place, and full blown capitalism to fall suit. This giving what pretty much everyone in the free world wants, the American way of life, how can you call these "failures", and if you don't call these "failures", then what specifically are you calling a failure in Iraq ? Bush at no time ever said in what time frame we would pull troops out, he said we would be there until we achieve victory, not partial victory, not half of the victory. He said form the beginning that we could be there for decades, I don't want any of our troops there at this very moment, but I know we are there for a good reason, if you don;t understand the reason, then there is no hope. Someone said that wiping out N.korea would be bad, that it is only Kim Jon "Ilk" that is the problem, well, the same is true with Iraq, and we did something about it, and now we rebuild, just like we did Japan.

[west20th]

Why didn't you quote the rest, where it says Bush wants to give the country back to the people. How do you come up with, no one knows what Bush wants ?

Bush doesn't know what he wants. He didn't invade Iraq to give Iraq back to the people. Before the war I don't ever recall him ever mentioning freeing Iraq or spreading democracy. That came up when all his initial reasons turned out to be mistaken.

, I don't want any of our troops there at this very moment, but I know we are there for a good reason, if you don;t understand the reason, then there is no hope.

And exactly what is that reason? Why is it different now than when we invaded?

[sevfiv]

This giving what pretty much everyone in the free world wants, the American way of life

is that confirmed?

[TJones]

Bush doesn't know what he wants. He didn't invade Iraq to give Iraq back to the people. Before the war I don't ever recall him ever mentioning freeing Iraq or spreading democracy. That came up when all his initial reasons turned out to be mistaken.

And exactly what is that reason? Why is it different now than when we invaded?

I just explained the reason in the previous thread, but of course you are going to tune that out ?

[west20th]

Bush doesn't know what he wants. He didn't invade Iraq to give Iraq back to the people. Before the war I don't ever recall him ever mentioning freeing Iraq or spreading democracy. That came up when all his initial reasons turned out to be mistaken.

And exactly what is that reason? Why is it different now than when we invaded? I'm sorry you just do not get "do overs" when it comes to war. I can understand mistakes in the prosecution of a war, we made lots of mistakes in WWII but being mistaken in why you went to war. I'm sorry I just can't get past that. As long as Bush as in charge I feel it is in our best interest to get out after the elections.

I just explained the reason in the previous thread, but of course you are going to tune that out ?

Yes you may have explained the reason in a previous thread. Where is your explanation on why the reason is different from when the war started?

[TJones]

And exactly what is that reason? Why is it different now than when we invaded? I'm sorry you just do not get "do overs" when it comes to war. I can understand mistakes in the prosecution of a war, we made lots of mistakes in WWII but being mistaken in why you went to war. I'm sorry I just can't get past that. As long as Bush as in charge I feel it is in our best interest to get out after the elections.

Yes you may have explained the reason in a previous thread. Where is your explanation on why the reason is different from when the war started?

It's not my friend, maybe you never read or heard this ? Go ahead, I dare you too read it !

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20021007-8.html

you can read the whole thing or just the last 6 paragraphs, the last 6 paragraphs is the answer to your question, and shows that the reason has never changed.

[Jeebus]

This is drastically incorrect. We could easily dominate the Iraqi populous if allowed to use the same fighting tactics from Vietnam, along with the field leadership style of WWII. POLITICS EXCLUDED.

Until the radical-left backs down however, the government will be forced to continue its "soft-warfare tactics". This is what I meant by the left is just as guilty as the right when it comes to kills our troops.

I'll explain my statements. Our ground fighting tactics in Vietnam were poor to begin with. We went into the country and attempted to draw lines on maps and plan around that. By 1968 we were surgically dropping platoon size elements into deep jungle and mountainous areas to effectively take on company size elements. Look at the kill ratio - approximately 150 to 1. Our tactics had become honed. What destroyed moral and forward progress was the concept of perpetual gain. We would fight for a week over a certain area, gain the area, and then abandon the area only to have it reoccupied by the enemy.

It is very similar today. We send in troops, flush out insurgants, and then return to base. The insurgants just come back that night and reoccupy the area. What we need to do is the same as WWII - OCCUPY. This of course means more troops, and for occupation to truely work - we need to be free of liberal media again only showing the gore of war. The reason I also reference WWII is that there was no strong opposition to WWII by liberals. They understood some dirty work had to be done, and the news media turned the cameras away when it happened. This, and field leaders fought the war - not politicians in DC.

[TJones]

I'll explain my statements. Our ground fighting tactics in Vietnam were poor to begin with. We went into the country and attempted to draw lines on maps and plan around that. By 1968 we were surgically dropping platoon size elements into deep jungle and mountainous areas to effectively take on company size elements. Look at the kill ratio - approximately 150 to 1. Our tactics had become honed. What destroyed moral and forward progress was the concept of perpetual gain. We would fight for a week over a certain area, gain the area, and then abandon the area only to have it reoccupied by the enemy.

It is very similar today. We send in troops, flush out insurgants, and then return to base. The insurgants just come back that night and reoccupy the area. What we need to do is the same as WWII - OCCUPY. This of course means more troops, and for occupation to truely work - we need to be free of liberal media again only showing the gore of war. The reason I also reference WWII is that there was no strong opposition to WWII by liberals. They understood some dirty work had to be done, and the news media turned the cameras away when it happened. This, and field leaders fought the war - not politicians in DC.

Don't forget Jeebus, no Liberal opposition because you had Liberals in the White House. I believe Roosevelt was a good President, but we had just come out of a depression, and were on the verge of capitlaistic collapse, we NEEDED a war to right ourselves. I think one of the reasons Libs are so opposed is the fact they thought Diplomacy would work on this YA-HOO and we just didn't NEED a war right now, we were still healing from a couple of years prior, and just didn't want to hear the fact ,that it is not how homicidal maniacs can be approached, they only understand violence.

[nmainguy]

As of Nov. 30th, when this thread was opened by Red, there have been 14 more of our kids killed in Iraq and I'm still not sure why. It is absolutly heart-breaking.

Jeebus,

If you think only the "liberal media" shows the gore, check out Fox. I've not heard anyone call them liberal.

Of course there was no opposition in WWII. The mission was clear. My Liberal father carried emaciated Jews out of concentration camps along side his Conservative buddies.

With all due respect, the actions and lack of competent leadership that has led us into this sorry state can in no way be compared to WWII.

It's more akin to VietNam. We are fighting guerrillas in Iraq. Historicly it's a losing proposition. They're not going anywhere. They'll just hide and come back out when the timing is in their favor. I think everyone knows we are not going to "Occupy" Iraq. So we have our ass in a crack on this one.

I still contend Rep. Murtha has the best short term solution. Re-deploy across the Kuwait and Turkish borders and stand ready to assist if we're needed. It's the only way to give these people a chance to be on their own without thinking we've just packed up and gone home. "Stay the Course" clearly isn't working.

[HeightsGuy]

Jeebus, there are liberals out there that are trying to paint Iraq with the same brushstrokes as Viet Nam, but there are far more differences than similarities.

The biggest similarity IMO is that, like Viet Nam, we have not lost a single battle but are still finding ourselves fighting an enemy on a daily basis.

To me that's where the similarities end. For all the gorilla warfare we faced in Viet Nam, there was still a border, still an enemy government. In Iraq we are the government. We won the war but are losing the peace. In Viet Nam we were fighting people who for the most part had rifles in their hands shooting back at us, in Iraq we are fighting roadside bombs and suicide bombers. You can't fight that, you can only hope to contain it, and as long as there are people willing to plant bombs on the roads and drive explosive-laden cars we will be dealing with this. Even 500,000 Iraqi troops can't keep a close watch on every mile of road in the country. My contention is that we could easily find ourselves in the exact same position 5 years from now, no closer to securing longterm peace.

[Jeebus]

Nmainguy - I'm in no way comparing this war to WWII. I am comparing it to Vietnam. I only used WWII as a reference as to when the last time the news media was on the side of the soldier.

As for Fox, I can't help it that Sean Hannity won't implicate his own news organization. But they are guilty of not supporting our soldiers as well.

Heightsguy - We have infact lost small engagements in Iraq. And yes there was a border in Vietnam, but there was no front line. There is no frontline in Iraqi. There is no DMZ either, unless you want to consider the whole country as the DMZ. And we are fighting more than road side bombers in Iraq. The bullet that went through and through my best friend's stomach in June was not from a roadside bomb. The RPG that hit his Bradley in March was not from a roadside bomb either. He's eating and deficating through 2 semi-permanent tubes in his stomach for the next 12 months at Walter Reed. Lucky for him, he's alive. His gunner is not.

I don't want us there anymore than you do - but we are there. So I say do it right and put force on force occupation against the Iraqis - or leave the country.

And yes, I agree with Murtha as well. He's speaking like a Marine looking out for his men - not a coward as certain right-wing hard-liners are trying to paint him.

I want our guys home. I want them guarding me at our borders - and not ANYWHERE else.

EDIT: Oh.. TJones, I just realized you replied to my post. I'll be very curt with you. I bleed red white & blue - not red white & black with little green stars. I don't care about the Kurds or the Shiites. That may sound cold hearted - but what business of ours is it to be there? If we are going to decide to become the world police, then we need to practice a little continuity and police more than just the nations that are conveinent to us or serve a need to us.

I hate the UN - but when it comes to other peoples problems, let them handle it. If it were me, I'd give them all the guns, munitions, vehicles, equipment, supplies and money in the world - but not one GOD DAMN UNITED STATES SOLDIER. Our soldiers should fight our wars - not everyone elses.

Oh yeah.. Saddam has never been a threat to us - only our oil.

[nmainguy]

As for Fox, I can't help it that Sean Hannity won't implicate his own news organization. But they are guilty of not supporting our soldiers as well.

I get what you're saying but I was refering to Fox News-not entertainers like O'Rielly, Greta, Hannity, et al.

They are all just a part of a huge corporation that has their mostly salacious [and liberal] Fox Broadcasting revenues proping up Fox News. Just as ABC has Disney; NBC has GE; etc...

Anyway, it's not their job to support the troops.

It's ours.

[TJones]

The whole problem is that we can't have it both ways, our soldiers can't come home and just defend the borders because we are the "police of the world", whether we made ourselves that way, or we are depended upon by nations that can't do for themselves. Rest assured, the military will get the job done, and they will come home. Murtha and Pelosi and Kerry, and other bigtime mouth pieces for the left, cannot seem to agree since the President's speech last week. Murtha says the Dems have been talking about leaving immediately when Kerry announces the same day, that they have never talked about leaving immediately, they just want a time frame. Catch Bush in setting a timeframe and when it doesn't happen on the exact day, what do you get. BUSH LIED, BUSH LIED! Althought Kerry does say that the timeline does consider the "WHAT IF ?" factor, he apparently knows that some consquences are unavoidable, but the Bush team knows all too well what a "set up" Kerry was trying to get him in.

(edit) You can be curt all you want. Ok, so you get stabbed in the alley by someone much more powerful than you, and you are gonna bleed to death without help, and the only person around that can save your life is a Kurd or a Shiite, do you want their help, or do you want to tell them to go get screwed ? Have fun in the Morgue, Chief !

[Jeebus]

I get what you're saying but I was refering to Fox News-not entertainers like O'Rielly, Greta, Hannity, et al.

They are all just a part of a huge corporation that has their mostly salacious [and liberal] Fox Broadcasting revenues proping up Fox News. Just as ABC has Disney; NBC has GE; etc...

Anyway, it's not their job to support the troops.

It's ours.

I agree - its all big business. And I agree about whose job it is to support the troops - which is why I still grin and bear it.

[HeightsGuy]

TJones, there are two things to argue about, the politics of the war and the fighting of the war. When it comes to fighting I just don't believe we can win this one anymore. Once again, that's me talking as a realist, not a pacifist. In Iraq, there is a seemingly never ending supply of safe places for the insurrection to hide in. I don't think 1,000,000 US troops can stop it, I don't think 10,000,000 US troops could stop it. It has nothing to do with how good we are, we are the best by any measure. This one has to be won with the hearts, and I don't see it right now. That's why you hear Murtha talking the way he is.

[RedScare]

The biggest similarity to Viet Nam may be that both wars were controlled by politicians, not the generals who know what they are doing. The biggest difference is that we went to Viet Nam to help an ally in a civil war. In Iraq, we invaded and in so doing, STARTED the civil war.

Despite attempts by Bush supporters to paint all of us with the same liberal coward brush, most of the 57% of Americans against this war are very thoughtful. Rumsfeld and Cheney notwithstanding, most experts have found that the insurgents are 90% Iraqi, not foreign terrorists. Iraqis may not support the insurgents, but they HATE the Americans being on their sovereign soil...something the uber-patriotic right should understand. We have become the target.

Some may call it resolute to "stay the course". Others call it stubborn stupidity. Logic dictates that if you are a target, you move. By moving back to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, we are close enough to drop strike teams in Iraq to help the fledgling government stay afloat, but have removed ourselves as targets, and more importantly, removed a major irritant to Iraqi citizens.

Bush says setting a date to leave will embolden the insurgents. This is preposterous, and a media with balls would point it out. The insurgents are emboldened NOW. By pulling back, they lose most of their attractive targets, and therefore any popular support they had. The only reason not to pull back is political. Because Democrats have advocated pulling back, Bush refuses, for fear of being seen as a failure. The problem is, it is too late. He will never win an insurgent battle, and losses will continue to mount. His only option is to declare victory after the December elections, and hope the public buys it.

[TJones]

TJones, there are two things to argue about, the politics of the war and the fighting of the war. When it comes to fighting I just don't believe we can win this one anymore. Once again, that's me talking as a realist, not a pacifist. In Iraq, there is a seemingly never ending supply of safe places for the insurrection to hide in. I don't think 1,000,000 US troops can stop it, I don't think 10,000,000 US troops could stop it. It has nothing to do with how good we are, we are the best by any measure. This one has to be won with the hearts, and I don't see it right now. That's why you hear Murtha talking the way he is.

I agree that "The War on Terror" will never end, you're right we can't throw millions of troops at it, because the enemy doesn't come out to the field of battle. We can only hope that by giving Iraq back to it's people, and out of the hands of a dictator, that they will want freedom so badly, that they will fight for it themselves. I do have fears that with a muslim run government still in place, that old habits will die hard. I am not a Pro-War advocate by any means, but when War is clearly the only solution, then I have to back that option. I have friends and relatives in Iraq, I would love to have them here with me and never have to go back, I get to talk to a couple of them every now and then, they know what is going on here, but know what they are doing means a safer life for the whole world at this point. Heights,the reason you don't see the hearts, is because that doesn't sell newspapers, and magazines, and you are smart enough to know that. Again, I don't think anybody WANTED this war, but now that we are their we have to complete what we set out to do, and we are doing it. I know it hits close to home for Jeebus, I understand your anger, if you want to vent on me, that's ok, I got thick skin.

[Jeebus]

It wasn't aimed at you.

[westguy]

I thought we were occupying Iraq. Dayum, I must've been asleep.

And its not the entire case that the troops are trying to go easy on the population. It's just that everytime soldiers go out and mingle with it, someone comes in with a bomb and blows them up. We would have a MUCH greater number of casualties if we expanded the presence of troops, and everyone there knows it.

[TJones]

It wasn't aimed at you.

Group Hug ! Let's all hold hands in a circle and sing.............."Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbayaaaaaaaaaaaa, Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbayaaaaaaaaaaaaa !"

[Parrothead]

TJones, it's a lot like smashing your head repeatedly against a brick wall. People who do not wish to see the truth simply won't. Most of the time it's too ugly for them...and what's better than living in a peaceful world, right? ...because the alternative is, in their minds, "going backwards" and not progressing. You are right--they only understand violence--the alternative. You cannot talk reason with terrorists any more than you can talk reason to Bob Beckel.

[TJones]

TJones, it's a lot like smashing your head repeatedly against a brick wall. People who do not wish to see the truth simply won't. Most of the time it's too ugly for them...and what's better than living in a peaceful world, right? ...because the alternative is, in their minds, "going backwards" and not progressing. You are right--they only understand violence--the alternative. You cannot talk reason with terrorists any more than you can talk reason to Bob Beckel.

I think the biggest problem is people forgetting the history, and chain of events that lead up to the point in history we are at now. Find out what information was given, and who gave it, and why it was given, and what was done to counteract it. Everything gets spun both ways in all forms of media, Regardless of who gave the information, find out if it is the truth, or is it fiction for yourself. Just because Dan Rather reports it, doesn't make it so. Just because Rush said it, doesn't mean it went down like that. Our dear founder, editor, laid out guidelines to read, before you start posting here, that if you were to state "facts" you better be able to back them up. i have found out a couple of times myself that the information, I just knew to be true, weren't quite exactly all the facts, but I always conceded that I was wrong, and thanked whoever gave the proper info to me.

[nmainguy]

Back to the topic at hand..

This from http://www.newshounds.us/2005/11/30/us_mil...wan_advisor.php re: the Pentagon's contract with the Lincoln Group:

If you check out www.lincolngroup.com you'll find that one of their advisors is Bill Cowan, FOX News Contributor. Cowan is often cited on FOX as a military expert and analyst, but we were never told that one of his specialties is psy-ops propaganda. Regular viewers and readers will recall him as hawkish (he is, after all, military first) and supportive of both the war in Iraq and the administration. One could speculate that he is engaged by Fox for the same purpose in the US as he advises about in Iraq. Fox has been at the forefront of selling first the invasion and then "Happy Iraq" in the US media for over three years now.

Ah the web we weave...

[TJones]

Just so everyone knows, if you read that whole page of comments after the story, that TJ is not this TJ, just to clarify.

[HeightsGuy]

I think the biggest problem is people forgetting the history, and chain of events that lead up to the point in history we are at now. Find out what information was given, and who gave it, and why it was given, and what was done to counteract it. Everything gets spun both ways in all forms of media, Regardless of who gave the information, find out if it is the truth, or is it fiction for yourself. Just because Dan Rather reports it, doesn't make it so. Just because Rush said it, doesn't mean it went down like that. Our dear founder, editor, laid out guidelines to read, before you start posting here, that if you were to state "facts" you better be able to back them up. i have found out a couple of times myself that the information, I just knew to be true, weren't quite exactly all the facts, but I always conceded that I was wrong, and thanked whoever gave the proper info to me.

Well, here's a fact, Reuters is reporting today that Iran is about to tender bids to help them build two additional nuclear reactors. You can back the Administration's reasoning all you want, but any reasonable person should be able to notice that there's far more evidence of Iran's intentions when it comes to WOMD's than Iraq pre-liberation.

[sevfiv]

exactly - and from 2003:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/09/iran.nuclear/

[TJones]

The question of Iran has been probed for years as a poissible threat, this is NOT new news, if it is to you, then I don;t know what to tell you, Iran also recently said that they need to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So, if Iran shows being close to making a nuclear bomb, is it ok with the Democrats to go do something about, or is it NOT any of our business, and let the Middle East work it out themselves ?

[west20th]

The question of Iran has been probed for years as a poissible threat, this is NOT new news, if it is to you, then I don;t know what to tell you, Iran also recently said that they need to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. So, if Iran shows being close to making a nuclear bomb, is it ok with the Democrats to go do something about, or is it NOT any of our business, and let the Middle East work it out themselves ?

Like in the '80s Israel will bomb Iran when they get uncomfortably close to a nuclear weapon hopefully setting there nuke plan back to square one. Everyone will go 'bad Israel' while they breath a sigh of relief.