We were right. Cuz' i said so. There.

[Tripledoc]

Jacques Ellul divides democratic propaganda into three modes

Sociological propaganda is the latent form. It consists of fundamental myths which make up a nation's understanding of itself. No propagandist can confront these myths, but has to play them in order to get what is needed - ie. compliance.

Subpropaganda is the discourse among the elites, in political and academic circles. Here the propagandist seeks to manipulate them towards solutions which are in compliance with the myths. Problems are reduced to solutions.

Political Propaganda the active form where the masses come into the picture. The discourse is boiled down to slogans which are easily understood. The People are mobilized for action.

(Socprop) Saddam is a vile and aggressive dictator, who has used WMD in the past, ergo (subprop) he will use them against us. Then (polprop) we ourselves must be aggresive and remove him in the name of freedom.

[Snowflake]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That your population collectively fell for a lie, supported to kill thousands for the sake of that lie, and re-elected the liar in chief depite eventually knowing all of this was a lie?

A tragedy indeed.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Snowflake
A tragedy indeed.

Why so? It only means that the population believes State-sponsored lies like any other manipulated country.

The war would have been more dramatic if the actual leadership had gone to war because of the Wommdies. Fortunately, they lied, meaning they are less moronic than what they turned their population into

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by reds4ever
Speaking from a British point of view, there really needs to be some top-level resignations in our government IMHO.

Nah, they just get promoted and knighted in our country...

[Tripledoc]

Would a labour politician accept knighthood? I assume that labour is anti-monarchist.

[alva]

Kinnock got an MBE* (and accepted) didn't he?

* or something like that.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Would a labour politician accept knighthood? I assume that labour is anti-monarchist.

They shouldn't do IMHO

[Whaleboy]

Where are the chickenhawks?

I think there should be a lot of heads rolling for this. If we had known two years ago what we know now, no way would this whole mess have started.

Ah sweet vindication!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oy, what a mess. And Bush still isn't going to say we made a mistake. The buck stops..... over there!

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I think there should be a lot of heads rolling for this. If we had known two years ago what we know now, no way would this whole mess have started.

You mean Apolytoners going at each others, right?

Because frankly, I don't see how the war would have not started even if the American people had seen throught the Wommdies lies. The Bushies would have invented another lie to convince the population to back the war (or not even a lie: they could have pushed for the war only to stick it to the French). And the massacre would have continued as usual

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Tripledoc
Would a labour politician accept knighthood? I assume that labour is anti-monarchist.

No. Very few Labour politicians are anti-monarchy. Even the ones that are, are as far away from the Government as can be. Even back in the ideologically vicious days of the 50's, 60's and 70's, most old Labour fools were willing to accept a knighthood or a peerage. The grassroots of the party was a bit further left it must be said.

Thesedays. Blech! Ever been to a Labour Conference? It's become almost as bad as Mormonism.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm. Are there any true believers in Saddam's WMD left on the forum? You know, the sort that point to that lab equipment buried under a tree, or that single vial of anthrax, or the odd rusty chemical shell that has turned up?

That's not all the evidence they've found. They've found plenty more, and there's even been a thread or two previous on this one issue alone.

[Ben Kenobi]

Bush has appointed a panel to investigate why the intelligence about Iraq's weapons was wrong.

This is what you should have quoted Spiffor. It's your strongest point by far.

However, it also questions your thesis that Bush deliberately lied.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
However, it also questions your thesis that Bush deliberately lied.

It may not have been Bush personally, but the Bushies in general.

There was no way a person in the know would think Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US, and that the WMD program was kickin'. These beliefs are good when raising support among the Americans, but they are completely absurd in diplomatic circles: Why would Saddam want to threaten the US? How would Saddam get enough resources to have an efficient WMD programme? How could Saddam manage to have a programme that discreet that the American "damning evidence" are twelve years old?

No, something doesn't compute. And unless you think the whole American government is made of morons, it is clear they knew it was a lie. And unless the CIA had something to win by fabricating such blatant lies (which I doubt), the lie was decided by the leaders.
The CIA did the grunt job of substantiating it, and it also provided a handy scapegoat with Tenet. But I don't see any reason why the CIA would want to manipulate the President into going to war. I see plenty of reasons why the President (or his close advisors) would want to manipulate the American people into going to war.

[Ben Kenobi]

It may not have been Bush personally, but the Bushies in general.

Thank you.

Bush doesn't like being wrong about the scope of Iraq's program, and his intel failures, anymore than anyone else.

There was no way a person in the know would think Iraq poses an immediate threat to the US, and that the WMD program was kickin'.

Hindsight is 20/20. I remember the first Gulf war, and worrying about the use of chemical weapons on Israel. Since Saddam refused to comply with the UN regulations regarding inspections, what conclusions can you draw from that?

If they were concerned about their world reputation, why not allow inspectors to do a proper job?

What I find interesting is just how much grist those opposed to Bush received in their oil-for-food program with Iraq. No wonder France, and Germany opposed that program's cessation.

If they were so concerned about the welfare of the citizens of Iraq under the embargo, why would they seek to profit off the arrangements?

Why would Saddam want to threaten the US?

They are enforcing embargos and no-fly zones.

How would Saddam get enough resources to have an efficient WMD programme?

From France, undubitably bypassing the embargo by selling oil.

How could Saddam manage to have a programme that discreet that the American "damning evidence" are twelve years old?

How did the French have a programme so discreet as their oil-for-food? The Americans aren't God. They can't see or know everything that Saddam was doing.

the lie was decided by the leaders.

So Bush must be a puppet, eh? A puppet of the so-called Bushies, who are the real leaders.

Who are these Bushies Spiffor? I assume Paul Wolfowitz would be found among them, would he not?