Selling The War

[dr_mabeuse]

Just watched Bill Moyer's report on the Administrations' run-up to the Iraq war, the way they marketed the war and sold the country on the idea of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

They lied. Intentionally and deliberately and entirely. It wasn't a case of honest mistakes and errors in intelligence. It was willful misrepresentation, distortion, rumor, opinion, and outright fabrication. There wasn't a shred of reliable information there. Whatever the real reason they had for wanting to invade, they lied, and they knew they were lying. These people should be subpoenaed and made to testify on charges of conspiracy and high crimes and misdemeanors.

I don’t know why I should be shocked. Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, Nixon lied about the invasion of Cambodia. They always lie and we always take it.

How can Colin Powell live with himself? All that information he presented at the UN was bullshit, and though he probably didn't know it at the time, he sure must know it now. Some of those "secret Iraqi nuclear weapons facilities" he showed were just downloaded from some thesis on the internet. The story was broken on British TV like three days after the UN speech. The kid whose thesis it was even sued the US Government for plagiarism.

It turned out the UN weapons inspectors had it exactly right, but of course no one wanted to hear what they had to say. We were already foaming at the mouth for war.

There was John Kerry and Hilary calling for Iraqi blood with the rest of them, and who stood up against the war hysteria and called for calm, called for more proof before we sent our troops over there? Robert Byrd, the old Vietnam dove, and Ted Kennedy, the old lush. Only they had the nerve.

It fucking makes you sick.

There's an interesting lesson to be learned from this. They compared news organizations, the places we get their news from: the one that relied on facts tended to have a better grasp on reality and doubt the administration's claims early on. The ones that that relied on the opinions of various experts and talking heads tended to climb on the band wagon and support the administration's claims. Gathering facts is expensive and difficult. Getting opinions is cheap and easy. Check your news source. Do they rely on facts or opinions? There's a big difference.

They showed Bill O'Reilly on a big billboard on Times Square just before the war in 2002 saying, "People who question their country in times such as these are traitors!"

Fucking fascist asshole.

The moral is, to be free means you have to think for yourself and never follow the crowd. Question, question, question. Loving your country isn't the same as loving your government, and your first respsonsibility is to your own conscience. Don't believe your leaders, especially when they're trying to send you to war.

 

[Guest]

The moral is, to be free means you have to think for yourself and never follow the crowd. Question, question, question. Loving your country isn't the same as loving your government, and your first respsonsibility is to your own conscience. Don't believe your leaders, especially when they're trying to send you to war.

John McCain was on Jon Stewart's The Daily Show last night.

It was a far different show than his last appearance. This time there was minimal applause and even some outward disbelief when McCain began to discuss the war and his continuing support for it.

Maybe a few people are beginning to think for themselves again.

 

[elsol]

Maybe a few people are beginning to think for themselves again.

Nope... it's becoming more popular to be againt the war... so there goes the herd.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah, it can be hard to know which came first. It was just an election, and some seats changed parties. All of a sudden every talking head in the world just knew that it had been a referendum on Iraq. Really?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

And now you know why some of us don't trust our government with our freedoms.

 

[TE999]

And now you know why some of us don't trust our government with our freedoms.

Bingo! Less government=more freedom.

If you can handle it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Bingo! Less government=more freedom.

If you can handle it.

I can, but others might not. I've a lot in common with Thoreau, aside from the pacifism and veganism. If I lived alone, I could live quite simply.

 

[elsol]

I can, but others might not. I've a lot in common with Thoreau, aside from the pacifism and veganism. If I lived alone, I could live quite simply.

I can't do without government... I know myself too well.

I will kill people.

Then they're going to try to kill me.

So I'll kill more of them.

Eventually, either I'll be King of something or I'll be dead.

 

[elsol]

Actually that won't work... 'cause I'll be King of something but the King of Something-Else will want my Something to be part of their Something-Else...

I'll probably win so Something-Else will become Something... but then I gotta do something for the peeps to leave the fuck alone so I can fuck all the sweet honies who live in Something.

Thus will be born public works... though not very high paying, I mean I wouldn't be so evil as to charge people THAT much for the pleasure of pleasing me... and shit there we are again... government

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I can't do without government... I know myself too well.

I will kill people.

Then they're going to try to kill me.

So I'll kill more of them.

Eventually, either I'll be King of something or I'll be dead.

Interesting. Well, I didn't say no government myself. I'm no anarchist. However, I do like the idea of it not telling whom to fuck, what guns to own, whom to marry, what books to read, what movies to watch, etc. That's my thing. I'm a cross between Libertarian and paleo-conservative, with an occasional concession to the need for government regulation.

 

[TE999]

I can, but others might not. I've a lot in common with Thoreau, aside from the pacifism and veganism. If I lived alone, I could live quite simply.

Then the weak will perish, and the strong survive.

Put me in the latter category.

 

[elsol]

Then the weak will perish, and the strong survive.

Put me in the latter category.

You don't actually know what category you're in until you're there, though I will accept a landmined frontyard and a basement bunker of proof.

If you're actually going the route of severus with minimalist governemnt, then a healthy set of postings that display a true 'I just couldn't give a shit' view of the world... could be acceptable.

That's really what it takes to live in a minimalist goverment...

"Those two guys are fucking each other in the ass" --> I don't give a shit.
"That book says Jesus Christ was really satan." --> I don't give a shit.
"Look at those poor starving children." --> I don't give a shit.
"You heartless bastard" --> I don't...errr. Look, dimrod, I don't give a shit and obviously today, I don't give enough of a shit to even pretend, so how about you just shut the fuck up so I can not give a shit in a peace.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

There's limited and then there's skeletal. I never said that I wanted skeletal. But government aid has its limits. It has a time and place, within those limits.

 

[TE999]

You don't actually know what category you're in until you're there, though I will accept a landmined frontyard and a basement bunker of proof.

If you're actually going the route of severus with minimalist governemnt, then a healthy set of postings that display a true 'I just couldn't give a shit' view of the world... could be acceptable.

That's really what it takes to live in a minimalist goverment...

"Those two guys are fucking each other in the ass" --> I don't give a shit.
"That book says Jesus Christ was really satan." --> I don't give a shit.
"Look at those poor starving children." --> I don't give a shit.
"You heartless bastard" --> I don't...errr. Look, dimrod, I don't give a shit and obviously today, I don't give enough of a shit to even pretend, so how about you just shut the fuck up so I can not give a shit in a peace.

I can support probably 95% of that philosophy--it would be a small price to pay to not watch your freedoms eroding bit by bit--while most people are mesmerized by the 21st Century equivalents of bread and circuses.

Wonder who has landmines on sale...?

 

[Dar~]

Laissez Faire

 

[hmmnmm]

Most minds able and willing to form their own opinion sans ad-sponsored news hype could've (and many did, though their quiet oppositions were unheard - ahem) taken an unbiased view and concluded that no real reasonable threat to our welfare warranted the expense to go there and do that.
At the time I didn't go so far as to assume anyone was outright lying, but had it been mentioned it may have raised legitimate suspicion.

And how the many in the world despise us now.

And for what?

I don't want to wonder why.

 

[elsol]

Laissez Faire

That always sounded like the sexiest government type... a fair lay.

Come to think of it... nothing sexy about just a 'fair' lay....

You be Laissez Grande!!!

 

[elsol]

Plus you gotta love the irony...

We went after a guy who didn't have weapons of mass destruction... which allowed another guy to get closer and closer to getting them.

Wonder if Mutually Assurred Destruction will work on Massa--whatever-his-name is.

 

[amicus]

Even Dr. Mab, with his biased, blindered perspective deserves better responses than thus far offered.

Persia, the Middle East, the crossroads of the early world, has been in conflict for millenia, we all know that.

The Christian Crusades against whomever, swept back and forth for untold generations and finally left the Golden Crescent to wilt and mold of its' own degeneracy for centuries.

Then, of course, the Modern World erupted and the Germans wanted the oil and the Russians wanted the oil and all of Europe and Asia wanted the oil, along with the good ole USA.

And the Middle East became 'players' in the 20th century, once again.

The Israeli's, a 'quasi democracy' in the midst of Muslim hegemony and Marxist overtones, flavored the mixture nicely, thank you.

The Middle East became, as Korea and Vietnam did, an area of surrogate warfare between two opposing ideologies, freedom, USA, slavery, USSR and the vestiges remain.

Fascism, socialism, communism, Muslim, Islam versus freedom, samo, samo.

Get a life, Mab...


amicus...

 

[cloudy]

There was John Kerry and Hilary calling for Iraqi blood with the rest of them, and who stood up against the war hysteria and called for calm, called for more proof before we sent our troops over there? Robert Byrd, the old Vietnam dove, and Ted Kennedy, the old lush. Only they had the nerve.

Yet, Hillary is backpedaling like Lance what's-his-name in reverse on the war thing, now that she's running for the dem. nomination. "Oh, I never REALLY voted for the war." Sad thing is, to look at her numbers, people are believing it.

It fucking makes you sick.

Yeah, it does.

 

[cantdog]

Even Dr. Mab, with his biased, blindered perspective deserves better responses than thus far offered.

Persia, the Middle East, the crossroads of the early world, has been in conflict for millenia, we all know that.

The Christian Crusades against whomever, swept back and forth for untold generations and finally left the Golden Crescent to wilt and mold of its' own degeneracy for centuries.

Then, of course, the Modern World erupted and the Germans wanted the oil and the Russians wanted the oil and all of Europe and Asia wanted the oil, along with the good ole USA.

And the Middle East became 'players' in the 20th century, once again.

The Israeli's, a 'quasi democracy' in the midst of Muslim hegemony and Marxist overtones, flavored the mixture nicely, thank you.

The Middle East became, as Korea and Vietnam did, an area of surrogate warfare between two opposing ideologies, freedom, USA, slavery, USSR and the vestiges remain.

Fascism, socialism, communism, Muslim, Islam versus freedom, samo, samo.

Get a life, Mab...


amicus...

The coolest thing about this whole disjointed, ignorant and laughable screed? What triggered it was mabeuse posting that being lied to for corrupt reasons was objectionable in a government! That didn't stop ami from posting fragments about a different subject entirely. I think. Much of the time you can't tell what the hell it's about when this guy posts.

Years of learning nothing have allowed the unchanging surface of his ignorance to become polished to a high gloss.

 

[rgraham666]

Dr_m, if you want the real reason behind the war read Future Tense. That has the most plausible reason.

And that reason was to send a message to the world, "We're not playing by the rules anymore and this is what happens to people who get in our way."

As far as government goes, it's just a tool. Some people regard it as inherently evil. In my opinion as a tool government has no ethical qualities at all. It can only do what the operators ask it to do.

If it's not doing what we want, or the results are not what we want, it's our fault. As citizens, we're the ones in charge.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Dr_m, if you want the real reason behind the war read Future Tense. That has the most plausible reason.

And that reason was to send a message to the world, "We're not playing by the rules anymore and this is what happens to people who get in our way."

As far as government goes, it's just a tool. Some people regard it as inherently evil. In my opinion as a tool government has no ethical qualities at all. It can only do what the operators ask it to do.

If it's not doing what we want, or the results are not what we want, it's our fault. As citizens, we're the ones in charge.

I'll concede your point about it being a tool. However, it is frequently misused. The war is just one example. The war on drugs, which I call the second Prohibition, is another. So was Jim Crow.

You're right about the voters having ultimate power. But try telling some of them that. They keep re-electing their incumbents (not quite so much this last time around, but they still keep voting for the major parties...grrrr...if you ask me, a vote for either major party is a wasted vote). But you're right....we all get the government we permit....some of us are just outvoted.

I have a tongue-in-cheek, almost certainly unacceptable solution to the Iraq issue, anyway. Annex and partition Iraq between the US and the UK. The Iraqis can become citizens like Puerto Ricans and they can have Commonwealth status. Those in the British zone can become Her Majesty's subjects. Prepare the American zones for eventual statehood.

Not that it would work. But at least it would be honest and would actually benefit the people of that country. And they can't call it an occupation or get so upset if they're able to vote in our elections....then again, they might feel the same annoyance and frustration that American voters feel. Would they handle it as poorly as us? Probably, says the cynic in me. But at least they would handle it by not voting, less by armed resistance.

Then again, the far-right militias might just gain some new hard-line new members.

 

[mikey2much]

I do so agree with this

Dr_m, if you want the real reason behind the war read Future Tense. That has the most plausible reason.

And that reason was to send a message to the world, "We're not playing by the rules anymore and this is what happens to people who get in our way."

As far as government goes, it's just a tool. Some people regard it as inherently evil. In my opinion as a tool government has no ethical qualities at all. It can only do what the operators ask it to do.

If it's not doing what we want, or the results are not what we want, it's our fault. As citizens, we're the ones in charge.

You are so right. We the people, are the ones that are to blame. We have sold out to a bunch of people who have no morals or ethics, a bunch that only get enjoyment from counting their money and abusing their power.

Now we have unleashed this bunch onto the world like a pit bull on a playground. We all should be ashamed of our past preformance and should be aware of what we are doing to the world at large now.
mikey

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I find it ironic that most Americans were reluctant to try to impose a Pax Americana before Bush and Wolfowitz. In fact, most wanted a united Europe and the USA pushed for the Marshall Plan precisely to make Europe and other countries self-sufficient. My tongue-in-cheek idea was to partly note that we had our chance to carve up the defeated Axis nations (except Italy, of course) and annex them: we didn't. It's not our historic purpose to try to rule the world.

But that changed with Wolfowitz. He, Rumsfeld, and others have deliberately gone against post-Vietnam foreign and war policies....thus ignoring the lessons of Vietnam. Afghanistan was a necessary punitive expedition to deal with al Quaeda and the Taliban. Even so, we mostly just helped the locals overthrow a clearly hostile regime. It was mostly war by proxy. Iraq was a direct Anglo-American invasion of a sovereign country before all alternatives had been exhausted (admittedly, France, Russia, and China were pro-Saddam, but even so, they would have had to respond if WMDs had been there- then we could have had either another coalition effort that could have been limited in scope and mostly relied on local revolution against Saddam or simply continued to contain him).

Two major Western powers violated the established rules against aggressive war under international law and invaded an Arab country. Talk about feeding Arab paranoia. Bringing democracy and such is all well and good, but that was a smokescreen, propaganda reason. Homegrown revolution would have been better. This just makes liberal democracy look like a Western idea rammed down their throats instead of a universal principle of personal liberty. The result is that liberal democracy has been tainted with the odor of occupation and foreign overlordship. This is the same thing that happened with Weimar. Look how well pairing up a prostrate German with liberal democracy turned out there.

It's one thing when you are being attacked and directly threatened, and have no choice but to occupy defeated nations, like Germany and Japan. Saddam was a paper tiger who apparently didn't have WMDs because he couldn't afford them. His regime was crumbling from within. Bush the Elder had done the wise thing, though many of us doubted him at the time. He left Iraq to fall apart on its own, though he should have helped the Iraqi rebels oust Saddam in the immediate wake of the Gulf War. Bush the Younger, in trying to "finish the job", created a brand new mess for his successors to inherit.

I love my country. Do not doubt me there. I still believe in the principles of the Framers. But those have been betrayed. The Framers never wanted America to become another Roman Empire, imposing its will on every other nation. That is an exhausting and ultimately futile effort in a world of self-conscious nation-states.

What we are dealing with is a leader whose principles are Fascist in essence. He replaces defensive war with aggressive war, liberty with repression of dissent, and the Enlightenment with a new Crusade. He and his company are nothing more than clerico-fascists, and have to be regarded as such in the long run.

Not that it matters. The madness will soon end. The shrub has less than two years left of his term, he's saddled by a Congress now controlled by representatives of an angry American citizenry, and his successor will abandon the Wolfowitz Doctrine for sure. It has been tried and discredited. The clerico-Fascists have had their high watermark and are past it now. They'll (knock on wood here) never be as strong again. McCain has lost his support due to his sudden right-wing turn.

What happened in November of last year was nothing less than a quiet revolution....though different in politics from the 1994 one, it is no less than the American people getting fed up with the GOP's present leadership and giving them the swift kick in the ass that they deserve. I just hope that it sinks in to this President at some point.