"I am still confused as to why they chose to lie"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by rah
So as far as I'm concerned people that are over reacting to this really are just using it as another excuse to bash the administration.

No additional excuses are needed. Remember, "Mission Accomplished," and the insurgents are "desperate," "dead-enders" and "there are no more than 5,000 insurgents" and all that horse****? The so-called surge came after more than two years of denying that the insurgent fighters in Iraq were a major issue.

Or, lets go back a bit further and remember Iraq "having enough oil to pay for their own reconstruction" (i.e. we'll take their oil and give contracts to our buddies), and becoming "a beacon of democracy" in the mideast?

It would be nice, especially for those who are still members of Bushie's Bootlicker Brigade, if this was just a case of propaganda during wartime, as opposed to just one more piece of a systemic pattern of playing so fast and loose with reality that it's not clear that our fearless leaders having a ****ing clue what's going on, or what they're even doing.

I highly doubt (in fact I'd be shocked) that making up this crap about Lynch and Tillman happened anywhere near Rumsfeld's level, or that it was directed from anywhere near that level. It just sounded good to work with, and put out to the public, so it was worked and pushed out, and the BBB (see above) did their part in pushing it out without question.

If we were anywhere near success in Iraq or Afghanistan, it'd be a trivial footnote, but administration incompetence has us heavily committed in two long-running wars against enemies who are far from defeated, with no clear success in sight, and quite likely, no clear success possible after this much ****ing up.

IMO it's not a "propaganda" issue, it's an issue of "have these dumb bastards ever had the slightest idea what's going on or the slightest ability to competently execute anything?"

I think most of the emotional reaction is wonder at if there's an end or limit to the stupidity of this administration (at least in its original form - Gates is probably 1000 times better as SecDef than Rummy), and if so, where is the limit?

(We know when, thank God, only 635 days to go! )

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
It's a good thing Roosevelt didn't use propaganda during WW2 and he fought that war exactly the way the Democrats would have wanted it fought today.

This isn't WW2, nimrod.

[Berzerker]

lets see, we're stuck in 2 wars with neither "winnable" and the goal of getting our behinds out of the ME (not really our goal?) is a distant memory. We get attacked because we got troops on Muslim holy lands and now our response ensures we'll have troops all over the ME and generations of Muslims devoted to kicking our butts out.

And the BS keeps coming, McCain said we cant leave Iraq because that would be a victory for AQ in Iraq. Huh? I thought Saddam was the enemy, now we gotta stay in Iraq as long as there are people wanting to attack us? Is that really our "exit strategy"? Stay as long as people want to kill us? ****!

Getting out asap is the best thing we can do...for the Iraqis and for the "war on terror". What exactly will AQ in Iraq do if we leave? Hang around pissing Iraqis off? Or will they join the Sunni insurgents to fight the Shia? Do I care? Should I care? Seems like quite a smooth move to me - leave Iraq and leave AQ in Iraq with the problem they helped create. They want a civil war in Iraq, they got it. Now what are they going to do? Stay and fight against "democracy"?

[Straybow]

Nine-tenths of that [MtG] rant is inconsequential. It wouldn't have mattered who was calling the shots once we were there. Or do you think the Dems would have transformed Iraq into a flower garden?

Go cry in your beer, if that makes you feel better.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
Nine-tenths of that [MtG] rant is inconsequential. It wouldn't have mattered who was calling the shots once we were there. Or do you think the Dems would have transformed Iraq into a flower garden?

Go cry in your beer, if that makes you feel better.

If "It wouldn't have mattered who was calling the shots once we were there" then you're essentially saying the current situation is an inevitable result of having invaded.

And what the **** do "the Dems" have to do with anything back in 2002 and 2003? "the Dems" weren't the ones setting policy. Bush Sr. was certainly far more effective in handling the gulf war than Bush jr. has been in handling either of his.

Bush jr. chose to surround himself with ideologues who insisted that their particular worldview applied everywhere, and who were monumentally ignorant of Iraqi, Iranian and general mideast history, regional politics, ethnic, tribal and religious conflicts. Anyone with actual relevant expertise was to be avoided or minimized (Powell in the latter case), and for local "insight" Bush's cabal chose to rely on a kleptocratic exile with no credibility in-country.

The Iraqi response to the invasion and occupation and the current situation were far from inevitable, and any number of Republican leaders (past or present) could have handled the situation better. It's just typical of Bushies' Bootlickers that any criticism of the monumental incompetence of this administration is turned into a partisan issue, or else becomes a "your people would have been even worse, so our performance is not subject to question, neener neener neener."

[Ned]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
It's a good thing Roosevelt didn't use propaganda during WW2 and he fought that war exactly the way the Democrats would have wanted it fought today.

Ah, but Democrat propaganda and lies are justified by the good ends, the objective of destroying the Nazi tryanny and the Japanese militarists. To a Dem, the end always justifies the means. (Or at least, so it seems.)

When it is a Republican running the war, there are endless lists of dead in the papers every day, and long obsessions about the suffering and dying of our brave fighting men. There are constant calls for withdrawal and peace regardless of the consequences. So it was in the Civil War. So it is today.

But when the Democrats run things, we hear about the daily attrocities of the enemy and the heroic victory of our forces of liberation. Nary a word about US casualties.

There is no double-standard at work here. None at all.

[Ned]

MTG, I approve of your posts in this thread.

Now do me one favor. Admit that I was right that we should not have dismissed the Iraqi army. You and I had a disagreement on this point at the time.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
But when the Democrats run things, we hear about the daily attrocities of the enemy and the heroic victory of our forces of liberation. Nary a word about US casualties.

Yep, we didn't hear anything about casualties, government ****ups, atrocities, or incompetence in Vietnam at all.

And Bush Sr., Powell, Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf et al were excoriated by the evil Dem librul media elite for their conduct of the gulf war.

I have no trouble deducing the color of your eyes, Neddie.

There is no double-standard at work here. None at all.

For once, you are are literally correct.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Straybow
Or do you think the Dems would have transformed Iraq into a flower garden?

I think they wouldn't have ****ed up as bad. Some things would be the same, but the republican hands off let democracy and capitalism do it's thing is particularly ill suited.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Yep, we didn't hear anything about casualties, government ****ups, atrocities, or incompetence in Vietnam at all.

And Bush Sr., Powell, Scowcroft, Schwarzkopf et al were excoriated by the evil Dem librul media elite for their conduct of the gulf war.

I have no trouble deducing the color of your eyes, Neddie.




For once, you are are literally correct.

Actually, you are entirely right about Vietnam. After Tet, the media was hostile to our involvement in Vietnam even though Johnson, a democrat, was president. They continued that hostility in spades when Nixon was elected and wanted out NOW, and completely ignored the fact that Nixon was withdrawing our forces at a rapid pace.

But the contrast between the Civil War and the current war on the one hand, and WWI and WWII on the other, couldn't be more striking.

Korea is another case were the media generally was pro-war in the beginning, but turned on it later.

(IIRC, the Mexican-American war was also a controversial war even at the time.)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MTG, I approve of your posts in this thread.

Now do me one favor. Admit that I was right that we should not have dismissed the Iraqi army. You and I had a disagreement on this point at the time.

IIRC, (it was four years ago ) I advocated dismissing the higher echelons - anyone above company level, as the higher levels were too Baathist and too cozy with the system we were trying to replace. We couldn't have managed the Iraqi army at the time, but we should have paid them to sit around and eventually to train when we had those capabilities in place.

I think the biggest occupation mistakes we made, in order of significance, were:

Failure to far more rapidly secure and neutralize ordance sites - we were fetished with hunting non-existent MWD evidence and avoiding a Kamisiyah type controversy. Instead, we had dozens of sites with essentially open season for anyone who wanted to borrow a little ordnance. That source of supply has now been supplanted, but early on, it was a primary source of supply for the original insurgents.

Failure to get people employed, even if it was *gasp* commie-FDR-New Deal-welfare state style "make work" Pay 'em and let 'em think they're rebuilding the country. High unemployment, lots of weapons, lots of pissed off military age men and foreign occupation don't mix real well. (This would include the Iraqi army issue you cited)

Insufficient consultation and engagement of local and tribal leaders, rather than an emphasis on top down decision-making and control. Let 'em be corrupt, let 'em have competing interests, but grease their palms and provide funding and materiel support for local Iraqi-run reconstruction projects, creating local government and security, etc.

Over-centralization, pork-barreling and slow implementation of infrastructure and standard of living projects. We were fetished on oil, and big projects on the scale that the Bechtels and Halliburtons of the world find appealing, when the average Iraqi would have benefited more from things like local water supply and treatment, wastewater treatment, repair and upgrade of hospitals and medical facilities, supply of basic goods and services, etc.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
I thought Sweden hid a bunch of Jews?

I thought that was his point?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
But the contrast between the Civil War and the current war on the one hand, and WWI and WWII on the other, couldn't be more striking.

The War of Yankee Aggression was a fairly unpopular concept from the get-go, especially when it was so badly bungled. There wasn't a whole lot of naysaying when McClellan was seven miles from the outskirts of Richmond and bringing up all those mortars and heavy artillery, but a year of slaughter and defeat after defeat in a war for which not many felt a real stake is a bit hard to swallow.

Especially when you do things like trample on the Constitution, lock up dissenting newspaper editors, and run a kleptocracy on a scale that had never been seen before.

(IIRC, the Mexican-American war was also a controversial war even at the time.)

So was the occupation of the Phillipines and deployment of troops against Phillipine insurgents after the Spanish-American war.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Arrian

"When one suggests that something the Admin or pro-admin groups say might be propoganda, one is labeled _____."

Pretty much depends on the circumstances I would say. If you are saying that the Admin actually knew in advance 9/11 and rigged buildings to blow you are labeled (rightly so) a nut job.

OTOH if you are advocating for troop removal and claiming the war lost a priori info from field commanders (ones which you can not be bothered to spend the time required to actually listen to or worse yet claim regardless of what they say you think them liars) then I would label you as either Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leader.

On second thought, maybe it doesn't depend on the circumstances after all.

[Arrian]

The point, Ogie, is that my example included being CORRECT about it (whatever it is) being propoganda, as is the case with the subject of this thread. Your example of Slaughtermeyer's 9/11 beliefs, on the other hand, doesn't fit because the evidence does not - and never has - supported his accusations.

-Arrian